Tag Archives: Supreme Court

Why President Trump Is Asking For A New Census

Posted on by

On Thursday, The Federalist posted an article explaining the need for a new census and the reason President Trump is asking that it be done before the mid-term elections.

The article reports:

President Donald Trump announced Thursday he instructed the Commerce Department to begin working on a census that does not include illegal aliens. It’s a long-overdue correction to a system that Democrats have exploited for years to tip the balance of power in Washington.

“I have instructed our Department of Commerce to immediately begin work on a new and highly accurate CENSUS based on modern day facts and figures and, importantly, using the results and information gained from the Presidential Election of 2024. People who are in our country illegally WILL NOT BE COUNTED IN THE CENSUS. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” Trump said.

Trump previously signed a memo in 2020 that barred illegal aliens from being counted in the census. The memo was challenged and made its way to the Supreme Court, which ultimately did not rule on the merits as to whether all residents — regardless of their legal status — must be counted and if the president has the authority to exclude nonresidents.

The high court however did rule in the 1976 decision Mathews v. Diaz, a case regarding the Social Security Act, that while illegal immigrants are entitled to due process protections under the Fifth and 14th Amendments, they are not entitled to the benefits of citizenship. 

The article concludes:

NBC News’ Alexandra Marquez says not counting illegal aliens would be “contrary to the Constitution.”

But that is a suspect conclusion drawn by the propaganda press. The Framers likely would not support the position that illegal aliens who invaded the nation should be counted in apportionment to determine representation. In fact, prior to the ratification of the Constitution, most northern states advocated for no slaves to be counted in the apportionment proceedings so that slaveholding states, some of which had slave populations as high as 43 percent of their total residents, would not have an unfair amount of representation compared to their actual voting weight.

Yet, we’re supposed to believe Axios, NBC News, and NPR that illegal aliens would have been counted in the census?

Counting illegal alien in the census skews congressional apportionment and the electoral college — and the American citizen pays the price in diluted representation and misallocated resources.

I would like to see some of the people who support rights reserved for American citizens being bestowed on illegal aliens go to another country and try to claim the rights of that country’s citizens. It would be interesting to see what happens next.

The Goal Of The Democrat Party

Posted on by

On Thursday, PJ Media posted an article explaining what the Democrats plan to do if they gain control of Congress in 2026. Obviously, the first thing they plan to do is to impeach President Trump. We all want to go back to the Biden economy, right? Voters need to see the dangers ahead if the Democrats gain control of Congress–the danger is not just economic.

The article reports:

Democrats have completely dropped the pretense of fair play and now openly admit that they intend to rig the system to secure permanent control. James Carville, a longtime Democratic strategist, declared that if Democrats win big in 2028, they should use that victory as a launchpad to cement their power in ways never seen before.

Carville explicitly called for adding Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, both reliably Democratic strongholds, as new states to skew electoral influence. On top of that, he advocated expanding the Supreme Court to 13 seats, packing it with leftist judges to tilt future judicial decisions in their favor. In other words, Democrats are no longer content with trying to win elections; they want to change the rules so they can’t lose them.

“If the Democrats win the presidency, the Senate and the House in 2028, which is not impossible — I don’t know if you’d say likely or possible, I don’t know what word, you know, but it’s certainly not impossible — they are just gonna have to unilaterally add Puerto Rico and District of Columbia states,” he said.

We have already seen the howls of panic at the idea that the Republicans might copy the Democrats and gerrymander election districts. Now the Democrats are hoping to change the rules so that America only has one political party in power indefinitely. So who is the threat to democracy? Just for the record, we are a constitutional republic–not a democracy.

Let’s get an accurate census, redistrict in a way that favors neither party, and have an honest election.

When Judges Don’t Like The Law

Posted on by

On Sunday, The Daily Caller posted an article about the influence of the Supreme Court decision regarding federal judges trying to undermine President Trump’s agency. Basically, the Supreme Court said that they were exceeding their authority. Unfortunately, the judges have continued to ignore the Supreme Court’s ruling.

The article reports:

Federal judges are increasingly ruling against the Trump administration’s agenda and in defiance of Supreme Court orders.

The executive branch finds itself fending off endless counter-opinions from federal judges in the courtroom as it continues to implement its hard-line immigration policies. While the Trump administration has scored major victories in the nation’s highest court, including successfully reining in the scope of nationwide injunctions by federal judges, some have chosen to defy Supreme Court rulings.

U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, an appointee of the Biden administration, blocked the Trump administration on Friday from using a process known as “expedited removal” to quickly remove illegal migrants from the country, according to court documents. The order could, at least for the time being, dramatically curtail the White House’s ability to carry out its deportation agenda.

In a public statement about the ruling, an administration spokesperson slammed the Biden-appointed judge, accusing her of defying a previous Supreme Court ruling.

The article concludes:

The Trump administration, which has grown increasingly frustrated with “activist judges” continually undermining its agenda, scored a major victory in late June when, in a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court dramatically limited lower courts’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions in a decision revolving around Trump’s birthright citizenship order.

“The injunctions before us today reflect a more recent development: district courts asserting the power to prohibit enforcement of a law or policy against anyone,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett stated in the majority opinion. “These injunctions — known as ‘universal injunctions’ — likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts. We therefore grant the Government’s applications to partially stay the injunctions entered below.”

The White House referred to the decision as a “big win” in a press statement shortly following the order.

However, in the relatively short amount of time since that Supreme Court ruling, lower courts have repeatedly taken advantage of exceptions in the order that still allow them to issue nationwide injunctions. Lower courts have blocked the president’s asylum ban at the southern border and barred the White House from ending deportation protections for Haitian nationals.

A federal judge in late July barred the Trump administration from ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegal migrants, marking the third such nationwide court ruling blocking the order since the Supreme Court ruling.

The President represents the executive branch of our government. He was elected to do a job. The judges are way outside their lane when they try to prevent the President from doing the job he was elected to do.

Who Does Congress Represent?

Posted on by

Theoretically, Congress represents the will of the American people. The House of Representatives is set up according to the population of each state–states with larger populations get more Representatives. The Senate has two Senators from every state regardless of population. The census determines what the numbers are. The law requires an American census every ten years. Some years the census has had a question regarding citizenship on its long form, and some years there was no long form. President Trump is asking that the citizenship question be added to the short form. Congress is supposed to represent Americans–not citizens of other countries who live her for various reasons. Adding the citizenship question and apportioning representatives accordingly would provide a more representative government. If non citizens are not counted in the census, California and New York would have fewer representatives in Congress and those states would receive less federal funds.

On June 30th, Just the News reported:

The Supreme Court has never made a determination on the legal merits of the argument that noncitizens should not be counted in the United States census, but may soon be forced to do so.

The fight to clarify the census and subsequently adjust congressional seats, Electoral College votes and federal funding, is coming down the pike, according to White House deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller. 

Miller indicated last month that he’s eager to dive straight in and that Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick will help lead the effort. 

Trump has at his disposal a number of avenues to accomplish his goal, one of which includes Lutnick’s agency. Utilizing this route, the Commerce Department could propose adding a census question to distinguish citizens, legal permanent residents, and unauthorized immigrants, as suggested by a lawsuit filed by Republican-led states and the Department of Commerce in January 2025. The data could then be used to exclude noncitizens from apportionment, though not necessarily from the overall count. 

The article notes:

In 2020, the Trump administration sought to exclude noncitizens from the U.S. Census count which is used to apportion congressional seats and Electoral College votes, a move that sparked significant controversy. In July of that year, President Donald Trump issued a memorandum directing the Census Bureau to use administrative records to identify and exclude undocumented immigrants from the apportionment count, arguing that including them dilutes the political power of citizens and constitutes voter suppression.

The administration argued that the Constitution’s mandate to count “persons” did not explicitly require counting noncitizens for apportionment. This effort faced immediate legal challenges from blue states and cities, many of which were sanctuary jurisdictions, and immigrant advocacy groups, who argued the policy violated the Constitution and would discourage immigrant participation in the census, potentially undercounting communities with large noncitizen populations.

This is a battle to watch. The question is, “Who is Congress supposed to represent?”

Slowing Down The Lawfare

Posted on by

One of the political left’s preferred methods of blocking President Trump and his agenda is lawfare. The deep state raided his house, arrested him, posted a mugshot, and generally tried to use questionable legal tactics to stop him from becoming President. When that didn’t work, they enlisted the aid of some liberal district court judges to counter his agenda. Well, that may be coming to an end.

On Friday, Townhall reported:

In a 6-3 decision Friday, the Supreme Court ruled President Donald Trump’s efforts to end “birthright” citizenship are constitutional, overruling rogue judges issuing national injunctions. As explained by our friends at RedState, “the court has issued an opinion in CASA v. Trump, which is actually three consolidated cases involving challenges to President Donald Trump’s executive order regarding birthright citizenship.” 

“Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts. The Court grants the Government’s applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue,” the decision states, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

“When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too,” she continued. “The Court today puts an end to the ‘increasingly common’ practice of federal courts issuing universal injunctions.”

President Trump is the duly elected President of the United States–district court judges cannot supersede his authority.

Let the MAGA agenda proceed!

The Supreme Court Steps In

Posted on by

Some of the lower courts in America have decided that they are the President. It’s getting very old to see anything President Trump does result in a lawsuit filed in a lower court to stop whatever it is. I think that if President Trump declared that grocery shopping on Saturday was a good thing, the courts would try to close the stores on Saturday. However, the Supreme Court is slowly stepping up to the plate.

On Friday, The Epoch Times reported:

The Supreme Court has temporarily stayed a lower court decision that halted the Trump administration’s attempt to remove a protection known as parole for immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.

The court’s decision, which came on May 30, blocks the lower court order as the issue plays out in the court system. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the court’s decision.

The Trump administration had argued that the decision to remove parole was discretionary for the secretary of homeland security and not reviewable by courts.

We need controlled, legal immigration. We need to bring people into America who will assimilate and who will work to help build this country. We definitely need to revise our immigration policies to make it easier for people to come to America, but we also need to limit the number of immigrants we allow in at any one time. We need to control immigration in a way that allows for assimilation. Britain, and some of the European Union Countries are currently in danger of losing their identity because of mass migration by people who are not interested in assimilating into their various cultures. This is a threat to western civilization. There are differences in civilizations–and people need to live where they are most comfortable with the culture–they do not need to take over the culture of another country. The takeover of the British culture is currently happening in Britain. I don’t want it to happen here.

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.