ActRight

Donald Trump on Wednesday fired back at Hillary Clinton, remarking that he would likely nominate Supreme Court justices who 'would look very seriously at her email disaster.'

“fyi”

John Kasich is pretty much a Democrat

The peace is over.

Ted Cruz think it's best if he and John Kasich go their separate ways. Kasich hopes delegates don't stop believin' in his chances. But there's a long journey between now and the Republican National Convention in Cleveland. Read more in Ohio Politics Roundup.

Marco Rubio is not releasing his delegates

Trump! Clinton! Is that all there is? No. Fortunately, we have other choices. A recent poll shows that if the election were held today, 11 percent of Americans would vote for a Libertarian, former...

Almost half also support the use of enhanced interrogation techniques.

I’ll be honest. I couldn’t watch this interview of Trump without getting quite angry. Trump is a scumbag as he tries to assassinate the character of Michelle Fields and it is on full di…

First comprehensive look at Obamacare patients finds they use significantly more health care than those in employer plans, says Blue Cross Blue Shield Association report.

Donald Trump’s contradictory and frightening statements on how he views the role of the federal government should give everyone pause.

Finally, Donald Trump has told the true tale of just what happened the night that his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, was caught on tape grabbing a female reporter, Michelle Fields, by the arm, yanking her forcefully back, and bruising her arm. Lewandowski was earning himself a Medal of Honor. According to Trump, the event never happened in the first place. It was all just made up. Lewandowski said the same thing. Now Lewandowski’s headed for court – because, as it turns out, it did happen, and it happened just the way Michelle Fields said it happened.

Share on Facebook 1 1 SHARES A 15-year-old protester was pepper sprayed in the face at a Trump rally in Janesville, Wisconsin on Tuesday afternoon. The teen, who stood next to a “Black Lives Matter” sign, claimed a Trump supporter touched her inappropriately and began shouting at the man who allegedly touched her.  He laughed and smirked as she berated him, replying, “You touched me.  | Read More

Produced by DJ Swish #FDT Text Me ASAP +13109058659

It was all so choreographed. President Obama?s ?historic? trip to Cuba was prepped and re-prepped so that nothing would go off with a glitch. Deputy National Security Advisor Ben …

Share on Facebook 1 1 SHARES A brand new poll was JUST released by Marquette Law School, and it shows two important things: First, that Ted Cruz is pulling out to a relatively comfortable lead over Donald Trump, and second, that Kasich’s support is high enough to likely cause Cruz to lose delegates. Via the inestimable Josh Jordan, who had this before Marquette even posted | Read More »

Donald Trump is lying to us about Corey Lewandowski, and instead of calling him out on it we’re all still playing along.

There’s a long-observed adage in business: The key to success is hiring people better than you are. Today, the obverse principle was demonstrated: If you want to fail, hire like Donald Trump hires. Earlier this morning, the Republican front-runner’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, was arrested in Jupiter, Fla., on charges of simple battery against former Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields at a Trump campaign event on March 8. To anyone with even one operational eyeball, Fields’s claim — that Lewandowski yanked her by the arm when she tried to ask Trump a question as he headed toward the exit at his Trump National Golf Club — was never much in dispute. Washington Post reporter Ben Terris, who was standing beside Fields at the time of the alleged incident, corroborated Fields’s story. She tweeted pictures of the bruises on her arm. Audio of the incident emerged. Then video appeared. And on Tuesday, the Jupiter Police Department released security-camera footage that clearly shows Lewandowski grabbing Fields. #ad#But Lewandowski is not going anywhere. Discussing the charges on CNN Tuesday afternoon, Trump spokeswoman Katrina Pierson said that Lewandowski would remain with the campaign even if he is convicted. Since simple battery in Florida carries the possibility of a year-long prison stint, this could be the first presidential campaign since Eugene Debs’s to be managed from behind prison walls. For anyone still laboring under the delusion that a President Trump would fill his administration with the “best people,” this episode is incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. Trump doesn’t hire the “best people.” He hires people just like him: thuggish, hot-headed, mendacious, and concerned above all else with winning. As of late, Trump rallies have become occasions for out-and-out brawls. Trump’s canceled rally in Chicago gave experienced politicos shivers of 1968. The violence culminated earlier this month in a Trump supporter sucker-punching a protester, then telling reporters the next protester might have to be “killed,” prompting Trump to respond that he’d happily pay his felonious fan’s legal fees. This was a few weeks after Trump himself fantasized aloud about a protester at his rally in Nevada: “I’d like to punch him in the face.” RELATED: Trump Cover-Up: The Manhandling of a Reporter Meanwhile, he has spent the last week threatening, then mocking, his chief opponent’s wife on Twitter — a sequence squarely in line with his history of vile remarks toward women. Ask Megyn Kelly (“blood coming out of her . . . wherever”) or Carly Fiorina (“Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that?”). Hell, ask Trump himself, who explained how he handles women in a 1992 New York Magazine profile: “You have to treat ’em like shit.” And throughout it all, there are the lies. Trump has lied about always being against the war in Iraq — and about always being for the war in Afghanistan. He has lied about his position on single-payer health care, about self-funding his campaign, about how much he inherited, and about how much he is now worth. His personal and professional and political lives are built on one lie after another — to spouses, to business associates and employees, to voters. #share#Thuggery, misogyny, and lying are the three pillars of the Trump campaign, courtesy of the candidate himself. Is it any surprise, then, that Trump hired a campaign manager who went on to assault a woman and lie about it (Lewandowski called Fields “delusional” on Twitter)? For that matter, is it any surprise that Trump’s spokeswoman is a bigoted opportunist whose fidelity to the truth is as stalwart as Trump’s fidelity to his marriage vows? RELATED: After His Campaign Manager Was Charged with Battery, Trump Melted Down on Twitter That old adage, about hiring people better than you, is only useful to people with humility, who are invested first and foremost in the success of an enterprise, and able to subordinate their egos to it. Trump has never been like that. He does not want people better than him; he wants people who will flatter him. He doesn’t want a cabinet; he wants a cult of yes men. #related#On Tuesday afternoon, Trump took to Twitter not simply to defend Lewandowski, but to impugn Fields. He accused her of changing her story. He mused that he should sue her for battery. He tweeted a security-camera photograph of Fields, holding a pen near his arm, and asked suggestively, “What is in her hand??” — as if to suggest that Lewandowski had been protecting him from some imminent threat. In a campaign, or a White House, the culture is set from the top. Trump doesn’t hire good people, because he’s not a good person himself. He doesn’t hire honest or thoughtful or responsible people, because he’s not honest or thoughtful or responsible. He is a small, nasty, self-absorbed fabulist, and he has gathered a coterie of small, nasty, self-absorbed fabulists to prop him up. — Ian Tuttle is a William F. Buckley Fellow in Political Journalism at the National Review Institute.

The American people ought to consider the recent oral argument in Zubik v. Burwell, a case regarding religious exemptions from Obamacare’s abortifacient mandate, when considering what type of justice should fill Antonin Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court. The questions asked by several justices during that argument offer compelling reasons why the American people should reject any nominee who is not dedicated to the textualist method of legal interpretation, and any presidential candidate who might make such a nomination. #ad#President Obama recently summarized the non-textualist view when he indicated that a judge should usually “faithfully apply the law,” but in certain special cases can shape the law based on “his or her own perspective, ethics, and judgment.” That judicial philosophy is problematic because it strips the law of constitutional legitimacy and stability. Both of these deficiencies were on display during the Zubik oral argument. During that argument, several Supreme Court justices who adhere to the president’s view indicated their willingness to replace the legislatively enacted balance between religious liberty and government power with a balance that conforms to their personal judgment. For example, Justice Breyer asked several questions aimed at finding “the line” that separates cases where religious objectors are entitled to an accommodation from those where they are not. Justice Sotomayor asked the plaintiffs’ lawyers how the Court ought to maintain a balance between a plaintiffs’ request for an accommodation and the ability of the government to function smoothly. NR EXPLAINER: Little Sisters at the Supreme Court This line of questioning, which was extensively explored during the argument, highlights the tension between President Obama’s view of the judiciary and constitutional democracy. The justices’ inquiries were interesting philosophical and theoretical questions, but Congress and the president answered them when they passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”). If the American people want to revisit those questions, it is a job for the legislature and not the Court. RFRA states that “government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that” doing so is “in furtherance of a compelling government interest” and “is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” In other words, RFRA provides the very balance that the justices were looking for. The government may impose substantial burdens on a religious objector only if it can prove that doing so is necessary to further a very important governmental interest. Justices Breyer and Sotomayor may not like the RFRA balance, but Supreme Court justices are as bound to follow the law as their fellow citizens. RELATED: Little Sisters, Big Stakes Those justices, instead, indicated a willingness to flip RFRA on its head and allow the government to impose even the most draconian burden on religious objectors unless those objectors could prove the importance of their religious practices. Justice Sotomayor expressed incredulity that RFRA protects every religious exercise just because religious objectors believe that “their soul will be damned in some way.” Instead of following the law, the non-textualists would reverse RFRA’s balance by plucking the word “substantial” out of its context and reading it in a way that is illogical and unsupported by the text. Under a commonsense reading of the statute, the word “substantial” refers to the size of the legal burden imposed by the government. For example, if a law requires an Orthodox Jew to choose between working on the Sabbath and paying a fine of one dollar, it has not imposed a substantial burden. But if it requires the same Orthodox Jew to work on the Sabbath or pay a fine of $70 million per year — the actual fine in the Zubik case — it has imposed a substantial burden. Under the reading proposed by the administration and considered by several justices, the Court would need to determine whether the sin of violating the Sabbath imposed a substantial burden on Orthodox Jews. In their view, Congress used the world “substantial” to mean “theologically substantial” rather than “legally substantial.” This is not the natural reading of the text, and it is unworkable. No one has suggested a coherent legal method for determining theological significance. #share#Fortunately, the commonsense reading of the statute is also overwhelmingly supported by the rest of RFRA’s text. The law defined “religious exercise” as “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” And, as the Supreme Court noted in Hobby Lobby, Congress mandated that RFRA “be construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise . . . ” Those legally binding definitions make it impossible to contend that RFRA’s protections exclude all but the most significant religious practices. RELATED: Is the Supreme Court Going to Argue that Nuns Misunderstand Their Religion? The statute also answers Justice Sotomayor’s question about how to balance government functionality and religious liberty. RFRA contains a section of congressional findings that states: “The compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests.” Justice Sotomayor might disagree with Congress’s conclusion; if so, she is free to vote for politicians who promise to change the law. That is how law is made and updated in our constitutional republic. The justices’ questions also highlight a second problem with the president’s understanding of the judiciary. Allowing judges to interject their personal proclivities makes judicial decisions arbitrary and unpredictable — replacing the rule of law with the rule of men. RELATED: Free Speech and Religious Liberty Are Under Siege In Federalist 62, Madison writes that making frequent arbitrary changes to the law threatens democracy and “poisons the blessings of liberty itself.” He notes that democracy is imperiled when laws “undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow.” He states that “law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?” Madison was discussing the importance of Congress legislating in a cautious and deliberate manner, but the Zubik oral argument demonstrates that an imprudent Court poses the same, if not a greater, threat. A citizen who read RFRA and previous Supreme Court cases and therefore “knows what the law is today” would have been shocked to hear the justices proclaim that the law might be different tomorrow. First, he would protest that RFRA clearly answers the justices’ questions regarding which religious exercises are protected. Second, he would protest that the Court has already ruled on the relevant issue in two recent cases — Holt v. Hobbs and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby — and concluded that RFRA means what it says and applies whenever a religious person faces a substantial legal burden for violating his faith. #related#Why then, he would be left to wonder, might the law be different tomorrow? Congress has not amended RFRA, and no one has put forth a convincing argument that the Court previously misinterpreted its text. The only change that has occurred is Justice Scalia’s death. The citizen would be forced to conclude that American law is not a fixed set of neutral principles that Americans can depend on in organizing their daily lives. Rather, he would begrudgingly surmise that it is reflective of the will to power of the men and women who sit on the Supreme Court and their subjective opinions and passing whims. That citizen might know the law today, but there would be no way for him to anticipate what the law might be tomorrow. If America grants the Court such power, it will quickly become a republic in name only. The oral argument in Zubik v. Burwell should serve as a cautionary tale regarding how a Court consisting of justices sharing President Obama’s philosophy would act. The American people still have an opportunity to prevent that calamity, but time is running out. — Howard Slugh is an attorney practicing in Washington, D.C. He submitted an amicus brief in the Zubik case.

The federal government is chilling speech, professors say.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe torture can be justified to extract information from suspected terrorists, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, a level of support similar to that seen in countries like Nigeria where militant attacks are common.

Confusing tyranny with liberty.

University Moves to Fire Conservative Professor Over His Political Views

Donald Trump is a boor. He’s a vulgarian, a liar, an ignoramus. He has only the most cursory grasp of policy, a stentorian voice and a great big set of

Campus police at San Francisco State University have launched an investigation into a viral video that shows a campus employee confronting a student on campus about his dreadlocks.