Liberty Updates

Daily Caller

by Bob Barr

Congress rarely deserves praise for acting swiftly to exercise its oversight responsibility, but the quick response by the Senate Judiciary Committee to Twitter’s outrageous election interference last week in support of Democrat nominee Joe Biden is to be commended.

Shortly after the news broke that Twitter blocked users from sharing a New York Post story critical of Biden, Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) scheduled a hearing (to be held tomorrow), at which time the committee will vote on subpoenaing Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to appear before Congress later this week to explain himself.

Dorsey has a lot of questions to answer. Over the years, he repeatedly has assured government decision-makers and the general public that his popular social media platform does not discriminate against any political viewpoints. What Twitter did in response to the Post story illustrated the hollowness of those assurances.

The Judiciary Committee needs to stand up for the First Amendment and demand answers. But beyond securing the explanation the American people deserve, the Committee also needs to actively consider avenues to address the platform’s continued assaults on free speech, without itself running afoul of the Constitution.

To his credit, Dorsey himself has apologized for “straight blocking” the news story. This, coupled with his past vocal support for regulating Big Tech, provides at least a glimmer of hope that Congress can come to terms with Twitter on a solution.

Investigations by the Department of Justice and state attorneys general are important, and in some instances appropriate, but they are excruciatingly time-consuming. We have witnessed this tedious, intricate process unfold with the current governmental investigations into Google’s alleged monopoly on search and advertising, which are still not complete despite having been initiated years ago.

The American people cannot afford to wait years for the government to protect their right to free speech. The time for continued talk is long past.

Perhaps the best way to get this started would be for one of the Committee members to inquire of Dorsey if he would be willing to put his company’s commitment to preventing censorship in writing to Attorney General William Barr.

Such agreements, known in legal circles as “consent decrees,” work well in taming artificial monopolies. The government likes them because they create a legal framework for stopping abuse and disciplining further iterations of it. Often the private actors prefer them too, as they do not require admissions of past wrongdoing and can be employed for significant public relations benefit.

When executed in the right manner and with the right intentions, government consent decrees have provided the public with benefits that are significant and long-lasting.

The Reagan administration-brokered consent decree with AT&T, for example, stopped the predatory behavior of the Bell System phone monopoly in the 1980s and caused an outpouring of competition that created the likes of Sprint and MCI. This led to increased service quality and lower costs, which continue to benefit consumers even today, three decades later.

Long before the AT&T settlement, a 1940s-era government consent decree with “Big Music” ushered in America’s “Golden Age of Music.”

Instead of competing against one another, individual music publishers created ASCAP and BMI — a duopoly that today licenses 90-percent of popular music. The decrees signed with ASCAP and BMI to this day are hailed for protecting the functionality of the music industry. No less a music luminary than Bon Jovi remarked just this summer that these long-standing decrees should not be eliminated or weakened since they “protect ASCAP and BMI from using their market power against the small players in the system.”

Twitter’s ability to continue censoring competing viewpoints shares two things with the Bell System and music case studies: an artificial monopoly that could not exist without government forces, and an organizational leader who at least pays lip service to entertaining new government restraints.

As a lawyer and former member of the Judiciary Committee, I am convinced that a consent decree with Twitter to end viewpoint discrimination could work as effectively as these two earlier examples. Not only does it appear to be the quickest, easiest, and surest way to protect the First Amendment, but it can also be paired with future actions the government may decide to take against this social media giant (and perhaps others as well).

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7 District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and was the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia from 1986 to 1990.  He now serves as President of the Law Enforcement Education Foundation based in Atlanta, Georgia.

Townhall

by Bob Barr

Privacy is one of the pillars of a free society. In fact, as renowned philosopher and writer Ayn Rand noted in The Fountainhead more than seven decades ago, privacy is the essential foundation of a civilized society, without which individual freedom cannot be maintained. Yet, when it comes to protecting this essential cornerstone of our society, Congress consistently falls short.

Whether controlled by Democrats or the GOP, congressional committees put on great shows. They invite all the big names in Big Tech to a hearing, where members pose eloquent soundbites about “privacy,” “security,” and, of course, “profiting from user data.” Yet, as for doing something meaningful to protect individual privacy rights by legislation or through oversight, Congress is little better than the CEOs they verbally harangue.

It is beyond question that private companies, including Big Tech players like Google, Facebook and Twitter, use the vast databases of information they accumulate, to hawk products and develop user “profiles” for commercial benefit. It is also clear that the power they wield can be, and demonstrably has been abused to harm individuals, often because they hold political views at odds with the so-called “Lords of Social Media.”

At the end of the day, however, it is only government that can use such databased information to put someone in jail. And it is here – at the intersection between data accumulation and government power – that Congress repeatedly fails to guard against abuse.

Ever since the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, the government has been bound by the Fourth Amendment, which was designed and intended to limit how law enforcement may invade a person’s privacy and gather information that ultimately could put them in jail (or worse). Over the decades, however, government has proved itself extremely creative in circumventing the Amendment’s restrictions, including in recent years turning to private companies like Google for assistance.

One of the most recent and cleverest vehicles employed by law enforcement to slip by the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of specificity as to the person to be searched and the information to be gathered, is something known as a “reverse search warrant” or a “geofence warrant.” These can be used, for example, to scoop up data about all cell phones within a certain geographic area, or to identify all cell phone users who accessed a certain site during a particular time period.

Key to such extremely broad (and constitutionally troublesome) warrants, is that law enforcement agents have the cooperation of a private company, like Google, which can provide the data being sought. Unfortunately, most tech companies that maintain this data or that have access to it, are happy to stay on government’s good side and readily comply with such requests, even though they clearly do not meet the Fourth Amendment’s requirements.

This is precisely what Google did in July in an arson investigation; cooperating with such a warrant by supplying police with information of all users who searched for a specific address.

Sadly, efforts by the handful of members of Congress on both sides of the political aisle wanting to place statutory limits on these newfangled tools designed expressly to thwart the Fourth Amendment, consistently fail to garner the votes necessary to send a bill to the president for signature.

In one of the more recent displays of Congress’ unwillingness to protect individual privacy, last May the Senate failed to pass a simple amendment to the USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act, which would have shielded private search data from warrantless search by federal law enforcement.

That vote was not the first time the Senate failed to stand up to Big Tech and to rein in overly zealous law enforcement demands, and it is certain not to be the last.

Whether the Supreme Court ultimately will throw a much-needed lifeline to the Fourth Amendment, by ruling that such “reverse warrant” fishing expeditions are unconstitutional, remains to be seen. It is a concern, however, that should be posed in some meaningful way to Judge Amy Coney Barrett before the full Senate votes to confirm her as a Supreme Court justice later this month.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7 District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and was the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia from 1986 to 1990.  He now serves as President of the Law Enforcement Education Foundation based in Atlanta, Georgia.

Daily Caller

Bob Barr

The arrest late last week of more than a dozen self-styled “Wolverine Watchmen,” and the subsequent war of words between Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, the apparent target of their conspiracy, and President Trump, who Whitmer charged was “complicit” in the plot, illustrates once again the truly strange world in which we are living as we approach the November 3 election.

The federal criminal complaint that provided the basis for the arrests of the conspirators confirms a rule that became apparent to me shortly after I was sworn in as the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia in 1986, and which remains as accurate today, 34 years later. Simply stated, the rule holds that one of the best and most useful tools a prosecutor wields is the stupidity of the criminal element. The affidavit in the Wolverine Watchmen case, executed by an FBI special agent working the investigation, paints a picture of the conspirators as not real bright, to put it most kindly.

To be sure, the conspirators’ goal was deadly serious — to kidnap or kill the Michigan Governor, along with other individuals. Thankfully, the strategy they hatched as a roadmap to achieve their goal was about as artless and unsophisticated as a cable TV “reality show.”

The conspirators apparently had been planning their deed since at least early this year, when federal law enforcement were alerted to their plans after the disgruntled Brainiacs discussed the “violent overthrow” of the government on not-so-secret “social media.” At some point thereafter, and before a June 6, 2020 meeting of the plotters in Ohio, the FBI was able to do what it long has been expert at – infiltrating such conspiracies with undercover sources. In this case, the FBI was able to use not just a single “confidential human source” but “multiple” such sources.

In further display of their lack of brain power, the conspirators appeared in full armed regalia at demonstrations this past summer at the Michigan State Capitol in Lansing, where TV cameras were aplenty. So much for remaining incognito.

While the plotters did display a knowledge of movie drama — holding some of their meetings in a basement room “accessed through a trap door hidden under a rug” — they reportedly were constantly plagued by a lack of resources. According to the FBI affidavit, they could not even raise $4,000 they apparently needed to purchase the explosives they intended to use in carrying out their plan. Moreover, when they attempted to construct and test some homemade IEDs (improvised explosive devices), they proved to be duds and would not detonate.

As with investigations involving confidential sources that were handled by my office in Atlanta during my tenure as U.S. Attorney, these Michigan plotters did worry about snitches in their midst. But their effort to ensure there were no rats in their group proved as poorly conceived as other elements of their plan — requiring that everyone at one of the “secret” meetings “bring personal documents to confirm their identities.”

In yet another move that would have further improved their chances of being caught, one of the conspirators suggested hiring a real estate agent to help them find the precise location of the Governor’s vacation home and to better get the lay of the land by inspecting other, nearby homes.

Thankfully, these Wolverine conspirators displayed the same lack of intelligence often exhibited by similar groups of misfits, making them a relatively easy target for apprehension by the FBI (and state authorities working in tandem with the feds).

It is clear, however, that the group had been working diligently at their criminal deeds for many months, which makes Whitmer’s post-arrest claim that President Trump was somehow “complicit” in the conspiracy because of something he said or did not say during his September 29 debate with former Vice President Biden, hollow and crassly political. But then again, it is all part of the Bizarro World in which we are living in this twentieth year of the 21^st Century.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7 District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and was the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia from 1986 to 1990.  He now serves as President of the Law Enforcement Education Foundation based in Atlanta, Georgia.

Townhall.com

by Bob Barr

Move over COVID-19. There is a new contagion loose in America. This virus attacks that part of the brain which develops and controls the adult male’s sense of self-esteem and courage of conviction. Its effect is felt quickly once the victim exercises any degree of independent thought contrary to the prevailing politically correct orthodoxy.

One of the most recent victims of this viral infection is Ohio State University Professor Matthew Mayhew, who succumbed to the intellectually debilitating disease shortly after publishing an opinion piece praising the return of college football at Ohio State.

Apparently oblivious to the fate that awaited him, Mayhew last month co-authored an opinion piece titled “Why America Needs College Football,” published September 24th by Inside Higher Ed. The symptoms of the disease swiftly and mercilessly manifested themselves.

Three days after Mayhew’s opinion piece was published, a fellow academic – Andrew McGregor, who teaches history at Dallas College in Texas – excoriated Mayhew in the same publication for writing in support of the long-standing Fall tradition known as “college football.” Mayhew’s prostration in the face of this politically correct onslaught quickly followed. The seriousness of the attack on Mayhew’s intellect became evident just two days thereafter, on September 29th, when his complete loss of self-esteem caused him to write an apology in which he berated himself for having voiced support for college football.

Some observers might feel compassion for Prof. Mayhew as he confronts the complete, and likely permanent loss of his intellectual courage. It is far more important, however, that we focus on the damage to our culture resulting from the emergence of the disease known as “cancel culture.” This emergent disease has gained a strong foothold in colleges and universities across the country. It threatens not only to erase our country’s diverse and vibrant history, but also to homogenize our culture so that no expressions of support beyond the prevailing politically correct orthodoxy are tolerated.

In this mean and joyless environment, the mere expression of support for something as benign as college football is verboten, not because it helps build character, personal skills, and teamwork (which it does), but because it is considered “racial capitalism” (whatever that means). In this worldview, offering students the opportunity to participate in such a popular sport is considered to be “exploitation,” therefore to be condemned not praised.

As bad as is the vehemence with which Mayhew’s since-repudiated love of college football was attacked, even more discouraging is how quickly he prostrated himself before the bullies.

There once was a time when it was expected that adults, especially ones employed by a major university like Ohio State, actually would defend their ideas with rational arguments, if those ideas were attacked. Such process was considered the very essence of an education.

The notion that ideas matter, at least to the degree of defending them in open debate, still can be seen in a dwindling number of public settings, such as debates in the British House of Commons. Sadly, however, in 20th Century academia here in the United States, the preferred – if not the demanded — response to having one’s opinions attacked if they are not in conformity with the leftist orthodoxy du jour, is to admit error and meekly back away, as did Prof. Mayhew in his cringe-worthy mea culpa.

Like predators in the wild, “cancel culture” bullies have a knack for identifying and preying upon the weak. And while it is weak-willed individuals like Mayhew who are directly humiliated, many others will come to suffer as the Left collects another scalp it can wave at future victims, as an example of what will happen if any dare express wrong-think.

As an alumnus of USC, I love watching college football, and I will miss it greatly if NCAA officials do not permit the games to continue. What I miss far more, however, is the intellectual independence and courage that used to be hallmarks of higher education in America.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7 District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and was the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia from 1986 to 1990.  He now serves as President of the Law Enforcement Education Foundation based in Atlanta, Georgia.

Daily Caller by Bob Barr   Princeton University President Christopher Eisgruber is likely heaving a huge sigh of relief that the attention of the nation’s media is focused on COVID’s infestation of the White House, the Senate battle over the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett and, of course, the looming national election. Were it not for these stories (and a handful of other newsworthy events such as continuing violence in one American city after another), Eisgruber’s September 2 letter openly admitting that the fabled Ivy League school engages in “systemic racism,” would be vying for front-page news coverage.     Eisgruber’s letter, however, did not escape the eye of lawyers at the U.S. Department of Education; and it should not be allowed to be swept under the rug.     Two weeks after the Princeton President’s highly unusual mea culpa, Robert King, the Education Department’s Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education, sent a letter to the university demanding that the admissions made by Eisgruber be explained and documented. The Department gave Princeton 21 days to provide the required evidence of its self-admitted racism, and one more week after that to schedule interviews “under oath” by Eisgruber and other Princeton officials.     So far, there has been no publicly acknowledged response to the Education Department’s demand letter, other than a September 18 press release by the University stating that it “stands by” Eisgruber’s letter and  would “respond” to the federal government “in due course.”     Not surprisingly also, several dozen other university presidents quickly leaped to Princeton’s defense. In a letter made public only a few days following the Education Department’s letter, presidents of the seven other Ivy League schools and dozens of other colleges and universities including, of course, uber-liberal Wesleyan University and Amherst College, blasted as “outrageous” the fact that the federal government would have the gall to demand that a sister university must actually provide evidence for the sins to which it openly admitted.     The stakes for Princeton and other schools that receive taxpayer dollars are hardly inconsequential. As noted in Assistant Secretary King’s letter, over the course of Eisgruber’s seven-year tenure at Princeton’s helm it has received “well over $75 million” in federal funds. Problematically for Princeton, however, as with other postsecondary schools receiving such monies, Princeton has been required regularly to certify that it does not engage in racial or other unlawful forms of discrimination — the very practices to which Eisgruber so blithely admitted just one month ago.     In thus placing Princeton on notice that its “woke” claims of systemic racism are, to say the least problematic and at worst clear violations of federal laws, the Trump administration is hoisting Princeton on its own petard as the Shakespearian expression colorfully describes.     If the school actually provides evidence that it has engaged in and continues to practice racially discriminatory policies, as its president has declared, it not only risks losing significant federal funds going forward, but could be liable for repayment of monies already received.     If, on the other hand, the school admits it was making the statements about systemic racism for the sole purpose of burnishing its “wokeness” credentials as a sop to leftwing activists, it will discredit not only its own leadership and pedagogy, but that of much of our country’s post-secondary education system.     The most likely outcome, at least in the short term, will be for Princeton to stall for time, hoping that November 3 will usher in new leadership at the White House and at the Department of Education; leadership that will be far more “understanding” of the rank hypocrisy deeply infecting the country’s post-secondary education system.     If Biden were to defeat Trump next month (or whenever the election results are certified), the case against Princeton will not only go away, but Eisgruber likely would be in line for promotion and for rewards in recognition of the extreme courage his woke letter exhibited. If so, it is not Eisgruber and his leftist cohorts who will suffer, but rather the deteriorating quality of education that further generations of students of all racial backgrounds will receive.     Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7 District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and was the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia from 1986 to 1990.  He now serves as President of the Law Enforcement Education Foundation based in Atlanta, Georgia.

Townhall

by Bob Barr

Of all the methods of control and surveillance conjured by George Orwell for his dystopian novel 1984, the use of children as spies is one of the most disturbing. As with so many of the measures and actions depicted in Orwell’s fictional work, however, the use of child snitches has today become an eerie reality; fostered, not surprisingly, by the fear according to which governments and government-like institutions such as schools now seek to control the population.

Today, it is fear of COVID that is transforming students into Snitches for the State.

In seeking to ensure students on campus and off abide by rigid COVID safety protocols that essentially forbid the broad range of activities in which college students traditionally have engaged, universities are strongly urging (if not requiring) students to report other students for violations of COVID safety protocols. Yale University even established a “tip line” for individuals to file confidential reports against their fellow students.

Offending acts need not occur in the classroom or anywhere on campus to qualify as reportable infractions. Students at schools such as Cornell and New York University have been suspended for allegedly participating in social events hosted off-campus after being the target of other students’ snitching.

For example, at NYU a student was caught in a video recorded by another student at an outdoor, rooftop party that apparently was in accord with New York City’s rigid social gathering rules. The student, who claims he maintained what he believed to be safe distances while in attendance, was only aware of his grave mistake after receiving an email from school officials excoriating him for “threatening the health and safety of the NYU community.” Notwithstanding that the classes in which he was enrolled were online, he was quickly suspended indefinitely.

It is a scenario playing out across America in this season of snitching. Students are at a private gathering off campus. Someone takes a video and perhaps innocently posts it to social media. The video is reported to the authorities by other students who view it. Then, before the accused students are even notified of their supposed violations, much less given a chance to explain themselves, they are booted from campus.

Pitched as a “public health and safety” measure — the favored excuse for dubious government acts in the modern era — the true motives are best encapsulated in a demand letter from Cornell’s student spy ring. This edict directs that the “compliance of every student” [emphasis added] is required, and rule-breakers should be held accountable for their actions.

Just as in Orwell’s fictional world, however, at its core this is all about control; control that extends beyond the parameters of the school itself to encompass the students’ activities in all aspects of their lives, including those having nothing whatsoever to do with the educational process or their fellow students.

While it makes sense that students, when on campus, adhere to reasonable safety protocols, the measures now being enforced, including off-campus activities that are perfectly legal under state and local ordinances, crosses the line from reasonable to despotic. Heretofore expected elements of due process and common sense have been cast aside and replaced with draconian and nonsensical measures, enforced according to rigid rules and punishment, up to and including kicking students out of school and refusing to refund tuition and fees already paid to the school.

History shows us that control measures like those now being implemented by colleges and universities such as Cornell, NYU, Yale, and many others, which ostensibly are focused on a particular problem – here, COVID – do not disappear once the problem goes away. Rather, the measures implemented in time of “crisis” become the norm – the floor rather than the ceiling according to which additional control mechanisms are justified.

It would behoove students (and their parents) considering whether to enter or remain in such institutions, to read 1984 to gain a sense for the environment into which they are in or seek to enter. Unfortunately, the sense of fear or unease that such a read would “trigger” make it unlikely many of those students could bear to read beyond the first few pages.

The Season of the Snitch is now upon us.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7 District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and was the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia from 1986 to 1990.  He now serves as President of the Law Enforcement Education Foundation based in Atlanta, Georgi

Daily Caller

by Bob Barr

 

In a March 2019 decision certain to spur furious badgering from Democrats when she appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee next month, federal Appeals Court Justice (and now Supreme Court Associate Justice nominee) Amy Coney Barrett showed herself to be not only a supporter of the Second Amendment, but a thoughtful and courageous one.

 

Transactions involving firearms are among the most heavily regulated of all commercial and legal activities in the United States. It therefore is not unusual for a federal judge to issue rulings on one or more matters involving the Second Amendment during their tenure.

 

In the case of Justice Barrett, a decision by a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, on which she currently sits, illustrates the depth of her knowledge about the Second Amendment and of federal firearms laws. More important, her dissent in the case of Rickey Kanter v. William Barr, shows that she is remarkably unafraid to go against conventional wisdom in order to apply an historically correct and common-sense based interpretation of both the Bill of Rights and federal gun laws.

 

At issue in the Kanter case was the long-standing federal law that makes it a crime for anyone who has ever been convicted of a felony offense under either state or federal law to thereafter legally possess a gun. Although the federal ban does not kick in if the felony for which an individual has been convicted was for violating a federal antitrust law or similar trade-restraint provision, and while there is language in the law allowing for the person to apply to have their rights restored, in every practical way, short of a pardon the ban holds for the remainder of the individual’s life.

 

In virtually every case challenging the gun ban, the federal government routinely argues that the measure is absolutely essential in order to protect the public from persons posing a danger to society. The “danger” flows solely from the person having been convicted of a crime carrying punishment of more than a year in prison. The Kanter case was no exception; he pleaded guilty to a single count of mail fraud, and Uncle Sam declared him a permanent danger to society.

 

Had Kanter’s fraudulent use of the Postal Service involved shipment of a firearm or ammunition, or if he had a history of violent behavior, the government’s position might make a degree of sense. It is, however, impossible to argue with a straight face that the crime to which Kanter pleaded could conceivably be construed as “dangerous” to anyone at any time under any circumstances. His crime was mailing some “noncompliant” shoe inserts to a podiatrist in Florida from his home in Wisconsin, where he did business as “Dr. Comfort.”

 

Still, not only did Justice Department lawyers argue straight-faced that mailing a few shoe inserts to a podiatrist in another state made Kanter a danger forevermore, but a federal trial judge and two of three Court of Appeals justices agreed that the government’s argument made constitutional sense.

 

It is Amy Coney Barrett — the third justice on that three-judge Seventh Circuit panel — who made sense and who correctly applied the intent of the federal law and the clear scope of the Second Amendment’s language as against Mr. Kanter. In her dissent, she noted that there was no evidence whatsoever that Kanter posed a danger to society, and therefore prohibiting him from forever exercising a fundamental right was constitutionally impermissible.

 

In a rare but refreshing exercise of judicial analysis, Barrett based her dissent on history and common sense. To her, while both common sense and history may allow the government to prohibit “dangerous people from possessing guns,” that power must be based on actual evidence that they are “dangerous,” not merely saying so. For Barrett, fundamental rights such as the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment, are too precious to be swept aside by arbitrary laws recited by government lawyers with no basis in fact.

 

If Judge Barrett brings that same degree of knowledge and common sense to her deliberations as a Supreme Court Justice, the American people will have been well-served by President Trump’s nomination.

 

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7 District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and was the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia from 1986 to 1990.  He now serves as President of the Law Enforcement Education Foundation based in Atlanta, Georgia.

Townhall.com

by Bob Barr

In every life there comes a moment of “clarity,” in which a decision must be made to stand up and do the right thing, or fold and take the easy way out. For Senate Republicans, that moment is staring them in the face. If they cannot muster 50 votes to confirm a Supreme Court nominee submitted by President Donald Trump, the “Grand Old Party” will no longer deserve being considered a “major” political party; it will have proved itself unworthy of the heritage bequeathed them by such true leaders as Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan.

Far more important than the political fallout of such cowardice by a handful of GOP senators, however, will be the long-term damage to one of the most enduring and vital institutions undergirding our government – the Supreme Court of the United States, against which the Democrats have declared open warfare. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi no longer even pretend to camouflage what their intentions are.

Should the Democrats win a majority in the Senate and also defeat Trump in the coming election, they will at once start the legislative process to expand the number of justices on the High Court (which has remained at nine for a century and a half). They also will move to change the rules according to which future judicial confirmations will be handled in the Senate. If Democrats succeed in these measures, they will all-but-guarantee the Republican Party will never again be able to ensure a “conservative” majority on the Court.

The Democrat’s plan to pack the Court will be solidified if they are successful in achieving another of their publicly avowed goals, which is to expand the size of the Senate from 100 (where it has been since Hawaii was admitted in 1959) to 102 by granting statehood to the District of Columbia; or even 104 if Puerto Rico were to be admitted.

Both these goals – increasing the size of the Supreme Court bench and increasing the size of the Senate – require only legislation, not a constitutional amendment.

As Schumer, Pelosi and their charges in both houses of Congress openly plot their assault on the Supreme Court and on long-standing Senate procedures, some Republicans wring their hands and fret about whether standing up and voting to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court this year could be considered inconsistent with something they might have said two or four years ago. This brings to mind the adage, “Nero fiddled as Rome burned.” And America is burning, literally and figuratively.

In “normal” times, calls for diplomacy and “statesmanship” might be appropriate factors for a senator to weigh in deciding whether to vote for a judicial nominee just weeks before a national election. We are, however, in anything but “normal” times. Our country is being torn by violence in cities from coast-to-coast and north-to-south. Government institutions at all levels are under attack even by those inside government.

Republican senators must come to fully grasp the gravity of the situation facing them, and to recognize the deeply destructive nature of what the Democrats will do if the GOP caves on this Supreme Court decision. Meeting this challenge requires decisive and aggressive steps, even if it means taking off the kid gloves so cherished by many in the GOP.

When was the last time Schumer, whose preferred accoutrement is brass knuckles, donned kid gloves in opposing a Republican initiative, especially on a matter as consequential as filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court? Still there are congressional Republicans who worry that failure to always play by the strictest Marquis of Queensbury rules will tarnish their “nice guy” image.

The choice today for Republicans should be an easy one — either recognize the ruthlessness of the enemy they face and meet the challenge head-on by confirming Trump’s Supreme Court nominee…or do nothing.

There is an apt historic parallel for the situation facing Senate Republicans. They can choose either to follow the path set forth by Winston Churchill and gird for the battle already joined or, as did Churchill’s predecessor Neville Chamberlain, wave a piece of paper and claim a hollow “peace in our time.” The stakes really are that high.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7 District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and was the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia from 1986 to 1990.  He now serves as President of the Law Enforcement Education Foundation based in Atlanta, Georgia.

Daily Caller by Bob Barr   It is easy to understand the fear in the minds of Democrat Party leaders prompted by President Trump and Senate Majority Leader McConnell stating that they will in fact move forward to nominate and schedule a confirmation vote for a replacement for recently-deceased Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg. That fear has ignited a barrage of proposals that prove beyond doubt the Democrats will stop at nothing to deny Trump a third appointment to the Court and to deny Republicans any future opportunities. They will stop at nothing.   It is by no means certain that McConnell could muster 50 votes to confirm Trump’s nominee, but if he does it would result in a potential 6-3 “conservative” majority on the High Court. This drives abject fear into the very core of the Democrat Party and the pro-abortion movement in this country. The possibility of a Supreme Court that might to even a tiny degree limit abortion rights is a danger to be opposed with every tool possible, regardless of how such actions might damage the Court, the Senate, or the Constitution itself.   The irrationality and borderline idiocy of some of the statements by Democrat leaders is stunning, even by today’s loose standards. Democratic Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar declared that the Republicans “stole” the last appointment to the Court (the 2018 confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh) and that the GOP is now “trying to do it again.” Actually, all President Trump has said he intends to do is exercise his clear constitutional prerogative and submit a nominee to the Senate for its “advice and consent”; nothing more, nothing less, and hardly indicative of “stealing” anything.   Democratic Hawaii Sen. Mazie Hirono, never one to let civil discourse get in the way of intemperate rantings, said publicly that her party will be considering all manner of moves to not only prevent the Ginsburg vacancy from being filled, but to ensure that future Supreme Court vacancies will be handled in such way as to all-but-guarantee only Democrat-friendly nominees will be approved by the Senate. For example, the Hawaiian firebrand declared her party will move to pack the court with more justices than the nine allowed since 1869 by federal law.   As further evidence of the extreme steps to which the Democrat Party will go to ensure it gains a lock on future High Court nominations, Hirono declared they will press statehood for Puerto Rico (to gain the two senatorial seats that almost certainly would be theirs if the island were to become the 51^st state), and also end the Senate filibuster should her Party regain a majority in the November 3^rd election.   Former Obama Attorney General Eric Holder echoed calls to pack the Court with more justices, to be filled by nominees offered by hoped-for President Biden and a Democrat-controlled Senate come January 2021.   New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler, still smarting from his failed impeachment effort earlier this year, was quick to jump on the court-packing bandwagon. From his perspective, which not surprisingly is shared by former President Obama and 2016 presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, any move by Trump and McConnell to fill the Ginsburg vacancy this year is tantamount to a capital offense. This perspective pervades all levels of the Democrat Party despite there being no prohibition whatsoever — in the Constitution, in federal law, or in historic precedent — on the president taking steps to fill the Court vacancy.   Already, “impeachment” has been floated as retribution against Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr. The basis for such a move is far from clear, but for today’s Democrats clarity and reason count for nothing.   The Democrat hysteria churned up by Ginsburg’s passing is unprecedented; beyond even the despicable attacks on Kavanaugh during his Senate confirmation hearings two years ago. Every possible avenue to defeat a vote on a new associate justice, no matter how deeply it might undermine the integrity of institutions that have been at the heart of our constitutional republic’s survival, is being considered actively by the Democrats.   Unfortunately, the Democrats may enlist a few Republican senators as allies in their drive to undermine the integrity of the very institutions they claim hypocritically to be rescuing from Trump’s actions. If so, the tragedy of what they are advocating may actually come to pass.   Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7 District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and was the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia from 1986 to 1990.  He now serves as President of the Law Enforcement Education Foundation based in Atlanta, Georgia.

Townhall

by Bob Barr

Nicholas Sandmann, the Catholic high school student who recently settled defamation lawsuits against CNN and the Washington Post, is again in the crosshairs of the Left as he prepares to enter college.

In a vivid display of the degree to which the Left — this time those embedded in academia — will mercilessly hound anyone they do not like (particularly someone who has successfully challenged them), members and alumni of Kentucky’s Transylvania University, a school which has admitted Sandmann, publicly are talking about him as if he were a Manchurian Candidate on a mission to destroy the university. He is being called a dangerous “provocateur in training” and a troublemaker because he likely will disrupt classes by daring to question their teachings.

Avery Tompkins, a professor at Transylvania and one of its “diversity scholars,” criticized Sandmann for belonging to groups that hold “anti-intellectualist views.” Media reports quoting the professor did not clarify which groups she considers to be “anti-intellectualist” or what she believes the term means.  Her dislike for Sandmann was echoed by Samuel Crankshaw who is an alumnus of the University and a communications official with the ACLU. Crankshaw labeled Transylvania’s decision to admit the young “provocateur” a “stain” on the institution.

Compare the manner by which the media and academia are treating Sandmann with the fawning praise they lavished on another high school student who found himself in the media spotlight — David Hogg, one of the students who survived the 2018 mass shooting at his high school in Parkland, Florida.

Unlike Sandmann, who comports himself publicly with quiet reserve, Hogg became the Left’s foul-mouthed poster child for gun control immediately following his ordeal. He has relished his role as a belligerent gun control activist — a committed “provocateur” if you will — and was accepted at Harvard University.

The contrasting way these two young men have been treated by academia illustrates with disturbing clarity the distance by which America’s higher education system has strayed from how it was considered by our Founders.

When founding the University of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson highlighted the institution’s purpose as one “based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind” because its students would be “not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead.” Jefferson’s vision reflects the fundamental purpose of classical, higher education as a free and unfettered exploration of knowledge, ideas, and human interaction. Yet, as any conservative student like Sandmann can attest today, this ideal is no longer to be found on many, if not most college campuses from New England to the Pacific Northwest. Such institutions now are but a hollow shell of Jefferson’s ideal.

As the so-called educators at Transylvania demonstrate, higher education today is less about intellectual exploration bound only by the “illimitable freedom of the human mind,” than it is forcing students into an environment rigidly confined by speech codes, social behavior standards, and reeducation programs. Fear of truth, not the courage to search for it, has become the guiding principle in America’s once prestigious collegiate institutions.

The institutional bias against students like Sandmann represents the heightened challenges conservative students face today, both in applying to and attending many universities and colleges. By contrast, students either devoid of clear philosophical or political leanings, or whose views are in accord with leftwing campus orthodoxy, have nothing to fear by voicing their opinions, no matter how absurd or extreme.

Conservative students and faculty, however, often find themselves needing help from organizations like the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) in order to fight back against punitive and even illegal viewpoint discrimination by left-wing tenured professors and university administrators. These so-called “educators” genuinely fear incoming students like Sandmann, because such “provocateurs” might actually challenge their leftist philosophy and force them to articulate a meaningful defense.

For decades, the Left has been working to transform college campuses from places where actual ideas are openly debated and truth genuinely sought, into reeducation camps where debate is hollow (if allowed at all) and the search for truth assiduously avoided. For the sake of Thomas Jefferson’s noble ideals, and for Nick Sandmann’s personal and intellectual survival, this drive to intellectual idiocy must be resisted.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7 District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and was the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia from 1986 to 1990.  He now serves as President of the Law Enforcement Education Foundation based in Atlanta, Georgia.