Category: democrats
Democrats Take Over State, Immediately Move To Soften Crime Laws
state House’s Courts of Justice Committee is weighing soft-on-crime legislation
‘Moderate’ Abigail Spanberger Appoints Two Qatari Lobbyists To Serve on George Mason University Board
Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D., Va.) has appointed two Qatari lobbyists to serve on George Mason University’s board of visitors, a Washington Free Beacon review has found.
The post ‘Moderate’ Abigail Spanberger Appoints Two Qatari Lobbyists To Serve on George Mason University Board appeared first on .
‘How low can they go?’ Maryland Democrat seeks to punish Trump-era ICE agents for doing their job
Democrats have made no secret of their contempt for the men and women of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement who daily put their lives at risk to keep dangerous criminal noncitizens off American streets.
Evidently keen to go beyond just demonizing ICE agents, a Maryland Democrat has proposed legislation that would deny them future jobs in the crime-ridden state’s enforcement agencies.
Adrian Boafo, a Democrat member of Maryland’s House of Delegates who is currently running for Congress, proposed legislation earlier this month titled the “ICE Breaker Act of 2026,” aimed at punishing “those who are motivated to support this Administration’s immigration policies and principles by joining ICE.”
‘The ICE Breaker Act of 2026 is an unserious, frankly stupid bill.’
“Under Donald Trump, Steven Miller [sic] and Kristi Noem, ICE has ceased to function as a lawful and legitimate law enforcement agency,” said Boafo. “Instead it operates as a lawless and unconstitutional paramilitary operation.”
“Accordingly, this bill prevents individuals who chose to join ICE after January 20, 2025 in support of this administration’s immigration agenda from serving in trusted law-enforcement positions within Maryland state government,” added Boafo, who claimed elsewhere that ICE agents are neither trained nor qualified to serve as police.
The Department of Homeland Security recently indicated that ICE received over 220,000 applications and hired well over 10,000 new officers over the past year, doubling the number of personnel from 10,000 to roughly 22,000.
Boafo, the son of Ghanaian immigrants, will reportedly formally introduce the bill when the General Assembly reconvenes this week and has promised to introduce similar legislation in Congress if elected in the midterms.
Adrian Boafo. Photo by Eric Lee/Washington Post/Getty Images
The proposed legislation has been condemned by various officials in the state.
Harford County Sheriff Jeff Gahler suggested Boafo’s bill was “another poorly thought out piece of legislation and one motivated purely by political purposes.”
Gahler told WBFF-TV that ICE agents “have a legitimate law enforcement mission to fulfill, and this delegate wants to punish them for taking an oath of office and doing the job they are constitutionally sworn to do.”
“How sad can Maryland’s legislature — how low can they go?” said Gahler. “The hate, the Trump derangement syndrome would be the basis.”
Betsy Smith, spokeswoman for the National Police Association, underscored that contrary to Boafo’s suggestion, ICE agents have to undergo strict scrutiny and relevant testing in order to join state law enforcement agencies.
“It sounds as though this politician wants people to believe that an ICE agent can just come into their town and tomorrow be a patrol officer,” Smith told WBFF. “It’s simply ridiculous.”
Smith further stressed that it is “ridiculous to not hire ICE agents during a police understaffing crisis.”
“This is a dumb idea,” Republican Del. Kathy Szeliga told the Washington Post. “Law enforcement hiring should be based on the training, experience, and conduct of the candidate, not a partisan litmus test tied to some president you don’t like.”
Maryland House Minority Leader Jason Buckel (R) cast doubt on the legality of the proposed legislation and suggested it was “not worthy of serious consideration.”
Republican Del. Matt Morgan emphasized the discriminatory nature of the proposed hiring ban, writing, “What about ICE agents hired under Biden or Obama? The ICE Breaker Act of 2026 is an unserious, frankly stupid bill for the purpose of political pandering.”
Despite its vilification by Boafo and other Maryland Democrats, ICE has worked overtime to make the state safer.
For instance, earlier this month, ICE arrested Oscar Miguel Argueta-Del Cid, an illegal alien from El Salvador who was convicted of sexually abusing a minor in Montgomery County, and last month ICE arrested Kevin Alexis Mendex-Ortiz, a criminal noncitizen from Honduras who caused a head-on collision in Prince George’s County that sent an American citizen to hospital with life-threatening injuries.
Blaze News has reached out to the Department of Homeland Security for comment.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Only Government Force Can Stop Democrats From Plunging America Into Darkness
Democrats created the situation America finds itself in, and only a forceful crackdown on leftist anarchy will restore cultural stability.
Dem Leader Goes On Bizarre Rant Against Her Own ‘Cuck’ Senators
‘How about you all stay focused on the fascist in the White House and let us handle redistricting in Virginia. 10-1’
Michigan’s El-Sayed Boasted of Refusing To Face American Flag for National Anthem During Iraq War
Abdul El-Sayed, a candidate in the Democratic primary for Michigan’s open Senate seat, boasted that, when he was a college athlete, he refused to face the American flag during the national anthem because he opposed the Iraq war.
The post Michigan’s El-Sayed Boasted of Refusing To Face American Flag for National Anthem During Iraq War appeared first on .
Judges now veto Trump prosecutors after the Senate stalls confirmations
One of the core executive powers is the authority to prosecute criminals. Article II of the Constitution assigns “the executive power” — all of it — to the president of the United States. In practice, the power to execute the laws against those who have violated them is delegated by the president to the attorney general, the Department of Justice she heads, and the 93 U.S. attorneys spread across the country.
Yet since he took office for the second time last January, President Trump and his attorney general, Pam Bondi, have had a heck of a time getting their people in place.
The criminal prosecution work of the US attorneys’ offices does not abate while Washington plays out its slow-walking games.
Of the roughly 50 U.S. attorney nominations the president has sent to the Senate, fewer than half — just 19 — had been confirmed by December 15, and all of those but three were confirmed en masse in October, some 10 months after Trump took office. Although another 13 were confirmed en masse on December 18, 14 are still awaiting confirmation as we approach the one-year mark of Trump’s second term.
A good bit of the holdup is caused by the Senate’s “blue-slip” process, whereby nominations will not be considered unless both senators from the nominee’s home state return a blue slip allowing the nominee to be considered.
Originally designed to allow input from the elected senators who presumably are most familiar with the nominee’s qualifications and temperament — the “advice” part of the “advice and consent” process mentioned in the Constitution — the refusal to return a blue slip has become an obstructionist tactic deployed by Democratic senators bent on blocking as much of Trump’s agenda as they can.
But the criminal prosecution work of the U.S. attorneys’ offices does not abate while Washington plays out its slow-walking games, and the president of the United States — the nation’s top executive and chief law enforcement officer, who has the constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” — needs to have people in charge of those offices.
RELATED: The ‘blue-slip block’ is GOP cowardice masquerading as tradition
Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Democratic obstruction
The Constitution’s default rule for the appointment of U.S. attorneys is presidential nomination followed by Senate confirmation. But because U.S. attorneys are “inferior officers” in the Constitution’s language, Congress can allow for appointments by the president alone, by the heads of the executive departments, or by the courts of law. It has done so by allowing the attorney general to appoint “interim” U.S. attorneys for up to 120 days to fill vacancies.
But after the 120-day period expires, the interim can remain in charge of the office only if the district court in that jurisdiction approves. Six of the U.S. attorneys appointed to interim positions have been rejected by their respective district courts: Bill Essayli in the Central District of California, Julianne Murray in the District of Delaware, Sigal Chattah in the District of Nevada, Alina Habba in the District of New Jersey, Ryan Ellison in the District of New Mexico, and John Sarcone in the Northern District of New York. Not surprisingly, five of these district courts are overwhelmingly stacked with Democrat-appointed judges, another outgrowth of the more aggressive “blue-slip” policy that has been deployed by Democratic senators in the last decade.
The Nevada District Court has seven judges, for example, and all seven were appointed by either President Obama or President Biden. It’s the same situation with the Northern District of New York, where all five judges on that court were appointed by Obama or Biden. The New Jersey District Court has 17 judges, and all but two (both George W. Bush appointees, not Trump appointees) were appointed by either Obama or Biden. The Central District of California has 28 judges, and fewer than one-third were appointed by Republicans. And five of the seven federal judges in New Mexico were appointed by Obama or Biden.
Alina Habba, who brought the indictment against Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) for interfering with Immigration and Customs Enforcement enforcement operations, was famously disqualified by the District Court in New Jersey after the cumulative 120-day period expired. And Lindsey Halligan — the interim U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia who obtained the high-profile indictments of former FBI Director James Comey for allegedly lying to Congress and of New York Attorney General Letitia James for allegedly falsely claiming a home in Virginia as her personal residence in order to obtain a more favorable mortgage interest rate — was disqualified by her local district court after the 120-day interim period in that office expired.
The bigger obstacle
The Department of Justice has said it will challenge these disqualifications on appeal. One issue will be whether the 120-day limit on the interim appointment authority is cumulative or successive. That is, if someone is appointed as interim U.S. attorney and then resigns before the expiration of the 120 days, does the attorney general get to appoint a new, different interim to fill the new vacancy for another 120 days, or does the new interim appointee only get to serve until the original 120-day clock expires?
The practice has been the latter, but that leaves the president without someone to exercise his executive authority in charge of the office, as long as the obstruction tactics in the Senate hold. That seems to be a big threat to the president’s ability to take care that the laws be faithfully executed and therefore a big Article II executive authority problem.
An even bigger obstacle for Trump, though one that has not received much attention, is the separation-of-powers problem lurking in this statutory scheme, which requires approval by the district court at the conclusion of the 120-day period.
Yes, the Constitution’s text allows for the appointment of inferior officers by the courts of law, which would technically allow Congress to create a scheme whereby the courts appoint the prosecutors who prosecute cases before them.
There is nothing in the records of sparse debate during the 1787 federal convention to suggest the drafters had such an interbranch appointment authority in mind however. Rather it would seem more likely that they intended inferior executive officers to be appointed by the president alone, or the heads of the executive departments, and inferior judicial officers to be appointed by the courts of law.
RELATED: Ketanji Brown Jackson still can’t define ‘woman,’ yet rewrites sex law
Photo by Arturo Holmes/Getty Images for ESSENCE
When it upheld the independent prosecutor law in the 1988 case of Morrison v. Olson, which had provided for the appointment by a “Special Division” of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the Supreme Court rejected that interbranch argument, but it also pointed out that the independent prosecutor statute was designed to allow for investigation and prosecution of high-ranking officials in the executive branch, and the interbranch appointment process therefore avoided the obvious conflicts of interest.
No such conflict exists in the run-of-the-mill appointment (or rejection) by district courts of interim U.S. attorneys at the expiration of the 120-day interim period. The interbranch appointment authority raises serious separation-of-powers concerns, and the Supreme Court has been particularly solicitous of them in recent years. It also raises serious concerns about the president’s ability to take care that the laws be faithfully executed when the people executing them are not the ones he has chosen.
A century ago, in the case of Humphrey’s Executor v. the United States, the Supreme Court upheld congressional restrictions on the ability of the president to remove executive branch officials. But already on the Supreme Court’s docket this term is a case, Trump v. Slaughter, in which most observers rightly predict that it will overrule that old, New Deal-era case and restore a large measure of control of the executive branch to the head of that branch, the president — the only member of the entire executive branch that we the people actually elect.
If the Slaughter case ends up slaughtering the bad constitutional law from Humphrey’s Executor, it does not take much imagination to conclude that the question of judges appointing prosecutors who appear before them — that is, those officials who exercise the core executive function of prosecuting crimes — should also be in for a very serious reconsideration.
Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at the American Mind.
Hunter Biden’s Baby Mama Wants Him Jailed Over Broken Child Support Deal
The mother of Hunter Biden’s 7-year-old daughter, Lunden Roberts, filed a motion in an Arkansas court Tuesday asking a judge to incarcerate the former first son for failing to comply with their 2023 child support agreement.
The post Hunter Biden’s Baby Mama Wants Him Jailed Over Broken Child Support Deal appeared first on .
