U.S. Senate Democrats have introduced legislation amending the constitution to establish term limits for Supreme Court justices — but with no term limits for Congress in sight. Sens. Joe Manchin, I-W. Va., and Peter Welch, D-Vt., brought the bill forth this week limiting future Supreme Court appointees to 18-year terms. Manchin, along with Kyrsten Sinema, I-Az., recently angered Democrats’ left-most base in spoiling a Democrat-controlled National Labor Relations Board.
However, the proposed legislation may violate Article III of the Constitution. But what would happen if such a measure were taken up? The appointment of a new justice in the wake of a current justice’s rotation off the court might eventually inaugurate a cycle wherein a new justice was appointed every two years.
In other words, court appointments will be directly indexed to the winning presidential ticket. Advocates have said such a move would lower the temperature of Senate confirmation hearings. Whether that would actually transpire is unclear, but it would surely raise the stakes in presidential campaigns. In any event, the legislation represents a guarantee of two appointments per term, increasing the stakes in controlling the executive branch, if not a technical increase in executive power.
Voters in Alameda County, California, have recalled District Attorney Pamela Price, marking the first time the county has removed an elected DA from office.
Price, who was backed by George Soros and known for her “criminal justice reform” policies, was ousted by a significant margin in one of California’s most left-leaning areas, which includes the city of Oakland.
Early Wednesday morning, Alameda County released unofficial results showing that 64.8% of voters supported recalling Price, while 35.2% voted to keep her.
Although official results may take a few days to finalize, the recall’s outcome underscores growing dissatisfaction with progressive criminal justice policies, even in traditionally liberal communities.
According to Mercury News, Price’s recall represents a notable shift in attitudes toward criminal justice reform in California.
Price, who had been in office for less than two years of her six-year term, had faced mounting criticism over policies that many residents saw as too lenient on crime.
Her approach included measures aimed at reducing incarceration and supporting alternatives to prosecution for certain offenses, but critics argued that these policies contributed to rising crime in Oakland and other parts of Alameda County.
Price was one of several progressive prosecutors across the country whose campaigns received financial backing from billionaire George Soros.
Soros has supported numerous candidates promoting criminal justice reform, particularly those who ran on platforms aligned with the Black Lives Matter movement.
However, in California, backlash against these policies has become increasingly visible.
Last year, voters in San Francisco recalled DA Chesa Boudin, another Soros-backed prosecutor, after widespread complaints about rising crime and public safety issues.
During her tenure, Price faced a series of controversies that fueled public discontent.
Notably, her laptop was stolen from her car in Oakland—a city grappling with escalating crime and the effects of “defund the police” policies that led to reduced law enforcement resources.
Price was also accused of nepotism after hiring her boyfriend, despite concerns raised about his background.
Beyond local recalls, California voters have taken other actions to address crime and safety concerns.
In recent state elections, a large majority voted in favor of Proposition 36, a measure designed to counteract some of the unintended consequences of Proposition 47, which passed in 2014.
Proposition 47 reduced penalties for certain theft and drug offenses, but critics say it has contributed to an increase in retail theft, looting, and other crimes.
Proposition 36 aims to reintroduce stricter measures, signaling a statewide shift toward policies that prioritize public safety over leniency.
The recall effort against Price gained momentum as Oakland residents and business owners voiced frustration with policies they believed were inadequate for dealing with the city’s crime issues.
Under Price’s leadership, Oakland had experienced a surge in crime, prompting criticism from citizens who felt that public safety was not being adequately addressed.
The recall’s success could influence similar efforts in other regions, as voters reconsider the impact of progressive criminal justice policies.
Alameda County’s decision to recall Price may have broader implications for the future of progressive criminal justice reforms in California and across the U.S. Price’s removal, along with the recent recalls and defeats of other high-profile reformist prosecutors, highlights a potential shift in public opinion.
As California’s bluest areas push back against progressive policies perceived as ineffective, the state may see a return to more traditional approaches to criminal justice in an effort to curb crime and enhance public safety.
A shocking video in which a California mother said she was prosecuted by then-Attorney General Kamala Harris has gone viral.
Before entering Congress, Harris was Attorney General for the Golden State. Under her jurisdiction, the now-Vice President implemented changes to California’s truancy law, threatening parents whose kids were absent from school with jail time – regardless of circumstance.
One mother, Cheree Peoples, was a victim of Harris’ strict enforcement, and shared her story for the “Arrested By Kamala” website.
Peoples said that Harris had her arrested and prosecuted because “my handicapped daughter was sick in the hospital and had missed some days of school.”
Because her daughter, Shayla, had missed more than 10% of her school days, an arrest warrant was issued against Peoples. She was then arrested, and told to take her complaints to the Attorney General’s office.
Peoples would face the next two years fighting the charges while simultaneously struggling to care for her unwell daughter. She would also lose her job, meaning she was unable to pay rent and was subsequently evicted.
People’s says in the video:
In 2012, like all parents, I received a threatening letter from California Attorney General Kamala Harris saying I’ll go to jail for a year if our kids missed 10% of school days. Little did I know, there was a warrant out for my arrest. All of a sudden the police are outside my house, banging on the door. They told me I was under arrest for my child missing school. I was shocked.
I said, “But my baby is sick, the school knows that!” And they said, “Go talk to Kamala Harris, place your hands behind your back.”
Watch her full story below:
MUST WATCH: When Kamala Harris was District Attorney in California, she arrested a mother because her sick handicapped daughter missed some days of school.
“Look, I am not a political person, but I want people to know what Kamala Harris did to me,” she concluded. “If she can do it to me, she will abuse anyone if you give her the power.”
Many were outraged when the video was shared on social media.
Several commentors also described the Democratic presidential nominee as “evil”.
A woman accused of stabbing a three-year-old boy to death has been sent to a rehabilitation clinic by a Democrat judge.
Bionca Ellis, 33, was deemed not fit to stand trial for the killing of thee-year-old Julian Wood outside a Cleveland, OH, grocery store on Wednesday, June 3, 2024.
Prosecutors say Ellis was inside the Giant Eagle store when she spotted Wood with his mother, Margot. As the mother was loading her groceries into her vehicle, Ellis charged towards the pair with a knife, fatally stabbing the child.
On Friday, Sept. 13, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge John Russo said Ellis – seen smiling during court proceedings in June – would remain hospitalized indefinitely until she is deemed fit to stand trial.
While the position as judge for the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas General Division is nonpartisan, he did run in the Democrat primary for the position before running unopposed.
A preliminary trial date of Dec. 9 has been scheduled, with Ellis’ bail set at $5 million dollars.
Many were critical of the judge’s decision on social media.
In a resounding victory for traditional values and parental rights, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has given Florida the green light to enforce its ban on so-called “gender-affirming care” for minors. This decision overturns a lower court’s misguided attempt to block the law, proving once again that conservative principles are winning the day in the Sunshine State.
The 2-1 ruling, handed down by a panel of judges in Atlanta, allows Florida to prohibit transgender minors from receiving puberty blockers and hormonal treatments, even with parental consent. This common-sense measure protects vulnerable children from making life-altering decisions they may later regret. It’s a much-needed safeguard against the radical left’s agenda to push gender ideology on our youth.
Trump-Appointed Judges Lead the Charge
Kudos to Judges Britt Grant and Robert Luck, both appointed by former President Donald Trump, for forming the majority in this crucial decision. Their ruling demonstrates the importance of having conservative judges on the bench who respect the will of the people and the legislative process.
“The district court likely misapplied the presumption that the legislature acted in good faith when it concluded that the prohibition and regulation provisions, and the implementing rules, were based on invidious discrimination against transgender minors and adults,” the court stated in its ruling.
This statement exposes the liberal bias of the lower court judge who had initially blocked the law. It’s refreshing to see the appeals court set the record straight and recognize that Florida’s lawmakers had legitimate concerns in mind when passing this legislation.
DeSantis Vindicated
Governor Ron DeSantis, a staunch defender of traditional values, had predicted this outcome. His unwavering commitment to protecting Florida’s children from the transgender agenda has been vindicated. DeSantis’ leadership on this issue serves as a blueprint for other conservative states looking to push back against the radical left’s attempts to indoctrinate our youth.
“This will be reversed, there’s no question this will be reversed,” DeSantis had confidently stated, referring to the lower court’s decision. Once again, he’s been proven right.
While liberals cry foul and claim discrimination, the fact remains that this law is about protecting children and preserving parents’ rights to make medical decisions for their families without undue influence from activist groups. It’s a victory for common sense and traditional family values.
As Florida leads the charge in this crucial battle, it’s clear that the tide is turning against the radical gender ideology that has been pushed on our society. With 26 states now adopting similar laws, it’s evident that Americans are waking up to the dangers of allowing minors to make irreversible medical decisions.
This ruling is a wake-up call for those who thought they could use the courts to override the will of the people. It’s time for other states to follow Florida’s lead and stand up for our children’s future. The fight to protect our values and our families continues, and today, we can celebrate a significant victory in that ongoing struggle.
Manage Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
