Senator Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, used her ten-minute introduction during Judge Neil Gorsuch’s Supreme Court nomination hearing this morning to peddle the notion that Roe v. Wade — the 1973 landmark Supreme Court case legalizing abortion — is “super precedent.” This theory, that some court rulings cannot be reversed, has never been accepted by any U.S. court.

After submitting to the Senate’s record 14 Supreme Court cases and 39 other court decisions, all of which upheld Roe, Feinstein said, “If these judgments, when combined, do not constitute super precedent, I don’t know what does.”

No matter how much the Left loves the Supreme Court decision in Roe, neither that case nor any other constitutes “super precedent,” because super precedent does not exist.

Read More at National Review

Speaker Paul Ryan spoke at the National Review Institute’s Ideas Summit in Washington, D.C. on Friday, where he attempted to convince conservatives who are skeptical of the House GOP health-care plan (the American Health Care Act) that it is a politically viable conservative-reform effort.

Ryan told National Review’s editor Rich Lowry, who interviewed the Speaker, that the House plan gives governors freedom to customize Medicaid to the needs of their states. It establishes “more federalism” because it creates state-based, high-risk pools (with some federal funds) with the goal of keeping premiums down.

As Republican leadership and the White House have insisted since the ACHA rollout, Ryan reiterated that there will be three phases to repealing and replacing Obamacare. First, Congress must pass the ACHA to gut the fiscal components of Obamacare. Because it largely doesn’t address regulatory policy, it cannot be filibustered by Democrats in the Senate and could pass with a simple majority. In the second phase, Tom Price, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, would have the regulatory flexibility that the legislature wouldn’t necessarily have to change many components of Obamacare. And third, Congress would pass further legislation to change the parts of Obamacare that can’t be done through budget reconciliation; any changes in this phase would need to meet the 60-vote threshold in the Senate.

Read More at National Review

At the National Review Institute’s Ideas Summit, Sebastian Gorka, the deputy assistant to President Donald Trump, sat alongside National Review’s editor-at-large John O’Sullivan and American Enterprise Institute scholar Michael Auslin to discuss the role of the U.S. in the world.

Gorka told National Review’s Andrew McCarthy, who moderated the panel, that “America First” is the “antithesis of the last eight years”; “leading from behind” simply means “following,” and “the world is safer when America is leading.” If America doesn’t uphold its position as a world leader, Gorka submitted, another nation will fill the void.

President Trump understands that we are at war with Radical Islam, Gorka explained. “He wants to win that war.”

Answering a question about the recent rise in populism, Gorka countered that we must “find a new word.” In fact, he suggested, so-called “populist” movements across the world are springing up because political elites have taken to acting as if they are more intelligent than the average voter. He pointed particularly to the consolidated political power in Brussels, which European countries are increasingly rejecting, and to elite culture here in the United States.

“The Trump Train is the reassertion of democracy,” Gorka said. Laughing, McCarthy fired back, “then the Ninth Circuit says, ‘oh yea?’” (in reference to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals blocking Trump’s travel-ban executive order).

Read More at National Review

California’s K–12 public-school system is one of the worst in the country. It consistently ranks among the poorest-performing ten states, falling well below the national average.

The Golden State’s teacher shortage is one contributing factor to the state’s failing system. Enrollment in teacher-preparation programs dropped 40 percent between the 2010 and 2014 school years. Now, nearly one in three teachers are leaving their careers in the first seven years.

Some senators in the California state legislature believe that they have a solution to the state’s teacher shortage: to provide tax credits that can be applied to the costs incurred while attaining a teaching credential, and to exempt those who remain in the profession for five years or more from paying state income tax on any money earned from teaching.

Democratic senators Henry Stern and Cathleen Galgiani introduced Senate Bill 807, the Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act of 2017. If enacted, the bill would be effective until 2027, at which point it sunsets.

“Aspiring teachers in California,” the bill states, “often report the path for completing requirements for a preliminary credential, induction, and clearing a credential is uneven and costly.” The tax credit would furthermore remove these uneven costs, including the cost of “tuition for a master’s degree leading to a clear teaching credential.”

Providing tax credit for such programs may be attractive to those considering a teaching career in California. But exempting teachers from paying their state income tax is silly and costly. More than 300,000 teachers would benefit from the tax exemptions this year alone, and that number would likely rise over the next several years, costing the state over $600 million per year in lost revenues.

According to the Los Angeles Times, “the effect would be equivalent to a 4% to 6% salary increase” — and yet, the average salary for public-school teachers in California is $72,000 (the fourth highest average in the country), and one that is significantly higher than the state’s median household income of $61,000.

Indirectly increasing teacher salaries by an average of less than $4,000, while blowing a hole in the state’s budget, will not likely be the reason teachers choose to stay in their profession. This proposed solution fails to address the root of the problem: that California inadequately funds many of its schools.

Read More at National Review

President Donald Trump’s job approval rating is now at 52 percent, according to today’s Morning Consult/POLITICO poll. The poll, conducted from March 9 to March 13, also found that 46 percent of Americans believe the country is heading in the right direction under the Trump administration.

When President Obama left office, gun sales nationwide were at an all-time high. FBI background checks, one of the strongest indicators of national gun sales, totaled 27.5 million in 2016, shattering the record of 23 million set in 2015.

Although the number of FBI checks remains high, the upward trend witnessed under Obama has changed course under President Trump.

“Without the continued national threat to gun rights from Obama and Clinton,” said Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb, “gun sales have backed off new record highs.” This seemed to be the case in February when FBI background checks totaled 2.2 million, a decrease of 400,000 background checks compared to that of February 2016.

Still, while the number of guns being purchased may have decreased since Trump was elected, the demographic makeup of those purchasing firearms has changed.

According to the Washington Post, “Gun clubs and shops that cater to black and LGBT clients say there has been an uptick in interest in firearms since November among those who fear that racial and ethnic-based violence could increase during Donald Trump’s presidency.”

More than 7,000 people, for example, became members of the National African Gun Association after Election Day. Meanwhile, pro-LGBT shooting organizations such as Pink Pistols have had a surge in membership because many people in the LGBT community are worried Trump will roll back gay rights. “Suddenly they’re buying guns,” said Gwendolyn Patton, the Pink Pistols’ first speaker. “The rhetoric has flipped.”

Read More at National Review

In December 2004, the Mexican government distributed 1.5 million copies of a pamphlet titled “Guide for the Mexican Migrant,” unabashedly advising its citizens on ways to illegally migrate to the United States, one of its closest allies. The literature went as far as recommending what type of clothes to wear when crossing a river, and explaining how to stay hydrated when crossing a desert.

Now, Mexico’s ministry of foreign affairs has published “Recommendations in Case of Immigration Detention,” an infographic video advising illegal immigrants in the United States on ways to avoid deportation when approached by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, the video, which is in Spanish, is divided into two sections: “How to prepare in case of immigration and detention,” and “How to act in case of immigration detention.”

If ICE agents come to an illegal immigrant’s home, for example, the ministry advises against opening the door. And, whether questioned by ICE agents at home or at a detention facility, it tells its citizens to not reveal their immigration status.

Read More at National Review

One month has passed since U.S. district judge James Robart blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order that placed a temporary ban on refugees entering the country. Since then, the U.S. has accepted over 4,300 refugees, the majority of whom have resettled from countries inundated with militant Islam.

Trump’s executive order had imposed three bans: a 120-day ban on all refugees entering the U.S., an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees, and a 90-day ban on anyone entering the U.S. from the seven Muslim-majority countries Barack Obama deemed “countries of concern” (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen).

In total, 2,309 of the 4,355 refugees (53 percent) the U.S. accepted this past month are from these countries.

According to the Associated Press, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill sociologist professor Charles Kurzman found that “23 percent of Muslim Americans involved with extremist plots since Sept. 11 had family backgrounds from the seven countries.” With over 2,300 refugees resettling in the U.S., and without extreme vetting by the Department of Homeland Security, officials can’t be certain that ISIS isn’t radicalizing at least some of the refugee population.

For example, refugees from the Middle East and North Africa — including those from countries omitted from Trump’s list — are being recruited by ISIS as they head to Europe. Counter-extremism think tank Quilliam published a report last month that found that terrorist groups are paying smugglers’ fees to child refugees in an attempt to radicalize refugees.

Read More at National Review

During last week’s Conservative Political Action Conference, President Donald Trump’s chief strategist Steve Bannon espoused what he believes is the foundation of the Trump administration’s agenda: national security, economic nationalism, and the deconstruction of the administrative state. Elaborating on the third item, Bannon said, “The way the progressive left runs, is if they can’t get it passed, they’re just going to put in some sort of regulation in an agency.” This unnecessary expansion of the federal bureaucracy, he told the crowd, is what the Trump administration plans to deconstruct.

As David French noted last Friday,

[The REINS Act] is a simple but profoundly important bill. It prohibits any significant new agency regulation from taking effect unless it is ratified by each house of Congress. In other words, the Act will make Congress do its job. Congress will have to vote for the laws that have an impact on our lives for them to become law at all. The lawmaker will actually make law. The Founders would be pleased.

Signing into law the REINS Act would shift regulatory powers out of the bureaucracy and into the hands of elected officials, specifically when implementing regulations with major economic costs. A better way, however, would be to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution — the Regulation Freedom Amendment — that requires Congress to review all regulations.

The Madison Coalition, an organization that seeks to restore the proper balance between the states and federal government, is spearheading the movement to implement the Regulation Freedom Amendment.

“A Constitutional Amendment would bring a permanent end to ‘regulation without representation,’ no matter who controls Congress,” says the Madison Coalition’s director Roman Buhler. Ultimately, the amendment would require Congress to approve major federal regulations, and unlike the REINS Act, it would be difficult for pro-big government Congress’s to repeal in the future.

The proposed amendment has earned the endorsement of 21 state legislative chambers (seven states with bicameral legislatures), and if two-thirds of all state legislatures (34 states) pass resolutions in support the regulatory reform, Congress would be urged to — but not required to — propose and vote on the amendment. Last week, Arizona’s House became the latest legislative chamber to pass such a resolution.

Although earning support from two-thirds of the state legislatures seems to be a difficult task, it is certainly feasible. The Republican National Committee has already publicly endorsed the amendment, and if the 32 states with Republican control of both legislative chambers (plus Nebraska, a unicameral legislature with a Republican majority) pass resolutions in support of the Regulation Freedom Amendment, only one state would be missing.

Read More at National Review

Adecade ago, Martha Stowe founded True Equine, an equine-services company, a few miles south of Nashville, Tenn., in Williamson County. After earning a certificate in equine myofascial release, a massage technique that releases tension and pain in a horse’s body, Martha soon acquired a large clientele. “For performance horses, this is important,” Stowe tells National Review. “You want them to have complete range of motion.”

Two years after Stowe’s business started to rake in profits, her husband, Kirk, was deployed to Iraq — and, since his return, Kirk has been out of the workforce. “I became the sole breadwinner,” Stowe says. Ultimately, it was Stowe’s decision to specialize in equine myofascial release that allowed her family of four to stay afloat during tough times.

In April 2016, however, Stowe’s well-established business was upended when she received a threatening letter from the Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners, a board within Tennessee’s Department of Health. Only licensed veterinarians are permitted to massage horses, the board’s attorney explained, and if Stowe continued to practice myofascial release, she could be fined up to $500 and receive a six-month jail sentence.

“I was terrified,” Stowe says. “I didn’t do any myofascial from the day I received the letter until about June, but then I realized there was no way we could pay our bills if I didn’t do it.” So, she resumed her occupation, aware that at any point she could be arrested.

Stowe wasn’t alone.

The board also sent the letter to fellow Williamson County resident Laurie Wheeler, a professional jazz musician and licensed massage therapist who, like Stowe, is certified in equine myofascial release. Wheeler had treated horses — on a volunteer basis — for years. She began doing so after witnessing the positive effect myofascial release had on her horse, Jazz. “I would see horses in need and I would treat them,” she says.

Upon receiving the veterinary board’s letter, Wheeler was stunned — after all, she was certified, and not only that, she had never even accepted money for her services. But, she says, the government threatened to “fine me and put me in jail for voluntarily working on animals.” For Wheeler, helping horses is more than a volunteer position or an occupation; it’s a call to duty.

Like Stowe, Wheeler stopped massaging horses once she received the board’s letter. But, a few months later, when she witnessed a horse in need after an impaction formed in his intestines, she felt she had to act, regardless of the potential consequences. “I didn’t care. I put my hands on [the horse’s] belly for a while, maybe three to four hours, and he passed his impaction that night,” she says. “If I’m needed, I go. Period.”

Both women disregarded the veterinary board’s warnings and subsequently looked to the Beacon Center of Tennessee, a free-market think tank, for legal representation. According to Braden Boucek, director of litigation for the Beacon Center, the board’s decision to allow only licensed veterinarians to massage horses is a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s equal-protection clause.

Moreover, because the Constitution protects private property, which in turn protects the right to acquire property and the right to earn a living, the board’s decision violates the 14th Amendment. The board is prohibiting Stowe from practicing the skills that she relies on to earn a living, says Boucek.

“The list of things you can do legally to animals without a veterinary degree,” Boucek says, “includes castration, dehorning, artificial insemination, and transplanting a frozen embryo.” Boucek argues that by allowing people who are not licensed veterinarians to perform these procedures but prohibiting them from massaging horses, the board is depriving them of equal protection under the law.

‘The real kicker is that veterinary schools aren’t required to teach animal massage as part of the curriculum.’ — Braden Boucek

“The real kicker,” he adds, “is that veterinary schools aren’t required to teach animal massage as part of the curriculum.” Which is to say that the board’s requirement that persons hold a veterinary degree in order to massage a horse is fundamentally silly — because students wouldn’t learn the skills in veterinary school that they would in an equine-myofascial-release certificate program.

What’s more, both Stowe and Wheeler have collaborated with veterinarians in Williamson County, and the veterinarians value their feedback. “I am an asset to them,” Stowe says, “because I have hands on the horses at least an hour at a time.”

Read More at National Review