Tag Archives: Supreme Court

May 15th

Posted on by

On Saturday, PJ Media posted an article about a case that will be argued before the Supreme Court on May 15th. Generally, the Supreme Court does not hear cases in May.

The article reports:

The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to weigh in on one of the most significant legal power plays in recent memory: whether individual federal trial judges can continue issuing nationwide injunctions that derail national policy. The high court’s move could mark a turning point in the Trump administration’s effort to rein in what it sees as activist judges stifling the will of the elected government.

John Yoo, a law professor at UC Berkeley and former Justice Department official, broke down the issue during an appearance on Fox News, where he explained the gravity of the situation and why the Supreme Court is now stepping in.

“This is about who controls all those… and there’s about 675 federal trial judges spread out all over the country,” Yoo said. “And some of them have been bringing the federal government, bringing President Trump’s agenda to a screeching halt, even though they don’t have anybody, say, who works for the government or any of the illegal aliens or any of the spending in their own courtrooms.”

In recent years, liberal activists have filed lawsuits in strategically chosen jurisdictions where they know they’ll find a sympathetic judge. The result? Leftist district judges, with no direct connection to the underlying policy or parties involved, have been able to issue injunctions blocking Trump administration directives nationwide—from immigration enforcement to federal spending priorities.

The important quote in the article:

“Whether you agree or disagree with President Trump’s order on birthright citizenship,” Yoo said, “they may not even get to the question, because the key thing here is for the Supreme Court to put an end to the 675 trial judges who all think they can run foreign policy, spending and hiring throughout the federal government.”

Stay tuned.

How Religious Is Religious?

Posted on by

On April 1st, The National Pulse posted an article about the U.S. Supreme Court Case regarding the tax exempt status of Catholic Charities. In the past, charitable church organizations have pretty much automatically been tax exempt, but some anti-religious groups are working to change that.

The article explains:

The United States Supreme Court appears poised to rule in favor of a Catholic charitable group challenging Wisconsin’s decision to deny them a religious exemption from state unemployment taxes. The case brought by the Catholic Charities Bureau may alter the way religious activities are classified under state law, with significant implications for religious freedom.

The crux of the disagreement lies in whether the Catholic Charities Bureau qualifies as a religious employer eligible for tax exemptions under Wisconsin statutes. The state law permits such exemptions for organizations if their operations are primarily religious. However, Wisconsin officials assert that the charity does not meet this criterion because its activities, like assisting the elderly and disabled, are not explicitly religious nor centered on religious instruction.

Catholic Charities Bureau has contributed to the unemployment tax system since 1972. They argue their missions are embedded in Catholic tenets of charity and good works, thus deserving of the religious exemption. The organization challenges the state’s evaluation of what constitutes religious activity, suggesting it is an unfair assessment.

While the Supreme Court’s more conservative justices appeared open to the Catholic Charities Bureau’s arguments, Justice Elena Kagan—who is one of the high court’s more liberal justices—appeared amenable as well. “I thought it was pretty fundamental that we don’t treat some religions better than other religions, and we certainly don’t do it based on the content of the religious doctrine that those religions preach,” Justice Kagan said during oral arguments on Monday.

With oral arguments concluded in the case, the justices will confer, and an opinion on the case is expected later this summer. The outcome might influence how other religious organizations are taxed and exempted, with restrictions placed on a state’s interpretations of “religious” work.

Before the growth of big government, charity was handled by the church and by individuals. If you knew your neighbor had lost his job, you might leave a bag of groceries on his front porch. Charity wasn’t done by the government–it was done by churches and individuals who understood the needs of the community.

For further information on the government and charity, please read the speech regarding government charity given to Congress by Senator Davy Crockett. You can find it here.

A Second Look At The Charges Against The January 6th Defendants

Posted on by

On Tuesday, Red State reported on a reevaluation of the charges that were used to keep the January 6th protestors in jail for four years.

The article reports:

On Monday, the Interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Ed Martin, announced that his office would undertake a review of the decision-making that led to the charging of hundreds of January 6 protesters with “obstructing Congress” in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1512(c). That was a statute passed by Congress in 2005 to address an alleged hole revealed in an obstruction of justice statute criminalizing the destruction of records, documents, materials, etc., to obstruct an investigation. The “hole” was the fact that the language of the existing statute made it a crime to direct third parties to undertake such obstructive acts, but it did not – by its plain language – make it a criminal act to take such action yourself.

This was the finding of the Supreme Court in Arthur Andersen v. United States, an infamous case related to the Enron scandal where then-U.S. Attorney Andrew Weissmann put one of the “Big 5” accounting firms out of business – costing maybe 80,000 Arthur Andersen employees their jobs – only to eventually be reversed by the Supreme Court in a 9-0 decision.

The crime that Arthur Andersen supposedly committed? It followed its internal policy for destroying client records – Enron in this case – before it received a federal grand jury subpoena for those records as part of the probe into Enron’s accounting practices. Arthur Andersen was charged under Sec. 1512(b)(2) – there was no subsection (c) at that time – which made it a crime to “knowingly [and] … corruptly persuade another person … with intent to … cause” that person to “withhold” or “alter” documents intended for use in an “official proceeding.”

The article concludes:

What is also significant about each of the cases listed above is that the convictions in each case were affirmed by the federal Appeals Court — just like Joseph Fischer’s conviction was affirmed — before the convictions were reversed by the Supreme Court, and those reversals were unanimous in almost every case.

This unbroken line of decisions by the Supreme Court should have been warning enough to Biden DOJ prosecutors who decided to charge hundreds of January 6 protesters with a felony using a novel legal theory under a new statute.

Some involved in making that decision may now pay a price for having done with their jobs – and rightly so.

Please click on the link above for further details. Someone needs to be held accountable for violating the civil rights of the January 6th prisoners.

The Difference Between The Two Parties

Posted on by

The Republicans have taken control of the Senate. They have announced some of their plans. Generally speaking, their goal is to govern America in a way consistent with the Constitution and in a way that works for most Americans. The Democrats should be very grateful for that.

On January 3rd, Townhall reported:

The 119th Congress has just begun, and Republicans have a new leader in the Senate with Sen. John Thune (R-SD). As Thune has been saying ever since he was selected as majority leader in November, he plans to protect the filibuster, the very institution Senate Democrats fought so ferociously to destroy when they were in the majority. They would have ramped up those efforts even further, had they kept control of the chamber. For Friday’s speech, Thune plans to again reference his commitment to the filibuster. 

…Under Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Democrats tried multiple times to nuke the filibuster, including when it comes to attempts to pass legislation that would lead to a federal takeover of our election laws and attempts to pass legislation that would expand Roe v. Wade by allowing for abortion up until birth without legal limit in all 50 states. Such efforts failed, though, thanks to Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. Both ultimately left the Democratic Party and became Independents, and neither ran for reelection in 2024. 

…Leading up to the 2024 election, far-left groups made it clear that they prioritized nuking the filibuster and packing the U.S. Supreme Court. In the final weeks of the campaign, Vice President Kamala Harris expressed her support for such a plan in order to make it easier for legislation to do with her her pet issue of abortion to get passed. Sen. Bob Casey Jr (D-PA) and Rep. Colin Allred (D-TX), who was running against Republican Sen. Ted Cruz in the U.S. Senate race, expressed the same views. Harris, Casey, and Allred all ended up losing their races. 

Oddly enough, now that they are no longer in control of the Senate, the Democrats are less interested in getting rid of the filibuster. Wow! How things change.

The Supreme Court Upheld The U.S. Constitution

Posted on by

On Wednesday, The Supreme Court ruled that Virginia will be allowed to remove non-citizens from its voter rolls.

The National Review reported:

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that Virginia is entitled to remove noncitizen aliens from its voter rolls, siding with the commonwealth over lower courts less than a week out from the election.

The order comes two days after Virginia attorney general Jason Miyares filed an emergency application, requesting that the Court stay an injunction that ordered Virginia to restore some 1,600 suspected noncitizens who are ineligible to vote to the state’s voter rolls. A federal appeals court upheld the injunction on Sunday, quickly prompting the attorney general to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Court released the one-page order Wednesday morning, noting that liberal-leaning Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson would have denied Virginia’s emergency request for an appeal.

Governor Youngkin noted:

“This is a victory for commonsense and election fairness,” Youngkin said in a statement. “I am grateful for the work of Attorney General Jason Miyares on this critical fight to protect the fundamental rights of U.S. citizens. Clean voter rolls are one important part of a comprehensive approach we are taking to ensure the fairness of our elections.”

Our Constitution states that the right to vote in federal elections is reserved for citizens. To deny a state the right to remove non citizens from its voter rolls is contrary to that concept. This case should not have had to go to the Supreme Court, but it did, and it was ruled on correctly.

Wanting To Dismantle The Safety Net

Posted on by

Our Founding Fathers were brilliant. They understood that the quest for power can undermine the common sense and integrity of some people. That is the reason they created three branches of government was to create checks and balances. They never wanted career politicians–they wanted ordinary citizens to come to Washington, serve in Congress for a few years, and return home to live under the laws that they had passed. It hasn’t worked that way. (see article) That is the reason the Electoral College was created. That is why Senators were to be chosen by their state legislatures rather than elected (unfortunately that was undone during Woodrow Wilson, and we see the mess it has created). Currently there is a move to eliminate the Electoral College–the structure that keeps America from being governed by New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago. Based on how well those cities are, do you want the entire country run by the same people?

On Wednesday, Breitbart reported the following:

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D), the Democratic Party candidate for Vice President, called for the abolition of the Electoral College at a Tuesday fundraiser with California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) at his Sacramento home.

Walz, endorsing the Democrats’ campaign for a “National Popular Vote,” would give inordinate power to the large “blue” states, meaning presidential candidates would spend all their time in Democratic cities like New York City and Los Angeles.

The Democrats have also called for forced resignations from the Supreme Court and adding members to the Supreme Court to dilute the opinions of the conservative justices on the court. Changes to the Supreme Court would allow the Democrats to push unpopular policies through without having to rely on elected officials to make the laws. Eliminating the Electoral College would simply take away the voting rights of anyone who did not live in a major city.

Either or both policies would result in negative changes to the America we know.

The Biggest Cases Coming Up For The Supreme Court

Posted on by

On Sunday, The Daily Signal posted an article listing the biggest cases that will be decided by the Supreme Court in the upcoming session (which began Monday).

This is the list of the controversial cases:

  1. The case is called United States v. Skrmetti, and it involves a Tennessee law that bans giving children hormone treatments or genital surgeries to change a child’s body to match his or her chosen “gender identity.” That is, giving testosterone to and cutting off the breasts of girls who think they’re boys, and giving estrogen to and cutting off the penises of boys who think they’re girls.
  2. Americans have been handcrafting their own guns for hundreds of years. And for all those hundreds of years, nobody ever thought it was illegal. Even Democrats thought it was legal until just recently.What changed? Well, the Biden-Harris administration realized that it might be able to end this ancient tradition by deploying a slur. What were once handcrafted guns are now “ghost guns,” and with a name that spooky, they must be banned.
  3. The case is Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, but don’t get confused by the plaintiff’s name. This case doesn’t involve a noble fight against Big Tech censorship or a righteous stand against a screaming campus mob. No, this case is brought by pornographers hiding their smut behind the banner of free speech.Pornography rots brains, especially children’s brains, so Texas joined 19 other states and prudently passed a law saying that pornographic websites must verify that their users are over 18 years old. Texas, being a free state, wanted to strike the balance of allowing adults the freedom to make the self-destructive choice of watching pornography while protecting children who are too immature to fully appreciate the consequences of that choice.
  4. The Biden-Harris administration is obsessed with telling us that anyone who disagrees with it hates democracy. But at the same time, members of the administration are obsessed with doing end-runs around Congress and local elected governments to impose their will on the country.Their latest end-run is so egregious that even San Francisco is fighting back. The case is San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency, in which a super-lefty presidential administration has gotten on the last nerve of a super-lefty city.

Please follow the link to the article for further details. The last case is particularly interesting. If you don’t tell someone what a limit is, you can make a lot of money when you accuse them of going over it!

I Hope This Gets To The Supreme Court Quickly

Posted on by

On Monday, Legal Insurrection reported:

A policy that allows school staff to keep a child’s transgender status a secret does not violate a parent’s fundamental rights under the New Hampshire constitution, the state’s Supreme Court has held.

The policy was challenged by a New Hampshire mother who sued the Manchester school district after finding out from a teacher that her minor child (identified as M.C.) had asked school staff and students to be called by a name typically associated with the opposite sex.

According to the lawsuit, when the mother first asked the school to continue using her child’s given name and sex-appropriate pronouns, two teachers wrote to her saying they were willing to comply.

After the teachers stated that they were willing to comply, the mother got an email from the school principal that stated:

Good Morning [Jane Doe]. While I respect and understand your concern, we are held by the District policy as a staff. I have quoted our district policy below, which outlines the fact that we cannot disclose a student’s choice to parents if asked not to. If [M.C.] insists on being called [M.C.’s desired name] as a staff we have to respect that according to the policy or unfortunately we can be held accountable despite parents’ wishes.

The principal was reiterating district policy that, absent the child’s consent, “[s]chool personnel should not disclose information that may reveal a student’s transgender status or gender nonconforming presentation to others.” The school justified the policy as recognizing transgender students’ “rights” to privacy.

The article continues:

But that policy violated her fundamental parental rights, the mother alleged, among other claims, by encouraging school officials to affirmatively conceal her child’s “open and public” gender identity transition in school from her.

After all, if the whole school knows the child is transitioning, why shouldn’t the parent?

Notwithstanding these arguments, the trial court found the policy did not infinge a fundamental parenting right so as to warrant the application of strict scrutiny. And because the policy was rationally related to legitimate governmental interests, it was not unconstitutional, the court held, dismissing her claim.

In a 3-1 decision on appeal, the New Hampshire Supreme Court agreed.

I may take a village to raise a child, but that is a problem if the village is inhabited by villagers trying to take away parents’ rights.

Why Would Anyone Want To Prevent This?

Posted on by

On Tuesday, The Federalist posted an article about the Department of Justice wanting to block a law from taking effect in Arizona.

The article reports:

The Biden-Harris Department of Justice (DOJ) on Friday requested the U.S. Supreme Court “deny” Republicans’ bid to enforce an Arizona law requiring individuals to prove they’re U.S. citizens when registering and voting in elections.

Arguing on behalf of the administration, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar requested that the nation’s highest court instead allow a lower court decision — one prohibiting the implementation of provisions of the statute in question — to remain in effect for the November election.

The article notes:

As The Federalist previously reported, the 2022 law mandated residents to show documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC) when registering via state voter registration forms. The statute also required such proof for individuals submitting mail-in ballots and voting in presidential contests.

(In Arizona, individuals who do not provide DPOC when registering to vote are permitted to do so as “federal-only voters” and cast ballots in federal elections).

…According to AZ Free News, more than 11,600 individuals voted via “federal-only” ballots during the Grand Canyon State’s 2020 election. That’s larger than Joe Biden’s margin of victory (10,457 votes) over Donald Trump.

The strategy here is very simply. Many illegal aliens are coming across the border with “Biden” t-shirts. It is obvious how they will vote. Every vote case by a person voting illegally cancels out the vote of an American voting legally. Considering the number of people who have crossed our borders since President Biden took office, it would be very easy for the votes of illegal aliens to overpower the votes of American citizens.

Watch The Margin

Posted on by

On Friday (updated Saturday) The Epoch Times posted an article about the recent Supreme Court decision regarding the changes the Biden administration is attempting to make to Title IX. The Biden administration is attempting to add the concept of gender into the law. That change would bar discrimination of transgender men in women’s sports, locker rooms, restrooms, etc.

The article reports:

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 to reject the federal government’s bid to partially enforce its Title IX rule in 10 Republican-led states.

In a ruling handed down on Aug. 16, the high court left intact two separate lower court orders that blocked the entirety of the rule in Louisiana and nine other states that challenged it.

At the center of the disputes are three provisions, which include one declaring that the existing federal law against sex-based discrimination in education settings also prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

The ruling was 5-4. That means that four of the justices were okay with the idea of men in women’s sports. Four of the justices had no problem with men taking scholarships from women who had worked their whole lives to earn them. Four of the justices had no problem with men in women’s dressing rooms. This ruling tells us why the Biden administration is attacking the Supreme Court–they are one vote away from radically changing America.

The article notes:

The rule also addresses gendered pronouns and sex-separate spaces like bathrooms, locker rooms, and shower areas, clarifying that schools and colleges could lose federal funding if they don’t address students by their preferred pronouns or allow them to use facilities corresponding to their gender identity.

The federal government had asked the Supreme Court to partially lift those orders, a relief that would sever the three key provisions while allowing the other unchallenged parts of the rule to go into effect.

Four justices would have let part of the rule take effect, but the full bench agreed that the key changes the federal government has sought to implement, including the re-definition of “sex-based discrimination” to include gender identity and the restrictions on maintaining sex-separated spaces, should remain blocked.

We are one Supreme Court Justice away from insanity.

 

Refining The Law Because Of Technology

Posted on by

For those of us who grew up before the age of computers and cell phones, a lot of what is currently happening in technology and being created electronically is very foreign. These changes in technology are also impacting our laws. Being tracked by your cell phone is nothing new. Back in the day when your cell phone looked like something you would use to call in an air strike, when you left one calling zone and entered another, you got a welcoming phone call. Even back then they knew where you were if you carried a cell phone (then known as a car phone).

On Wednesday, Just the News posted an article about how the location information on cell phones can be used.

The article reports:

Two federal appeals courts have taken starkly different views on one of the government ‘s newer electronic dragnet tools – geofence warrants that track people via their cell phones – setting up a likely showdown before the U.S. Supreme Court that could define privacy in the digital era for decades to come.

Last week, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that such geofence warrants are “categorically prohibited by the Fourth Amendment” protection against unlawful search and seizure. The judges concluded the mass gathering of Americans’ cell phone geographic locations to identify a single suspect in a postal worker’s armed robbery amounted to the sort of general warrant that the Founding Fathers steadfastly rejected at America’s birth as their new country broke from British rule.

“It is undeniable that general warrants are plainly unconstitutional,” that appeals court ruled. The 5th Circuit oversees appeals from Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas federal district courts.

A few states over, the 4th U.S. Circuit of Appeals came to a different conclusion, ruling that when law enforcement gathers two hours of all a cell phone users’ records in Google’s database for a certain location near a crime it didn’t violate privacy because more than a half-billion cell phone users had opted to turn on the geo-tracking capabilities of their to make their apps work better. Such opt-ins, the 4th Circuit ruled, amounted to a waiver of privacy. The 4th Circuit oversees appeals from Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina federal district courts.

The article concludes:

In other words, using a digital dragnet to search millions of Americans location records to identify an unknown assailant or two amounted to a fishing exercise tantamount to the “general warrants” the Constitution’s framers rejected handily two centuries earlier.

Google has revealed that the number of geo-warrants has gone from rare in 2016 to overwhelming – more than 10,000 annually – a decade later. The tech giant announced last year it was shutting down its ability to store all users’ geo location data in its own database known as Sensorvault and instead leaving it on each consumer’s cell phone where it must be obtained by individual warrant.

No matter how Google changes their practices, the breadth of digital searching that law enforcement can still do in 2024 from other vendors leaves most experts certain the issue of geofencing and tactics likely will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

This is something to watch. How much privacy are Americans entitled to?

.

Good News For The January 6th Political Prisoners

Posted on by

Reader alert: this is one of those stories I occasionally post that I really don’t understand the repercussions of.

On Wednesday, The Epoch Times posted an article about the repercussions of the Supreme Court’s ruling involving obstruction charges against the January 6th defendants.

The article reports:

U.S. prosecutors have started dropping obstruction charges against defendants alleged to have been involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol, in the wake of a crucial Supreme Court decision.

Government prosecutors informed defendants and the judge overseeing the defendants’ cases that it will drop charges brought under federal law Section 1512(c)(2) in light of the ruling from the nation’s top court, according to a July 15 filing.

“This decision was made in order to avoid disruption to the trial schedule for a five-defendant case, and the dismissal eliminates the need for additional litigation as to the sufficiency of the Section 1512 charge as applied to these defendants,” the prosecutors told the judge.

…“Given the length of time this case has been pending, the specific facts of this case, the other relevant charges, the current trial date, and the need to promote judicial economy and efficiency, the United States requests that Count One be dismissed without prejudice in the interests of justice and that trial proceed on the remaining counts on August 12, 2024,” prosecutors said.

Defendants in other cases, and multiple people who have been convicted and are awaiting sentencing, have asked judges to consider the effect of the ruling. Some of the judges have ordered prosecutors to file briefs presenting their positions on what impact the ruling has on charges against the defendants.

The article notes:

Supreme Court justices said in the ruling, released June 28, that federal prosecutors went overboard in their application of Section 1512, which was approved by Congress in the aftermath of the Enron scandal and bars altering, destroying, mutilating, or concealing records.

The law also says that a person who “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”

Prosecutors said that the latter part of the law cover various crimes carried out by Jan. 6 defendants, a view rejected by the court’s majority.

It’s interesting that some of these charges are being dropped in view of a possible election victory by President Trump in November. Will the people who actually riot on President Trump’s inauguration day (as they did in January 2017) actually be put in jail?

Some Common-Sense Analysis

Posted on by

On Saturday night, after the assassination attempt on President Trump, Jonathan Turley posted an article at The Hill that sums up what a lot of Americans are thinking.

The article notes:

The assassination attempt of former President Donald Trump left a nation stunned. But the most shocking aspect was that it was not nearly as surprising as it should have been. For months, politicians, the press and pundits have escalated reckless rhetoric in this campaign on both sides. That includes claims that Trump was set to kill democracy, unleash “death squads” and make homosexuals and reporters “disappear.”

President Biden has stoked this rage rhetoric. In 2022, Biden held his controversial speech before Independence Hall where he denounced Trump supporters as enemies of the people. Biden recently referenced the speech and has embraced the claims that this could be our last democratic election.

…Some of us have been saying for years that this rage rhetoric is a dangerous political pitch for the nation. While most people reject the hyperbolic claims, others take them as true. They believe that homosexuals are going to be “disappeared” as claimed on ABC’s “The View” or that the Trump “death squads” are now green lighted by a conservative Supreme Court, as claimed by MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.

Rage is addictive and contagious. It is also liberating. It allows people a sense of license to take actions that would ordinarily be viewed as repulsive. 

As soon as Trump was elected, unhinged rage became the norm as with Kathy Griffin featuring herself holding the bloody severed head of Trump. 

Just recently, another celebrity, actress Lea DeLaria, begged Biden to “blow [Trump] up” after the recent presidential immunity decision. DeLaria explained that “this is a **** war. This is a war now, and we are fighting for our **** country. And these a**holes are going to take it away. They’re going to take it away.”

For months, people have heard politicians and press call Trump “Hitler” and the GOP a Nazi movement. Some compared stopping Trump to stopping Hitler in 1933. Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) declared Trump “is not only unfit, he is destructive to our democracy and he has to be eliminated.” He later apologized.

Please follow the link to read the rest of the article. We need to tone it down and realize that this is an important presidential election, but we need to respect both campaigns.

Preparing To Cheat

Posted on by

On Friday, Zero Hedge reported that the Wisconsin Supreme Court has reinstated unsupervised ballot drop boxes for the 2024 election. Anyone who is familiar with the movie 2000 Mules understands the problem with that ruling. On a lighter note, if President Biden is forced off the ballot, all of the phony ballots prepared for the November election will have to be scrapped.

The article reports:

In a 4-3 decision that reverses their own 2022 prohibition on unmanned dropboxes, the justices agreed with Democrats who argued that the Wisconsin Supreme Court had previously misinterpreted the law in its 2022 ruling, and wrongly concluded that absentee ballots can only be returned to a clerk in their office, and not to a drop box that is located elsewhere.

“What if we just got it wrong?” said Justice Jill Karofsky during May arguments. “What if we made a mistake? Are we now supposed to just perpetuate that mistake into the future?”

Attorneys representing Republican backers of the 2022 ruling argued that there have been no changes in the facts or the law to warrant overturning the ruling that’s less than two years old.

In 2023, the Wisconsin Supreme Court switched from a Republican majority to a Democrat majority. That explains the change in the voting process. At some point you have to ask yourself why the Democrats are so focused in preserving voting practices that enable cheating.

Some Things To Consider

Posted on by

The Supreme Court released a decision today stating that a former president is entitled to “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority” and “presumptive immunity” for all official acts. But it held there is no immunity for “unofficial acts.” If nothing else, it postpones Jack Smith’s trial of the President until after the election. It also enrages most of liberal America.

But what happens if President Trump is elected President? Why is much of the political left in panic mode about President Biden as the Democrat candidate? There is no obvious evidence of President Biden being involved in pay-to-play schemes as President–the evidence on Hunter’s laptop is before Joe Biden became President. Will the Trump Justice Department pursue that evidence? If they do, which they rightfully should, the media will scream that it is political retribution. That is one ace the crooks in the deep state have up their sleeve. Washington needs to cleaned up–hosed down, disinfected, exorcised, etc. President Trump is the obvious person to do this because his success is not dependent on the media or the deep state (in fact, quite the opposite–they have worked hard to make him fail).

I don’t believe that the government can hold the media accountable for their lies–the American public needs to do that. Five major corporations own the mainstream media. The Chinese subsidize much of the American media–CNN’s ratings are generally so far in the basement that they are looking for a sub-basement. We the public can simply stop buying their newspapers, magazines, etc., stop visiting their websites and streaming services, and stop watching their cable news channels. After a while they will either tell us the truth or go bankrupt. Either one is a win.

Can this mess be cleaned up? I don’t know. I do know that it won’t be cleaned up if we don’t try. For many years I paid no attention to politics–I was busy working and raising a family. During that time, those in Washington built their mini-empires. Now it’s time for all Americans to pay attention, vote, and turn this mess around. We can do it if we are willing to put in the effort to learn exactly what is going on instead of believing everything we are told.

A New Level Of Election Interference

Posted on by

The mainstream media is not a friend of Americans who love our Representative Republic. Currently the First Amendment is under attack in order to interfere with the November election. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has chosen to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

On Wednesday, The Daily Wire reported:

President Joe Biden and his administration have “made a mockery of the First Amendment,” according to George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, and the Supreme Court’s Wednesday decision in Murthy v. Missouri failed to put a stop to it.

Turley made an appearance on Wednesday on Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom,” where he broke down the ruling and the case for anchor Dana Perino.

“You call yourself a free speech absolutist,” Perino began, asking Turley, “What does this mean?”

“Well, it’s very frustrating for the free speech community because standing is often used to block meritorious claims,” Turley replied. “This is one of the most fundamental issues that we are facing.”

“I wrote about this issue, this case, in my recent book,” Turley continued. “You have one of the largest censorship systems in our history — if not the largest — it’s been called Orwellian by lower court judges. And what the court is saying is that ‘we won’t hear you on this issue because you’re not the right litigant.’”

The article concludes:

Two Republican state officials and five conservative social media users brought the challenge in Murthy v. Missouri, claiming that the White House’s pressure campaigns on social media companies to remove what the Biden administration deems “misinformation” amounted to censorship by proxy.

The Daily Wire is suing the Biden administration in a separate social media censorship case, alleging that the U.S. State Department is engaging with and promoting censorship technology designed to bankrupt domestic media outlets with disfavored political opinions. Last month, a federal judge rejected the State Department’s attempt to get the censorship lawsuit dismissed. The Daily Wire is joined by The Federalist and the state of Texas as plaintiffs in the case.

Clearing The Way For Deportations

Posted on by

On Friday, The Federalist posted an article about the Supreme Court’s decision regarding a loophole that allowed foreigners to avoid deportation proceedings by citing a paperwork technicality. The decision was 5-4. That is not surprising.

The article reports:

The case centered on three illegal immigrants: Moris Esmelis Campos-Chaves, an El Salvador native who entered the country illegally in 2005 through Texas; Varinder Singh, a man from India who illegally entered the U.S. in 2016 by “climbing over a fence” in California; and Mexico-native Raul Daniel Mendez-Colín, who illegally entered the U.S. in 2001 in Arizona.

The trio argued that their deportation notices did not meet the criteria for a proper notice as prescribed by the law.

Title 8 USC § 1229 (a) describes two types of notices. The first is a general initial notice to appear that shall include, among other specificities, a “time and place” for the proceeding. The second notice regards a “change or postponement in the time and place of such proceedings.” The Supreme Court previously ruled in 2021 that “this information must be provided in a single document in order to satisfy [the law].”

If an alien does not appear at his removal proceeding, the government has the authority to remove him. If the alien, however, can prove he did not receive the notice, he can seek to have the removal order rescinded.

The Supreme Court was technically hearing three separate cases, as one case stemmed from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that ruled in favor of the government while the other two, from the 9th Circuit, ruled in favor of the illegal immigrants.

The trio were ordered to be deported after they failed to appear at their deportation hearings. But the three illegal immigrants argued that the notices they received were improper since they initially lacked a specific date and time.

The article concludes:

Surely the burden is always on the government when dealing with the rights of citizens. But to claim that noncitizens — in this case people who knowingly broke the law and entered the country illegally — deserve the same right as an American to absolve themselves of the burden of proof is ludicrous.

Millions of illegal immigrants have flooded our border and overwhelmed not only Border Patrol, but the court system. The idea that these “noncitizens” should be allowed to stay in the country if the overwhelmed court system fails to provide a single document notifying them of their hearing is insanity.

The justices in the majority opinion were Justice Alito, Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, Justice Kavanaugh, and Justice Barrett. The justices in the minority were Justice Brown Jackson, Justice Sotomayor, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kagan.

Law vs the Lawless

Posted on by

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D

The implications of the recent travesty of justice apparent in the so-called trial and conviction of President Trump go directly to the foundations of America. It not only shows that the Democrats will use anything they can to stay in power and destroy their opposition; but, importantly, they do not believe in the founding principles necessary for a republic.

Laws are written as statements asserting specific actions that are prohibited. For example, there is a law forbidding car theft. There are also laws about the voting process and how elections should be managed. However, and here is the importance of what is now occurring with the Biden regime, people must support the spirit of the law if a republic is to survive. People must believe that theft is wrong. People must believe that interfering in elections is wrong. The Biden regime is demonstrating that they do not believe in the principles essential to the existence of America as we have had the privilege of knowing it. They do not believe in the essential principle that the people should run the country through their right to vote. As a consequence, they feel free to do whatever they can to violate the voting process. For them it Is not “Let the people decide at the ballot box,” but rather, “We the Elite” will control and run the country as we see fit. This is a tyranny that if not stopped will destroy our Republic. They are the lawless ones, since they do not believe in the principles and ideals that are the basis of our laws. Some of the most obvious examples are Biden forgiving student loans after the Supreme Court ruled he did not have that authority, ignoring immigration laws and encouraging the massive flood of illegals, and issuing federal mandates and executive orders that are the prerogative of congress. It is like trying to control a robber who believes stealing is his right.

Abraham Lincoln once said that the danger to our country will not come from abroad but rather from within. “If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.” It must be clear to any rational, clear thinking person that we are at the point that Lincoln warned us about. This is all in the Marxist playbook of how to destroy free countries and turn them into Marxist hell holes.

The question before us now is what do we do about it? The recent, dramatic increase in donations to President Trump and the Republican Party just after the unprecedented scam trial shows that people are finally realizing what is at stake in this coming election. We must not only throw the Marxist Democrats out of office, but we must take back our country and reinvigorate a love for America and its founding principles. No more half measures, no more compromising, but fighting to win and win BIG! Therein is our pathway to save America

Fixing An Obvious Problem

Posted on by

On Tuesday, The Epoch Times reported that Representative Chip Roy has introduced a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives that would require documentary proof of United States citizenship in order to register to vote. This is an idea whose time has come. One of the reasons for the flow of illegals into America is to create a new voter base–the old voter base is getting tired of Democrat shenanigans.

The article reports:

It lists several acceptable documents to verify the citizenship of a would-be voter, including a REAL ID compliant identification, a U.S. passport, a military ID card, or any valid state, federal or tribal identification, such as a birth certificate, hospital record, or adoption certificate, showing that the individual was born in, or is a naturalized citizen of, the United States.

The bill also provides for accommodations for mail-in voting registration or those unable to produce documentary proof of citizenship, who can undergo a separate process to have their citizenship verified.

States would also be required to “take affirmative steps on an ongoing basis to ensure that only United States citizens are registered to vote,” including clearing the voter rolls of those who are ineligible to vote due to their status as noncitizens. To that end, the bill also clarifies the conditions under which a state may seek to remove an individual from voter rolls.

Additionally, the bill would require the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to investigate noncitizens who are illegally registered to vote, up to and including the possibility of removal proceedings.

The article notes:

As so many illegal immigrants are already in the country, current law raises red flags that could potentially affect the outcome of the election, Mr. Johnson said.

“There’s so many millions of illegals in the country, that if only one out of one hundred voted, they would cast potentially hundreds of thousands of votes,” Mr. Johnson said. “That could turn an election.”

Critics of the bill have retorted that federal law already prohibits illegal immigrants from voting.

However, due to the Supreme Court’s expansion of the NVRA in 2013, existing laws include no solid mechanism for states to ensure that their voters are citizens.

When America was founded, only landowners were allowed to vote because they had a ‘stake’ in the government. Today we need to make sure that only people who are American citizens and have a ‘stake’ in the government are allowed to vote.

Isn’t Congress Supposed To Be The One Making Laws?

Posted on by

On April 21, American Greatness posted an article about some new regulations the Biden administration is planning for Title IV.

The article reports:

On April 19, 2024, the Biden administration finalized regulations it proposed in July 2022. Likely to avoid backlash at the polls this November, the administration recently indicated it is postponing finalizing the proposed sports-related Title IX regulations it published in April 2023. In each case, the regulations do something that not only the Executive Branch does not have authority to do but also what Congress has specifically declined to do.

They declare that “sex” in Title IX actually means sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

The Executive Branch has no authority to make such a radical change in the meaning of a statute. But this is no ordinary Executive Branch. This is the one whose chief executive recently boasted that although the Supreme Court ruled that he does not have the authority to forgive student loans, he is doing it anyway,[ii][ii]1 requiring truckers and plumbers to absorb the cost of strangers’ ineffectual college degrees. And although the President is required to administer and enforce the laws Congress has passed, this President has steadfastly refused to enforce our nation’s immigration laws.

Our government of, by, and for the people has bit by bit become a government of forced mandates to which we do not consent. Mandatory school, business, and church closures during 2020, along with required COVID-19 shots, were but the most visible recent manifestation of this trend.

The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, commonly known as the DREAM Act, was first introduced in Congress in 2001 and reintroduced numerous times thereafter. Each time, members of Congress, mindful of the opposition of their constituents, refused to pass it. Nonetheless, in 2012, without even relying on his phone and his pen as he had threatened, but merely with a memorandum from the head of his Department of Homeland Security, President Obama implemented DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) and DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans), a similar program for their parents, in effect implementing provisions of the law—the DREAM Act—which Congress repeatedly refused to pass.

Where is Congress? Hasn’t anyone in Congress figured out that this is not the government of our Founding Fathers? The checks and balances our Constitution put there are there for a reason. Congress needs to stand up and take back the power our Founding Fathers gave it.

Disrespecting the Constitution

Posted on by

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D

I think we would all agree that the Constitution has served as the basis of the success we have had in making America the longest lasting and most successful representative republic in history. The Founding Fathers got it right. Unfortunately, many members of the Marxist-leaning Democrat Party are doing their best to undermine the Constitution; led, of course, by the Biden regime. The Constitution, like any other guiding document, can only set forth examples of essential principles that must be followed. It cannot specify every possible way in which those basic principles can be violated. For a constitutional republic to survive, citizens must believe and agree to follow the basic principles. Here are some ways in which the leaders of the Democrat party are showing their contempt for the Constitution and its basic principles.

Let’s start with free speech. It is clear that the Founding Fathers considered the ability to express one’s thoughts without government control to be the essence of a free society. The efforts of the Biden regime to block free speech on social media platforms by influencing what they define as “misinformation,” violates the very principle of free speech. The CCTA radio show experienced this recently when the safety of vaccinations was discussed and the show was canceled on You Tube. Labelling free speech as “hate” speech and or “misinformation” is another attack on the principle of free speech.

Another example is the Biden regime’s continuing attacks on the right of citizens to bear arms as guaranteed in the second amendment. Defining semi- automatic rifles as “assault weapons,” as well as limiting the capacity of gun magazines and buying ammunition, are examples of their lack of belief and support for the principle behind the second amendment.

The Founding Fathers were extremely concerned about the power of big government to restrict the freedom of citizens, which is the reason they severely limited the role of the federal government and supported the role of the state governments. The Biden regime is showing distain for this essential principle of our Constitution. They have grown the federal government to an unprecedented 25% of our overall GDP; including 85,000 additional IRS agents to come after you the taxpayer. Recently, Biden has instructed all federal agencies to begin registering people to vote. This includes paying college students with federal funds to register fellow students, as well as nonstudents, in the local communities. This is clearly a violation of the constitutional principle that the federal government will not use its power to influence elections.

And lastly, the Biden regime is ignoring the Supreme Court decision that the President does not have the power under the Constitution to forgive students loans. This terminology is typical of the lies of the Biden regime in that this is not “forgiving loans” but actually making other people pay for these student loans. The separation of government powers into three branches is the most critical control mechanism in the Constitution. Biden is showing his complete disregard of the Supreme Court.

The irony of course is the Biden regime’s claim that Donald Trump represents a threat to our democracy; whereas, it is they who are the greatest threat to our constitutional republic since its founding. Add this to the list of things to consider when deciding who to vote for in November.

This Could Be Anyone’s Future

Posted on by

One of the things President Trump repeatedly says that to me is cringeworthy is, “In reality, they’re not after me, they’re after you. I’m just in the way.” The fact that the statement is cringeworthy to me doesn’t mean it is not true. Aside from the injustice currently happening in New York, the injustice being done to John Eastman is a disgrace to America.

On Tuesday, The Daily Caller reported:

One of the left’s biggest political targets recently found himself “de-banked” with no warning and little avenue for recourse, the Daily Caller has learned.

John Eastman, once an attorney for former President Donald Trump, was de-banked twice in the span of several months by two prominent financial institutions, Bank of America and USAA, he told the Daily Caller. His accounts were closed as he faced substantial backlash for his work advising Trump around the time of the 2020 election.

Eastman said he had switched most of his banking from Bank of America to USAA, a company that provides financial services exclusively to military veterans as well as their families, due to the former’s “wokeness.” Both corporations are federally insured, and Bank of America was bailed out with billions of dollars in taxpayer funds during the global financial crisis.

Bank of America alerted Eastman in September of 2023 that it would be closing his accounts, a letter obtained by the Daily Caller shows. Shortly thereafter, USAA notified Eastman in November that his two bank accounts with the company would be closed, a separate letter shows.

The article concludes:

A number of red state attorneys general — including from Florida, Iowa, Missouri, Indiana and Montana — voiced their opposition to the de-banking trend after the Daily Caller laid out Eastman’s situation. Many of the state AGs pointed to politics as a potential reason Eastman’s accounts were closed.

“No American should lose their bank account because banks want to play politics. Time and time again, we are seeing banks target and cut off those they disagree with and refuse to explain why. That is unacceptable,” Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird told the Daily Caller.

“De-banking contradicts the very character of our nation, as elites wrongfully use their power to punish their political opponents. Here’s the bottom line: If financial institutions are punishing consumers who don’t fall in line with their political beliefs, that could constitute a violation of both state and federal law,” Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey told the Daily Caller.

Now, Eastman is being prosecuted by Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis as part of her case against Trump. On March 27, a California judge ruled that Eastman should be disbarred due to his legal advice in the wake of the 2020 election. The case will now move to the state Supreme Court for a final decision.

“I just think this is a terrible trend. I think it’s harmful. I think it prohibits people from bringing their values and the public square into the marketplace. And they have every constitutional right under the Free Exercise clause to bring their values into the marketplace. And I think this is also I think this is something we’re just gonna have to fight against,” Sam Brownback, an attorney and former U.S. Senator whose Christian non-profit was de-banked, told the Daily Caller.

Our current government is enacting the Chinese Communist social credit system right before our eyes.

This Is A Good Idea

Posted on by

On Wednesday, Breitbart reported that the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of signature verification for mail-in voting in the state of Pennsylvania. Mail-in voting has been found to be one of the major sources of voter fraud in America. This is a step toward election integrity.

The article reports:

In a 2-1 ruling by three Democrat-appointed judges, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a previous ruling from a federal district court that struck down the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling that required a “dated signature requirement” for mail-in voting. Per the RNC:

In November 2022, the RNC, NRCC, and PAGOP secured a victory on this issue in front of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. A federal district court then struck down the dated signature requirement in November 2023. We appealed, and now the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed with the RNC’s argument.

This was a 2-1 ruling handed down by 3 Democrat-appointed judges. This ruling will have far-reaching effects regarding left-wing attempts to weaponize the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act across the country and represents a victory for mail ballot safeguards in a crucial swing state.

The article concludes:

Pennsylvania, RNC Chairman Michael Whatley hailed the decision as a “crucial victory for election integrity.”

“This is a crucial victory for election integrity and voter confidence in the Keystone State and nationwide. Pennsylvanians deserve to feel confident in the security of their mail ballots, and this 3rd Circuit ruling roundly rejects unlawful left-wing attempts to count undated or incorrectly dated mail ballots. Republicans will continue to fight and win for election integrity in courts across the country ahead of the 2024 election,” he said in a statement.

The case is PA State Conference of NAACP Branches vs. Secretary Commonwealth of PA, No. 23-3166 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

This is a positive step toward election integrity.

Laws For Thee But Not For Me

Posted on by

On Wednesday, The New York Post reported that Jon Stewart, after stating that “that Donald Trump’s civil real-estate case overvaluing his properties was “not victimless,”” was found to have done similar things.

When The New York Post did some investigating, this is what they found:

But it didn’t take long for internet sleuths to look into Stewart’s own property history, which shows his New York City penthouse sold for 829% more than its assessed value, records confirmed by The Post reveal.

In 2014, Stewart sold his 6,280-square-foot Tribeca duplex to financier Parag Pande for $17.5 million.

The property’s asking price at that time is not available in listing records.

But according to 2013-2014 assessor records obtained by The Post, the property had the estimated market-value at only $1.882 million.

…The actual assessor valuation was even lower, at $847,174.

Records also show that Stewart paid significantly lower property taxes, which were calculated based on that assessor valuation price — precisely what he called Trump out for doing in his Monday monologue.

Pande, who purchased the penthouse from Stewart, then resold the property at a nearly 26% loss, according to the Real Deal — at just over $13 million — in 2021.

Clean up your own backyard!

The article concludes:

Trump had valued the property, known as Seven Springs, at $261 million.

The difference between Stewart and Trump’s cases is that a judge ruled that Trump sometimes exaggerated to lenders about how big his properties were, including the square footage of his Trump Tower apartment.

Last month, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron ordered Trump to pay $355 million — and temporarily banned him from doing business in the state — relying heavily on the assessed valuations of the properties to determine the ruling.

The $454 million bond to appeal the ruling marks the highest bond ever recorded in United States history against a single individual.

I guess the laws only apply to some people.

The Continuing Lawfare

Posted on by

The Epoch Times reported yesterday that the lawfare against President Trump slowed slightly yesterday when the New York state Supreme Court’s First Judicial Department Appellate Division granted a stay of enforcement on the $464 million judgment on former President Donald Trump.

The article reports:

The New York state Supreme Court’s First Judicial Department Appellate Division has granted a stay of enforcement on the $464 million judgment on former President Donald Trump with conditions, allowing The Trump Organization to avert having assets imminently seized by the New York attorney general.

The order came after defense attorneys argued that a $464 million bond was impossible after having contracted four brokers to negotiate with more than 30 companies. Sureties don’t issue bonds that large for private individuals, and even if The Trump Organization were a public conglomerate they could issue such a bond to, it would require some $570 million in cash to cover additional premiums.

The court’s conditions for lowering the bond include President Trump posting $175 million within 10 days and the other orders on the judgment going into effect.

The judgment permanently bars former Trump Organization Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg and former Comptroller Jeffrey McConney from serving in financial control of any New York business entity; permanently bars President Trump, Mr. Weisselberg, and Mr. McConney from serving as an officer or director of any New York corporation for three years; bars President Trump from applying for loans from New York financial institutions for three years; and bars Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump from serving as an officer or director in New York for two years.

There was no stay requested for the continuance of an independent monitor overseeing financial matters in The Trump Organization or the installation of a compliance officer.

Just for the record, there is no Constitutional justification for a government entity placing a monitor or a compliance officer in a private business. This is an affront to the concept of free enterprise that  built America. I would like to see every major business leave New York State until they rescind whatever ‘law’ they are using to justify their actions against President Trump.