SCOTUS says "No!" to POTUS

SCOTUS says "No!" to POTUS

Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.  -- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78, 1788

The genius of the United States Constitution lies in the checks and balances of power, not the award of power to the people or any dedicated interest (or elitist) group.

Under the Obama Administration, the checks on President Obama's abusive expansion of executive arrogance has met little resistance from Congress, aside from vocal critics in the House of Representatives and the decaying filibuster in the US Senate.

Yet the third branch of government, the judiciary, is taking up the slack, checking the abuse of power in the Obama Administration. In recent decisions handed down from their 2013-2014 term, The United States Supreme Court said no to the aggravated executive arrogance of President Obama:

1. In a unanimous decision (National Labor Review Board v. Noel Canning et al.), SCOTUS slammed Obama's 2012 recess appointments to the National Labor Relations board, citing the three day "recess" of the US Senate as an insufficient period of time to warrant those rapid appointments without prior advise and consent of Congress. Obama does not like waiting, and has bandied about his phone and pen as an authoritative response to Congressional inaction. Yet even the "Wise Latina" Sonia Sotomayor and the novice Justice Elena Kagan, both liberal Obama appointees themselves, rebuked the President. In response to this poetic and political justice, The Washington Post reports that hundreds of NLRB decisions now require review.

 

"Wise Latina" Sonia Sotomayor
Joined Unanimous Rebuke of Obama Overreach

2. Extending Fourth Amendment protections against unwarranted search and seizure to cellphones, another unanimous SCOTUS verdict sided with the citizen against the state in Riley v. California. Cellphones are not just hardware facilitating communication, but reservoirs of sensitive data, to which police power should not have arbitrary access. The implications of this ruling have promoted civil liberty activists demanding greater scrutiny of the Obama Administration’s NSA metadata collection, which has grossly overstepped its bounds, invading the privacy of. Perhaps US Senator Rand Paul (r-ENTIYCK) will start carrying his cellphone once again. To sum up, Chief Justice Roberts and colleagues scolded the state (and Obama): “Get off my cellphone!”

3. In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, SCOTUS delivered another blow to ObamaCare’s careless and unconstitutional invasion of individual liberty. The conservative majority upheld the religious convictions of the Hobby Lobby corporate owners. Arguing that the contraceptive mandate in Obama runs contrary to their religious convictions, Hobby Lobby owners have succeed

Even left-leaning Politico had to acknowledge:

The ruling. . .amounts to a huge black eye for Obamacare, the administration and its backers. The justices have given Obamacare opponents their most significant political victory against the health care law, reinforcing their argument that the law and President Barack Obama are encroaching on Americans’ freedoms.

While outraged liberals argue that this decision will lead to a sweeping denial of birth control in employee insurance plans, the rulings in fact will prevent the Affordable Care Act from forcing private corporations to offer contraceptives in violation of their religious precepts.

The slippery slope of ObamaCare’s overreach has hit major bumps along the way. With the Hobby Lobby case, the Supreme Court declared: “No, President Obama, legal fiat does not trump religious liberty in the United States of America.”

Other rulings which deserve attention include Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency et al., in which both liberal and conservative justices concurred that the regulatory powers of the EPA did not include rewriting unclear statutes or imposing undue burdens which cannot be realistically realized in practice. Obama’s War on Coal through administrative fiat may hit another snag with this ruling.

While Founding Father Alexander Hamilton had argued initially that "[The Judicial Branch] may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment" (Federalist 71), he did not witness the desegregation of public schools following Brown v. Board of Education, either. Even if conservative columnist  Ben Shapiro pushed aside any reveling over SCOTUS’ series of rebukes to Presidential imperiousness, but the consensus on the Court, and in concert with public opinion, demonstrates that Obama’s unchecked, imbalanced power grabs are facing increased scrutiny, heated criticism, and a growing reaction toward limiting state power at the expense of individual liberty and constitutional rule.

Frustrations of Modern Conservatism

Conservatives must recognize that the Supreme Court’s tidbits of good news today are no counterweight to its steady encroachment on Constitutional liberties. Leaning back on our heels, waiting for our supposed betters at SCOTUS to save us, is a recipe for disaster. - Ben Shapiro

No matter how many steps, however small, limited government advocates make toward pushing back the encroachments of the Obama Administration, radio talk shows hosts, columnists, and eternal critics all will contend "not enough!"

Pressing against the encroachment of the state in itself  will never be enough. This is a fallen earth, and men are not angels. The watchmen of liberty must be ever vigilant. Did they think that the fight would have big victories under which people car loll and relax

As LA Times token columnist Jonah Goldberg once contended, resisting the growth of the federal government as a sole policy is like a priest running a whore house. Resistance alone is not active, or effective enough. Defining the problems and preaching against them do not stop people from doing the bad.

Breitbart understood the importance of God and Country
(Source: Shal Farley)

Offering a woman a better life than whoredom gets her out of the whore house faster than telling her not to sell herself. Offering people good news and the skills and the pathway to a better life will get them off the teat of Big Government.

The "something better" is essential, or it will remain difficult (if not impossible) for conservative to make a case of limited government without a larger narrative to hang the truth of everything.

What is wrong with two men marrying? What is wrong with killing a child in the womb before the baby is born? Conservatives today are not answering this question. They certainly are not presenting them the better life of marriage between one man and one woman.

These are Biblical principles, which require that individuals have a warm respect for the Bible and the God revealed in the Bible. Even many Christians have a wrong understanding of God and His goodness.

Conservative counter-cultural leader (and Internet new media scion
Andrew Breitbart understood the importance of God and Country, but the focus needs to be on God, and then the country part will follow. Otherwise, like the priests who grow weary (
or wayward) with preaching against sin, modern conservatives will find that no one gets better, but the preachers grow bitter and frustrated.

That was not the case decades ago, when young men and women read the Bible, learned the redemptive accounts of Christ as Savior now and forever.

Without this foundation, there is not basis for defining the folly of liberal (in fact, quite illiberal) encroachment of the government into our lives.

Without the revelation of the Scriptures (affirmed by science), what is wrong with the political class taking from the business class to enrich or at least subsist the dependent classes in our communities?

A recognition of an eternal and loving God (most traditional denominations ignore that the love of God sent His Son to redeem us), the source of every absolute disappears, and the dictates the truth of life as the preeminent value dissipates, all other values with it.

Severe libertarians reject this argument, focusing on liberty as the primary value. Arguing from fear instead of facts, many of these libertarians ignore that liberty does not emerge out of nothing, no more than we did. Liberty as a political reality is a relatively new phenomenon. Liberty without the overwhelming care of God is not liberty, but short-lived license which descends into an amoral, then power-made conformity.

The frustrations of modern conservatism rest on the godless or the secular bases for its arguments. Without the proper respect for the domains of the Divine, which is all encompassing, no one can take seriously the arguments of "this is the way it has been" as the last word on maintaining vital institutions such as marriage, the family, the role of government as enforcement of law and protection of right.

Until conservatives today recognize that truth, not tradition; morality and religion, not politics and persuasion, are the essential basis for restoring morality and virtue, conservatives will spurn even the smallest of wins and encounter failure after failure in the face of the moral decay which will corrupt even the most ardent of fiscal conservatives.

SCOTUS: Furthers Walker Victories

The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has issued a number of rulings scaling back the power of President Obama, who has unfaithfully refused to execute the laws of the land while unlawfully issuing directives through executive order.

 

United States Supreme Court

 

However, one of the most important SCOTUS rulings, Harris v. Quinn, has blocked organized labor, particularly the public sector union juggernaut, from forcing non-union members to pay dues to any union which negotiates on their behalf.

Incidentally enough, the appellants in that case launched a lawsuit against Liberal Democratic Governor Pat Quinn who (like Obama,) though executive order required that all in-home caretakers pay dues to the Service Employees International Union, since that labor collective represented all in-home care workers compensated by state funds through Medicaid.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker

The key appellant, Pamela Harris, who cares for an adult son in her own home, resented having to pay dues to a union which lobbied for policies and values which she disagreed with. She was right to be angry, and her First Amendment rights have been upheld by the SCOTUS.

 

Hopefully, Illinois residents will not stop with this federal victory, but consider the brave example of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who without initial judicial backing, neither federal nor statewide, instituted collective bargaining reforms to limit the political and financial power of public sector unions.

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder

With SCOTUS, plus the reforms of Walker and Michigan Governor Rick Snyder (and possibly support for right-to-work laws in Missouri), the power of the public sector union lobby will be scaled back indefinitely.

Pro-Life, Pro-Marriage Extreme: Why? (What To Do?)

Today, to define marriage as one man and one woman – that is an extreme position. “Since when should marriage be limited to one man and one woman?” Critics argue.

To recognize life at conception and defend life as much as resources permit – that is also an extreme position.

Is it extreme to defend an unborn baby?

How has this transformation in values about life and marriage taken place, and so quickly?

We can start with the faux-libertarian (in reality, narcissistic and self-righteous) argument, the craze from political activists these days: “It’s my body, and I can do what I want with it.”

From the most vocal of activists come the most venal of politicians, leaders in Washington fear losing the majority power or long-term influence in Washington if they do not accede to the limited demands of this childish generation, who want their financial future secure, yet at the same time want to do as they please with their bodies and minds.

This myopic morality has bred the pro-choice (or rather “pro-abortion”) movement. “It’s my body” has given birth to the gay marriage debate, too.

Yet should we blame exclusively the youth culture, or the cowardice of the political establishment, for this “Me first” moral miasma?

In terms of marriage, the transformative Obama Administration has hastened the demise of the institution, pressing on every organization of the federal government acceptance of homosexuality and the “rights” of gay couples to marry.

Looking further back, the judicial fiat of the Massachusetts Supreme Court in 2004 opened the pandemic of undoing marriage as one man and one woman. At least marriage supporters can point out that the arrogance of judges, not the will of individuals or communities, pushed the perversion of the marital sacrament on this country.

What about abortion?

Unlike the argument about marriage, the definition of life (its beginnings, values, and implications) has endured longer, also from judicial interventionism (Roe v. Wade). Proponents of life and marriage should take heart, since only a court could force the devolution of these values, and only in law (not in spirit). To this day in Massachusetts, there are many who do not recognize nor respect gay marriage as an accomplished fact. The same holds true for abortion.

(Source: University of Toronto Students for Life)

Unlike the marriage argument, the pro-life Movement is growing stronger. From Roe v. Wade in 1973, millions of babies have been aborted, yet the voices to protect those children has grown louder, too. Private interests, including churches, have rallied year after year to speak for those who cannot, the unborn. Laws have changed in locales as distinct as North Dakota and Texas to define the legal time limit for seeking an abortion.

The latest US Supreme Court ruling, McCullen v. Coakley, struck down the 35-ft barrier which prevented pro-life protestors from denouncing abortion clinics. The ruling had been upheld by the Massachusetts State Supreme Court (the same body which arbitrarily redefine marriage). Could SCOTUS undo their undue ruling redefining marriage, too?

Following the disturbing revelations of the Gosnell trial and the inner city abortion clinics (where babies born alive were murdered), the “pro-choice” mantra has been exposed as a pro-murder agenda. Pro-life is alive and well in the United States, even in ultra-liberal New England. Even pro-gay marriage politicians like former US Senate candidate Gabriel Gomez (R-Massachusetts) proudly announce their pro-life views.

Still, the sanctity of marriage is giving way, however, to the insanity of group-think, and the voices speaking out for one man and one woman are not as strong.

Why is our culture turning its back on traditional marriage? (Source epSos.de)

Why?

The problem of marriage goes deeper than two men or two women masquerading as a married couple. The lack of respect for the institution began much earlier, when men and women decided, and local mores acquiesced, that sex before marriage, that parenthood before matrimony, was acceptable.

Perhaps instead of focusing on perversion of the institution, our society must also investigate why so many choose cohabitation instead of marriage, or why adultery has become standard. Casual sex has created a casual attitude about marriage, as the rates of intended pregnancies have increased in key urban areas (New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles)

The consequences of casual and pre-marital sex are getting more attention than before, but the consequences of such loose and unaccountable conduct resists easy documentation. The death of a baby is an immediate and outrageous tragedy. The break-down of restraint before sex and commitment before consummation escapes our notice.

Is there any way to present (and thus prevent) of the diminution (or destruction?) of marriage?

Gay Marriage is Legal (for now?)

 

Studies showing increased depression and suicide following casual sex suggest that the concrete dangers of immoral conduct or prevalent and relevant. The individual accounts of young people (and the crushing fallout) from casual encounters will awaken a new respect for marital love as opposed to “easy sex”. Medical studies documenting th disease, dysfunction, and death associated with homosexuality (and revelations debunking the “born gay” myth) will cause individuals to rethink homosexual conduct.

Legal rulings are supporting life once again. Judges may rule right and strike down mandated gay marriage in the future, too. As Pro-Life goes mainstream, marriage as one man and one woman may return, too.

Justified From All Things and thus For All Things

All is a brand of detergent which cleanses stains from clothes.

Television commercials advertise that you can clean many loads of laundry with one bottle of All.

The blood of Jesus is the very brand which cleanses us from all sin.

The blood of Jesus keeps on cleansing us from all sin, whether we know it or not, and this cleansing sets us up for every blessing under the New Covenant.

"Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel." (1 Corinthians 9: 14)

We live by the Gospel, because the Gospel is the gift of righteousness bought and paid for us because of what Jesus did at the Cross, and what He does for us at the right hand of God the Father (Romans 8: 31-34):

"Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: 39And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." (Acts 13: 38-39)

Notice that the law is displaced by the grace of God, which justifies us from all things.

All things:

"And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;" (Colossians 2: 13)

Yes, the Blood Keeps on Cleansing (LookingUntoJesus.net)

and then

"[Jesus] gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works." (Titus 2: 14)

and also

"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." (1 John 1: 7)

And then

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1: 9)

Keep in mind, that since John is writing primarily to a Jewish audience, confession of sins has nothing to do with itemizing every perversion, but coming clean about the truth that we are sinners.

The blood of Jesus cleanses us from all unrighteousness.

All. All. All.

This total gift grants us His righteousness:

"15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ." (Romans 5: 15-17)

and also

"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." (2 Corinthians 5: 21)

The gift of righteousness which keeps on cleansing us from all sin guarantees us all things in Christ, too:

"What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? 32He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?" (Romans 8: 31-32)

This is what we learn also about "all things" in comparison to the riches of Christ Jesus:

"But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. 8Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ," (Philippians 3: 7-8)

When we understand that Christ is all things for us, then we can receive the answer to this prayer, too:

"6That the communication of thy faith may become effectual by the acknowledging of every good thing which is in you in Christ Jesus." (Philemon 6)


and

"2Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,

 

3According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:" (2 Peter 1: 2-3)

 

Through Christ we are forgiven from all our sins -- all of them -- that we  may receive all things in Christ -- all of them!

Gov Walker: Not a Smidgen of Corruption

Despite the national press’ preening for bad news, particularly against Republican leaders, new outlets have failed once again, intending to fit only the news which prints their limited liberal ideology, as opposed to the truth, which vindicated conservatives and limited government advocates.

Twice this year so far, John Doe prosecutors have investigated Governor Walker for political improprieties related to his campaign efforts and his prior office staff. Twice these concerns have been rebuffed, and for all the cries of wrong-doing, there has not been one “smidgen” of corruption staining Walker’s tenure. Instead of unsubstantiated reports of unethical behavior, the mainstream media should report at length that the Governor of Wisconsin has cut taxes and spending, returned revenue surpluses to the people, and has put the public sector unions in their place, supporting the public. All adding to an economic legacy of collective bargaining rights reforms which will remain standing for the long term.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is one of many Republican state executives overseeing and encouraging an American comeback despite the repeated failures, disappointments, and scandals of the federal government, most of which center on the culture of corruption otherwise known as the Obama Administration.

Instead of barking up the wrong tree of baseless accusations of base behavior coming out  of Madison, the liberal media watch dogs would be doing a true service to their calling and the country if they exposed the endemic, pandemonium of lies, deceit, waste, fraud, and international cowardice which defines the Obama Administration today.

Feinstein's Plea in LA Times - and the Truth

Senator Dianne Feinstein is calling for resources and humane treat for “desperate” undocumented alien children amassing around the Southern Borders of the United States.

Instead of requiring exasperated taxpayers to subsidize illegal immigration with food, clothing, and child advocates, Sen. Feinstein and her colleagues in Congress should demand that President Obama uphold the rule of law.

The President’s 2012 executive orders to halt deportations of illegal immigrant youth helped explode this crisis. In spite of his oath to defend the Constitution and secure this nation’s borders, he has ignored his role as chief executive to faithfully executive the laws of this country, mostly to secure his reelection chances and progressive legacy of pandering to pro-amnesty interest groups.

Calling on Central American leaders to stop drug cartels may slow illegal immigration, but our leaders really need to secure the borers, suspend welfare, and streamline the immigration process for all legal migrants.

McDaniel's Worthy Challenge to Cochran

As a California conservative frustrated by pandering and compromise from representatives who support special interests rather than protecting the public interest, I applaud Mississippi state senator Chris McDaniel’s primary challenge against the decayed, decades long Washington insider Thad Cochran.

Today, Establishment Congressmen and Senators like Cochran are going along with the pay-for-play culture of corruption instead of caring for the rights of the citizens and defending the final authority and integrity of the Constitution. United States Senators need to reclaim the Senate as an institution which holds the President and Congressional colleagues accountable for spending our country’s money while taming the national debt and restoring power to the states and the people.

Cochran refused to defund Obamacare, defame the federalized education take-over called Common Core, or define the proper, limited scope of the federal government in relation to the states and the people. After inheriting his seat in Congress for so many years, Cochran needed McDaniel’s challenge, a praiseworthy as well as necessary effort to engage our government.

The spate of scandals spouting out of the White House, from Operation Fast and Furious to the numerous lies about ObamaCare, to the IRS and EPA abuses, along with the invasion of our privacy from the NSA and the CIA, demand immediate response and retribution from our representatives. Cochran has done nothing. McDaniel will.

The former radio host is an articulate fighter, and we need lawmakers like him to fight back against the institutionalized fraud, deceit, and endemic arrogance of Washington DC.

Is Muratsuchi Afraid Yet?

Al Muratsuchi

Republican contender David Hadley's slight 66 vote lead over incumbent Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance) has grown to 552 votes over the last three weeks.

The latest tally from the Secretary of state (as of June 23, 7:32am) should give the Muratsuchi campaign more cause for alarm.

The Democratic machine will pour two million dollars to keep the South Bay seat in Democratic hands.

However, a new machine is growing in the South Bay, the South Bay One Hundred, which has put the fundraising and grass-roots organization of the Democratic Party on guard.

Is Muratsuchi throwing in the towel?

He tried to run for the state senate earlier this year, and then published a press release announcing that he would run for reelection.

Why?

He doesn't want another bruising election?

Maybe he feels a sense of remorse for the nasty slash-and-burn campaign he ran against businessman Craig Huey.

He should.

Muratsuchi probably finds himself running against friends as well as making more enemies.

The tense political atmosphere in Sacramento has turned the stomachs of many politicians.

Gardena Mayor Paul Tanaka was offered the chance to run for state assembly against Muratsuchi, but he turned it down to run for Sheriff, but also because partisan politics bothers him.

"You don't vote the party line, even if you don't agree with it, and you end up in a broom closet as your new office."

Partisan politics pulls a politician not just according to what the constituents want, or the dictates of the Constitution (state and federal), but also the demands of one's caucus in the legislature. Vote-trading is crucial, and a legislator who wants to accomplish anything has to work with both sides, and sometimes has to support bills which he is personally  and politically opposed to, but must vote on to get votes on other crucial legislation.

Constituents, oath of office, and then the demands of the political leaders of one's party can drive a man's allegiances into the ground.

Muratsuchi has experienced a great deal of this pressure, one must assume.

During the primary season, his campaign put out yard signs, but no mailers or fliers. Maybe the Democratic Party won't be sending in the $2 million that Muratsuchi needs to bury his opponent and win reelection, after all.

The former school board member touted himself as a moderate voice, "not an ideologue",  yet his votes are consistently left-leaning compared to the values of his South Bay constituency. He voted to permit transgendered students to enter public school bathrooms; he supported the government forcing the state minimum wage. He also voted for drivers' licenses for illegal immigrants as well as expanding the authority to perform abortions to non-physicians.

He has also support gun control measures and other environmental laws which will hinder business rather than expand economic opportunity. Plus his endorsement for a local control funding formula which has deprived highly qualified and excelling South Bay schools of much needed state revenue.

Muratsuchi has been quite the ideologue and reliably left-wing vote in the state legislature despite his protestations during the 2012 campaign.

Is Muratsuchi afraid yet?

He should be.

Miller Effect Redux in the 31st?

Lesli Gooch

Leslie Gooch, the former aide the hand-picked successor to retiring Representative Gary Miller, did not quite make into the Top Two jungle primary on June 3rd, 2014.

Even though her website listed her as the party favorite, including her win in the Redlands Tea Party straw poll, she didn't win.

Another loss for the California GOP political establishment?

Not necessarily. How much more did she need to beat Redlands Mayor Peter Aguilar for the number two spot? 209 votes.

The slim margin has sparked a recount from her campaign.

The Secretary of State has certified the results, a Tea Party member in the region wants a recount. As long as the Gooch campaign pays the day-by-day costs, the state can recount the votes.

209 votes is a slim margin, and if Gooch's efforts turn up enough votes and she gets into the Top Two, her move will spell more one more defeat for the Redlands-Inland Empire Democratic Party, which has squandered millions with infighting only to clobber themselves and advance GOP opportunities in a "majority Democratic" district.

Congressman Gary Miller was fortunate enough in 2012, playing off multiplied Democratic ambitions to face off against another Republican and win.

California Republican Party leaders could learn from the prior and current outcomes and start investing in off-shoot liberal candidates, too, who can draw away Democratic support and advance Republican chances in otherwise impossible districts.

At any rate, another Miller Effect might be in the works in the 31st, where the Democratic vote was so thinly divided, that two Republicans make into the Top Two once again.

Contacts to the Gooch campaign have not yet been returned.

Paul Chabot, the Top vote getter in the primary, is undeterred, whatever the results.

We won by 5,000 votes, and we are getting out the vote now.

The wide margin in the latest tally all but assures that Chabot will stay in the general election, whether Aguilar prevails or Gooch wins following the recount.

Either way, the election battle is looking better for Republicans in the otherwise strongly Democratic district. Aguilar tweeted on this website that the official tally puts him in the Top Two, but Tea Party efforts and a unlikely recount reversal may shut out Democrats once again in the 31st Congressional District.

Regardless of whether Aguilar flies or falls following the recount, Chabot remains the better for this controversy, since he will devote his time and energy to get out the vote, while his current Democratic challenger wonders whether his efforts will net him the win in November. If Gooch gets into the Top Two, she will have at least a time and fundraising disadvantage.