Pennsylvania Supreme Court Endorses Nancy Pelosi For House Speaker

Ahead of the 2016 election, state Supreme Courts demanded the creation of new Congressional districts for three of the nation’s largest swing states; Florida, Virginia and North Carolina.  Plaintiffs had filed suit against the original Congressional maps, first drawn after the 2010 Census, arguing that some of the districts violated the Constitution by taking race into account.  The Democrats picked up a net gain of two seats in Florida as a result of the new map and picked up one seat in Virginia.  The new map in North Carolina did not yield the Democrats any new seats.  Altogether, the Democrats achieved a net gain of six House seats in the 2016 election, meaning that half of their net gain came from the redistricting.   

 

The League of Women Voters, whom you might occasionally find marching on the streets with hats designed to resemble female genitalia, challenged Pennsylvania’s congressional districts in Court, arguing that the original map gave Republicans an unfair advantage.  The Democratic-dominated Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed, striking down the map and advising the legislature to try and stick to county and municipal boundaries when drawing the new Congressional map, which will go into effect for this year’s midterm elections.  In other words, try to avoid splitting counties.  The Republican legislature came forward with its new map, which reduced the number of split counties from 28 to 15.  However, the state’s Democratic Governor, a slightly taller, thinner version of the Monopoly Man, rejected the map.  For the record, it looks like Democrats actually could win elections under the old map, as the results of the Special Election in Pennsylvania’s 18^th Congressional District last month demonstrated. 

 

The Supreme Court came forward with its own map, which consists of 10 districts that President Trump would have won and eight districts that Hillary Clinton would have won.  The new map also completely renumbers the districts, which will surely make it confusing for the voters as they head to the polls.  The current map consists of twelve districts won by President Trump and six districts won by Hillary Clinton.  Two Republicans represent districts won by Hillary Clinton while one Democrat represents a district won by President Trump.  Keep in mind that the Democrats need a net gain of 24 seats to take back control of the House of Representatives.  Hillary Clinton won 23 districts currently held by Republicans; meaning that the Democrats would have to pick up at least one Congressional district won by President Trump in order to win back the House.  The new Pennsylvania map increases the number of Clinton-won districts to 25.  So theoretically, the Democrats could retake the House solely by picking up districts won by Hillary Clinton.  That assumes that Republicans will fail to make gains in any of the twelve Democratic-held districts carried by President Trump. 

 

Under the new map, assuming that Democrats pick up all of the Clinton-won seats and maintain control of the Scranton-area district carried by President Trump, Pennsylvania’s congressional delegation would consist of nine Democrats and nine Republicans.  The Democrats argue that this map makes sense because Hillary and President Trump won about the same percentage of the vote in the Keystone State and therefore, the state’s Congressional delegation should reflect that.  By this standard, we’d have to redraw lots of states’ Congressional maps.  For example, President Trump won about a third of the popular vote in Massachusetts, yet Republicans hold zero of the state’s nine Congressional districts.         

 

President Obama’s race-baiting Attorney General Eric Holder celebrated the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision, saying “Republicans all over the country should be on notice – their days of partisan map-rigging are numbered.”  Perhaps he should deliver that same message to his Democratic friends in Maryland.  Maryland has some pretty ridiculous-looking Congressional districts designed to dilute the Republican-leaning voters in Western and Southern Maryland; mixing them in with an insurmountable amount of Democratic voters in the DC and Baltimore metro areas. Democrats who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.          

 

Mid-decade redistricting lawsuits present just one of many dirty tricks the Democrats use to win elections.  Some of these dirty tricks have achieved massive success, such as their sinister plot to create an unbeatable Democratic majority by importing voters favorable to left-wing policies.  Others have blown up in their faces.  In 2014, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as well as Senator Claire McCaskill asked Chad Taylor, the Democratic Candidate running against Kansas Senator Pat Roberts to withdraw from the race, resulting in Roberts facing Independent Candidate Greg Orman, who became the de facto Democrat in a two-way race.  The Democrats hoped that this trick would allow them to maintain control of the Senate.  It did not.  Roberts ended up winning re-election by more than 10 percentage points and the Republicans picked up nine Senate seats that year; giving them 54 seats in the upper chamber and allowing Harry Reid to assume a new title: Senate Minority Leader.

 

The Democrats’ attempt to take back the House this year could also blow up in their faces.  On paper, two open seats in California, held by retiring Republicans Ed Royce and Darrell Issa, seem like ideal pickup opportunities for the Democrats.  Hillary Clinton carried both districts, despite the fact that they both voted for Republican Mitt Romney in the 2012 Presidential Election.  However, California has a top-two primary system, meaning that all candidates run on the same ballot in the primary, regardless of their partisan affiliation.  The two candidates with the highest number of votes will then face off in the general election, regardless of party.  Considering the fact that so many Democrats have filed to run in these districts compared to a much fewer number of Republicans, the general election in these two districts could come down to a contest between two Republicans; effectively shutting the Democrats out.  The Democratic battle plan for taking back the House relies heavily on capturing multiple seats in all of the big states including California, Texas, Florida, New York, New Jersey, and now Pennsylvania.

   

If Democrats really cared about “fair” congressional districts, they would certainly support the idea of not counting illegal immigrants in the census.  They would also enthusiastically support the idea of voter IDs.  After all, nothing matters more than the integrity of our elections; as the Democrats consistently remind us when talking about Russian interference in the 2016 elections.  Yet, the Democrats will denounce both of these proposals as “racist,” they have already lost their minds about a question in the 2020 Census questionnaire that will ask respondents whether or not they are citizens.        

 

Just what exactly would an America under Speaker Pelosi look like? According to President Trump, a Democratic Congress will “raise taxes and waste money.”  He forgot to mention that a Democratic Congress would work to push through an amnesty bill, single-payer healthcare, and the probability of impeachment hearings will increase.  He doubled down on his warning at CPAC, saying “We have to fight Nancy Pelosi.  They want to give your money away…They want to end your tax cuts.  They want to do things that you wouldn’t even believe, including taking your Second Amendment away.”  Having a borderline senile Speaker of the House completely held captive by the far left would certainly not help President Bush, I mean President Trump, fulfill his campaign promises.  Has anyone looked into whether the 25^th Amendment would allow for the removal of an incapacitated House Speaker? I know the Constitution does not explicitly weigh in on this but then again the Constitution does not weigh in on abortion or gay marriage either, and yet the lifetime-appointed Knights in Black Satin have still deemed them “Constitutional rights.”      

 

A Pelosi speakership would certainly not result in a more united America.  While giving a Wendy Davis-style speech trying to protect the “dreamers”, she talked about how her grandson wished that he had brown skin.  As Fox News Host Tucker Carlson pointed out, “If you want to live in a country where everyone doesn’t hate each other for the color of their skin, you ought not to say things like that.”  Then again, a country that fits that description does not help the Democrats’ electoral bottom line; the Marxist left thrives in a country where everyone hates each other.  

 

In the meantime, Pennsylvania voters can express their displeasure with the judicial activism by voting out the Supreme Court justices who drew this map.  Unfortunately, that opportunity will not come until 2025.  Pennsylvania voters do have the opportunity to vote for a Republican governor as well as a Republican State Senator and Representative.  These races might not seem as important as Federal Congressional races until considering that whoever controls the state house and the legislature will have the opportunity to draw new congressional districts following the 2020 census. Most predict that the Keystone State will lose a seat, like many of its neighbors in the rust belt as states in the sunbelt will continue to gain seats.  

 

If the Republicans manage to maintain control of the House of Representatives, then the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision will have ultimately backfired in its desired intent to give the Democrats a House majority. If the Democrats do manage to win a narrow majority in the House of Representatives, they will have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to thank.  If the Democrats win a huge majority in the House of Representatives, then the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision will ultimately mean nothing.  Only 202 days remain until we find out the fate of American politics for the next two years.