Robert Reich's 12-Point Plan for 100 Days of Resistance to Donald Trump (VIDEO)

Heh, I didn't know he had a 12-point plan.

I do now, lol.

At Althouse's, "Robert B. Reich explains his 12-point plan for 100 Days of Resistance to Donald Trump."

Despite Reich's claims, this doesn't look like "the agenda of a powerful America," but of a weak and cranky one. The plan calls for defending sanctuary cities (a big losing, lawbreaking issue); giving to 501(c)3 non-profit political organizations (like the SPLC, which is in fact a lie-infested hate group); and working to "abolish the Electoral College by voting for the winner of the popular vote in your state in 2020" (which isn't the way to abolish the Electoral College, no matter how hard leftists moan and groan about it).

Interesting, in any case.

Lou Dobbs on the State of the Democrat Party (VIDEO)

Yeah, Lou Dobbs the man!

His rants against illegal immigration cost him his job at CNN, but he's riding high now on Fox Business News, and he's basking in the political power of the Trump movement.

The radical left has been reduced to irrelevance, and the radical left is frankly the establishment Democrat Party. They haven't learned the lessons of the election, and their chances of returning to power looks smaller as each day goes by.

A great clip:

Democrats Accusing Donald Trump of Treason One Month Before He Takes Office

Like I said in my previous entry, we have a fake political system.

We also have a fake opposition party.

Here's Instapundit, with what should be fake news, "I REMEMBER WHEN TOSSING AROUND POLITICIZED CHARGES OF TREASON WAS BEYOND THE PALE OF DECENCY: Democrats already accusing Trump of “treason” a month before he takes office."

Astonishing! Fifty-Two Percent of Republicans Say Donald Trump Won the Popular Vote

Basically meaningless headline at the Washington Post, "A new poll shows an astonishing 52% of Republicans incorrectly think Trump won the popular vote."

And that's at the Monkey Cage blog, which is run by political scientists, who of all people know that most Americans --- not just Republicans --- have in fact minimal knowledge of politics. That's why the 52 percent figure is in fact not "astonishing." BFD. A bare majority thinks Trump won the popular vote? A probably higher percent of Democrats thinks Hillary Clinton should be president, despite the fact that we don't use the popular vote. That's why you've got idiot leftists like Martin Sheen pushing these fake propaganda videos agitating for the Republican electors to reject Donald Trump in tomorrow's voting.

We have a fake political system at this point.

A new poll shows an astonishing 52% of Republicans incorrectly think Trump won the popular vote https://t.co/PyIHuOeVSH

— Monkey Cage (@monkeycageblog) December 18, 2016

I refuse to accept your premises, values, assumptions, facts or legitimacy. #caring

— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) December 18, 2016

Liberals decided that truth was merely a bourgeois construct.
Well, then we're down that. #caring

— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) December 18, 2016

Libs want to think the "52% or Republicans" meme means Republicans are dumb.
What it really means is we refuse to play your game.#caring

— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) December 18, 2016

Law, principles, facts ... the liberals have shown us none of those exist.
Now they don't.
There is only power.
Enjoy the world you made. pic.twitter.com/qHPozfU4YQ

— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) December 18, 2016

Democrats Actively Trying to Delegitimize President-Elect Donald Trump (VIDEO)

Here's the excellent opening monologue from Sean Hannity's show last night, "Hannity: It's time to stop undermining President-elect Trump: The left needs to admit that Trump won fair and square."

Stay with it until the end, where the video includes clips of Hillary Clinton alleging Donald Trump was attempting to destroy the "peaceful transfer of power."

Heh. Isn't that rich?

PREVIOUSLY: "Desperate Democrats Seeking to Deny Donald Trump the Oval Office (VIDEO)."

Desperate Democrats Seeking to Deny Donald Trump the Oval Office (VIDEO)

Here's an excellent piece on the Electoral College, and why Democrats are so hopelessly out of touch with reality.

It's sad actually.

At Reason, "Why 'Hamilton Electors,' Who Would Make Hillary Clinton President, Are as Dead as Their Namesake":

Donald Trump's surprise election has made the Electoral College a thing again. Sad Democrats and progressives, still looking for anyone and anything to blame besides their feckless candidate and the inept, celebrity-obsessed campaign she ran, are repeating their stages of grief from 2000, when Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the White House to George W. Bush. In both cases, the Dems could fixate on the Electoral College, that awful holdover from the country's slave-owning past. But despite high-profile attempts to bend the rules before the Electoral College votes on December 19, there's no way in hell that Trump is not going to be the next president. Whatever you think of either him or Clinton, that's not a bad thing. It's the way the rules are supposed to work, and for good reasons.

"Mr. Trump is unfit to serve," reads an online petition to "make Hillary Clinton president." "His scapegoating of so many Americans, and his impulsivity, bullying, lying, admitted history of sexual assault, and utter lack of experience make him a danger to the Republic," runs the argument, which has nearly 5 million signatures and implores "conscientious electors" to vote for Clinton regardless of how the people they represent voted.

Alas for them, a presidential election is really 51 elections (all the states, plus Washington, D.C.), in the same way the World Series consists of up to seven individual baseball contests, rather than a competition determined by which team scores the most total runs. The Electoral College, which guarantees at least three representatives to each state, affects how people vote on a state-by-state basis and voting strategies, like campaign strategies, would surely be different in a system driven purely by popular-vote totals...

Keep reading.

Video Hat Tip: Breitbart, "Sore Loser Celebrities Beg Electors to Vote Against Trump (Video)."

Anarchists Promise Inauguration Disruption – Bikers tor Trump to Ride

Well, January 20th promises to be an interesting day, heh.

At Blazing Cat Fur.

The Electoral College Is in Play

Leftitsts hate the Electoral College and want to abolish it. Indeed, with Hillary winning the popular vote, outgoing Senator Barbara Boxer's threw a Hail Mary with a new proposed constitutional amendment in the Senate.

But depraved progressives would be singing the glories of the system should Democrat electors engineer a "faithless" revolt come December, which a Colorado elector, writing at Daily Kos, says is possible (via Instapundit):

I am one of the Electoral College Electors from Colorado. This is by virtue of Hillary Clinton prevailing in Colorado (moving me from a nominated certified Elector to “actual” Elector). Late last week I canvassed half my fellow CO Electors beginning with Micheal Baca, who is mentioned here in the Denver Post article: Colorado presidential elector seeks to block Donald Trump from White House, also talked to numerous political reporters both print and national on line media, (AKA; John Frank the author of the above article and Kyle Cheney from Politico, author of this article, Here are the people who will cast the formal vote for president next month​, political science and presidential history university scholars, law school professors, political professionals, elected and government officials and I have come to this conclusion: INDEED THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS IN AN HISTORIC PLAY. Where this goes is speculation but sentiment is building that the Electors cannot sit by and be ceremonial.

Fuck 'em.

Akhil Reed Amar, The Constitution Today

At Amazon, The Constitution Today: Timeless Lessons for the Issues of Our Era.

I'm intrigued by this, since for one thing I teach the Constitution every semester, and of course, students know little about it, considering how little constitutional history is taught. But I'm also intrigued by how the Reed Amar book can be contrasted to Terry Moe's new book, Relic: How Our Constitution Undermines Effective Government — and Why We Need a More Powerful Presidency. (Hat Tip: PJ Media, "Stanford Professor on Constitution Day: Following the Founders is 'Dumb'.")

Admiring the Constitution isn't dumb, of course. It's that society has changed so much that government leaders are empowered to blow off the checks their supposed to follow, especially the checks on presidential power.

Here's the blurb from The Constitution Today at Amazon:

America’s Constitution, Chief Justice John Marshall famously observed in McCulloch v. Maryland, aspires “to endure for ages to come.” The daily news has a shorter shelf life, and when the issues of the day involve momentous constitutional questions, present-minded journalists and busy citizens cannot always see the stakes clearly.

In The Constitution Today, Akhil Reed Amar, America’s preeminent constitutional scholar, considers the biggest and most bitterly contested debates of the last two decades and provides a passionate handbook for thinking constitutionally about today’s headlines. Amar shows how the Constitution’s text, history, and structure are a crucial repository of collective wisdom, providing specific rules and grand themes relevant to every organ of the American body politic. Prioritizing sound constitutional reasoning over partisan preferences, he makes the case for diversity-based affirmative action and a right to have a gun in one’s home for self-protection, and against spending caps on independent political advertising and bans on same-sex marriage. He explains what’s wrong with presidential dynasties, advocates a “nuclear option” to restore majority rule in the Senate, and suggests ways to reform the Supreme Court. And he revisits three dramatic constitutional conflicts—the impeachment of Bill Clinton, the contested election of George W. Bush, and the fight over Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act—to show what politicians, judges, and journalists got right as events unfolded and what they missed.

Leading readers through the particular constitutional questions at stake in each episode while outlining his abiding views regarding the Constitution’s letter, its spirit, and the direction constitutional law must go, Amar offers an essential guide for anyone seeking to understand America’s Constitution and its relevance today.

In the Mail: Karen Greenberg, Rogue Justice [BUMPED]

I was on campus yesterday, starting my syllabus prep for the fall semester, and I picked this up from my mailbox.

At Amazon, Karen J. Greenberg, Rogue Justice: The Making of the Security State.

Jan Crawford at the National Constitution Center (VIDEO)

Watch, an interesting segment, at CBS This Morning, "National Constitution Center tells the story of America":

The National Constitution Center in Philadelphia tells the story of how our founders created a government by the people with an elected president -- and a Constitution that endures and protects us all. Jan Crawford reports.

I don't think the question is whether we can "keep" the Constitution so much as we can preserve the liberty that it was originally designed to protect. The Constitution will be with us for a long time. It's how much the interpretation and practice of our constitutional norms have changed that's troubling.

Supreme Court to Hear Arguments in Obama's Illegal Alien DREAM Programs

Obama's unconstitutional immigration grab is at the Court on Monday.

At LAT, "In last big test of Obama era, Supreme Court to take up immigration policy":

The Supreme Court's last great case of the Obama era comes before the justices Monday when the administration's lawyers defend his plan to offer work permits to as many as 4 million immigrants who have been living here illegally for years.

Once again, lawyers for Republican leaders from Congress and the states will be challenging the actions of the Democratic president. And as with past battles over healthcare and same-sex marriage, Obama administration lawyers will need to win over at least one of the court's more conservative justices.

If the justices split 4 to 4 — a possibility since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia — the tie vote would keep in place a Texas judge's order that has blocked President Obama's deportation relief plan from taking effect.

At issue is whether the president has the power to extend a "temporary reprieve" from the threat of deportation and a work permit to immigrant parents of U.S. citizens or lawful residents. More than one-fourth of those who stand to benefit live in California, according to immigration experts.

The two sides disagree not only on what is the right outcome, but on what the case is about. One side sees a great constitutional clash over the rule of law in a democracy, while the other sees a narrow regulatory dispute.

The Republicans, in written briefs, portray Obama's order as a profound threat to the constitutional system. If the president can defy Congress and change the law on his own, the nation has abandoned "a bedrock constitutional principle," they say.

This "would be one of the largest changes in immigration policy in the nation's history," say lawyers for Texas and 25 other Republican-led states. They note that the president's action arose after Congress refused to change the law in line with his wishes, so the order rests on "an unprecedented, sweeping assertion of executive power," they say.

The House Republicans joined the case on the side of Texas, and if anything, raised the stakes even higher. They described Obama's immigration order as "the most aggressive of executive power claims" and a threat to "the separation of powers that underpins our very constitutional structure."

Meanwhile, U.S. Solicitor Gen. Donald Verrilli Jr., the administration's top lawyer, sought to play down the significance of Obama's order and defuse the constitutional clash. He said the immigrants who qualify would be offered a temporary relief from deportation that does not "confer any form of legal status." He cited instances in which Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush gave similar relief to large groups of immigrants who were fleeing wars or despotic regimes.

Jan Crawford Reports on the Battle Over Antonin Scalia's Seat (VIDEO)

This is good. The segment features footage of President Obama pushing for the filibuster against President Bush's nominees back in 2007, when Obama represented Illinois in the Senate.

At CBS News This Morning:

Antonin Scalia Fueled the Movement to Reestablish Constitutional Originalism

From David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey, at the Los Angeles Times, "Justice Scalia kept constitutional originalism in the conversation — no small legacy":

"I'm Scalia.” That's how Justice Antonin Scalia began to question a nervous lawyer, who was mixing up the names of the nine Supreme Court justices during oral arguments on the controversial 2000 case Bush vs. Gore. His introduction should have been unnecessary, because if any justice dominated the contemporary Supreme Court stage, it was Scalia.

By turns combative, argumentative and thoughtful, Scalia was a stout conservative who transformed American jurisprudence in 34 years on the bench. He was also charming, witty and cordial, able to maintain a close friendship with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, perhaps his leading intellectual rival on the Supreme Court's left wing.

Appointed to the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., by President Reagan in 1982, Scalia was elevated by Reagan to the Supreme Court in 1986. Scalia was, first and foremost, an “Originalist” — the title of a popular play about the justice that premiered last year in the capital. Scalia was not the first to argue that the Constitution must be applied based on the original meaning of its words — that is, the general, public meaning those words had when that document was drafted, rather than any assumed or secret intent of its framers. He did, however, supply much of the intellectual power behind the movement to reestablish the primacy of the Constitution's actual text in judging.

With Scalia on the bench, academics, lawyers and jurists left, right and center were forced to confront originalist theory, which many had previously dismissed as hopelessly simplistic...

Keep reading.

Could Obama Make a Recess Appointment to Replace Scalia?

"The answer appears to be yes," argues Elizabeth Price Foley, at Instapundit.

This whole episode surrounding Scalia's death proves the country's gone bat-nutz crazy.

Still trending at Memeorandum.

Chaos and Confusion Surround Death of Justice Antonin Scalia

Professor Carol Swain is not pleased --- indeed, burdened --- with the fact that no autopsy was performed on Justice Scalia. It took hours for a justice of the peace to arrive, and another report alleges that he was found with a pillow over his head.

At the Washington Post, "The death of Antonin Scalia: Chaos, confusion and conflicting reports":

MARFA, Tex. — In the cloistered chambers of the Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia’s days were highly regulated and predictable. He met with clerks, wrote opinions and appeared for arguments in the august courtroom on a schedule set months in advance.

Yet as details of Scalia’s sudden death trickled in Sunday, it appeared that the hours afterward were anything but orderly. The man known for his elegant legal opinions and profound intellect was found dead in his room at a hunting resort by the resort’s owner, who grew worried when Scalia didn’t appear at breakfast Saturday morning.

It then took hours for authorities in remote West Texas to find a justice of the peace, officials said Sunday. When they did, Presidio County Judge Cinderela Guevara pronounced Scalia dead of natural causes without seeing the body — which is permissible under Texas law — and without ordering an autopsy.

As official Washington tried to process what his demise means for politics and the law, some details of Scalia’s final hours remained opaque. As late as Sunday afternoon, for example, there were conflicting reports about whether an autopsy should have been performed. A manager at the El Paso funeral home where Scalia’s body was taken said that his family made it clear they did not want one.

One of two other officials who were called but couldn’t get to Scalia’s body in time said that she would have made a different decision on the autopsy.

“If it had been me . . . I would want to know,” Juanita Bishop, a justice of the peace in Presidio, Tex., said in an interview Sunday of the chaotic hours after Scalia’s death at the Cibolo Creek Ranch, a luxury compound less than an hour from the Mexican border and about 40 miles south of Marfa.

Meanwhile, Guevara acknowledged that she pronounced Scalia dead by phone, without seeing his body. Instead, she spoke to law enforcement officials at the scene — who assured her “there were no signs of foul play” — and Scalia’s physician in Washington, who said that the 79-year-old justice suffered from a host of chronic conditions...

More.

Supreme Court Thrust to Center of Presidential Campaign

Amazing how much Scalia's death has roiled an already intense political season.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Scalia's death puts Supreme Court at the center of the presidential campaign":

Justice Antonin Scalia's death has turned a second-tier topic into a central facet of the 2016 presidential campaign: Among the new president's first acts likely will be nominating a justice who will determine the balance of power on the Supreme Court.

Potential court openings haven't dominated debates thus far in the campaign, and voters have not often raised it, aside from a suggestion to Hillary Clinton that, if elected, she'd appoint President Obama. But Scalia's death changes all that, vaulting into prominence a choice that will determine the country's course on voting rights, abortion, immigration, campaign finance, the environment and other contentious issues.

The battle lines were drawn within minutes of the death announcement, with Obama saying he would nominate a successor and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who controls the schedule, saying that the Senate should not take up an appointment in the 11 months remaining in the president's term. Republican presidential candidates immediately backed McConnell. Democrats objected, arguing that selecting a justice is Obama's job — and deciding in prompt fashion is the Senate's.

The political ramifications are many: Democrats and Republicans will have an issue around which to rally voters who might have considered the court a secondary issue, if that. Obama will have a chance to appoint a nominee who could influence political races up and down the ticket by appealing to a specific demographic group, even if the nominee is not ultimately confirmed.

Candidates in hot Senate races will be pressed to say how they would vote on Obama's pick, since those elections will determine who controls the nomination process next year. And voters will witness a contemporaneous example of the Washington gridlock that already has inflamed anger on both sides in this presidential campaign.

“Maybe a Supreme Court vacancy will remind people that presidential elections are not circuses — they really are important,” said Charlie Cook, a nonpartisan political analyst. “The stakes just went up, and now everyone knows it.”

Keep reading.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dead at 79

Everything is so much more politicized than, say, 30 years ago.

Back then, it seems to me, there'd have been an announcement of the justice's death, and the president would've waited until after the holiday weekend to make a statement and announce his intentions to appoint a nominee.

Not Obama though. We'd barely gotten the news about Scalia and Obama was out with a White House television statement. (And then, the entire political class, as seen on Twitter, has handicapped the upcoming appointment, giving Scalia's loved ones hardly any time to grieve. It's not for me to say, I guess. That's they way things are nowadays. It just appears unseemly.)

The obituary's at the Los Angeles Times, "Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dies at 79; fiery conservative fought liberalism's tide":

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, an eloquent conservative who used a sharp intellect, a barbed wit and a zest for verbal combat to resist what he saw as the tide of modern liberalism, has died. He was 79.

Scalia died while on a hunting trip in West Texas, according to a statement issued Saturday by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott. The death was later confirmed by the U.S. Marshals Service and the Supreme Court.

Scalia died at the Cibolo Creek Ranch, a 30,000-acre retreat of antebellum forts bought and restored by Houston millionaire John Poindexter.

Scalia had gone to his room Friday night and was found dead Saturday after he did not appear for breakfast, the Marshals Service said.

At about 2:45 p.m. Saturday, people at the ranch summoned a Catholic priest from Presidio, 30 miles away, to minister last rites to the justice, who was a Catholic. “It appeared as though he had passed away in his sleep," said Elizabeth O'Hara, a spokeswoman for the Diocese of El Paso...

More.

Obama's comments are here, "Obama to Nominate Scalia Successor ‘In Due Time’ (VIDEO)."

Is Ted Cruz a 'Natural Born Citizen'? (VIDEO)

Personally, I think this whole Ted Cruz birther issue is just stupid.



In just a couple of days the MSM's spent more time on it than on Obama's eligibility, at least from the point of view of critical vs. sympathetic analysis. (Nothing shall derail the political momentum of Democrat candidates.)

Breitbart dredged up Cruz's mom's birth certificate, so that's not in question, while Obama never actually released his long-form birth certificate, only a printout of "certification of live birth" from the county government offices there in Hawaii. (A real birth certificate includes medical information, full legal name at time of birth, doctors' signatures and all that --- none of which was included on the county printout.)

Here's the Bretibart piece, via Memeorandum, "Exclusive: Birth Certificate for Ted Cruz's Mother." I have no idea if it's actually authenticated, but I haven't seen anyone claiming Cruz's mom wasn't born in the U.S. Or at least not yet.

Professor Thomas Lee, of Fordham Law School, provides a high-brow scholarly analysis, at the Los Angeles Times, "Is Ted Cruz a 'natural born Citizen'? Not if you're a constitutional originalist."

Perhaps, but then the Supreme Court makes the final decision on these issues. I expect the law's settled enough nowadays to show that one American-citizen parent is enough to constitute presidential eligibility for the children.

More video at CNN, "Sen. Ted Cruz on State of the Union: Part 1," and "Sen. Ted Cruz on State of the Union: Part 2."

Ted Cruz and Donald Trump Take Different Paths to Iowa Voters

Cruz camps out. Trump swoops in.

At the Los Angeles Times:

Donald Trump launched his TV advertising just after New Year's with his familiar swagger: He was so far ahead in the polls that it might be a waste, he said, but he felt guilty for not spending his money.

The reality was more sobering.

After six months of branding opponents and critics as losers, Trump faces the threat of becoming one himself in Iowa, the first state to hold a Republican presidential nominating contest. The ads are a crucial part of Trump's strategy to keep Ted Cruz from beating him in the Iowa caucuses on Feb. 1.

Cruz's appeals to evangelicals, tea party followers and other conservatives have made the Texas senator the current favorite in Iowa, though the New York billionaire remains a solid front-runner in the rest of the country.

Cruz's surge in Iowa is jeopardizing Trump's quest to "run the table" by winning every GOP primary and caucus nationwide.

The two are taking sharply contrasting approaches to Iowa. Trump has darted in for occasional rallies before huge crowds, relying on TV news coverage to reach Iowans. He typically spends a few hours in the state, then returns to New York in his private jet. Trump's rallies Saturday afternoon in Ottumwa and Clear Lake came after an 11-day absence from Iowa.

Cruz has devoted far more time and resources to the state, following the playbook of previous Iowa caucus winners Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum...

More.