Wednesday's HOT MIC
The Ohio desk is busy today:
You remember this guy:
But he's not in hot water for his pervy and extremely creepy defense of Al Franken. He's being accused of judicial misconduct for running for governor while still a member of the Supreme Court, a violation of Ohio’s Code of Judicial Conduct. Good riddance, weirdo.
Happening in Ohio:
Which evoked the usual hysterical weeping and gnashing of teeth from the pro-death crowd:
Because, you know, an innocent third party who had nothing to do with the crime deserves to be ground up like meat in the garbage disposal or something.
A needed chaser of truth:
UPDATE: You can't make this stuff up:
Immigration enforcement advocates have been wondering why this hasn't been pursued earlier.
Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen confirmed Tuesday that her department has asked federal prosecutors to see if they can lodge criminal charges against sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with federal deportation efforts.
“The Department of Justice is reviewing what avenues may be available,” Ms. Nielsen told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Her confirmation came after California’s new sanctuary law went into effect Jan. 1, severely restricting cooperation the state or any of its localities could offer.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Tom Homan says those policies put his officers and local communities at more risk because they have to arrest illegal immigrants out in the community.
Mr. Homan told The Washington Times last July that he wanted to see local officials charged as complicit in human smuggling if they shielded illegal immigrants through sanctuary policies.
It certainly is a novel approach, but probably doomed to fail. The problem has been the Supreme Court, which has ruled several times that state and local governments are not required to assist ICE in enforcing immigration law.
If that's true, why do state and local government assist the government in enforcing drug laws or gun laws?
Sanctuary policies are the closest thing to nullification we've had in the U.S. since just before the Civil War.
As I was saying...
This is coming from Andrew Malcolm, not not some reflexive NeverTrumper or any of the Democrats-with-a-byline at the major publications. So read up and pay attention.
So far, a record 31 Republicans are quitting the House. That’s 13 percent of the entire caucus — and it’s only January. Perhaps they sense a Democrat wave in November. Some are term-limited as committee chairs. Some simply tired of the hassle, the bitter partisan environment and perhaps this president.
The last time so many exits occurred was 1994, President Clinton’s first midterm, when 28 Democrats left, followed by the wave election of Newt Gingrich’s Republican Revolution.
The reasons for the latest exodus are varied and revealing, from burnout and the likelihood of defeat to ambition for higher office.
More importantly, this burst of individual departures taken together demolishes most political expectations for next November’s midterm elections. Voters in modern times have preferred divided D.C. government, the White House held by one party, and at least one congressional chamber held by the other.
The Senate is probably safe, so Trump's judicial nominations should continue sailing through even past November.
But even that's a small comfort at best. In 2015, 2016, pundits were looking at the Democrats' terrible 2018 Senate battlefield, and wondering if the GOP might be able to pick up enough seats for a filibuster-proof majority.
Nobody, and I mean nobody, is still talking about that possibility, even though the map hasn't changed one bit.