“A remarkable Jewish renaissance is under way in Florida. Jewish schools and synagogues are rapidly expanding. Jews from the Northeast and Midwest, as well as Latin America and Israel, are migrating to the Sunshine State in significant numbers, making the Jewish communities there lively and varied. Florida’s booming and low-tax economy is no doubt one of the attractions to young Jews seeking to build a prosperous future for themselves and their families. So is Florida’s educational system, which provides tax credits that assist many parents in sending their children to Jewish day schools.
A few years ago, we helped launch the Jewish Leadership Conference, an annual gathering to consider the challenges facing the Jewish people and Israel. It is hosted by Tikvah, a 20-year old Jewish educational and cultural institution whose main activity in America is teaching young Jews about Jewish history and civilization. We thought it would be interesting to invite Gov. Ron DeSantis to discuss how the “Florida model” has contributed to the growth and vitality of Jewish life in his state. The event was to be held at the Museum of Jewish Heritage in New York City. Until, as the saying goes, we got canceled.
Over the years, Tikvah has hosted numerous conferences at the museum, always including prominent Jewish, Israeli and American thinkers and leaders of various political and religious points of view. We were working closely with the museum on the details for the June 12 event—until, out of the blue, we were told by the museum staff that Mr. DeSantis didn’t “align with the museum’s values and its message of inclusivity.” Either we disinvite the governor, they said, or our event was unwelcome.
Throughout the modern age, Jews have suffered the consequences of this kind of intolerance. We see it all the time on college campuses, where anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism have become a tolerated (and even celebrated) form of discrimination. We see it in the boycott, divest and sanctions movement, which advocates treating Israel as a pariah. We see it in the U.N., with its odious anti-Israel Human Rights Council and with Amnesty International’s “apartheid state” calumny.
But we know things are bad when a Jewish institution—in this case, a museum whose purpose is to keep Jewish heritage alive by remembering the Holocaust—turns on its own and tries to make a virtue of its own intolerance…”
Five years ago the Journal’s prescient Kim Strassel published “The Intimidation Game” about the political left’s bare-knuckled attempts to silence conservatives. Now the so-called progressives who run much of the American government are encouraging or condoning efforts to bully the Supreme Court into political obedience.
The liberal response to Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade was as predictable as it was substance-free.Forget any discussion about the legal reasoning in the case. Or any soul-searching as to how Democrats came to face a 6-3 conservative high-court majority.Or any internal debate about how the party might craft an agenda that resonates with the public, so that it can maintain its hold on power and begin the process of reshaping the court.
Instead, Democrats proposed to burn every Washington institution down. Party leaders and activists openly attempted to intimidate the justices, hoping to change the outcome.
The unapologetic effort to bring political pressure to bear on the judiciary is shocking even to some media folk. Here’s the transcript of an interview T.J. Holmes of ABC News conducted this week with Rep. Karen Bass (D., Calif.) after Justice Alito’s draft opinion was leaked:
Mr. Holmes: Congresswoman, the Chief Justice called this an egregious breach, this leak. What should happen to the person who leaked this? It might not rise to the level of a criminal act, but–but it’s not just that this was a leak. This was a leak in this particular case, at this particular moment. What should happen to the person who leaked this?
Rep. Bass: Well, I think it’s going to be very curious as to who that person was and what their motives were, but I do have to say, I’m glad that it was leaked, because now maybe, just maybe, the justices will rethink this as they see the outrage spread across the country. We know that–or at least we are hearing, that some vote took place, but we also know in the process before a final decision is made there could be other drafts. We have to see what the Chief Justice is going to do. So, maybe, maybe, it provides a little bit of hope that this will not ultimately be the decision of the Supreme Court.
Mr. Holmes: Well, Congresswoman, that’s a touchy road to go down as well, to think we–we want the court not to be influenced by politics. Are you saying now that this is out there that maybe they will see the backlash and change their minds? We don’t want our court to be doing that either, to be influenced by public opinion or debate out there, do we?
Rep. Bass: Well, seriously, we know the court is always impacted by public opinion. Absolutely. And I’m just saying that maybe it gives an opportunity for them to rethink that. But I think that it would be naive to think that the court is not influenced by public opinion.
Mr. Holmes: Well, call me the naive American out there, Congresswoman.
Call Mr. Holmes sensible and responsible for recognizing the role of the judicial branch in interpreting the law, not bending to political will. He stands in stark contrast to elected Democrats who casually and recklessly attempt to influence America’s independent judiciary.
Readers may recall a pathetic non-apology issued in Washington two years ago. NBC’s Rebecca Shabad of NBC News reported at the time:
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Thursday that he regretted saying that two Supreme Court justices “won’t know what hit” them if they vote to uphold abortion restrictions, but insisted he was not making a threat and offered no apology.
This week anyone hoping for a clear White House rejection of the intimidation game has been disappointed. Here’s the transcript of Thursday evening’s White House press conference, when Press Secretary Jen Psaki was questioned by Peter Doocy of Fox News:
Q… So, you guys had some time yesterday talking about what you think are the extreme wings of the Republican Party. Do you think the progressive activists that are now planning protests outside some of the justices’ houses are extreme?
MS. PSAKI: Peaceful protest? No. Peaceful protest is not extreme.
Q But some of these justices have young kids. Their neighbors are not all public figures. So would the President think about waving off activists that want to go into residential neighborhoods in Virginia and Maryland?
MS. PSAKI: Peter, look, I think our view here is that peaceful protest — there’s a long history in the United States and the country of that. And we certainly encourage people to keep it peaceful and not resort to any level of violence. Let me tell you what I was referring to and what the President was referring to yesterday.
Q Not about yesterday, though — just about moving forward. These activists posted a map with the home addresses of the Supreme Court justices. Is that the kind of thing this President wants to help your side make their point?
MS. PSAKI: Look, I think the President’s view is that there’s a lot of passion, a lot of fear, a lot of sadness from many, many people across this country about what they saw in that leaked document. We obviously want people’s privacy to be respected. We want people to protest peacefully if they want to — to protest. That is certainly what the President’s view would be.
Q So he doesn’t care if they’re protesting outside the Supreme Court or outside someone’s private residence?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have an official U.S. government position on where people protest. I want it — we want it, of course, to be peaceful. And certainly, the President would want people’s privacy to be respected. But I think we shouldn’t lose the point here: The reason people are protesting is because women across the country are worried about their fundamental rights that have been law for 50 years. Their rights to make choices about their own bodies and their own healthcare are at risk. That’s why people are protesting. They’re unhappy. They’re scared.
As far as the President’s duty to enforce federal law, a reader shares the text of 18 U.S. Code § 1507, which states:
Picketing or parading
Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt.
“Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) said a national abortion ban is “possible” if Roe v. Wade is overturned, days after a leaked majority draft opinion suggested the Court may be poised to do just that.
However, McConnell also told USA Today that he would not abandon the filibuster for any reason, making it unlikely that such a measure would reach the 60-vote threshold needed to pass, even if Republicans regained control of the Senate.
“No carve out of the filibuster – period,” the Republican leader said.“For any subject.”…”
Given Mitch’s repeated demonstrations of political adroitness, particularly when it comes to SCOTUS appointments, we’re tempted to give him the benefit of the doubt this is a masterful Machiavellian move beyond the understanding of your humble scribe…but we doubt it. Still, we report, you decide, so please express your opinion in our latest poll, located on the right hand side of the column just below the top of the page.
Moving on, here’s a quintet of items certain to pique the interest of inquiring Conservative minds:
On Twitter, I keep seeing people — presumably liberal or progressive — who say, “I don’t worry about high oil and gas prices, because I drive a Tesla!” (These are often the same people who said they will sell their Tesla if Elon Musk bought Twitter.)
I ask these MENSA candidates, who are so convinced that high gas prices don’t affect them because they’ve got an electric car: How do you think all the stuff you buy gets to the store?“
Here’s a second shot of the juice, in meme form courtesy of Balls Cotton:
“Gender dysphoria is characterized by a strong, persistent cross-gender identification associated with anxiety, depression, irritability, and often a wish to live as a gender different from the one associated with the sex assigned at birth.”
Here’s the juice: the Merck Manual, with no supporting scientific evidence to support its’ decision, has just discarded decades of medical precedence and declared thinking you’re a different gender than the one God assigned you at birth is no longer…
…a mental illness. Yeah,…
Which brings us, appropriately enough, to The Lighter Side:
Then there’s these from Balls Cotton….
…and the lovely Shannon:
Finally, we’ll call it a wrap with yet another sordid story straight from the pages of The Crime Blotter, one which, the headline’s suggestion of uniqueness notwithstanding…
…did anyone actually research recent shootings in Philadelphia…
…before selecting this headline?!? ‘Cause that took US less than 60 seconds. Sorry, but this strikes us as a simple case of SS/SC/DD: Same sh*t, same city, different day. Seriously.
Magoo
Video of the Day
Talking with an old friend and classmate with intimate knowledge of the situation, this report doesn’t tell the half of it. Another black eye for a once-proud Navy now subservient to political correctness rather than combat readiness.
Tales of The Darkside
Charlie Kirk utterly DESTROYS the Progressive myth of While Privilege and systemic American racism.
On the Lighter Side
“Nothing like a hot lunch with a segregationist”, political commentator Dave Rubin tweeted, while Pluribus editor Jeryl Bier wrote,”For one, Biden admitting just casually sharing meals with ‘real segregationists’; second, ‘real segregationists’ seems to be an implied admission that when he says stuff today like ‘Jim Crow 2.0’, he knows it’s not real.”
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.