The  Supreme  Court

Another nearby page is about lawyers in general and lower-level judges.  This page was developed in 2005 as a couple of vacancies appeared on the Supreme Court and nasty battles followed.  There is a lot of material here about John Roberts, Harriet Miers and Samuel Alito.  But much of the discussion is about the things a person has to go through to get onto the Supreme Court — if he or she is a Reuplican.  Democrats seem to have an easier time of it.  (Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed by a vote of 96 to 3, even though she was an ACLU lawyer.)  This page is set aside for the specific issue of Supreme Court nominees, but there is also some material about the Supreme Court's effect in general.

I still think the most interesting thing about the nominations and confirmations in 2005 and early 2006 has been the fact that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor submitted her resignation effective only upon her successor's confirmation.  But unless she resigns, there is no vacancy, so there could be no nominations.  If I had been the President of the United States, I would have sent back a letter telling her to resign or don't, but not to try to have it both ways.

All the discussion about President Obama's nominees, Judge Sonia Sotomayor and Ms. Elena Kagan is located on another nearby page.

Outdated material about Samuel Alito and Harriet Miers has been moved to this page in order to save bandwidth and reduce clutter.

Look on this page for information about the Supreme Court's handling of the gun ban in the District of Columbia.

The recent case of Boumediene v. Bush is discussed here.

The resistance and obstruction surrounding Judge Brett Kavanaugh is discussed here.

Gregg Jarrett eviscerates Joe Biden's idiotic SCOTUS commission.  "Packing the Supreme Court" is a noxious idea and even Biden knows it.  He famously (and correctly) denounced it as "boneheaded" and a "terrible, terrible idea."  But during the campaign, he didn't have the courage to stand by his convictions[,] because he feared it would alienate the liberals in his party that he's been sucking up to.  So, he pandered to the idea (and then dodged) and then appointed a commission to study it[,] hoping to buy time and shift responsibility elsewhere.  It's the antithesis of leadership, but classic Joe Biden.  He's the Charlie Brown of presidents — notoriously wishy-washy and a model of self-contradiction.  Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the high court but failed.  And Biden is no FDR — not by a long shot.  But as a practical matter, it won't happen.  Not a chance.  You'd need a constitutional amendment to impose a term limit[,] and that won't happen.  And Democrats would have to blow up the filibuster in order to add justices to the court[,] and that won't happen.  But more importantly, it's politically toxic.  Polls consistently show that Americans are vehemently opposed to tampering with the Supreme Court.

Democrat Dog and Pony Shows Come up Short.  It isn't hard to point out the failures of Democrats.  They're so numerous it would be difficult to compile a comprehensive list of them.  But two recent political gambits by congressional Democrats are falling flat on their face.  Biden's SCOTUS Commission and the congressional J6 commission have completely failed in their purpose of hiding their incompetence in managing anything larger than a fundraising dinner.  Democrats successfully managed to whip their base into a frenzy over the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.  It seems like ages ago now, but the #MeToo crowd that trashed Kavanaugh was nowhere to be found when Trump was able to nominate a second Supreme Court justice, Amy Coney Barrett, who was attacked for merely being a mother Democrats didn't like.

Cotton: SCOTUS Commission Was an 'Effort to Provide Joe Biden Cover'.  During a Friday [10/15/2021] interview on Fox News Channel's "America's Newsroom," Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) sounded off on the White House's presidential commission on the Supreme Court's seeming reluctance to support court-packing.  According to Cotton, the commission was never supposed to make any changes to the Supreme Court.  Instead, the Arkansas Republican said the commission's purpose from the beginning was to provide then-presidential candidate Joe Biden "cover" from the far left.

Biden's Supreme Court packing commission says they are split on adding more justices.  Joe Biden's Supreme Court commission warned that expanding the number of Justices on the bench could be seen as a 'partisan move' with global and domestic repercussions in documents released on Thursday evening [10/14/2021].  Members of the panel agreed that Congress had the Constitutional authority to pull it off but were 'divided on whether Court expansion would be wise.'  Biden established the presidential commission in April.  The panel is now releasing more than 200 documents as the high court navigates one of its most politically divisive sessions with questions on abortion and gun rights on the docket in coming weeks.

A Radical Dissent by Justice Clarence Thomas Offers a Reproach to Merrick GarlandBrown v. Entertainment Merchants arose after California passed a law banning the sale of violent video games to persons under the age of 18.  California was promptly sued by, in Entertainment Mercahnts, a trade association.  They were opposed by the governor, Edmund Brown, and the state attorney general, one — remember this — Kamala Harris.  At the Supreme Court, the state of California lost.  The majority opinion was written by The Great Scalia, as the justice is known in these columns.  The opinion noted that the high bench had already rejected attempts by states to "shoehorn" violence into unprotected category of obscenity.  More broadly, the majority of justices reckoned that the California law "does not comport with the First Amendment," which prohibits laws abriding the freedom of speech.  Joining Justice Scalia in the majority were Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan.  Justice Alito wrote a separate concurrence.  So it turned out that the only justices to side with Governor Edmund Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris — both Democrats — were Justice Breyer and, in Clarence Thomas, the most right-wing member of the high court.

John Roberts is no longer the leader of his own court.  Who, then, controls it?  When Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the decisive vote in 2012 that upheld Barack Obama's signature achievement in office, the Affordable Care Act, he reportedly did so following a month-long campaign by fellow conservatives to try to get him to join their side.  His decision to side with liberal colleagues inspired ire on the right but it also cemented the chief justice's role as the leader of his own court.  That was then.  Last week, as the supreme court began a new session that will include rulings on abortion, gun rights, and torture, Roberts no longer holds the coveted role of sitting in the court's ideological center.

People Notice When the Elites Lie.  [Scroll down]  Ordinary Americans, who aren't emotionally invested in keeping up the illusion that all is well on the banks of the Potomac, saw something different.  They saw John Roberts telling a lie and Donald Trump telling the truth.  Everybody knows that most of what the upper level of the judicial system does is politics by another name.  They know that most of the time, Obama judges, Trump judges, Bush judges, and Clinton judges rule differently on politically charged questions.  And a large portion of the American people decide whom to vote for in presidential elections based mainly on what kinds of judges they want the next president to appoint.  John Roberts has the audacity to tell these people that none of this is true and that all judges are really just doing their best to enforce the same laws in an impartial way.

Supreme Court rejects appeal by D.C. residents for more representation in Congress.  The Supreme Court on Monday [10/4/2021] advised a lower court to reconsider earlier decisions on the border wall and rejected an appeal from Washington, D.C. residents for voting rights in Congress, delivering a blow to the districts statehood push.  The high court on Monday directed lower courts to reconsider their previous rulings that froze funding for construction of a wall at the southern border.  Former President Trump, after watching Congress deny his funding requests for the wall, declared an emergency and diverted $3.6 billion from the military budget for the wall, drawing a slew of lawsuits.

Sonia Sotomayor Exposes the Lie of an 'Apolitical' Supreme Court.  [Scroll down]  And just as all eyes have returned to the court, observers of all stripes have been presented with a timely reminder as to how the court's progressives view their jobs: to wit, as unabashed liberal partisans.  That reminder has now come courtesy of the current court's most far-left justice, Sonia Sotomayor.  It follows an entire career's worth of similar comments from Justice Sotomayor's former colleague, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  According to reporting from both CNN and the Washington Post, Sotomayor recently offered what can only be interpreted as a substantive public policy position on S.B. 8, Texas' recent anti-abortion fetal heartbeat law that has garnered much national attention.  That Sotomayor would now offer a forthright political opinion on the topic is hardly unexpected:  She dissented from the court's correct recent decision to deny Texas pro-abortion plaintiffs' emergency request to enjoin any enforcement of S.B. 8, lambasting the law at the time as "flagrantly unconstitutional."

Vaccinated Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh tests positive for COVID.  The Supreme Court revealed Friday that Justice Brett Kavanaugh tested positive for Covid-19 on Thursday night [9/30/2021].  The justice, 56, has been fully vaccinated against the virus, as have all other members of the high court.  He is currently experiencing no symptoms and his wife and family have tested negative.  The court said Kavanaugh had tested negative as recently as Monday morning.

The Supreme Court Could Not 'Block' Texas' Fetal Heartbeat Law.  On Wednesday [9/1/2021], the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene in a challenge to S.B. 8, Texas' new abortion law.  This unique statute empowers private citizens to sue those who perform or facilitate abortions.  President Biden ripped the 5-4 decision, charging that the conservative justices followed "procedural complexities" "rather than use its supreme authority to ensure justice."  Biden is wrong.  The Court has no sweeping, majestic power to "ensure justice."  Indeed, it is a myth that courts can "strike down" laws at all.  Rather, judges have a very limited power:  to enjoin specific government officials from enforcing laws against specific litigants.  The judiciary cannot simply erase statutes from the book.  And when the government plays no role at all in enforcing a statute — as with S.B. 8 — courts cannot "block" that law from going into effect.

Supreme Court Refuses To Block Texas Heartbeat Law Which Virtually Bans Killing Babies.  The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Texas law that protects babies who have a detectable heartbeat from being aborted in the Lone Star State.  In a 5-4 decision, the highest court in the nation declined to block Texas' newest abortion law despite protests from Planned Parenthood, other abortion activists, and even journalists.  Radical pro-abortion facilities and activists first brought an emergency petition to the Supreme Court with the hopes that the justices would at least temporarily block the law from going into effect on Sept. 1.  The court passed on acting on the petition on Aug. 31, meaning the law, which gives private citizens the power to file civil suits against anyone who performs abortions after six weeks or assists a woman in obtaining an abortion, went into effect on Wednesday.  Violators of the law could be forced to pay $10,000 to the plaintiff.

Follow the Science... Toward Tyranny.  Now comes the U.S. Supreme Court espying tyranny in a bureaucratic Centers for Disease Control (CDC) regulation preposterously claiming to prevent the spread of COVID-19.  Perhaps the court caught some anti-tyranny virus, for just 48 hours before, it denied the bureaucracy the ability to preserve and enhance the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA) program — which allows "Dreamers" to remain in the United States illegally and indefinitely.  Whatever the epidemiology of its jurisprudence, the court's unsigned per curiam opinion in Alabama Association of Realtors v. HHS has exposed the tyranny of the administrative state.  Both the CDC and the DACA examples illustrate the extent to which the federal government is governed not by an elected congress or president, or even the unelected courts but by the administrative state, the nexus of bureaucracy, academia, and media that effectively rules America on behalf of increasingly leftist policies.

Supreme Court denies request to stop Texas 6-week abortion ban, with John Roberts and liberals dissenting.  The Supreme Court formally denied a request from Texas abortion providers to freeze a state law that bars abortions after six weeks.  Chief Justice John Roberts joined the three liberal justices in dissent.  The court's move means that the law — which is one of the strictest in the nation and bans abortion before many people know they are pregnant — will remain on the books.  The law allows private citizens to bring civil suits against anyone who assists a pregnant person seeking an abortion in violation of the ban.  In an unsigned opinion, the majority wrote that while the clinics had raised "serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law," they had not met a burden that would allow the court to block it at this time due to "complex" and "novel" procedural questions.

Virginia Supreme Court upholds reinstatement of teacher who opposes transgender pronoun mandates.  Loudoun County Public Schools failed to convince the Virginia Supreme Court that it had the right to suspend a teacher — and ban him from school board meetings — for publicly speaking against a proposed transgender pronoun mandate.  The high court upheld a circuit court ruling that reinstated Tanner Cross as his free speech lawsuit proceeds against the district.  It cited recent First Amendment precedents from both the U.S. Supreme Court and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which does not have jurisdiction over Virginia federal courts.  "[I]t is settled law that the government may not take adverse employment actions against its employees in reprisal for their exercising their right to speak on matters of public concern," and the district doesn't dispute that Cross was speaking on an "issue of social, political, or other interest to a community," the high court said.

A spot of good news in sea of bad news.  On Thursday [8/26/2021], a grim day, in a depressing month, in a terrible year, there is some good news:  the Supreme Court killed the CDC's efforts to destroy private property.  In a per curium decision, the six non-leftist Supreme Court justices held that the CDC lacks the authority to impose eviction moratoriums.  This is a huge victory, not just for property-owners, but for the American way of life.

Supreme Court Ends Biden's Eviction Moratorium.  The Supreme Court on Thursday [8/26/2021] rejected the Biden administration's latest moratorium on evictions, ending a political and legal dispute during a public health crisis in which the administration's shifting positions had subjected it to criticism from adversaries and allies alike.  The court issued an eight-page majority opinion, an unusual move in a ruling on an application for emergency relief, where terse orders are more common.  The court's three liberal justices dissented.  The decision puts hundreds of thousands of tenants at risk of losing shelter, while the administration struggles to speed the flow of billions of dollars in federal funding to people who are behind in rent because of the coronavirus pandemic and its associated economic hardship.  Only about $5.1 billion of the $46.5 billion in aid had been disbursed by the end of July, according to figures released on Wednesday, as bureaucratic delays at the state and local levels snarled payouts.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Biden Eviction Moratorium.  The Supreme Court struck down the Biden administration's eviction moratorium in a 6-3 decision on Thursday [8/26/2021].  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued the moratorium earlier this month to cover counties with "high" or "substantial" coronavirus spread, which as of Wednesday included the vast majority of counties in the U.S. The order was issued after a previous nationwide moratorium instituted during the Trump administration expired on July 31.

Supreme Court Allows Revival of Trump-Era 'Remain in Mexico' Asylum Policy.  The Supreme Court on Tuesday [8/24/2021] refused to block a ruling from a federal judge in Texas requiring the Biden administration to reinstate a Trump-era immigration program that forces asylum seekers arriving at the southwestern border to await approval in Mexico.  The court's brief unsigned order said that the administration had appeared to act arbitrarily and capriciously in rescinding the program, citing a decision last year refusing to let the Trump administration rescind the Obama-era program protecting the young immigrants known as dreamers.

Supreme Court Rules Against Biden, Reinstates Trump's 'Remain In Mexico' Policy.  The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday [8/24/2021] against the Biden administration's attempt to end former President Donald Trump's "Remain in Mexico" policy.  In a 6-3 vote, the court rejected the administration's bid to block U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk's ruling that revived the enforcement of the policy.  The high court said the administration failed to show the decision to end the policy was not arbitrary and capricious.  Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented.

Supreme Court Orders Reinstatement of 'Remain in Mexico' Policy in [a] Blow to Biden Admin.  The Supreme Court on Tuesday [8/24/2021] declined to block a lower-court ruling that will require the Biden administration to reinstate the Trump-era "Remain in Mexico" policy for asylum seekers at the U.S. border.  The court's three liberal justices dissented, saying they would have granted the administration's request to halt the lower court's order.  The administration had sought to end the policy, formally known as Migrant Protection Protocols, which forces migrants to await their U.S. immigration court dates in Mexico.  The program was first suspended when Biden took office and was later formally terminated.  However, Texas and Missouri sued to challenge the Biden administration's decision to end the program.

US Supreme Court Intervenes in 'Remain in Mexico' Case, Blocking Program's Revival.  The U.S. Supreme Court on Aug. 20 temporarily blocked the reinstatement of the "Remain in Mexico" program, intervening just hours before President Joe Biden's administration would have had to restart the policy.  Justice Samuel Alito, a George W. Bush nominee, in a one-page order, stayed a ruling by a federal judge that was poised to go into effect on Aug. 21.  That ruling would have forced the Biden administration to restart the Trump-era program, formally known as the Migrant Policy Protocols (MPP).  The Biden administration ended the program on June 1, triggering a lawsuit from the states of Texas and Missouri.  Alito issued the order after the U.S. government filed an emergency motion with the nation's top court.  He said he was blocking the lower court ruling so that the full Supreme Court could consider the application.  He has asked the states that are challenging the Biden administration's reversal of the policy to respond to the administration's request by Aug. 24.

Justice Amy Barrett denies appeal from Indiana University students fighting COVID-19 vaccine mandate.  Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett denied an appeal from students at Indiana University to block the school's vaccine mandate.  Barrett, who has jurisdiction over the appeals court involved in the case, denied the students request for an injunction against Indiana University's vaccine mandate on her own without consulting other colleagues on the court and without hearing from the school.  Indiana University told students and employees that they are required to be vaccinated by the start of the fall term on August 23.  Students who don't comply will have their registration canceled, and employees who don't comply will lose their jobs.

Supreme Court Denies Petition to Block Indiana University's Vaccinate Mandate.  The Supreme Court denied Thursday [8/12/2021] the petition of eight Indiana University students asking to block the school's requirement that students receive the COVID vaccine as a condition of fall enrollment.  Newly confirmed conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett was charged with reviewing the legal challenge to the college's rule and refused to block it.  No other justices on the bench offered a dissenting opinion.  The case originated when a group of Indiana students asked the court for an emergency order striking down the mandate, claiming that the potential harm of inoculation exceeded the merits of protection against the disease for their age demographic.

The Supreme Court has Become a Council of Kings.  In this month's edition of "let's kill the Constitution," we have the CDC's eviction moratorium as the next demonstration that no one in our government feels compelled to comply with the Constitution anymore.  In Alabama Association of Realtors v.  Department of Health and Human Services, the Supreme Court upheld the CDC eviction moratorium and did so in a manner that vastly expanded the Court's power and authority.  The moratorium required that property owners allow others to squat on their property, without compensation, for over a year.  It was clearly a violation of constitutionally protected property rights.  It restricted what property-owners could and could not do with their own property, without compensation or due process.  A minority comprising Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett held that the CDC does not have the authority to impose an eviction moratorium — even during a time of pandemic.  Justice Kavanaugh agreed with this minority but then voted with Justices Roberts, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan to allow the moratorium to stand.

The Bill Comes Due After the DOJ Capitalizes on Brett Kavanaugh's Cowardice.  As I feared, Brett Kavanaugh's cowardice in not vacating the stay on the original eviction moratorium is coming back to haunt property owners across the country.  In my previous pieces on this topic, I noted that Kavanaugh had the chance to join the conservatives, vacate the stay on the original moratorium, and do so in a way that clearly prevents any future issuance given how blatantly unconstitutional this theft of property is.  Instead, perhaps in some misguided attempt to get the left to love him, the Trump-appointed justice joined the liberals, allowing the moratorium to continue and expire.  By doing so, Kavanaugh created a path for Joe Biden and the CDC to essentially game the system, bankrupting more landlords before any new challenge can make it through the courts.  Biden admitted yesterday that is their plan.

Mississippi Attorney General Asks Supreme Court to Overturn Roe V. Wade.  The Mississippi Attorney General on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to overturn Roe V. Wade.  "The conclusion that abortion is a constitutional right has no basis in text, structure, history, or tradition" Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch told the Supreme Court justices.  "There are those who would like to believe that Roe v.  Wade settled the issue of abortion once and for all," Fitch said in a statement posted on her official website.  "But all it did was establish a special-rules regime for abortion jurisprudence that has left these cases out of step with other Court decisions and neutral principles of law applied by the Court.  As a result, state legislatures, and the people they represent, have lacked clarity in passing laws to protect legitimate public interests, and artificial guideposts have stunted important public debate on how we, as a society, care for the dignity of women and their children.  It is time for the Court to set this right and return this political debate to the political branches of government."

Backlash in states starts over Biden court-packing scheme.  At the very moment today [7/20/2021] that President Joe Biden's Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States was meeting to consider adding likely Democratic justices, an effort started in Wisconsin to lock in the current makeup of the court — and 150 years of history.  Newly elected Wisconsin state Sens. Julian Bradley and Eric Wimberger and Rep. Tony Kurtz said they started to circulate a resolution to block expanding the court beyond nine judges.  While some other states have passed simple resolutions on the issue, their plan, dubbed "Wisconsin Keep 9 Resolution," calls for a constitutional convention to debate an amendment that would require nine states.  In a memo seeking co-sponsors shared with Secrets, the trio wrote, "Legislators in other states have urged their members of Congress to amend the constitution.  However, as a legislature we do have the power to call for a constitutional convention directly, and that is what this joint resolution does."

Justice Breyer Addresses Rumors of Retirement.  Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer addressed rumors of his potential retirement on Thursday.  The 82-year-old justice has sat on the bench for nearly 27 years and is under pressure from the far-left to step down so that President Joe Biden can appoint another liberal justice while Democrats hold the majority in the Senate.  Breyer said that his own health, and the court, are the factors behind his decision.  "Primarily, of course, health," Breyer told CNN of his decision making process.  "Second, the court."  He added a firm "no," when asked if he was retiring in the immediate future.

A Coup Against The Constitution?  [Scroll down]  In addition to spinning up new states, the left is also wondering how to get a Supreme Court that will rule in its favor.  There is no legal requirement for nine justices, so they saw the opportunity to use their wafer-thin tie plus Kamala Harris in the Senate to add some seats and pack the court.  While the act of doing so might be technically Constitutional, the reason for doing it is clearly anti-Constitutional.  Many Democrats and leftists no longer see the Bill of Rights as the most powerful protection citizens possess.  They see an impediment to doing the important work they were put here to do.  That includes exempting hate speech (as they define it) from the First Amendment and getting that ridiculous Second Amendment back to its proper place securing the right to a flintlock musket of your choice.  They want a Supreme Court that will rubber stamp any initiative that helps rein in all that dangerous individual liberty.

Right, wrong and a flower shop.  Is there anyone who can say what is always right and always wrong and present an unchanging standard by which all behavior can be judged?  I raise the question in light of last week's non-ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined for a second time to hear an appeal from a flower shop owner in Washington State.  Barronelle Stutzman, the owner, refused to provide flowers for a same-sex couple because her religious beliefs instruct her that marriage was created by God for opposite sexes.  The U.S. Supreme Court had sent her case back to the state supreme court for further consideration.  That court upheld its original ruling, forcing Ms. Stutzman to provide the flowers, or face penalties under the state's anti-discrimination laws.  Three conservative members of the U.S. Supreme Court wanted to hear the case.  It takes four.  What confuses many people is that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused on the same religious grounds as Ms. Stutzman to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.  Why is religious belief a sufficient reason to uphold the Colorado baker's right not to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding and a violation of another state's law in the flower shop case?  News reports say Ms. Stutzman has provided flowers in the past to gay individuals, but not for their weddings.  How far are the courts willing to go with this?

I Could Lose Everything After 'Devastating' End to 8-Year Court Battle Over Same-Sex Wedding, Florist Says.  When the Supreme Court announced July 2 that it had declined to take up florist Barronelle Stutzman's case, it left her on the losing side of an eight-year court battle.  In 2013, one of Stutzman's longtime customers asked her to design floral arrangements for his same-sex wedding.  She told him that because of her religious beliefs, she could not design an arrangement for the wedding, but she referred him to several other florists.  A few weeks later, she learned she was being sued.  The Washington state "attorney general, without any complaint from Rob [Ingersoll] and Curt [Freed], sued me personally and corporately, and the ACLU got ahold of Rob and Curt and also sued me personally and corporately," Stutzman told The Daily Signal.  Now, the Washington state Supreme Court ruling against the Christian florist stands because the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up Stutzman's appeal.  The Supreme Court's move could cost Stutzman everything.

Supreme Confusion Over Free Speech.  The Supreme Court just undermined the authority of K-12 public schools to set reasonable rules for children about their speech outside the classroom or on campus but involving school matters with established rules.  The Court also took what should have been a matter between the child and the child's parents and transferred it to our courts, which further weakens parental and school authority.  In its recent decision, Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., the Supreme Court recently ruled on a school's ability to discipline a student for express and symbolic speech made off-campus (in this case, via a social media app called Snapchat).

The Liberal Supreme Court.  This is a review of the Supreme Court's constitutional decisions during its October 2020 term, which ended on June 30, 2021.  (It's called the October 2020 term because that's when it began.)  This review shows that, contrary to the mainstream media narrative, the court doesn't have a "conservative majority."  In constitutional cases at least, it leans toward the liberal side.  SCOTUS Blog tells us that during this term the court's most liberal justice, Sonya Sotomayor, was in the majority 70 percent of the time.  But that includes cases interpreting federal statutes, where conservatives won some victories.  These included Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, upholding Arizona's election integrity law, and Pakdel v. San Francisco, helping landowners sue for compensation when government seizes their land.  Where the liberal tilt is noticeable is in constitutional cases.

Supreme Court Leaves Unlawful, Unconstitutional Eviction Moratorium Intact.  The Supreme Court's decision to leave in place the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's unlawful, unconstitutional eviction moratorium poses a threat to the rule of law, federalism, and fundamental constitutional rights.  Justice Brett Kavanaugh perplexingly agreed with the court majority to leave this moratorium in place, despite acknowledging that the CDC's edict is indeed unlawful.  On Sept. 4, 2020, the CDC banned property owners from commencing the eviction process in courts until the end of 2020.  The CDC subsequently renewed and extended this ban three times.  Not only did the CDC grossly exceed its congressional mandate, but a congressionally authorized eviction moratorium would itself violate the Constitution.  The CDC predicated its edict on the Public Health Service Act, which authorizes regulations "necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the states or possessions, or from one state or possession into any other" international and interstate spread of communicable diseases.

Conservatives 6, Tyranny 0.  The New Civil Liberties Alliance is fighting the systemic threats of the administrative state.  With the Supreme Court shutting down for the summer, NCLA pointed out six wins over liberal bureaucrats and politicians.  The alliance announced, "As the U.S. Supreme Court's October 2020 Term comes to a close, the New Civil Liberties Alliance is celebrating an unblemished 6-0 record for the amicus curiae briefs we filed in defense of civil liberties.  The high court's administrative power cases produced several unlikely majorities, including two NCLA amicus wins in the form of unanimous opinions written by Justice Sotomayor and Justice Breyer.  Justice Gorsuch even quoted from NCLA's amicus brief in his separate opinion in U.S. v. Arthrex.  These six rulings in favor of NCLA's positions show that our strategy of defending civil liberties against administrative power in the federal courts is working."  The group did not argue these cases.  Instead it lent public support to those suing the government.

SCOTUS Defends Election Integrity, Dems Panic.  On Thursday [7/1/2021], the Supreme Court upheld two longstanding provisions of Arizona election law, provoking widespread trepidation among the Democrats.  In a 6-3 ruling authored by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court held that it was permissible for the state to limit ballot harvesting and out-of-precinct voting.  Such limitations are commonplace throughout the country, but the Democratic National Committee (DNC) took Arizona to court arguing that these two violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA).  The DNC lost but appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled against Arizona.  SCOTUS overturned that ruling and the panicked Democrats inevitably denounced the Supreme Court's decision as a brazen assault on democracy.

Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Association.  In Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, the Supreme Court on Thursday held by a 6-3 majority that California violated that right by demanding that charitable organizations disclose their major donors as a condition of fundraising in the state.  Charitable organizations in California that solicit contributions are required by state law to register with the state and provide reports that include their federal IRS Form 990.  While most Form 990 information is public, federal law requires that "Schedule B," which lists an organization's "substantial donors," be kept confidential.  Americans for Prosperity and the Thomas More Law Center refused to provide their Schedule B's to the state, and instead sued California.  The risk of public disclosure of this sensitive information, they argued, violates the right of association, especially when California does not actually use it to investigate charitable misconduct.

Supreme Court wades into national debate over pipelines.  s both parties debate the construction of new oil and gas pipelines, the U.S. Supreme Court has weighed in, saying states cannot overturn federal eminent domain permits for those projects.  The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Tuesday [6/29/2021] in PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey that the state of New Jersey was not exempt from federal eminent domain provisions.  In the case, the PennEast Pipeline company received a permit to build a 116-mile pipeline from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.  That pipeline went through New Jersey, and the company obtained most of the necessary rights-of-way for construction.  However, when it came time to obtain them from the state of New Jersey, the state's government resisted.

Democrats Demand Biden pack the Supreme Court with liberal justices.  Democrats are demanding that President Joe Biden pack the US Supreme Court with liberal justices after it upheld Republican-backed Arizona voting rules in its final decision of the 2020-2021 term.  Biden expressed his disappointment in the ruling on Thursday and called on Congress to restore fundamental voting rights, saying: 'In a span of just eight years, the Court has now done severe damage to two of the most important provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 — a law that took years of struggle and strife to secure.  'After all we have been through to deliver the promise of this nation to all Americans, we should be fully enforcing voting rights laws, not weakening them.'

Strike 3: Why Biden Commission Should Reject Court-Packing.  President Joe Biden's Supreme Court commission is up and running, keeping alive the calls for court-packing.  This plan for a hostile takeover of the Supreme Court has been rejected not once but twice in American history.  The commission can put it to rest for good.  Court-packing means expanding the number of positions on a given court for the purpose of changing its decisions.  Every president appoints judges as existing positions become vacant.  Congress periodically creates new judgeships because certain courts need more judges to handle caseloads.  Neither of these constitutes court-packing.  Congress has always known the difference.

Supreme Court upholds Arizona voter fraud protections.  The Supreme Court upheld Arizona voting rules that restrict ballot harvesting and the submission of provisional ballots outside of one's home precinct, following a challenge from the Democratic National Committee.  In a 6-3 decision on Tuesday [6/29/2021], the court ruled that neither the policy requiring provisional ballots to be completely disregarded if submitted at the wrong precinct nor the law making it a felony to submit another person's ballot (with limited exceptions) violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.  The decision overturned a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  "[N]either Arizona's out-of-precinct rule nor its ballot-collection law violates §2 of the VRA," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the court's opinion, in which he was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.

Justice Alito devastates Dems' arguments in AZ voting rights case Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee.  On July 1, the Supreme Court of the United States, in a 6 [to] 3 decision, ruled that Arizona did not violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act when it required in-person voting to take place in the precinct to which the voter is assigned, and limited collection of early-voting ballots to the U.S. Postal Service, election officials, or family member, household members or caregivers.  In overturning a Ninth Circuit en banc decision rejecting Arizona's voting requirements, Justice Sam Alito, for — let it be said — the six justices appointed by Republican presidents, recognized the legitimate interests of a State in preventing fraud, and intimidation or pressure on voters.  Justice Alito noted that fraud does not have to be shown before a State can act to take legitimate measures to prevent fraud.  He also indicated that "disparate impact" must be shown to be significant before overturning a State's voting laws.

Are SCOTUS's three remaining reliable liberals clueless on immigration?  "[W]hy would Congress want to deny a bond hearing to individuals who reasonably fear persecution or torture, and who, as a result, face proceedings that may last for many months or years (while their withholding-only proceedings wend their way toward completion)? I can find no satisfactory answer to this question."  A seemingly perplexed Justice Stephen Breyer wrote this (and was predictably joined in bewilderment by the Court's two other liberal justices, Sotomayor and Kagan) in his June 29 dissenting opinion in Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, the recent case in which the majority found that, in layman's terms, deported aliens who re-enter the U.S. illegally are not entitled to a bond hearing while they await their current adjudication.

Supreme Court Upholds Arizona Voting Rules in Heated Voting Rights Decision.  In its first statement about voting rights since 2013, the Supreme Court on Thursday [7/1/2021] upheld a pair of Arizona voting regulations and gave a boost to Republican lawmakers enacting new election rules following the 2020 election.  The two rules at issue disqualify votes cast at the wrong precinct and limit third-party ballot collection, which critics call "ballot harvesting."  The real flash point in Thursday's case is the framework judges should use to identify voting procedures that violate Section Two of the Voting Rights Act, the focal point of election litigation.  Justice Samuel Alito delivered the opinion for a six justice majority over the dissent of Justice Elena Kagan for the liberal trio.  The decision announced limits on the reach of the Voting Rights Act.

Supreme Court strikes down California donor disclosure requirement.  The Supreme Court on Thursday [7/1/2021] invalidated a requirement by the state of California that charities fundraising in the state must disclose the identities of their most generous donors.  The high court ruled 6-3 along ideological lines in favor of a pair of nonprofits that challenged the state's policy.  The Supreme Court found the measure, which requires charities that fundraise in the state to turn over information about their top contributors, is unconstitutional.  "We are left to conclude that the attorney general's disclosure requirement imposes a widespread burden on donors' associational rights.  And this burden cannot be justified on the ground that the regime is narrowly tailored to investigating charitable wrongdoing, or that the state's interest in administrative convenience is sufficiently important," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in an opinion, joined in full by Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

Supreme Court upholds Arizona restrictions in major voting rights, racial discrimination case.  A divided US Supreme Court on Thursday [7/1/2021] upheld two Republican-backed Arizona voting restrictions, rejecting claims that they discriminate against minority voters and imposing new limits on the landmark Voting Rights Act.  The 6-to-3 decision, breaking along ideological lines, overturned a lower court ruling to uphold Arizona's policy of invalidating ballots cast in the wrong precinct and a law criminalizing the collection of mail ballots by third-party community groups or campaigns.

Arizona Ballot-Harvesting Ban Is Legal, Supreme Court Rules in High-Stakes Electoral Integrity Case.  Arizona's ban on ballot-harvesting and out-of-precinct voting does not violate the federal Voting Rights Act, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in a closely watched case with implications for future elections.  In an exclusive interview with The Epoch Times, Mark Brnovich, the attorney general of Arizona who argued the case, said the court "recognized when it comes to time, place and manner, the states have a lot of authority."  "We as public servants have no more sacred duty than protecting the people's right to vote, but we have to maintain confidence in the integrity of the results," the Republican officeholder said.

Is the Supreme Court gaslighting us?  George Washington University Law School Professor Jonathon Turley has posited that recent unanimous Supreme Court rulings may be the court sending a message to politicians.  Facing threats to pack the Supreme Court and calls for Justice Stephen Breyer to resign, Turley believes the court is making a rare show of unity.  Apparently, the logic is that if they show that they're not ideological (I know, don't laugh), the Democrats will understand that packing the court won't make any difference.  They're trying to validate Chief Justice John Robert's claim that there are no "Obama judges" or "Trump judges."  There's just one problem — the Supreme Court is both political and ideological, and everyone knows it.  Trying to gaslight everyone now is asking us to ignore 50 years of bad behavior.  Good luck with that.

Supreme Court says [there is] no right to [a] hearing for some immigrants.  The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday [6/29/2021] that the government can indefinitely detain certain immigrants who say they will face persecution or torture if they are deported to their native countries.  Over the dissent of three liberal justices, the court held 6-3 that the immigrants are not entitled to a hearing about whether they should be released while the government evaluates their claims.  Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court that "those aliens are not entitled to a bond hearing."

Already Deported Illegal Aliens Have No Right to Seek Release on Bond, Supreme Court Rules.  The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that previously deported illegal aliens again facing deportation who claim a fear of persecution if they are removed to their country of origin may be indefinitely detained by the government.  Over the dissent of its three Democrat-appointed justices, the high court found that those noncitizens aren't entitled to a hearing about whether they should be released while the government processes their claims.  Justice Samuel Alito wrote the court's opinion in Johnson v. Guzman Sanchez, which was made public on June 29.  Oral arguments took place telephonically on Jan. 11. Before that, both the trial court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled against the government.  Not allowing people who have already been deported to seek release on bond makes sense, Alito wrote in the court's opinion.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Rejects Lawsuit to Ban Absentee Ballot Drop Boxes.  The Wisconsin Supreme Court recently rejected a lawsuit that sought to ban the state's usage of absentee ballot drop-boxes, although another legal challenge on their use is still being considered in a lower court.  Conservative businessman and GOP donor Jere Fabick in March petitioned (pdf) the state Supreme Court in March to consider a ban of the drop-boxes, arguing that they violate state election laws.  He also sought to ban election officials from filling in missing addresses of witnesses on ballot envelopes, and his suit attempted to limit who can return absentee ballots to election clerks.  In a 4-3 ruling on June 25, the court threw out the case but noted that the lawsuit raised important questions.  The majority claimed that arguments contained within the lawsuit were not "clearly presented."

Justices deny Wyoming, Montana coal suit against Washington.  The U.S. Supreme Court decided Monday [6/28/2021] that it won't allow Wyoming and Montana to sue Washington state for denying a key permit to build a coal export dock that would have sent coal to Asia.  Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito voted in the minority in the ruling against letting the two states sue the third in a case that would have gone directly before the high court.

Clarence Thomas says federal laws against marijuana may no longer be necessary.  Clarence Thomas, one of the Supreme Court's most conservative justices, said Monday that because of the hodgepodge of federal policies on marijuana, federal laws against its use or cultivation may no longer make sense.  "A prohibition on interstate use or cultivation of marijuana may no longer be necessary or proper to support the federal government's piecemeal approach," he wrote.  His views came as the court declined to hear the appeal of a Colorado medical marijuana dispensary that was denied federal tax breaks that other businesses are allowed.

Supreme Court Lets Trans Students Using Opposite Sex Bathrooms Ruling Stand.  On Monday, the Supreme Court turned down an opportunity to reverse a ruling that permitted students identifying as the opposite sex to use the opposite sex's bathrooms.  The Court declined to hear the case of Gavin Grimm, a Virginia female student who identifies as a boy who had sued the Gloucester County school board for stating that restrooms were "limited to the corresponding biological genders."  "The case initially reached the Supreme Court in 2017, but the argument was canceled after President Trump reversed an Obama administration rule that had directed schools to allow students to use restrooms that correspond with their gender identity," The Washington Post noted.

No, San Francisco Can't Force You To Lease Your Retirement Home To a Renter for Life Says SCOTUS.  Back in April, I wrote about the case of Pakdel v.  City and County of SF, involving the Ninth Circuit decision appealed to the Supreme Court which upheld a San Francisco ordinance that required persons converting rental property into condominiums to offer a lifetime lease to any renter occupying a unit of the property as a condition of the conversion permit. [...] The Pakdels brought suit in federal court in San Francisco on the grounds that the San Francisco ordinance was an unconstitutional "taking" of their property by the City and County of San Francisco without just compensation.  The district court ruled against the Pakdels on procedural grounds — they hadn't brought their action at an appropriate juncture in the conversion process, and that they hadn't followed certain procedures prescribed by the San Francisco ordinance which might have allowed them to avoid the mandatory rental requirement.

The Supreme Court won't save conservatism.  For decades, conservatives have sought to regain lost culture-war ground through judicial nominations, with GOP voters consistently rating the Supreme Court a higher priority than do Democrats.  As the latest high-court term winds down — one featuring a putative 6-3 "conservative" majority — it's worth taking stock of where that project stands.  The answer: not in a great place.  Consider two of this term's highest-profile cases:  California v.  Texas (on ObamaCare) and the Fulton v.  City of Philadelphia (on religious liberty).  In California, a 7-2 majority of Supremes again left former President Barack Obama's signature domestic policy untouched.  The court declined to reach the substantive issue — the constitutionality of the individual mandate.  Instead, they dismissed the lawsuit brought by Texas and 17 other states on the threshold question of standing — lawyer-speak for a plaintiff's obligation to show a concrete, remediable injury traceable to the defendant's conduct.

SCOTUS concedes school administrators can regulate off-campus speech.  SCOTUS, on June 23, ruled 8-1 in favor of the plaintiff, Brandi Levy, in a case involving her suspension after badmouthing her school on social media.  Her profanity-laced diatribe was posted on Snapchat.  She wrote the message after she failed to make the Varsity Squad and was being kept on the Junior Varsity Squad. [...] A student took a screenshot of the message and showed it to the cheerleading squad's coach, and Brandi was subsequently kicked off the team.  The parents made numerous appeals, which ascended through the appellate courts, eventually reaching the Supreme Court.  At stake was the issue of whether a school has authority to take disciplinary action when a student speaks outside school grounds.  Schools have argued that extracurricular activities off-campus, but affiliated with the school, are within that purview.  The school also argued that speech that leads to a "substantial disruption" to school activities is an actionable offense no matter where it is made, off school property or outside school time.

Supreme Court Rules against NCAA in Athlete Compensation Dispute.  The Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Monday [6/21/2021] that the NCAA can no longer bar colleges from offering student-athletes education-related benefits, including free laptops or paid post-graduate internships, in the name of amateurism.  The ruling does not specifically address the question of paying athletes directly, however.  Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote on behalf of the court that the NCAA "seeks immunity from the normal operation of the antitrust laws," adding that the court declines the request because "this suit involves admitted horizontal price fixing in a market where the defendants exercise monopoly control."  Justice Brett Kavanaugh accused the NCAA of "price fixing" in a concurrent opinion.  "The NCAA's business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America," he wrote.

SCOTUS Wimps Out On Obamacare — Again.  Obamacare has once again been rescued by a Supreme Court that seems determined to keep it alive regardless of the Constitution or precedent.  Thursday morning [6/17/2021], the justices dismissed California v. Texas based on the dubious proposition that a coalition of 18 GOP states had no legal standing to challenge the "reform" law or its infamous insurance mandate.  The majority didn't deign to consider the merits of the lawsuit, which argued that the mandate was not merely unconstitutional but inseverable from the rest of the statute.  The Court's cowardice drew a blistering dissent from Justice Samuel Alito, who accused the majority of ignoring decades of precedent in order to deny the states standing:  ["]No one can fail to be impressed by the lengths to which this Court has been willing to go to defend the ACA against all threats.  A penalty is a tax.  The United States is a State.  And 18 States who bear costly burdens under the ACA cannot even get a foot in the door to raise a constitutional challenge.  Fans of judicial inventiveness will applaud once again.  But I must respectfully dissent.["]

'Hopelessly divided' Supreme Court defies narrative with another unanimous opinion.  The Supreme Court has finally handed down two of the five "blockbuster" opinions of this term with rulings on the Affordable Care Act and religious rights.  The most striking aspect of the decisions was the absence of ideological divisions.  Indeed, the case on religious rights is yet another unanimous decision from a Court that President Joe Biden has declared "out of whack" and Democratic leaders have declared hopelessly divided along ideological lines.  This week represented the final collapse of the false narrative that has been endlessly repeated like a mantra in Congress and the media.  When it comes to health care, the ACA has long been in the position of Mark Twain who insisted that his death has been "greatly exaggerated."  During the circus-like confirmation hearing of Amy Coney Barrett, Democratic senators surrounded the room with giant pictures of people who would lose their health care due to her nomination.  Various senators and legal analysts insisted that Barrett was obviously selected to kill the ACA.  Democratic senators pummeled Barrett with stories of people who may die as a result of her nomination and portrayed her as a craven, heartless ideologue selected to take away health care for millions.

The Supreme Court's Day of Reckoning is Coming.  The election of 2020 is going to lay bare the dereliction of the Supreme Court for all to see. [...] The court seems to have three distinct voting blocs:
  [#1]   The oath keepers — These are the justices that are willing to stand up and defend the Constitution even if it means they'll have to endure attacks.  Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch make up this bloc.
  [#2]   The jellyfish — These are the justices that lack the spine to face controversy.  They're more concerned about defending the court than the Constitution.  Justices Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh make up this bloc.
  [#3]   The subversives — These are the justices that have been using penumbras and emanations to rewrite the constitution in pursuit of social engineering.  Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer make up this bloc.
It's rumored that only three justices wanted to hear the 2020 election lawsuits.  Does anyone doubt that it was those who comprise the "oath keepers" bloc?  Now, Chief Justice Roberts has placed his court in a trick-box.  By choosing to stay out of the election controversy, John Roberts has bet the court's reputation that the mysteries of the election would remain mysteries.  As wagers go, it was not a particularly smart one.  The election involved millions of ballots, tens of thousands of election workers, and thousands of counties.  If there was fraud, there is too much evidence, in too many hands, to stay hidden.

The Roberts Court Punts on Religious Liberty Again.  In yesterday's Fulton v. City of Philadelphia decision from the Supreme Court, conservatives saw a victory in the battle over religious liberty as the nation's highest court decided 9-0 that the City of Philadelphia could not exclude a Catholic services organization from the providing adoption services through its system.  That the decision was unanimous came as something of a shock to many observers, and raised questions about the Court under Chief Justice John Roberts.  The decision, while a victory for religious liberty, is still seen as fairly narrow, [...]

Supreme Court unanimously rules in favor of Catholic foster agency in case that pitted religious freedom against LGBTQ rights.  The US Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Thursday in favor of a Catholic child welfare organization, saying the charity has a right to decline to place foster children with same-sex couples.  Catholic Social Services sued the City of Philadelphia after it informed private agencies that provided foster care services that it would not refer children to the agencies unless they agreed to nondiscrimination requirements.  Catholic Social Services argued that it had the right to opt-out of the nondiscrimination requirement, citing the First Amendment.

Supreme Court sides with Catholic foster agency that excludes same-sex couples in 9-0 ruling.  The Supreme Court sided unanimously with a Catholic foster agency in a dispute against the city of Philadelphia over whether it should be banned from participating in the city's foster program because it excludes same-sex couples.  The group, Catholic Social Services (CSS), claimed that "Philadelphia's attempts to exclude the Catholic Church from foster care" violated the First Amendment.  Lawyers for the city, meanwhile, said that CSS "lacks a constitutional right to demand that DHS offer it a contract that omits the same nondiscrimination requirement every other FFCA must follow when performing services for the City."  In a 9-0 ruling, the justices sided with Catholic Social Services.

U.S. Supreme Court urged by 22 states to maintain eviction ban.  The attorneys general of 22 states on Friday urged the U.S. Supreme Court not to end the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's pandemic-related residential eviction moratorium that has been challenged by landlord groups.  The landlords asked the Supreme Court last week to issue an order stopping the national ban on evictions, which was first implemented last September and is due to expire on June 30.  CDC Director Rochelle Walensky declined to say this week if the agency will again extend the moratorium, saying discussions are ongoing.

Unpacked and Undivided:  Is The Court Sending A Message With A Litany Of 9-0 Decisions?  Today [6/1/2021] the Supreme Court issued two more unanimous decisions in Garland v. Dai and United States v. Cooley.  This follow two unanimous decisions last week.  The weekly display of unanimity is notable given the calls by Democratic leaders to pack the Court.  Yesterday, I wrote about how the heavy-handed campaigns might backfire with the justices.  As we await important and likely divided decisions on issues like abortion, Chief Justice John Roberts and his colleagues seem to be sending a message that the Court is not so rigidly ideological as Democratic members and activists suggest.  In the Garland case, the court ruled (again) unanimously to reverse the Ninth Circuit in an opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch on the rule in immigration disputes regarding the credibility of non-citizens' testimony.  In Cooley, the Court unanimously ruled in an opinion by Justice Stephen Breyer that a tribal police officer has authority to detain temporarily and to search a non-Native American traveling on a public right-of-way running through a reservation.

Kagan Writes 9-0 Supreme Court Opinion Rejecting Liz Warren's Subversion of Immigration Law.  On Monday, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected an illegal immigrant's attempt to twist immigration law and create a loophole that would allow thousands of illegal immigrants to become lawful permanent residents.  Democratic senators and attorneys general advocated for this loophole, but a liberal justice wrote the opinion for a unanimous Court.  "Petitioner Jose Santos Sanchez entered this country unlawfully from El Salvador.  Years later, because of unsafe living conditions in that country, the Government granted him Temporary Protected Status (TPS), entitling him to stay and work in the United States for as long as those conditions persist.  Sanchez now wishes to become a lawful permanent resident (LPR) of the United States.  The question here is whether the conferral of TPS enables him to obtain LPR status despite his unlawful entry.  We hold that it does not," Associate Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee, wrote in the opinion.

Supreme Court must review forcing only men to register for the draft at 18 because policy sends 'tremendously harmful message', activist group warns.  The Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether it is discrimination for the government to require only men to register for the draft when they turn 18.  The question of whether it is unconstitutional to require men but not women to register could be viewed as one with little practical impact.  The last time there was a draft was during the Vietnam War, and the military has been all-volunteer since.

Supreme Court refuses case to include women in military draft.  On Monday [6/7/2021], the U.S. Supreme Court said it won't take a case, brought by the National Coalition For Men, which challenged the constitutionality of the male-only draft.  In a decision with no noted dissenting opinions, the court declined to take the case.  In the opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the court had decided to defer the matter to Congress, as it "actively weighs the issue."

Landlord group asks Supreme Court to strike down eviction freeze.  A group of landlords on Thursday [6/3/2021] asked the Supreme Court to end a nationwide freeze on evictions so that property owners can proceed with removing financially distressed renters from their homes.  The emergency request comes a day after a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., rebuffed the group's bid to nullify the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) eviction moratorium.  Led by the Alabama Association of Realtors, the group asked Chief Justice John Roberts to reinstate a lower court ruling that found public health officials had overstepped their authority in halting evictions across the U.S.

The New Secession Crisis: The Democrats have already left the Union.  The Democrats have already seceded from America's historic conception of nationhood in many respects: [...] THEY have attempted, most importantly, to change our fundamental structures of governance.  In trying to add Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C. (which is specifically excluded from statehood in the Constitution) as states, they have attempted to fundamentally and unilaterally alter the congressional balance of power.  They have attempted to end the Senate filibuster (a 183-year-old tradition of our governance) and pack the Supreme Court, by amending the 152-year-old Judiciary Act in a blatant attempt to remove the influence of the last branch of government they don't control.

WaPo wonders:  Has John Roberts lost control of SCOTUS?  Let's answer this question with another:  Did John Roberts ever have power to "steer the direction of the court" in the first place?  The Washington Post offers what appears to be a belated cri de coeur over the consequences of moving from having five conservative jurists on the Supreme Court and having six instead.  But this is the wrong number to use, at least in one sense: [...] Peter Stevenson wants to make the argument that the new 6-3 majority is choosing cases over Roberts' objections, cases that will take the court in a more political direction.  That, however, ignores a technical point about granting cert.  Strictly speaking, Roberts doesn't have any control over which cases the court will hear other than his one vote on requests for cert — and it only takes four justices to hear a case, not five or six.

Are the Supreme Court and Biden ready to rumble over Roe?  Over the years, pro-choice groups at times exaggerated the risk of a serious threat to Roe and its progeny.  Now, however, reality has caught up to the hyperbole.  The court just accepted review in a Mississippi case that could deliver a crippling, or even lethal, blow to Roe. But President Biden has a familiar back-up plan.  Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization would seem, on its face, to be an incremental — not existential — threat to Roe.  The Mississippi legislature moved to ban abortions after 15 weeks, seven weeks earlier than past laws passing constitutional muster.  However, Dobbs is the long-awaited "clean case" — one that has a straight, unimpeded shot at the key controlling abortion case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the case which effectively reframed Roe around the key criteria that the Constitution forbids bans on abortion before a fetus has achieved viability.

Roe v. Wade is on trial.  Don't let the Left threaten the Supreme Court over itRoe v. Wade is on the docket again, and everybody knows exactly what will happen.  No, we cannot predict the ruling on Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban.  Republican-appointed judges are inevitably mercurial on this issue in hearings.  We would not be surprised to see Justices John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, or even Neil Gorsuch uphold part or even all of the current deformed jurisprudence on abortion.  But we do know with certainty that the Left will use media pressure, corporate pressure, and even violent threats against the republic in a tireless lobby effort to preserve Roe and Planned Parenthood v.  Casey.  The abortion lobby has long been the beating heart of the Democratic Party.  Defense of abortion and subsidies for Planned Parenthood are the central items of Democratic dogma.  On war, taxes, spending, labor, and even guns and climate change, Democrats allow some dissent.  But not on abortion.  The party's fundraising apparatus is inextricably tied with the abortion industry.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Warrantless Gun Seizure 9-0.  In some ways this was a very narrowly tailored opinion, in that the Second Amendment was not invoked at all, only the Fourth.  And indeed, Justice Samuel Alito' concurring opinion specifically states that "Our decision today does not address those issues" in relation to the constitutionality of red flag laws.  However, the decision was a blow for individual rights against warrentless police seizures in the home.  Also, by explicitly including guns as property that is equally protected from such warrentless seizures, the Supreme Court has properly supported Second Amendment rights against the state's overreach.

This 9-0 SCOTUS Ruling on Guns Shows Just How Extreme (and Dangerous) the Biden Administration Really Is.  Did you hear that Joe Biden's Department of Justice wanted the Supreme Court to rule that police could search Americans' homes for firearms — and confiscate them — without a warrant?  In the case of Caniglia vs.  Strom, this issue was in play.  Had SCOTUS ruled that police could do that, your Second Amendment rights would have been in grave jeopardy.

Supreme Court shuts down police attempts to search homes without a warrant.  The case arose out of a 2015 incident in which a Rhode Island married couple argued over attempted suicide.  At one point, the husband, Edward Caniglia, gave his wife, Kim, an unloaded gun and told her to kill him.  She left the house instead and later called local police to check on him.  When the police arrived, they entered the house and confiscated Caniglia's guns.  He later sued.  A district court sided against him.  When he brought the case to an appeals court, it also decided against him — and extended the "community caretaking exception" for police to search cars without a warrant to homes as well.  It was in this last decision, Thomas wrote, that the lower courts had erred, arguing that the home is a much more private sphere than a car.

Supreme Court Accepts a Mississippi Abortion Case That Seems Likely to Overturn Planned Parenthood vs.  Casey.  Today [5/17/2021] the US Supreme Court announced it would take up the issue of abortion in the upcoming fall term in a case that promises to be significant.  The case is called Jackson Women's Health Organization vs.  Dobbs. [...] This is not an argument over procedure; it is a question that will frame the abortion debate in the future.  If the Court agrees with Mississippi, then the door is open for those states that wish to regulate all abortions.  If the abortion industry wins, then all "pre-viable" babies can be killed without mercy.

Pro-Abortionists Lose Their Minds as a Sledgehammer Is Taken to Roe v. Wade.  The Supreme Court of the United States has chosen to hear the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which challenges a Mississippi state law that restricts abortions of fetuses after 15 weeks of gestation.

Supreme Court to hear challenge to Roe v. Wade.  The Supreme Court on Monday accepted a Mississippi challenge to the abortion precedent set by Roe v. Wade.  In an unsigned order, the court said that it would hear the case but limited its scope to the first question presented in the petition, which is whether "all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortion are unconstitutional."  The court will not consider the other two questions, which related to scrutiny of abortion restrictions.  The court's acceptance of the case electrified the anti-abortion movement, with many leaders hoping that it would signal the end of a decades-long battle to send the abortion question back to individual states.

Activists Panic as SCOTUS Takes Case That Could Overturn Roe v. Wade.  SCOTUS announced on May 17 that it would provide a ruling on a controversial abortion ban from the state of Mississippi and hear the case next fall.  The Mississippi law — passed in 2018 but blocked by lower courts — banned all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.  LifeSiteNews summed up the threat to Roe, writing that SCOTUS is now set to hear the case "which challenges the 'viability' threshold of current legal precedent and therefore sets the stage for a decision that will either uphold, overturn, or modify Roe v. Wade."  The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the Mississippi ban (prompting the SCOTUS ruling), citing that the 15-week-ban violates legal precedent that abortions cannot be banned before the unborn baby is viable, which is around 22 to 24 weeks.  That precedent, according to the circuit court, traces "an unbroken line dating to Roe v. Wade."  If SCOTUS sides with Mississippi's ban, then Roe v. Wade would be in the crosshairs.  Again, the idea that a chunk could be taken out of the federal right to kill their preborn offspring put leftists on Twitter into a state of panic.

Supreme Court Tees Up To Review Abortion Bans In Mississippi Case.  The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take up a case examining whether Mississippi's pro-life ban on elective abortions 15 weeks into pregnancy is unconstitutional.  This particular restriction in Missippi was first enacted in 2018 and allowed abortions after the 15-week date for "medical emergencies" and "severe" fetal abnormalities.  Lower courts, however, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, blocked the law and ruled that it places an undue burden on women who want to abort their child after the state's deadline.  By choosing to take up Dobbs v.  Jackson Women's Health, justices on the Supreme Court are teeing up to reevaluate "whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional" and potentially change how landmark abortion cases such as Roe v.  Wade and Planned Parenthood v.  Casey affect Americans.  Pro-life activists celebrated the decision as a step in the right direction to ban abortion altogether.

How [a] Court-Packing Power Grab Endangers Rights, Threatens Nation's Foundations.  The independence of the Supreme Court is crucial to preserving the original meaning of the Constitution and preventing a radical transformation of our laws and our country.  But with Democrats in control of the White House and slim majorities in the House and Senate, not only are basic rights like the right to life under daily assault, the very foundations of America are threatened like never before.  President Joe Biden last month announced a 36-member commission to study potential "reforms" for the Supreme Court, including possibly increasing the number of justices on it.  House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., and Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., have proposed legislation to increase the number of justices from nine to 13.  Conveniently — though not coincidentally — for Democrats, four new justices would mean there would then be seven justices appointed by Democratic presidents, compared with six appointed by Republican presidents.

The Supreme Court has taken up residence in the Swamp.  The Supreme Court was originally envisioned as a nonpartisan third branch of the government.  With lifetime appointments and a mission to defend the Constitution, it was believed that the court would remain above the political fray.  But about 50 years ago, the court decided that with penumbras and emanations it could discover things in the Constitution that are not actually written there. [...] As political players, the justices have used their newfound power to "discover" a whole host of "rights" that are not actually written in the constitution.  They've discovered:
  •   A right to privacy
  •   A right to abortion
  •   A right to same-sex marriage
  •   A right for the government to seize private property for the benefit of private enterprises
  •   A right for the government to regulate commerce within states
The issue isn't whether any of these things are good or bad.  The issue is that the voters, via their elected representation, should have been allowed to make these decisions.

3 Things to Know About Second Amendment's Return to Supreme Court.  It's been well over a decade since the Supreme Court last decided a meaningful Second Amendment case.  That wait is about to end.  Although District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) answered some foundational questions about the right to keep and bear arms, the Supreme Court's decade of silence enabled lower courts to undermine these core cases routinely.  This in turn allowed states to run roughshod over the Second Amendment.  We've gotten our hopes up before that the Supreme Court finally would stop treating the Second Amendment as a second-class right, unworthy of consistent legal review.  Just last term, the high court excited millions by taking up New York State Rifle & Pistol v. City of New York, which was about New York City's incredibly restrictive laws on transporting firearms.  That excitement came to a crushing end when New York City enacted minor changes to its laws and the Supreme Court declared the case moot, declining in the interim to take up any of the remaining Second Amendment challenges for the term.  Many suspected we might go another decade without seeing the court hear another challenge to gun control laws.

Supreme Court has key rulings in the coming weeks; includes voting rights, health care.  Every spring the Supreme Court seems to find itself in the headlines with consequential rulings on the horizon.  This spring is no different.  Over the coming weeks, major cases impacting various aspects of American life are poised for rulings.  One of the biggest outstanding cases involves the Affordable Care Act.  The Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that it was constitutional, but this is a new challenge.

19 States Ask Supreme Court to Rein In EPA Powers Over Coal Plants.  West Virginia and 18 other states are asking the Supreme Court to review the scope of the Environmental Protection Agency's regulatory authority over greenhouse gases after an appeals court struck down a Trump-era rule months ago on carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants.  "The case, if granted, would be the biggest climate question to reach the Supreme Court in more than a decade," according to Bloomberg Law.  In Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), the Supreme Court gave the agency the power to regulate greenhouse gases.  The Jan. 19 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was a victory for left-wing environmentalists that helped clear the way for the then-incoming Biden administration to impose new restrictions on the energy sector.

Supreme Court Tosses Democrats Lawsuits Seeking Access To Trump Finances.  The U.S. Supreme Court has halted lawsuits from Democrats that accused Donald Trump of violating the U.S. Constitution's anti-corruption provisions by maintaining ownership of his business empire including a hotel near the White House while in office.  The justices threw out lower court rulings that had allowed the lawsuits — one filed by the District of Columbia and the state of Maryland and the other by plaintiffs including a watchdog group — to proceed, while also declining to hear Trump's appeals of those decisions.  The justices ordered the lower courts to dismiss the cases because they are now moot.

SCOTUS Will Decide Whether the Right to Bear Arms Extends Beyond Your Doorstep.  While it may seem obvious that the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" extends beyond the home, federal courts have been debating that question for years.  This week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that could finally settle the issue, which the petitioners call "perhaps the single most important unresolved Second Amendment question."  The case involves a New York law that requires applicants for handgun carry licenses to show "proper cause," which according to state courts means more than a "generalized desire" to "protect one's person and property."  Applicants must "demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community," which in practice means that ordinary New Yorkers have no right to armed self-defense once they leave their homes.  The vast majority of states are less demanding, typically requiring that people who want to carry concealed handguns meet a shortlist of objective criteria.  But several states have laws like New York's, enforcing subjective standards such as "good cause" (California), "proper purpose" (Massachusetts), "justifiable need" (New Jersey), "good and substantial reason" (Maryland), or a special "reason to fear injury" (Hawaii).

Supreme Court to take up major Second Amendment concealed handgun case.  The Supreme Court said Monday [4/26/2021] it will consider how much protection the Second Amendment provides for carrying a gun outside the home.  The case is the first time in more than a decade that the court has agreed to take up a central issue of the gun rights debate, something it has consistently ducked since issuing a landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to keep a handgun at home for self-defense.  The court agreed to hear a challenge to a New York state law that allows residents to carry a concealed handgun only if they can demonstrate a special need beyond a general desire for self-protection.

Did Amazon Pull Clarence Thomas Documentary Off Their Site in Order to Pull Him Off Their Case?  Does Amazon intend to test Thomas's word should a Section 230 case come before the Supreme Court; insisting he recuse himself because Amazon's decision to pull, "Created Equal:  Clarence Thomas in His Own Words," from its site creates a conflict of interest?  The possible motives behind Amazon's decision to take down from its platform the popular documentary about the prominent African-American Supreme Court Justice, especially during Black History Month, has bewildered and astounded many commentators, on the left and on the right, including Mark Paoletta.

Supreme Court Seems Primed to Reverse Kamala Harris's Attack on Free Speech.  On Monday [4/26/2021], the Supreme Court heard arguments in the key First Amendment case Americans for Prosperity v.  Rodriguez, which centers on the State of California's requirement that nonprofit organizations disclose their donor information to the state.  Back in 2015, then-Attorney General Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) demanded that two conservative nonprofits, Americans for Prosperity (AFP) and the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), hand over their donor lists.  This demand threatened to reveal the identities of donors, potentially subjecting them to threats and harassment.  Legal representatives for AFP and TMLC said the Supreme Court justices' questions and remarks suggested they are likely to strike down California's requirement as an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment.

Clarence Thomas calls out liberal court colleagues for inconsistent opinions 'depending on the issues'.  Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas used a footnote in a murder case to call out his liberal colleagues' apparent double standard for minors, questioning why teenagers should have an absolute right to abortion but can't be held fully responsible for homicide.  "When addressing juvenile murderers, this Court has stated that 'children are different' and that courts must consider 'a child's lesser culpability," Thomas said in the footnotes of his opinion in Jones v.  Mississippi.  "And yet, when assessing the Court-created right of an individual of the same age to seek an abortion, Members of this Court take pains to emphasize a 'young woman's right to choose.'"  "It is curious how this Court's view of the maturity of minors ebbs and flows depending on the issue," Thomas continued.

Clarence Thomas Smacks Leftist Justices For Hypocrisy On Maturity Of Minors Regarding Abortion.  On Thursday [4/22/2021], in a concurring opinion he wrote agreeing with the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision in Jones v. Mississippi, Justice Clarence Thomas smacked leftist justices on the Court for their hypocrisy when it came to the maturity of minors.  Thomas pointed out that some language in Court decisions assumed that when referring to juvenile murderers, members of the Court had cited that "children are different" and that courts must consider "a child's lesser culpability," yet when discussing abortion by girls of minor age, leftist justices had assumed they were mature enough to make that decision. [...] (Thomas was referring to Montgomery v. Louisiana.)  "And yet, when assessing the Court-created right of an individual of the same age to seek an abortion, Members of this Court take pains to emphasize a 'young woman's' right to choose."  (Thomas referred to Lambert v. Wicklund, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, and Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health.)  "It is curious how the Court's view of the maturity of minors ebbs and flows depending on the issue," he concluded.

Why Supreme Court justices should not be signing $2 million book deals.  The news this week that Justice Amy Coney Barrett has signed a $2 million book deal should strike even capitalists such as myself as unseemly.  Barrett has been on the Supreme Court for less than a year and she is already cashing in for seven figures.  I publicly supported her confirmation to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg but her decision to accept a $2 million advance for a book she could not have sold for $200 before her confirmation casts serious doubt on her judgment, and judges, especially Supreme Court justices, need good judgment.  Technically, Barrett has done nothing wrong.  The United States Code limits a judge's outside earned income at 15 percent of the judge's salary.  Barrett's current salary as an associate justice of the Supreme Court is $265,600, which means her outside earned income cannot exceed $39,750.  Although I do not teach math for a living, I do know that $2 million is a lot more than $39,750.  But in a federal statutory schema littered with loopholes, book royalties inexplicably do not count as outside earned income for purposes of government ethics.

Keep an Eye on This SCOTUS Labor Case.  Americans are proud of their right to property, not enjoyed by people in many democracies.  As the Cato Institute puts it, our founding fathers understood that private property is the foundation of prosperity and freedom.  But California's 46-year-old Agricultural Labor Relations Act (ALRA) violates that constitutional principle, and it even fails to protect farm workers.  It allows union officials and pickets to invade farms — for three hours every day, for 120 days a year — and harangue, coerce, and arm-twist farm workers into joining the union and engaging in collective bargaining with growers even when they're happy with their working conditions and pay.  The property-owner is powerless to stop the intrusion, as the regulation does not require the owner's permission.  Surprising?  That is why a forthcoming decision by the Supreme Court in a case involving a strawberry plant nursery and a packager from California and the state's Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) will be a watershed.

Supreme Court's failures are putting America on a path to tyranny.  Rarely do the generation experiencing the actual events and decisions that lead to their nation's demise fully appreciate the enormity of their oversight until sometime after their culture's destruction has been rendered incurable.  Largely, it is not due so much to their negligence as it is to most of them being too preoccupied with simply living and making a living.  Perhaps that would explain why, in just the first four months of 2021, the Supreme Court issued four decisions — or, perhaps better viewed as non-decisions — that should have caused all legitimately patriotic Americans to be alarmed and called to action... but did not seem to.  Only a few weeks ago, without offering any substantive explanation, the Court summarily refused to even look at — much less seriously consider — any of the evidence of the 2020 election irregularities offered by attorney Sidney Powell and others.  Evidently, the Supreme Court of the United States of America was not interested in doing what it could — and should — to let America know decisively whether or not its presidential election had been shamelessly stolen by those now in power.  Why would they not do this?

Supreme Court Rejects GOP Challenge to Pennsylvania Election Rules.  The Supreme Court declined on April 19 to hear a lawsuit regarding a Pennsylvania voting dispute nearly six months after the Nov. 3, 2020, election.  The court rejected an appeal from a Republican congressional candidate's unsuccessful challenge of the state's mail-in ballot initiatives, which is the final Nov. 3-related action to be dismissed related to Pennsylvania's voting laws.  In a two-line order, the Supreme Court wrote:  "The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.  The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit with instructions to dismiss the case as moot."  The decision is the Supreme Court's latest rejection of a slew of election lawsuits that came before and after the Nov. 3 election, as President Donald Trump and his Republican allies attempted to challenge the results.

AOC: Why are we letting nine justices tell Congress what it can and can't do?  In all seriousness, there's less to her comment about letting nine judges boss Congress around than there might appear.  She's not suggesting that Congress should disregard rulings by the Court — I think.  And she's not arguing that Marbury v. Madison should be overturned and the practice of judicial review abandoned — I think.  What she's saying, dopily enough, is that she'd be fine with 13 judges telling America's elected representatives what they can and can't do.  Just not nine.

Three times John Roberts has moved left in Supreme Court rulings or held a minority position.  Since Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court, Roberts, more often than not, has voted with the minority when it comes to religious freedom during the pandemic.  The minority is a new position for Roberts, who, since being nominated by President George W. Bush in 2005 and confirmed by the Senate, historically has voted with the majority more than any of the other justices currently serving on the court.  But former President Donald Trump's three appointees, Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch, have left the centrist Roberts at odds more often with his fellow Republican-appointed colleagues.  The chief justice still commands the court, but in the past year sometimes has found himself alienated from other court conservatives.

The Left's Legislation to Pack the Supreme Court:  What Is It & What Does It Mean?  In the latest example of progressive hysteria and hypocrisy, a group of democrats formally launched legislative efforts Thursday [4/15/2021] to pack the Supreme Court by adding four new justices.  House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and Internet Hank Johnson (D-GA), Representative Mondaire Jones (D-NY) and Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass) introduced the bill, called the Judiciary Act of 2021, in efforts to create a 13-justice Supreme Court.  The bill is short, sweet and to the point.  It simply revises the section in federal law that says the Supreme Court has a "Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices" to say "a Chief Justice of the United States and twelve associate justices."

14 Times Democrats Admitted Court-Packing Is A Terrible Idea.  This month, Democrats in both chambers of Congress have made clear their intention of expanding the Supreme Court, with the clear intention of swinging the Court's sphere of influence away from conservatives and back towards the Left.  But while Democrats increasingly support such a proposal, it wasn't long ago that leaders in the party strongly opposed the idea.  Here are 14 times Democrats said court-packing was an idea they could not get behind. [...]

Biden's Supreme Court Will Mean End of Independent Judiciary.  President Joe Biden's executive order last week creating a bipartisan commission to study "structural changes" to the Supreme Court sends a clarion message of his administration's plan to fundamentally dismantle third branch judiciary checks on unconstitutional executive and legislative branch overreaches.  According to a White House press release:  "The Commission's purpose is to provide an analysis of the principal arguments in the contemporary public debate for and against Supreme Court reform, including an appraisal of the merits and legality of particular reform proposals."  The executive order says, "The topics it will examine include the genesis of the reform debate; the Court's role in the Constitutional system; the length of service and turnover of justices on the Court; the membership and size of the Court; and the Court's case selection, rules, and practices."  Read all of this to mean that it will provide the rationale and legal framework for court-packing.

House and Senate Planning to Introduce Legislation Thursday to Pack The Supreme Court.  Jerry 'the penguin' Nadler and Senator Ed Markey are planning to introduce legislation tomorrow [4/15/2021] to add four Supreme Court justices to the current bench.  The objective is to bring a liberal bias to the high court by adding four leftist judges.

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is in the hot seat.  Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is in the crosshairs of the progressive left.  And no, it's not that the left-wing Breyer has undergone an epiphany and might finally fulfil his oath of office and start ruling per the written Constitution.  Rather Breyer's "crime" is that he's 82 years old.  It appears the left is still smarting over the Ruth Bader Ginsburg fiasco.  That came about because RGB tenaciously hung on past her shelf-life and deprived Barack Obama the chance to appoint her successor.  As a result. that opportunity fell to President Trump, and he nominated Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.  The left thought this would herald the end of its domination of the courts, and it might well have if the 2020 election wasn't stolen from President Trump.  As things stand now, the Senate is evenly split between Republicans and Democrats with Vice-President Harris holding the deciding vote.  This is a tenuous situation for Democrats.  Should one of their members from a red state die unexpectedly, the Senate could easily flip.

Propagandists: Latino TV Networks Cheer Dems' Court-Packing Bill.  Gone are the days when the nation's leading Spanish-language networks would cover the U.S. presidency with adversarial scrutiny.  Their coverage of the Democrats' efforts to pack the Supreme Court proves their pivot to advocacy propaganda.  Watch as anchors from Telemundo and Univision, respectively, hail Democrat efforts to pack the Court:  [Video clip]

The Abiding Shame of 'Packing' the Supreme Court.  In 2005, then-Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) delivered a Senate floor speech about President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's doomed 1937 plan to "pack" the U.S. Supreme Court.  FDR's plan would have permitted him to add six justices, immediately securing a pro-New Deal judicial majority.  But "in an act of great courage, Roosevelt's own party stood up against this institutional power grab," Biden recounted 16 years ago.  "They did not agree with the judicial activism of the Supreme Court, but they believed that Roosevelt was wrong to seek to defy established traditions as a way of stopping that activism."  In fact, Biden actually understated the extent to which Senate Democrats rebuked the iconic Democratic president's court-packing scheme.  The Senate Judiciary Committee report issued at the time used eye-opening, clarion language:  "Let us of the Seventy-fifth Congress, in words that will never be disregarded by any succeeding Congress, declare that we would rather have an independent Court, a fearless Court, a Court that will dare to announce its honest opinions in what it believes to be the defense of the liberties of the people, than a Court that, out of fear or sense of obligation to the appointing power, or factional passion, approves any measure we may enact.  We are not the judges of the judges.  We are not above the Constitution."

Democrats Introduce Bill to Expand Supreme Court, but Reception Is Tepid.  A group of Democrats on Thursday [4/15/2021] unveiled their bill to expand the Supreme Court, but party leaders showed little support and Republicans assailed the proposal as radical.  The "Judiciary Act of 2021" would add four seats to the nation's top court, effectively flipping the balance from 6 [to] 3 in favor of conservative-appointed justices to 7 [to] 6 in the opposite direction.  The rationale fueling the proposal is that Republicans confirmed Justice Amy Coney Barrett after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died last year.  The GOP broke no rules or laws, but some Democrats were bitter that they did not hold the seat open for whoever won the 2020 election.  "Republicans stole the Court's majority, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation completing their crime spree," Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said in a statement.  "This legislation will restore the Court's balance and public standing and begin to repair the damage done to our judiciary and democracy."

Dems Unveil Plan to Pack the Supreme Court but Republicans Can't Wait for Them to Try.  Democrats have long teased the idea that they would pack the Supreme Court once former President Donald Trump had put three judges in place, but now that the prospect is becoming a reality, Republicans are actually daring Democrats to try it under the idea that once they do try, it'll seal their fate in the midterms.  According to Fox News, not only are Republicans very confident that they'll stop the Democrats from accomplishing expanding the Supreme Court from nine seats to 13, but that the move will be unpopular enough to hand both the House and the Senate to them during the midterm elections.  This has prompted some politicians to openly encourage Democrats to give court packing a shot.

Democrats kick off push to pack Supreme Court with four new justices.  A group of Democrats Thursday formally launched a legislative effort to pack the Supreme Court by adding four new justices, in a move that was hailed by progressive activists but quickly met with fierce GOP opposition and skepticism by Democratic leadership.  Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., along with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., and Judiciary Committee members Mondaire Jones, D-N.Y., and Hank Johnson, D-Ga., stood outside the Supreme Court Thursday [4/15/2021] to announce their new legislation to expand the high court from nine to 13 justices.

Nancy Pelosi and senior Dems kill their own party's bid to pack the Supreme Court with four more liberal judges.  Nancy Pelosi effectively killed an upcoming Democrat proposal to expand the Supreme Court by four seats by saying Thursday [4/15/2021] she would not bring the bill to the House floor.  The bid from a group of Democratic lawmakers would change the number of justices for the first time in 160 years and wipe out the conservative majority built under Donald Trump.  'Do you support [Rep.] Jerry Nadler's bill to expand the Supreme Court by 4 seats and would you commit to bringing that bill to the floor,' a reporter asked the House Speaker at a press conference on Thursday.  'No,' she said.

Pelosi Says She Has "No Plans" to Bring Nadler's Bill to Expand Supreme Court by Four Seats to House Floor.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on Thursday morning [4/15/2021] said she does not support Jerrold Nadler's bill to expand the Supreme Court by four seats.  According to a report by The Intercept, Congressional Democrats, with House Judiciary Chairman Nadler leading the charge, will unveil the new court packing legislation on Thursday.  When asked about Nadler's bill, Pelosi said she didn't completely reject the idea of packing the Supreme Court.  She said she supported Joe Biden's commission to study the proposal.

'The moderate left is gone': Republicans line up to condemn Dems' plan to introduce a bill to pack Supreme Court with four new justices — erasing the GOP majority.  Republicans have condemned proposals to increase the number of Supreme Court justices from nine to 13 — a plan which Democratic members of Congress have said they will introduce on Thursday [4/15/2021].  'Packing the Supreme Court would destroy the Supreme Court,' tweeted Tom Cotton, senator for Arkansas.  'The Democrats will do anything for power.'  Donald Trump's former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, said increasing the size of the court was a terrible idea.

Is Biden's Supreme Court Commission Packed To Fail?  With the establishment of his commission to study the possible packing of the Supreme Court, President Biden has adjoined his name to one of the most inglorious efforts of Franklin Roosevelt.  Court packing has long been anathema in the United States, and polls have consistently shown the vast majority of Americans oppose the idea.  Biden himself once denounced it as a "boneheaded" idea, but that was back in 1983, when there remained a real space in politics for at least the pretense of principle.  Now Biden and others seem to think the Supreme Court must be canceled for its failure to yield to the demands of our age of rage.  Many of us were surprised when he pandered to court packing calls in the 2020 primaries.  Some of us have called for expanding the court over a lengthy transitional period, but commentators and some Democrats called for an immediate infusion of new justices to give liberals the controlling majority.  Unhappy with conservative rulings, Democrats demanded that the Supreme Court be replaced by a much larger and more reliably liberal body.

Nadler Unveils Democrats' Plan to Pack Supreme Court, Claims:  "We're Not Packing it, We're Unpacking It".  House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler unveiled the Democrats' plan to pack the Supreme Court on Thursday [4/15/2021].  The majority of Americans do not support court packing, but stolen elections have consequences.  Nadler said the number of justices is up to Congress and Congress has changed that number 7 times in the history of the country.  Chairman Nadler said the Democrats are seeking to expand the Supreme Court by four seats to match the number of circuit courts.

The Editor says...
Pick any number less than a hundred, and some hair-splitting legalist can find that it "matches" some other number, and therefore it's just the right amount.  This is the chicanery for which the Democrats are famous.

Democrats ready legislation to add four seats to Supreme Court.  A group of Democratic lawmakers plans to introduce legislation that would add four seats to the Supreme Court.  Rep. Mondaire Jones of New York, Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York, Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia, and Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts are prepared to bring forth legislation on Thursday that would increase the number of justices on the high court from nine to 13.  "Our democracy is under assault, and the Supreme Court has dealt the sharpest blows," Jones wrote in a Wednesday [4/14/2021] tweet.  "To restore power to the people, we must #ExpandTheCourt."

The Editor says...
It's hard to imagine what the Democrats' grievances are, since the liberals on the court are hard-core left-wing activists, and there are only three or four reliable conservatives to be seen there, and at the moment when the country needed their courage the most — November 2020 — they sat on the sidelines.  Giving the political left a 10-to-3 majority on the Supreme Court will give the SCOTUS far more power, but it won't "restore power to the people."  The Democrats demand that the next person nominated to the court must be a black female, which is exactly the kind of race-based favoritism they pretend to oppose.

GOP reps announce constitutional amendment to keep Supreme Court at 9 'before it's too late'.  A group of six House Republicans Tuesday will introduce a constitutional amendment aimed at setting the number of Supreme Court justices at nine in a reaction to calls from Democrats to pack the court and a commission ordered by President Biden to study the topic.  The proposed amendment, first obtained by Fox News, is sponsored by Rep. Mike Gallagher, R-Wis., along with Reps.  Chris Jacobs, R-N.Y., Ken Buck, R-Colo., Mo Brooks, R-Ala., Ted Budd, R-N.C., and Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla.  Biden's 36-member commission would study not just adding justices to the court but also other potential reforms as well, including "the length of service and turnover of justices on the Court; the membership and size of the Court; and the Court's case selection, rules, and practices."

Dems Ready Legislation to Pack the Supreme Court.  On Thursday, Democrats in the U.S. House and Senate plan to unveil legislation to expand the size of the Supreme Court, potentially reversing the originalist gains under former President Donald Trump.  The bill would add four seats to the Court, bringing the total from nine to 13, sources told The Intercept.  Congress has the authority to set the number of justices on the Court, which has remained at 9 since 1869.  House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), Subcommittee Chair Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), and Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.) are leading the bill in the House while Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) will lead the effort in the Senate.

Democrats to propose legislation expanding the Supreme Court.  Several House Democrats are set to unveil legislation Thursday to expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court.  Supporters of the proposal plan to hold a news conference on the steps of the Supreme Court building.  They include U.S. Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts and U.S. Reps.  Jerry Nadler and Mondaire Jones, both of New York, and Hank Johnson of Georgia.  Given Democrats' control of the White House and Senate, the legislation could allow the party to supersede the court's current conservative majority by "packing" the Court with liberal justices.  Some Republicans quickly derided the proposal.

This Pastor Went to the Supreme Court to Stop Government From Locking Down Churches.  He Won.  Jeremy Wong has never been all that interested in politics.  The young associate pastor at Orchard Community Church always tried to keep his focus on the congregation — until COVID struck.  Then, to his frustration, things changed.  Suddenly, it was impossible to minister the way he and so many other pastors had under California's suffocating lockdown rules.  By October, after months of trying to lead Bible studies and prayer meetings over Zoom, Jeremy had had enough.  He decided to join a lawsuit to fight the state's over-the-top limits on in-home religious gatherings.  Finally, late Friday night, something happened that he "never in [his] wildest thoughts" expected:  they won.  "I didn't have super high expectations," the 40-year-old told the Mercury News.  But the feeling of relief is unmistakable.

Trump Issues Urgent Statement on Grave Danger to the Supreme Court.  Donald Trump has weighed in on a dangerous development that poses a threat to the Supreme Court.  The statement, issued by email, addresses the Biden-appointed commission to "reform" the highest court in the land, which obviously means advocating that it should be packed with radical new justices.  "Wouldn't it be ironic if the Supreme Court of the United States, after showing that they didn't have the courage to do what they should have done on the Great Presidential Election Fraud of 2020, was PACKED by the same people, the Radical Left Democrats (who they are so afraid of!), that they so pathetically defended in not hearing the Election Fraud case," Trump said.

Supreme Court Deals Heavy Blow To Environmentalist Group.  The U.S. Supreme Court has delivered a heavy blow to a major left-wing environmental group.  In the 7-2 ruling, the justices sided with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, thwarting the Sierra Club's bid to obtain documents concerning a regulation finalized in 2014 relating to power plants.  "The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requires that federal agencies make records available to the public upon request unless those records fall within one of nine exemptions.  Exemption 5 incorporates the privileges available to Government agencies in civil litigation, such as the deliberative process privilege, attorney-client privilege, and attorney work-product privilege," Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote.  "This case concerns the deliberative process privilege, which protects from disclosure documents generated during an agency's deliberations about a policy, as opposed to documents that embody or explain a policy that the agency adopts," she continued.

Why Biden Is Breaking America.  As I previously wrote, even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was against court packing because she didn't want to see the court politicized further.  [Indeed], as I noted in the same piece, Joe Biden has spoken out against it for years, saying that doing so would be an egregious power grab.  Yet, here we are on the edge of that power grab.  If he does that, then he may indeed be able to decree any executive order which might then be upheld by a compliant and packed Supreme Court.

JoeBama Turns His Eye of Chaos Toward The Supreme Court.  Leftist ideologues from the Chicago school have a typical playbook they pull from.  One of their strategies is to flood the zone of politics to create chaos that allows them to act under cover of the distracted nature of their plan.  JoeBama turning his eye toward the Supreme Court while pushing COVID crisis, the Border crisis, promoting infrastructure and simultaneously advancing on the filibuster rule is classic Chicago, aka Alinsky.  The deployment of a commission to study reform in the Supreme Court, while simultaneously having a plan to install Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson (50) to replace Justice Stephen Bryer [sic], now 82-years-old, is all part of that chaos approach.  The existence of the commission — and the potential recommendation to pack the court with additional voices — has another benefit; it can be viewed by the existing court as a threat to retain the status quo... or else.  The leftists will use the commission to mold the courts decisions.  Chicago is often subtle as a brick through a window.

Supreme Court Rules Against California's Limits On In-Home Religious Gatherings.  The U.S. Supreme Court in a divided decision late Friday ruled in favor of lifting restrictions on in-home religious gatherings, overturning a lower court ruling that upheld Gov. Gavin Newsom's limits on people from different homes.  The 5-4 unsigned ruling follows other similar decisions recently regarding churches and the coronavirus pandemic.  The decision noted it was the fifth time the court has rejected the Ninth Circuit's analysis of California coronavirus restrictions.  Chief Justice John Roberts dissented but did not sign the dissenting statement submitted by justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer.  The ruling stated that before it can limit religious gatherings, the government must prove they pose a greater danger than secular activities that remain open, such as shopping or attending movies.

Biden to Form Commission to Study Packing the Supreme Court.  President Joe Biden is set to issue an executive order on Friday forming a bipartisan commission that will perform a 180-day study of potential changes to the Supreme Court, including court packing and setting term limits for justices.  "The Commission's purpose is to provide an analysis of the principal arguments in the contemporary public debate for and against Supreme Court reform, including an appraisal of the merits and legality of particular reform proposals," the White House said in a statement.  "The topics it will examine include the genesis of the reform debate; the Court's role in the Constitutional system; the length of service and turnover of justices on the Court; the membership and size of the Court; and the Court's case selection, rules, and practices."  Biden promised to form the bipartisan commission during the campaign in October as he repeatedly dodged questions regarding his stance on expanding the Supreme Court.

MSNBC host calls on liberal Supreme Court Justice Breyer to retire after his warning against 'court-packing'.  MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan has called on liberal Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to retire from the bench after he spoke out forcefully against court-packing earlier this week.  In the piece, published Thursday [4/8/2021] and starkly headlined "Justice Stephen Breyer Should Retire from the Supreme Court," Hasan accused Breyer of intentionally overlooking the "partisanship" of his conservative colleagues, and dismissed his position as "naive, misguided and self-serving."  "It feels odd for me to have to remind a sitting justice that nowhere in the Constitution does it say there should be nine justices on the court," Hasan wrote at one point.  In a lecture at Harvard Law School on Tuesday, Breyer argued that politically-driven changes to the Supreme Court risked damaging the rule of law in the United States.

Inside Biden White House's ties to dark money group seeking to pack Supreme Court.  President Biden's White House has close ties to a left-wing dark money group that seeks to expand the Supreme Court.  Both White House press secretary Jen Psaki and Paige Herwig, Biden's point person on judicial nominations, previously worked for Demand Justice, which is part of a massive dark money network, the Sixteen Thirty Fund.  Demand Justice is open about seeking to overhaul the federal court system to advance progressive goals.

Did Trump Violate the First Amendment by Blocking People on Twitter?  Clarence Thomas Weighs In.  When President Donald Trump blocked users on Twitter, some of them sued, claiming the president had violated their First Amendment rights to speak in a public forum.  On Monday [4/5/2021], the Supreme Court dismissed that lawsuit as moot.  While the Court did not issue an opinion on the case, it stands to reason that Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute (2021) would be moot because Trump is no longer in office and because Twitter has suspended Trump's account.  Justice Clarence Thomas wrote an important concurring opinion warning that the true threat to free speech did not involve Trump but Twitter.  In 2019, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that the comment threads on Trump's tweets constituted a "public forum," so Trump violated the First Amendment by blocking plaintiffs from accessing the threads.  "But Mr. Trump, it turned out, had only limited control of the account; Twitter has permanently removed the account from the platform," Thomas noted.

SCOTUS and the Snapchat cheerleader.  A free speech case involving children and public schools is going to be going before the Supreme Court.  This case, out of Mahonoy, Pennsylvania, has been rattling around in the courts for nearly four years now and it could set a new precedent in terms of how restrictive public schools are allowed to be when it comes to the speech of minors.  At the heart of the case is a former high school cheerleader who elected to use some, shall we say, inappropriate [language] when posting to her friends on the social media app Snapchat.  When word of her ranting reached school officials, she was suspended from the cheerleading squad for a year.  While this may sound like a trivial matter, it does speak to precisely how broad the power of public schools can be when it comes to the off-campus activities of students.

Supreme Court to hear case of cheerleader suspended for Snapchat post.  A cheerleader who was suspended from the squad because she posted [some stuff] on Snapchat will now have her case heard by the Supreme Court — which will weigh whether her free speech rights were violated.  Brandi Levy was just 14 and a freshman cheerleader in Mahonoy, Pennsylvania, when she sent the offending Snapchat to her friends after not getting accepted into the varsity squad, she told ABC News.

A lifetime position on the Supreme Court is far too important to trivialize with race and gender quotas.
Psaki Reveals That Biden 'Absolutely Committed' To Installing A Black Woman On Supreme Court.  During a press briefing, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki revealed that Joe Biden is "absolutely" committed to nominating a Black woman to the Supreme Court.  During his campaign, Biden promised to put a Black woman on the nation's highest court in order to appeal to the critical race theorists of the Democrat Party.  The campaign promise was put in the spotlight as a reporter asked Psaki if the Biden team was considering giving favorable chances to political nominees of certain skin color.  Biden's campaign pandering came back to the spotlight after he released his first federal judicial picks, a group of 11 attorneys that included multiple Black women.

The Editor says...
If the nominee must be black and must be female (how is that legal?) I'm rooting for either Sheila Jackson Lee or Maxine Waters.  Imagine all the lively discussions that would ensue behind closed doors at the Scotus with either of those two clowns in the room.

The Supreme Court:  Cowards, Crooks, or Compromised?  The Court's unwillingness to make any decisions regarding the presidential election of 2020 is a historic failure. [...] One could argue, successfully, that January 6 on the Washington Mall happened because of the lack of integrity and guts in the Supreme Court.  Because of their blatant disassociation with being a coequal branch with the presidency and Congress, the Court has lost enormous respect from half of America. [...] From the five to six purple battleground states, there were obviously enough questions, doubts, and sworn witnesses to at least hear the evidence in the cases.  There was so much smoke out there in terms of possible election irregularities that the Supreme Court had ample reason and cause to see if there was in fact a roaring blaze.  But yet a majority of the Court refused to hear it.

Supreme Court Takes Up Dismemberment Abortion Case.  On Monday [3/29/2021], the Supreme Court announced it would consider the case Cameron v.  EMW Women's Surgical Center, which centers on Kentucky's ban on dismemberment abortions, also known as dilation and evacuation (D&E) abortions.  The Court is not likely to weigh the merits of the purported constitutional "right" to abortion enshrined in Roe v. Wade (1973) and later cases, however.  In April 2018, Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin (R) signed H.B. 454 into law, banning any practice that involves "the bodily dismemberment, crushing, or human vivisection of the unborn child."  Yet after Bevin lost his reelection campaign in 2018, his successor, Gov. Andy Beshear, a Democrat, did not direct his administration to keep defending H.B. 454.  Beshear's health secretary did defend the law until the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an injunction against it.

Supreme Court Denies Bid by Judicial Watch to Require Hillary Clinton Testify Under Oath About Her Emails.  The Supreme Court on Monday [3/29/2021] denied a bid by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch to uphold a court ruling requiring Hillary Clinton to testify under oath about her private email system.  The Supreme Court's denial was unsigned and issued without comment.  In January Judicial Watch filed a petition for writ of certiorari ("cert petition") with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to uphold a court ruling requiring Hillary Clinton to testify under oath about her private email system.  Hillary Clinton used a private email system to conduct official government business when she was the head of the Department of State.

Supreme Court sits on potentially blockbuster abortion case.  The Supreme Court is sitting on a petition in a Mississippi abortion case that could blow the lid off Roe v. Wade.  The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, has been before the court since September without a word from the justices.  It has been considered at the court's conferences eight times and each time left on the table.  That likely means that fewer than four justices so far have voted to take up the case.  Another possibility is that the court has already rejected the case and one of the conservative justices is working on a dissent that will be released in one of the court's orders list.  The lack of action at this point in either direction is surprising to some anti-abortion advocates, who, especially after former President Donald Trump's administration appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the court, expected the court to weigh in on the controversial issue.

A federal appellate judge challenged Supreme Court infallibility.  In the case of Tah v. Global Witness Publishing, Inc., which emerged from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, nobody but the parties involved cared about the issues in the case.  It became noteworthy, though, because Judge Laurence Silberman used the dissent, not just to disagree with the majority's ruling, but also to warn against the danger of a national media that is completely allied with the party controlling all of Washington D.C.  However, I find the case even more exciting because it attacks the notion of Supreme Court infallibility.

Poll: Clarence Thomas Is GOP's Most Popular Supreme Court Justice.  According to an Economist and YouGov poll, Justice Clarence Thomas is the Republican Party's most popular justice on the Supreme Court of the United States.  The survey asked whether there was a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the justices and found Thomas had a favorability of 59 percent within the Party, along with Justice Amy Coney Barrett with 55 percent and Justice Brett Kavanaugh with 53 percent favorability.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts Has Been... Highly Disconcerting.  We the Constitutional have spent large swaths of the last fifteen years wondering just what the heck Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is doing.  Republican President George W. Bush was reelected in 2004 in part because We the People like having judges enforce the Constitution — not rewrite it.  The next year, he appointed Roberts Chief Justice.  At the time, we were more than a little pleased.  Ever since, not so much.  Because he has issued an incessant cavalcade of really awful rulings.  Most recently, he was so far out there every one on the Court ruled the correct way — except him.

Supreme Court sides with Christian students silenced on Georgia campus.  The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday sided with a former Georgia college student who sued his school after it prevented him from expressing religious views in a free-speech zone on campus.  The 8-1 decision, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, said that Chike Uzuegbunam — who was silenced by Georgia Gwinnett College officials even after he had obtained a permit to proselytize and handout religious literature — can seek nominal damages despite the fact that the school ultimately changed course and Uzuegbunam subsequently graduated.  In a very rare alignment of votes, Chief Justice John Roberts was the lone dissenting justice in the case.

Supreme Court dismisses Trump's last election fraud case.  In a ruling on Monday [3/8/2021], the Supreme Court dismissed the last of three court cases brought by the Trump campaign challenging the 2020 US presidential election.  The Court did not give a comment as to their reasons for the dismissal.  This final challenge brought by the Trump campaign alleged that thousands of votes cast using absentee ballots in Wisconsin needed to be examined for fraud, according to Reuters.

SCOTUS, 8-1: You better believe students can sue colleges over "speech zone" First Amendment violations.  That gasp heard after this ruling dropped comes from every college and university with a "free speech zone" and policies that impose heckler's vetoes.  Plaintiffs suing over restrictions on speech and religious expression on campus only need to establish "nominal damages" to gain standing, the Supreme Court ruled in an 8-1 decision, not necessarily actual damages.  That opens up a vast new field of litigation that attorneys all across the country will rush to meet. The 8-1 ruling in Uzuegbunam v Preczewski from Justice Clarence Thomas does not actually settle the case in favor of the students, but the writing is on the wall for Georgia Gwinnett College.

Supreme Court Dismisses 'Sanctuary City' Cases at Request of Biden's DOJ.  The Supreme Court has dismissed three pending requests to hear challenges to the Trump administration's order to withhold millions of dollars in law enforcement funds from so-called sanctuary jurisdictions — states and cities that refuse to cooperate with Department of Homeland Security efforts to deport people residing in the United States illegally. [...] In 2017, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that called on U.S. agencies to withhold federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions, many of which are governed by Democrats.  Part of Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration, the order made federal money to state and local governments conditional upon their giving U.S. immigration officials access to their jails and advance notice when illegal immigrants were being released from custody.  Lower courts were divided on whether the policy was lawful.

Barrett writes first majority Supreme Court opinion in FOIA dispute.  The Supreme Court on Thursday shielded draft documents from a pair of federal agencies from disclosure under a widely used federal public records law, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett authoring her first majority opinion since joining the high court in October.  The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services and National Marine Fisheries Service in their dispute with the Sierra Club, which sought records related to the services' consultations with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).  Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

Supreme Court Again Allows Indoor Church Services, Lifts Ban.  The U.S. Supreme Court said a California county must let five churches hold indoor services, adding to a line of orders that have curbed the power of government officials as they battle the spread of the coronavirus.  The latest high court action follows a Feb. 6 order that let indoor worship services resume in most of California at 25% capacity.  The court's unsigned one-paragraph order said the outcome "is clearly dictated" by the earlier decision.  The three liberal justices — Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor — dissented.  Santa Clara County, which includes San Jose, said its ban remained valid because it was part of a broader prohibition on indoor gatherings at both religious and secular establishments.  The county's policy let facilities operate at 20% capacity for purposes other than gatherings.

Here's What Ted Cruz Is Doing to Keep Democrats from Packing the Supreme Court.  Activist judges pushing a far-left agenda have been legislating from the bench, and a handful of Supreme Court Justices committed to upholding the Constitution is the only thing stopping the left's total transformation of the country.  For that reason, Democrats have been lying in wait for the opportunity to take out the Supreme Court.  Democrats are no longer hiding their disdain for the high court.  Democrats openly admit to hostile court-packing plans that would stuff the Supreme Court full of activist judges who would then sign off on everything Democrats couldn't sneak past the voters.  Vice President Kamala Harris has said, "everything is on the table" when it comes to bypassing the Supreme Court.  Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) has called court-packing a "long-overdue court reform."  Most concerning, President Biden has created a commission to study possible reforms to the federal judiciary because, as Biden puts it, the court system is "getting out of whack."

Kavanaugh and Barrett:  John Roberts Retreads?  All that work for, and faith in, Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett!  As with John Roberts before, we are once again the victims of unrequited affection and lost labor.  Like other Republicans, I expended lots of hours and effort to do my part in getting all three confirmed.  I wrote articles, did radio and TV interviews, gave speeches, called Senators and asked my friends to do so, and spoke to countless people. [...] I have traveled over 800 miles, paid for motels, and over the years took off work so as to help these nominees become confirmed justices.  Like so many others on our side, we believed in them.  Finally, strong justices, conservative like us.  The Court was finally ours... a dream come true.  Well, the dream has died and our hopes for the Great Cause have not been respected by those in whose behalf we so tirelessly worked.

Clarence Thomas Dissent in Election Cases: 'Our Fellow Citizens Deserve Better'.  "Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us," Justice Clarence Thomas declared Monday, when the Supreme Court decided — by one vote — to hear none of the 2020 election cases raising issues of voter fraud and illegal votes.  Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett voted with the liberal justices to deny review of the lower court decisions.  Four justices must vote to hear a case to put it on the Court's docket, but only three justices — Thomas, fellow conservative Samuel Alito, and libertarian Neil Gorsuch — voted to take at least two of four of the key cases from November 2020.  All three dissenting justices took the unusual step of writing opinions as to why the Court should have taken at minimum two of these cases.

Supreme Court denies Trump request to keep tax records private.  The Supreme Court declined a request from former President Donald Trump to halt a New York state prosecutor from obtaining his tax returns, the Associated Press reports.  The decision closes a years-long effort by Trump to keep his tax returns private.  The Economist reports that Monday's decision opens eight years of tax returns to New York County district attorney Cy Vance.  The Supreme Court did not deliver any dissents or offer any explanation as to why they denied Trump's request for a stay in keeping the returns out of Vance's hands.

Trump Unloads on 'Crazy Nancy' & 'Headhunting' Prosecutors After SCOTUS Decision.  Former President Donald Trump unleashed on those carrying out a blood vendetta against him after leaving office.  On Monday [2/22/2021], the Supreme Court effectively declared open season on Donald Trump by refusing to block prosecutors from going after his tax returns and financial records.

Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch Blast Supreme Court's 'Inexplicable' Refusal to Hear Pennsylvania Election Lawsuit.  The Supreme Court on Monday [2/22/2021] struck down a Republican challenge over absentee ballots received up to three days after Election Day in Pennsylvania.  Republicans in the Keystone State had sought to block a state court ruling that allowed the Nov. 6 deadline extension in the 2020 election.  The decision prompted dissents from three conservative justices; Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch.  The trio argued that while the legal questions in the case may not have affected the outcome of the November election, the Supreme Court should take the opportunity to clarify election law because the same legal issues could impact future elections.  Throughout his dissent, Thomas characterized the Court's refusal to take cases challenging the election as "inexplicable," "befuddling," and "baffling."  "These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle.  The refusal to do so is inexplicable," Thomas wrote.

SCOTUS Refuses To Hear Pennsylvania Election Lawsuits.  The Supreme Court has rejected three GOP elections-related lawsuits regarding the state of Pennsylvania.  In a six-to-three decision Monday, the court refused to hear a case challenging a three-day extension of the deadline to receive mail-in ballots in the state.  Justices John Roberts, Amy Comey Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh sided with their liberal colleagues while Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.  The court also moved to deny hearing a case seeking to overturn Joe Biden's victory in the state and another similar case by the Trump campaign.  In the dissent, Justice Thomas argued "the absence of evidence of voter fraud is not enough to instill confidence in election integrity."

Justice Thomas Blisters Court on Rejecting Election Cases.  After the Supreme Court turned away two Republican appeals over Pennsylvania's mail-in ballot deadline changes, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas issued a blistering dissent against the decision to reject the case.  "One wonders what this Court waits for," Justice Thomas wrote.  "We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules.  Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections.  "The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling."  Three conservative Justices Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch sought to hear the cases, while Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the liberal justices in turning then away.  Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not take part on cases that preceded her swearing in.

Our Supreme Court Goes Full Nicaragua.  While I think the United States Supreme Court stumbled badly in its 7-2 rejection of the Texas case on standing last year, the refusal to "grant cert" (i.e., to take the case) yesterday in a Pennsylvania case is horrifying beyond words. [...] What the Supreme Court codified yesterday, and what it started with the Texas rejection, is that election laws and procedures cannot be challenged beyond a state court, at any time, regardless of how badly those states shred the United States Constitution, and regardless of the major consequences to the other 49 states as a result.  They don't ever say that per se, but the results of what those two rulings have done are just that.  Period.  Those trying to challenge Pennsylvania's obviously corrupt and rigged election system have been told that they cannot challenge the laws ahead of the election, because there is not yet a victim.  They've been told that fellow Americans impacted by Pennsylvania's corrupt system cannot challenge, because of standing.  Now they've been told that they cannot challenge after the election, because it's after the election — and therefore moot.

With Supreme Court's Non-Decision, Citizens Must Reform Electoral System.  The U.S. Supreme Court's appalling decision not to hear a Republican challenge to Pennsylvania's extra-legal changing of election laws shortly before the 2020 vote — which likely delivered the state to Joe Biden in the wee hours of Election Night — is just the latest disgrace of the John Roberts court, and a clear signal of future trouble for the Republic.  Pusillanimity has marked the chief justice and the institution he leads since his volte-face regarding the 2012 Obamacare decision, in which he saved the misbegotten, intrusive, and blatantly unconstitutional law at the last minute by choosing to call the "individual mandate" a tax — that is to say, a hitherto unprecedented ukase by the federal government that once-free citizens had to buy a health-care policy under threat of IRS penalty.  A human weathervane, Roberts has gone on from that low point to plumb ever-new depths of moral cowardice as, increasingly, he sides with court's dwindling liberal bloc to become, in effect, the new Anthony Kennedy — the regal one-man swing vote on matters of urgent national importance.

Clarence Thomas Unleashes Brutal Smackdown Against the Supreme Court Over Election Ruling.  On Monday [2/22/2021], Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas unleashed on his fellow Supreme Court justices after they voted against taking up cases relating to ballot-integrity measures for the 2020 election and future elections.  "This is not a prescription for confidence," Thomas said in his dissent on Monday, noting that "changing the rules in the middle of the game is bad enough."  "That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election.  But that may not be the case in the future," Thomas wrote.  "These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle.  The refusal to do so is inexplicable."  Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch also dissented.

SCOTUS plays Catch 22 with challenges to Pennsylvania election.  The Supreme has signaled that anything goes when it comes to jiggering election rules in favor of the Democrats.  Challenge illegalities in the last election with a good case, and you're stuck in a classic Catch-22 situation, as Ace pithily sums it up:
      ["]Before the inauguration:  Not timely
      After the certification:  Moot
The two cases the Court declined to hear challenged the last-minute changes to election law in Pennsylvania.  Never mind that the U.S. Constitution explicitly gives state legislatures the power to prescribe "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives"; the Supreme Court just allowed the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to change the rules for the November 2020 federal election by declaring the case moot.

Unbelievable, SCOTUS Refuses to Hear PA Election Challenge After Previously Granting Injunction.  In a 6-3 ruling today [2/22/2021] the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to grant writ to hear the Pennsylvania election challenge cases.  While the majority of media will likely celebrate this decision; and while the court has refused to hear the case(s) based on their position the issues are "moot"; there appears to be an underlying motive not being discussed.  It only takes four justices to agree to hear a case and grant a writ of certiorari.  In October 2020 the issues with the Pennsylvania court overruling the Pennsylvania legislature was of such importance four justices agreed to block the lower court order.  However, four months later the majority claim the arguments within the case are "moot"; & the election is over.  In essence the Roberts Court is saying they will allow any/all methods and manipulations of election law within states, and only look to the state outcome.  This is very troublesome.

Supreme Court Declines To Hear Pennsylvania Election Dispute Cases.  The Supreme Court denied review today [2/22/2021] to two cases filed in connection with the Presidential vote in Pennsylvania.  The first case was filed by both the Trump Campaign and the Republican Party of Pennsylvania, challenging the decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that made changes to the election laws in Pennsylvania.  The most controversial change allowed the counting of mailed-in ballots received up to three days after election day — the election statute has a cut-off of 8:00 pm on election night — so long as the ballot envelope was postmarked on election day.  Ballot envelopes with no postmark, or with an illegible postmark, were deemed to have been received after election day.

Sidney Powell Speaks Out After SCOTUS Meetings Friday on Election Fraud — Expects Orders and Opinions Next Week.  The US Supreme Court was set to consider President Trump's voter fraud cases in Pennsylvania, Georgia and Michigan on Friday [2/19/2021].  These three cases are on the Supreme Court docket for Friday. [...] As a reminder, Pennsylvania Democrat officials changed the election rules weeks before the election without consulting the legislative branch.  This is unlawful in the state.  It will be interesting to see if SCOTUS is the latest lawless branch of government following today's decisions.

How Democrats Are Already Maneuvering to Shape Biden's First Supreme Court Pick.  After meeting in the Oval Office earlier this month with President Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and his fellow senior House Democrats, Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina made a beeline to Ms. Harris's office in the West Wing to privately raise a topic that did not come up during their group discussion:  the Supreme Court.  Mr. Clyburn, the highest-ranking African-American in Congress, wanted to offer Ms. Harris the name of a potential future justice, according to a Democrat briefed on their conversation.  District Court Judge J. Michelle Childs would fulfill Mr. Biden's pledge to appoint the first Black woman to the Supreme Court — and, Mr. Clyburn noted, she also happened to hail from South Carolina, a state with political meaning for the president.

Also posted under Race-based political opportunism.

Supreme Court Set to Consider Whether Trump Voter Fraud Cases in Pennsylvania, Georgia and Michigan Can Proceed.  The US Supreme Court is set to consider President Trump's voter fraud cases in Pennsylvania, Georgia and Michigan on Friday [2/19/2021].  These three cases are on the Supreme Court docket for Friday. [...] As a reminder, Pennsylvania Democrat officials changed the election rules weeks before the election without consulting the legislative branch.  This is unlawful in the state.  It will be interesting to see if SCOTUS is the latest lawless branch of government following today's decisions.

Supreme Court to determine if police can enter a house and take guns without obtaining a warrant.  In a case that could have wide-ranging effects on policing in America, the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments next month to decide if police can make warrantless searches of a private residence under the "community caretaking" doctrine.  The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects citizens from warrantless searches as one of America's basic rights.  Before a police officer or other government official can enter a private home, they must show a judge probable cause that an item is present and that a crime has been committed.  If the judge finds there is sufficient probable cause, a search warrant is issued.  There are widely-accepted exceptions, called "exigent circumstance," for emergency situations.  These exigent circumstances involved protection of life and evidence.  If an officer sees suspects destroying evidence through a window, he can enter the home to stop the destruction.

Divided court allows indoor worship services to resume in California.  Friday's [2/5/2021] ruling spawned several different opinions.  Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch indicated that they would have given the churches everything that they had asked for — that is, allowed them to reopen immediately without any limitations.  In a statement that was also joined by Justice Samuel Alito, they suggested that it is not difficult to determine in this case whether California has singled out religion for special, and more stringent, treatment.  They acknowledged that the state "has a compelling interest in reducing" the risk of transmitting COVID-19, but [...] "if Hollywood may host a studio audience or film a singing competition while not a single soul may enter California's churches, synagogues, and mosques, something has gone seriously awry."

Supreme Court to Consider 2020 Election Challenge Lawsuits in February Conference.  The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday [2/5/2021] scheduled several high-profile contest-of-election lawsuits, including ones brought by attorneys Sidney Powell and Lin Wood, and the Trump campaign, for consideration at its Feb. 19 conference.  According to a case listing, the lawsuits include Sidney Powell's Michigan case (20-815), the Trump campaign's Pennsylvania lawsuit (20-845) and Wisconsin lawsuit (20-882), the Pennsylvania lawsuit brought by Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) (20-810), and Lin Wood's Georgia case (20-799).  All cases allege some form of unlawful election-related conduct affecting the result of the election, including expansion of mail-in balloting by elections officials changing rules in contravention of state election laws, lack of adequate security measures around mail ballots, issues with machine vote tabulation, and denial of meaningful access to poll watchers.  The Supreme Court declined to grant relief or fast-track the cases as requested in respective petitions filed ahead of the Jan. 20 inauguration of President Joe Biden.

SCOTUS apparently not fans of shutting down churches.  In a Friday night [2/5/2021] ruling, the Supreme Court voted along ideological lines and ruled that California Governor Gavin Newsom can't entirely ban indoor church services due to the pandemic.  But they didn't go so far as to say that churches are "untouchable" and can't be restricted in any fashion.  Unsurprisingly, the court's three remaining liberal justices dissented and would have been willing to allow Newsom to forbid indoor church services entirely.  This is a decision that will likely impact a number of other pending cases in multiple states.  It was a case of the First Amendment being pitted against the extraordinary authoritarian powers granted to executive officials during a declared state of emergency.

Supreme Court rules California churches may open despite the pandemic.  The Supreme Court lifted California's ban on indoor church services during the pandemic Friday [2/5/2021], ruling that Gov. Gavin Newsom's strict orders violate the Constitution's protection for the free exercise of religion.  The justices in a 6-3 decision granted an appeal from a south San Diego church that has repeatedly challenged the state restrictions on church services, including its ban on singing and chanting.  The ruling overturned decisions by federal judges in San Diego and San Bernardino, and the 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco, which upheld the state's orders despite earlier warnings from the high court.

Starr: Chief Justice Roberts Should Make [it] Clear [that the] Trump Impeachment Trial [is] Unconstitutional.  Several Republicans along with lawyers for former President Donald Trump have called his second impeachment many things:  Bogus, ridiculous, insane, petty, improper, and illegal.  Democrats need to hear one more term, however, and they need to hear it from someone specific.  The term is "unconstitutional" and it needs to come from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, according to former independent counsel Ken Starr, who knows a think or two about impeachment proceedings since his probes of President Bill Clinton lead him to be impeached in 1998.

Supreme Court to consider election lawsuits in February.  The Supreme Court on Friday [2/5/2021] listed several high-profile election lawsuits for consideration at its mid-February conference.  The cases include challenges to the 2020 election from Trump-aligned lawyers Lin Wood and Sidney Powell, as well as Republican Rep. Mike Kelly's Pennsylvania lawsuit.  Nearly every lawsuit takes issue with the expanded use of mail-in ballots by many states.  The decision came after the court declined to fast-track all election-related litigation in early January.  In nearly every plea for expedition, lawyers backing former President Donald Trump told the court that if the cases were not heard before President Biden's inauguration, their success would be unlikely.

Supreme Court Schedules Election Lawsuits for February Conference.  The United States Supreme Court has scheduled the Pennsylvania election case, Sidney Powell's Michigan election case, and Lin Wood's Georgia election case for its February 19 conference.

Supreme Court cancels arguments on Trump's border wall, 'remain in Mexico' policy.  The Supreme Court on Wednesday [2/3/2021] canceled courtroom arguments scheduled for the next few weeks over two aspects of former President Donald Trump's immigration policy — a reflection of the new administration's reversal on both issues.  The court granted the Justice Department's request to remove two Trump administration appeals of lower court rulings from the argument calendar, one being against the use of Pentagon money to build the southern border wall and the other against making immigrants wait in Mexico instead of the U.S.  Stopping the wall project was among the first steps President Joe Biden took after he was sworn into office.

Biden asks Supreme Court to cancel arguments on border wall, asylum cases.  The Biden administration on Monday asked the Supreme Court to cancel upcoming arguments in cases challenging former President Trump's border wall and policy requiring that asylum-seekers remain in Mexico.  The request follows day-one efforts by the new administration to reverse course on each, potentially making moot the Feb. 22 and March 1 hearings.  "The President has directed the Executive Branch to undertake an assessment of 'the legality of the funding and contracting methods used to construct the wall,'" the administration wrote to the court.

The Real Constitutional Crisis is Upon Us.  The Supreme Court is supposed to be our bulwark against encroachments on the Constitution.  The justices are not only to be the interpreters of the Constitution, but also its guardians.  They are the robed scholars intended to understand the Constitution inside and out, and to ensure the nation remains faithful to it.  They are granted lifetime appointments so that they may remain above petty politics.  Justices are intended to be free of party affiliation so that they may defend the Constitution — independent of outside influences.  Somewhere along the line, the Supreme Court decided that it not only wanted to keep the Constitution relevant, but it wanted the Constitution to evolve with the times.  Suddenly, we had an evolving Constitution (I hate the term "living Constitution").  We've now been introduced to "penumbras" and "emanations" — which are just legal-speak for, "We know what the Founders meant, even though they didn't write it down."  And with that, fidelity to the Constitution has been lost.

The Supreme Court Has Failed in Its Role as the National Abortion Control Board.  When the Supreme Court makes an important decision that influences the entire nation, it's flashed across the media for a day and then forgotten.  Rarely is the practical impact of the decision reviewed afterward.  But a new report provides insight on how recent Supreme Court decisions regarding abortion clinics have resulted in a public health mess.  The Supreme Court's Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt decision of 2016 and June Medical Services LLC v. Russo decision of 2020 nullified important health and safety regulations for abortion clinics in Texas and Louisiana.  They also cast doubt on the same laws in every other state, prompting some to wonder if those laws were ever necessary.  The Guttmacher Institute estimates that in 2017, "over 862,000 abortions were performed in the U.S., with only 5% in physicians' offices and hospitals."  That means that abortion clinics are where the vast majority of abortions are performed.  Americans might ask, "What's this have to do with the Supreme Court?  The court isn't responsible for what goes on in clinics."  While the Supreme Court isn't supposed to be, it assumed unprecedented control over abortion clinics in 1973 in Roe v. Wade.

The Left's Push to 'Reform' the Courts Only Will Politicize Them.  President Joe Biden has announced the creation of a commission to examine "reforming" the courts.  This move is not only a "solution" in search of a problem, but will itself likely damage the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary.  It is based on the dangerous idea that the political branches should manipulate the very design and structure of the judiciary until it produces decisions that fit a particular ideological or political agenda.  That is no exaggeration.  In August 2019, five Senate Democrats — four of whom serve on the Judiciary Committee — filed a legal brief written by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., in a Supreme Court case challenging a New York state law that restricted transport of a licensed firearm outside of one's home.  The brief closed with these words:  "The Supreme Court is not well.  And the people know it.  Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be 'restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'"

Biden Creates Commission to Study Supreme Court Reform, Report States.  President Joe Biden's administration is creating a commission to study Supreme Court reform, Politico reported Wednesday [1/27/2021].  The new bipartisan commission will be under the purview of the White House Counsel, according to Politico.  Multiple members have already been selected, sources familiar with the discussions told Politico, including Yale Law School professor Cristina Rodríguez, former President of the American Constitution Society Caroline Fredrickson, and Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith.  During the 2020 presidential election, Biden refused to address whether he would pack the court, insisting that he would not provide such an answer until at least 180 days after he became president and after he had received a recommendation from a bipartisan commission on changing the Supreme Court.

Former Attorney General Eric Holder Urges Democrats to Pack the Supreme Court.  Former Attorney General Eric Holder urged Democrats to "use the power" of their new majority to pack the Supreme Court.  In a virtual conference on judicial reform hosted by the Brookings Institution on Monday [1/25/2021], Holder said Democrats need to act now that they have control of the White House and Congress.  "It is painfully clear, at least to me, that Democrats and progressives are, and have been, uncomfortable with the acquisition and the use of power ... Republicans and conservatives never have been," Holder said.

Chief Justice Roberts Opts Out of the Impeachment Circus.  There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Justice Roberts.  The Roberts Court, specifically the Roberts part of it, has repeatedly sided with lefties on issues that would get its eponymous figure disinvited from the cocktail party circuit.  When faced with a serious choice, Roberts has usually taken the easy way out and turned into the direction of the greatest social pressure.  Refusing to preside over the impeachment trial is arguably a step in that direction.  But by his standards, it's an act of courage to indicate by omission that the whole thing is a circus and that he wants no part of it.  It's not that Roberts doesn't hate President Trump, but it's likely that he doesn't think former presidents can be impeached and that he sees the whole thing as an ugly and cynical political circus operating under the faintest tinge of the color of law.

Supreme Court calls emoluments lawsuits against Trump moot.  The Supreme Court on Monday brought an end to lawsuits over whether Donald Trump illegally profited off his presidency.  The justices threw out Trump's challenge to lower court rulings that had allowed lawsuits to go forward alleging that he violated the Constitution's emoluments clause by accepting payments from foreign and domestic officials who stay at the Trump International Hotel and patronize other businesses owned by the former president and his family.  The high court also ordered the lower-court rulings thrown out as well and directed appeals courts in New York and Richmond, Va., to dismiss the suits as moot now that Trump is no longer in office.

CJ Roberts and the Courage of Roger Scruton.  [Scroll down]  But now our Democratic friends want to have a trial of Citizen Trump in the Senate.  So I looked up the text of the Constitution online.  It says ["]The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.  When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation.  When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside:  And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.["]  Ahem.  Do you see the problem here, you strict constructionists, you living constitutionalists, and you, Sen. Chuck E. Schumer (D-NY)?  When the proposed trial begins on February 8, Roberts, CJ, can say — should say — to the assembled duly sworn multitude:  "Sorry chaps.  The President of the United States is not on trial.  Citizen Trump is on trial.  So it would be against the Constitution as written for the Chief Justice to preside.  And it would be a grievous blow to the dignity of the Supreme Court and the plain meaning of the Constitution if the Chief Justice were to preside in flagrant violation of the plain words of the Constitution."

SCOTUS Throws Out Lawsuits Accusing Trump Of Taking Foreign Bribes.  The Supreme Court tossed two lawsuits accusing former President Donald Trump of violating the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution on Monday [1/25/2021], ending a roughly four-year legal battle over the former president's businesses.  One of the lawsuits was filed by a watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), the day after Trump was inaugurated in 2017. The attorneys general of District of Columbia and Maryland brought a similar lawsuit in June of that year, according to Politico.

Supreme Court Orders Dismissal of Suits Over Trump Finances.  The U.S. Supreme Court ordered the formal dismissal of two lawsuits that accused Donald Trump of unconstitutionally profiting from his presidency.  The cases no longer had any practical consequences after Trump's term in office ended Jan. 20, and both sides agreed the disputes had become legally moot.  Those suing Trump included hotels, restaurants and the attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia.  They said Trump as president benefited from a stream of foreign and state government officials who patronized his properties, including the Trump International Hotel in Washington, a few blocks from the White House.

Sen. Rand Paul says Chief Justice Roberts won't take Trump impeach trial.  As Democrats plunge ahead with a post-term impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, a key question remains:  Will Chief Justice Roberts take the case?  Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky says he won't — making the exercise "a fake, partisan impeachment," the lawmaker told Fox News' Sean Hannity Friday [1/22/2021].  Paul claimed Roberts has "privately said he's not supposed to come unless it's an impeachment of the president."  According to the US Constitution, "when the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside" — a requirement not made for any other impeachment case.

Roberts rules.  Today comes word via Senator Rand Paul that Chief Justice Roberts will not preside over any Senate impeachment trial of President Trump: the text of the Constitution only requires the Chief Justice to preside over the trial of "the President."  Trump is no longer "the President."  Roberts's presence is therefore not called for.  Trump is of course a private citizen at this point.  The constitutional text does not appear to contemplate the impeachment or trial of a private citizen, although such impeachments took place once in the eighteenth century and once in the nineteenth.  Former Fourth Circuit Judge Michael Luttig argues in this Washington Post column that a Senate trial of Trump would be unconstitutional.

Chief Justice John Roberts does NOT want to preside over Donald Trump's second impeachment trial.  Chief Justice John Roberts is eager to avoid presiding over Donald Trump's second impeachment trial — after he became a lightning rod during the first one.  Just as the Senate is seeking to ascertain how it might proceed with an impeachment trial without blowing up the start of Joe Biden's term, the Supreme Court could face its own business being rearranged.  The Constitution states that 'When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside.'

Supreme Court refuses to expedite election challenges.  The Supreme Court announced Monday [1/11/2012] it would not expedite a group of election challenges.  The move is yet another legal blow to President Trump who has pushed to overturn the 2020 results through the courts.  The president has cases pending before the justices against Wisconsin and Pennsylvania officials, and pro-Trump lawyer Lin Wood also has litigation pending against the Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

John Roberts Betrayed America A Long Time Ago.  I distinctly remember the exact moment in 2012. I was in my office working when I heard President Obama say on TV something to the effect of, "I think you may be surprised by Justice Roberts on how he votes on Obamacare..."  It was then the doubts started flowing into my mind about our Chief Justice.  Those doubts have proven to be correct — Chief Justice John Roberts is corrupt and has been for some time.  His vote on Obamacare that betrayed the Constitution of the United States was the first evidence of this fact.

Overcoming the Court's Abdication in Texas v. Pennsylvania.  In refusing to hear Texas v. Pennsylvania, the U.S. Supreme Court abdicated its constitutional duty to resolve a real and substantial controversy among states that was properly brought as an original action in that Court.  As a result, the Court has come under intense criticism for having evaded the most important inter-state constitutional case brought to it in many decades, if not ever.  However, even in its Order dismissing the case, the Supreme Court identified how another challenge could be brought successfully — by a different plaintiff.  This paper explains that legal strategy.  But first we focus on the errors made by the Supreme Court — in the hopes that they will not be made again. [...] Fortunately, that might have been only the first round in the fight to preserve the nation.  A strategy exists to re-submit the Texas challenge under the Electors Clause to the Supreme Court in a way that even that Court could not dare refuse to consider.  Just because Texas did not persuade the Justices that what happens in Pennsylvania hurts Texas does not mean that the United States of America could not persuade the justices that when Pennsylvania violates the U.S. Constitution, it harms the nation.

U.S. Supreme Court Pushes Off Pennsylvania Case Until After Inauguration Day.  Jonathan Turley:  "Inaugurations are like cats:  it is hard to get either to walk backwards."

What are the new SCOTUS justices thinking?  It is the threat of packing the Supreme Court that should be of special concern to the conservative SCOTUS justices.  If the day ever comes when the five conservative justices look down the bench and see six or eight justices who will rubber-stamp any issue in support of liberal Democrats, then the conservative justices will have become inconsequential, and our Constitution will be effectively null and void.  The five conservative justices will then spend their days trudging back and forth to their once exalted chambers and writing dissents that will be of interest only to academicians.  The nine justices on the Supreme Court have always appeared to be independent.  That is why we get rulings with different numbers of justices affirming and dissenting.  At least on the face of it, John Roberts does not have the authority to order the other justices how to vote.  The necessity of having free and fair elections is so important that it seems the conservative justices would have simply shrugged at John Roberts's attempt to control them.

Supreme Kangaroo Court.  The United States Supreme Court has flagrantly violated its Rules, and it is now claiming not to know where my papers and $300 check are, even though they received all papers on December 4, 2020, proved by my time-stamped copy.  The case analyst I spoke with today, a short tempered insulting individual, also tried to convince me there was a Supreme Court Rule preventing me from filing the case.  When pressed to cite the Rule, he could not do so.  Because there is no such Rule.  I filed exactly as required by Rule 17.4, and that Rule says the case "will be docketed" when forty copies and $300 are received.  Those were received at the Court on December 4th.  They have been holding my $300 check for three weeks.  I had the papers filed by commercial same day courier, at the Supreme Court Police booth, which is the proper place the Court receives filings.  The Officer stamped my copy, as is the normal process.  Since the Attorney General of Arizona mentioned my filing in their Amicus Motion in the Texas case, the Supreme Court itself cannot pretend my papers were stalled by their clerks.  Make no mistake about it, my case is a clear winner under Foster v.  Love, and the Supreme Court simply may not want it docketed for that reason.

[The] Trump campaign [is] independently filing with [the] Supreme Court over election results.  The Trump campaign issued its first independent filing with the Supreme Court on Sunday [12/20/2020], in hopes of reversing actions taken by Pennsylvania's high court.  The campaign aims to reverse three Pennsylvania Supreme Court cases that changed the state's mail balloting law immediately before and after this year's election.  "This petition follows a related Pennsylvania case where Justice Alito and two other justices observed 'the constitutionality of the [Pennsylvania] Supreme Court's decision," President Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani said in a statement, referring to extending the deadline of mail-in ballots from 8 p.m. on Election Day to 5 p.m. three days later.  Trump's team claims there is a "strong likelihood" Pennsylvania's high court violates the Constitution and says decisions by the Pennsylvania Legislature on mail-in ballots led to fraud.

Trumpism Without Trump:  Not Kinder and Gentler, But Harder and Fiercer.  The Democrats stole the election.  President Trump is right to fight this.  The U.S. Supreme Court was wrong to stand aside and let it happen.  (Texas had standing to sue over it, for whereas Texans must grin and bear it when we are outvoted fair and square by other states, if our votes are nullified by cheating in other states, then we have been injured and we have a right to seek redress.)  Even without the cheating, the impact of massive private subsidies aimed solely at boosting turnout in Democrat strongholds, pre-election bias in the press, and censorship by Big Tech may itself have been enough to tip the results in Joe Biden's favor. [...] We should make the Democrats pay for it, yes, but not through pettiness and spite.  They may project their sins onto us, but let us not emulate their sins in return.  Instead, we should attack the Left where it is most vulnerable, and that is on policy.

Justices Punt on Census Apportionment, Toss NY Injunction Against Trump.  At issue in Trump v. New York was a memorandum issued by President Donald Trump to the secretary of the Department of Commerce (where the Census Bureau is housed), directing him to exclude illegal aliens from the population to be used for apportionment of the House of Representatives "to the maximum extent feasible."  Under federal law, the secretary presents the president with the base population to be used for apportionment.  The president then applies a statutory formula to that population to determine the number of members of the House to which each state is entitled.  New York sued over the memorandum and obtained an injunction from a district court judge to prevent the directive from being followed.

U.S. Supreme Court throws out challenge to Trump census immigrant plan.  The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday threw out a lawsuit seeking to block President Donald Trump's plan to exclude immigrants living illegally in the United States from the population count used to allocate congressional districts to states.  The 6-3 ruling on ideological lines, with the court's six conservatives in the majority and three liberals dissenting, gives Trump a short-term victory as he pursues his hard-line policies toward immigration in the final weeks of his presidency.

2020 Election Integrity — A Snapshot Showing Where We Stand.  Chief Justice Roberts's Supreme Court is manifestly reluctant to fulfill its statutory responsibilities, despite overwhelming, and steadily accruing, evidence of significant fraud that the election outcome.  However, in 2018, President Trump may have prepared a time bomb that can still save the day.  Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton, filed a complaint asserting that election fraud disenfranchised Texas voters.  Texas voting was done within the framework of the U.S. Constitution and battleground states strayed beyond legal boundaries, to put it mildly.  The legal votes of Texans were nullified by the alleged fraudulent votes of those states.  Article III, section 2, of the Constitution states in relevant part, the Supreme Court "[J]udicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity ... to Controversies between two or more states. ..."  Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has denied the Texas lawsuit challenging the election outcome in battleground states, asserting "lack of standing."  Justices Alito and Thomas dissented from the majority opinion and wanted to hear the case.

Supreme Court Green-Lights Trump Removal of Illegal Aliens From Census Count.  The Supreme Court ruled that the federal government may remove illegal aliens from the 2020 Census count, which eliminates that population from the process of allocating congressional seats and Electoral College votes that officially determine the presidency.  The 6-3 decision in Trump v.  New York issued Dec. 18 is a victory for the Trump administration.  Placed on a judicial fast track because various census-related deadlines are nearing, oral argument took place telephonically before the nine justices on Nov. 30.  The Trump administration wanted illegal aliens removed from the decennial census count to prevent them from having an impact on the apportionment of political power among the states.

Supreme Court Punts Census Lawsuit into January, No Quantifiable Harm Currently Appears.  The New York lawsuit against the Trump administration, over disqualification of unlawful aliens in the 2020 election, was dismissed today [12/18/2020] by the Supreme Court under procedural grounds.  However, that said, there is a clear indication where the outcome is likely to end up once the court takes up the case next year.  The high court noted no harm currently exists because the census report hasn't been delivered to congress to begin the representative apportionment.  The ruling was 6-3 on process, with justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer signing a dissent on the case.

SCOTUS punts 6-3 on Trump effort to exclude illegals from apportionment.  [T]he Chief Justice wound up on the conservatives' side in punting this challenge to Donald Trump's efforts to exclude illegal immigrants from reapportionment calculations.  Roberts agreed that the complaint doesn't demonstrate any particularized injury and may not be justiciable in the future either, while the court's liberal wing wanted to swat this policy down immediately.

Did Chief Justice John Roberts Really Scream at Conservative Justices Over the Texas Challenge to the 2020 Elections?  [Scroll down]  When this sorry spectacle's history is written, the Supreme Court will not cover itself with glory.  Regardless of the factual basis of the case, when eighteen states come to the Supreme Court on an issue which the Constitution says gives that court original jurisdiction, the sleight-of-hand dismissal engineered by Chief Justice Roberts was a shameful dereliction of duty.  I understand why he didn't want to deal with it; every day, we are all confronted with things which it is our duty to do but which we'd rather just not.  What separates adults from [...] children is that we do those things despite our aversion.  When Roberts dismissed the Texas case, it was a textbook case of moral cowardice and cheap pettifoggery.  What happens in the coming weeks, months, years that grows out of this election lies, to a great extent, at the feet of John Roberts, who should have acted and could have acted but decided just not to do his duty.

Rebuttal: The event described above did not happen.
No, John Roberts didn't demand that Texas's lawsuit be dismissed for fear of "riots".  This embarrassing crankish spectacle from Monday's electoral college session in Texas is making the rounds on social media today, with more than 6,000 retweets and 650,000 views as I write this. [...] As a million lawyers have pointed out today, the story is an obvious lie for the simple reason that the justices haven't met in person in months.  To believe that some conveniently unnamed staffer heard John Roberts chewing out Alito and Thomas through the walls of the Court building, you have to believe that someone in an adjoining room was dialed into a conference call or Zoom chat among the justices (and why would they be?) and had the audio on their device turned waaaaaaaaay up.  But it's stupid for other reasons.

Attorney Lin Wood Unleashes on Justice John Roberts, Calls For His Resignation.  On Thursday [12/17/2020], pro-Trump attorney Lin Wood unleashed on Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, calling for his immediate resignation.  "This may be most important tweet of my life," Wood started.  "Chief Justice John Roberts is corrupt & should resign immediately.  Justice Stephen Breyer should also resign immediately.  They are "anti-Trumpers" dedicated to preventing public from knowing TRUTH of @realDonaldTrump re-election."  Wood also questioned whether or not Roberts had visited pedophile Jeffrey Epstein's island.  "I have long had questions about "the John Roberts" on Jeffrey Epstein private jet flight logs," he added in another tweet.

Supreme Court sides with Colorado church over COVID attendance caps.  The Supreme Court on Tuesday [12/15/2020] sided with a Colorado church challenging the state's capacity restrictions on houses of worship during the coronavirus pandemic, the latest order from the high court, now with a 6-3 conservative majority, in favor of churches and synagogues seeking to hold worship services during the ongoing crisis.  In an order with three dissents, the high court tossed out an August decision from the federal district court in Colorado that kept the attendance limits in place and sent the dispute back to the lower courts for further consideration in light of its November order barring New York from enforcing capacity restrictions at houses of worship.

Now we know for sure that our judges and justices are abject cowards.  The vote fraud that took place in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada was monstrous and long planned.  Election laws were surreptitiously weakened by secret consent decrees (GA), mass mail-in ballots, Dominion vote machines programmed to flip votes, the creation of tens of thousands of fake ballots, illegal alien voting, illegal drop boxes, get-out-the-vote campaigns in Democrat-heavy districts paid for by the execrable Zuckerberg of Facebook infamy, the refusal to allow GOP observers, ballots trucked from one state to another.  The judges dismissed lawsuits in every court where one was filed by the Trump campaign or other plaintiffs, seemingly without even considering the details.  The Supreme Court justices surely all know what took place; they can't have missed all the hearings at which witnesses to fraud testified and signed affidavits as to the truth of what they observed.  But the judges and justices were afraid.  Now that the left seems to have successfully stolen the election, they will certainly do it again.  They have the permission of the SCOTUS.

Failing to Adjudicate Texas Lawsuit, Supreme Court Is Turning Constitution Into Two-Legged Stool.  The refusal of the United States Supreme Court to hear the suit of Texas and 17 other states against four states, (Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin), that were alleged not to have conducted fair presidential elections, on the grounds of Texas' lack of standing, is a grievous abdication.  The claim of Texas and the other states was that in failing to protect against fraudulent voting on a large scale that affected the results for each state, and cumulatively between the defendant states affected the outcome of the election of the president and vice president, this was a violation of Texas's right to an adequate level of assurance that the constitutional process of selection of the president and vice president was truly followed.  The attorney general of Pennsylvania called the Texas lawsuit a "seditious" attempt to disenfranchise the people of his state, and the Trump-hating media gave it the usual total-immersion in reflexive mockery.  Official processes are not more important than the election of the president; no right is more fundamental than the assurance of the constitutional selection of the president.  The Supreme Court's decision can only be seen as another illustration of its determination under this notoriously controversy-averse Chief Justice (John Roberts), to avoid any judgment that might produce a partisan backlash.

Courts to Voters:  Democrat Election Fraud Is 'Too Big to Fail'.  The courts have spoken, one after another.  Some 74 million Americans have been denied our day in court.  The Democrats' crime of stealing a presidential election is too big to fail.  Our play-it-safe judges don't want to venture into these enormous seas, full of sharks, without precedent.  They want to say in the safe spaces of the familiar.  Stealing an election for city council is familiar enough to be overturned by law.  Stealing a presidential election by wholesale fraud is above the law.  One might think that somehow our laws are written too narrowly to catch the whale of Democrat fraud in the election, but for one thing:  the declarations from the bench that it is unthinkable to "upend an election."  Our judges tell us that ruling fraudulent ballots invalid would "disenfranchise" millions of voters.  These are political statements.  They are pusillanimous statements.  They are not legal statements.

SCOTUS: What Constitution?  We've all heard that "No Man Is An Island."  It seems that the SCOTUS is of the view that each State in the so-called Union IS an island.  That each State is now free to define its own version of a republican form of government and it's nobody else's business.  This, of course, opens the way for coalitions of States to form and engage in systematic jiggering of elections — the SCOTUS has washed its hands of this Constitution business.  I think it's safe to say that the three Trump justices will live to rue this day and this work.  Sadly, so may all of us.  The consequences of this will not be long in coming.

Frauds: The Election, Media, Congressional Dems, and the FBI.  The first of this week's two biggest stories was Friday evening's action by the Supreme Court refusing to hear the lawsuit brought by Texas and other states respecting the evident fraud in the balloting in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Michigan. [...] In short, I believe if the Court had decided to take it, it would not have decided who won these states.  Instead, had it decided that the electors from those states were chosen illegally, it would have remanded the complaints to the legislatures of these states, which have the responsibility to fashion a remedy.

Georgia Supreme Court Declines to Hear Trump Lawsuit Ahead of Electoral College Vote.  The Supreme Court of Georgia declined to hear an election challenge filed by President Donald Trump's team before the Dec. 14 Electoral College vote.  The court said that it "lacks the jurisdiction to consider the petition and rejects it," reported Fox News.  The appeal from Trump's team asked the Georgia Supreme Court to consider the merits of the case before Monday, Dec. 14.  It was not clear why the Georgia Supreme Court made its decision to reject the case.

SCOTUS opens up a constitutional can of worms.  The highest court in the land ruled that Texas, and the 18 other states that supported its lawsuit, have no standing to seek relief for gross and obvious violations of the U.S. Constitution.  Texas alleged that four swing states blatantly violated the Constitution's Electors Clause by allowing unauthorized politicians and bureaucrats to change election law when the supreme law of the land grants that power exclusively to state legislatures.  The Lone Star State also charged that those swing states, which are now determinative in deciding who won the presidency for the entire nation, also violated equal protection under the Constitution's 14th Amendment by writing rules for some counties within a state that did not apply to other counties. [...] If SCOTUS's reasoning is followed to its logical extension, then what about these ramifications?
  •   If Louisiana decides that it wants to reinstitute human slavery in violation of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, who are the other 49 states to complain?  Why would they have standing to seek relief?
  •   How about if Alaska decides to limit voting rights to only men in clear violation of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution?  What legitimate basis would Nebraska or New York have to complain?

Supreme Court Refuses to Consider Texas Election Lawsuit Based on Original Jurisdiction.  In a disappointing majority decision announced shortly before 6:30pm Friday evening [12/11/2020], a majority of Supreme Court justices refused to take up a Texas lawsuit challenging four states in the 2020 election.  The court, with two dissenting options by Justice Alito and Justice Thomas, stated that Texas lacked a legal right to sue and did not have a legal interest in how other states carried out their elections.  The court rejected the Texas' lawsuit without considering the specific merits of the state's case.  Texas had asked the court to delay the official vote of the Electoral College, scheduled for Monday, Dec. 14, or prevent the four states from casting votes in the Electoral College for Biden.  Justice Alito filed a short statement regarding the court's disposition of the case and was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.

Trump Approves Filing Retooled Texas-Style Election Challenges:  Giuliani.  President Donald Trump's legal team is planning on filing retooled lawsuits, his lawyer said Saturday [12/12/2020].  "We move immediately, seamlessly, to plan B, which is to bring lawsuits now in each one of the states.  We had them ready.  They're just a version of the one that was brought in the Supreme Court.  So last night, the president made the decision," Rudy Giuliani said during an appearance on "War Room:  Pandemic."  Texas filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan, alleging the elections there were run contrary to the Constitution.  The nation's top court rejected the suit late Friday.  Trump's team is going to file suits or has already filed in the four states as well as Arizona and Nevada.  The suits will incorporate allegations in the complaint filed by Texas.

Dick Morris to Newsmax TV: Dems Preemptively 'Intimidated' SCOTUS on Packing.  All the campaign talk about packing the Supreme Court, if not term limits on justices, was by design in the Democrats' election playbook to "intimidate," according presidential strategist Dick Morris on Newsmax TV.  "The Supreme Court is after justice, of course, but primarily they are after making sure the Supreme Court survives — that's their institution and that's their duty," Morris told Saturday's "The Count." "I believe the Supreme Court was sent a message by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party during the election.  "And the message was:  'If you overturn this election, we will pack you, and make your Court basically meaningless."

Scotus Rejects Texas Election Lawsuit.  The Supreme Court has DENIED Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's lawsuit, which was signed onto by multiple states and supported by over 100 member of congress.  There was a dissent from Alito and Thomas, but it seems to have been based on matters of jurisdiction and not the merits of the lawsuit.  And the ruling itself was not on the merits, but on the matter of "standing."  Notably, the three justices appointed by Trump did NOT dissent from rejecting the case.

We Don't Need SCOTUS to Win.  The Texas suit, later joined by other states, against Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia, was a nice try, but it was always a long shot.  Of course SCOTUS would be reluctant to grab so much power by ordering state legislatures to seat the right electors.  Why?  Because the power is already in the hands of the legislatures to do this. [...] So what happen next, and what can regular folks do now?  First, we can keep up the pressure on the legislators of those five GOP states to select electors who will vote for the rightful winner, who is obviously Trump.  Some of the members in these legislatures may suffer from TDS, so the message must be sent that they have to set aside their irrational opposition and do the right thing.  Second, Sidney Powell's legal team can continue with their lawsuits, so they can expose and uproot Dominion Voting Systems.  Now the goal will not be to overturn elections, but to get rid of the flawed, rigged system.  This goal is much more realistic and easier to accomplish.

Supreme Court's Texas Ruling is Nothing Short of Disgrace.  Friday evening [12/11/2020] the United States Supreme Court decided to not take the Texas lawsuit against four states over their application of presidential election law.  The Court only mustered two justices in favor of taking the case:  Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.  The argument against hearing the case was that Texas lacked standing to sue Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.  Wow! [...] What is the purpose of the Supreme Court?  It was intended to adjudicate the essential protections of our Constitution.  A fair and honest election must be a part of this protection.  We are a republic and select electors (that ultimately choose the president), who are apportioned based upon the population of each state and jurisdiction.  Failure to follow the Constitutional prescription under Article II section 1 that grants the legislatures the sole power to choose electors renders this clause useless and must be a permanent harm to citizens of different states.  Failure to hear this case is an abrogation of the Court's role to protect our institutions.

Texas' Unsuccessful Lawsuit Raises Voting Issues States Should Heed.  Texas raised a number of substantive issues in its request, including: one, that those states violated the Constitution's Electors Clause, which entrusts state legislatures with the responsibility to determine the appointment of presidential electors; two, that those states violated the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by treating voters in different parts of those states unequally in terms of how ballots were cast and counted; and three, that those states violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause because the elections in those states were so fundamentally unfair.  But the Supreme Court never addressed those issues.  Instead, the high court denied Texas' request to file the case, or "bill of complaint," for "lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution."  The court went on to explain that this means, "Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its election." Basically, Texas isn't the right party to bring this suit.

Supreme Court Unanimously Denies Texas Emergency Relief, Refuses to Grant Motion for Leave to File.  This evening [12/11/2020], in Texas v. Pennsylvania, a unanimous Supreme Court refused to grant Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton an injunction or other relief that would bar the selection of presidential electors in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.  As detailed in the just-released order, seven justices would deny the Texas AG's Motion for Leave to file a complaint, citing a lack of Article III standing.  Justices Alito and Thomas, citing their long-standing belief that the Court lacks the discretion to deny the motion, would have granted the motion, but would have provided Texas with no other relief.  In other words, not a single justice believed Texas deserved the extraordinary relief it sought.

U.S. Supreme Court denies Texas lawsuit "for lack of standing".  The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a ruling in Texas' lawsuit challenging election procedures in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin.  The lawsuit divided the nation, with roughly half the states supporting and opposing the lawsuit, respectively.  The Court just denied Texas' request to file a Bill of Complaint.  Justices Alito and Thomas would have granted it, but denied any additional relief. [...] "Standing" is required to sue because the federal courts can only hear actual cases and controversies, not hypothetical cases.  To make a case and controversy, the person filing the lawsuit must have suffered an actual harm, not a merely hypothetical harm (the doctrine of standing can be complicated, but that's a simple explantation).

How Trump Can Win:  SCOTUS, State Supreme Courts, Legislatures, And The 12th Amendment.  Despite the recent SCOTUS decision regarding the Texas lawsuit, multiple paths still remain that make it possible for President Donald Trump to win the election. [...] In fact, there are still lawsuits for SCOTUS to hear and decide on.  On Friday, Arizona GOP Chair Kelli Ward announced that they have just submitted their case to the Supreme Court regarding alleged election fraud in their own state.  Ward argued that the case was necessary due to the lack of due process provided to them by the judicial system when investigating the alleged fraud.  Even if SCOTUS rejects any and all lawsuits from the Trump campaign, the Supreme Courts in each of the states themselves can still hear and rule on votes.  Lawsuits remain ongoing in the key swing states.

Giuliani Says Trump Team 'Not Finished' After Supreme Court Defeat.  Rudy Giuliani, President Trump's personal attorney, said Friday on Newsmax TV's "Stinchfield" that the president's legal team will continue filing lawsuits even after the Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit by Texas, which was backed by 17 other states and 126 House Republicans, to overturn the election results in four swing states.  Giuliani said, "The case wasn't rejected on the merits, the case was rejected on standing.  So the answer to that is to bring the case now to the district court by the president, by some of the electors, alleging some of the same facts where there would be standing and therefore get a hearing."

Supreme Court shoots down Texas lawsuit, but it isn't over yet.  The Supreme Court moved today [12/11/2020] to dismiss a case brought forth by the state of Texas to delay selection of electors in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia.  This is a blow to the Trump campaign's hopes of correcting the election results that were fabricated by widespread voter fraud.  According to the Supreme Court, they denied the request over lack of standing. [...] The case before the Wisconsin Supreme Court tomorrow has real legs.  Lin Wood has his case docketed.  Sidney Powell and the Trump campaign all have cases working their way up the ladder.  Until January 20th comes or President Trump concedes, the battle continues.

Two Supreme Court Justices Are of the View the Court MUST Hear Cases Involving Disputes Between States — Are There Three Others?  Four years ago, Nebraska filed a motion in the Supreme Court seeking permission to file a complaint against Colorado over issues involving Colorado's passage of legislation that legalized the recreational use of marijuana in contravention of federal law.  Nebraska alleged that its interests as a state were harmed by that legislation.  The Supreme Court denied the motion.  Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the denial, and he was joined in his dissent by Justice Samuel Alito.  Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor were together in denying the motion.  Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Ginsburg are no longer on the Court.

Supreme Court rejects Texas' effort to overturn election in fatal blow to Trump legal blitz to stop Biden.  The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday said it would not consider a lawsuit filed by Texas that sought to overturn Joe Biden's election victory in four battleground states.  The court ruled that Texas had no legal right to challenge how other states conduct their elections, and thus lacked standing to file the suit.

Supreme Court denies Texas, Trump appeal over election results in four other states.  The Supreme Court has denied a Texas effort Friday that would have essentially nullified the presidential elections in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Wisconsin.  "The State of Texas's motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution," the Supreme Court's order reads.  "Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.  All other pending motions are dismissed as moot."  The order does not foreclose any other pending or future election appeals at the Supreme Court, but time is running out.  The states meet next week on Dec. 14 for the Electoral College exercise.  And on Jan. 6 there will be a joint session of the House and Senate to count the electoral votes and certify President-elect Joe Biden as the winner.

Five Ohio Congress members among more than 100 who sign on to Supreme Court case trying to overturn Biden's election.  The Texas lawsuit asking the U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate President-elect Joe Biden's victory has quickly become a conservative litmus test, as 106 members of Congress and multiple state attorneys general signed onto the case even as some have predicted it will fail.  The Ohio members of Congress who have signed on are Republicans Jim Jordan, Bill Johnson, Bob Gibbs, Bob Latta and Brad Wenstrup.

Wisconsin Supreme Court to hear arguments in Trump's lawsuit seeking to overturn state's election results.  The conservative-controlled Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed on Friday to hear arguments over the weekend on President Donald Trump's state lawsuit seeking to disqualify more than 221,000 ballots and overturn his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the battleground state.  The court's decision to take the case, and to hear arguments on Saturday, came hours after a lower court judge ruled against Trump and said there was nothing illegal about the election or subsequent recount in the state's two largest counties.  The highly unusual Saturday arguments will come exactly 48 hours before Monday's scheduled Electoral College vote.

A little known clause of the Constitution has a huge bearing on the Texas election lawsuit.  The papers filed by Texas and its allies in Texas v. Pennsylvania do not invoke the Guarantee Clause of the Constitution:  "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government" (Art IV, Sec. 4).  The clause has been mentioned rarely in Supreme Court jurisprudence and is usually consigned to the dead zone of "political questions," which means that it is for the political branches, not the courts to decide what it means.  However, a group of legislators from Idaho, Alaska, and Arizona filed an amicus brief arguing that the clause should be invoked.

Arizona GOP Takes Election Case to Supreme Court: 'We Found Evidence'.  The Arizona Republican Party, led by chairwoman Dr. Kelli Ward, announced on Friday [12/11/2020] it is appealing its election integrity case, taking it to the U.S. Supreme Court after the Arizona Supreme Court dismissed the case.  "Our case is going to the Supreme Court of the United States," Ward announced on Friday, expressing hope that it will be expedited and noting that, if accepted, they will only be the third 2020 presidential election case accepted by the highest court in the land.

What Now?  The Fight for Our Freedom Continues Despite SCOTUS Ruling on Texas.  SCOTUS claims Texas did not demonstrate a judicially recognizable interest in the manner!  So individuals can take over the election process in certain predetermined states, enough to steal the Presidency or the House and that's ok?  There's no impact on the rest of the country?  A man who's made billions on other countries at the expense of American citizens can steal an election using every possible opportunity to manufacture votes and steal votes from his opponent and it has no impact on average hard working tax paying Americans?

U.S. Supreme Court throws out Texas lawsuit contesting 2020 election results in four battleground states.  Briskly rejecting a long-shot but high-stakes case, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday [12/11/2020] tossed out the Texas lawsuit that had become a vehicle for Republicans across the country to contest President-elect Joe Biden's victory.  In a few brief sentences, the high court said it would not consider the case for procedural reasons, because Texas lacked standing to bring it.  Texas this week sued to challenge the election results in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin on the basis that those states implemented pandemic-related changes to election procedures that, Texas claimed, were illegal and cast into question the election results.

The Texas Election Challenge and Its Discontents.  On Monday [12/7/2020], Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit directly with the Supreme Court alleging that Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin ignored statutes enacted by their legislatures in violation of the U.S. Constitution's Electors clause.  The lawsuit further accuses these states of violating the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause by using more favorable criteria in determining the validity of votes cast in Democratic districts, citing the Court's 2000 ruling in Bush v. Gore, which prohibited differential standards for ballot tabulation.  Despite being written off as a publicity stunt by the defendants, the Court has docketed the case and gave them until Thursday, December 10, at 3 p.m. to file responses.  Meanwhile, Texas has been joined in the effort by 18 additional states and President Trump.  As with every case Republicans take to the Supreme Court, the usual chorus of progressive "experts" has inevitably characterized Texas v. Pennsylvania as devoid of merit and a potential threat to the republic.

What Texas Case at Supreme Court Could Mean for the Presidency.  Texas this week asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its complaint that the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin unconstitutionally changed the rules in the run-up to the Nov. 3 presidential election.  Does the Texas lawsuit make a legally sound argument, and how likely is it that the Supreme Court will hear it?  President Donald Trump also asked Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to argue the case since he is a former solicitor general of the state.  How likely is that to happen, and what could it mean?

106 House Republicans demand Joe Biden's victory is voided and back Donald Trump at Supreme Court.  More than half the House Republican caucus signed on to a friend of the court brief in support of a Texas lawsuit that aims to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.  Rep. Mike Johnson, an ally of President Donald Trump, garnered the signatures of 105 other GOP lawmakers including the House's No. 2 Republican leader, Rep. Steve Scalise.  The group, not surprisingly, contains other top Trump advocates includings Reps.  Matt Gaetz, Jim Jordan, Dan Crenshaw, Greg Gianforte, Louie Gohmert, Debbie Lesko, Elise Stefanik and outgoing Rep. Steve King.

Pennsylvania House of Representatives Join Texas in Their Lawsuit Against Key Swing States.  On Tuesday morning [12/8/2020], Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton revealed that the state of Texas filed a massive lawsuit against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin for exploiting "the COVID-19 pandemic to justify ignoring federal and state election laws and unlawfully enacting last-minute changes, thus skewing the results of the 2020 General Election." In the couple days following the announcement, dozens of other states have joined Texas in their lawsuit.  On Thursday, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives joined the case as well.

Five Ohio Congress members among more than 100 who sign on to Supreme Court case trying to overturn Biden's election.  The Texas lawsuit asking the U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate President-elect Joe Biden's victory has quickly become a conservative litmus test, as 106 members of Congress and multiple state attorneys general signed onto the case even as some have predicted it will fail.  The Ohio members of Congress who have signed on are Republicans Jim Jordan, Bill Johnson, Bob Gibbs, Bob Latta and Brad Wenstrup.

'The Big One' Gets Bigger: 15 Michigan Legislators Join Texas Election Lawsuit.  On Thursday [12/10/2020], 15 Republican legislators in Michigan filed a motion in support of Attorney General Ken Paxton's (R-Texas) lawsuit challening the 2020 presidential election results in four key swing states, including Michigan.  The legislators joined the Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society in supporting the Texas lawsuit, which asks the Supreme Court to remand the election results to swing-state legislatures for review and potential reversal.

There Is a Compelling Theoretical Case Behind the Complaint Texas Wants to File in the Supreme Court.  [Scroll down]  By virtue of becoming a state, can it be said that each state has taken an obligation to each and every other state with regard to how it goes about carrying out the process of conducting its election for the only two offices which are subject to a nationwide vote?  These are the only two offices where the voting in one state has a direct impact on the voters of other states.  For those two offices, do states have cognizable rights to expect that each and every other state will conduct elections for President and Vice President in a manner that guarantees ballot integrity, and a fair and accurate count of the votes?  What recourse do one or more states have in the face of evidence that one or more other states have failed to produce — intentionally or by negligence — an election process and ballot count with integrity?  If the Supreme Court is not a forum where such disputes can be aired and resolved, what forum is there?

Will the Supreme Court ignore the stolen election?  When millions of people see a rules violation in football, and when the violation is permitted to go unpenalized, there is controversy, anger, and much discussion, after which all is soon forgotten.  When the same thing happens in a presidential election, when millions of people see the steal, and when the legislatures and courts do nothing, it is called corruption.  More than that, it is corruption so deep, so pervasive and widespread, that we are at a loss for words.  It now appears possible that Joe Biden will successfully steal the presidency from the voters.  As ludicrous as that sounds, the reality is slowly beginning to sink in.  There is no shortage of evidence; there is no lack of witnesses.  Worse yet, the consequences of the crime we are all witnessing will not be merely one team winning and the other losing.  It may well be the end of the republic, and for those who are witnessing it, there is no hyperbole in that foreboding.

Briefly Noted:  Roberts' Folly.  John Roberts, by foolishly allowing — on a 4-4 decision — the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to unconstitutionally rewrite Pennsylvania's election laws, has managed to maneuver the SCOTUS into a [bad] position.  Half the states, with Texas at their head, are now calling the SCOTUS to account.  No matter what the SCOTUS does at this point one half of the country will be angry and will claim they were cheated.  While not everyone would have been happy had the SCOTUS dealt with the illegalities before the election, the Court would at least have had a better chance of convincing the nation that they were acting on constitutional principle.  Realistically speaking, any such hope is probably gone.  And this state of affairs is largely Roberts' doing.

A Summary of the Texas Election Lawsuit.  Texas claims that the presidential elections as held (and as directed by government officials outside the legislature) in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan all flagrantly violated their own election laws by materially weakening or doing away with security measures.  Further, according to the U.S. Constitution, the legislature (representing the citizens) of each state has absolute authority and responsibility for how presidential electors are chosen; the will of legislature being expressed through state law.  Texas claims that the violations of election law in these states created an environment where ballot fraud was enabled and likely to occur.  The lawsuit lists the violations of law in each of the defendant states and provides evidence of fraud (the number of ballots handled unconstitutionally) in each of the states sufficient to change the outcome of the ballot counts.

The Editor says...
The article above includes a lot of details.  Print it out, pass it around, save it.

State AG Ken Paxton Explains Legal Position of Texas in Supreme Court Election Lawsuit.  Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton appears on Sean Hannity to discuss the legal position of his state in an election lawsuit about arbitrary state processes used in the 2020 election.  Paxton, on behalf of Texas, has sued battleground states Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin to challenge the unconstitutional creation of their mail-in ballots within the election.  Several states have now joined Texas in alignment with the lawsuit.  [Video clip]

Supreme Court Requests Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia Respond to Election Lawsuit By 3pm Thursday.  Immediately after the U.S. Supreme Court directly asked the states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia to respond to the Texas constitutional lawsuit on unconstitutional ballot changes, Jordan Sekulow sat down with Newsmax to discuss:  [Video clip]

A 2020 Election Redo in 4 States?  Here Are the Details About Texas Lawsuit.  The state of Texas has filed an unprecedented motion with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking for leave to file a complaint with the court against the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin over the 2020 presidential election.  The motion alleges that changes made in election rules governing absentee ballots in those states by "non-legislative actors" violated the Constitution and "cumulatively preclude knowing who legitimately won the 2020 election and threaten to cloud all future elections."  In a nutshell, Texas is saying these four states' elections were unconstitutional — and therefore, invalid.  The Lone Star State's complaint, filed by state Attorney General Ken Paxton, asks that Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin conduct new elections to determine their electors for the Electoral College.

Eight More States Join the Texas SCOTUS Case.  Now it is no longer Ken Paxton playing Lone Ranger.  The addition of eight states to the lawsuit now means that nearly a third of the states are litigants, and the Supreme Court's ability to blow this off as nothing shrinks dramatically.

Allen West:  Seven States Will Join Texas in SCOTUS Lawsuit Against Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.  Col. Allen West joined Steve Bannon Tuesday evening on The War Room.  Allen West, the Republican Party Texas state leader, went on to discuss today's Texas lawsuit against Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania at the Supreme Court.  West told Steve Bannon that Louisiana joined the lawsuit on Tuesday afternoon [12/8/2020].  Louisiana AG Jeff Landry announced earlier this afternoon that Louisiana is joining in on the Texas lawsuit filed yesterday against the states of Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania over irregularities and lawlessness in the conduct of the 2020 election.

Will the Supreme Court Take the Texas Case?  [Scroll down]  The fact that a state is suing other states means it goes directly to the Supreme Court.  They don't have to bother with anybody else.  And they also, the suit is not relying on accusing individuals of fraud or cheating.  Instead, it's based on uncontested facts, which are these elected officials, usually the governors and their secretaries of state, altered the election laws without referring to states' legislators who have plenary power to determine how elections are run in each state.

Nonlegal factors that SCOTUS justices might have to consider in deliberating Texas's lawsuit.  [Scroll down]  I am not a lawyer and will leave to others far more qualified than I to debate the intricacies of constitutional jurisprudence.  My concern here is the other factors that may well weigh on the minds of the nine justices of the Supreme Court.  It's been more than a century since the words "The Supreme Court follows the election returns" entered the nation's consciousness, meaning that it is naïve to believe that the Court acts solely on the basis of legal reasoning and precedent.  I am looking at the case from the standpoint of the Supreme Court as a political body, one that cloaks its actions in the veneer of legal reasoning, but which ultimately is well aware of the political background and consequences of its actions.  The first contextual factor that must be weighing on the minds of the nine justices is expressed in a question asked by Clarice Feldman:  "Do you think the Democrats regret talking about packing the Supreme Court?"

Trump Attorney Jenna Ellis:  Supreme Court Only Denied Emergency Injunctive Relief — The Pennsylvania Case Is STILL Pending Before SCOTUS.  Texas on Tuesday [12/8/2020] filed a lawsuit with the U.S. Supreme Court challenging election procedures in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin over potential voter fraud.  Then later this afternoon the Supreme Court denied the Pennsylvania injunction case before the court.  This was the Sean Parnell and Mike Kelly case.  Expert says SCOTUS rejected the PA case without any explanation because the same stuff is covered in the Texas case which is a bigger case that includes GA, MI, and WI.  Following the ruling Senator Doug Mastriano vowed to continue the fight against the fraudulent Pennsylvania election.  And on Tuesday night Trump Attorney Jenna Ellis tweeted out that the injunction was dismissed but the case is still active.

Ted Cruz Responds to SCOTUS Rejecting Pennsylvania Election Case.  Republican Senator Ted Cruz is responding to the Supreme Court unanimously ruling Tuesday it will not take up a case surrounding the constitutionality of votes cast through mail-in voting during the 2020 presidential election in Pennsylvania.  [Tweet]

Pennsylvania's Democrats filed a silly, dishonest Supreme Court brief.  In October, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court took it upon itself to hold that mail-in ballots could arrive after election day if they were mailed on November 3 and, almost as if to ensure fraud, that those mail-in ballots without postmarks would be presumed to have been timely.  An eight-justice U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider the matter.  After the election, though, Justice Alito ordered that Pennsylvania segregate mail-in ballots, indicating further review.  Republicans duly filed a request for a review, and, on Tuesday [12/8/2020], Pennsylvania filed its unimpressive opposition brief.  Pennsylvania's opening argument is that there's no way the Supreme Court should decide whether a state engaged in unconstitutional conduct in a federal election because doing so is just too big!

The Texas lawsuit in the Supreme Court is huge.  On Tuesday [12/8/2020], the State of Texas filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.  The suit alleged that, because these states conducted elections that violated their own laws, they tainted the integrity of the vote, something that damaged not only their own citizens but also the citizens in other states.  Because this is an intelligent, powerful case, it's no surprise that eight other states have already joined the litigation. [...] The Texas lawsuit argues that the four defendant states changed their mail-in voting rules without going through the constitutional, legislative process.  By doing so, they assured illegal mail-in votes, meaning all votes under the new "rules" were illegal from the get-go.  These invalid votes override the will of those who legitimately cast votes, tainting the national election.

Supreme Court rejects GOP bid to overturn Biden's victory in Pennsylvania.  The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday spurned a request from Republican allies of President Trump to decertify Pennsylvania's election results, foreclosing hopes from Mr. Trump and his backers that the justices would help deliver him a second term in the White House.  In a one-line unsigned order, the high court left intact a decision from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that tossed out a lawsuit led by Republican Congressman Mike Kelly challenging a 2019 law that expanded mail-in voting in the state.  "The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied," the order said.  None of the nine justices indicated a dissent.

Supreme Court Denies Latest Election Challenge Out of Pennsylvania.  The US Supreme Court denied the application for the injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied.  This was the Sean Parnell and Mike Kelly case.  Expert says SCOTUS rejected the PA case without any explanation because the same stuff is covered in the Texas case which is a bigger case that includes GA, MI, and WI.

Texas Case Challenges Election Directly at Supreme Court.  On Monday [12/7/2020], just before midnight, the State of Texas filed a lawsuit that is far more important than all of the others surrounding the presidential election of November 3rd.  Texas brought a suit against four states that did something they cannot do:  they violated the U.S. Constitution in their conduct of the presidential election.  And this violation occurred regardless of the amount of election fraud that may have resulted.  The four defendant states are Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

Texas Attorney General Tries to Drag a Kicking and Screaming Supreme Court Into President Trump's Reelection Fight.  [Scroll down]  Texas is going directly to the Supreme Court using the Article III, Section 2, requirement that the Supreme Court has original, rather than appellate, jurisdiction in lawsuits between states.  The lawsuit has nothing to do with fraud or voting machines.  It is strictly a constitutional issue.  Texas claims that the changes made to state election laws by executive order or administrative in response to the abject terror and panic that has swept parts of the nation over the Wuhan virus violate the Electors Clause, Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution, [...] Texas argues that by changing, without legislative approval, how votes were cast and counted, the state legislatures have been deprived of their power to appoint electors rendering the elections there invalid as there is no pandemic escape hatch in the Constitution.  Texas also argues that the wide variance of rules and procedures for casting and counting votes within states violates the Equal Protection Clause under Bush v. Gore.

Trump Campaign Asks Michigan Supreme Court to Declare That Election Process Violated State Constitution.  The Trump campaign on Monday [12/7/2020] asked the Michigan Supreme Court to review a legal challenge seeking "meaningful access" for poll challengers to observe ballot counting in the state.  Although Michigan had already certified its 2020 election results, the campaign is asking the state's top court to declare that the Secretary of State, Jocelyn Benson, violated the state's constitution and election laws by permitting the counting of absentee ballots without meaningful access for poll challengers to observe the counting and processing.  They argue that Benson's actions also violated voters' constitutional right to fair and lawful elections.  "Michigan citizens' constitutional rights are being violated by Secretary Benson's failure to prevent unlawful ballots to be processed and her failure to ensure that statutorily-authorized challengers have a meaningful opportunity to observe and challenge the process," the campaign wrote in their brief.

Sidney Powell:  "We're Going to Proceed with an Emergency Appeal — We Expect to Get Relief from Supreme Court".  Attorney Sidney Powell went on with Greg Kelly Monday night [12/7/2020] on Newsmax TV.  This was after US District Court Judge Timothy Batten threw out her voter fraud case in Georgia earlier in the day.  Sidney Powell told Kelly she will proceed immediately with an emergency appeal and expects to get relief from the Supreme Court.

Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules.  The State of Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court shortly before midnight on Monday [12/7/2020] challenging the election procedures in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin on the grounds that they violate the Constitution.  Texas argues that these states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions, but not through the state legislatures.  Additionally, Texas argues that there were differences in voting rules and procedures in different counties within the states, violating the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause.  Finally, Texas argues that there were "voting irregularities" in these states as a result of the above.  Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors.

Ted Cruz Could Be Arguing the Pennsylvania Election Case at the Supreme Court Soon.  Constitutional scholar and Texas Senator Ted Cruz announced Monday afternoon if the Supreme Court takes up the election case pending in Pennsylvania, he will make the oral argument.  "Because of the importance of the legal issues presented, I've publicly urged #SCOTUS to hear the case brought by Congressman Mike Kelly, congressional candidate Sean Parnell & state rep. candidate Wanda Logan challenging the constitutionality of the POTUS election results in PA.  Petitioners' legal team has asked me whether I would be willing to argue the case before #SCOTUS, if the Court grants certiorari.  I have agreed, and told them that, if the Court takes the appeal, I will stand ready to present the oral argument," Cruz said in a statement on Twitter.  "As I said last week, the bitter division and acrimony we see across the Nation needs resolution.  I believe #SCOTUS has a responsibility to the American People to ensure, within its powers, that we are following the law and following the Constitution."

Ted Cruz:  I'll Argue Pennsylvania Election Fraud Case Before the Supreme Court.  Texas Senator Red Cruz says he would present oral arguments a the Supreme Court on behalf of a Pennsylvania congressman and Congressional candidate if their election fraud lawsuit appears in front of the nation's highest court.  Cruz says he would argue the Pennsylvania election law case in front of SCOTUS for Congressman Mike Kelly and candidate Sean Parnell.  They filed a lawsuit two weeks ago to challenge the legality of mail-in ballots and the plaintiffs insist millions of mail-in ballots are not allowed by the state constitution.  Now the U.S. Supreme Court has become involved and is requiring state officials to file legal briefs by tomorrow.  Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is overseeing that appeal and appears to be interested in taking up the case.  Alito moved the deadline from Dec. 9 to Dec. 8 to meet the "safe harbor" deadline.

Will SCOTUS Overrule the Pennsylvania Supreme Court?  The Pennsylvania law may include a 180-day window for the law to be challenged in a Pennsylvania Court, but there can be no statute of limitations when it comes to challenging the law in federal court as a violation of the U.S. Constitution.  Think about it:  do you recall any liberal judges, attorneys, or law professors raising the doctrine of laches when someone suddenly realizes that a decades or century old state law violates the provisions of the Constitution?  Me neither.  There is reason to hope that the plaintiffs' suit will result in a Trump victory at the U.S. Supreme Court.  Justice Alito has already ordered that all absentee ballots in Pennsylvania be sequestered.  The Court now has nine justices and Justice Barrett said repeatedly in her confirmation hearings that she was committed to following the law.  So, there are now potentially five votes to overturn the Pennsylvania law expanding absentee voting as a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

The Supreme Court vs. Pennsylvania.  The U.S. Constitution was directly violated in the ptresidential election in Pennsylvania and half a dozen states.  A new friend of the court brief filed last Thursday explains in the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Joseph B. Scarnati v. Pennsylvania Democrat Party, et al.  First, can anything be done?  Each state legislature has the power to cure invalid elections in their state by directly appointing the Electors from their state who will vote in the Electoral College on December 14, 2020.  We do not lack legal and constitutional remedies.  We lack elected officials with guts.

Justice Alito Advances by One Day and Several Hours the Deadline for Pennsylvania to Respond.  [Scroll down]  Early Sunday morning [12/6/2020] the Supreme Court docket for this case was updated, and the deadline for the response from the state defendants was moved up to 9:00 am on December 8.  No explanation was provided.  As my two prior articles explain, December 8 is a noteworthy date as that is six days prior to the meeting of the Electoral College. [...] What can be made of the fact that Justice Alito now wants the state defendants' response into the Court with a full day remaining for the Court to take action?  On the one had it could be rationalized that Justice Alito — and likely other members of the Court — want the views of both parties to be reflected in the record before it takes action, whatever that action may be.  Keep in mind that Justice Alito could simply deny the injunctive relief on his own, without seeking the response of the state defendants.  That is an option he seems to have rejected.

Justice Alito Moves up Supreme Court Deadline in Key Pennsylvania Mail-In Ballot Case.  U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito asked officials in Pennsylvania to file briefs by the morning of Dec. 8 in response to an emergency injunction petition filed by Republicans seeking to invalidate or rescind the results of the Nov. 3 presidential election in the Keystone State.  That day is the "safe harbor" deadline that requires controversies surrounding elections to be ended, so states can choose their electors before the Dec. 14 meeting of the Electoral College.  Alito initially called for response arguments by Dec. 9, before moving the due date earlier by a day.  The new deadline signals that the Supreme Court intends to rule on the request for the injunction before the safe harbor deadline runs out.  Marc Elias, the top attorney leading the Democrats' post-election legal effort and who last month called the same lawsuit "frivolous," wrote on Twitter on Dec. 6 that he is "NOT worried about the date briefs are due" in the Supreme Court.

Alito Moves Up Deadline For Supreme Court Briefing In Pennsylvania Case, Bringing [it] Within [the] 'Safe Harbor' Window To Intervene.  Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has made a critical decision which may signal that court's willingness to hear a controversial case attempting to flip Pennsylvania's 2020 election results.  Originally, Alito set a Wednesday deadline for the state to respond to GOP Rep. Mike Kelly's lawsuit alleging that a 2019 state election reform, known as Act 77, violates both the state and federal constitutions by creating a so-called "no-excuse mail-in" voting regime.  Many took the Wednesday deadline as political theater, as it would place the case outside the "safe harbor" window which requirest that controversies "concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors ... by judicial or other methods or procedures" to be determined" at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors," according to Law & Crime.

Is There Another Scenario That Makes Justice Alito's Dec. 9 Response Date Meaningful in Different Way?  As some have noted, the end of the "safe harbor" period — December 8 — is simply a date established by Congress by which a state benefits if all election disputes are settled and the outcome is certified by the state at least six days prior to the meeting of the Electoral College.  The states are not required to meet this deadline, it only provides that certain challenges to a state's naming of electors will not be entertained if the state does meet the deadline.  What many have correctly noted is that this "safe harbor" provision has no legal effect on what the Supreme Court can do if it were to find merit in any election challenge it chooses to hear.  Until the Electoral College actually meets and votes, the Court possesses the authority to issue an injunction preventing the electors from any particular state from being able to lawfully participate on the basis that the manner of their selection was legally invalid.

Pennsylvania — Don't Assume Alito Giving Until 12/9 To Respond To Emergency Application Means He's Letting It Die On the Vine.  On December 1, 2020, we covered an emergency application for injunctive relief sought to halt any further actions by Pennsylvania to certify the election, Pennsylvania:  Emergency Injunction Sought From SCOTUS To Halt Any Further Certification Actions. [...] Another Emergency Application, substantially similar, was filed yesterday, December 3.  That made no sense to me, why would they file twice?  I spoke to an attorney handling the case, and the explanation is that the first filing took place prior to a stay being sought from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which issued the decision at issue.  Out of concern that the US Supreme Court might deny the stay on the procedural ground that a request had not been made to the state court, the attorneys waited for the PA Supreme Court predictably to deny the stay, and then refiled on December 3.

The Supreme Court and the Electoral Coup.  [Scroll down]  And today, it's quite obvious — for Supreme Court justices and all Americans to see — that we are in the last stage of the takedown and final usurpation of the Constitution of the United States.  With distrust, division, and corruption being so prevalent in the big cities and lower courts of many of the contested states — as to nullify the seriousness of over 400 affidavits documenting vote fraud and polling place irregularities, documenting that there were more votes cast than registered voters in quite a number of jurisdictions, and overwhelming evidence of massive computer driven vote manipulation associated with key states' use of Dominion Voting Systems, and pay-to-play corruption at the highest level of Republican Party-led Georgia government to contract with Dominion to use their voting machines — the Supreme Court is compelled to adjudicate. [...] The Supreme Court needs to do its job of adjudication and protect and save the Constitution at this critical time.

SCOTUS to 9th Circuit:  Rethink your approach on worship restrictions pronto.  Consider this a tacit endorsement of the new status quo on stare decisis at the top in dealing with restrictions on worship in the pandemic.  The order overruling Andrew Cuomo's COVID-19 rules for churches in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn got lots of heated debate in the concurrences and dissents leading to the 5-4 decision.  It also drew heavy criticism as politically and culturally motivated jurisprudence, and some wondered whether the court would adhere to it in following cases.  Wonder no more.  In a brief order this morning, the Supreme Court told the Ninth Circuit to reconsider its ruling upholding similar restrictions in the Harvest Rock Church case in California.  The case had a pending cert petition, but instead the court vacated the original ruling and instructed the appellate court to remand it back "for further consideration in light of Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo."

The court must take the case.  Amid ample evidence that Democrats cheated in a dozen different ways to steal the presidential election, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide the election.  I have no doubt Chief Justice John McCain Roberts would love to deny President Donald John Trump his day in court because Roberts is a passive-aggressive evil little man who repeatedly stabs in the back those who entrusted him with the highest judicial office in the land.  Not hearing the case is a nifty way to certify a stolen election without accepting responsibility for their decision.  But evidence of computers flipping votes for President Donald John Trump to Xiden (as a reader calls him), of shipments of ballots from New York to Pennsylvania, of ballots marked Biden only, of Trump votes dumped, and on down the line matter.  Hundreds of whistleblowers put their lives on the line signing affidavits giving testimony to election theft.  They deserve the protection of the court so that their valor is not for naught.

Supreme Court sides with church challenging Calif.'s COVID-19 restrictions.  The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday [12/3/2020] ruled against a pandemic-related order by California Gov. Gavin Newsom banning some indoor religious services, agreeing with critics that it is unconstitutional.  In a one-page order, the high court granted a petition from lawyers for Harvest Rock Church in Pasadena, Calif., seeking to set aside a lower court ruling upholding Newsom's ban.

Why It Matters When New York's Governor Spits on SCOTUS's Defense of Religious Freedom.  During the COVID-19 epidemic, Gov. Cuomo of New York and other governors have tried to shut down or limit attendance at America's churches.  Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that Cuomo's COVID response, which limited church attendance to as few as ten or lower, violates the constitutional right to freedom of religion. [...] Religious liberty is at the heart of our national identity.  For a top liberal opinion-maker to say defending it is just "politics" is horrifying.  Sadly, in another display of judicial impotence, Chief Justice John Roberts dissented from the 5-4 ruling.  He wrote that since conditions had changed, the Court should avoid addressing "a serious and difficult question."  Bizarrely, he justified inaction based on the fact that it is "a significant matter to override determinations made by public health officials."  Isn't the Supreme Court designed specifically to decide "serious and difficult" questions?  Doesn't the Supreme Court of the United States have the authority to override the determinations of New York state health officials?  If it lacks that authority, it has no authority at all.

The revenge of Clarence Thomas.  Twenty-nine years ago, Joe Biden chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee and presided over the "high tech lynching" of Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas.  Since then, Brett Kavanaugh has been subjected to similar treatment by the Democratic members of the same committee.  Alito, Gorsuch and Barrett were also unfairly abused, if not quite so brutally.  Clarence Thomas didn't just take the abuse.  He fought back, telling Biden to his face, "...I think that this today is a travesty.  I think that it is disgusting.  I think that this hearing should never occur in America." Given what Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett were forced to put up with, I think he spoke for all of them.  But given the constraints all five justices were subject to, they could not really respond adequately to all the cheap shots, character assassination, and abuse they were forced to suffer.  Now, together, they can let their actions speak for them.

SCOTUS Swats Cuomo:  You Can't Shut Down Churches While Keeping Businesses Open.  As Justice Neil Gorsuch writes in a scathing concurrence, "It is time — past time — to make plain" that the Constitution applies at all times, even in pandemics.  In a 5-4 vote late on Wednesday evening [11/25/2020], the Supreme Court issued an injunction against Governor Andrew Cuomo's order that allowed businesses to operate at the capacity of their choosing but limited religious services to either 10 or 25 people at a time. [...] This comes down to the issue of scrutiny.  When government actions proscribe or interfere with a constitutional right, especially an explicit right enumerated in the Constitution, it requires a strict-scrutiny review.  That means New York has to identify a compelling state interest, for which public health and pandemic control certainly qualify, but also demonstrate that the intrusion is narrowly tailored and rationally based.  The state has no evidence that worship services when following proper social-distancing protocols and disinfecting regimes present any more risk than the businesses that the state allows to operate with lesser or no restrictions.  That means it's plainly discriminatory and arbitrary as well as unconstitutional.

Low-Wattage Justice Sotomayor's Attack on the Bill of Rights Makes Her the Left's New Supreme Court Bobblehead.  Yesterday evening [11/25/2020] the US Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, defended the Constitution's Bill of Rights against a concerted attack by one of the three most totalitarian governors in the United States, New York's Andrew Cuomo.  Cuomo had decreed that the size of religious services could be arbitrarily limited to as few as 10 people.  Ostensibly, this was to protect us all from the dreaded Chinese Lung AIDS because, as we all know, that virus hates people who go to church and hangs out in the church parking lot to attack those who attend.  This is much like how the virus loves to visit bars and restaurants after 9 p.m. and how it also targets Thanksgiving meals.  For reasons unknown to scientists, the virus is afraid to get close to BLM or Antifa demonstrations, though it is very, very attracted to demonstrations defending Constitutional rights.  How very odd.  It is almost like the scientists are just making up [stuff] to target gatherings they personally oppose or push policies they approve of.

Behind the Left's Primal Scream Over the Supreme Court's Religious Liberty Ruling.  I've noticed today [11/26/2020] that the left is in a fury about the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling last night striking down New York's wholly arbitrary restrictions on churches and other places of worship because the Court is "ignoring the advice of the experts."  True indeed.  I could go on at some length about old cases involving the arbitrary (and therefore unconstitutional) use of the government's police power, but in this case it is worth dwelling for a moment on this rote belief that the Court should defer to the "experts" in the other branches about restricting fundamental constitutional rights, like religious liberty.

Justice Sotomayor Upbraids SCOTUS Majority for 'Playing a Deadly Game' With COVID Restrictions.  U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a stinging rebuke of her conservative colleagues, calling out what she perceived as hypocrisy and false equivalencies in Wednesday's ruling against New York Governor Andrew Cuomo's COVID-19 restrictions.  In a 5-4 decision, the court's conservative block of justices granted a temporary injunction requested by a Catholic Diocese and two Orthodox Jewish synagogues.  By so doing, the court narrowly held that Cuomo's regulations limiting attendance at religious services likely violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.  It was the court's first major decision since the staunchly conservative Justice Amy Coney Barret joined the bench.  Sotomayor was having none of it.

The New SCOTUS.  I still haven't read the Powell complaint.  The reason is because I've been trying to get a handle on the SCOTUS issuance of injunctive relief against Cuomo's draconian and targeted restrictions on the Free Exercise of Religion in New York.  This is a big story.  Part of the story is that the Court was evenly divided on the First Amendment issues after Ginsburg's death — with Roberts siding with the liberals against the First Amendment (I say that with a purpose).  That had resulted in decisions that left anti religious freedom decisions in place in California, because of the 4-4 split.  There's no split any longer with Justice Amy on the Court, and the result appears to be a solid 5-4 conservative majority that is showing a measure of solidarity in opposition to the CJ [Chief Justice] — who again sided with the liberals.  The opinion itself is somewhat complicated, in that the ruling is PER CURIAM, with no single justice listed as having written it.  What everyone is talking about, however, is the way that Gorsuch, in his concurrence, appeared to go out of his way to deride Roberts specifically and the liberals generally for their cavalier attitude toward our First Amendment freedoms.

Supreme Court rules in favor of Christian and Jewish groups who challenged New York's COVID restrictions on religious gatherings.  The Supreme Court late Wednesday temporarily barred New York from enforcing certain attendance limits at houses of worship in areas designated as hard hit by the coronavirus.  The court on a 5-4 vote granted requests made by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and two Orthodox Jewish congregations.  An October 6 decision by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo shut down non-essential businesses in targeted areas where infections have spiked, including some Brooklyn neighborhoods.

Supreme Court rules against Cuomo's coronavirus limits — with Barrett playing key role.  The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday night [11/26/2020] blocked New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo from reimposing strict attendance caps at worship services in areas hit hard by the novel coronavirus.  The court ruled 5-4 to bar Cuomo from enforcing his Oct. 6 "Cluster Initiative" against houses of worship that sued to challenge the restrictions.  The order was also the first in which Justice Amy Coney Barrett played a decisive role.  Barrett, who was President Trump's third Supreme Court nominee, joined the court Oct. 27, after winning Senate confirmation following the Sept. 18 death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

SCOTUS Rules 5-4 to Grant Catholic Diocese, Orthodox Jews' Request to Block Cuomo Attendance Limits.  The United States Supreme Court issued a ruling late Wednesday prohibiting the State of New York from enforcing "the Governor's severe restrictions on the applicants' religious services" in a case brought by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and Agudath Israel of America, an Orthodox Jewish organization, in a 5-4 vote.

He's just now saying this?  Where was he in May and June?
Alito: COVID Has Highlighted 'Disturbing' Trend of 'Lawmaking by Executive Fiat' and 'Rule by Experts'.  During a speech before the Federalist Society on Thursday, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito said that the coronavirus pandemic has "highlighted disturbing trends" in the law such as "dominance of lawmaking by executive fiat, rather than legislation."  Which he characterized as "the movement toward rule by experts."  Alito began by cautioning that, aside from specific references to any Supreme Court cases, he isn't commenting on the legality of coronavirus restrictions and isn't making any statements as to whether the restrictions constitute good policy.

Justice Alito:  Pandemic Has 'Resulted in Previously Unimaginable Restrictions on Individual Liberty'.  Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on Thursday said the coronavirus pandemic has "resulted in previously unimaginable restrictions on individual liberty" and warned that religious liberty is "in danger of becoming a second class right."  Alito's comments came during his virtual keynote speech to a conference of the conservative Federalist Society, in which the 70-year-old justice warned that the U.S. can't allow the restrictions on personal liberty to continue after the pandemic has ended, noting that houses of worship have been treated particularly unfairly.

Kavanaugh, Roberts Signal They Will Uphold Affordable Care Act.  At least five Supreme Court justices, including two of the Court's six conservatives, have indicated that they are leaning toward upholding the bulk of the Affordable Care Act, clashing with Republicans who argue that the entire law is unconstitutional.  Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested during oral arguments Tuesday that the law's individual mandate, which required most Americans to obtain insurance or pay a penalty, can be separated from the rest of the law, known as Obamacare.

Key Justices Signal Support for Affordable Care Act.  At least five justices of the Supreme Court, including two members of its conservative majority, indicated on Tuesday [11/10/2020] that they would vote to reject the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act, an effort pressed by Republican state officials and supported by the Trump administration.  It was not clear whether the court would strike down the so-called individual mandate, which was rendered toothless in 2017 after Congress zeroed out the penalty for failing to obtain insurance.  But the bulk of the sprawling 2010 health care law, which is President Barack Obama's defining domestic legacy, appeared likely to survive its latest encounter with the Supreme Court.  In legal terms, the key justices said the mandate could be severed from the rest of the law.

Lawyers claim Supreme Court could declare Pennsylvania votes illegal, 9,000 non-residents voted in Nevada and witnesses say their votes were denied.  Donald Trump tweeted late into the night on Sunday, continuing to push claims of voter fraud as he refused to concede the election to Joe Biden.  In a slew of tweets sent around midnight Washington time — two of them flagged by Twitter for containing disputed information — the President pushed videos of his allies on Fox News alleging voter fraud and other irregularities, while calling for all claims to be fully investigated before the election result is allowed to stand.  It comes amid reports that Trump is planning a series of rallies where he will show off obituaries of dead people that his campaign claims were allowed to vote, while touting other allegations of fraud.

'Segregated And Secured': Alito Orders Late Pennsylvania Ballots Counted Separately.  Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito issued an order Friday [11/6/2020] calling for the segregation of all Pennsylvania ballots received after 8 p.m. on Election Day. [...] Democratic Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar issued guidance Sunday that directed poll workers to count all mailed ballots that arrived after 8 p.m. on Election Day but before 5 p.m. on Friday, November 6.  Previous guidance called for late ballots to be kept separate from the ballots that were received on time, and they were to remain uncounted.

Supreme Court orders separate count of late-arriving Pa. ballots.  The Supreme Court on Friday ordered Pennsylvania election boards to separately count mail ballots that arrived after Election Day, while rejecting a GOP request to stop counting those votes.  The order, signed by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, left open the possibility that the justices could exclude the late-arriving ballots in a subsequent ruling, a move which Alito and at least two other conservative justices have previously signaled they may be inclined to take.

The U.S. Supreme Court Should Act On Pennsylvania's Vote Count.  The United States Constitution could not be clearer that state legislatures, not courts, make the laws that regulate how elections are held in each state.  That's not happening right now in the battleground state of Pennsylvania, one of a handful of states that elect state Supreme Court justices in partisan elections.  Earlier this year in Pennsylvania, the Democrat-dominated state Supreme Court ruled that ballots could be counted up to three days after Election Day, even if it could not be shown that they had arrived by November 3, as required by state law.  Earlier this year the United States Supreme Court rejected an action brought by the Pennsylvania Republican Party to block the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's actions.  The court rejected it with a 4-4 vote, but did not rule on the merits of the case, which are still very much at issue.  In addition, the court at the time did not include newly-minted Justice Amy Coney Barrett.  One can understand why the U.S. Supreme Court would want to avoid invalidating a state court ruling on an election before the election is held.  In other words, to take a wait-and-see approach, but now we have waited and what we see is an incredibly tight race in Pennsylvania that could well decide the presidency.

The Nasty Street Fight ahead for 2020: This is Why We Elected Trump.  [Scroll down]  Quite likely this is coming down to the Supreme Court, and they are flesh and blood human beings.  They do watch what's going on.  They have feelings and opinions and have to live in Washington.  Keep that in mind.  Aside from the three ultra-liberals, they are not drones.  Justice Barrett is new, and she needs a visible and obvious reason to support flesh and blood voters over pieces of mail.  She needs a reason she can support you and not be called a lackey.  Justice Kavanaugh had his testosterone drained by the vicious attacks on him, and you need to give him a reason to get it back.  Justice Gorsuch is one of those brilliant but annoying libertarian leaning guys who needs a public display of such common sense that he understands pieces of paper cannot disenfranchise real people by cancelling their votes.  Thomas and Alito are solid.  And Roberts?  Well, I've written him off but would be delighted to be wrong.

Pelosi Calls Amy Coney Barrett An 'Illegitimate Supreme Court Justice'.  Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett is an "illegitimate" member of the court Tuesday [11/3/2020].  In a press conference with Democratic Illinois Rep. Cheri Bustos, Pelosi mentioned Barrett's confirmation, saying, "the president is installing an illegitimate Supreme Court Justice one week before the election, after 60 million Americans have voted, who will dismantle the ACA, and won't say, by the way, when asked, by Senator Feinstein, do you think Medicare is constitutional?  She said she really couldn't say."  Every Democrat opposed Barrett's confirmation.  Republican Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski was on the fence about how she was going to vote but ended up voting in favor of Barrett's confirmation.

Was This the Real 2020 Democratic Plan, which got Blown Up with Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Death?  [Scroll down]  So, what does [Larry] Schweikart think was the Democrats' plan before COVID?  He feels that with the Democrats knowing they would be beaten, they wanted to claim fraud and set off another round of the Russian collusion delusion.  They wanted a sequel, but the pandemic, he says, gave them hope of a win.  With lockdowns in place, let's do this all via vote-by-mail.  You all remember this was the Left's war cry throughout the summer until the mail-in ballots were being rejected at higher than projected rates because Democratic voters apparently cannot follow instructions.  The Democrats have now quietly changed course.  Yet, the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg killed all hopes of the voter fraud pitch ever working for Democrats.

Live Not By Lies.  At the same time that Facebook removed a salute to Paty, social media was flooded with bigoted images of Trump Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, a Catholic.  Marc Murphy, editorial cartoonist at the Louisville, Kentucky, Courier Journal, alleged that Barrett, during her confirmation hearing, dressed in such a manner so as to send coded messages that she supports the misogynist agenda depicted in Margaret Atwood's novel and TV series, "The Handmaid's Tale." [...] "The Family Values party nominated a member of a sex cult," read one of many hysterical replies to Murphy's paranoid conspiracy theory, which was shared hundreds of times.  "Soon, with all the Catholics on the court, will they mandate the only religion allowed in this country is Catholicism?  And of course declare this to be a Christian nation and abolish the constitution for their bible," wrote a reader at Slate, responding to Slate's article arguing that Barrett was about to single-handedly take over America.  The New York Times went so far as to conduct an in-depth investigation of Barrett's adoption of Haitian children.

The Left Doesn't Fear Amy Coney Barrett, It Fears the Constitution.  Nothing threatens the progressive project more than the existence of a Supreme Court that adheres to the Constitution.  It's really that simple.  That's what the tantrum over Justice Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation is all about.  The notion that the same Democrats who shelved the judicial filibuster and now threaten to destroy the separation of powers with a revenge scheme to pack the Supreme Court — the same people, incidentally, so fond of smear-drenched confirmation hearings — are sticklers for process or decorum is simply ludicrous.  For one thing, no norms have been undone by the confirmation of Barrett.  If Democrats won a Senate majority in 2016, Merrick Garland would already be ensconced in the Supreme Court, election or no election.  Many of the same Democrats now feigning outrage over Barrett's confirmation, including Joe Biden, argued back then that it was the constitutional duty of the Senate to take up a vote.  Our living constitution apparently offers contradicting directions from one election to the next.  If Trump had nominated Garland to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Democrats wouldn't have any problem placing him on the Court — not even on Nov. 2.  Liberals act as if they are imbued with a theological right to dictate not only the terms but also the nominees, of confirmation hearings whether they win or lose elections.

Brett Kavanaugh Is Right about Wisconsin's Ballot Deadline.  For now, Vladimir Putin has been supplanted as the chief threat to the integrity of the presidential election by an American in a black robe — Brett Kavanaugh.  The Supreme Court justice's concurrence in an October 26 decision slapping down a district court's extension of a Wisconsin election deadline has been universally condemned by the center-left as a damning preview of an attempt by the Court to hand the election to President Donald Trump. [...] In the Wisconsin case, a federal district judge in late September tacked six days onto the state's deadline for receiving absentee ballots.  It was this court that overstepped its bounds and interfered in Wisconsin's election, not Kavanaugh, who voted simply to restore the status quo ante.  Kavanaugh's argument that "the rules of the road should be clear and settled" before the election would seem obvious.  Does anyone think it's better if they are confused and uncertain?  As Kavanaugh notes, a preference for rules established well ahead of time honors the so-called Purcell principle against late changes imposed by courts (the reference is to a 2006 case, Purcell v. Gonzalez).

Leftists Don't Fear ACB as Much as They Fear Her Protecting the Constitution.  Nothing threatens the progressive project more than the existence of a Supreme Court that adheres to the Constitution.  It's really that simple.  That's what the tantrum over Justice Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation is all about.  The notion that the same Democrats who shelved the judicial filibuster and now threaten to destroy the separation of powers with a revenge scheme to pack the Supreme Court — the same people, incidentally, so fond of smear-drenched confirmation hearings — are sticklers for process or decorum is simply ludicrous.

The left is flipping out over Brett Kavanaugh's common-sense opinion on election rules.  For now, Vladimir Putin has been supplanted as the chief threat to the integrity of the presidential election by an American in a black robe — Brett Kavanaugh.  The Supreme Court justice's concurrence in an Oct. 26 decision slapping down a district court's extension of a Wisconsin election deadline has been universally condemned by the center-left as a damning preview of an attempt by the court to steal the election for President Trump.  Mark Joseph Stern wrote a piece for Slate titled, "Brett Kavanaugh Signals He's Open to Stealing the Election for Trump."  The New York Times reported that civil-rights and Democratic Party lawyers viewed the concurrence "as giving public support to President Trump's arguments that any results counted after November 3 could be riddled with fraudulent votes."

Pennsylvania Agrees to Segregate Ballots That Arrive After Election Day While Republicans Fight State Supreme Court Ruling.  The US Supreme Court said on Wednesday [10/28/2020] that it will not fast track Republicans' challenge to Pennsylvania's extended deadline for absentee ballots.  The justices did leave open the possibility that they would ultimately rule in favor of Pennsylvania Republicans.  Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was just sworn in, did not participate in Wednesday's decision "because she has not had time to fully review the parties' filings."

Supreme Court Rejects GOP Appeal, Allows Democrats to Extend North Carolina Vote-by-Mail Deadline.  The Supreme Court has voted 5-3 to deny a request by Republicans to overturn a decision by Democratic authorities in North Carolina to allow mail-in ballots to be counted nine days after Election Day and without a witness signature.  Justices Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas dissented, though only Gorsuch and Alito signed the dissent.  Newly-sworn-in Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not participate in the decision.

The Kavanaugh Court.  [Scroll down]  During his two years on the bench, [Brett] Kavanaugh has been a cautious conservative.  He is sometimes unwilling to issue decisions that are as far-reaching as fellow conservatives Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas would prefer.  At the same time, Kavanaugh has separated himself from Roberts by sticking with conservatives on big cases in which the chief "defects" to the liberals.  This subjective assessment finds quantitative support in Martin-Quinn scores.  Based on those scores, the Court's conservatives can be ordered from least conservative to most:  Roberts, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas.  Barrett's appointment probably means that Kavanaugh is the new median justice.  He will move the Court rightward, but how much so remains to be seen.

It's Now The Barrett Court.  It's common to identify eras of Supreme Court history by reference to the name of the presiding chief justice, but the Court's dynamics can change with the appointment of each new member.  With the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett, we may now be entering the era of the Barrett Court.  Her arrival is likely to have the most profound effect on the nation's highest court since simultaneous appointments of William Rehnquist and Lewis Powell in the 1970s and the replacement of Thurgood Marshall by Clarence Thomas in the early 1990s.  The most obvious consequence will be the presence of six justices appointed by Republicans and only three appointed by Democrats, where the Republicans are all more conservative than the Democrats.

Amy Coney Barrett joins the Supreme Court and faces immediate baptism of fire.  Amy Coney Barrett was officially sworn in as a justice of the Supreme Court by Chief Justice John Roberts Tuesday — returning the court to nine members but with conservative 6-3 majority.  The 48-year-old took her oath in front of a fireplace with her husband Jesse holding the Bible as Roberts administered the pledge, just after 10am.  Her arrival on the bench ends a tumultuous month since the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and sees her face a barrage of politically fraught cases in her first days on the job, as the court weighs election disputes and prepares to hear a challenge to the Obamacare health law.

Barrett officially becomes Supreme Court justice as John Roberts administers oath in private ceremony.  Judge Amy Coney Barrett officially became Justice Barrett following a private ceremony in the Supreme Court's East Conference Room Tuesday morning.  Chief Justice John Roberts administered the Judicial Oath to Barrett, officially making her the court's 103rd associate justice.  "Upon administration of that oath, she will be able to begin to participate in the work of the Court," the Supreme Court said in a press release prior to the ceremony, adding that a "formal investiture ceremony will take place at a special sitting of the Court in the Courtroom at a later date."  The ceremony took place at 10 a.m. with all of the justices participating, although Justice Stephen Breyer attended virtually, according to Supreme Court public information officer Kathy Arberg.  Retired Justice Anthony Kennedy was in attendance, as were the wives of Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh.

Democrats go ballistic after Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation.  Before describing the Democrats' psychological collapse, it's essential to understand that the Barrett confirmation was constitutionally correct and had historical precedent.  The Constitution states that the president shall nominate candidates for the Supreme Court, and the Senate shall confirm them.  Seating Supreme Court justices used to be a fairly mechanical process.  However, as the left has shifted its efforts from convincing voters to support their policies to placing leftist partisans on the Supreme Court who need no convincing, the process has become increasingly fraught.  While Republicans have routinely accorded a Democrat president's nominees the courtesy of voting for them if they appeared competent, Democrats have imposed various litmus tests and, if those tests seemed futile, accused them of sexual assault.  Fraught or not, it was perfectly constitutional to nominate Justice Barrett.  Trump would not have bothered if he was facing a Democrat-majority Senate, but that was not the case.

A peculiar choice of words from one of the leaders of the Abortion Party:
Schumer: 'Generations Yet Unborn' Will Regret Pro-Life Judge's Elevation to the Supreme Court.  "Generations yet unborn" will come to regret Amy Coney Barrett's elevation to the Supreme Court, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on the Senate floor, shortly before a majority voted on Monday to confirm the pro-life, conservative judge onto the bench.  Schumer was not likely thinking of unborn babies in the womb; his next sentence began with an allusion to climate change.  But the same sentence also included a reference to abortion, as he lamented what he described as "reactionary state legislatures curtail[ing] a woman's right to choose."  Now-Justice Barrett said at her swearing-in ceremony on Monday night that she would carry out her duties "independently of both the political branches and of my own preferences," saying that "a judge declares independence, not only from Congress and the president, but also from the private beliefs that might otherwise move her."

Despite Democrats' hysteria, public favored Amy Barrett's confirmation.  Democrats want to portray the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett as a raw power play that was antithetical to our democracy.  Yet, public opinion polls tell us that, had Justice Barrett's nomination been put to a vote by the American people, she would have been confirmed by a margin comparable to or greater than the one provided by the Senate. [...] It seems, then, that the more the public learned, the more it liked the idea of her serving on the Supreme Court.

Biden Expresses Openness To Rotating Justices Off The Supreme Court.  If court packing sounds too extreme, then maybe court rotation will do the trick.  Now that Judge Amy Coney Barrett has been confirmed to the Supreme Court, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has said he will consider rotating justices if he gets elected next week.  Speaking at a campaign stop in Chester, Pennsylvania, Biden said he will consider shifting the Supreme Court justices to lower courts during his tenure.

Out of the gates, calls for Justice Amy Coney Barrett's impeachment emerge over Pennsylvania.  Less than 24 hours after she was confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Amy Coney Barrett is already being asked to recuse herself from a case and liberals are calling for her impeachment.  Barrett will begin hearing oral arguments next week after being sworn in at a private ceremony at the Supreme Court Tuesday.  But her confirmation late Monday — with not a single Democrat vote — set off apoplectic reactions from the left and calls for packing the high court in revenge.  Critics of President Donald Trump have already begun the impeachment narrative against his Supreme Court pick should she not recuse herself from a Pennsylvania election case.

The Editor says...
All this talk about impeachment is just a way to agitate the Democrat base and get out the vote.  The impeachment hype will disappear after the election.

Why packing the Supreme Court would not be easy for Democrats.  The size of the Supreme Court isn't dictated by the Constitution.  It's set by statute.  That's why the high court has had as few as five justices and as many as 10.  The size of the Court has remained locked at nine justices after a dispute over justices in the 1860s.  Liberal Democrats are making lots of noise now about growing the size of the Supreme Court to tilt the now conservative advantage back in their favor.  And Republicans are more than happy to deploy Democratic threats as a wedge issue, one week before the election.  GOPers warn of what Democrats may try to do if Joe Biden wins the White House and Democrats flip the Senate.  Such chatter is great, pre-election fodder.  It electrifies the base of both parties.  That's why Democrats and Republicans alike are willing to dump as much gasoline as possible on these scenarios.

Barrett's Speech After Swearing In: 'I Will Do My Job Without Any Fear Or Favor'.  Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett was sworn in by Justice Clarence Thomas on Monday night amid whoops and cheers from the audience on the White House lawn.  After President Trump opened the proceedings with a speech, Justice Thomas swore Barrett in, and Barrett followed with a speech in which she vowed, "I will do my job without any fear or favor," adding, "I love the Constitution and the democratic republic that it establishes, and I will devote myself to preserving it."  President Trump began, "This is a momentous day for America, the United States Constitution, and for the fair and impartial rule of law.  The Constitution is the ultimate defense of American liberty; the faithful application of the law is the cornerstone of the Republic.  That is why, as president, I have no more solemn obligation and no greater honor than to appoint Supreme Court Justices."

Amy Coney Barrett sworn in as Supreme Court justice at White House.  Judge Amy Coney Barrett, fresh off her confirmation to serve as an associate justice on the nation's highest court, took her constitutional oath on Monday [10/26/2020] at the White House.  The Supreme Court said in a press release that Barrett will be able to start her new role after Chief Justice John Roberts administers her judicial oath on Tuesday.  Justice Clarence Thomas administered the constitutional oath at Monday's ceremony.  Thomas has long been considered one of the more conservative justices on the court, along with Barrett's mentor, the late Justice Antonin Scalia.  Echoing her mentor, Barrett underscored the need for a separation of powers between the judicial and legislative branches.

Amy Coney Barrett Confirmed to Supreme Court as Susan Collins is Lone Republican to Oppose.  Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court by the Senate Monday evening, filling the vacancy left by liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  The vote was nearly entirely along party lines:  Senator Susan Collins of Maine was the only Republican to dissent, voting with all 47 members of the Democratic Caucus against the conservative Trump nominee over concerns of the proximity to the election.  The final vote was 52-48.  "Because this vote is occurring prior to the election, I will vote against the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett," Collins said in a statement over the weekend.  "To be clear, my vote does not reflect any conclusion that I have reached about Judge Barrett's qualifications to serve on the Supreme Court."

Sore loser:
Schumer: Barrett Confirmation 'One of the Darkest Days' in Senate History.  Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) said on Monday that Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation to the Supreme Court will "go down as one of the darkest days" in the Senate's history.  At the close of his speech ahead of the Senate's confirmation vote, Schumer lamented that "generations yet unborn will suffer the consequences" of Barrett's nomination and characterized Monday as "one of the darkest days in the 231-year history of the United States Senate."

After Barrett Confirmation, AOC Immediately Tweets 'Expand The Court'.  Moments after Amy Coney Barrett was officially confirmed to the Supreme Court, AOC had a meltdown on twitter demanding that Democrats expand the Supreme Court.  Her first tweet simply read 'Expand the court':  [Tweet]

Amy Coney Barrett Confirmed To Supreme Court, Cementing Conservative Majority.  After weeks of partisan back-and-forth over whether a justice should be appointed so close to the presidential election, Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed to the Supreme Court on Monday, eight days before Election Day — making her the third successful nomination during President Trump's tenure and the sixth conservative justice on the nine-person court.

The Editor says...
There is a solid conservative majority only if you count John Roberts as "conservative," which I don't.

Handmaid's Fail:  Liberal Cosplay Couldn't Stop Amy Coney Barrett from Joining Supreme Court.  Amy Coney Barrett officially joined the Supreme Court on Monday, one year to the day after President Donald J. Trump successfully assassinated ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and 38 days since the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  Barrett was sworn in at the White House after the Senate voted 52-48 to confirm her nomination, an outcome favored by a majority of Americans.  Barrett's "her-storic" ascension to the High Court is a victory for Trump, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, the Republican Party, and all Americans who support greater female representation in government.  Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) said today "will go down as one of the darkest days in the 231-year history of the United States Senate," while Sen. Ed Marley (D., Mass.) denounced Barrett as a "racist," sexist" "homophobe." Others suggested Barrett was secretly plotting to reinstitute slavery in the United States.

The Editor says...
Do the Democrats really think people are that stupid?  Do they really think the voters will believe that one person can "reinstitute slavery in the United States?"

5 Reasons Amy Coney Barrett's Confirmation Is Entirely Legitimate.  The Senate confirmed President Donald Trump's third Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, on Monday.  Democrats have argued that the process was illegitimate, either because it took place during a global pandemic or because it took place as Election Day drew near or because the Senate refused to consider President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, in 2016.  On Sunday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) effectively rebutted these arguments, and he had previously rebutted one more.  Here are 5 reasons Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation was entirely legitimate. [...]

Kamala Slams 'Illegitimate' Justice Amy Coney Barrett: 'We Won't Forget This'.  Democrat vice presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) called the Senate's confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the United States Supreme Court on Monday "illegitimate" and vowed that the Americans "will not forget" the Republicans' constitutional responsibility to fill the seat of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. [...] Although the Democrats, who unanimously voted against the confirmation, claimed that the process to put Barrett on the court was hypocritical because the Senate refused to confirm Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland during his last year in office, the Senate, in fact, has the right to advise and consent on nominations if it agrees.  In this case, Republicans control the White House and the Senate, so the latter agreed to proceed with Barrett's confirmation.

Senate Democrats to boycott Barrett's Judiciary Committee vote Thursday.  Senate Democrats plan to boycott Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett's Judiciary Committee vote Thursday in an act of protest, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer announced Wednesday [10/21/2020].  "We will not grant this process any further legitimacy by participating in a committee markup of this nomination just 12 days before the culmination of an election that is already underway," the New York Democrat said.

As Schumer Schemes to Block Barrett, Kennedy Suggests Chuck Should 'Fill Out a Hurt Feelings Report'.  On the eve of Judge Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation by the Judiciary Committee, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer tweeted:  "I am forcing a vote to adjourn the Senate until after the November election.  We are not going to have business as usual here in the Senate while the Republicans try to use an illegitimate process to jam through a Supreme Court nominee."  Even before Schumer said that, Committee Democrats were talking about boycotting today's committee hearing.  But Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, is unfazed.  "Let me just say, and I say this with deep confidence, Judge Barrett's nomination is going to be reported favorably out of the Judiciary Committee today," Kennedy told "Fox & Friends" on Thursday [10/22/2020].

Ted Cruz introduces constitutional amendment to limit Supreme Court to nine justices.  Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, along with other GOP senators, has introduced a constitutional amendment that, if it were to pass, would prevent court packing on the Supreme Court.  Additionally, the Texas senator is pushing a separate proposal to forever block Democrats, should they regain control of the Senate, from passing any legislation to add additional justices to the high court.  The amendment proposal states simply, "the Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of nine justices."

Senate Will Hold Amy Coney Barrett Confirmation Vote on Hillary Clinton's Birthday.  2016 presidential election silver medalist Hillary Clinton will be celebrating her birthday next Monday, and will be provided with yet another reminder that she's not president, and the consequences that has caused for her party.  President Donald Trump has already confirmed two Supreme Court justices, and Republicans have the votes in the Senate to confirm his third nominee, Amy Coney Barrett.  Mitch McConnell announced earlier today that the vote on Barrett will be held on October 26th — which just so happens to be Hillary's birthday.

Chuck Schumer Tries, Fails To Force Senate Out Of Session In Midnight Vote.  Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) tried and failed to vote the Senate out of session Monday night [10/19/2020], as the GOP reversed his last-ditch effort to derail judge Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court.  Late Monday, Schumer announced that he would hold an emergency, near-midnight vote to send the Senate out of session until after the presidential election, effectively ending all votes before November, preventing the Senate Judiciary Committee from electing to send Barrett's nomination to the Senate floor, and blocking the GOP from seating Barrett on the Supreme Court before the presidential election. [...] The idea was a novel one, particularly given that many Democrats spent the last week complaining that Republicans were distracting from efforts to pass a coronavirus-related stimulus package by focusing on Barrett's confirmation.  Adjourning the Senate would effectively guarantee that no relief bill would pass in the next two weeks, [...]

Schumer Says He Had 'Long And Serious Talk' With Feinstein After She Embraced GOP Sen. Graham At Barrett Hearings.  Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters that he had a "long and serious talk" with Democratic California Sen. Dianne Feinstein after the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.  The 87-year-old Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, was cordial throughout last week's hearings.  She notably hugged Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham when things wrapped up, telling the chairman it was the "best set of hearings that I've participated in."

Supreme Court Rejects Republican Challenge to Pennsylvania Vote-by-Mail Changes; 4-4 Split; Roberts Sides with Liberals.  The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a Republican application to stay the decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to grant the Democratic Party's request to make several changes to mail-in voting that critics have decried as vulnerable to fraud.  As Breitbart News reported last month, "The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled ... that ballots received three days after Election Day will still be counted — even if there is no evidence they were postmarked on time."  Republicans sought a stay.  The Supreme Court, however, split 4-4 on the request, leaving the decision of the lower court in place.  Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the Court's liberal minority; the remaining four conservative justices sided with the Republican request.

SCOTUS allows 3 day extension for PA ballots.  Thanks to the Supreme Court, the odds of knowing who won the presidential election on the night of November 3rd just fell even lower.  Pennsylvania voters have been requesting absentee ballots in record numbers this year and those ballots traditionally had to be received by election day so the counting could begin as soon as the polls closed.  But state Democrats went to court asking for ballots to be considered valid if they were postmarked by election day and received within three days later, on November 6th.  The state supreme court sided with the Democrats on Saturday and the issue was appealed to the Supreme Court on an emergency basis.  Last night [10/19/2020] the nation's highest court weighed in by failing to weigh in.  The court was deadlocked 4-4, allowing the state court's decision to stand.

The Unapologetic Bias of the American Left.  [Scroll down]  Given the similarly asymmetrical record of the Senate in grilling and voting on Supreme Court picks, one would have thought after the Kavanaugh hearing, which cost Democrats a chance to take back the Senate, the Left would have tried to appear respectful and professional in questioning the brilliant, learned, personable, and charismatic Amy Coney Barrett.  Such an expectation was not absurd, given that in just a few weeks they bragged that they would recapture the Senate in a way they had failed in 2016 and 2018.  Left unsaid was the tic of the Left to destroy not just the nomination chances of a Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh, but their very characters and careers — while assuming that an Elena Kagan or Sonya Sotomayor deserved overwhelming bipartisan support given they were progressive and enlightened.

Democratic Senator 'Open' To Packing Supreme Court If GOP Won't 'Step Back' From Barrett Confirmation.  Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) threatened to "rebalance" the federal judiciary under a potential Biden presidency should Senate Republicans confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.  Coons appeared on CNN's "State of the Union" with host Jake Tapper on Sunday [10/18/2020] to comment on Barrett's ongoing confirmation process in the Senate.  Coons said that if former Vice President Joe Biden beats President Trump in November, the Delaware senator would be "open" to packing the Supreme Court in response to Barrett's confirmation.

Democrats Lost More Than a Supreme Court Seat This Week.  [Scroll down]  As many viewers believe Donald Trump packs the court by replacing RBG with ACB as believed that Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, or Stephen Breyer represented court packing because they replaced jurists appointed by Republicans.  Ironically, the push to pack the court that depended on the Democrats taking back the Senate jeopardizes taking back the Senate because packing the court strikes normal people as a violation of norms and a banana-republic kind of cheating.  When President Franklin Roosevelt proposed adding members to the Supreme Court in 1937, Democrats held a 76-16 advantage in the U.S. Senate (really an 80-16 advantage as the four senators not affiliated with the major parties all fell well to the left of center).  The previous year had witnessed Roosevelt winning all but Vermont and Maine in the presidential election.  Yet even he, with all those advantages, still could not pack the court.

Chuck Schumer:  Dems Will Deny GOP A Quorum To Advance Barrett.  Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer says that Democrats will not supply a quorum with which to advance the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.  Schumer defended this move, saying that Barrett's nomination is "illegitimate, dangerous and unpopular."  There's no point debating Schumer on these partisan claims.  The question is whether the Democrats can block Barrett's nomination through this ploy.  I don't think they can.  A quorum in the full Senate is 51 members.  In the Judiciary Committee it's nine members including two from the minority party.  A quorum in the full Senate won't be a problem for the GOP and Barrett unless a few Republican Senators get sick and can't make it for the vote.

Schumer says Democrats won't give GOP quorum to advance Barrett nomination.  Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on Sunday night promised that Democrats will not "supply quorum" for votes to advance Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation effort, essentially meaning that Democrats will boycott the votes in an attempt to stall the confirmation ahead of the election. [...] There are ways around this.  Most notably, the Senate can vote on a discharge resolution that would remove the responsibility of considering the Barrett nomination from the committee, allowing Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to call the nomination for a full vote.  The committee itself could also change its rules to get rid of the requirement that two Democrats be present, James Wallner, a senior resident fellow for governance at the R Street Institute told Fox News.  "The key for Democrats is to make Republicans' doing so as painful as possible," Wallner said about the move to force Republicans to change the committee rules, as well as other procedural moves they could try.

Jonathan Turley:  Dems trying to get Barrett to recuse herself to 'influence' case outcomes.  Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett has been "extremely nimble" in the Senate confirmation hearings despite Democrats' "utterly absurd" attempts to get her to recuse herself if she gets a seat on the bench, George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley said Thursday [10/15/2020].  The 48-year-old appellate court judge declined to say whether she would recuse herself from any election-related cases involving President Trump, who nominated her to fill the seat of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  "The judicial rules on recusal are meant to deal with issues where you have a personal or financial interest in the case or you were involved in the underlying litigation.  None of those apply," Turley told "Fox & Friends."

If Republican Senators Were Like Crazy Mazie.  [Scroll down]  But the most despicable of all is the really obscene circus act from Hawaii, Mazie Hirono.  She has no limits, knows no bounds. [...] The line of questioning in which Crazy Mazie engaged this week while interrogating Judge Barrett was so despicable that she should have been censured.  Ten years ago, she would have been.  Her voters would have been ashamed.  But the Democrats have redrawn the lines of engagement.  Now anything goes.  Harris, while running for vice president, gives voice encouraging violent rioters, looters, and arsonists.  Feinstein, Harris, and Hirono attack religion, people of faith, and cut into their very souls with obscene questions that never should be asked, questions like those that Crazy Mazie asked Judge Barrett.  Trump is not the cause but the effect.  There is just no other way to speak to such people.

Feinstein's hug of Lindsey Graham sparks outrage on the left.  Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D-Calif.) praise of her Republican colleague, Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), which she followed with a friendly hug, is stirring outrage on the left and prompting calls by prominent liberals for her to step down as the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Democrats, liberal activists and left-leaning pundits, many of whom were dismayed that Democratic senators didn't put a tougher fight against President Trump's Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett expressed outrage.  Demand Justice, an advocacy group that has staunchly opposed Trump's effort to fill the judiciary with conservative nominees, was first out of the gate with a statement calling for Feinstein to resign.

The Editor says...
Indeed, she should resign from the Senate, if only because she is 87 years old.

New Poll on Amy Coney Barrett's SCOTUS Nomination Is All Bad News For Democrats.  Well, it's becoming clearer.  This is the third day of hearings on the Supreme Court nomination for Judge Amy Coney Barrett.  And support for her confirmation in the polls are soaring.  In liberal America, they think confirming her is an unpopular position.  It's not.  It's risen 17 points, with nearly half the country supporting her placement on the Supreme Court, 48/31.  Twenty-one percent are still undecided, but it has remained the case that more Americans want her confirmed than not.

8 Big Moments From Day 3 of Barrett's Confirmation Hearings.  [Scroll down]  Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, said she was "impressed" by an answer from Barrett.  A key attack from Democrats has been that Barrett's confirmation would mean the end of the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare.  That's because a case called Texas v. California is heading to the Supreme Court.  Texas and other states assert that because Congress removed the law's individual mandate requiring Americans to buy health insurance, the rest of the law is unconstitutional.  They note that the high court held in 2012 that the Obamacare law was constitutional because the individual mandate was a tax.

The Deep State conspiracy that gave us Obamacare.  Taking into account the criminal deportment of congressional Democrats over the last four years (one could reasonably argue for more) and the disgraceful confirmation process attendant to President Donald Trump's nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court in 2018, it was a foregone conclusion that these Democrats would vigorously oppose anyone the president nominated to fill the seat vacated by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  Evidently, this goes double for someone with the bona fides of Amy Coney Barrett, a U.S. Court of Appeals judge for the 7th Circuit, who was nominated by President Trump and is currently undergoing the confirmation process.  Obviously, the confirmation of any conservative to the Supreme Court is viewed by Democrats as a threat not only to all the political left has accomplished with regard to its agenda, but to all that it seeks to accomplish in the future.  It's also apparent that hyperbole is the order of the day, as far as liberal rhetoric goes, with projection and schoolyard invective running as close seconds.

Unflappable: Amy Coney Barrett Sees Through Kamala Harris' Trap, Won't Take the Bait.  Amy Coney Barrett schools Durbin on originalism: [...] Durbin attempted to weaponize originalism against an originalist.  "It strains originalism if the clear wording of the Constitution establishes a right and you will not acknowledge it," the senator charged.  "Well, senator, it would strain the canons of conduct, which don't permit me to offer off-the-cuff reactions or any opinions outside of the judicial decision-making process.  It would strain Article III, which prevents me from deciding legal issues outside the context of cases and controversies, and as Justice Ginsburg said, it would display disregard for the whole judicial process," Amy Coney Barrett responded.

Chris Cuomo:  Amy Coney Barrett not 'just an ordinary Catholic'.  CNN host Chris Cuomo declared Tuesday [10/13/2020] that Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett is no "ordinary Catholic" and that she has a "fundamentalist" approach to her faith that many Christians don't share.  "She does have an affiliation in a religious organization, which I think makes her different than most Catholics," the prime-time host said while interviewing Sen. Mazie Hirono following the second day of Judge Barrett's confirmation hearings.  "I think that her faith is by design more central to her value system and her behavior and thoughts than it would be for just an ordinary Catholic who doesn't belong to People of Praise," he said.

Still More Dem Lies About Obamacare.  Democrats have spent the bulk of the Amy Coney Barrett hearings warning that she would overturn Obamacare if she makes it to the Supreme Court, causing 130 million Americans to lose protections for preexisting conditions and costs to skyrocket.  None of that is true.  But then again, Obamacare was built on a Big Lie — "you can keep your plan."  On Monday [10/13/2020], Joe Biden warned that "This nominee has said she wants to get rid of the Affordable Care Act. ... This is about less than one month (until) Americans are going to lose their health insurance."  Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., used his time at Judge Barrett's confirmation hearings to spin a bizarre conspiracy theory in which "big donors" are trying to eliminate Obamacare by "stacking" the courts with conservative judges. [...] But the lies go much deeper than that.  First, the notion that a Justice Barrett is certain to vote to overturn all of Obamacare is false.  Biden simply made up the claim that she "wants to get rid of the Affordable Care Act."

The Anti-Constitution of Joe Biden.  Joe Biden has promised to complete the "fundamental transformation" of America that Barack Obama started.  Toward that end, he vows to radicalize the judiciary.  He intends to stack it with as many liberal activists as possible, whose rulings would eliminate the actual Constitution in favor of a warped worldview rooted in a political and moral philosophy alien to the founding fathers.  The hearings this week provide a window on that warped worldview, one that insists judges deliver health and death at the same time.  One moment, the Democrats bashed Amy Coney Barrett for not supporting health care; in the next, they excoriated her for not denying it to unborn children.  The Democrats surrounded themselves with pictures of young children who could lose Obamacare.  Yet they remain unmoved by the far more arresting images of unborn children killed under it.  The party of "science" averts its gaze from sonograms.

Suspicious Dem questions for Amy Coney Barrett suggest a set-up.  [Scroll down]  When have the Dems ever been courteous and respectful toward Republican nominees to the High Court?  When haven't they gone to extremes to press a perceived advantage or one they carved out of whole cloth without any regard for the lives and reputations they destroy?  All the bells and whistles went off in my head when Mazie Hirono asked Judge Barrett, "Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?"  She claims to ask this of every nominee — someone should look that up.  And then Cory Booker asked the judge if she condemns white supremacy.  No, folks.  This hearing is not just a four-day infomercial for Biden/Harris.  Instead, it's more likely a set-up.  They had to anticipate she'd answer "no" to the first question and readily condemn white supremacy.  It doesn't take a political genius to suspect they will spring something on us as the hearing winds down Thursday — in the hopes of delaying the vote and possibly scoring points for Biden/Harris.

6 Key Issues Aired on Day 2 of Barrett's Confirmation Hearings.  [#6] Attacks on Faith, Family:  Since her nomination, Barrett's critics have attacked her deeply held Catholic faith and ridiculed her for adopting two black children.  The judge said she has attempted a "media blackout for the sake of my mental health," but couldn't avoid it entirely.  "I'm aware of a lot of the caricatures floating around, so I think what I would like to say in response to that question is that, look, I've made distinct choices.  I've decided to pursue a career and have a large family.  I have a multiracial family.  Our faith is important to us.  All of those things are true, but they are my choices," Barrett said.  "I have a life brimming with people who have made different choices.  I've never tried in my personal life to impose my choices on them.  The same is true professionally.  I apply the law."  She went on to discuss why she exposed herself to the historically brutal Supreme Court confirmation process.

ACB Is Asked What It Feels Like to Be a SCOTUS Nominee, Gives Best Answer.  It has been fascinating to watch as President Trump's SCOTUS pick Judge Amy Coney Barrett sits calmly and listens patiently as condescending Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee "question" her on a variety of issues in hopes of tripping her up and getting her to reveal the way she would rule on future cases that will inevitably come before the court.  Without missing a beat, she answers the senators in a manner befitting a nominee for the highest court in the nation, making sure to observe the so-called "Ginsburg rule" at every opportunity.  But perhaps to break up the monotony of the confirmation hearings as they went into the second full day, Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Lindsey Graham (R-SC) asked Judge Barrett to explain to those listening what it felt like to be a nominee for the Supreme Court.  The answer she gave was pretty powerful: [...]

Democrats can't 'Kavanaugh' unflappable Justice-to-be Amy Coney Barrett.  With a history of vicious misbehavior and the political calendar limiting their ability to smear Amy Coney Barrett, Dems on the Senate Judiciary Committee were reduced to being annoying nags and finger-wagging scolds.  They were never going to vote for any Supreme Court nominee of President Trump's to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but they don't even have the option of giving Barrett the Brett Kavanaugh 2.0 treatment.  Another character-assassination attempt of the kind visited on Kavanaugh two years ago — now Justice Kavanaugh — would have been risky business so close to the election, so it was politics, not decency, that stayed their bloody hands.  Make no mistake, though, if they could have, the Dems would have trashed Barrett as too religious and too conservative and done everything they could short of setting the building on fire to stop her from joining the high court before the election.  As it was, they spent their time during the first day of questioning largely trying to trip her up [...]

Whitehouse Cites Group Funded by Dark Money to Attack Dark Money.  Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.) on Tuesday savaged conservative dark-money groups, citing the work of a left-wing group funded by dark money in his attacks.  In an exchange with Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett that Whitehouse used to deliver a soliloquy attacking "dark money" — groups that do not disclose their donors — Whitehouse cited research from the Center for Media and Democracy, a group funded by anonymous left-wing donors.  The Center for Media and Democracy received $520,000 in 2011 from the Schwab Charitable Fund, which conceals the sources of its funding.

Merriam-Webster Alters Definition Of Sexual "Preference" To Say It's Offensive After Hirono Attacked Barrett For Using It.  As far as I can tell, critics have them dead to rights on this. [...] Check the Wayback Machine and you'll find that Merriam-Webster's definition of "preference" said nothing about the term being offensive as of September 28, the last time the page was archived.

Barrett uses, later apologizes for using term deemed 'offensive' by GLAAD.  While answering a question about how she would rule in potential Supreme Court cases involving LGBTQ+ people's rights during her confirmation hearing Tuesday, Judge Amy Coney Barrett used the term "sexual preference" — a term classified as "offensive" by GLAAD.  Barrett used the term while denouncing discrimination against gay and lesbian people, during questioning by Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein, D-California.

The Editor says...
If that's the only complaint they have against this nominee, the hearings should be over in no time.

Feinstein Tries To Rattle Amy Coney Barrett, Fails Miserably.  During Tuesday's confirmation hearings, Senator Dianne Feinstein tried to rattle Amy Coney Barrett, and it failed miserably.  Feinstein tried to get the SCOTUS nominee to spout off political opinions about different issues, but it was met with a brick wall of common sense and rationality.  "If I give off-the-cuff answers then I would be basically a legal pundit and I do not think we want judges to be legal pundit.  I think we want judges to approach cases thoughtfully and with an open mind," Barrett responded.  [Video clip]

The Iconic Moment ACB Demonstrated Her Brilliance Without Saying a Word.  Judge Amy Coney Barrett repeatedly demonstrated her judicial brilliance during Tuesday's [10/13/2020] hearing, but the most iconic moment of them all came during Texas Senator John Cornyn's questioning.  "Most of us have multiple notebooks and notes and books and things like that in front of us," observed Senator Cornyn.  "Can you hold up what you've been referring to in answering our questions?"  With a grin, Judge Amy Coney Barrett held up the notebook that had been provided to her.  "Is there anything on it?" asked Senator Cornyn.  "The letterhead that says U.S. Senate," replied Barrett.

Blank note pad
Amy Coney Barrett Has Perfect Response to Senator Asking if She is 'Reading From Notes'.  The Senate Judiciary Committee began day two of their confirmation hearing for Trump Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett.  Amy Coney Barrett gave the perfect response when asked if she was reading from notes.

Barrett Asked To Hold Up Notes She's Using To Answer Questions.  She Holds Up A Blank Notepad..  Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett held up a blank notepad when Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) asked her to show the public the notes she's been using to answer the numerous questions spat at her during day two of the confirmation hearings.  "Most of us have multiple notebooks and notes and books, things like that in front of us," said Sen. Cornyn.  "Can you hold up what you've been referring to in answering our questions?"  Barrett held up a blank notepad.  "Is there anything on it?" asked Cornyn.  "The letterhead that says United States Senate," the judge replied.  [Video clip]

Sheldon Whitehouse Presents 'Dark Money' Conspiracy Theory, Asks Amy Coney Barrett Zero Questions.  Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) used his entire time on the second day of the Supreme Court confirmation hearing for Judge Amy Coney Barrett on Tuesday to present a "dark money" conspiracy theory.  He asked Judge Barrett no actual questions.  Using a series of posters, a magic marker, a highlighter, and an indeterminate number of Post-it notes, Whitehouse sketched a complicated theory — called "The Scheme" — in which he claimed that "dark money" groups influenced the selection of judges.

Democrat Senator Mazie Hirono Asks Amy Coney Barrett if She Has Ever Committed Rape.  The Senate Judiciary Committee began day two of their confirmation hearing for Trump Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett.  As expected, Democrat Senators are using this hearing as an opportunity to abuse Amy Coney Barrett, a devout Catholic and mother of seven who is already a vetted judge.  There's stupid, and then there's Democrat Senator Mazie Hirono (HI).  Hirono on Tuesday [10/13/2020] asked Amy Coney Barrett if she has ever committed rape.

Mazie Hirono Cements Her Insanity, Asks Amy Coney Barrett if She's Ever Raped Someone.  Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono is a certified insane person.  That's been known for a while, yet she continues to up the bar every time she ends up in the spotlight during a hearing.  After previously trying to disqualify Amy Coney Barrett over her religion back in 2017, something that's blatantly unconstitutional, Hirono strapped on the water skis and had the guy driving the boat floor it towards the shark in today's confirmation hearing.  This woman is legitimately the dumbest person to ever serve in the U.S. Senate, and that's a position with an awful lot of competition. [...] Hirono is legitimately upset that Barrett is pledging to interpret the law as it is written by Congress.  In what was a convoluted, nonsensical series of "questioning," the Hawaii Senator decides that judges should in fact rule based on sympathies and not the law.  Think about how crazy that is?  Hirono also apparently has no idea what a term as basic as "severability" means.  Keep in mind, this woman graduated from Georgetown with a law degree.  My word, if there was ever sufficient proof a university should be shut down, this qualifies.

Amy Coney Barrett hearing was a hostage video.  When it comes to wasting time, it's tough to beat the United States Senate.  But even for that august body's pedantic standards, Monday's confirmation hearing for Judge Amy Coney Barrett was beyond pointless, it was downright bizarre.  The nominee sat wearing a black mask, and looked like the prisoner in a hostage film, as senator after senator talked not so much to her but at or past her.  Let's hope the mask protects against drivel as well as coronavirus.  When they weren't railing against the hearings happening at all, the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee seemed to be under the impression that it was the Affordable Care Act, not Barrett, whom President Trump nominated for the Supreme Court.  They spoke of little else, flanked by blown-up photographs of constituents they say were helped by Obamacare — despite not knowing how, or even if, Barrett would rule on a case involving the legislation.

9 Takeaways From Day 1 of Barrett Confirmation Hearings.  The opening day of Senate confirmation hearings for federal Judge Amy Coney Barrett was filled with speechifying, with Democrats on the Judiciary Committee previewing their line of attack on the Supreme Court nominee.  In her opening remarks, Barrett, currently a judge on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, stressed that the role of a judge is not to make policy, while Democrats focused almost entirely on policymaking.  President Donald Trump nominated Barrett on Sept. 26 to fill the seat of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who had died eight days earlier.  Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., predicted Barrett's confirmation would likely pass the Senate on a party-line vote.

Senator Josh Hawley Calls Out Democrats for Religious Litmus Tests and Bigotry on Judicial Nominees.  Article six of the constitution, and the first amendment outlining the bill of rights within the United States constitution, affirms that every American citizen has the unassailable right to practice their religion in accordance with their own beliefs; no litmus tests are permitted.  However, under the doctrines of Marxism religion is a threat to state control.  Modern Democrats are Marxists.  In a push-back to the preferred doctrine of modern democrats U.S. Senator Josh Hawley gives a passionate opening remark during the senate committee hearing for Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett.  [Video clip]

AP called out for adopting Democrat language on court-packing.  The Associated Press was forced to add an editor's note to a recent story about the Supreme Court on Saturday, in which the outlet made it seem as if the Democratic strategy to pack the high court would "depoliticize" the bench.  The article, written by Iris Samuels, centered on a debate between Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., and Gov. Steve Bullock, his Democratic opponent in the upcoming election.  The AP's original post reportedly read, "Bullock said that if Coney Barrett was confirmed, he would be open to measures to depoliticize the court, including adding judges to the bench, a practice critics have dubbed packing the courts."  The report referred to President Trump's Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett.

The Audacity Of Amy.  [Scroll down]  In her opening remarks on Day 1 of the hearing she reminded us that "I would be the first mother of school-age children to serve on the Court."  Not only would she be the first minivan-driving mom to serve, she would be the only woman on the current Court with ANY children at all.  Sotomayor and Kagan, perhaps unsurprisingly, have a total of zero children between them.  This matters!  As I wrote in an earlier piece, having "kin in the game" when it comes to making big decisions is absolutely crucial.  Amy's angriest feminist interlocutors this week, Kamala Harris and Dianne Feinstein, have a grand total of one offspring combined.  But as Amy points out in her remarks, making judicial decisions through the lens of a parent whose own child may be affected by the ruling is the best way to make sure justice is served, for both sides.

Biden cautions Senate Democrats against any questions about Amy Coney Barrett's faith.  Former Vice President Joe Biden on Monday said that Judge Amy Coney Barrett's faith "should not be considered" during her Senate confirmation hearings. [...] Biden instead said that Democrats need to "stay behind the ball" and focus on Barrett's alleged opposition to the Affordable Care Act, former President Barack Obama's signature achievement, which the Supreme Court will revisit after the November elections.  "Everyone knows that in 28 days, 20million Americans may lose their healthcare," Biden said.  "This nominee said she wants to get rid of the Affordable Care Act."  Barrett has never stated that she would rule against the Affordable Care Act.  At the hearings Monday, many Democratic senators accused her of opposing it, with Sens. Dick Durbin of Illinois, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, and Sheldon Whitehouse of New York making passionate speeches about the legislation.

Also posted under Lies about Obamacare.

Amy Coney Barrett:  Judges Can't 'Walk in Like a Royal Queen' and Impose Their Will on the World.  Judge Amy Coney Barrett addressed the widespread misinformation that judges can brazenly make rulings based on the whims of the day, explaining the process and stressing judges cannot just "walk in like a royal queen" and "impose" their will on the world.  Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) prompted Barrett to explain how the process works, using the District of Columbia v.  Heller as an example.  Barrett briefly explained there has to be a law, lawsuit, appeal, and the court granting cert before it makes a ruling.  When asked if the process remains the same no matter the issue — including guns, health care, abortion, campaign finance — Barrett emphasized judges cannot just impose an agenda at random.

Hawley, Sasse Unleash On Harris, Democrats, Media For Treatment Of Barrett.  Republican senators Josh Hawley and Ben Sasse criticized Democratic and media treatment of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett Monday morning [10/12/2020].  Both senators decried attacks on Barrett's Catholic faith and said that religious freedom is a fundamental American principle that has come under attack from Democrats.  "This committee isn't in the business of deciding whether the dogma lives too loudly within someone," Sasse said.  "This committee isn't in the business of deciding which religious beliefs are good and which religious beliefs are bad and which religious beliefs are weird."

Sen. Patrick Leahy Tells Amy Coney Barrett That Her Confirmation To SCOTUS Would Be 'Harmful' To Women.  Only a handful of Democrats were able to make opening statements Monday [10/12/2020], leading into confirmation hearings for Amy Coney Barrett, whom President Donald Trump nominated to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) made the most of his precious few minutes.  In a statement made directly to Barrett, Leahy told the Supreme Court nominee — a law professor, federal Circuit Court judge, wife, and mother — that confirming her to the highest court in the land would be "harmful" to women.

At Supreme Court hearing, Democrats talk about everything except Amy Coney Barrett.  Evidently, polling showed Democrats that their scorched-earth tactics against Brett Kavanaugh backfired in the 2018 Senate races.  And they got the memo that the attacks on Barrett's religious beliefs that they deployed during her appellate court confirmation hearings were likely to go over about as well as a Yankees parade in South Boston.  Furthermore, they cannot question the credentials of Barrett, who is widely respected by lawyers regardless of their ideology and earned the American Bar Association's highest "well qualified" rating.  As a result, Democrats have decided to use the hearings as another platform for their 2020 campaign.  Their opening statements were treated simply as another forum for peddling predictable attacks on President Trump and on his administration's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.  But more than anything, Democrats talked about threats to Obamacare and individuals with preexisting conditions.

Red herring alert!
It isn't Judge Barrett's job to provide treatment or insurance for people with "preexisting conditions."  It isn't the government's job to provide medical treatment for everyone or to make everyone buy insurance.

Can Democrats Bork Amy Coney Barrett?  Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearing to the Supreme Court begins on Columbus Day [10/12/2020] in the U.S. Senate's Judiciary Committee.  We can expect four days of an attempt to convince the public that she is, alternately, a straight-laced appeals court judge and a radical religious zealot.  Unless Barrett goes off-script, or something truly new and scandalous emerges, the Republicans' 53 seat majority in the Senate should result in her appointment.  As a viewer's guide, it's safe to assume that any senator's first goal is to elevate themselves — and this goes for members of both parties.  The election looms, however, making Democrats' jobs during the hearings a good bit more complicated.  Catholic women in the battleground states are said to be the most precious commodity this cycle.

Schumer Says Democrats Will Try To Block Barrett Confirmation By Not Giving Republicans Quorum.  Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Democrats will not "supply quorum" for votes in the Senate as a way to try and block the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett before the election.  During a Sunday night [10/11/2020] press conference, Schumer slammed Republicans for pushing Barrett's confirmation forward, saying Senate Democrats will do everything they can to prevent Barrett from being confirmed.  Schumer went on to say that one way Democrats are considering blocking the confirmation is by not supplying quorum, meaning Democrats would not show up so work could not be done.

Democrats don't dare say why they oppose Judge Barrett, so they lie instead.  Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee devoted their opening statements on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to repeating a shameless lie.  Why can't they share their real reasons for opposing her?  The Democrats, one after another, claimed that confirming Barrett would result in ObamaCare being overturned when the court takes it up Nov. 10, with Americans dying as a result.  It's plainly false:  Several conservative justices clearly don't buy the arguments made for striking down the law in this case.  And Barrett, based on her overall philosophy, is likely to agree with them.  Plus, Republicans are universally in favor of keeping protections for those with pre-existing conditions and have vowed to put it into law if ObamaCare does get overturned.

Court-Packing Is More of a Monstrosity than You Think.  The Biden-Harris court-packing plan is a plan to destroy the Constitution and replace it with a disguised dictatorship.  Democratic court-packing is a plan to leave the forms of the Constitution intact while destroying its essence, much in the same way that Augustus dealt a death blow to the old Roman Republic.  The Biden-Harris court-packing plan is a virtual enabling act, a law that would bypass all the normal lawmaking processes and turn national policy over to unelected far-left judges acting in response to the complaints of ultra-left lawyers and activists.  If you think that sounds over-dramatic, let me take you to a federal courthouse in Eugene, Oregon, where a group of activists are seeking to have the Judiciary seize control over most of the nation's economic policy.  In 2015 those activists filed a lawsuit known as Juliana v. United States.

'Americans aren't idiots!' The AP's use of 'Democrats' language' to explain 'packing the court' doesn't go well.  Since the Associated Press considers itself "an independent global news organization dedicated to factual reporting," it would be problematic for an AP article to contain commentary packaged as news and facts.  Real Clear Politics co-founder and president Tom Bevan captured the following excerpt from an AP story.  ["]With lightning speed, the Associated Press adopts Democrats' language on SCOTUS: adding members is now 'depoliticizing' the court, only 'critics' refer to it as 'packing.'["] [...] To call increasing the number of Supreme Court justices "depoliticizing" would be an egregious political overstatement if made by a Democrat politician, much less a news organization.

Amy Coney Barrett Will Defend America's Borders and Laws.  With the disgraceful spectacle of the Kavanaugh hearings still fresh in many people's memories, America is about to witness another Supreme Court confirmation process, one that may make the last one look dignified by comparison.  That would be a shame, because Judge Amy Coney Barrett is a sterling nominee who has shown a reverence for America's laws and sovereignty.  In her Rose Garden introduction as the nominee to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Judge Barrett threw down the gauntlet.  "I love the United States and I love the United States Constitution," she said.  While that may sound admirable to most people, those are fighting words to those on the left.  She then doubled down when referring to her mentor, the late Justice Antonin Scalia.  "His judicial philosophy is mine, too," she added.  "A judge must apply the law as written."

Ben Sasse:  Court Packing Is 'Suicide Bombing of Two Branches of Government'.  Senator Ben Sasse (R., Neb.) on Sunday [10/11/2020] called Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden's refusal to say whether he would add seats to the Supreme Court if elected "grotesque," saying court packing amounts to the "suicide bombing of two branches of government."  "It's grotesque that Vice President Biden won't answer that really basic question," Sasse said in an appearance on Fox News Sunday.  "And it isn't just one branch of government, what they're really talking about or refusing to talk about, is the suicide bombing of two branches of government."

Beyond Court Packing:  Here's How Dems Plan To Create A One-Party State.  Joe Biden has so far refused to answer the question of whether he'd pack the Supreme Court with leftist justices.  But he hasn't even been asked about a more worrisome scheme he and his party are cooking up to ensure Democrats' election victories well into the future.  So far, Biden has inartfully dodged the question of whether he would support adding justices to the Supreme Court.  All he would say in the debate was "Whatever the position I take, that will be the issue" and in Arizona, he said, "You'll know my opinion on court-packing when the election is over."  Biden knows court-packing doesn't poll well, and so with the help of the press, he is avoiding the topic.  But Senate Democrats have already made it clear that they will take that route should President Donald Trump get Judge Amy Coney Barrett on the bench.

Behind the scenes of Democrats' half-century quest to destroy the Supreme Court.  For nearly 50 years now Democrats have plotted to annihilate the Supreme Court. [...] The reigning euphemism of the day is "court packing," which former Vice President Joe Biden openly refuses to discuss with voters until after the election.  A more accurate term is "expanding" the Supreme Court by adding seats to dilute the currently sitting justices.  Or "exploding" the federal judiciary.  Or "annihilating" the independence of an entire branch of the federal government.  They do this by installing puppet "jurists" who no longer believe that the Constitution actually means what it says.  It's a "living document," according to this death squad.  The judiciary, to these people, is actually just a super-legislature that is unelected and holds office for life.  This kind of constitutional thuggery is the hallmark of socialist dictatorships and banana republics — dress up the institution designed to protect democracy and individual liberty with unelected authoritarians specifically designed to make a mockery of both.

Democrat Threats to Pack the Supreme Court Deflect Attention from Their Own Errors.  [Scroll down]  The next Democrat forced error was Ruth Bader Ginsberg not stepping down when Obama was in power.  Democrats should have been calling for RBG to step aside because of her advanced age and health issues, but that never happened.  If she would have taken one for the team, Obama's nominee would have likely sailed through the Senate confirmation process since Republicans do not resort to the slash and burn techniques of destroying judicial nominees as Democrats do.  Ginsberg's selfishness and Democrat hubris that Hillary Clinton would win in 2016 have placed the Democrats in the position they find themselves in today.  As always, instead of looking inward and admitting their errors, Democrats choose to instead blame their enemies.

Democrats delegitimize the Supreme Court because they fear losing power over the rest of us.  "It is a decision of the Supreme Court," Rep. Nancy Pelosi said in 2005, speaking about the eminent domain ruling in Kelo v. New London.  "If Congress wants to change it, it will require legislation of a level of a constitutional amendment.  So this is almost as if God has spoken."  This florid reverence for the high court ought not be lost on the reader, especially given where Pelosi and other Democrats find themselves today.  As the Senate prepares to confirm President Trump's third Supreme Court nominee, they have begun to say outright that the nomination and confirmation procedure outlined in the U.S. Constitution is illegitimate.  In some cases, they are even insinuating that the court itself lacks legitimacy, for which outlandish claim the only visible justification is that they don't like the direction it's going.

Sen. Chris Coons:  Amy Coney Barrett Has 'Extreme,' 'Disqualifying' Views, Confirmation Push 'Constitutes Court Packing'.  Senate Judiciary Committee member Chris Coons (D., Del.) on Sunday said that Republicans' push to confirm Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett ahead of the November 3 election "constitutes court packing" and called the judge's views "not just extreme," but "disqualifying."  Coons's comments came during an appearance on Chris Wallace's "Fox News Sunday," in which he defended Democrats' calls to add additional seats to the Supreme Court — the actual definition of court packing — in retaliation for the Senate going forward with Barrett's confirmation hearings only weeks before the election.  "I'm going to be laying out the ways in which Judge Barrett's views, her views on reaching back and reconsidering and overturning long settled precedent are not just extreme, they're disqualifying," he said.

C'mon, man:  Biden must answer court-packing question.  The Commission on Presidential Debates will become irreversibly illegitimate unless it reverses course on in-person debates, which alone can force Joe Biden to answer the single most important question in this election: whether Biden would pack to the Supreme Court with additional seats, forever transforming our Constitution's three-branch form of government into a two-branch system.  The Constitution allows Congress to set the number of Supreme Court seats.  After several decades of trial and error, in 1869, Congress settled on nine seats, which has been a bedrock of stability in America's form of government for 151 years.  For more than half of our nation's existence, there has been only one attempt to change that number.

Democrat Joe Biden:  Voters 'Don't' Deserve To Know If I'm Going To Pack Supreme Court.  Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden told a local news reporter on Friday afternoon [10/9/2020] that voters do not deserve to know whether he will pack the Supreme Court if he wins the upcoming the election.  "Sir, I've got to ask you about packing the courts and I know you said yesterday you aren't going to answer the question until after the election, but this is the number one thing that I've been asking about from viewers in the past couple of days," the reporter said to Biden.  "Well, you've been asked by the viewers who are probably Republicans who don't me continuing to talk about what they're doing to the court right now," Biden responded.  "Well sir, don't the voters deserve to know--" the reporter pressed.  "No, they don't," Biden responded.

Biden Makes False Claims:  Republicans Are The Ones 'Packing The Court Now,' 'Not Constitutional What They're Doing'.  Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden made false claims on Saturday [10/10/2020] while speaking to reporters before he boarded his campaign plane, saying that Republicans are the ones engaged in court-packing and claiming that what the Republicans are doing is not constitutional.  Biden made the remarks while standing right next to the plane while it was running, making it very difficult to hear his responses.  A reporter asked Biden about his controversial stance of not telling voters before the election whether he supports court-packing.  The reporter's question comes after Biden said late last night that voters don't deserve an answer from him on the issue.

The Editor says...
"Nominating a supreme court justice during an election is not court packing.  Adding justices to the supreme court is."  [Source]

Carlson: Democrat Court-Packing Plans 'Closer Than a Lot of Republicans Want to Admit and You Should Be Worried About It'.  Fox News Channel's Tucker Carlson opened his Friday [10/9/2020] broadcast with a warning about Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and vice-presidential nominee Kamala Harris regarding potential plans of court-packing if they are elected on November 3.  According to Carlson, the objective is to change the American form of government, and he urged Republican lawmakers to be concerned.

'Staggering' Is the Word for Suggestions Barrett Recuse Herself on the Election.  It looks like the Democrats are going to try to hector Judge Amy Coney Barrett into recusing herself from any cases on the election.  "One of the things I want to ask her," Senator Cory Booker told NBC in respect of the pending confirmation hearing, "is will she recuse herself because of, ah, in terms of any election issues that come before us because if she does not recuse herself, I fear that the court will be further delegitimized."  Don't wait up, we say.  Senator Booker might want to take a look at a 2004 opinion by The Great Scalia.  It sketches Justice Scalia's logic in refusing to recuse himself in a case involving Vice President Dick Cheney.  The Sierra Club had asked Scalia to recuse himself because he and the vice president had gone duck hunting together at Louisiana.  And had allegedly flown there in a private jet.  Turns out that it wasn't a private jet.  It was a jet owned by their employer, the American government.  That, though, was the least of the points that Scalia makes in a dense but hilarious — and also sage — opinion.  In the course of its 21 pages Scalia draws to an astonishing conclusion.  Which is that not only was there no basis for his recusal but that because there was no basis, he could not recuse, even if he wanted to.  He had a duty.

Joe Biden Under Pressure from Democrats to Publicly Embrace Supreme Court Packing Plan.  At a campaign stop on Thursday, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden once again refused to publicly state whether he supports packing the U.S. Supreme Court with more justices.  But some Democrats are pushing for him to do so, even though he has previously opposed it.  Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts recently urged Democrats to support court-packing if Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell moves to confirm President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett.

New York Times Reporter:  Kamala Harris Told Me Last Year She Was Absolutely 'Open' To Court Packing.  New York Times reporter Alexander Burns said during a Thursday episode of the newspaper's podcast that Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) told him last year that she was "absolutely open" to packing the Supreme Court.  "Senator Harris told me in an interview, actually, that she was absolutely open to doing that," Burns said. [...] The remarks from Burns come after Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden told reporters yesterday:  "You'll know my opinion on court packing when the election is over."

The Editor says...
If Trump wins the election, you won't hear another word from Joe Biden on this subject.  If Biden wins, he will implement whatever plans he may choose, because it will be too late for you to object.

Biden: 'You'll Know My Opinion on Court Packing When the Election Is Over'.  Joe Biden told reporters Thursday [10/8/2020] he would reveal his stance on expanding the size of the Supreme Court the day after the election.  "You'll know my opinion on court packing when the election is over," Biden said during a joint appearance with his running mate Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.) in Arizona.  He said his position would become a "distraction" if he were to state it.  Biden has repeatedly dodged on the question of whether he supports expanding the size of the Supreme Court.  During the first presidential debate, Biden refused to take a position on court packing.  "Whatever position I take on that, that will become the issue," he said.

Barrett confirmation hearing may pressure Feinstein, Harris to subdue their political instincts.  California's Democratic senators forged their political brands during high-profile Supreme Court confirmation hearings like the one to be held next week with Judge Amy Coney Barrett.  But as they prepare to quiz President Trump's third nominee to the bench just three weeks before the presidential election, Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris face distinct challenges that may call for them to rein in their natural political instincts.  Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, needs to prove to skeptical progressives that her preference for bipartisanship and comity won't prevent her from taking an aggressive stance against Republicans — not only during a confirmation process most Democrats view as illegitimate, but as chair of the panel next year if Democrats take the Senate majority in 2021.  In contrast, Harris, now the Democratic vice presidential nominee, may be tempted to tone down her prosecutorial style.

Biden is blatantly hiding the single biggest issue in his campaign.  The first action of all elected tyrants is to change the rules to prevent future challenges.  In America, the way to achieve this end is to pack the Supreme Court, making it a Democrat-run, unelected super-legislature with lifetime tenure.  Both Biden and Harris, though, are refusing to say whether they will pack the court, claiming the issue is too important for voters to know in case that knowledge influences their votes.  Democrats have politicized for Supreme Court decades, starting with the Bork hearings, in which Biden played a prominent and disgraceful role.  They consistently place on the Court judges who believe their role is to create rights out of whole cloth — that is, to legislate — and then to retrofit the Constitution to support their legislation.  Whenever they've had activist majorities, Democrats have used the Supreme Court to force initiatives that Americans do not support (e.g., abortion, gay marriage, and Obamacare).  Indeed, for almost 100 years, activist justices have been the primary vehicle leftists used to work fundamental changes in America.

Fact Check:  Kamala Harris Makes Up False Quote from Abraham Lincoln.  CLAIM: Abraham Lincoln declined to fill a Supreme Court seat because it was too close to the election.  VERDICT: FALSE.  The Senate was out of session.  He filled it — in one day — as soon as it was back.

Joe Biden Says 'You'll Know My Opinion on Court-packing When the Election Is Over'.  Former Vice President Joe Biden has refused, once again, to reveal his stance on "packing" the Supreme Court:  "You'll know my opinion on court-packing when the election is over," he told reporters in Arizona on Thursday [10/8/2020].  Court-packing involves expanding the number of justices on the nation's highest court and filling the new seats with liberals to overcome the current conservative majority.  It was rejected the last time it was proposed, in the 1930s.  Biden has remained vague on court-packing since the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg last month.  In Arizona, he tried to frame the issue as something only the media cared about.

Why the public, even liberals, should want Amy Coney Barrett.  The Washington Examiner/YouGov poll published on Wednesday reveals a public passionate about, and deeply split on, the Supreme Court.  Perhaps surprisingly, given this, it also reveals a public averse to extremes.  For fully 79%, the appointment of a new justice will weigh heavily when they vote in the presidential election, with 58% regarding it as "very important."  But agreement here doesn't imply concurrence over how the matter should be handled; 51% say the nomination should wait until after the election and 42% want it done now.  The poll's 3.6% margin of error means that split could be as close as 47%-46%.

Fact Check:  Lincoln Didn't Delay His Supreme Court Nomination Because He Cared About Election Integrity.  Democratic VP Nominee Kamala Harris dodged a question on court packing during Wednesday night's debate by telling a historically inaccurate tale about President Abraham Lincoln. [...] While it is true that Lincoln postponed a nomination in 1864 right before the election, "Honest Abe" didn't save his nomination of Salmon Chase, former Ohio governor, and Senator, because "it's the right thing to do."  "As ever, Lincoln was the shrewd politician and in October of 1864 he saw no profit in alienating any of the factions of his political support by making a selection before the election," writes President Lincoln's Cottage (PLC), a historical group and museum dedicated to preserving Lincoln's legacy.  Not only was the Senate out of session in October when Taney died until December 5 making it difficult for Lincoln to move forward with the confirmation proceedings necessary for a new justice, but Lincoln also strategically delayed the nomination to ensure he had Chase and other potential picks' political support through the November election.

Kamala Harris's Dishonesty on Abe Lincoln.  It was impossible to miss how Kamala Harris, like Joe Biden, refused to answer questions about their plans to expand the Supreme Court.  But she also misrepresented history.  Harris claimed at the VP debate that Abraham Lincoln refused to nominate a candidate for Chief Justice in October 1864 because "Honest Abe said, it's not the right thing to do" and wanted the people to vote first.  Lincoln, of course, said no such thing.  He sent no nominee to the Senate in October 1864 because the Senate was out of session until December.  He sent a nominee the day after the session began, and Salmon P. Chase was confirmed the same day.  And Lincoln wanted to dangle the nomination before Chase and several other potential candidates because he wanted them to campaign for him.  Lincoln's priority was winning the election, which was necessary to win the war — and he filled the vacancy at the first possible instant.  Kamala Harris is simply inventing history.

Don't fall for Democrats' bad-faith delay tactics on Amy Coney Barrett confirmation.  As President Trump and several Republican Senators battle COVID-19, Democrats are trying to use the news as an excuse to call for delaying Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearings, which begin next Monday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Nobody should fall for such desperate and disingenuous attempts to derail a nomination that Democrats would be opposing under any circumstances. [...] This is complete hogwash.  For months, Congressional committees have functioned by allowing for both members and witnesses to testify remotely.  Anthony Fauci has testified this way on the coronavirus.  Just last week, James Comey testified remotely about the Russia investigation.  The Judiciary Committee, in particular, has been functioning in a hybrid way that allows members to participate either remotely or in person and ask questions of nominees.  This has included many hearings for the lifetime appointments of federal judges.

Has the campaign against Barrett fizzled out already?  Or has it even really begun yet?  Democrats and the media have taken aim at Amy Coney Barrett since the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, correctly guessing that Donald Trump planned to nominate the Seventh Circuit jurist in that eventuality.  Despite all of the attacks on Barrett over the past two weeks, nothing has landed, Rich Lowry writes today at National Review, and it looks like Democrats have already emptied the quiver for the Supreme Court nominee.

The Unborkable Amy Coney Barrett.  [Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney] Barrett is too squeaky clean for [the Democrats'] usual tactics to work.  Democrats have instead gone to plan B, making clear what they've worked to obscure for the past three decades in previous attempts to derail Republican judicial nominations.  If they can't attack Barrett's qualifications for the Court, they'll explicitly attack the political consequences of her nomination.  Finally, the mask has slipped.  Forgoing even the pretext of principled opposition, Democrats now admit they oppose judges like Barrett for no other reason than that they would rein in their ability to legislate as they please and without regard for the constraints of the Constitution.

The White House Outbreak Won't Derail Amy Coney Barrett's Nomination.  An outbreak of coronavirus at the White House, which has infected not just the president and his senior staff but also at least three Republican senators, has presented Democrats with an opportunity.  They seem eager to make the most of it.  In a letter addressed to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, the committee's Democratic members insisted that confirmation hearings (to which they had already objected on procedural grounds and which some Democrats had already threatened to boycott) must be postponed indefinitely due to concerns about the health and safety of senators and their staffs.  The letter reminds its readers that at least two of the three Republican senators who contracted COVID-19 are Judiciary Committee members, and CDC guidance advises anyone exposed to this disease to isolate themselves for at least 14 days — even if they test negative.  Moreover, the remote hearings that the committee has conducted throughout this pandemic are "not an adequate substitute."  The whole thing must be put on hold.  "To proceed at this juncture with a hearing to consider Judge Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court threatens the health and safety of all those who are called upon to do the work of this body," the letter insists.

Americans Back Amy Coney Barrett's Confirmation By Double-Digit Margin.  A new national poll shows Americans support the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett by double-digit margins.  A new Morning Consult poll shows Americans support Barrett on a 46-31% margin and that 15% margin of support is an increase from the polling firms last national survey in September following her nomination.  That poll had Americans backing Barrett 37-34%, a resulting 12% increase from the 3% margin previously.

Democrats Haven't Landed a Punch on Amy Coney Barrett.  The Supreme Court fight of the century is, so far, a fizzle.  The ratio of progressive outrage over the nomination of federal Judge Amy Coney Barrett to supposed reasons that the U.S. Senate shouldn't confirm her is completely out of whack — there's a surfeit of the former and almost none of the latter.  Barrett has received extraordinary testimonials from her colleagues and students, who say she is brilliant, conscientious, and kind.  The opposition has countered with a dog's breakfast of nonsense, including that her confirmation hearing can't be held in the middle of a pandemic — when the Senate has continued its business since the pandemic began.

Senate Judiciary Committee Schedules Hearings On Amy Coney Barrett SCOTUS Nomination.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) made good on his promise to schedule a formal hearing on Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court.  On Monday, the Senate Judiciary Committee announced that Barrett's hearing will begin, as expected, on Monday, October 12, 2020, at 9 am.  "The Senate Committee on the Judiciary has scheduled a hearing on the nomination of the Honorable Amy Coney Barrett to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States to begin Monday, Oct. 12 at 9:00 am & continue through Thursday, Oct. 15," the committee tweeted Monday, alongside an official statement and calendar item.

Senator Cruz says Chief Justice John Roberts 'despises Donald Trump'.  Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz says Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts "despises Donald Trump," which accounts for a number of the decisions he had made from the top seat on the high court in recent years.  In an appearance on David Brody's recently launched show "The Water Cooler," Senator Cruz, an attorney and author of the new book "One Vote Away:  How a Single Supreme Court Seat Can Change History," told the host that "John Roberts has become the new Sandra Day O'Connor."  Cruz said he agrees with Vice President Mike Pence, who in an interview last month, told David Brody that Justice Roberts has been a "disappointment to conservatives."  However, Cruz believes that part of Roberts' pivot away from conservative-minded jurisprudence is motivated by personal hatred toward the president.  "I think it is personal," said the senator.

Biden Threatens Religious Freedom, Suggests Christians With Certain Traditional Views Are 'Dregs of Society'.  Biden's rhetoric and policies single out those who adhere to traditional religious beliefs and moral convictions, aiming to limit their ability to live by their consciences and ostracizing them from polite society.  The Democrat may outwardly campaign on a platform of unity and diversity, but his candidacy truly represents a threat to traditional religious believers.  The most recent evidence of this insidious threat came last week, when a Biden staffer suggested that traditional religious beliefs that homosexual acts are sinful and that marriage is between one man and one woman should be so "taboo" as to disqualify someone from serving on the Supreme Court.

Infected Sen. Ron Johnson vows to wear 'moon suit' for vote on Trump's court pick.  Shuttered by COVID-19 infections, the Republican-led Senate is refusing to delay confirmation of President Donald Trump's pick for the Supreme Court.  They are even willing to make special arrangements so sick senators can vote for Judge Amy Coney Barrett, and Democrats appear powerless to stop them.  Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., said Monday [10/5/2020] that he'll go to the Capitol "in a moon suit" to vote if he's still testing positive for the coronavirus, which has killed more than 209,000 Americans and infected millions.  The push to put conservative Judge Amy Coney Barrett on the high court before Nov. 3 is like nothing seen in U.S. history so close to a presidential election.  Trump's nomination of Barrett in a Rose Garden ceremony apparently became ground zero for the infections now gripping the president, his White House and its Senate allies.  Three GOP senators, including Johnson, have now tested positive for the virus and several more are quarantined at home — denying Republicans a functioning majority.

Amy Coney Barrett's Bright Future On The Supreme Court.  "Elections have consequences," former President Barrack Obama told us repeatedly during his Presidency.  In the 2016 election, voters chose Donald Trump to be President, with the power to appoint Federal Judges and Justices with the advice and consent of the Senate for his entire four-year term.  Voters should have their choice respected, not nullified by power-hungry Democrats.  The concern of voters on this issue is why Trump released a list of well-qualified legal conservatives in 2016 as prospective judicial nominees, promising to fill vacancies from the names on that list.  Trump has kept that promise faithfully during his entire term in office.  Voters elected him in part because of those respected and well-qualified names, and his appointments.

Justices Thomas, Alito slam Obergefell same-sex marriage decision as Supreme Court denies Kim Davis case.  Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v.  Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."  The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses.  The two justices said they agreed with the consensus of the court that it should not take Davis' case, but only because it did not "cleanly present" the "important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell."  Thomas and Alito dissented from the original Obergefell decision and their statement Monday could indicate that they would vote to overturn it if presented the chance.

Democrats Hate Amy Coney Barrett Because They Hate the Constitution.  President Trump has nominated a recognized legal scholar, and a respected judge, to be the next Supreme Court Justice of the United States:  Amy Coney Barrett.  Judge Barrett is also a mother of seven children, two of whom are adopted.  In her public appearances she seems to have a pleasant personality.  Yet Democrats hate her.  One has to wonder why.  Judge Barrett has openly acknowledged that the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was her mentor:  she served as a clerk to Justice Scalia at the Supreme Court 20 years ago.  Barrett says that she "shares his judicial philosophy."  What is that philosophy?  It is called "originalism."  Originalists have the legal view that justices should adhere as closely as possible to the original text of the U.S. Constitution.  They believe judges have a responsibility to refrain from letting their personally held ideological, political or religious beliefs influence their opinions on cases brought before their Court.  Arguably, most importantly, originalists are ardently against the judicial branch attempting to legislate from the bench.

Schumer: 'A Virtual (Confirmation) Hearing Is Virtually No Hearing at All'.  Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Sunday accused Republican leader Mitch McConnell of "jamming through the hearings on Amy Coney Barrett, even though three senators have COVID, even though he has said it's not safe for the Senate to meet in session, but it's OK to have the hearings."  McConnell tweeted on Saturday:  "Senate floor proceedings will be postponed until October 19th.  The @SenJudiciary confirmation hearings for Judge Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court will convene on October 12th as scheduled by Chairman Graham."  In an accompanying statement, McConnell said the Senate's floor schedule "will not interrupt the thorough, fair, and historically supported confirmation process previously laid out by Chairman Graham."

Kamala vs. ACB? Democrats Should Avoid It.  Even some of the most iconic politicians have had to hide their achilles heel. [...] Worse than a candidate having obvious flaws is when she and her campaign cannot acknowledge them.  Such is the case with Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), the Democratic nominee for vice president.  With the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, the real Kamala Harris could be thrust front and center by virtue of her position on the Senate Judicial Committee that holds confirmation hearings for court appointees.  Such sudden and unforgiving exposure could very well implode her already lethargic ticket with Joe Biden.  The Democrats have only one precaution available to them in order to avoid this humiliation:  Ask Harris to remove herself from the confirmation hearings on the pretext that she needs to concentrate on campaigning.

The brilliance lives loudly within her.  When Amy Coney Barrett came before that microphone in the Rose Garden to make her official introduction to the wider public, you knew you were getting a different sort of Supreme Court nominee.  This wasn't polished civics instructor Neil Gorsuch or earnest political operator Brett Kavanaugh.  Here was a joyous, American-as-apple-pie judge next door. [...] Barrett's resume is impressive:  Latin honors in college and law school, a Supreme Court clerkship, a distinguished professorial career with prolific scholarship.  Yet the unassuming nature of this Notre Dame professor-turned-7th Circuit judge sets her apart from the Ivy-festooned club she's set to join.  As the mother of seven, including two adopted from Haiti, she would become the first female justice with school-age children.

5 major cases to watch at the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court on Monday will kick off a new term in which the justices will hear the latest Republican challenge to ObamaCare, a bid to reinstate voting limits in Arizona that were struck down as racially biased and House Democrats' long-running pursuit of secret Russia probe materials.  The court resumes its business just weeks after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a stalwart liberal, left a vacancy that is expected to be filled by President Trump's third nominee to the bench, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who would cement a 6-3 conservative majority on the court.  Senate Republicans hope to seat Barrett prior to the Nov. 3 election, and the pace of her confirmation may have a bearing on how some of the term's cases are decided.

Lefties' silly attacks on Barrett show they really have no real complaint.  It's truly remarkable how silly the lefty commentary on Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett has gotten — a clear sign the critics don't dare discuss her actual merits.  First the flap over whether a multidenomational prayer group she enjoys was "the inspiration" for Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale."  What difference would it make — since Atwood went hog-wild with her imagination?  The real group plainly doesn't push subordination of women — or Barrett, an ambitious and successful woman, wouldn't go for it.  Yes, she's an observant Catholic — which prompted Sen. Dianne Feinstein to charge that "the dogma lives loudly in you" the last time liberals tried to derail a Barrett confirmation.  But she's simply on track to be the sixth Catholic on the high court, even as Joe Biden hopes to become the second Catholic president.

Cotton: Sick GOP Senators Will Be 'Wheeled in' to Personally Cast SCOTUS Vote.  Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) said that Judge Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court confirmation would move forward despite three Republican senators having tested positive for coronavirus during this week's broadcast of Fox News Channel's "Sunday Morning Futures."  Anchor Maria Bartiromo said, "Your colleagues have tested positive.  It looks like it was that Amy Coney Barrett gathering at the White House to introduce her to lawmakers.  That really was the place where so many people were exposed."

Democrats would destroy Supreme Court with scheme to pack justices.  Subtlety has been a stranger to our politics.  This is the age of rage, and there is little room for nuance.  That is evident in the intense debate over the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.  Democrats have dispensed with any pretense in their calls to block her and pack the bench with more justices.  What they want is a new reliable Supreme Court created through litmus test confirmations where Senate votes are conditioned on judicial pledges.  Several Democrats have said they will ask Barrett about her view of any challenge to Roe versus Wade, and of cases like the pending challenge to the Affordable Care Act.  Barrett faced such demands from Richard Blumenthal and others for her confirmation as an appellate judge, and many Democrats voted against her because she did not promise to uphold Roe.  In their campaigns for president, Kirsten Gillibrand and Bernie Sanders pledged to nominate only those who would uphold Roe.

The secular left, Democrats can't impose a religious test on Amy Coney Barrett.  Democrats may disagree with Judge Barrett's political views or even her judicial philosophy; they have every right to do so.  But when they took their oath to uphold the Constitution, lawmakers, by definition, swore to disregard nominees' religious beliefs.  During the Barrett hearings, they should uphold their vow to the Constitution and to the American people.

Democrats threaten to block Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation by refusing to take part in the remote hearing.  Leading Democrats have described pressing ahead with Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court nomination 'irresponsible and dangerous' and said a virtual confirmation is not acceptable, after seven people at her nomination ceremony tested positive for COVID-19.  Six of the 12 Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee were present at Saturday's event — Mike Lee, Marsha Blackburn, Ben Sasse, Josh Hawley, Thom Tillis, and Mike Crapo.  Two — Lee and Tillis — tested positive on Friday [10/2/2020].

The Dogma Lives Loudly in Everyone, Including Democrats.  Now that Amy Coney Barrett stands at the threshold of a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, a second round of Democrat Senate Judiciary Committee members posing as an inquisition seems inevitable.  How dare this woman live as a committed Catholic right in our faces?  Is she not aware that religion generally and Christianity in particular are on the wane among Millennials, Gen Z, and costal elites and that restoration of "God" to the Democrat party platform stirred more than a little controversy just four short years ago?  And since it is the Constitution of the United States, not the manifesto of Black Lives Matter, that explicitly prohibits the application of a religious test to court nominees, the Democrats' insistence upon imposing one anyway is also inevitable, because of the dogma that lives loudly inside them.

Feinstein Again Calls For Delayed SCOTUS Hearings, Cites Trump's, GOP Senator's Positive Coronavirus Test.  Only two days after calling on Republicans to delay the Supreme Court nomination process until after the presidential election, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has, once again, called on Republicans to delay Judge Amy Coney Barrett's nomination process.  In a joint statement Friday morning [10/2/2020], Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-CA) and Feinstein called on Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) to delay the hearing, in part because of President Donald Trump's recent positive coronavirus test.

The Editor says...
The President's day-to-day health has no bearing on a Senate confirmation hearing.

Here's A List Of Democrats Who Have Attacked Amy Coney Barrett For Her Faith.  A number of Democratic lawmakers and liberal media figures have attacked Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett for her Catholic beliefs. [...] [#1] Democratic Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin:  Democratic Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin also questioned Barrett over an article she co-authored as a law student that included the term "orthodox Catholic," asking Barrett:  "Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?" [...] [#2] Democratic Hawaii Sen. Mazie Hirono:  Democratic Hawaii Sen. Mazie Hirono raised Barrett's "closely held views" on Wednesday [9/30/2020], suggesting that these views may make Barrett unfit to serve on the Supreme Court.  Hirono questioned "whether her closely held views can be separated from her ability to make objective, fair decisions[.]"  "She has very closely held views that will impact a woman's right to choose," Hirono said September 26, "and certainly she has already expressed her willingness to vote down the Affordable Care Act as well as other Supreme Court precedents."

The Editor says...
"A woman's right to choose" is a euphemism for infanticide.  No one has a right to commit homicide.  Incidentally, Senator Hirono is a Buddhist.*

SCOTUS Could Use More Skeptics Like Amy Coney Barrett.  Democrats worry that Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, an originalist and textualist who clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia in the late 1990s, will emulate him if she is confirmed by the Senate.  We could do a lot worse.  Although progressives often portrayed Scalia as an authoritarian ogre, he was a more faithful defender of First, Fourth, and Sixth amendment rights than some of his purportedly "liberal" colleagues on the Court.  Barrett's track record during three years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit suggests she also would frequently prove to be a friend of civil liberties.  In a 2018 opinion, Barrett concluded that an anonymous tip did not provide reasonable suspicion for police to stop a car in which they found a man with a felony record who illegally possessed a gun.  "The anonymous tip did not justify an immediate stop because the caller's report was not sufficiently reliable," she wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel, noting that the report of gun possession by itself did not indicate criminal conduct.

Cardinal Dolan to Senate:  Imposing a religious test on Barrett "out of bounds," you know.  What makes this episcopal throat-clearing notable is its source.  Cardinal Timothy Dolan has good relations with politicians across the political spectrum and tries his best to foster bipartisanship and comity in tone, at least — as one should expect from faith leaders.  That has its limits, however, and for Dolan that limit was exceeded in the 2017 confirmation hearing of Amy Coney Barrett.  "There should be no religious tests for candidates," Dolan noted on his SiriusXM show earlier today, and complained about attacks by Senate Democrats on Barrett's Catholic faith during that process.

Trump has a new running mate now.  Donald Trump has picked a new running mate.  Yes, Vice President Mike Pence is still around.  And no, the near-constant chatter about former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley did not come to pass.  But since Saturday, when Trump nominated her to the Supreme Court, Judge Amy Coney Barrett has become Trump's new running mate.  No matter how you slice it, it's now "Trump-Coney Barrett 2020."

Why Do Some Republicans Drift Leftward?  A devout Catholic, [Amy Coney] Barrett will endure the unrelenting slings and arrows of oh, so tolerant Democratic senators (should they even decide to attend the hearings) and the ever fair-minded liberal MSM.  Her seven children will be presented as exhibits of evidence of her unsuitability to serve, proof that anyone who would choose to raise seven children in a stable household with a spouse, complete with homework, birthday parties, and new clothes, is someone who is hopelessly out of touch with today's new societal norms and is therefore incapable of rendering relevant judicial decisions in the modern world.  However, let's assume that Barrett survives all the procedural, legal, and personal attacks that the Democrats can muster and is confirmed to the Court.  What then?  Can conservatives be confident that Barrett will be the kind of Justice that brings a commonsense, constitutional, reliably traditional voice to the bench?  Or will she soften over time; stray from her roots; and become more of an unpredictable, random vote?

From picking up classes to cooking meals:  Notre Dame pulling for Amy Coney Barrett.  Notre Dame helped launch Judge Amy Coney Barrett's journey to the federal bench, and the community is going all out to get her confirmed to the Supreme Court.  Eager to see an alumna, professor and fellow Domer on the Supreme Court, members of Judge Barrett's university community are writing letters of support to senators, picking up her classwork and cooking meals for the Barrett family.  Nicole Garnett, a Notre Dame law professor and longtime friend, said many at Notre Dame dropped everything to attend the formal appointment ceremony at the White House.

Turning the Clock Forward.  Putting a strict constructionist in Justice Ginsburg's seat is the precursor to another four years of Trump that would move the federal courts in this direction for decades to come.  This essay suggests ten key areas of change for SCOTUS, each of which could help turn America around.  These changes might not contain all that needs to be done to restore the republic, but they would move us far down the path.  These categories allow a cohesive, united country to emerge to solve our problems in an innovative process not possible under the current administrative state. [...] The Supreme Court can be a positive or negative force.  When it is in a "living constitution mode," it is a dangerous oligarchy with the final say over everything, making it the most powerful institution in America.

Democrats Want Term Limits for the Supreme Court but not Themselves.  Yet another variation of "change the rules in the middle of the game" has arisen from Democratland.  In addition to the "mail-in" ballot scheme to cast confusion on the presidential election, peppered with a good, old-fashioned, FDR-like threat to "pack the Court," congressional democrats fuming about Amy Coney Barrett now want "term limits" for Supreme Court justices.  Sometime this week, in a shameless stunt of hypocrisy, House Democrats, led by Rep. Ro Khanna of California, will introduce a bill that would (a) limit the tenure of a Supreme Court Justice to 18 years and (b) limit a president to appointing only two justices during his term in office.  Why is this a shameless stunt of hypocrisy?  Because congressional Democrats want term limits for the Supreme Court, but they don't want term limits for themselves.

Stephen Colbert Admits 'Justice Barrett Is Inevitable, Like Death'.  Late-night host Stephen Colbert sees the writing on the wall:  "Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett" is a future that the Democrats must come to terms with.  Speaking on his show Monday night, the comedian who has turned his platform into a political forum, with jokes largely torching President Donald Trump, admitted Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation to the last Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat "is inevitable, like death."

Exactly what one would expect from the KKK:
Left Targets Barrett For Adopting Black Children.  [Scroll down]  The fact that Amy Barrett has adopted two black kids makes her a "white colonizer," according to Mr. Kendi of BU.  But if adopting a black child (two, in Barrett's case) makes Barrett a "white colonizer", whose goal was to have "'civilized' these 'savage' children in the 'superior' ways of White people" — then, quite effectively if unknowingly, Kendi has just accused Madonna, Jane Fonda, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, Charlize Theron, Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman, Mariska Hargitay, Steven Spielberg and Kate Capshaw, Sandra Bullock and all the rest on The Root's list of the same.  To state the obvious — except to Mr. Kendi — not one of the celebs deserves to be attacked like this any more than does Amy Coney Barrett.  Suffice to say, unless Kendi or anyone else comes forward with news to the contrary, one can easily believe that all the white celebrities on this list adopted their black kids for the same reason Amy Barrett did — to love them.  The real lesson here?  In the now budding drive to bork Amy Coney Barrett, nothing is off the table.

Yes, The Vice President Breaks A Senate Tie On SCOTUS Nominees.  There was never any doubt that Democrats would fight tooth and nail to prevent President Trump from nominating a successor to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  That some of those teeth and nails would shred the Constitution in the process is disappointing, but not altogether unexpected.  To that end, Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe wrote in the Boston Globe on Wednesday that if the vote on Trump's eventual nominee to the seat should be tied in the Senate, it would fail.  In Tribe's telling, the vice president's tie-breaking vote does not apply to judicial nominees.  It's a very convenient epiphany, but one supported by neither the Constitution's text nor the Senate's historical practice.

ACB vs. 'Know-Nothing' Democrats.  he Democrats have essentially given up on blocking the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.  This does not imply, however, that they will fail to turn her hearings into a nasty farce of smears of the nominee as an adherent to a voodoo-like religious devotion, and a passionate seeker of an America with no assisted healthcare and back-alley abortions.  The strategy mirrors the malicious fiction then-Senators Joe Biden and Teddy Kennedy threw at Robert Bork in 1987.  Barrett, like Bork, is obviously a person of outstanding character and intelligence with impeccable credentials as a law professor and judge.  It will not be easy for Democrats to portray such an accomplished and attractive person and personality, who departed for Washington with her husband and family of seven in a minivan, as the slavering primitivist that is their preferred caricature.

When the Dogma Lives Loudly.  When Sen. Dianne Feinstein grilled federal circuit court nominee — and now Supreme Court nominee — Amy Coney Barrett three years ago, she fretted that "the dogma lives loudly within you.  And that's of concern."  Given the senator's obvious prejudices, she should indeed be concerned.  Ms. Barrett's life story suggests that she actually believes and seeks to live what her Catholic faith teaches.  Worse, she has a superb intellect, a deep grasp of the law, and an excellent record as a jurist.  In other words, she's a nightmare for a certain kind of political tribe.  Let's put aside for a moment Sen. Feinstein's Know Nothing-style vulgarity.  After all, she's hardly alone in her bigotry.  Disdain for vigorous religious convictions, especially the Catholic kind, is a virus that's going around.  It seems to infect a number of Democratic senators, including Sen. Kamala Harris, Feinstein's California colleague and vice presidential nominee, who saw looming peril in that dangerous national conspiracy otherwise known as the Knights of Columbus.

Democrats can't smear Amy Coney Barrett.  [Scroll down]  In 1987, it was Robert H. Bork, nominated to the nation's highest court by President Reagan, who was a gentleman.  Democrats held all the advantages in that fight because instead of a gentleman, they had Sen. Ted Kennedy, a slovenly drunk menace to women.  Before the sun set, Mr. Kennedy strode to the well of the Senate to accuse Judge Bork of murdering women by denying them abortions — a darkly ironic slur given Mr. Kennedy's own sick history when it came to women.  Little more than a decade later came Miguel Estrada, a superlative jurist nominated by President George W. Bush to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals — a frequent stepping stone to the Supreme Court.  Democrats, led by present-day Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Minority Whip Dick Durbin, didn't like Mr. Estrada and blocked his nomination because, their staffers said, he was "Latino."  You know, "especially dangerous."  With each federal cours cage fight, Democrats got more and more unhinged from humanity.  More dishonest.  More ridiculous.

Biden Says Moving Forward With Barrett Nomination Before Election Day Is An 'Abuse Of Power'.  During remarks on Sunday [9/27/2020], Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden accused Republicans of engaging in an "abuse of power" for moving forward to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg before election day, emphasizing that early voting has already started in some states.  "U.S. Constitution provides one chance — one — for the Americans to have their voices heard on who serves a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, who makes those big decisions about their healthcare, their civil rights, and much else," said Biden.

The Barrett Nomination Leaves Democrats With No Options but to Whine, Threaten, and Quiver.  Americans who are fair and real recognize that Notre Dame's Amy Coney Barrett is an excellent jurist worthy of sitting on the United States Supreme Court.  It is about time that other great law schools besides Harvard and Yale get that recognition.  She has all the credentials needed — and more, having just established herself in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.  Yes, the Democrats are upset that Ruth Bader Ginsburg did not have the prescience of a Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan nominee who humbly stepped aside during a Republican administration to make way for a like-minded successor, Brett Kavanaugh, who had clerked for him.  Ginsburg chose not to step down during the Obama Years, even though she was urged and even pressed to do so.

Democrats say Judge Barrett should recuse herself in election disputes.  Senate Judiciary Democrats are demanding Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett pledge to recuse herself from any election challenge, saying she would side with President Trump.  Sen. Cory A. Booker, a member of the Judiciary Committee that will hold the confirmation hearings, said he will press her about recusal when they meet one-on-one before the hearings.  "I'm going to make it very clear.  One of the things I want to ask her is will she recuse herself in terms of any election issues that come before us because if she does not recuse herself, I fear that the court will be further delegitimized," Mr. Booker, New Jersey Democrat, said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

The Editor says...
What does that tell you?  The Democrats plan to contest the election and take it to the Supreme Court.

Kamala Harris previews Barrett showdown in Senate statement.  Sen. Kamala Harris ripped President Trump's Supreme Court pick in a searing statement, setting up a showdown between the 2020 Democratic vice presidential nominee and Judge Amy Coney Barrett when she appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee next month.  "Just yesterday, I paid my respects to the legendary Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who devoted her life to fighting for Equal Justice Under Law and a more fair and just world," Harris wrote Saturday [9/26/2020].  "Her passing is devastating, and it would be a travesty to replace her with a justice who is being selected to undo her legacy and erase everything she did for our country."

The Most Important Line in Amy Coney Barrett's Speech.  When Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett spoke in the White House Rose Garden following her formal nomination on Saturday evening, she was everything she's been made out to be: poised, smart, and kind-hearted. [...] Then she delivered the most important part of her speech:  ["]I clerked for Justice Scalia more than 20 years ago, but the lessons I learned still resonate.  His judicial philosophy is mine, too.  A judge must apply the law as written.  Judges are not policymakers, and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they might hold.["]

Amy Coney Barrett and the Zealots.  [Scroll down]  There is only the true and the untrue — anything obscuring this reality is dark unreality.  And the truth about Amy Coney Barrett is, quite possibly, not that the Democrats are afraid she'll impose Catholicism.  They're perhaps afraid that because she honors God, she'll also honor her oath and impose constitutionalism.

NBC Warns 'Committed Conservative' Barrett 'Instantly Controversial'.  On Saturday evening [9/26/2020], shortly after President Trump nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, NBC Nightly News let the ideological labels fly as the nominee was repeatedly identified as a "conservative" who was popular with the "religious right" and "instantly controversial."  By contrast, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was never given any left-wing political label in the report. [...] In the report that followed, correspondent Hallie Jackson emphasized:  "From President Trump, a move to cement a more conservative Supreme Court for a generation."

The Editor says...
Where is the verb in that last sentence?  That's not English, it's Headline-ese.

Barrett Will Sail.  The wheels of government tend to turn slowly, but Donald Trump has once again demonstrated that if need be, they can be made to turn with dizzying speed.  He did it last spring when he mobilized the awesome resources of American business to produce a mountain of medical materiel in record time to meet the emergency sparked by the Chinese virus.  And he just did it again by nominating Judge Barrett to meet the political emergency threatened by anti-democratic forces massing to upset the 2020 election.  Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has already announced that Barrett's confirmation hearings will begin October 12.

The Supreme Court fight of our lives.  President Trump has never been known to back away from a political fight, and choosing to nominate a replacement for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg immediately was in character.  Now he probably ends his term with the most consequential fight yet.  The result could be an enduring 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court or an embarrassing political defeat just as voters head to the polls to decide if he merits a second term.

Hawley Warns Democrats A Religious Litmus Test For SCOTUS Nominee Amy Coney Barrett Is Unconstitutional.  Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., sent a letter to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., urging him to pledge not to use "anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, anti-faith" interrogations in the upcoming confirmation hearing for President Trump's SCOTUS nominee Amy Coney Barrett.  "There is a long history of anti-Catholic hatred by some in this country, and a growing tide of anti-religious animus on the Left now, and I hope you and your colleagues will not play any further part in it," Hawley wrote.  "Already, members of your caucus have said that they will do this again — that the nominee's religious views will be a prime focus," Hawley added.  In the letter, Hawley draws attention to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, who made "egregious personal attacks" on Barrett during her previous confirmation to become a federal judge.

Liberal Tantrums Over Amy Coney Barrett Were Expected, With Rose Garden Decoration Being Very Triggering.  [Justice Ruth Bader] Ginsburg passed away on September 18 at the age of 87, which sent liberal America into meltdown mode.  The liberal wing on the Court is crumbling and to make matters worse for them, President Trump is picking her successor.  Nothing could be more delicious.  And what's better is that this isn't much discontent among Senate Republicans this time.  We're pretty united.  The only solid 'no' vote right now is Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) because Maine is weird and frankly, this SCOTUS fight will not help her.  It will help everyone else.  Nothing gets the conservative base more animated than a fight for the Supreme Court.

The four Democratic overreaches that got us here.  If Amy Coney Barrett joins the Supreme Court later this year, conservatives will rightly be thrilled, but maybe Democrats and the Left will question their scorched-earth tactics of the past few years.  Had Democrats been more restrained and more bound by norms of the judicial confirmation process, Barrett wouldn't be in the position she is today, as the nominee, with 51 very likely votes in the U.S. Senate.  When talking about the judicial wars, it's always possible to go back to Miguel Estrada, Robert Bork, or even Roe v. Wade, but here it's not necessary.  We can go back to 2013 and look at four decisions made by Senate Democrats.  If they had declined to overreach in just one of these four, Barrett wouldn't be here.

Brace for a bitter debate on America's religious freedom in Senate.  If Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed for the Supreme Court, the credit will go to President Trump for nominating her and the GOP Senate for producing the votes.  But Barrett will also owe a big thank you to Sen. Dianne Feinstein.  It was Feinstein, a California Democrat, who inadvertently made the Roman Catholic mother of seven a conservative star two years ago.  At Barrett's confirmation hearing for a federal Court of Appeals seat, Feinstein complained that Barrett's faith was apparent in her writings and said she was concerned because "the dogma lives loudly within you."  The overt expression of anti-Catholic bigotry made Barrett an instant hero among religious conservatives and it's no leap to conclude Trump's embrace of Barrett has something to do with Feinstein's attack.  After all, the disrupter in chief has a special fondness for those who drive Dems crazy.

Amy Coney Barrett: 'I Love the United States and I Love the United States Constitution'.  Judge Amy Coney Barrett declared that she loves the United States and its Constitution during the Saturday ceremony where President Donald Trump nominated her to serve on the Supreme Court.  Speaking in the Rose Garden, Coney Barrett said that she was "deeply honored" by the confidence that President Trump had placed in her and expressed appreciation for his support and kindness.

'Leaked' document contains blueprint for left to disrupt Supreme Court nomination proceedings.  A document posted online by investigative journalist Millie Weaver provides an in-depth blueprint for left-wing demonstrators and groups on how to disrupt upcoming Supreme Court nomination proceedings after President Donald Trump's scheduled announcement Saturday [9/26/2020], in which he is expected to name Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's successor.  The link to the document, which is titled, "SCOTUS Rapid Response Action Guide," was tweeted by Weaver Friday evening, who tagged the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department and the Justice Department.

Watching the Democrats compulsively attack Judge Barrett is kind of fun.  On Saturday, as many expected, President Trump announced that Judge Amy Coney Barrett was his nomination to fill the empty seat on the Supreme Court.  On the grounds of her intellect and abilities, Barrett is a superb choice.  All who have worked with her, regardless of their political leanings, admire her, both professionally and personally.  Barrett's also an excellent choice because the Democrats are incapable of refraining from attacking her on grounds that make the Democrats look awful.  Trump must have known that the leftists' compulsions would be their Achilles' heels.  Barrett's confirmation is a done deal because Sen. Mitch McConnell has been able to wrangle the votes he needs for Senate consent.  We also know that there is no practical or constitutional reason for the Senate not to schedule a speedy hearing and an equally swift vote.

The Canonization of Saint Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  [Scroll down]  After the memorials in her honor are complete, Ginsburg doubtless will be accorded hagiographies.  What is perhaps more troubling than the accordance of sainthood on the former justice by the left are the obsequies of Christians and others who have almost fought one another in conferring honors on a person who was unalterably and ferociously opposed to everything Christianity once stood for without apology:  the sacredness of every human life, the sanctity of marriage, the biological distinctions of the sexes, and the integrity of the Church. [...] Continuing in a similar vein, Ginsburg called for the "sex-integration of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts" because they "perpetuate stereotyped sex roles."  College fraternities and sororities were to be replaced with "college social societies."  In the interest of equality, Mother's Day and Father's Day were not to be celebrated separately[.]  Worse, "Ginsburg called for reducing the age of consent for sexual acts to people who are 'less than 12 years old.'  She wrote that laws against 'bigamists, persons cohabiting with more than one woman, and women cohabiting with a bigamist' are unconstitutional.

Republicans eye Oct. 12 for start of SCOTUS confirmation hearings: source.  Republicans are eyeing Oct. 12 as the target date for the start of confirmation hearings for Trump's pick to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by the death of late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a source familiar with the process told Fox News.  President Trump is expected to announce Amy Coney Barrett, 48, on Saturday evening as his pick to fill the seat vacated last week by the liberal trailblazer — a move that would shift the court to the right, and set up a fierce pre-election day confirmation fight.

ABC Immediately Touts Dems Labeling Barrett Nomination an 'Illegitimate Sham'.  Just seconds after the White House ceremony nominating Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court concluded on Saturday, ABC's special coverage turned into a left-wing strategy session, with anchor George Stephonopoulos seizing on Democrats tarring the event as an "illegitimate sham."  The former Clinton hack later promised:  "The battle just beginning."  "It is already shaping up to be a fierce battle, an unprecedented battle just over five weeks before Election Day," Stephanopoulos proclaimed moments after President Trump announced his decision to nominate Barrett to the high court.

Chuck Schumer Sends Out Statement Trashing Amy Coney Barrett.  President Donald J. Trump on Saturday afternoon [9/26/2020] nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court.  The President called her "one of our nation's most brilliant and gifted legal minds."  Judge Barrett came out with the president with her seven children.

RNC launches $10M campaign to promote Judge Amy Coney Barrett ahead of Supreme Court confirmation process.  The Republican National Committee launched a $10 million campaign to promote President Trump's Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett to "hold Democrats accountable" for what the GOP called their "hypocrisy" on the nomination process to the high court.  The initiative, rolled out after the president formally nominated Coney Barrett to the high court on Saturday from the White House Rose Garden, includes a $10 million digital ad campaign, a new website and a get-out-the-vote effort in target states.

Confirming Amy Coney Barrett should be a slam dunk.  Amy Coney Barrett has established herself as a brilliant legal mind with sterling credentials and a commitment to interpreting the Constitution based on its original meaning.  Her confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court should be a slam dunk.  Before becoming an appellate judge in 2017, Barrett had established herself as a leading academic while serving as a law professor at Notre Dame, where she herself graduated at the top of her class.  She also served as a law clerk to conservative icon Antonin Scalia, whom she admired for his interest in originalism and textualism.  It's all the more amazing that Barrett was able to achieve all of these things while being a dedicated mother to seven children.

Amy Coney Barrett Deserves to Be on the Supreme Court.  [Scroll down]  I disagree with much of her judicial philosophy and expect to disagree with many, maybe even most of her future votes and opinions.  Yet despite this disagreement, I know her to be a brilliant and conscientious lawyer who will analyze and decide cases in good faith, applying the jurisprudential principles to which she is committed.  Those are the basic criteria for being a good justice.  Barrett meets and exceeds them.

Democrats Take Aim At Amy Coney Barrett.  The message Trump is sending by appointing someone so different from the old ruling caste cast of characters is that he's replacing the elite — those dour, bitter leftists who have a never-ending series of complaints about how we peasants think and pray and live — with someone like those of us who don't live in some blue enclave on the coast, eat kale, and loathe America.  Liberals realize that they must therefore destroy her, because she will not only block their extra-constitutional schemes but because she represents our slow yet steady progress in liberating our country and culture from the control of our failed elite.  So, how will they come at her?  Look for procedural shenanigans to delay her vote until after the election.  You might have noticed that getting her confirmed is really important to the GOP base, and preventing the Republican Senate from doing it before November 3rd is vital to the Dems' dwindling election hopes.

Trump Nominates Amy Coney Barrett to Replace RBG on Supreme Court.  On Saturday, President Donald Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett, a law professor at Notre Dame and a judge at the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, to the Supreme Court seat vacated by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  Trump commemorated Ginsburg before introducing Barrett.  "Today it is my honor to nominate one of our nation's most brilliant and gifted legal minds to the Supreme Court.  She is a woman of unparalleled achievement, towering intellect, sterling credentials, and unyielding loyalty to the Constitution, Judge Amy Coney Barrett," Trump said.  "Judge Barrett is a graduate of Rhodes College and the University of Notre Dame Law School," he noted.  She graduated the first in her class and edited the school's law review.

Amy Barrett Believes Life Begins at Conception, Questions Roe's "Judicial Fiat" of "Abortion on Demand".  A 2013 article from Notre Dame Magazine offers more hints of Judge Amy Coney Barrett's opinions about abortion.  Barrett, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame and judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, is considered to be one of President Donald Trump's top choices for the U.S. Supreme Court.  Trump plans to announce his choice Saturday [9/26/2020].  Though the article primarily focused on students and faculty going to the March for Life in Washington, D.C., it also described a lecture that Barrett gave at the university a few days prior to the event.  The subject was "Roe at 40: The Supreme Court, Abortion and the Culture War that Followed."  In her talk, she brought up how both pro-life and pro-abortion legal experts have criticized Roe v. Wade as a bad decision, according to the report.  These include the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an icon of abortion activists and the person whose seat Barrett may fill.

Liberal Media is Trashing Amy Barrett's Christian Faith, And It's About to Get Worse.  One of the leading contenders for the court vacancy is Amy Coney Barrett, currently serving as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.  She is a favorite among many religious conservatives, and given the growing attacks on religious expression, fervently desire to put a strong originalist justice on the court.  Barrett has been attacked by the Left not only for her position on judicial interpretation but for something far more personal — and protected — under that same Constitution: her Christian, specifically Catholic, faith.  For starters, Newsweek published a factually incorrect article titled "How Charismatic Catholic Groups Like Amy Coney Barrett's People of Praise Inspired 'The Handmaid's Tale'" connecting People of Praise to Margaret Atwood's dystopian novel The Handmaid's Tale.  An ABC News article on the topic quoted Andrew Seidel, an activist with the Freedom from Religion Foundation, who doubled down in the smear campaign against Barrett:  "There are serious and deep concerns about Judge Amy Coney Barrett's affiliation with People of Praise ..."  Article VI of the Constitution clearly forbids disqualifying someone from serving in public office due to their religious convictions, where it reads that "No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."  This pesky little line from our Constitution, however, hasn't stopped the Left from attacking Barrett.

CNN Slams Amy Barrett:  Like Clarence Thomas She Will "Take Away Our Rights and Liberties".  CNN Supreme Court reporter Joan Biskupic joined Friday's CNN Newsroom to pay homage to the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and, in previewing the future of the Court, she fretted that Trump's replacement (which, according to reports by early evening, would be Amy Coney Barrett) will mean "many, many types of rights and liberties" are now "in the balance."  She added that such "rights and liberties" would be at risk in much in the same way that they were when Clarence Thomas replaced Thurgood Marshall.  In other words, "rights and liberties" are only things liberals fought for and, therefore, something conservatives want to take away.  Of course, there was no pushback for Biskupic's tilted framing.

Democrats Push Disgustingly Insane Amy Coney Barrett Conspiracy Theory, Attack Her Children.  If you wanted a preview of what is to come once Amy Coney Barret is almost certainly nominated to the Supreme Court today, last night and this morning offered a sneak peak at some of the disgusting attacks that will be pushed.  Apparently, the fact that Barret has adopted children from Haiti is just the kind of thing Democrats are hoping to make an issue.  If you thought gang rape accusations against Kavanaugh were the line, the left are ready to jump across it.

It's time to put [the] first conservative woman on Supreme Court.  Conservative women are thrilled.  President Trump's commitment to nominate a conservative, constitutionalist woman to serve on the Supreme Court is a historic moment for America.  You want to talk about underrepresented voices?  Conservative women have never been represented on our nation's highest court.  Even after the unexpected death of liberal judicial icon Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, there will still be two liberal female justices.  Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court after she was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, was a Republican — but she was not a conservative.

Conservative ad uses RBG's words to argue for replacing her quickly.  A new video ad uses the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's own words to argue the case for filling the Supreme Court seat left empty by her death last week.  The ad released Friday by conservative nonprofit 45Committee is part of the GOP's push to get Ginsburg's successor on the court before the Nov. 3 election.  "The president is elected for four years, not three years, so the power he has in year three continues into year four," the liberal icon is featured saying in September 2016.

Nasty Leftist Cockroaches Turn the Funeral of Their Supposed Hero RBG Into Another Hate-Filled Paul Wellstone Rally, and the Media Treats This As a BIG WIN.  And look at the replies of mentally-ill people talking about how much seeing other people's hatred fills them with joy.  Never in the whole of human history have people with so little virtue spent so much time and energy signaling their lack of virtue.

There's one case that really highlights Ginsburg's toxic judicial activism.  With the fight brewing over a new Supreme Court justice, it's helpful to understand the danger America faces because of Ginsburgian judicial activism.  One of the best examples of Ginsburg's philosophy is Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), in which Ginsburg wrote the dissent, not the opinion.  The facts of the case are simple, which highlights the difference between judicial restraint and judicial activism.

Put term limits on yourselves first!
Democrats prepare bill limiting U.S. Supreme Court justice terms to 18 years.  Democrats in of the House of Representatives will introduce a bill next week to limit the tenure of U.S. Supreme Court justices to 18 years from current lifetime appointments, in a bid to reduce partisan warring over vacancies and preserve the court's legitimacy.  The new bill, seen by Reuters, would allow every president to nominate two justices per four-year term and comes amid heightened political tensions as Republican President Donald Trump prepares to announce his third pick for the Supreme Court after the death on Sept. 18 of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, with just 40 days to go until the Nov. 3 election.

Democrats' Supreme Court war isn't about procedure or propriety, it's just about politics.  When you hear Democrats argue that the Senate and President Trump should not undertake their constitutional role of filling a vacant Supreme Court seat, know the reason.  It has nothing to do with law, precedent, constitutionality, or propriety.  And once Trump has chosen a nominee, it will have nothing to do with that person's quality, personality, history, temperament, or qualifications.  Rather, it will have everything to do with abortion and then, beyond that, the desire among Democrats to advance a broader leftist agenda through the courts, including everything from destroying the gig economy in order to help unions to providing effectively unlimited regulatory power to the federal government.

Joe Biden, the father of 'Borking'.  Supreme Court nomination hearings have gone from serene to savage, thanks largely to Joe Biden.  As head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he presided over the infamous Robert Bork hearings.  His smearing of Bork for his original-intent judicial philosophy transformed hearings for Supreme Court nominees into bloody ideological battles.  Henceforth, all conservative nominees were subjected to "Borking."  Brutal to Bork from the start, Biden treated him not as a serious judge but as a stooge for what Biden called the "Reagan-Meese" agenda.  Biden's transparently unfair treatment of Bork was so bad even The Washington Post editorialized against Biden at the time: [...]

Trump to nominate Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme Court: sources.  President Trump plans to announce that Amy Coney Barrett will be his nominee to the Supreme Court to fill the seat vacated by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, multiple sources told Fox News on Friday [9/25/2020].  The president is expected to make the announcement during a White House event on Saturday.  Barrett currently serves as a judge on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Democrats Launch Smear Attacks on Amy Coney Barrett's Adopted Children.  Democrats began smearing Judge Amy Coney Barrett on Friday night [9/25/2020] before President Donald Trump even nominated her to become the next Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, which he is expected to do on Saturday afternoon.  Dana Houle, a Democrat activist who was once a chief of staff on Capitol Hill to a Democrat lawmaker, tweeted Friday night that he hopes Barrett is investigated over the children she and her husband adopted from Haiti.  "I would love to know which adoption agency Amy Coney Barrett & her husband used to adopt the two children they brought here from Haiti," Houle wrote.

Bipartisan push launched to cap Supreme Court at 9 justices.  A bipartisan effort from Reps.  Collin Peterson and Denver Riggleman seeks to codify the nine-seat Supreme Court panel of justices, and undermine attempts to expand the high court.  Mr. Peterson, Minnesota Democrat, and Mr. Riggleman, Virginia Republican, introduced a constitutional amendment this week to limit lawmakers' ability to reshape the court.  The two argued that attempts to "pack the court" will only worsen partisan divisions and lead to retaliation and the deterioration of American institutions down the road.

McConnell Gets a Sweet Dunk in on Biden, Dares Him to Mansplain Women's Rights to Female Nominee.  Though there were no sarcastic references to "Handmaid's Tale", Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell did include a pretty sweet dunk on Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden in his latest floor speech lecturing Democrats on their panicked hysteria over the upcoming SCOTUS confirmation battle.  Fresh off of his Wednesday [9/23/2020] smackdown of Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Sen. McConnell spent most of today's speech reminding people of how the playbook is the same for Democrats every single time the issue of a Supreme Court nominee comes before the Senate.  Without fail, they immediately declare each and every Republican nominee for the Supreme Court as the one that will set women's rights back decades, centuries, even.  McConnell noted the case was the same in this instance, pointing out how even though Democrats don't even know who the nominee will be at this point that they are still lobbing the same predictable, tiresome accusations.

'Civility' during confirmation process?  Don't be fooled.  If my last two offerings in this space haven't made this clear:  As a committed liberal, Ginsburg had no place in politics or on the Supreme Court.  The last 60 years — and certainly the last six months — have demonstrated unequivocally that liberalism has been the wedge that closeted radicals used to incrementally advance socialism.  Thus, permitting liberals a seat at the table and a voice in the marketplace of ideas was a mistake from Day 1.  Despite having believed the foregoing for many years, in the past I've attenuated my criticism of liberals in this area for the sole reason that I knew most people — even most rank-and-file conservatives — were not necessarily aware of just how odious, amoral and villainous leftists truly are, and I surmised that I would not win hearts and minds by appearing to be pig-headed.

Ginsburg flap shows Supreme Court, justices are too important.  Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died, and the country — or at least its political class — is descending into what will no doubt be a multi-week screaming fit.  In fact, the screaming has already begun.  But that fact tells us something about the state of our nation, and it's not anything good.  When your political system can be thrown into hysteria by something as predictable as the death of an octogenarian with advanced cancer, there's something wrong with your political system.  And when your judicial system can be redirected by such an event, there's something wrong with your judicial system, too. [...] Why does Justice Ginsburg's replacement matter so much that even "respectable" media figures are calling for violence in the streets if President Trump tries to replace her?  Because the Supreme Court has been narrowly balanced for a while, with first Justice Anthony Kennedy, and later Chief Justice John Roberts serving as a swing vote.

Getting the Politics Wrong on Supreme Court Nominees.  Several outlets identify 11th U.S. Circuit Court Judge Barbara Lagoa as a leading contender to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court.  President Trump has described her as "highly thought of ... I don't know her but I hear she's outstanding."  While her sparse record as a federal judge indicates good legal reasoning and writing skills, why in the world is she being considered for the nation's highest court?  The rest of the president's statement offers a clue: "I'm getting a lot of phone calls from a lot of people."  During her 10 months on the federal bench, Judge Lagoa has penned 11 opinions, only three of which are even formally "published," meaning the other eight have no precedential legal weight in future cases.  More than half of her opinions are in routine areas of criminal law, and the others mainly involve questions of state law in cases that happen to be filed in federal court. [...] One need not think badly of Barbara Lagoa to conclude that nominating her would invoke the specter of prior unforced Republican errors such as the addition of David Souter to the court by George H. W. Bush, and his son's failed effort to nominate his friend and White House counsel Harriet Miers.

Their Rantings Betray Them.  The compulsive and self-righteous bellicosity of the Democratic leaders in Congress over the Supreme Court vacancy has opened an opportunity for President Trump to strike decisively.  It is admittedly controversial for a president to fill a high court vacancy starting six weeks before a presidential election, but it is entirely constitutional.  What's more, it has applicable precedents, including most conspicuously the elevation of Chief Justice John Marshall by President John Adams after he had been defeated in the 1800 election.

Media assault on Amy Coney Barrett begins as Trump weighs decision.  A media campaign has erupted against Amy Coney Barrett, even though President Trump hasn't actually nominated her to the Supreme Court.  Barrett is clearly the front-runner, having spent a second straight day at the White House as the president moves toward his Saturday [9/26/2020] announcement.  And of course there should be substantial scrutiny of her record if she's picked, given that replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a lifetime appointment.  But there are early signs this is going to be ugly, and that her religion will be front and center.  That subject came up in 2017 when the Senate approved her as a federal appeals court judge in Chicago.  Newsweek jumped on the judge with a smear that turned out to be factually wrong.

Sen. Murkowski relaxes position on SCOTUS nominee, signals Trump pick is on the table.  Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski unexpectedly threw a wrench the size of the Grand Canyon into congressional Democrats' plans to block President Donald Trump from confirming a replacement for the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  Though she and Sen. Susan Collins had initially indicated they would vote against confirming the president's still-unannounced nominee, she backtracked slightly while speaking outside the Capitol this Wednesday [9/23/2020], according to Alaska Public Media. "I know everybody wants to ask the question, 'will you confirm the nominee?'  We don't have a nominee yet.  You and I don't know who that is.  And so I can't confirm whether or not I can confirm a nominee when I don't know who the nominee is," she said.  In other words, she's left open the possibility that she may vote for the president's nominee.

What's Really at Stake in 2020.  The reaction to [Ruth B.] Ginsburg's death, and to Republican plans to fill her seat on the Supreme Court, underscores the choice before the electorate:  Does it prefer to live in a democratic republic ordered toward the principles of the Founders and the constitutional structure they designed to protect individual liberty?  Or would it rather dwell in a plebiscitary democracy where the original meaning of the Constitution, when it is not explicitly repudiated, is politely overlooked in order to satisfy ever more radical egalitarian demands?  Needless to say, the answer is up in the air, and has been for some time. [...] The fight over the Supreme Court vacancy Ginsburg left behind also illuminated the lengths to which some progressives are prepared to go to make real their vision of the future.  And it is in their openness to institutional upheaval that the real import of this election may be found.  If enacted, the measures these Democrats propose would warp our constitutional system.  They would turn the American government into a creature far different from the one the Founders made.

Hysterical Precedent and the Supreme Court.  In reality, neither prompt nominations nor quick confirmations are unprecedented or even unusual.  The first woman to sit on the Supreme Court, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, was nominated by President Ronald Reagan on August 19, 1981, and confirmed by the Senate 33 days later.  The second woman to sit on the Court, Justice Ginsburg, was nominated by President Bill Clinton June 22, 1993, and confirmed 42 days later.  And these are by no means the fastest Senate confirmation votes on record.  As Thomas Jipping of the Heritage Foundation points out, "The Senate confirmed James Byrnes in 1941 on the same day that President Franklin Roosevelt nominated him.  Four years later, Roosevelt's nomination of Harold Burton languished longer (for a single day)."  In fact, dozens of Supreme Court nominees have been confirmed within 30 days of their nominations.

Democrats worry Feinstein can't handle Supreme Court battle.  As the Senate prepares for yet another brutal Supreme Court nomination fight, one particularly sensitive issue is creating apprehension among Democrats: what to do with 87-year-old Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.  Feinstein, the oldest member of the Senate, is widely respected by senators in both parties, but she has noticeably slowed in recent years.  Interviews with more than a dozen Democratic senators and aides show widespread concern over whether the California Democrat is capable of leading the aggressive effort Democrats need against whoever President Donald Trump picks to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Trump Should Make a Recess Appointment to the Supreme Court.  The United States Constitution, at Article II, Section 2, Clause 3, provides that [t]he President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."  In other words, the Constitution allows the president to make recess appointments, which are temporary, but effective, while the Senate is in recess.  This includes the power to make recess appointments to the Supreme Court.  Why is there a need to do this?  Because this presidential election is a litigation fiasco waiting to happen, creating a compelling reason for a recess appointment, followed by permanent confirmation of the recess appointee.  The Supreme Court does not need to be divided four-four on matters that might adjudicate a presidential election, not for one second longer than it needs to be.  Remember Bush v. Gore?  Well, 2020 is about to make 2000 look like a game of pattycake.

There are no Obama judges or Trump judges, except when there are.  In November 2018, in response to another of the usual leftist rulings from the Ninth Circuit Court out of San Francisco, President Trump referred to the judge making the determination as an "Obama Judge."  Responding to a query regarding this event made by the Associated Press, the Supreme Court chief justice, John Roberts, is quoted as saying, "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges."  To name just a few of many examples, the past Democrat persecution of Judges Bork and Clarence Thomas, and the vicious attack by the Democrats on now-justice Kavanaugh, makes the chief justice's words incomprehensible.  If the Supreme Court justices are to act as umpires, assessing facts from a common set of rules, then why are so many decisions so clearly split along perceived party lines?  The world Chief Justice Roberts lives in is imaginary.  Has the chief justice missed the immediate vows of lawfare, political obstruction, and even violence expressed by the Democrats upon the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg?  In his fantasy world, does he not comprehend the importance the Democrats have placed on activist "judges" to put in place their agenda that cannot be passed by the legislative process?

Their Brutal Kavanaugh Smear Operation Disqualifies Democrats' Demands About Next Nominee.  [T]wo years ago Democrats served as accomplices to Christine Blasey Ford, who offered false testimony, under oath, to the U.S. Senate in an attempt to thwart the Supreme Court confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh.  In the words of her whom they hoped would nominate the next several Supreme Court justices:  "What difference at this point does it make?"  What difference does it make what Joe Biden and Mitch McConnell said in 2016 about voting on the nomination of President Barack Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland?  What difference does it make that at the time the White House and Senate were controlled by different parties, and now they are not?  What difference does it make that Sen. Chuck Schumer has threatened that, if Republicans confirm a justice then Democrats regain the Senate, Democrats will expand the size of the court and stack it with leftist justices?  What difference at this point do any of these lawful exercises of raw political power have on our constitutional republic?  None.  The brute exercise of political power has consequences and counters, but Democrats' decision in 2018 to collude instead with the criminally minded — and the media's willingness to play along — has rendered the discussion of today's political power plays meaningless.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg v. Life and Liberty.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ought to be remembered for two things: her attacks on the right to life and her attacks on religious liberty.  In the 2000 case of Stenberg v. Carhart, the Supreme Court considered whether a state could prohibit partial-birth abortion.  What is a partial-birth abortion?  Justice Clarence Thomas answered that with clinical clarity in his dissenting opinion. [Gruesome details omitted here.]  In her own opinion, concurring in the court's judgment that it was unconstitutional for states to ban partial-birth abortion, Ginsburg did not contest Thomas's description.  But she mocked what she called the "emotional uproar" the procedure caused.

Breaking Ranks?  Dem Senator Blasts Party's Treatment of Barrett's Religion.  Since approximately one minute after Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death was announced on Friday, politicians on both sides of the aisle have been voicing their opinions about filling her seat just weeks before the next presidential election.  President Donald Trump has said he will nominate a potential replacement at the end of the week.  The left has already started a smear campaign against one of the candidates thought to be at the top of Trump's shortlist, Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.  Their biggest gripe so far?  Barrett's Catholic faith.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Enabled An Atrocity Equal To Slavery, And Andrew Cuomo Wants To Build Her A Statue.  New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has announced his intention to erect a statue in Brooklyn in honor of the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. [...] In the days since her death, Ginsburg has been rightly remembered as someone whose legacy will long be felt in this country.  Yet a huge part of that legacy was her promotion of an industry that is as morally heinous and devaluing of human life as slavery: the abortion industry.  Recent paeans from pro-abortion voices have referred to Ginsburg as "one of the Supreme Court's strongest champions for abortion rights," a "relentless" defender of "reproductive rights," and an "unmatched guardian of each individual's right to choose abortion care."  Of course, Cuomo would no doubt say her support of abortion "rights" is one reason she deserves a statue.  In January 2019, Cuomo signed the Reproductive Health Act, describing it as "a giant step forward in the hard-fought battle to ensure a woman's right to make her own decisions about her own personal health."

Dems hitting the panic button over Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on SCOTUS nominee.  The smarter Democrats realize that not only do Republicans have the votes to confirm a replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but that hearings on the confirmation threaten to be a disaster for them.  Expressing the bloodlust they felt at the prospect of Brett Kavanaugh being confirmed may have provided momentary emotional satisfaction, but 2018 Republican gains in the Senate were painful and lasting.  But the abortion-supporters whom the party depends on for energy and funding want the hearings to savage whomever the president nominates.  Therein lies grave peril for the party, particularly since its vice presidential nominee (who openly speaks of the Harris-Biden ticket) sits on the Judiciary Committee and fancies herself a devastatingly effective cross-examiner.

Who's violating norms these days?  Consider the question of whether and when the president and Senate should fill the Supreme Court seat vacated by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  The historical precedent is clear, as set out by National Review's Dan McLaughlin.  When a vacancy occurs in a presidential year and the opposition party has a majority in the Senate, the president can nominate, but the nominee is almost never confirmed.  There have been 10 such vacancies in the history of the republic.  Presidents made pre-Election Day nominations in six cases, but only one nominee was confirmed before the election.  That was in 1888.  Presidents whose parties had Senate majorities selected nominees in election years 19 times, and 17 of those nominees were confirmed.

Ted Cruz Blocks 'Partisan' Amendment To Resolution Honoring RBG After Schumer Attempts To Slip In 'Dying Wish'.  Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) blocked an amendment to a Senate resolution intended to honor the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg after Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) attempted to add language to it emphasizing that her "dying wish" was to be replaced after the inauguration.  In what is already turning into a heated Senate battle over the late justice's replacement, the ceremonial resolution was tabled on Tuesday after Cruz and Schumer went back and forth on whether it was too politicized, according to The Dallas Morning News. [...] Cruz, in response, said, "Unfortunately, the Democratic leader has put forth an amendment to turn that bipartisan resolution into a partisan resolution."  "Specifically, the Democratic leader wants to add a statement that Justice Ginsburg's position should not be filled until a new president is installed, purportedly based on a comment Justice Ginsburg made to family members shortly before she passed," he added.

A 'Circus' Senate Hearing?  GOP Sees Gain if Dems Act Up.  First and foremost, Republicans want the nominee confirmed.  But they wouldn't mind a melee in the Judiciary Committee either.  A clash between Harris and Trump's first female nominee, they believe, would drive turnout in November — the more contentious, the better.  A prosecutor and state attorney general before entering national politics, Harris could certainly leave a dent.  A bruising line of questioning between the senator and Kavanaugh over abortion rights, among other topics, didn't derail his career.  It did propel hers.

The Riot Party Comes for the Court.  If President Trump appoints a justice and Democrats finds themselves unable to legislate through the Supreme Court, they will try to pack it.  Such a radical move was unthinkable a decade ago, because it would destroy the independence and legitimacy of the judicial branch, but to the modern left, that's not discouraging.  The destruction of America's institutions is a moral necessity, and it helps them reach their ultimate goal faster — power.  Suddenly, all the episodes of the last four years make sense.  From the Mueller investigation to the Kavanaugh hearings to partisan impeachment, it's all a loop.  The modern left undermines institutions to gain power and it gains power as institutions weaken.

Pros And Cons For Three Top Contenders To Replace Ginsburg On Court.  While Democrats and NeverTrump adherents have begged Republicans not to fill the seat, some threatening to pack the court or otherwise retaliate if the Constitutional process proceeds, Republican voters and those they elected have declined to pursue failure as their first strategy.  Most observers believe that the top two contenders are Judge Amy Coney Barrett and Judge Barbara Lagoa.  Here's a quick look at both, along with a non-female on the list who might be worth considering.

America [is] in peril if RBG's SCOTUS seat is not filled before the election.  [Scroll down]  SCOTUS confirmation hearings used to be boring even by C-Span standards.  Senator Bob Dole once remarked that the toughest part of a confirmation hearing was for the Senate committee chairman to be able to "stare straight ahead at the witness while sleeping."  Presidents of both parties were given broad latitude to appoint whoever they liked to the courts and to their cabinet.  Unless a nominee had been guilty of serious malfeasance, they were easily confirmed.  Ideology was never a factor since it was expected that nominees shared the ideology of the president who nominated them.  This all changed in 1987.  Judge Robert Bork would have been the fifth vote to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.  Democrats decided that the ends justified the means.  Bork had to be personally destroyed.  Leading the charge against Bork were Senators Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden.  Ideology alone became grounds for disqualification.  Democrats declared every liberal nominee to be mainstream and every conservative nominee to be extreme.  After torpedoing Bork, Democrats almost derailed Clarence Thomas.

Democratic Past Political Games Have Presented Trump with SCOTUS Nomination.  In 2016, Americans made their voices heard by electing Donald Trump as President and ensuring a Republican-majority in the Senate.  Per our Constitution, the United States the President has a duty and obligation to provide nominations to the Senate for consideration to the Supreme Court.  Senate Republicans didn't honor Obama a vote on his nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016 — and they didn't have to.  The U.S. Constitution states that a President has the right and duty to nominate Supreme Court justices, and the Senate has the right and responsibility to vote on those nominations if they choose.  In 2016, Senate Republicans had enough of Obama's destruction within our nation's democracy.  President Trump announced that he would indeed nominate a woman to replace a woman on the Supreme Court. [...] No matter who Trump selects, the left has made it clear that they will stop at nothing to disrupt the process.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Didn't Understand Her Job.  Ruth Bader Ginsburg did a great many interesting and impressive things in her life, but she never did the one thing she probably really should have done: run for office.  Ruth Bader Ginsburg wasn't an associate justice of the Supreme Court — not really:  She was a legislator in judicial drag.  You need not take my word on this:  Ask her admirers.  "Ruth Bader Ginsburg had a vision for America," Linda Hirshman argues in the Washington Post.  What was her vision?  "To make America fairer, to make justice bigger."  That is not a job for a judge — that is a job for a legislator.  The job of making law properly belongs to — some people find this part hard to handle — lawmakers.  Making law is not the job of the judge.

Don't Let Democrats Hijack Trump's Next Supreme Court Pick.  RBG's parting message that her "most fervent wish is that [she] will not be replaced until a new president is installed," while dramatic, is meaningless.  This "jurist of historic stature" might have had complete control over her courtroom, but she has no authority — alive or from beyond the grave — to hand down rulings about her successor or the process by which her replacement is selected. [...] We don't know what kind of pain RBG was in, if she was taking morphine, was lucid, or actually said what is claimed. [...] But, assuming she was lucid and indeed made this dying declaration, it was rank political theater for her to consciously tie the very personal event of her death to the blood sport of politics and intentionally insinuate herself into a political firestorm on the eve of a contentious election.

Democrats' terrible bluff on the Supreme Court.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a legitimate hero to millions of Americans, a jurisprudential giant and a model for reasoned liberalism.  She would be deeply mourned no matter what the circumstances, and whoever was likely to replace her.  But the circumstances, of course, are anything but calming to those who venerate Ginsburg's legacy.  If President Trump follows through and nominates a successor within the next few days, and if that nominee is confirmed, the Supreme Court will tilt decisively to the right because a Republican Senate refused to consider a Democratic president's nominee in an election year; then a Republican won the presidency despite losing the popular vote; and then the same Republican Senate leadership completely reversed their position from four years ago, approving a Republican appointment to the Court even though the election is well underway.  It's hard to imagine a set of circumstances better calculated to undermine the legitimacy of the Court with liberals.

As Romney and Murkowski back SCOTUS confirmation vote, Dems are giving up and focusing on demonizing yes-voting senators up for re-election.  Mitt Romney's announcement that he will vote on President Trump's nominee to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court "based on their qualifications" is getting plenty of media attention.  But for some reason, Alaska's Lisa Murkowski's much more surprising announcement that she can't rule out voting for a nominee, reversing her position last week that she would not vote on a nominee before Inauguration Day, is getting no MSM attention at all, according to Google.

Grudge match:  Supreme Court nomination fight to take place in the shadow of Kavanaugh, Ginsburg, and Garland.  The looming battle over President Trump's third Supreme Court nominee will be colored by lingering bad blood over past confirmation fights, as both Democrats and Republicans have been radicalized by perceived slights to previous nominees.  Republicans and conservative activists are incensed by the treatment of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who they believe was falsely smeared as a rapist and dealt with unfairly by Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats.  Sen. Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who currently chairs the panel, has specifically invoked the Kavanaugh hearings in explaining why he has abandoned his reluctance to confirm a Supreme Court nominee during an election year.

Democrats shoot down talk of expanding Supreme Court.  Senate Democrats are tamping down talk of expanding the Supreme Court if Republicans fill the seat held by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  Progressive activists and some lawmakers have raised the idea since Ginsburg's death was announced on Friday night, arguing the party needs to be ready to take bold steps if they have the Senate majority and the White House next year while facing a 6-3 conservative court.  The effort would tie together two controversial ideas: nixing the 60-vote legislative filibuster and then passing legislation to add seats to the Supreme Court, which has been set at nine justices since 1869.  But several Democratic senators, including senior members of the caucus, are shooting down the idea altogether or warning that debating it now is a distraction from the fight over Ginsburg's seat.

White House:  We Believe Supreme Court Seat Can Be Filled in 37 Days.  The White House on Tuesday [9/22/2020] signaled confidence that Republicans could successfully confirm the president's nominee to the Supreme Court before the election.  During the White House press briefing, Fox News reporter John Roberts questioned White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany whether it would be possible to finish the nomination process in 37-38 days.  "We certainly believe we can," McEnany said.

Daggers come out for Mitt Romney when he announces he'll be following the Constitution on SCOTUS pick.  Sen. Mitt Romney, infamous for his long-running feud with President Donald Trump, said Tuesday [9/22/2020] he is not opposed to potentially voting on a successor to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg before the November election, eliciting tremendous pushback on social media.  The Utah Republican's assurance comes amid questions over whether his opposition to Trump — he was the only GOP senator to vote to impeach the president — was going to lead him to come out in support of Democrats who are demanding the successor be named by the next president.

Brace for Democrats to knock Catholics, again.  How much do Democrats hate Roman Catholics?  We're about to find out, once President Trump nominates, most likely, Judge Amy Coney Barrett for the U.S. Supreme Court.  No surprises here — the Democrats have a long, sordid history of anti-Catholicism.  And Judge Barrett understands the Democrats' rabid bigotry first-hand, from her first Senate confirmation hearing in 2017, when she was confronted by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the now 87-year-old Democrat doyenne.  "When you read your speeches," Feinstein told her, "the conclusion one draws is that the Dogma lives loudly within you.  And that's a concern."  Imagine Feinstein saying that to a Muslim.  You can't.

The Attacks on Judge Barrett Have Already Started.  Some left-wingers aren't waiting for Judge Amy Barrett to be nominated to the Supreme Court to start attacking her.  The attacks over the last few days have been steeped in anti-Catholicism, other types of bigotry, and lazy error.  A headline at the left-wing website Refinery29 called her "the Potential RBG Replacement Who Hates Your Uterus."  (I'm guessing she didn't come to have seven children by hating anyone's uterus.)  Newsweek ran a story claiming that she is part of a Catholic group that inspired Margaret Atwood to write The Handmaid's Tale.  It then appended a correction at the bottom of the page noting that Atwood had referred to a different Catholic group.  Oops.  Then Refinery29 picked up the smear and ran with it.

The conservative moment.  The passing of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gives conservatives and Republicans what they claim to have wanted since judicial activism became the norm in the 1960s.  From outlawing prayer and Bible reading in public schools, to the infamous Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion, conservative Republicans have yearned for a time when a Republican president and Republican majority Senate might put an end to judges making law and return to the day when Congress was the legislator.  Yet, Republican presidents have appointed several liberals to the Court.  President Dwight Eisenhower appointed five members to the Supreme Court, including Earl Warren and William Brennan.  Eisenhower purportedly said years later that, "I have made two mistakes, and they are both sitting on the Supreme Court."  Richard Nixon named Harry Blackmun, the primary author of Roe v. Wade.  Gerald Ford named liberal John Paul Stevens.  Ronald Reagan selected Sandra Day O'Connor, who upheld several challenges to Roe v. Wade, and Anthony Kennedy, who ruled same-sex marriage constitutional.  George H.W. Bush picked David Souter, a liberal, and George W. Bush selected John Roberts, who has been inconsistent on some issues, like Obamacare.

Newsweek [is] Forced To Issue Major Retraction After It Smears Amy Coney Barrett, Claims.  Newsweek magazine has issued a major correction to an article smearing potential Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, accusing the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals judge of belonging to a Catholic sect that "inspired" the novel "The Handmaid's Tale."  Initially, Newsweek claimed that "People of Praise," a charismatic Catholic group to which Barrett reportedly belongs, "served as inspiration for Margaret Atwood's dystopian novel, The Handmaid's Tale," adding that female members are forced to report to spiritual superiors known as "handmaids," and that the group stresses that "men have authority over their wives."

Amy Coney Barrett Is Living The Handmaid's Tale?  [Scroll down]  One former member described the group as an:  ["]abusive cult in which women are completely obedient to men and independent thinkers are humiliated, interrogated, shamed and shunned.["]  Indeed.  After all, Barrett's knuckle-dragging misogynistic religious fanatic husband has only let the poor woman out of the house twice.  Once, to serve a 15-year stint as a law professor at a highly prestigious university.  And again to slave away as a judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Romney Says Let's Get This SCOTUS Vote In Now; Update: 51.  There's not much more to add to this, since it adds up to 51 — at&Nbsp;least for now.  The writing on this wall probably came yesterday [9/21/2020] after retiring Sen. Lamar Alexander declared his intent to vote for Donald Trump's Supreme Court pick.  Alexander, who usually votes with the majority but likes to work across the aisle, was one of the big votes McConnell needed in harness, pour encourager les autres in a way.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Opposed Democrats' Extreme Proposal To Pack The Court.  While Democrats threaten to expand the Supreme Court next year should Republicans fulfill their constitutional duty to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who passed away Friday, the late justice made comments as recently as last year opposing the extreme measure.  "Nine seems to be a good number.  It's been that way for a long time," Ginsburg told NPR in July 2019.  "I think it was a bad idea when President Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the court."  Ginsburg continued, warning that such a move would only politicize the court. [...]

Ali Wentworth says she cried for 45 minutes in the car after Ruth Bader Ginsburg died.  Actress Ali Wentworth said she and her husband, Good Morning America anchor George Stephanopoulos, both ended up crying in the family car for 45 minutes after he told her that Ruth Bader Ginsburg had died.  The 55-year-old appeared on Live with Kelly and Ryan on Monday [9/21/2020] where she revealed the deeply personal moment on air.  Wentworth explained how the family were out to dinner on Friday night when they heard the 87-year-old Supreme Court Justice had died.

The Editor says...
[#1] The opinions of actors and actresses are no more valuable that yours or mine.  [#2] The only people who act like this are those whose religion is Big Government, and those who think unrestricted abortion is essential to happiness.  [#3] This event is apocryphal.  It's the kind of thing one says on Live with Regis — I mean, Kelly — in order to score points with the show's left-wing producers.  It wasn't a "deeply personal moment" as much as a publicity stunt for the purpose of connecting the so-called celebrity with current events.  The entire show is replete with left-wing politics every day, as one might expect from a Disney production.  The political content wasn't as oppressive before Disney took over ABC, or vice versa.

Democrats Furious As Dianne Feinstein Dismisses Packing Supreme Court.  Democrats have reacted with anger after Senator Dianne Feinstein appeared to dismiss the idea of ending the filibuster and expanding the Supreme Court.  Feinstein was asked about abolishing the filibuster which allows a senator to hold up the passage of legislation by speaking for hours at a time.  The California Democrat ruled out getting rid of the filibuster as part of an effort to pack the Supreme Court.  "I don't believe in doing that.  I think the filibuster serves a purpose.  It is not often used, it's often less used now than when I first came, and I think it's part of the Senate that differentiates itself," Feinstein said.

The Two Women at the Top of the Supreme Court List.  The New York Times reports that in a phone call with Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, Trump is said to have mentioned two female appellate court judges — Amy Coney Barrett and Barbara Lagoa — as being on his short list.  What do we know about them?  Barrett has been initially viewed as the early favorite.  Jonathan Swan of Axios reported in 2019 that Trump had said of Barrett:  "I'm saving her for Ginsburg."  Axios said he used that exact line with several people, including an adviser two days before revealing Kavanaugh's nomination.  The high standing in which Barrett is held by conservative lawyers and activists is undisputed.  She is only 48 years old and would probably serve on the court for a generation.  Her academic writings indicate that she's pro-life.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, eugenicist.  Anyone notice an absence of Black faces at the recent Ruth Bader Ginsburg memorials? [...] She's being lionized, though, and several prominent supposed Black leaders such as Rep. James Clyburn, (the man who brought us Joe Biden) and the Rev. Al Sharpton have sung her praises.  Like the Black Lives Matter protests, though, it's mostly an all-white show with some black people out front.  One reason may be that Ginsburg was Jewish and anti-Semitism in the U.S. is the strongest in the black community.  But there's also Ginsburg herself, who had some pretty questionable views about abortion and race.

Majority of Americans want Senate to move on Supreme Court decision: poll.  Most Americans, regardless of whether they are Republican or Democrat, believe the Senate should move forward with confirmation hearings for a Supreme Court Justice this year, a new poll says.  The Marquette University Law School poll found 67% of respondents believed confirmation should proceed in 2020 while just 32% said the chamber should hold off.  The survey was conducted between Sept. 8 to Sept. 15 — just days before the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg from cancer Friday evening.

Newt Gingrich Puts Kamala Harris In a No-Win Situation Over Amy Coney Barrett.  Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich foresees President Donald Trump nominating Amy Coney Barrett as the woman to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court, but having the tactical mind he does, Gingrich wants to make it clear that this is more of a problem for the Democrats than they think.  Barrett is a devout Catholic, and as such, effectively dared Democrats to attack her on those grounds, specifically potential Democrat VP Kamala Harris, who has a history of anti-Catholic bias.  "If President Trump nominates Amy Coney Barrett, Notre Dame Law Professor, Appeals Court judge, mother of 7 (2 adopted from Haiti), clerk for Scalia, devout Catholic, it will pose a unique challenge for Kamala Harris — the most anti-Catholic bigot nominated in over a century," tweeted Gingrich.  "Are Democrats prepared to say a devout Catholic is by definition unfit to serve on the Supreme Court?" he continued.  "If no pro-life Justice is acceptable then no faithful Catholic, Evangelical or Orthodox Jew can be considered.  Are Democrats really prepared to alienate that many Americans?"

The Democrats' Conventional Wisdom Straightjacket:  RBG Edition.  Every elected Democrat in Congress has been caterwauling that President Trump would "break precedent" if he nominates someone to replace RBG during this election year.  The media have been incessantly hammering Republican senators for voicing their support to violate that (Democrat-created) convention, which is nowhere to be found in the US Constitution.  Never mind that Obama nominated Merrick Garland in the waning months of 2016, and virtually all Democrats railed when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) set aside Garland's nomination.  And in a variation on that theme, the Democrat-media complex claim that senators who sustained the filibuster against Garland in 2016 are being called "hypocrites" for their willingness to vote to confirm a Trump nominee in 2020.  Never mind the apples and oranges comparison:  in 2016, the president was a Democrat and the Senate was majority Republican; in 2020, the presidency and the Senate are Republican.

Why Amy Coney Barrett is hands-down best pick to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  Picture a female jurist who has consistently defied social expectations imposed on women and whose legal thinking is closely bound up with her faith.  No, I'm not talking about Amy Coney Barrett, reported to top President Trump's list of candidates to fill the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat.  I'm talking about Ginsburg herself.  Ginsburg believed fervently that conventional expectations shouldn't hinder women as they seek their full, fair share of public life.  Nor was she shy about how her Jewish faith shaped her judicial mind.  In an essay for the American Jewish Committee published in 1993, she wrote:  "Laws as protectors of the oppressed, the poor, the loner, is evident in the work of my Jewish predecessors. ... The biblical command 'Justice, justice shalt thou pursue' is a strand that ties them together."  By those criteria, Barrett would make a most worthy successor to RBG.

The Editor says...
The phrase "Justice, justice shalt thou pursue" is apparently a misquotation of Deuteronomy 16:20.  That phrase is not in any version of the Bible of which I am aware.

RBG Condemned What Many Democrats Are Now Suggesting For The Supreme Court.  The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg once said that 'packing the courts' is problematic and has said it is a bad idea when Democrats have done it in the past.

How Ruth Bader Ginsburg May Help Reelect Donald Trump and the Republican Senate.  [Scroll down]  As this fight develops, it looks like an almost perfect set-up for beleaguered Republicans.  Expect a nominee this week.  The White House and Senate GOP leadership have been planning for this moment.  Even when the Senate was taking up impeachment (that seems like years, maybe decades ago!) there was talk on Capitol Hill as to how the Senate would handle a Supreme Court nomination if Ginsburg's health faltered.  Today it is important to have a "decent interval" so the process doesn't look overly choreographed.  And it would make sense to leave the final decision open to account for the overall political context at the moment of decision.

Here come the Know-Nothings.  Judge Amy Coney Barrett is the front-runner to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court.  Barrett is a mother of seven.  She is also a devout Roman Catholic.  Prepare yourself for a deluge of anti-Catholic hysteria from Democratic lawmakers, left-wing activists, and their allies in the press.  The closer Barrett comes to sitting on the Supreme Court, the more desperate and uglier the anti-Catholic and anti-family attacks will become.  In fact, with reports that Barrett is already the Trump administration's first choice for the court, the Know-Nothing histrionics have begun already.

FDR's Court-Packing Attempt.  A brouhaha has erupted over President Donald Trump's decision to forward a Supreme Court justice nominee to the Senate for confirmation.  Democrats have threatened to pack the court if Democrats capture both the White House and the Senate in November.  This would be the second such attempt in that past century.  Eight decades ago, Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to pack the Supreme Court in retaliation for justices unanimously finding many of his programs unconstitutional.

Democrats answer to anything they dislike is increasingly 'burn it all down'.  Constitutional revolution is going mainstream.  After delivering lectures about political norms for the entirety of the Trump era (often with good cause), much of the left is now threatening to kneecap an important institution of American government on a partisan vote in an act of ideological vengeance.  If the Republican Senate confirms a Trump appointee to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Supreme Court seat right before or after the election, progressives say Democrats, if they sweep in November, should retaliate by packing the high court.  This would do vastly more damage to norms and the governing structures of the country than anything President Trump has said or done, but respectable center-left outlets like The New Yorker and Vox have run pieces advocating it, and Democratic leaders are making fraught "all options on the table" statements.

Levin: Schumer uttered 'words of a fascist, of a Brownshirt, of a totalitarian' amid SCOTUS battle.  [Scroll down]  Schumer's statements, Levin continued, "are the words of a fascist, of a Brownshirt, of a totalitarian."  "The Constitution determines what's on the table," he continued, adding that Democrats' ultimate goal — amid their threats and intimidation — is to create the conditions to give them permanent control of the United States and its government.  "The Democrats have already threatened — and intend to — eliminate the filibuster rule as it applies to legislation," said Levin, who noted that such a move would render the minority party obsolete as a force for compromise.

'I'd refer Biden to his own words': Kayleigh McEnany makes quick work of Gayle King's gotcha.  CBS anchor Gayle King opened the interview by pointing to polling that showed 52% of Americans say the Supreme Court opening brought about by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg should be filled by whoever wins the election, asking whether President Trump would go along with polling.  "The president is clear in saying that he'll be nominating someone to the Supreme Court," McEnany replied.  "In fact, 29 times in history a president in their last year of their term has, in fact, nominated someone and been considered by the Senate.  The president will be following that precedent, and we believe voters will be supportive of this move as we move forward and they see the quality of our nominee."

Ginsburg and Providence in American Politics.  [Scroll down]  The death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg has turned the 2020 election on its head.  Ginsburg was the standard bearer of the left-wing politics of the Democratic progressivism, and she was the stalwart defender of radical feminism and abortion in the Supreme Court.  From her seat on the Court, Ginsburg provided the constitutional cover for the culture war that Democrats have waged against America's founding values.

Mitch McConnell Takes the Senate Floor, Demolishes Democrat Arguments Over Supreme Court.  Just when you thought Mitch McConnell couldn't become anymore of a cult figure, The Washington Post decided to give him another nickname. [...] Though he's never been a hard line conservative on some policy issues, McConnell has always been a terror for the left when it comes to appointing judges.  Now, he's staring down his third appointment in just four years under President Donald Trump because of the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Dem's fury over next SCOTUS pick mainly betrays tremendous historical ignorance.  It's 2020, so naturally a nation already beset by bitter political divisions now faces yet another Supreme Court confirmation fight, thanks to the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg at 87.  Ginsburg had a landmark legal career even before moving to the Supreme Court, where she served 27 years until her death Friday:  She was a feminist hero who greatly advanced legal recognition of women's rights.  Now the prospect that her replacement will be chosen by a Republican president and Senate has the left even more exercised than the right was when President Barack Obama nominated a moderate liberal, Judge Merrick Garland, to fill the seat of conservative great Antonin Scalia.

Who's Afraid of Amy Coney Barrett?  Amy Coney Barrett isn't the only jurist on President Trump's list of potential successors to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court, but she is certainly the most feared by the Left.  This became clear in 2017, when Trump nominated her for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  During her Senate confirmation hearing, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee subjected her to a de facto inquisition, complete with outrageous inquiries concerning her Catholicism.  Barrett's response was eminently judicial:  "It's never appropriate for a judge to impose personal convictions, whether they derive from faith or anywhere else, on the law."  Regrettably, Judge Barrett's remarkable forbearance during that 2017 interrogation probably hasn't rendered her immune from the kind of character assassination to which any jurist nominated by President Trump to replace Ginsburg will be subjected.

Republican Party Highlights What Top Democrats Said About Filling SCOTUS Seat In 2016.  The Republican National Committee released a video on Sunday highlighting the words of many top Democrats in 2016 on the issue of filling a Supreme Court seat during an election year.  The digital ad follows the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday after the 87-year-old associate justice lost the fight in her fifth bout with cancer. [...] RNC Rapid Response Director Steve Guest said that Democrats should follow their previous statements and move to immediately fill the vacancy. "'The American people deserve a fully-staffed court of nine.'  Those are Joe Biden's words, and we agree," Guest said.  "As precedent and Democrats' own words dictate, President Trump has an obligation to fill the vacancy without delay."

Tammy Bruce goes 100% scorched-earth on Dick Blumenthal for threats over RBG's seat.  Democrats keep issuing threats ... As in elected Democrats, not just random liberal Democrats.  Elected Democrats like Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who threatened in a tweet posted Saturday afternoon that "nothing is off the table" if his Republican colleagues go against his party's wishes and vote on President Donald Trump's expected SCOTUS nominee.  "If Republicans recklessly & reprehensibly force a SCOTUS vote before the election — nothing is off the table," the full tweet by the Connecticut senator reads.

Trump questions Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dying wish about Supreme Court appointment.  President Trump pushed back when asked if he was going against Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dying wish by appointing someone before the November election, questioning whether she even personally made the alleged remarks.  Speaking to Fox News on Monday morning, the commander-in-chief made the claim while discussing why he was moving forward with a nominee to replace the liberal icon, who passed away Friday night at the age of 87.  "Well, I don't know that she said that, or was that written out by [Rep.] Adam Schiff and Schumer and Pelosi?" the president asked the hosts, adding, "I would be more inclined to the second."  He was referring to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

A Nomination to Confound and Confirm.  Considering the Democrats' howls of outrage about not waiting to fill the vacancy until after the election, it would behoove Trump to move rapidly and create "facts on the ground" — i.e., to announce the nominee, whoever it might be, Monday or Tuesday at the latest.  This is no time to dilly-dally.  We also know that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell intends to hold a vote (we don't know when — before or after November 3) and that at least Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) is on board.  Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is also presumably on board.  Lisa Murkowski ("R"-Alaska) — we assume — is not on board.  Susan Collins (R-Maine) is not on board with the idea of the vote, but how she would actually vote is anyone's guess.

Ginsburg's Death and the Dangerous Politics Ahead.  Since Justice Ginsburg was both historic figure and reliable liberal vote on the United States Supreme Court, replacing her was always going to be contentious.  After all, the court's direction for years to come is at stake.  Candidate Donald Trump made the "activist federal courts" a major campaign issue in 2016.  As president, he and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have delivered on that issue.  They have confirmed over 200 new judges, almost all of them strenuously opposed by Democrats.  Now, he has been given his third opportunity to nominate a Supreme Court justice.

Trump says he'll announce Supreme Court nominee by Friday or Saturday.  President Trump said Monday he would probably announce his nominee to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court by Friday or Saturday.  "I think it'll be on Friday or Saturday," Trump said during an interview on "Fox & Friends," adding that he wants to show respect for Ginsburg, who died last Friday.  "We will have probably services on Thursday or Friday, as I understand it. ... We should wait until the services are over, for Justice Ginsburg, and so we're looking probably at Friday, or maybe Saturday," he continued.

The Editor says...
Don't say that, or they'll put off the funeral for a month or two!

What RBG Said in 2016 About Filling a SCOTUS Vacancy During an Election Year.  The left has pounced on late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's "fervent wish" that her seat isn't filled until after the election as though it's law that must be followed.  But what they seem to have forgotten is what she said in 2016 about filling a vacancy during an election year.  When the Republican-controlled Senate blocked former President Obama's pick of Merrick Garland to fill the late Antonin Scalia's seat, Ginsburg instructed them to proceed with reviewing the nomination.  "That's their job," she told The New York Times in an interview.  "There's nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year."  Obama also said in 2016 that just because a vacancy arises during an election year doesn't mean nothing is done about it.

Support Trump's Court Nominee As If Your Freedom Depends On It — Because It Does.  President Donald Trump has vowed to move quickly to name a replacement for late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and urged the Senate to vote before the election.  Not only is he constitutionally justified in doing so, but the future political stability of our nation depends on it.  The pick, which Trump said will "likely" be a woman, is expected next week.  There are a number of highly eligible, Constitution-friendly women suitable for the highest court in the land.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already pledged to move forward with the confirmation hearings, perhaps the most important since Roger B. Taney was named chief justice in 1836 and set the nation on course for Civil War.

Oh, Look:  Mother Jones' RBG Warning Came True.  Now that Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed, the focus has shifted to filling her seat on the Supreme Court.  Whether or not Republicans should move forward with this play — while they have both the Senate and the White House — is being called into question, mostly from the mainstream media and the left.  Naturally, they want the GOP to hold off and have the next president make the decision.  Obviously, they're hoping Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will be the two to appoint RBG's replacement.  It's interesting, however, to go back and look at the lefty takes on this, especially after Ginsburg decided not to retire during President Barack Obama's time in office.  In fact, back in November of 2018, Mother Jones had an entire article about "What the Cult of Ruth Bader Ginsburg Got Wrong."  Naturally, that focus was on her decision not to retire under Obama and the possibility that she could die during the Trump administration.

Please spare me the maudlin rhetoric about Ginsburg's 'tragic' death.  The insufferable Chris Wallace of Fox News kept referring to the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as "tragic" on yesterday's [9/20/2020] edition of Fox News Sunday.  While I am full of sympathy for her family, loved ones, and friends who all have lost someone they deeply mourn, I cannot see how her death is "tragic" — unless one is a partisan Democrat fearing loss of control of the Supreme Court.  Justice Ginsburg lived to a ripe old age and remained active until almost the very end of her life.  As even President Trump stated, she lived an "amazing life" and lived it to the full until the end.  We all are mortal!  Dying itself, while sad for those left behind, is not a tragedy.

Ginsburg In 2016: 'Nothing In The Constitution' Prevents Final Year SCOTUS Picks.  The late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2016 said "nothing in the Constitution" prevents a president from nominating to fill a court seat.  Ginsburg was reacting to the upcoming fight over a replacement for her friend and colleague Justice Antonin Scalia, who passed away.  Then-President Barack Obama had nominated Judge Merrick Garland to fill Scalia's seat only to be denied a Senate hearing by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.  "I think he is about as well qualified as any nominee to this court," Ginsburg said of Garland, according to a July 2016 report from The New York Times.  "Super bright and very nice, very easy to deal with.  And super prepared.  He would be a great colleague."

The Fight Over SCOTUS Will Determine The Future Of The 2nd Amendment.  Will the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday upend the 2020 election, or is the fight over the future of SCOTUS already enough of a key election issue for voters that it won't have much of an impact on the battle between Donald Trump and Joe Biden?  That depends on who you ask.  Over at Hot Air, Jazz Shaw notes that Republican and Democratic strategists are already weighing in, with Republican strategist Alex Conant asserting that a confirmation fight before the election will only help the Trump campaign.  Democrats, as you might imagine, are taking a decidedly different stance.

I was raped by whoever Trump picks to replace Ginsburg on the Supreme Court.  I haven't come forward yet because I was ashamed and afraid.  This person is clearly very powerful, but now that this person is being considered for the Supreme Court, I think it's necessary to let people know who they're dealing with, especially after Trump picked a literal serial killer last time.  And the Soros money doesn't hurt.  But this stain on my soul does hurt.  And it will be with me forever — or at least until after the confirmation hearing — the very painful confirmation hearing.

Confirm a Justice Now.  All Democrats and a few Republicans are already saying that McConnell's refusal to advance the nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016 set an inviolable precedent that the GOP would be hypocrites to overturn.  But there are differences between 2016 and 2020.  First, Barack Obama was at the end of his constitutionally limited two terms.  The 2016 contest, therefore, was an "open-seat" election.  Voters are much more likely to hand the presidency to the other party in an open-seat election; they have done so in the last three straight, whereas no incumbent has lost since 1992.  A president at the end of his second term is a lame duck; it makes some sense in that circumstance to give a new president, with a new mandate, the chance to shape the court rather than let the outgoing has-been, who's already had eight years to do as he will, one last shot at a legacy.  President Trump was almost a shoo-in for reelection before the lockdowns crushed the economy, and he remains a strong bet.  He's still immensely popular with his base and his approval ratings are the highest of his presidency — and higher than many of his predecessors' at the same point in his term.  He is anything but a lame duck.  He deserves a chance to exercise his constitutionally enumerated powers and deliver for his voters.

Pelosi: House has 'arrows in our quiver' to delay SCOTUS nomination.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Sunday morning that the House has plenty of options available to delay the Senate from acting on President Donald Trump's nominees for the Supreme Court.  "Well, we have our options," she said on ABC's "This Week," replying to host George Stephanopoulos' question about whether the House would consider launching impeachment proceedings to block the confirmation of a Trump Supreme Court nomination.  "We have arrows in our quiver that I'm not about to discuss right now, but the fact is we have a big challenge in our country.  The president has threatened to not even accept the results of the election with statements that he and his henchmen have made."

Stephanie Davis and the Supremes.  My best guess for who Donald Trump will nominate to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court is Stephanie Dawkins Davis.  She is a judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.  I believe President Trump will choose her to fill the election year vacancy for ten reasons: [...]

Democrats Have No One But Themselves, And Her, To Blame for The Ginsburg Vacancy.  Democrats have made no mystery of their plans should they ever obtain power again, and it's not good for fans of individual liberty, personal responsibility, or just being left the hell alone by the government.  That's why Republicans need to move quickly and deliberately to replace her.  So much of the progressive agenda is dependent upon twisting the plain language of the Constitution into a rat's nest of snarls and bastardizing words to the point of unrecognizability.  The only thing standing between them and getting their way is the whims of John Roberts.  How terrifying is that?

The Senate's Rural Skew Makes It Very Hard For Democrats To Win The Supreme Court.  I don't have a particularly strong take on how the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg will affect either the presidential election or the race for control of the U.S. Senate.  And I'd encourage you to avoid putting too much stock in anybody else's take for now, too.  The very earliest indication is that President Trump's desire to move full-speed ahead toward naming Ginsburg's replacement could be unpopular, but that's based on only one poll.  But here's what I do know:  the Senate is an enormous problem for Democrats given the current political coalitions, in which Democrats are dominant in cities while Republicans triumph in rural areas.  And because the Senate is responsible for confirming Supreme Court picks, that means the Supreme Court is a huge problem for Democrats too.  Sure, Democrats might win back the Senate this year — indeed, they were slight favorites to do so before the Ginsburg news.  But in the long run, they're likely to lose it more often than not.

'My Position Has Not Changed': Lisa Murkowski Confirms She Opposes Replacing Ginsburg Before Election.  Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) confirmed in a Sunday [9/20/2020] statement that she opposes replacing the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg before the November election.  "For weeks, I have stated that I would not support taking up a potential Supreme Court vacancy this close to the election.  Sadly, what was then a hypothetical is now our reality, but my position has not changed," Murkowski said, according to The Hill.

A Republican Party That Won't Fill Ginsburg's Seat Will Die, and It Will Have Deserved Its Death.  Let's call this a preemptive warning to the GOP.  With the passing of former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg last night, a political grenade was thrown into the middle of the current election season.  We went from the economic recovery being the top issue to immediately seeing a repeat of 2016's contentious debate over whether to seat a new justice or not before the election (or in the lame-duck, for that matter).  Unlike 2016 though, there is no split in the government.  The Senate and the White House are held by the same party.  The McConnell rule does not apply in this situation no matter how many times "journalists" pretend to not know what he originally said.  What this means is that a replacement must be nominated and that they must be confirmed.  Yet, sentiments to the contrary on the right are already popping up.

Ted Cruz Explains Perfectly Why RBG's Seat Must Be Filled Before the Election.  Republican Senator Ted Cruz says President Donald Trump needs to nominate a successor Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg next week, and that the Senate should confirm that choice or the country risks a constitutional crisis.  "I believe that the president should, next week, nominate a successor to the court.  I think it is critical that the Senate takes up and confirms that successor before Election Day," Senator Cruz told Sean Hannity on Fox News.  "Democrats and Joe Biden have made clear they intend to challenge this election.  They intend to fight the legitimacy of the election.  As you you know Hillary Clinton has told Joe Biden 'under no circumstances should you concede, you should challenge this election.' and we cannot have election day come and go with a 4-4 court."

For the Sake of the Constitution, and the Country, Fill Ginsburg's Seat Quickly.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died Friday [9/18/2020] at the age of 87.  Her passing was not unexpected.  On the contrary, her steadily worsening condition over the past several years left her increasingly incapacitated.  After Donald Trump's election in 2016, many on the Left expressed dismay that she chose to stay on the court rather than resign and let President Obama nominate her replacement.  Liberals feared she would die during Trump's presidency, and her seat — which they regard almost as their sacrosanct property — would be in the hands of a Republican president and Republican-controlled Senate.  That fear proved prescient.  But few expected the moment would come so close to the November election.

Why the country needs a filled Supreme Court for the 2020 election.  By telling Senate Republicans Saturday they have an obligation to fill "without delay" the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, President Trump sets in motion a process that could dominate the remaining weeks of the presidential election. [...] A key ruling in Bush v.  Gore held that Florida's use of different standards for counting votes in different counties was unconstitutional, by a 7-2 vote.  And, by a 5-4 vote, the court also said there was no time to fix the process before the Electoral College met to certify the election.  The result was George W. Bush won Florida's 25 electoral votes, giving him 271 to Al Gore's 266.  To many Americans, the case probably seems like ancient history, if they know it at all, but there's a strong chance the Supreme Court will have to make rulings in this presidential race, too.  All the more reason, then, why the court should have its full complement of nine justices.

After the Kavanaugh witch hunt, we owe them nothing.  Democrats are painfully shortsighted people.  While they slandered and smeared Brett Kavanaugh and abetted the hysterical fishwives who shrieked and carried on like scalded cats, many of us on the right were thinking, "Boy, these Democrats are going to regret this."  Well, start regretting it, Democrats.  We owe you nothing[.]  We didn't turn SCOTUS nominations into riotous free-for-alls; they did.  After everything they pulled during Kavanaugh's confirmation, the only response Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republicans should have to any "you can't fill Ginsburg's seat now" histrionics is to laugh in [their] faces.

Did someone mention Brett Kavanaugh?

History Is on the Side of Republicans Filling a Supreme Court Vacancy in 2020.  History supports Republicans filling the seat.  Doing so would not be in any way inconsistent with Senate Republicans' holding open the seat vacated by Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016.  The reason is simple, and was explained by Mitch McConnell at the time.  Historically, throughout American history, when their party controls the Senate, presidents get to fill Supreme Court vacancies at any time — even in a presidential election year, even in a lame-duck session after the election, even after defeat.  Historically, when the opposite party controls the Senate, the Senate gets to block Supreme Court nominees sent up in a presidential election year, and hold the seat open for the winner.  Both of those precedents are settled by experience as old as the republic.  Republicans should not create a brand-new precedent to deviate from them.

What to expect when Trump nominates Ginsburg's replacement.  Now, the question becomes how will Democrats react when President Trump attempts to appoint a replacement to the high court before the November election.  They will no doubt bring up the recent memory of Merrick Garland, who President Obama nominated in 2016. Republicans refused to hold hearings or confirm Garland, which resulted in Neil Gorsuch taking the position after Trump was elected.  Democrats are still in the minority in the Senate, which gives them little way to block a Trump nominated candidate to the high court.  Their only course of action will be to follow a similar role to that of when Brett Kavanaugh was nominated to the court.  Except, this nomination will be extremely different.

Here's What Democrats Said About Filling A Supreme Court Vacancy In 2016.  Following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, Obama nominated [Judge Merrick] Garland, who had been the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.  However, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell vowed to block a confirmation vote for Garland until after the 2016 presidential election, The Washington Post reported.  "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," McConnell said, according to Politico.  "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president."  Several Democrats condemned McConnell in the days and weeks following his decision.  Although Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden favored putting off a confirmation hearing during an election year in 1992 as a senator, Biden supported Garland's confirmation in 2016 as vice president, according to ABC News.  He said there was no supposed "Biden Rule" concerning Supreme Court nominations in an election year.  "Deciding in advance simply to turn your back before the president even names a nominee is not an option the Constitution leaves open," Biden said, according to Business Insider.

Mitch McConnell:  President Trump's Nominee to Replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Will Receive Senate Vote.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced Friday night that the Senate would vote to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court after her death.  "President Trump's nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate," McConnell wrote in a statement sent to reporters.  McConnell announced his decision after Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer argued that Trump should not replace her until after the election.

Here's What RBG Said About Filling a SCOTUS Vacancy in an Election Year.  As the debate over what to do about the vacancy on the Supreme Court is only getting started, perhaps we should heed the advice of the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself as to what to do.  When a similar scenario occurred four years ago, following the death of Antonin Scalia, the Republican-controlled Senate blocked Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.  It was a controversial move, and Ginsburg had something to say about it:  Ginsburg publicly called on the Senate to go through with the nomination.  "That's their job," she said in July 2016.  "There's nothing in the Constitution that says the President stops being President in his last year."

Supporters Shout 'Fill That Seat' as Trump Remembers Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  Supporters of President Donald Trump on Saturday chanted "Fill that seat!" when he spoke about the Supreme Court at a rally in North Carolina.  The president opened up his campaign rally paying tribute to Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who died on Friday. [...] Trump also recalled Ginsburg's friendship with more conservative members of the court, like Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016.  "Her relationship with Justice Scalia is also a powerful reminder that we can disagree on fundamental issues while treating each other with decency, dignity, and respect," Trump said.

Hillary Clinton's Response to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Death Is Quite Deplorable.  Following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an appropriate response would have been to wait a day or two to jump into the political implications.  However, that is not the world we live in, as you can't even enjoy a football game without being assaulted with political messages.  Beginning Friday evening [9/18/2020], prominent leftists threatened to commence rioting and other forms of public temper tantrum immediately.  So, of course, Hillary Clinton had to weigh in. [...] As the Senate minority, Democrats have no procedural options thanks to former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.  There is no filibuster on judicial nominees.

Left Now Will Pay Price for Turning Courts into Political Battlefield.  [Scroll down]  Marxists of all sorts never viewed the courts as anything but tools of oppression, that had to be manipulated to advance the revolution.  Alas, modern liberals also abandoned fidelity to the rule of law in reality if not rhetoric.  Their commitment to a "living constitution" — the evolving meaning of which depended upon any number of factors, including, it sometimes seemed, sunspots and the phase of the moon — turned them into politicians and the courts into continuing constitutional conventions.  Indeed, the game was hopelessly rigged.  Liberal jurists would make a dramatic advance toward presumed human utopia.  Then they would insist that judicial conservatives respect precedent and make the ruling permanent, immune from reconsideration.  In this way the legal ratchet worked only one way.  The problem was reinforced by the Left's control of the legal academy, which produced the jurisprudential gibberish which aided and augmented the march of the judicial left.

The Mob Is Already Targeting Mitch McConnell, and He Doesn't Care.  As I wrote earlier this morning, the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a massive political firebomb going off (see A Republican Party That Won't Fill Ginsburg's Seat Will Die, and It Will Have Deserved Its Death). Tensions are high as the GOP now has to decide whether it's going to fulfill the duty it was elected to fulfill.  In political terms, there is no choice to be made here except nominating a replacement and voting on that nomination before the election.  Whether some Republicans are smart enough to realize that is an open question.  Meanwhile, the left are already threatening riots, violence, and are specifically targeting Mitch McConnell, who will be at the forefront of the coming process.

Mitch McConnell's Kentucky home targeted in Supreme Court vacancy protest.  At least one protester was arrested Saturday [9/19/2020] after a group of about 100 people gathered outside the Kentucky home of Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell.  The Senate majority leader is a key figure in determining whether a nominee appointed by President Trump will succeed the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court before Election Day.

Top Five Candidates For Nomination to Ginsburg Seat on the Supreme Court — No Men Allowed.  Putting out a list of possible Supreme Court nominees was something done by Pres.  Trump in 2016 to appeal to GOP conservatives who wanted reassurance that he would advance their interests if elected notwithstanding his long personal history of moving between parties and supporting liberal causes with contributions throughout his adult life.  He was assisted in putting together his list by the leadership of the Federalist Society, and the list reflected that fact.  On the issue of judicial appointments Pres.  Trump has made good on his pledge — not just with respect to the Supreme Court, but also with regard to naming seemingly reliable conservatives in record numbers to the Circuit Courts of Appeal.  Pres.  Trump has added to his list of potential Supreme Court nominees, with his latest additions coming just two weeks ago.

Ginsburg was confirmed in 42 days; Trump nominee should get same speedy consideration.  Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton made valid arguments Saturday [9/19/2020] in convincing President Donald Trump to nominate a successor to the U.S. Supreme Court following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday.  "Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed 42 days after she was nominated by President Bill Clinton. @RealDonaldTrump's nominee should get the same speedy consideration by the Senate," Fitton wrote in one tweet.

Hours before news of Ginsburg's death, Murkowski said she wouldn't vote on a Supreme Court nominee prior to election.  Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski said in an interview that she wouldn't vote to confirm a Supreme Court nominee ahead of the election, just hours before news broke that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had died.  Speaking to Alaska Public Media during an interview on an unrelated topic, Murkowski referenced the position she took when former President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in March 2016. Then, she supported Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's refusal to take action on Garland's nomination.  Murkowski said that then, she felt "that was too close to an election and that the people needed to decide.  That the closer you get to an election, that argument becomes even more important."  "So I would not vote to confirm a Supreme Court nominee," Murkowski said Friday, noting she had previously stated this position to reporters in recent weeks.

Murkowski is a RINO.

Liberal America Had an Epic Meltdown Over Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Death, But They Have Only One Person to Blame.  'Notorious RBG' made a serious miscalculation by not retiring during the Obama years.  If she had, there probably would be a much younger jurist holding the line for the liberal wing of the Supreme Court right now.  No hassle.  Alas, that didn't happen, and for all these liberals who are going ballistic — this battle was really RBG's choosing.  I think she, like many, thought Hillary Clinton would win the 2016 election.  She would then ride off into the sunset and that would be it.  Instead, Trump won arguably the biggest political upsets of all time, certainly within the last generation, and got stuck.

Three Supreme Court Justices Were Confirmed In Less Than 45 Days, Including Ginsburg.  Three Supreme Court Justices, including Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who passed away on Friday due to complications of metastatic pancreatic cancer, were confirmed by the Senate within 45 days of their formal nomination date.  According to Senate records, Justices Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, and Sandra Day O'Connor were all confirmed in a short period of time.  Stevens's confirmation in 1975 took 19 days, O'Connor's confirmation in 1981 took 33 days, and Ginsburg's confirmation in 1993 took 42 days.

Ignore the Polling on Who Should Replace Ginsburg.  Not even 24 hours after Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death, multiple media outlets were telling us that on the question of whom they prefer to replace Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court, voters prefer Joe Biden to President Trump.  The Fox News headline Saturday afternoon declared that "52% trust Biden over Trump on Supreme Court picks."  [Other examples omitted for brevity.]  All of this is meant to discourage President Trump, Senate Republicans, and their supporters from moving forward with a nomination to replace Ginsburg prior to the November elections.  In other words, these polls are like most every other election-related poll in this modern drive-by media era.  They are meant to shape opinions instead of merely reporting on them.

More about misleading and inaccurate polls.

The GOP Senate [Had] Better Confirm Whoever POTUS Appoints.  Perhaps it is glib to observe that, at the end of the day, Republicans should confirm a replacement for Justice Ginsburg because they can confirm a replacement for Justice Ginsburg, but there is a lot of truth to that observation.  They can do it because the president has the power under the Constitution to appoint a nominee (I expect it to be Amy Coney Barrett, but Barbara Lagoa is a possibility and a great one), plus because the Senate has the power under the Constitution to confirm said nominee.  And they better do it, because the Democrats intend to crush us if they can, and if the GOP wimps out, our voters will melt down.  The GOP can do this, so the GOP must.

Sorry, Mr. Biden:  The voters did pick who should fill the SCOTUS vacancy.  Commenting on the death of Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Joe Biden said:  "There is no doubt, let me be clear, that the voters should pick the president and the president should pick the justice for the Senate to consider."  Well Mr. Biden, in case you don't remember, the voters did pick a president in 2016, and the voters picked Donald J. Trump.  Mr. Trump was inaugurated at noon on Jan. 20, 2017, making him the 45th President of the United States.  Again, in case you can't recall Mr. Biden, Section 1 of the 20th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution states that Donald J. Trump's term as president of the United States does not end until noon on Jan. 20, 2021.

Sen. Graham reverses earlier statements, supports Trump filling SCOTUS vacancy.  South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham reversed earlier statements on Saturday and said he will support "any effort" by President Trump to seat another Supreme Court justice.  The support came as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told his GOP caucus to "keep your powder dry" in regard to filling the seat left vacant by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death on Friday.  Separately, Maine Sen. Susan Collins said, "The decision should be made by the president who is elected on November 3rd."  In a series of tweets, Graham, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said, "The two biggest changes regarding the Senate and judicial confirmations that have occurred in the last decade have come from Democrats."

Ted Cruz Offers a Solid Reason for Filling Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Vacancy Now.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died.  She was 87. Now, the Left is in total panic mode.  Donald Trump is still president.  The Senate is still controlled by Republicans.  And Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has vowed to hold a vote on a SCOTUS nominee should the president select one.  This election cycle just got crazier.  On the bright side, COVID, which dominated the news cycle all summer will vanish as if nothing happened.  Just watch.  There is nothing scarier than a solidly conservative Supreme Court majority in liberal media circles.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked for Senate to delay filling her seat.  Conscious of politics to the last, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg reportedly dictated a statement saying it was her "most fervent wish" that her seat on the Supreme Court not be filled until after the next president is inaugurated in January.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell quickly rejected that notion, saying President Trump deserves the chance to fill the seat and the Senate will act on whomever he picks.  "President Trump's nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate," the Kentucky Republican said.

The Editor says...
[#1] This event is apocryphal at best.  [#2] RBG's opinions about the composition of the Supreme Court are now immaterial.

Only one person heard RBG's dying wish, no proof yet!  The photo is Ruth Bader Ginsburg's granddaughter Clara and the only person who heard her "dying wish". She is a lawyer and abortion rights activist who has publicly warned progressives that SCOTUS is trying to take away abortion rights.  "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed," Ginsburg told her, according to NPR, which first reported the justice's death.  This statement has a fatal flaw.  She said 'new president' and if Trump wins, it has to be 2024.  And that just can't be.  Also, has anyone seen this document and is it signed?  Did anyone else besides Ms. Spera witness this?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg:  The political ramifications of a political jurist.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died Friday night after 27 years on the United States Supreme Court. [...] Ginsburg used her seat on the Supreme Court as a political office and, reputedly, her dying wish was political.  The politicization of her Supreme Court seat and the political fallout from her death are, therefore, appropriate topics.  Unlike me, the usual leftists who loved her too much (as well as a few Republicans who ought to know better) think that the best encomium for Ginsburg is that she "fought" for "justice and equality": [...] That praise — that she "fought" for "justice and equality" — sums up everything that was wrong with Ginsburg for it describes a political activist, not a judge.  The Supreme Court is supposed to consist of nine people who try, apolitically, to ensure that the United States is run along constitutional lines.  Ginsburg, though, had little love for the Constitution.

Liberals Rehash Old Plan to Save SCOTUS from Trump After Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Death.  [Scroll down]  Yet, with Ginsburg gone, the Left is panicking.  A true conservative majority is emerging on the Supreme Court.  Trump derangement has led this sad army of clowns to view both Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh as illegitimate... because that's just how they feel.  It's truly a sight to behold — this derangement syndrome, which is marked by intense illiberal tantrums.  Ginsburg's passing has brought many to see this as the only way to fix the Court.  Liberals want to start packing it.  [Y]ou see, this isn't about Ginsburg or her legacy.  It's not.  This is about power.  And when the Left feels like their losing it, which exposes their gross entitlement, then they will employ some of the worst measures to regain and consolidate it.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg death makes Supreme Court major 2020 campaign issue.  The death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg put the Supreme Court at the epicenter of the 2020 presidential election, setting up a furious battle over who should fill the vacancy.  Ginsburg, 87, died Friday [9/18/2020] of complications from metastatic pancreatic cancer, just weeks before the Nov. 3 presidential election, likely marking the start of a bitter partisan feud over who will fill her empty seat.  Conservatives outnumbered liberals on the court 5-4 before the death of Ginsburg, a liberal stalwart.  With a new right-leaning justice, conservatives could hold a solid 6-3 majority.

Trump isn't likely to shrink from Supreme Court fight in election year.  The mourning for Ruth Bader Ginsburg had barely started when the first political shots were fired.  At 7:51 pm, about 15 minutes after news broke of her death, Sen. Chuck Schumer tweeted his demand that "this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president."  So much for rest in peace.  There's no surprise in Schumer's position or his desire to get out in front of the issue, but neither carries much weight.  The decision about whether to try to fill the court's vacancy is up to Republicans.  The first key question is whether President Trump will want to nominate someone so close to the election, possibly setting the stage for the Court to be the deciding factor in whether he gets four more years.  My guess is the answer is yes because he recently released a list of people he would consider for the next vacancy.

The Editor says...
Ms. Ginsburg herself could have prevented much of this election-season friction by resigning from the Supreme Court on the day she found out that she was terminally ill, which was probably months ago.

Amy Barrett — Immediately, If Not Sooner.  When Ruth Bader Ginsburg died Friday evening [9/18/2020], she did so with a message for posterity which, for all the history that Ginsburg might have made as a woman on the Supreme Court, was pristine in its self-description of her time on the Court.  "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed," she said.  The arrogance of that was par for Ginsburg's course. [...] It is neither ghoulish nor inappropriate to look to the future of the United States Supreme Court upon her death rather than pay tribute to the life she lived.  After all, that life was for all practical purposes long since over months ago, when Ginsburg chose to spend her time on death's door occupying space on the Supreme Court in an effort to outlast President Trump.  And Ginsburg invited us to do just that with the unfortunate quote referenced above.

Trump includes Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton and Josh Hawley on Supreme Court list.  President Trump on Wednesday [9/9/2020] listed 20 additional candidates he would consider for the Supreme Court if he's re-elected, including three Republican senators.  Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas, Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Josh Hawley of Missouri made the list.  Hawley is a former clerk for Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.  Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron, a prominent black Republican, and White House lawyer Kate Todd also made the list, as did former solicitors general Paul Clement and Noel Francisco.  US ambassador to Mexico Christopher Landau and assistant attorney general Steven Engel are among the 20, as are a large number of federal judges.

Trump Adds These 20 Names to His List of Supreme Court Candidates.  President Donald Trump publicly added 20 names Wednesday to his list of candidates for the Supreme Court, including six women, three Senate Republicans, and a state attorney general.  Also new to the list are prominent government lawyers who haven't served as judges.  "Every one of these individuals will ensure equal justice, equal treatment, and equal rights for citizens of every race, color, religion, and creed," Trump said in making the announcement at the White House.  "Together, we will defend our righteous heritage and preserve our magnificent American way of life."  For the most part, the president's 20 new Supreme Court prospects follow the traditional pattern in which federal appeals court judges, also known as circuit judges, are considered for the high court.  Currently, all but one of the nine justices were circuit judges before being nominated to the Supreme Court.  Only Justice Elena Kagan never had been a judge before.

Chief Justice John Roberts Will Decide 2020 Election, Dick Morris Predicts.  Former Clinton campaign adviser Dick Morris predicted during a Sunday interview that the 2020 presidential election is going to drag out because of mail-in voting and end up being decided by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.  As Breitbart reported, Morris told "The Cats Roundtable" host John Catsimatidis that while he believes it will appear that Trump wins in a landslide on Election Night, Democratic officials in swing states will manage in subsequent days to discover millions of mail-in ballots in favor of Democratic nominee Joe Biden.

Democrats Are Waging War Against Tradition And The Constitution.  There is nothing in the Constitution that specifies the exact size and makeup of the Supreme Court.  It only offers guidance on how justices are appointed and confirmed, and that there will be a chief justice.  But since 1869, the Supreme Court has been fixed at eight associate justices and one chief justice.  Democratic primary candidates Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, Beto O'Rourke and Elizabeth Warren said they would consider ending that 151-year tradition and "pack" the court with additional justices in the fashion of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's failed 1937 effort.  The left is apparently afraid of a second Donald Trump presidential term that might allow him four or five Supreme Court picks over eight years in office.  The effect of such appointments could be mitigated by expanding the court to 12 or more justices, along with altering the rules for selecting them.

Why Has SCOTUS Chief Roberts Abandoned Conservatism?  Roberts chief problem was highlighted in 2012 when President Obama threatened SCOTUS, warning the 'unelected' supreme court to not strike down his healthcare law.  Why didn't Chief Roberts bristle at this outrageous manipulation?  Instead, Roberts was cowed, realizing Obama had the ability and will to destroy the Courts's reputation through countless media hit pieces by his enablers.  As years pass, in an unsavory example of Stockholm Syndrome, Roberts is now a liberal convert.  But Roberts pantomimes anger towards much less Trump provocation as he knows Donald is much less ruthless than Barack.  Roberts had a chance to teach the left a lesson about bad laws.  Rejection might have caused Obama to lose his next election.  But, instead of dumping the badly flawed Obamacare, Roberts folded in the eye of the storm arguing a convoluted, nonsensical trick for saving it by turning the insurance mandate penalty into a tax.  Justice Scalia wrote Roberts saved the law through "somersaults of statutory interpretation."  Yet, he did save his and the Court's reputation from an unholy, scorched earth propaganda attack by Obama's media minions.

Supreme Court denies request to halt construction of the border wall.  The Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote has denied a request to halt construction of President Trump's border wall over environmental concerns.  A number of groups, including the ACLU and Sierra Club, had asked the high court to get involved again after the justices last year cleared the way for the administration to use military funds for construction while the case played out in the courts.  A federal appeals court had ruled against the administration last month, but the justices, for now, have given another temporary victory to the administration.

The Supreme Court Imperils Parents' Right to Pass Their Values on to Children.  The Supreme Court's recent decision in Bostock v. Clayton, which ruled that the Title VII prohibition on sex discrimination in employment extends to discrimination based on sexual orientation and transgender status, is likely to have more widespread implications than many people realize. [...] The current culture already makes it difficult for parents to teach their children that, for instance, maleness and femaleness are grounded on objective biological reality rather than subjective self-perceptions, or that the purpose of human sexuality is not ultimately pleasure or self-expression, but to unite a man and woman in marriage and enable them to form a family.  And whatever one's beliefs about these issues, parents, not the state, should be the ones to decide what their children are taught about these controversial and sensitive matters.

Time for Civil Disobedience is NOW!  In a 5-4 Decision the United States Supreme Court has determined that California restricting church gatherings is not unconstitutional, and does not violate the "free exercise clause of the First Amendment."  The Ninth Circuit Judges, regarding restrictions against churches regarding the free exercise of their religion, and more specifically, worship services, said, "constitutional standards that would normally govern our review of a Free Exercise claim should not be applied."  The last time I checked, the First Amendment does not say, "Freedom of Religion, unless there's a virus."  The court's decision is unconstitutional.  They are wrong.  Liberty must prevail.  And it is time the American People send that message.

Something's rotten at the Supreme Court.  Justice Gorsuch wrote a one-paragraph dissent attacking the Supreme Court's decision to reject a Nevada church's emergency application.  The application sought an injunction stopping the Governor of Nevada from shutting down meaningful church services, even as he allowed vast assemblies at casinos, movie theaters, and other secular sites.  What should be more important than a pithy dissent, though, is the Supreme Court's — and, more specifically, Chief Justice Roberts's — appalling behavior.  It is another reminder of how desperately important it is to return President Trump to the White House. [...] Justice Roberts was sold to Americans as a conservative.  He isn't.  He's also not a leftist.  Instead, he has a very peculiar habit of hewing conservative on the narrow legal issues that are relevant only to a few interested parties and going full-bore leftist on those issues that matter greatly to constitutional liberty in America.

John Roberts Declares That Gambling Has More Constitutional Protection Than Religious Freedom.  Ever since state and local governments started going [...] crazy in their response to Wuhan virus, Democrat governed cities, and states have made it a practice to try to use "public health" as a way of suppressing attendance at religious services.  In states as widely spread California, Kansas, Kentucky, New York, New Jersey and Mississippi (to name just a few) you found various jurisdictions using the smokescreen of limiting public gatherings for the sake of public health to close churches, penalize church members who showed up for services, and sic the police on funerals to break them up.  The effect of these orders has been to allow state and local governments to place an asterisk by the First Amendment.  That footnote to the First Amendment states that the right to worship and assemble is contingent upon the government's approval of the purpose.  So you can't have a funeral, but you can attend a BLM riot.

Chief Justice Roberts Votes Against Churches, Huckabee Calls On Him To Retire.  Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, a supposed conservative and constitutionalist, has seemingly forgotten his oath.  In a stunning decision on Friday the chief justice sided with liberals yet again in keeping Nevada's churches, synagogues and mosques more limited than its casinos and movie theaters, CNN reported.  The decision brought scorn and consternations from the likes of Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee who called on Roberts to repent and retire.

Supreme Court (by 5-4 Vote) Declines to Exempt Nevada Churches from Gathering Size Limits.  From Justice Alito's dissent:  ["]The Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion.  It says nothing about the freedom to play craps or blackjack, to feed tokens into a slot machine, or to engage in any other game of chance.  But the Governor of Nevada apparently has different priorities.  Claiming virtually unbounded power to restrict constitutional rights during the COVID-19 pandemic, he has issued a directive that severely limits attendance at religious services.  A church, synagogue, or mosque, regardless of its size, may not admit more than 50 persons, but casinos and certain other favored facilities may admit 50% of their maximum occupancy — and in the case of gigantic Las Vegas casinos, this means that thousands of patrons are allowed.  That Nevada would discriminate in favor of the powerful gaming industry and its employees may not come as a surprise, but this Court's willingness to allow such discrimination is disappointing.  We have a duty to defend the Constitution, and even a public health emergency does not absolve us of that responsibility.["]

Poll: Americans Don't Want Government Telling Christian Schools Who They Can Hire.  The Supreme Court's decision in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v.  Morrisey-Berru protecting religious schools' ability to make decisions about who carries their faith to the next generation was supported by a 7-2 decision, a supermajority of the justices.  Does that supermajority reflect the American people's support for this constitutional protection, often referred to as "the ministerial exception"?  Do the American people understand this lesser-known legal doctrine?  If you were to scroll through your Twitter feed on the day of the decision, you might have received an inaccurate reading of Americans' views on the subject.  But, based on the results of a nationally representative survey of 1,004 American adults, most Americans not only support the ministerial exception and see it as a commonsense application of separation of church and state, but they also have a surprising degree of understanding about the principles behind the doctrine.

Oklahoma May Split in Two, Which is What Every State Should Consider Doing.  The Supreme Court's decision to effectively make eastern Oklahoma into Indian territory may force the state to sever into two.  Why does that have to be a bad thing?  Within the continental U.S., when it comes to states, the more the merrier.  If not for all the other crises and daily outrages boosted by mass media, the news of Oklahoma potentially losing half its state land to the sovereign nation of the Muscogee (Creek) tribe might have garnered more Americans' attention for a bit longer.  The decision was led by Justice Neil Gorsuch, who despite being Trump's first pick for the high court sided with the four liberal justices.  They ruled narrowly that eastern Oklahoma was in fact Indian territory with regard to state criminal law, but the legal consequences will be innumerable.  All Americans should welcome this opportunity to reconsider their state borders as well as all regulatory boundaries.

Supreme Court Decides Half of Oklahoma Has Been an Indian Reservation for Past 113 Years.  The Supreme Court issued one of the most consequential decisions of its term on its last day Thursday [7/9/2020].  No, it wasn't either of the decisions about President Donald Trump's tax returns.  Instead, it involved a case that received little attention at the time it was argued.  But how often can court watchers say that a case stripped a state of its sovereign power to prosecute crimes committed by certain individuals in nearly half of the territory it purportedly controls?  Not often — if ever — before Thursday.  But that's exactly what the court did in a 5-4 opinion in McGirt v. Oklahoma that Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote, which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor joined.

Mark Levin:  Republicans Should Subpoena the Tax Returns of Every Supreme Court Justice.  In three tweets on Thursday [7/9/2020], conservative talk show host Mark Levin explained how the Supreme Court's 7-2 decision on the president's tax returns could (and should) come back to haunt the justices:  "The Supreme Court just opened itself up to congressional demands for the individual justices' tax returns," Levin tweeted shortly after the ruling was handed down.  "I can see a situation in which the House or the Senate decides that it must have access to all of the justices' tax and financial records each year to determine if they're influences in any way to write the decisions they write or vote the way they vote on numerous cases.  The justices will not be able to argue that they are immune as a matter of separation of powers as they just shot down that argument as applies to the president."

The joker is wild.  Today, the Supreme Court navigated its way through disputes about the disclosure of President Trump's financial records without doing much harm (in my view, at least). However, the Court issued a real stinker in a case that was under my radar — McGirt v.  Oklahoma.  By a 5-4 vote, the Court decided that much of Oklahoma is "Indian country" for the purpose of prosecuting crimes committed by Indians.  Justice Gorsuch joined the four left-liberals and wrote the opinion.  Gorsuch's idiosyncratic "textualism" has become the joker in Supreme Court litigation (Justice Scalia's sound textualism wasn't).  Today, the joker was wild.  The case involved Jimcy McGirt.

Supreme Court:  Eastern Oklahoma is American Indian territory.  The Supreme Court ruled Thursday [7/9/2020] that a large swath of eastern Oklahoma is actually an Indian reservation belonging to the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, meaning that hundreds of prosecutions could be tossed because the state does not have jurisdiction there, including in part of Tulsa.  The 5-4 decision notes that only federal prosecutors have jurisdiction over American Indians on the reservation, which includes most of Tulsa, the state's second-largest city.  Justice Neil M. Gorsuch joined the court's four liberal justices in the majority decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma.

'Strategic considerations': John Roberts' swing votes all about politics, court watchers say.  Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has been labeled the Supreme Court's swing vote after siding several times with the liberal wing, but both conservative and liberal court watchers say his judicial moves are all about politics.  Conservatives say Chief Justice Roberts is trying to strike a balance so the high court doesn't appear too political.  Critics say that balancing act is falling short and is resulting in an inconsistent record that appears to be more political than rooted in a particular jurisprudence.  "Roberts seems to be swinging based much more on strategic considerations, and a lot of it really has to do with how much blowback he thinks he and the court will get," said Curt Levey, president of the conservative Committee for Justice.  "He is protecting the reputation of the Roberts Court.  He is protecting his own reputation."

The Fallacy of Court Neutrality.  The problem with stare decisis and the mainstream conservative juridical philosophy is that it accepts, prima facie, the uniform, universalist, and progressive anti-Constitution that has been coercively imposed over the United States in the twentieth century.  It is unsurprising that it is always Republican Court nominees who become liberals.  The logic of stare decisis demands it.  A clearly unconstitutional ruling, so long as it was imposed over the country by the Supreme Court, becomes the new constitutional precedence to affirm and build from.  Any challenge to this anti-constitutional constitutionalism — how's that for a contradiction? — is met with opposition as being radically destructive.

Unanimous SCOTUS to Electoral College:  Keep the faith — or else.  Today's [7/6/2020] unanimous decision on so-called "faithless electors" is less surprising than some might think.  The Supreme Court earlier had settled the argument over whether states could require electors to follow the popular vote in presidential elections.  Today, they ruled that punishing electors for refusing to comply passes constitutional muster as well.

SCOTUS rules that 'faithless electors' must vote for popular-vote winner.  The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday [7/6/2020] that the 538 people who cast the actual votes for president in December as members of the Electoral College must vote the way the laws of their state direct.  The high court ruled unanimously against advocates who were attempting to change the Electoral College and shift the country toward a nationwide popular voting system for the presidency.  SCOTUS ruled that presidential electors must vote as their state requires them to, which in most states means voting for the candidate who won the popular vote in the state.

Supreme Court blocks House from seeing secret Mueller grand jury documents until hearing this fall.  Grand jury material from former special counsel Robert Mueller won't be released to the Democratic-led House of Representatives at least for now, after the Supreme Court on Thursday granted the Trump administration's request to take up the case next term.  The move means the documents won't likely be released before the November election, even if the Democrats win the case.  The court's move is a victory for the Justice Department, which is seeking to prevent the release of the information, which includes portions of Mueller's report that were redacted to protect grand jury information and underlying grand jury testimony and exhibits that relate to certain individuals and events.

A Conflict of Visions on the Supreme Court.  On June 29, 2020, United States Chief Justice John G. Roberts let down constitutional conservatives once again — this time on abortion.  In June Medical Services, LLC et al v. Russo, Roberts cast the tiebreaking vote striking down a Louisiana law requiring abortion doctors to obtain admitting privileges at a local hospital in order to protect women's health.  What made Roberts' vote even more disappointing is that he voted the opposite way a few years ago in a nearly identical case in which the Court struck down a similar Texas abortion law on the same grounds.

Hugh Hewitt:  Rumor has it Samuel Alito will retire from Supreme Court.  Conservative Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito may be eyeing retirement.  The "stronger rumor" is that Alito is "going to quit," conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt told Washington Post reporter Robert Costa on his show Wednesday [7/1/2020].  He mentioned this in response to Costa's report that said aides to President Trump believe Clarence Thomas, a conservative justice appointed by President George H.W. Bush, is the justice most likely to retire this year.  "Justice Thomas will never quit," Hewitt added.  Hewitt suggested he learned this rumor when "people begin working the refs" this time of year.

Clarence Thomas AND Samuel Alito Mulling Retirement According Conservative Wishcasters.  Neomi Rao is really happy she wrote that garbled mess of a Michael Flynn opinion.  The DC Circuit judge who threw any semblance of conservative jurisprudence to the wind to offer up the result that Donald Trump dearly wanted now has to consider herself in prime position for a crack at the United States Supreme Court.  Rumors are circulating around Washington that Trump — and more to the point Mitch McConnell and Leonard Leo — may get the opportunity to install not one but two life-tenured justices on the Court while the economy burns and the plague spreads with abandon.

The Editor says...
Bias alert:  The economy and the pandemic have nothing to do with the Supreme Court.

Report: Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas & Samuel Alito May Soon Retire.  Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has said for a while that he has no plans to step down.  Therefore, why rumors about his retirement continue to pop up make little sense.  However, it appears Justice Samuel Alito might be fed-up with DC.

Justice Thomas takes on Roe v. Wade in stinging dissent to SCOTUS striking Louisiana law on abortion requirements.  Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas authored a stinging dissent Monday to the high court ruling against a Louisiana law requiring doctors performing abortions to obtain admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.  Chief Justice John Roberts aligned with the four liberal jurists — again — in the 5-4 court ruling, with Thomas calling the court's record on abortion "grievously wrong," Fox News reported.  Thomas, who was joined by Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch in saying the law should stand, denounced the "right" to an abortion, as prescribed in Roe v. Wade, as being created "out of whole cloth."

John Roberts proves he's nothing more than an empty robe.  Of all the cop-outs in Supreme Court jurisprudence, Chief Justice John Roberts's concurrence in June Medical Services v.  Russo has to be one of the worst.  The case was brought by abortion providers in Louisiana who bristled at having health and safety rules imposed upon them that made it harder to do business.  They arguably lacked standing to represent the class supposedly aggrieved in this case — the very patients those rules were designed to protect from quack abortionists.  Yet, they succeeded both in establishing their standing and in upholding the controversial standard that such requirements cannot stand, being overly burdensome to women who might seek abortions — that is, parties not even represented before the court.  And they did it in a 5-4 decision in which Roberts was the tiebreaker.

Chief Justice John Roberts's Lack of Courage Is Damaging the Supreme Court.  An umpire who can be cowed by the crowd will not call the same strike zone for both teams.  Without courage, good ideas about the law are just empty words on a page.  Without courage, even the clearest-written rights are empty promises, the plainest limitations on power are easily overwhelmed, and the entire project of rule by written law becomes just another hollow formality.  Two of today's Supreme Court decisions, on abortion and separation of powers, are further evidence of this.  Chief Justice John Roberts has yet again shown the absence of courage that has so often undermined his Court.  Roberts's repeated demonstrations of lack of courage are rapidly becoming a threat to the Court itself, and to the conservative legal project.

John Roberts Shows Supreme Court at Stake Again in 2020 Election.  Many conservatives voted for President Donald Trump in 2016 solely because the fate of the Supreme Court was at stake.  They will have to do so again in 2020, because the Court remains liberal, and Democrats want to pack it further.  Nominally, conservatives have a 5-4 majority, if the only consideration is the party of the president who nominated them.  But Chief Justice John Roberts has repeatedly sided with the Court's liberals, from the Obamacare decision until today.

John Roberts aborts conservative jurisprudence yet again.  Chief Justice John Roberts has put another shiv in the ribs of judicial conservatives, again abandoning intellectual consistency while doing the bidding of social liberals.  By concurring in a ruling that a Louisiana abortion regulation is unconstitutional, Roberts contradicted his own stance from a case just four years earlier.  In Monday's case, June Medical Services LLC v. Russo, the four consistently liberal judges ruled that Louisiana may not, as a health precaution, require that abortionists possess "admitting privileges" to a nearly hospital in case something goes wrong with the operation.  The four generally conservative justices dissented, saying the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals was correct in ruling that the Louisiana law was constitutionally acceptable.  Roberts, in a separate concurring opinion, broke the tie in the liberals' favor.  He did so not because he agreed with his liberal colleagues on substance, but because he was (he said) upholding the doctrine of "stare decisis," roughly meaning, "Let it stand as decided."

Supreme Court declines to hear border wall challenge.  The Supreme Court is leaving in place a decision that rejected environmental groups' challenge to sections of wall the Trump administration is building along the U.S. border with Mexico.  The high court on Monday [6/29/2020] declined to hear an appeal involving construction of 145 miles of steel-bollard walls along the border in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas.

If They Weren't Before, Conservatives are Officially Done With Justice John Roberts.  Conservatives were outraged eight years ago when Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts voted with the liberals on the court to uphold Obamacare's individual mandate.  His swing almost singlehandedly saved the Affordable Care Act.  A few years removed and he made a few better decisions, somewhat appeasing conservatives.  But last year he helped kill the census citizenship question.  Then, last week, he voted with liberals to reject President Trump's attempt to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.  The court didn't say that Trump couldn't reverse the program, but that his legal reasoning wasn't up to par.  But it was Roberts's vote on this Monday morning that convinced conservatives he will never be on their side, and regret that President George W. Bush ever uttered his name.  Justice Roberts has sided with the court's liberals again, this time striking down a Louisiana abortion law that required abortionists to acquire admitting privileges from nearby hospitals.  Yet again, it was a razor-thin 5-4 ruling.

US Supreme Court strikes down Louisiana abortion law.  The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday [6/29/2020] struck down a Louisiana law regulating abortion clinics, reasserting a commitment to abortion rights over fierce opposition from dissenting conservative justices in the first big abortion case of the Trump era.  Chief Justice John Roberts joined with his four more liberal colleagues in ruling that the law requiring doctors who perform abortions have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals violates the abortion right the court first announced in the landmark Roe v.  Wade decision in 1973.

Rick Scott:  Expect Dems to End Filibuster, Stack Supreme Court If Biden Wins.  During Hugh Hewitt's Friday [6/26/2020] broadcast, Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) warned of the consequences of a Joe Biden victory in November.  The Florida Republican lawmaker said Senate Democrats would end the filibuster when asked by host Hugh Hewitt.

Conservatives Are Treated like Second-Class Citizens, and That's Dangerous.  Conservative Americans have been dutifully respecting the rule of law for decades, while our government has become more aggressive in using the law as nothing more than a tool for choosing winners and losers.  The Supreme Court banned God from public schools while inviting the Marxist religion to take over.  It decided of its own accord to sanction the murder of sixty-five million babies because those babies could not protest.  It chose to rewrite the ancient meaning of marriage, and it has now denied the discrete existence of women altogether.  When a strong majority of Americans desperately wanted to stop the government's socialist takeover of health care, the Court betrayed Americans again by turning something unconstitutional into something mandatory with all the nonchalance of a royal decree.  Time and again, Americans proud of their Constitution have asked the Supreme Court to preserve its meaning, and the Court has instead blotted over the original with its own contemporary values and beliefs.

Supreme Court's LGBTQ Decision Is Formula for Chaos.  The U.S. Supreme Court has decided that homosexual and transgender individuals are covered by the anti-discrimination provision, Title VII, of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in his opinion:  "An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex.  Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids."  When I read the reasoning of Gorsuch, I feel less surprised by the chaos in our cities, and our great difficulties and challenges in enforcing the law.  How indeed can we expect sanity in enforcing our laws when such confusion exists in our nation's highest court about what our law is, and even what our country is about?

Will Anyone in Government Resist SCOTUS's Absurd Redefinition of 'Sex'?  On June 15, the Supreme Court issued its Bostock opinion redefining "sex" in discrimination law.  Beyond the word's common biological meaning — linked to an innate and unchangeable characteristic — the Court says "sex" can now be used to protect homosexual behaviors and transgender delusions.  By acknowledging "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" as valid concepts (while leaving them essentially undefined), the Court has embraced sexual-radical dogma.  The absurd Bostock opinion will unleash unimaginable chaos unless there is significant push-back.  The disruptions that have followed rampant "gay rights" demands are well known, and will surely multiply.  And the ruling has given new life to transgender demands for their special "rights."  While Bostock specifically addressed employment law, commentators predict that its new definition of "sex" will be applied in any case dealing with discrimination on the basis of "sex."  There are over 100 federal laws that use that terminology.

Ross Douthat:  Neil Gorsuch 'Arbiter of Sexual and Religious Liberties'.  Conservative New York Times columnist Ross Douthat observed Saturday that, with his decision in the arena of gay and transgender rights, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch made himself the "arbiter of sexual and religious liberties."  "[P]olitics abhors a power vacuum, and our juristocracy has claimed new powers in part because Congress doesn't want them," Douthat asserted, adding, "The Supreme Court, clothed in meritocratic authority, seems more like management than Congress."

The Supreme Court is out of control.  With one exception, the Supreme Court causes supreme problems when it oversteps its bounds, as it has done regularly since Trump's election.  It did this most recently when it held that, although President Obama illegally instituted his DACA program, President Trump must jump through a series of arbitrary administrative hoops to walk it back. [...] Going back as far as 1857, with one exception, the Court's major public policy decisions have been constitutionally invalid and had disastrous outcomes.  Dred Scott denied African-Americans citizenship, Plessy v. Ferguson enshrined segregation, Korematsu v. the United States erased the rights of Americans of Japanese descent, and Roe v. Wade created an imaginary constitutional right to abortion that created a 47-year-long schism in America that perverts every presidential election.  Each time, the Court waded into areas that are the preserve of the states and Congress, making up rights as it went along.  Only once did the Supreme Court improperly insert itself into a public policy issue and get away with it.  That was 1954's Brown v. Board of Education, a morally but not legally correct decision.

Gorsuch the Pharisee and Textualist Tomfoolery.  The Supreme Court's recent opinion that the 1964 Civil Rights Act's prohibition against "sex" discrimination offers protections for LGBT identity groups has raised eyebrows and ire.  But it's not surprising:  The decision's author, Justice Neil Gorsuch, long ago made clear that he operates from false premises.  One of these is what's called "textualism," which is not at all the same as originalism.  Conservatives also err, in my view, in claiming that Gorsuch has "redefined 'sex.'"  In reality, his ruling is instead based on a certain rationalization.  Harvard law professor Noah Feldman, while essentially applauding Gorsuch's lawyer-craft, explained it well.  "As applied to Title VII, the classic 1964 anti-discrimination law, the textualist idea is very simple," he wrote June 15.  "The law prohibits discrimination 'on the basis of sex.'  To discriminate against somebody because of sexual orientation necessarily entails discriminating on the basis of sex.  After all, if you're discriminating against a man because he is attracted to men, you would not be discriminating against him if he were a woman who is attracted to men."  "The same is true for transgender status," he continued.

The Smart Boy Sophistry of Neil Gorsuch.  For almost 50 years, the country has been debating the enactment of state and local gay rights laws.  Protections for gays and lesbians have been passed in 21 states and in over 400 localities.  Recently, the debate has been extended to include transgender rights as well, with all the complications regarding bathrooms, locker rooms, and other aspects of daily life that those arguments entail.  On Monday, the United States Supreme Court, in a 6-3 opinion written by President Trump's first appointee, Justice Neil Gorsuch, held that this entire debate and all of those laws arrived at through debate and deliberation have been totally unnecessary.  Why?  Because, whaddaya know?  We've already had a federal gay rights law, and a federal transgender rights law to boot, on the books for 56 years!  Gorsuch, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, found these provisions lurking somewhere in the penumbra of Title VII of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars employment discrimination "because of ... sex" (or race, color, religion, or national origin).

Language, Freedom, And Law.  he U.S. Supreme Court's decision this week in Bostock imposes on Americans a rule of greater import than any ever asserted by any government.  Its adoption into law of a meaning of the word "sex" that is at war with that of the dictionary, of biology, and of common use, and enlists the U.S. legal system against the way of life of most Americans.  As a matter of law, the Bostock decision, like so many others since Dred Scott — e.g. Plessy, Lochner, Brown, Roe, Kelo, Obergefell — rewrites the Constitution and statutes to reflect the opinions of elites currently in power.  But even in Dred Scott, in which the court very broadly hinted that the Declaration of Independence's word "men" did not apply to negroes and hence that they have no rights under the Constitution, it did not actually redefine that word.  Only in Bostock has the court taken the fateful step to assert that a common word, vital to social relations, can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean.  And, having done that, the court takes the side of those who assert the primacy of will over nature.  Thus has the court removed the protection of the law from the way most Americans think and speak, making us liable to civil and possibly even criminal penalties.  No totalitarian regime has ever explicitly mandated the meaning of words.

Roberts voids nation's immigration laws.  In June 2010, Chief Justice John Roberts upheld the unconstitutional mandate that people buy health insurance.  He flippantly sneered that elections have consequences.  Today [6/18/2020] he upheld Barack Hussein Obama's unconstitutional repeal of immigration law despite 30 states electing as president Donald John Trump specifically to enforce immigration laws.  This follows Roberts voting to stop Arizona from enforcing immigration law.  This follows Roberts deciding California does not have to enforce immigration law.  Elections don't matter because Chief Justice John Roberts believes the Constitution says whatever he wants it to say on any particular day.  Some people believe Obama has the goods on him.  I did.  Now I realize he is just like Red China.

A New Dred Scott Decision Immortalizing Bureaucracy.  Just as the infamous Dred Scott case in 1857 would have extended slavery throughout America, so Thursday's decision in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California threatens to make the machinations of bureaucratic government supreme and unrepealable.  Chief Justice John Roberts' 5-4 court opinion strengthens the grip of the administrative state — the interlocking network of bureaucracy and political correctness — over the democratically elected branches that are supposed to make us a nation of self-governing citizens.  The Supreme Court, in a seeming conspiracy with lower federal courts, has tilted the table against the elected president and his appointees in favor of bureaucratic governance.

Supremes legislate from the bench on DACA. What now?  On questions of immigration, the Supreme Court seems to be representing the interests of foreign nationals who haven't bothered to come to the U.S. legally.  They threw out the perfectly legitimate request to reinstate the 2020 Census question on U.S. citizenship, something that has been on that form since the dawn of the Census and only recently was dropped, saying the Trump administration hadn't presented a good enough reason to do it.  Now they've done the same thing on the question of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), the Obama administration executive order that permits a large bloc of illegal aliens to work and stay in the country with zero fear of deportation, cutting them a spot in the line well ahead of immigrants.  Message:  Get across the border with your kids; waiting in line to immigrate to the U.S. legally is a chump's errand.

'Sloppy' Policy Making, Not Ideology, Cost Trump Two SCOTUS Cases.  The right has been up in arms over Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts voting with the liberal majority in overturning Trump administration policy on DREAMers and the citizenship question on the 2020 census.  But Roberts wasn't giving his opinion of DREAMers or citizenship questions.  Roberts' ruling was entirely consistent with the law; specifically the Administrative Procedure Act.

Gorsuch Takes the Road Less Gaveled.  When he first sat down in front of the cameras and a packed Senate committee room, it was tough not to like Neil Gorsuch.  The prematurely gray dad of two kicked off his opening statement talking about his wife and family — joking about his daughters, who were probably out "bathing chickens for the county fair," his extended family and childhood pranks, the values of working hard.  Gorsuch thought back to the first time he put on his black robe — how it reminded him of the important job he had to do.  He told the senators he didn't realize how big it was until he slipped on it and fell.  "Everything went flying," he recalled.  Now, three years later, that robe is still tripping him up.  But his fall, Americans are finding out, hurts us all.

Ted Cruz Completely DESTROYS John Roberts on Senate Floor Over DACA Decision.  In a remarkable moment on the floor of the U.S Senate, Ted Cruz (R-Texas) used his ten minutes to take a flamethrower to the Supreme Court decision over Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Calling Roberts' repeated siding with the liberals on the court a charade, he said, "Everyone knows the game they're playing.  They're hoping that, come November, there's a different result in the election, that a new administration comes in and decides that amnesty is a good thing."

John Roberts and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamer Robe.  The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, ruling that the Trump Administration failed to comply with federal regulation procedures.  In an opinion for the 5-4 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts explained, "we address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action."  Justice Clarence Thomas, the sole African American on the high court, thought there was more to it.  "The majority today concludes that [the Department of Homeland Security] was required to do far more," Thomas wrote.  In effect, the majority was holding the decision of the Trump Administration to a higher standard than President Barack Obama's "executive action" that established DACA illegally in the first place.  The decision, Thomas wrote in his dissent, "must be recognized for what it is:  an effort to avoid a politically controversial but legally correct decision."

DACA Ruling Is Supreme Court's Latest Act of Political Timidity.  With the Supreme Court's latest erroneous decision on immigration, Chief Justice John Roberts and other justices have done lasting damage to the Constitution, the rule of law, and accountable government.  It is not just the legally wrong decision Thursday in Department of Homeland Security v.  Regents of the University of California, in which Roberts and the liberal justices refused 5-4 to allow the Trump administration to terminate the unlawful Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program implemented by the Obama administration without congressional approval.  Or the unsound decision Monday authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch where six of the nine justices took it upon themselves to legislate from the bench by rewriting and effectively amending the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include sexual orientation and gender identity — something Congress specifically has rejected.

Just one (seemingly important) question about this Supreme Court LGBT decision.  Given that "discrimination" on the basis of "sexual orientation and gender identity" is now officially federally forbidden, imposed on the states by the activist keyboard of a supposedly conservative justice, could we be told who exactly determines what qualifies as a sexual orientation, and determines what can be claimed as a "gender identity"?  Is there a panel that gets to decide?  Local governing bodies?  Perhaps it will be determined at the federal level?  Or is it merely a matter of personal expression, allowing the individual to create or originate their own gender or orientation as needed?  Perhaps medical professionals will be granted the final say?

Trump calls for 'new justices' on Supreme Court, as conservatives rage at Roberts.  President Trump, in the wake of Thursday's defeat at the Supreme Court in his efforts to repeal the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, called for new justices as conservatives took aim at Chief Justice John Roberts for what they called a "pattern" of siding with the liberal wing in key decisions.  "The recent Supreme Court decisions, not only on DACA, Sanctuary Cities, Census, and others, tell you only one thing, we need NEW JUSTICES of the Supreme Court.  If the Radical Left Democrats assume power, your Second Amendment, Right to Life, Secure Borders, and ... Religious Liberty, among many other things, are OVER and GONE!" he tweeted.

Cotton: If John Roberts Wants To Write Laws, He Should Resign And Run For Office.  Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) criticized Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts Wednesday [6/18/2020] after the court ruled President Trump could not remove the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program created by an executive action by former President Obama.  "It cannot be the law that what Barack Obama has unlawfully done, no president may undo," Cotton said in a statement.  Cotton also condemned Justice Roberts' actions as "political," suggesting he should run for office if he wants to participate in political legislation.

A Morally Empty Jurisprudence.  Conservatives were bracing for the defection of Justice Gorsuch on the cases dealing with the "transgendered" and "sexual orientation."  But even the anticipation of the jolt did not diminish its depressing force.  The reactions, coming with disbelief and anger, have not been understated.  For make no mistake, this case of Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC will be the Roe v. Wade for transgenderism, with effects that will ripple out widely in our country, touching and disfiguring our private lives.  After all, the Court has pronounced it quite wrongful to cast an adverse judgment, a disapproving judgment, on people who affect to shift their "genders."  As we saw in the case of same-sex marriage, children will have to be instructed in school on this new civic culture that the Court has ordered into place.  The companion cases of Bostock v. Clayton County and Altitude Express v.  Zarda bring the same force to the side of discriminations based on "sexual orientation" or homosexuality.  What Congress failed persistently to add to the Civil Rights Act, Neil Gorsuch and John Roberts managed to accomplish in a stroke, with the reliable help of the four liberal justices, who could always be depended on to vote in a phalanx for the ethic of sexual liberation.

A Striking Display of Sophistry.  The Supreme Court's decision in Bostock v. Clayton County offers a striking display of sophistry in service of the spirit of the age.  The Court had to rule on whether Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act bars employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.  The 6-3 decision held that the Act does indeed forbid such discrimination.  The effect will be dramatic.  This decision hands LGBT activists the coercive machinery of civil rights law.  Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, which is said to be a straightforward textualist interpretation.  Title VII stipulates that it is unlawful "for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."  There is no mention of sexual orientation or transgenderism.  But Gorsuch has a clever argument.  He notes that if a man identifies as a woman and is fired for doing so, then he is being fired for something that would be entirely OK if he were a woman.

Gorsuch Takes a Knee.  What U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch did in his opinion proclaiming that civil rights in employment requires recognition of gay rights was abominable enough, but what it revealed about his view of his role as a justice is even worse.  Conservative critiques of Gorsuch's pretentious preening aside — if Justice Antonin Scalia were alive, he'd be turning over in his grave at this supposedly "textualist" opinion his replacement authored — Republican lawmakers may be breathing a sigh of relief.  Gorsuch took them off the hook and eliminated the necessity of voting on proposals expanding employment protections to cover discrimination against gays, which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Democratic majority favors.  Republicans duck so many issues their supine postures must be frozen.  In fact, Gorsuch's court action may have improved Republican chances in both the Senate and the House in 2020 (even as it compromises President Trump's ability to boast about his court picks).

Supreme Court rules against Trump administration bid to end DACA program.  The Supreme Court ruled Thursday against the Trump administration's effort to end the Obama-era program that offers legal protections to young immigrants brought to the country illegally as children.  The court ruled that the administration's decision to rescind the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which sets out rulemaking procedures for federal agencies.

Donald Trump Critical of 'Horrible and Politically Charged' DACA Decision from the Supreme Court.  President Donald Trump on Thursday criticized the Supreme Court after the majority ruled against his attempt to repeal President Barack Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).  "These horrible and politically charged decisions coming out of the Supreme Court are shotgun blasts into the face of people that are proud to call themselves Republicans or Conservatives," Trump wrote on Twitter.

SCOTUS Gun Case Denials Signal Conservative Justices Don't Trust Roberts With The Second Amendment.  The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to pass on nearly a dozen gun-rights-related cases is breathtaking, not in the denial of hearing any, but in the seeming admission that the conservative associate justices think Chief Justice John Roberts can't be trusted to protect the Bill of Rights. [...] The Supreme Court requires just four of the nine justices to agree to hear an appeal for the nation's highest court to take the case.  Those watching gun cases were hoping for good reason that finally, after a decade of silence from the court, the four votes were now there.  Four justices, including Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, have all recently expressed frustration with the court's unwillingness to address infringements on Second Amendment rights.  Thomas previously noted, "[T]he Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this Court."

Supreme Court rules for 'Dreamers,' rejects Trump's repeal of immigration program.  In a striking rebuke to President Trump, the Supreme Court on Thursday rejected his plan to repeal the popular Obama-era order that protected so-called Dreamers, the nearly 800,000 young immigrants who were brought to this country illegally as children.  Led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the court called the decision to cancel the program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, as arbitrary and not justified.  The program allows these young people to register with the government, and if they have clean records, to obtain a work permit.  At least 27,000 of these DACA recipients are employed as healthcare workers.  Trump had been the confident that high court with its majority of Republican appointees would rule in his favor and say the chief executive had the power to "unwind" the policy.

Et tu, Gorsuch?  A little over three years into a lifetime appointment, and he's already speaking for Justice Ginsburg when it comes to matters of transsexualism and forgotten all about Justice Scalia's textualism.  No matter how hard we try, our "conservative" judges belly-flop into "strict constructionist" poseurs and weak-kneed judicial activists faster than Chief Justice Roberts can rewrite Obamacare into a tax.  I mean, you try to keep these "originalist" jurists on a philosophically sound path.  You teach them "right" from "wrong."  You instill in them a respect for the law and the importance of always telling the truth.  You can't be with them all the time, though.  You know they're being tempted by strange leftists to rule by emotion and always let the "ends justify the means," but you tell yourself, "we can count on a judge described by many as Justice Scalia's natural successor, right?"  Right?  Gorsuch portrayed himself as a textualist stalwart who understood the great societal costs of abdicating judicial restraint for willy-nilly lawmaking out of thin air.  He promised to serve as a sound, objective, and impartial justice for an out-of-control Judicial Branch that has replaced "the law" with "the decree."  All his friends said he was a man of principle.  Conservatives smiled with pride.  Those he was meant to serve gladly gave him their trust.  And then, bam!  Gorsuch's promises to apply the law as written failed even to outlive Justice Ginsburg.

The Supreme Court Just Turned A Law To Protect Women Into A Weapon Against Them.  Fifty-six years ago, lawmakers passed a federal employment law — Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — to help ensure women wouldn't be fired "because of sex" or conditions biologically tied to being a woman (specifically, pregnancy and childbirth). On Monday, however, a majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices retroactively redefined that federal law and the words "on the basis of sex" to be interpreted to include the more fluid, subjective, and personal notions of "gender identity" and "sexual orientation."  With its decision in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (bundled with two other cases), a six-justice majority essentially reinvented the meaning of "sex" in federal employment law.  It isn't plausible to argue — with a straight face at least — that the legislators who wrote the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s or any citizen reading it at the time understood "sex" to mean anything different than being a man or woman.  Yet the court just decided to step outside its role as interpreter and revised federal law 50 years after it was enacted.

SCOTUS's Transgender Ruling Firebombs The Constitution.  In Monday's ruling inserting "gender identity" into the word "sex" in a 1964 employment law, the U.S. Supreme Court called a man a woman, possibly leading to eventually forcing everyone else to do so also.  The ruling will lead to a tsunami of polarizing court cases and further degradation of Americans' natural rights to free speech, to free association, and to worshipping God as their consciences require.  All this in the name of "equality," a word that has become a totalitarian weapon.  The 6-3 majority included Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed by Republican President George W. Bush, and Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, appointed by Republican President Donald Trump.  These presidents promised voters their justices would uphold the rule of law and the Constitution, and were elected in significant part based on these now-broken promises.  This decision is a disgrace to these bedrocks of Western civilization, our nation built upon them, the voters who vote for them, and to these men's honor. [...] The court's newfound weakness will also be exploited and explored by leftist legal agitators whose goal is the destruction of the American system.

'The End Of The Conservative Legal Movement': Hawley Denounces SCOTUS Ruling In Fiery Senate Floor Speech.  Republican Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley condemned Monday's Supreme Court decision on LGBT anti-discrimination Tuesday, saying the ruling spelled the "end of the conservative legal movement."  "If this case makes anything clear, it's that the bargain that's been offered to religious conservatives for years now is a bad one," Hawley said in a Senate floor speech Tuesday [6/16/2020].  "It's time to reject it."  The Missouri senator's comments came after the Supreme Court ruled in a 6 [to] 3 decision Monday that federal law protects LGBT and transgender employees from discrimination under the same statute that bans unequal treatment in the workplace based on sex.

The Editor says...
What bargain are we supposed to reject?  What does that even mean?  Congressmen can huff and puff and enter their comments into the record all day long, and it will almost never change anything.  I'd like to see a Supreme Court Justice impeached and removed someday.  That would put the brakes on some of this activism.

Will Justice Gorsuch Now Get an Apology From the Democrats?  Today's Supreme Court decision protecting Americans from being fired because of sexual orientation certainly makes one thing clear — it is a fool's errand to predict what a justice is going to do once he is granted life tenure on the high bench.  We can't count the number of times we've pressed that point in our decades in the editorial galleys.  Rarely, though, has a case so roundly marked the matter as the one decided today.  The case is known as Bostock v.  Clayton County, Georgia.  The county was haled to court after it fired an employe, Gerald Bostock, who'd started participating in a gay recreational softball league.  The Nine also considered other cases from persons seeking shelter under the 1964 Civil Rights Act's Title VII, which prohibits firing an individual because of his "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."  The question presented to the Nine involved, among other things, whether the word "sex" covered sexual orientation — and who should decide that, the Court or the Congress.  Had it been up to us, we'd have sent the matter back to the Congress to make clear what it intended when it passed the law in 1964 and how it wants the law to read today.  We'd have favored Congress extending much of the protection the court just provided.  We'd have taken a good deal more care, though, in respect of religious freedom.

Shocking SCOTUS Decision Shockingly Written by Gorsuch.  In a shocking U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision, Justice Neil Gorsuch voted with the axis of evil — that is, with Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor.  In Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, the axis of evil decided that in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the word "sex" includes "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" — both subjectively constituted conditions.  As a result, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in employment based on "race, color, religion, sex, and national origin," now prohibits employers from firing employees who self-identify as homosexual or as the sex they are not and never can be.  The crux of the argument goes something like this:  If a company that allows a woman who gets breast implants and wears lipstick, stilettos, and dresses to work fires a man who gets breast implants and wears lipstick, stilettos, and dresses to work, the company has discriminated against him based on his sex and, therefore, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

SCOTUS: Judicial activism bites again.  What took Justice Antonin Scalia decades to build as a doctrine of textualism, his self-described heir, Neil Gorsuch, burned down in one decision Monday.  Applauded by the liberal media, his incoherent opinion throws federal courts into the middle of the culture war over transgenderism.  Justice Scalia could be rolling over in his grave at this demolition of the house that he so painstakingly built.  This 6-3 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County granted a broad new right of transgenders and homosexuals to sue their employers in federal court.

The Supreme Court confuses mental illness with sex.  On Monday [6/15/2020], the Supreme Court concluded that homosexuality and transgenderism are covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This post doesn't have enough space to explain why, legally, that is an incorrect decision.  Put simply, the Civil Rights Act does not cover sexual orientation and was never intended to.  If Congress wants to change that, it can; it is not the Supreme Court's role, though, to make that change.  This post focuses only on the fact that the Supreme Court, in Bostock v.  Clayton County, wrongly accepted the premise that transgenderism is part of the homosexuality spectrum.  It is not.  It is a form of mental illness.  The Supreme Court has just said that body dysmorphic disorder is protected under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

A 'Pirate Ship' Sailing under a 'Textualist Flag'.  In today's [6/15/2020] much-awaited ruling in the Title VII cases (decided together under the caption of Bostock v. Clayton County), the Supreme Court ruled by a vote of 6 to 3 that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status constitutes discrimination "because of ... sex" in violation of Title VII.  Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by the Chief Justice and the four liberal justices.  Justice Alito and Justice Kavanaugh each wrote dissents, with Justice Thomas joining Alito's dissent. [...] As someone who had much higher expectations for Gorsuch (and for the Chief Justice), I'm sorry to say that I completely agree with Alito.

Justice Gorsuch Just Opened Pandora's Box.  Justice Neil Gorsuch, in his majority opinion in Bostock v.  Clayton County, has decreed that the anti-discrimination protections afforded to women under Title VII of the CRA must be extended to gays, lesbians, and the transgendered, because all of these are discrimination "on the basis of sex."  This is not a narrow ruling that just means you can't fire a person for being gay.  Extending civil rights law to protect a whole new category carries with it a host of ancillary protections.  Harassment is a form of workplace discrimination.  An employee can't be subjected to a "hostile work environment" because of their membership in a protected class.  Under Bostock, an LGBT employee could allege a hostile work environment if a coworker expressed the wrong opinion about Prop 8 or said he believed a person's sex is determined at birth.  Some employers are already justifying firing workers who won't use someone's preferred pronouns because discrimination law requires it.  Misgendering, they say, is harassment.

Alito: Court's 'Preposterous' Trans Ruling Threatens Religion, Speech, Privacy, and Safety.  On Monday [6/15/2020], the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that discrimination on the basis of sex includes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County (2020).  In a powerful dissent joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Samuel Alito condemned the ruling as "preposterous" and betraying "breathtaking" arrogance.  He noted that Congress has tried and repeatedly failed to amend Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in just this fashion and that no one interpreted the law this way until 2017.  In this decision, as in Roe v. Wade (1973) and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Supreme Court usurped the power of Congress by creating "legislation."

Scalia Rolling Over in His Grave:  Gorsuch Leads 'a Brute Force Attack on Our Constitutional System'.  On Monday [6/15/2020], the U.S. Supreme Court unilaterally redefined "sex" in federal law to mean "sexual orientation" and "gender identity."  In Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), a 6-3 majority ruled that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity violates Title VII's prohibition on sex discrimination.  While a technical error has made the ruling inaccessible, the ruling represents an utter rejection of the original meaning of the term "sex" in federal law, twisting it to mean something Congress cannot have intended in 1964.  Justice Neil Gorsuch, long considered an originalist, wrote the Court's opinion, with which left-leaning Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor joined.  Chief Justice John Roberts also joined Gorsuch's opinion, while Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.

Why Trump's Supreme Court appointee Neil Gorsuch just protected LGBTQ rights.  Justice Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump's first nominee to the Supreme Court, delivered an opinion Monday [6/15/2020] that will change how more than 7 million LGBTQ individuals will live and work in the United States.  It is a watershed moment from an unlikely author that means gay, lesbian and transgender workers are protected by federal civil rights law.  It is a stunning defeat for judicial conservatives who worked to ensure Gorsuch's nomination and Republicans, including Donald Trump, who stymied President Barack Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, liberal Merrick Garland in 2016.  The ruling puts Gorsuch in the history books.  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Gorsuch wrote, which bars discrimination "because of sex," also covers claims based on sexual orientation and gender identity

Liberal Groups Endorse Plan to Expand Supreme Court to 11.  Several prominent liberal groups are joining the push by some Democrats to expand the Supreme Court to eleven justices, a move designed to eliminate the Court's current 5-4 conservative majority.

The 7 most anticipated Supreme Court decisions.  The Supreme Court is expected to hand down several blockbuster opinions in the next few weeks as one of the most politically volatile terms in recent memory draws to a close.  The hot-button issues awaiting decisions include fights over abortion, Electoral College procedures, LGBT rights in the workplace, the deportation status of nearly 700,000 young undocumented immigrants and the fate of President Trump's tax returns.  With the rulings arriving less than five months before Election Day, closely divided decisions — particularly those that may fall along ideological lines — could make control over future court vacancies an even more pressing issue when voters cast their ballots.

Supreme Court rejects church's challenge on mandatory limited attendance.  The Supreme Court ruled against a California church that was seeking to overturn the state's limits on attendance.  The court ruled 5-4 against the South Bay United Pentecostal Church in Chula Vista, California, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the four liberal Justices.  The church, which says it has crowds of 200 to 300 people, argued that the limitation placed on how many people can attend its services violates its constitutional rights protecting religious freedom.  It specifically made an emergency appeal so that it would have a ruling before services were scheduled to be held on Sunday.

Supreme Court rejects challenge to limits on church services; Roberts sides with liberals.  A divided Supreme Court on Friday [5/29/2020] rejected an emergency appeal by a California church that challenged state limits on attendance at worship services that have been imposed to contain the spread of the coronavirus.  Over the dissent of the four more conservative justices, Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court's four liberals in turning away a request from the South Bay United Pentecostal Church in Chula Vista, California, in the San Diego area.  The church argued that limits on how many people can attend their services violate constitutional guarantees of religious freedom and had been seeking an order in time for services on Sunday.  The church said it has crowds of 200 to 300 people for its services.

Roberts joins court's liberals to deny California church's lockdown challenge.  A sharply divided Supreme Court late Friday turned aside a church's urgent plea that California's coronavirus lockdown orders are putting an unconstitutional burden on religious freedom.  Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the court's liberals in rejecting a San Diego church's request for relief from Gov. Gavin Newsom's most recent directive limiting churches to 25% of their normal maximum capacity, with an absolute maximum of 100 people at any service.

Supreme Court blocks House from Mueller grand jury material.  The Supreme Court on Wednesday [5/20/2020] temporarily prevented the House of Representatives from obtaining secret grand jury testimony from special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation.  The court's unsigned order granted the Trump administration's request to keep previously undisclosed details from the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election out of the hands of Democratic lawmakers, at least until early summer.  The court will decide then whether to extend its hold and schedule the case for arguments in the fall.  If it does, it's likely the administration will be able to put off the release of any materials until after Election Day.  Arguments themselves might not even take place before Americans decide whether to give President Donald Trump a second term.

Supreme Court blocks House from seeing secret Mueller investigation materials.  The House will have to wait a little longer to see what's inside secret grand jury materials from the Mueller investigation.  The House Judiciary Committee issued an emergency request for the undisclosed files last summer, and Washington, D.C.'s federal appeals court ruled in the committee's favor in March.  But the Supreme Court overturned the appeals court's order on Wednesday, likely keeping the materials under wraps through the 2020 election, The Wall Street Journal reports.  The Justice Department has tried to keep grand jury testimonies from former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation private.  But because the investigation had "stopped short" of drawing conclusions about President Trump's conduct and potential obstruction of justice, the appeals court decided the House Judiciary Committee deserved to see the testimonies, The Washington Post notes.  A previous court had also ruled in favor of the committee.

Supreme Court Seems Ready to Allow Crackdown on 'Faithless' Presidential Electors.  The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard two cases asking whether members of the Electoral College are bound by laws requiring them to support the winner of the popular vote in their state.  Wednesday's [5/13/2020] cases involve six electors who were fined or disqualified because they voted for candidates of their own choosing in 2016, instead of abiding by the result of the vote in their state.  The justices seemed ready to say that laws punishing so-called faithless electors are constitutionally permissible.  Thirty-two states and the District of Columbia have such laws.

Supreme Court throws out 'Bridgegate' convictions of Bridget Kelly, Bill Baroni.  The US Supreme Court on Thursday overturned the convictions of former Chris Christie aide Bridget Anne Kelly and former Port Authority exec Bill Baroni for their involvement in the "Bridgegate" scandal.  Kelly was sentenced to 13 months and Baroni to 18 months for the September 2013 traffic jam, in which they reduced the George Washington Bridge to just one lane, causing major backups for four days.  The pair was convicted of hatching the plan, along with PA exec David Wildstein, to exact political revenge against Democratic Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich for refusing to endorse Republican New Jersey Gov. Christie's re-election that year.

Chief justice questions if Trump religious liberty law is 'too sweeping'.  Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. questioned the scope of the Trump administration's religious liberty law, which exempts employers with religious or moral reasons from providing birth control in health insurance plans.  His question about the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RIFRA) emerged Wednesday in oral arguments conducted via telephone in the Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania case.  "I wonder why it doesn't sweep too broadly," Chief Justice Roberts asked the federal government's attorney.  "It is designed to address the concerns about self-certification, and what the Little Sisters call a hijacking of their plan, but the RIFRA exemption reaches far beyond that."

Supreme Court says unanimous jury verdicts required in state criminal trials for serious offenses.  The Supreme Court said Monday [4/20/2020] that unanimous jury verdicts are required in state criminal trials for serious offenses, handing a victory to criminal defendants including petitioner Evangelisto Ramos, who was convicted of murder in Louisiana on a 10-2 vote.  Ramos argued that Louisiana's non-unanimous jury provision violated his federal constitutional right to trial by jury and that the law had racist roots meant to diminish the votes of minority jurors.

Supreme Court Will Hold Hearings Via Teleconference and Broadcast Live Audio of Consolidated Trump Financial Cases.  The resistance appears to be coming together.  In a stunning and historic change of protocol the United States Supreme Court will hold teleconference hearings and will actually live-stream broadcast the oral arguments and questions.  Two elements are remarkable.  First, that the Supreme Court would permit a livestream broadcast of any hearing is historic. [...] Secondly, and perhaps not coincidentally, during this live-stream session, the Supreme Court is going to be hearing legal arguments after they consolidated a series of cases targeting the financial and business records of President Donald Trump.  The various lawsuits against President Trump are not only going to be heard, they are going to be broadcast.  It doesn't get much more political than that.

Disorder in the courts:  Federal judge blasts Chief Justice John Roberts.  A federal judge leveled harsh accusations against Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and the rest of the conservative majority, claiming that they are "actively participating in undermining American democracy."  Judge Lynn Adelman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin blasted the Roberts-led court in an article titled "The Roberts Court's Assault on Democracy," set to be published in the Harvard Law & Policy Review.

Black Pastors Group Calls for Censure of Chuck Schumer.  The president and founder of the Coalition of African American Pastors (CAAP) has launched a petition calling on the Senate to censure Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for his threatening remarks against two Supreme Court justices.  Rev. William Owens said in a statement that Schumer's remarks against Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh promote "violence and hate".

On Schumer:  Put up or Shut up.  Ever since Senator Chuck Schumer threatened Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on March 4th on the steps of the Supreme Court, calls for Schumer's censure and even expulsion have been rising.  But when will the Senate act? [...] Since the unprecedented attack on the Supreme Court, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has done little else but talk about the event.  But as we all know, letting something this heinous go means it will happen more frequently and achieve dangerous results.

Schumer's 'Whirlwind' Threat Is a Sign of an Apostate Nation.  "I want to tell you, Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch, you have unleashed a whirlwind, and you will pay the price."  Is this the statement of a rational man, a political leader who is charged with leading his party in the U.S. Senate?  If an ordinary American citizen stood in front of a highly charged partisan crowd on the steps of the Supreme Court building and screamed out these words, they would be charged with threatening, by name, Supreme Court Justices and probably hauled off for questioning by the Secret Service.  Well, Charles Schumer — United States senator from the state of New York and Senate minority leader — did exactly that, making specific threats, along with other inflammatory remarks against justices of the highest court in the land.

Why Do the 2020 Democrats Lie About Everything?  They lie to their opponents, to the voters, and of course, they lie to each other.  For instance, after clearly naming two associate Supreme Court justices, and pledging that they "would not know what hit" them, the highest-ranking Senate democrat claimed he never said what he in fact said.  From the same event, a congresswoman with a straight face, said to reporters that "abortions are safer than the extraction of wisdom teeth."  Really?  Wisdom teeth end up doing more damage than killing a child every time one is performed?

Gun Owners of America uses Alinsky tactics against Sen. Chuck Schumer.  Saul Alinsky may have written his Rules for Radicals to give leftists an advantage in the battle for America's soul, but that doesn't mean that the rules aren't tactically wise.  On Friday, Gun Owners of America (GOA) decided to put into play several of those rules when it asked to have Sen. Chuck Schumer "red-flagged" as a potentially dangerous person. [...] With that in mind, on Friday, GOA sent a letter to New York governor Andrew Cuomo asking that he enforce New York's newly enacted "Red Flag" law.  That law, as Cuomo's website states, "prevents individuals who show signs of being a threat to themselves or others from purchasing or possessing any kind of firearm."  The letter repeats Schumer's speech and Chief Justice Roberts's description of it as "threatening" and "dangerous."  GOA notes that one of the statutory factors for issuing a red flag order is "a threat ... directed toward ... another person" (2019 NY CPLR §6342).  Moreover, it turns out that federal law also makes illegal Schumer's conduct.  Thus, GOA informs Cuomo that 40 USC §6134 makes it unlawful to "make a harangue or oration, or utter loud, threatening, or abusive language in the Supreme Court Building or grounds."  Schumer made his speech on Supreme Court grounds.

Dem Senator Slams Chief Justice for Scolding Schumer, Implies that 80 Recent SCOTUS Decisions are Illegitimate.  Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.) has implied that 80 recent Supreme Court decisions are illegitimate due to the "partisan" nature of the decisions and the influence of Republican donors on the court's composition.  "As the architect of an 80-case barrage of partisan, 5-4 decisions for big Republican donor interests, Chief Justice Roberts has zero credibility playing umpire in any political squabble," Whitehouse wrote on Twitter on Wednesday.  The senator has since continued to post on the supposed 80 partisan decisions.

Threatening Supreme Court Justices Is Never OK.  Congress must censure Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer for threatening two Supreme Court justices outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday.  This should be wholly bipartisan and utterly uncontroversial.  No American, no less a high-ranking member of Congress like Schumer, should be permitted to threaten government officials or judges.  This type of thuggish behavior displayed by the senior U.S. senator has no place in a civilized society and must be condemned by all.

Schumer, the Supreme Court, and the Mob.  On Wednesday morning, the Democrats' Senate minority leader stirred up the mob outside the Supreme Court, unabashedly threatening Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh:  "I want to tell you, Gorsuch.  I want to tell you, Kavanaugh.  You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price," Schumer inveighed.  "You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions."  Inside, the justices were then hearing argument on what ought to be a straightforward abortion case (i.e., one in which the "right" invented in Roe v.  Wade is not up for consideration).  When called on his menacing remarks, rather than apologize, Schumer brazenly lied about what he had done.  This morning, he was still lying — a tepid apology, offered under pressure while insisting that "in no way was I making a threat."  In a rule-of-law society, that should rate censure.  Case closed.  Except it's not closed, because we are not a rule-of-law society.  We just pretend to be.  In a rule-of-law society, a mob would not gather on the steps of the courthouse in the first place.

Stop Blaming Kavanaugh For Schumer's SCOTUS Threats.  When Democratic leader Sen. Chuck Schumer threatened two sitting Supreme Court justices this week, some reporters and other Democratic politicians attempted to downplay his unprecedented attack by falsely claiming he was echoing what Justice Brett Kavanaugh had said during his contentious confirmation hearing.  Only the completely ignorant or willfully duplicitous person could make such a comparison.  In his hearing, Kavanaugh said he worried about what the partisan attempts to destroy his reputation with horrific and unsubstantiated allegations would mean for the country.  Schumer, by contrast, called out Justices Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch by name and said that if they didn't achieve his preferred pro-abortion outcome in an upcoming ruling, "you will pay the price" and "you won't know what hit you."

Judges:  The Whirlwind, Indeed.  What should be done about Senator Schumer's threats to two members of the United States Supreme Court?  Everyone agrees that the senator's words were shocking.  Mr. Schumer, while addressing an abortion rights rally in front of the Court, issued threats against two justices over a case on abortion.  "I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price," Mr. Schumer boomed.  The Baltimore Sun, in an editorial today, reckons that Mr. Schumer was merely echoing Justice Kavanaugh's expression, during his confirmation hearing, of fear of the whirlwind the Democrats had sowed.  Mr. Schumer, though, having so pointedly named Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, proceeded to shout a threat that shocked the nation:  "You will not know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions."  This is a moment, in our view, for the Supreme Court to clobber the senator with Title 18 of the United States Code, section 401.  Title 18 is the part of our federal law that deals with criminal matters, and section 401 grants courts the power to punish contempt.  The Nine could move against the senator sua sponte, meaning on the court's own motion, by issuing a heavy fine, say, or seizing his law license, or worse.

National Pro-Life Leader Calls on Chuck Schumer to Resign.  The president of pro-life abortion industry watchdog group Operation Rescue has called upon Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to resign in the wake of his threats Wednesday against Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.  "As the highest ranked Democrat in the Senate, it is intolerable that Schumer would issue direct threats by name to two Supreme Court Justices if they did not vote his way on this case," said Troy Newman.  "I call on Chuck Schumer to resign.  Anyone who can make those kinds of direct and intimidating threats against the nation's highest court is not fit to serve, and probably belongs behind bars":

Sen. Hawley moves to censure Schumer after 'intimidation' of SCOTUS justices.  Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said he plans to introduce a motion to censure Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., for saying Wednesday that Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch would "pay a price" during a pro-choice rally.  Schumer singled out President Trump's two nominees to the high court on Wednesday as the justices heard arguments Thursday related to a Louisiana abortion law case.

The Chickens Come Home to Roost for Chuck Schumer.  I watched with mild fascination yesterday as the whole "Chuck Schumer threatens SCOTUS Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh" story played out, and how the video went viral.  Along with that was how Schumer's office issued a statement in which they chastised Chief Justice Roberts' response to the threats and laughably claimed all the backlash was over a "misinterpretation" of Schumer's remarks before launching into whatboutism. [...] The chickens were coming home to roost for the Senate Minority Leader and his fellow Democrats, who have long warned of consequences for Gorsuch and Kavanaugh should they rule "the wrong way" on abortion cases that appeared before the court.  All this as they pretended to be staunch defenders of an "independent judiciary."

Mitch McConnell:  Schumer Threat to Justices Was 'Unhinged,' 'Shameful'.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) on Thursday tore into Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for threatening Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, calling his remarks "unhinged" and "shameful."  "I fully anticipate our colleague would quickly withdraw his comments and apologize," McConnell began in a pointed Senate floor speech.  "Instead our colleague doubled down.  He tried to gaslight the entire country and stated that he was actually threatening fellow Senators as though that would be much better."

Chuck Schumer:  I Didn't Threaten Justices but Used the Wrong Words.  Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on Thursday offered a defiant non-apology for threatening Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, conceding that he "shouldn't have used the words I did" while making excuses for the statement and claiming Republicans were "manufacturing outrage" over it.

Schumer's SCOTUS threat was truly unprecedented, then he made it worse.  "If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices," argued Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78.  If we needed a pristine example of why justices are bestowed lifetime appointments and shielded from the intimidation tactics of unethical politicians, Sen. Chuck Schumer has now provided us with one.  Speaking to pro-abortion protesters in front of the Supreme Court this week, the Senate minority leader threatened — there's no other way to put it — two sitting justices with repercussions if they uphold a Louisiana law aimed at protecting babies who survive abortions.

Josh Hawley [and] 14 [Other] GOP Senators Move to Censure Chuck Schumer for Threatening Justices.  Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) introduced a resolution on Thursday, along with 14 Senate Republicans, to censure Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for threatening Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch.  During a rally in front of the Supreme Court on Wednesday, the Senate minority leader warned that there would be consequences if the two justices voted the wrong way during a case that challenged Louisiana's abortion law.

The Genocide the Supreme Court and Medical Groups Unleashed.  There's too much power vested in nine people in black robes.  It only takes five justices, though, to make decisions that impact generations.  And they've been Supremely wrong, repeatedly.  In Dred Scott vs. Sanford, the Supreme Court ruled that slaves were not citizens and, therefore, not afforded constitutional rights.  The Civil Rights Act of 1875, both written and passed solely by Republicans, was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.  In Plessy v. Ferguson, despite the Reconstruction Amendments (13th, 14th and 15th), an arrogant Supreme Court affirmed codified racial discrimination in what should be called Separate and Unequal.  In Minor v. Happersett, the majority on the Court refused to recognize a woman's right to vote.  Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton are in a long tradition of tragic rulings from America's highest Court.  We keep hearing cries of "Precedent!" from those who want to ignore the devastation that egregious Supreme Court opinions have had on our society.  And now, with nearly 62 million human lives aborted from existence by "precedent," it's long overdue to address the conjuring of rights out of thin air by those donning those black robes.

'You will pay the price': Schumer threatens Kavanaugh and Gorsuch as Supreme Court hears abortion case.  Sen. Chuck Schumer took aim at Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, promising to make them "pay" as the pair is set to rule on abortion regulations.  "I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh:  You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price," the New York Democrat said Wednesday at a rally for abortion rights.  "You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions."  The Senate minority leader accused the justices of taking away "fundamental rights" as the Supreme Court is hearing a case about a Louisiana law that regulates abortion providers, which opponents have argued unconstitutionally limits abortion access by placing an undue burden upon those seeking abortions.

GOP senator pushes to censure Chuck Schumer for threatening Supreme Court justices.  Sen. Josh Hawley is introducing legislation to censure Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer for saying that two Supreme Court justices "will pay the price" for voting against the wishes of abortion advocates.  Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, announced on Twitter Wednesday that he plans to introduce a motion to censure the New York Democrat for threatening Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.  Hawley's announcement follows a torrent of criticism toward Schumer for his comments, including from Chief Justice John Roberts.  "I would call on Schumer to apologize, but we all know he has no shame.  So tomorrow I will introduce a motion to censure Schumer for his pathetic attempt at intimidation of [the] Supreme[ ]Court," Hawley wrote.

Chuck Schumer, Wise Guy.  [Scroll down]  All of this came to mind Wednesday [3/4/2020] when I heard Sen. Schumer's address to the pro-abortion rally on the steps of the Supreme Court in which he warned Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh that "you will pay the price.  You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions."  The "awful decisions" was an obvious reference to how the justices are expected to rule in the abortion rights case that had occasioned the rally.  Is there any way to interpret these astounding remarks other than as an endeavor to influence a judicial proceeding?  Schumer may have been threatening Gorsuch and Kavanaugh with impeachment.  But for purposes of establishing criminal liability that is irrelevant.  Under the statute, a threat of any kind made to influence their decisions in an ongoing case is prima facie proof of obstruction of justice.  No threat of violence is required.  The senator's actions warrant either an arrest or, at the very least, a formal investigation for endeavoring to obstruct justice.  They could also warrant similar treatment for threatening to assault the justices, since on its face Schumer's remark regarding "what hit you" could also be understood as a threat of violence or as an incitement to the crazies who infest our bitterly divided society to take action.

Roberts chides Schumer for 'dangerous' remarks on 2 justices.  Chief Justice John Roberts on Wednesday criticized as "inappropriate" and "dangerous" comments that Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer made outside the Supreme Court earlier in the day about Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

Chief Justice John Roberts Condemns Schumer's Threat: 'Inappropriate' and 'Dangerous'.  Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Wednesday condemned Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for threatening fellow Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.  "Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous," Roberts said in a rare statement.  "All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter." Earlier Wednesday, Schumer warned in a speech outside the Supreme Court that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will "pay the price" if they vote against pro-choice advocates in a major abortion case.

Schumer unloads on Gorsuch, Kavanaugh at abortion rights rally: 'You will pay the price!'  A fired-up Senator Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., appeared to issue a vague warning toward Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh on Wednesday, during a rally held as the court heard arguments in a high-profile abortion case.  At the rally hosted by the Center for Reproductive Rights, Schumer noted that the case, June Medical Services LLC v.  Russo, is the first "major" abortion case since President Trump's court picks have been on the bench.  The dispute, dealing with restrictions over who can perform abortions, involves a Louisiana law similar to one in Texas that the court ruled unconstitutional in 2016, before either Trump justice was on the Supreme Court and before conservatives held a 5-4 majority.

ABA 'deeply troubled' by Schumer's Supreme Court comments.  The American Bar Association said on Wednesday that it is "deeply troubled" by a comment made by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., outside the Supreme Court that many said was a direct threat to two sitting justices.  Schumer was at a rally over a high-profile abortion case while the case played out inside.  Schumer named Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh and, in an impassioned speech, said, "You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.  You will not know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions."

Josh Hawley to File for Censure of Chuck Schumer Over Supreme Court Threats.  Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) announced Wednesday night he plans to file a censure motion against Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for threats he made against Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh at a pro-choice rally in front of the Court as inside the justices heard arguments on a Louisiana abortion law case, June Medical Services LLC v. Russo.

Chuck Schumer digs in with absurd, gaslighting defense after Chief Justice John Roberts issues rare public rebuke.  It takes a lot for the Chief Justice of the United States to issue a public rebuke to an elected official.  On Wednesday [3/4/2020], Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who is digging in against the rebuke, provided that lot.  "This morning," Justice John Roberts said in a statement made available to media, "Senator Schumer spoke at a rally in front of the Supreme Court while a case was being argued inside."  Roberts' statement then refers to a threat Schumer issued that day against conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, both of whom have signaled a willingness to uphold a Louisiana law requiring doctors who perform abortions to acquire hospital admitting privileges.

Trump says Schumer should 'pay severe price' for Supreme Court threat.  President Donald Trump said that Sen. Chuck Schumer should "pay a severe price" for threatening two Supreme Court justices on Wednesday who are hearing a Louisiana abortion case.  "There can be few things worse in a civilized, law abiding nation, than a United States Senator openly, and for all to see and hear, threatening the Supreme Court or its Justices," Trump wrote on Twitter Wednesday night.  "This is what Chuck Schumer just did.  He must pay a severe price for this!"  Earlier Wednesday, at a rally on the steps outside the high court, Schumer warned Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh would "pay the price" if they voted to restrict abortion rights.

Supreme Court Narrowly Decides That Identity Theft by Illegal Aliens Is Actually a Crime.  Small wonder that we are a magnet for illegal immigration. [...] In 1986, Congress enacted the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA).  IRCA made it illegal to employ illegal aliens, established an employment eligibility verification system, and created various civil and criminal penalties against employers who violate the law.  As part of this law came the Form I-9, known to anyone who has applied for a job in the past 30 years.  This is a largely toothless provision that does nothing to deter anyone from employing an illegal nor does it pose any noticeable bar to the ability of illegals to work, but it has created a booming black market in I-9 friendly documents.  What could have been a fairly formidable tool to deter longterm illegals has been effectively gutted by the courts.

Divided Supreme Court rules illegal immigrants can't be shielded from ID theft prosecution.  A divided Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that illegal immigrants who use someone else's information when filling out tax forms for employment can face criminal charges, despite federal laws that liberal justices claim should prohibit such cases.  The Immigration Control and Reform Act (IRCA) makes it a federal crime to lie on the I-9 work authorization form, while limiting how the false information can be used.  Federal law also says information "contained in" the I-9 cannot be used for law enforcement other than specified exceptions — but the Supreme Court ruled that if workers use the same information in tax documents, they can face charges.

President Trump Calls on Sotomayor and Ginsburg to Recuse Themselves From His Supreme Court Cases.  President Trump responded from India via Twitter on Tuesday local time to a scathing dissent by Justice Sonia Sotomayor released Friday [2/21/2020] that accused the conservative majority justices on the Supreme Court of being biased in favor of the Trump administration.  Trump called on Sotomayor and her fellow Trump-hating Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to recuse themselves from cases involving or relating to him.

The Democrats' Notorious RBG Maneuver.  The 86-year-old Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has in recent years become the most beloved luminary serving in government to rank-and-file, left-leaning Democrats, even gaining a trendy new nickname, "The Notorious RBG." [...] After a laudable, years-long struggle, Ginsburg is now cancer-free.  She has sat on the highest court in the land for more than a quarter century, and is renowned for her work ethic and her love for her work.  If she could be persuaded to announce her retirement, to take effect at the end of the court's current term, it would electrify and focus Trump opponents like nothing that has come before.  The 2020 presidential campaign would be changed into something entirely different from what it currently is.  Ginsburg's unusual decision would be viewed as a self-sacrificial act, motivated by pure principle.

The Editor says...
How does anyone know Ms. Ginsburg "is now cancer-free," except by taking the word of her publicist?  She was not seen at the State of the Union address last week.

Supreme Court Allows Trump To Enforce Rule Barring Green Cards For Migrants Using Social Services.  The Supreme Court Monday [1/27/2020] allowed the Trump administration to enforce a new rule that will deny green cards to foreign nationals who use taxpayer-funded social services, lifting lower court injunctions that blocked the change.  The 5-4 vote followed familiar ideological lines, with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan in dissent.  The justices did not give reasons for lifting the injunctions — as is typical of orders of this nature — though Justice Neil Gorsuch released a concurring opinion urging the Supreme Court to curtail the use nationwide injunctions, which Justice Clarence Thomas joined.

McConnell's Supreme Court Tactics:  Politics 101.  When Justice Antonin Scalia died in early 2016, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell vowed to keep the resulting Supreme Court vacancy open through the elections that November.  If a vacancy on the Court arises in 2020, McConnell promises that the Senate will move promptly to confirm President Trump's nominee.  Many folks on the left and in the media are accusing McConnell of the dreaded sin of hypocrisy.  But his positions are in fact entirely consistent.  A defining feature of the 2016 battle over the Scalia vacancy was that President Obama and the Senate majority were from opposing political parties.  That was the first vacancy since 1991 — when Justice Thurgood Marshall retired while George H. W. Bush was president — in which a president of one party would be making a nomination to a Senate controlled by the opposing party.

On Pelosi's Impeachment Stunt and Destiny's Fork in the American Road.  [Scroll down]  So the Democrats emasculated one Bush into imposing the taxes he promised never to levy and the other Bush into continuing the disastrous home-lending redlining laws that absolutely guaranteed [...] that there would be a catastrophic economic collapse emanating from the real estate market.  They saw one GOP Supreme Court choice after another fall into line with the Democrats — Brennan, Stevens, Powell, Blackmun, Souter — or face destruction.  Even Reagan Justices Sandra O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, both fair jurists, never reflected the rock-ribbed conservative intentions and values voiced and voted by Reagan voters.  So those justices, all appointed to SCOTUS because conservative Republican Americans elected presidents who campaigned on conservative promises, were spared personal destruction while they cast decisive votes on a wide series of critical Supreme Court cases that changed, degraded, and often corrupted the very core values of the American social fabric that the electorate majority had voted to protect.

Trump is not a lawyer - Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has responded to Donald Trump's call for the top US court to stop impeachment.  "The president is not a lawyer," she told the BBC in an exclusive interview, adding:  "He's not law trained."  In a wide-ranging conversation, she also said poor women were victims of restrictive abortion access.

Bloomberg: When I'm President I'll Pack the Supreme Court With Anti-Gun Justices.  Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has made a name for himself as a leader in the gun control movement.  After all, he funds Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action.  Naturally, Bloomberg has decided to use his anti-Second Amendment stance to make himself a top tier in the 2020 Democratic field.  In an opinion piece in the Chicago Tribune, Bloomberg rehashed his stance on the Supreme Court case known as New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. New York City.  At the time, NYC prohibited gun owners from transporting firearms outside of city limits, even if the resident was taking them to a gun range.  Once the New York Rifle and Pistol Association, along with the National Rifle Association (NRA) and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF )challenged the city's ordinance in a court of law, NYC decided to rescind the law.  The city tried to get the lawsuit thrown out, saying the point is now moot because the ordinance no longer exists.  Gun rights advocates, however, are worried the city will reimplement the law if the Supreme Court decides to throw out the case.

Supreme Court refuses to allow federal executions carry on — for now.  The Supreme Court denied the Trump administration's request to override a district court ruling halting federal executions that were scheduled for this week.  The order, issued Friday, allows the litigation to carry on at the federal appeals court for now while the executions are stalled.

Supreme Court temporarily blocks Trump administration request to resume federal executions.  The Supreme Court on Friday [12/6/2019] blocked the Trump administration from resuming federal executions in an attempt to put to death four convicted murderers.  The executions were slated to begin next week.  The justices upheld a lower court ruling imposed last month after inmates claimed executions by lethal injection would violate federal law.  U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, D.C., had imposed a temporary injunction on executions, saying they would conflict with federal law.  That ruling was upheld Monday by a three-judge federal appeals court.

Supreme Court weighs whether homeless people have a constitutional right to sleep on the sidewalk.  The Supreme Court has taken up the question of whether homeless people have the constitutional right to sleep on the sidewalk.  The justices on Friday [12/6/2019] were scheduled to hear an appeal of a controversial ruling last year by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the Los Angeles Times.  In the ruling, Judge Marsha Berzon banned cities from prosecuting homeless people for living on the streets.

It's Time for Term Limits on the Supreme Court.  Liberals live in a state of semi-panic that [Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader] Ginsburg will leave the court and give President Trump the chance to name a third Supreme Court justice and put a conservative stamp on the body for a generation.  Any Senate confirmation battle would be the mother of all political brawls, easily eclipsing the one last year surrounding Brett Kavanaugh.  It's time to end the unseemly position that the anachronism of life tenure for Supreme Court justices has put the country in.  It's a good thing that modern medicine is extending the lives of everyone, including Supreme Court justices.  But the time has come to remove the incentives that make justices serve until they drop dead or are gaga.  It's time to put term limits on the Supreme Court.

Clarence Thomas Says 'The Modern-Day Liberal' Tried To Stop His Career.  Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas doesn't blame white supremacists for trying to derail his career — he points his finger at "the modern-day liberal," a group that includes former Vice President Joe Biden.  Thomas expounds on this theme in the upcoming documentary, "Created Equal:  Clarence Thomas in His Own Words," a copy of which was obtained by ABC News Thursday.  He spends a lot of time talking about his still controversial confirmation to the Supreme Court by the Senate Judiciary Committee — whose chairman at the time was Democratic Delaware Sen. Biden.

Supreme Court shields Trump financial records from House Democrats' subpoena.  The Supreme Court announced Monday evening [11/25/2019] that the president's accounting firm doesn't have to hand over his tax returns sought by House Democrats — for now — issuing a temporary injunction.  The chief justice granted the Trump administration's request to put the House subpoena for the records on hold until the president files his appeal with the court by Dec. 5.  Should the court agree to hear the case, the injunction will stay in place preventing House Democrats from getting their hands on the documents for their impeachment probe.  But if the court declines to hear the president's challenge, the injunction would expire and the documents would be turned over.

Media Propaganda About Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Health Is Irresponsible.  Ginsburg is clearly a strong woman in the personality sense.  That is beside the point.  If she were not a far-left political actor, Ginsburg's health record would not be lipsticked.  It's also much worse than Trump's.  She's 13 years older than Trump, who is 73.  She's been falling asleep in oral arguments since 2006.  Ginsburg also fell asleep during two of President Obama's State of the Union Addresses and Pope Francis's speech to Congress in 2015.  Ginsburg can barely get herself off the Supreme Court dais, another long-time situation.  She is typically extremely hard to hear when she speaks from the bench.  Two weeks ago, she missed oral arguments due to a stomach bug.  She also missed two weeks of oral arguments in January due to lung cancer surgery.  The first two times she was treated for cancer, in 1999 and 2009, she didn't miss a day of oral arguments.  In August, Ginsburg was treated with three weeks of radiation for a different cancer, pancreatic.  Last November, she fell and broke three ribs.  Ginsburg is simply and clearly not in good health.

Is John Roberts Up To a Senate Impeachment Trial?  When the Democrats pass their impeachment resolution, the sordid spectacle will move to the Senate, where Chief Justice John Roberts must preside over a trial that will determine if the president has actually committed an offense that would justify his removal.  This should worry the president and his supporters.  Historically, the role of the chief justice in these proceedings has been somewhat symbolic.  Yet it will be necessary for him to rule on a number of important motions.  The weak Democratic case against President Trump, combined with the Democrats' penchant for manipulating procedural rules, all but guarantees that they will inundate Roberts with a tsunami of parliamentary maneuvers that he may be ill-equipped to manage.  During the Clinton impeachment trial, Chief Justice William Rehnquist was forced to spend entire days refereeing disputes over frivolous Democratic motions.

Chief Justice Roberts now dragged into Democrat impeachment process.  The target of Democrat zealots in the House of Representatives led by Speaker Pelosi and Adam Schiff is to impeach and remove President Donald Trump.  Sadly for him the person they have a much higher probability of removing from his lofty perch is Chief Justice John Roberts.  The famous cliché; the law of unintended consequences is fast approaching. [...] He and he alone "owns" the FISC court so he must be held accountable for any court actions.  However, even if he has acted to clear up the egregious frauds, so far only a few publically reported with probably more to come, he has a significant problem if the Democrat Leaders of the House vote out Articles of Impeachment for a senate trial of our President.

Supreme Court Temporarily Halts Order to Turn Over Trump's Tax Returns to Congress.  The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday [11/18/2019] temporarily blocked a ruling requiring an accounting firm, Mazars USA, to hand over President Donald Trump's tax returns to Congress.  Chief Justice John Roberts's order contains no hint about how the Supreme Court ultimately will resolve the dispute.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg misses Supreme Court arguments due to illness.  Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was absent from oral arguments before the high court Wednesday morning due to an illness.  The court said Ginsburg, 86, remained home because of a stomach bug.  While not having the opportunity to question attorneys during the arguments, she will be involved in deciding the cases.  "Justice Ginsburg is unable to be present today.  She is indisposed due to illness, but she will participate in the consideration and decision of the cases on the basis of the briefs and the transcripts or recordings of the oral arguments," Chief Justice John Roberts said from the bench.

The Supreme Court Looks Ready To Uphold Trump's Bid To End DACA.  A closely divided Supreme Court seemed inclined to uphold President Donald Trump's bid to terminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program during arguments Tuesday morning [11/12/2019].  The high court's conservative majority appeared to think the administration has provided an adequate basis for ending the policy, and in spaces even wondered if the courts have power to review the dispute.  Chief Justice John Roberts noted that the high court in 2016 affirmed a decision of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that blocked an Obama-era amnesty program called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA).  The 5th Circuit's ruling and the Supreme Court's subsequent affirmance provide a sufficient rationale for ending DACA, which is largely similar to DAPA, Roberts suggested.

Justice Department to SCOTUS: We Can't Give Work Permits to DACA Migrants.  The Department of Justice (DOJ) has quietly told the Supreme Court that it does not have the legal authority to issue work permits to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) migrants and has effectively invited the court to block the annual award of more than one million work permits to migrants.  "If the [judges] make a decision, it would have a huge impact," said John Miano, a lawyer who is seeking to end two of the many work-permit programs.  Prior presidents created the two programs, which allow U.S. companies and Indian managers in the United States to annually hire roughly 150,000 Indians for technology jobs sought by American graduates.

Double Standard:  Liberals Demand Conservative Justices Recuse Themselves From LGBT Cases.  Last week, the liberal group Take Back the Court sent a letter to Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh, demanding they recuse themselves from three cases involving LGBT issues.  Alito and Kavanaugh had met with Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), which has filed an amicus brief in three cases involving alleged employment discrimination against gay and transgender people.  Yet liberal justices have also met with academics who had filed amicus briefs in active Supreme Court cases.

Kentucky Supreme Court Tosses Suit against Designer that Refused to Print Gay Pride T-Shirts.  Kentucky's Supreme Court on Thursday threw out a lawsuit against a print shop owner who refused to make an LGBT Pride T-shirt because doing so would violate his conscience.  The high court ruled that the plaintiff, Lexington's Gay and Lesbian Services Organization, lacked standing in the case since the city's gay rights law is meant to protect individuals rather than activist groups.  "While this result is no doubt disappointing to many interested in this case and its potential outcome, the fact that the wrong party filed the complaint makes the discrimination analysis almost impossible to conduct, including issues related to freedom of expression and religion," the court's decision read.

Justice Ginsburg gets $1 million prize for liberal court decisions.  Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg scored a $1 million dollar prize thanks to her history of liberal court decisions, though the organization making the payout has a worrying background.  The Berggruen Institute announced Wednesday that its 2019 Berggruen Prize for Philosophy & Culture would go the Ginsburg, essentially because she's used her position to advance liberal causes.  "Throughout her career, Ginsburg has used the law to advance ethical and philosophical principles of equality and human rights as basic tenets of the USA," institute founder Nicolas Berggruen said in a news release.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg awarded $1 million prize for 'thinkers' in philosophy and culture.  Add a prestigious $1 million "thinkers" award to Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's fame and fortune.  The 2019 Berggruen Prize for Philosophy & Culture is given annually to "thinkers whose ideas have profoundly shaped human self-understanding and advancement in a rapidly changing world."  Ginsburg, 86, who has served 26 years on the Supreme Court and survived four bouts with cancer, was chosen from more than 500 nominees, later winnowed down to five.  She is the fourth recipient of the prize and the third woman.

The Editor says...
It never looks good for a judge to get a million-dollar gift, especially when the justification is a bunch of mealy-mouthed claptrap.  If it was a county judge in Doorknob, Oklahoma, getting a million-dollar prize, or even a hundred-dollar prize, you could reasonably be suspicious.

Supreme Court Justices Enjoy A Lot Of Privately Funded Travel.  Now Lawmakers Want To Know Who's Paying.  A new bill would require Supreme Court justices to disclose more information about privately funded travel, a lavish and much-enjoyed perk of service on the nation's highest judicial tribunal.  Federal judges have relatively cursory reporting requirements for reimbursed travel as compared to the other branches of government.  The justices are only obligated to provide the source and a brief description of reimbursements, but need not report dollar amounts or any gift received as "personal hospitality."

The Supreme Court Is Poised to Strike Down a Major Obama-Era Agency.  Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear what could end up being the most consequential case of the term — in a year where the justices are already taking up employment discrimination, the Second Amendment, abortion, DACA, school choice, and other issues of higher political salience.  In Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Court will decide the constitutionality of an agency long criticized not just by the business community and free-market-oriented politicians but also by constitutional scholars who see major problems with its structure as a single-director agency seemingly unaccountable to the president or anyone else.

Title VII, gay rights, and Justice Gorsuch.  Chief Justice Roberts at times seems influenced by a desire to guide the Court through tough political waters.  Justice Thomas is insistent on getting back to the original Constitution and has considerably less respect for precedent than the other Justices do.  Justice Gorsuch is a textualist.  I don't know yet what Justice Kavanaugh is, but during his first year on the Court it looked like, having gone through a brutal confirmation process, he wanted to "lay low."

Why Sex And Gender Are Not Two Different Things.  Last week, the Supreme Court took up hearings on three cases in oral arguments that all came down to the definition of the word "sex."  Does it refer to male and female, as it always has in all cultures without the slightest question or debate?  Or does it now include the ever-expanding rainbow of all these new gender identities and sexual orientations that people can apparently be, those we are told are totally normal and natural to human experience, but only now are recognizing and making up words for?  Such silly questions have now made it all the way the highest levels of our justice system.  This is indeed concerning.

Can Ruth Bader Ginsburg Make a Man Into a Woman?  Judging by the argument that one lawyer made to Justice Neil Gorsuch, Tuesday must have been an interesting day in the restrooms at the U.S. Supreme Court.  "There are transgender lawyers in this courtroom today," attorney David Cole told Gorsuch.  "Of course, there are," said Gorsuch.  Cole was in the court to represent a biological male who decided in 2013 that he "identified" as a female — and who then fought a family-owned Michigan-based funeral home all the way to the Supreme Court because it fired him as a funeral director when he indicated that he intended to start dressing as a female at work.

[The] Supreme Court [has been] asked to decide if Electoral College voters are bound to the state's winner.  If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the appeal of the so-called "faithless electors," it could thrust the justices into yet another high-passion political fight in the heat of the 2020 presidential election.  It comes as some predict that the volatile political atmosphere and disputes over redistricting could further emphasize the role of the Electoral College in the upcoming election.  "The issue is undeniably important:  presidential elections in the Electoral College will be increasingly close, and could literally turn upon whether electors have a constitutionally protected discretion," Lawrence Lessig, a lawyer for the so-called "faithless electors," told the justices in court papers.

Supreme Court takes up cases about LGBT people's rights.  A seemingly divided Supreme Court struggled Tuesday [10/8/2019] over whether a landmark civil rights law protects LGBT people from discrimination in employment, with one conservative justice wondering if the court should take heed of "massive social upheaval" that could follow a ruling in their favor.

Gorsuch on Expanding Sex Discrimination Protections to Cover Trans, Gay Individuals: 'Massive Social Upheaval'.  The United States Supreme Court on Tuesday heard oral arguments on two cases that ask the court to expand the sex discrimination protections in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to cover homosexuals and transgenders.  Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia and Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarada were brought by homosexual men who claimed they were fired because of their sexual orientation.

Supreme Court Refuses to Drop 2A Case, Despite NYC Pleas.  The Supreme Court on Monday [10/7/2019] signaled their willingness to hear the first Second Amendment case in a decade, known as New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. New York City.  The High Court denied a motion, filed by the City, asking for the case to be dropped because of its mootness.  NYC filed the motion because they changed the law in question since the case was first brought about.  In their mind, the law changes addresses any concerns the plaintiffs have.  The justices scheduled oral arguments for December, telling both sides the "question of mootness will be subject to further consideration, and the parties should be prepared to discuss it."

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear First Abortion Case With Kavanaugh.  The U.S. Supreme Court will hear its first abortion case with a new conservative majority, agreeing to rule on a Louisiana law that requires doctors who perform the procedure to get admitting privileges at a local hospital.  The law is similar to a Texas measure the court struck down in 2016, before Justice Brett Kavanaugh replaced the now retired-Justice Anthony Kennedy.  The court's new composition means it could overturn the 2016 ruling, or at least limit its impact to the particular circumstances of Texas.

U.S. top court to hear Trump bid to revive law against encouraging illegal immigration.  The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday [10/4/2019] agreed to hear a bid by President Donald Trump's administration to resurrect a federal law that makes it a felony to encourage illegal immigrants to come or stay in the United States after it was struck down by a lower court as a violation free speech rights.

Hands Off the Electoral College.  Everyone had that one annoying childhood friend who would spoil every game. [...] Nothing better typifies the Left's disdain for our institutions today.  The Supreme Court was fine until President Trump appointed two constitutionalist justices, but now, Democrats are openly supporting court-packing to ram their agenda through.

SCOTUS to Hear 3 LGBTQ Cases, Determine if Sex Should Include Sex Orientation in Title VII.  When the Congress passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act it was principally concerned about undoing racial discrimination against African Americans; to a lesser extent, it was aimed at providing equal protection for women.  Title VII bans discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.  LGBT activists have long argued that the category of sex should include sexual orientation.  Oral arguments for three related cases will be heard next month by the U.S. Supreme Court.  One case, Altitude Express v. Zarda, involves a skydiving instructor who was fired when a customer found out he was a homosexual.  The USCCB is not involved in this case.  R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC and Aimee Stephens, involves a male funeral home director who was fired when he said he was going to dress like a woman while working at a Christian funeral home.  Bostock v. Clayton County turns on a decision to fire a child welfare services coordinator when the employer learned he was a homosexual.

'Do you really want me to rule the country?': Gorsuch argues Supreme Court should not dictate everyone's life.  Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch said he believes that the American people should not want him or his colleagues to rule the country, but should rather have the "battle of ideas" play out in the political arena.  "We wrote a constitution.  We put down what we wanted to put down in it.  We can amend it when we wish.  And it is not up to nine people to tell 330 million Americans how to live," Gorsuch said in an extended interview with CNN Tuesday [9/10/2019].

Biden: I Would Appoint Barack Obama to the Supreme Court.  2020 Democrat hopeful Joe Biden told "The Late Show" host Stephen Colbert Wednesday night that he would nominate his former 'boss' Barack Obama to the US Supreme Court.  "Would you appoint him [Obama] to the Supreme Court?" Colbert asked Biden.  "H***... yes!" Biden said with a creepy grin on his face.  "I don't think he'd do it but... he's fully qualified."

The Editor says...
Barack Obama would leap at the chance to sit on the Supreme Court, even for one day.  His nomination would almost be worth the immense risk, just to let the public see Obama get interrogated in his Senate confirmation hearings about his phony Social Security number, his dubious birth certificate, his invisible attendance at Columbia University, his Indonesian citizenship, his long lists of lies and scandals, and many other aspects of his life that are highly suspect.  Unfortunately, the risk is too great, because the Republicans would probably let him skate, rather than be accused of racism and Islamophobia.  As for Mr. Obama's qualifications, his record speaks for itself.

Democrats are now trying to blackmail the Supreme Court.  In 2017, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) accused President Trump of showing "a disdain for an independent judiciary that doesn't always bend to his wishes" after Trump criticized a judge who ruled against his administration.  Senate Democrats, by contrast, have launched an unprecedented attempt to actually bend the Supreme Court to their wishes — threatening to restructure the court if the justices do not rule as they see fit.  The threat came over the Supreme Court's decision to hear a challenge to New York City's restrictions on how gun owners who have residential permits can transport their guns.  In a legal brief, Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Mazie Hirono, (D-Hawaii), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) argued that the case against New York was moot because it had rescinded the gun regulations in question.  Fair enough.  It is perfectly fine for the senators to make legal arguments in a legal brief to the court.

Democrats Brace for War over Supreme Court.  The Left is already manning the barricades.  The resulting hearing will make the Brett Kavanaugh fiasco, a dark moment in U.S. history, look like a charming affair.  In the event that President Donald Trump nominates Amy Coney Barrett, as many conservatives hope, this hearing will be a preview of the Apocalypse.  The rise of hatred on the Left, aided by years of persistent media bias and leftist propaganda, has created a rolling tidal wave of hate ready to crash on shore in violence.  The two most likely triggering events that would cause that crash are the re-election of President Trump and the next opening on the Supreme Court, particularly to fill Ginsburg's seat.  It's an increasingly good bet that the latter will come first.

Democrat Senator Sheldon Whitehouse Hit with Bar Complaint For 'Openly Threatening' Supreme Court.  Conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch hit Democrat Senator Sheldon Whitehouse with a bar complaint after he openly threatened the Supreme Court.  A couple weeks ago several Democrat Senators issued a stunning warning to the Supreme Court — "heal" or face drastic restructuring.  The demand came in an amicus brief filed in court two weeks ago by Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Richard Durbin (D-Il), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) regarding New York's current gun laws.  Judicial Watch filed a bar complaint and alleged Senator Whitehouse "violated the Rhode Island Rules of Professional Conduct by attacking the federal judiciary and openly threatening the U.S. Supreme Court."

Get Ready For Apocalypse Ruth.  Progressives' ghoulish glee over the death of an old man turned into barely constrained panic when, later that day, it was revealed that their heroine Ruth Bader Ginsberg was just treated for pancreatic cancer yet again.  Their disgraceful joy at David Koch's passing was yet another reminder of the harsh truth that leftists want you dead or enslaved. [...] Of course, RBG is eager to disarm you, and she would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for those meddling Supreme Court kids who actually read Second Amendment.  Her constitutional jurisprudence consists of disregarding what she dislikes that's in the Bill of Rights and making up stuff that's not in it but that she feels — not thinks, feels — should be in it.  She's a terrible justice and conservatives would love to see her step down.  But our side expressed no delight in her latest suffering comparable to the giddy revelry that greeted Koch's kicking the bucket.

Worries about Justice Ginsburg's health driving the Left to issue threats against Trump replacing her.  [T]he news that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been treated for a recurrence of pancreatic cancer has the Left in a tizzy.  Should President Trump be able to name a replacement for her and the GOP majority Senate confirm that nominee, the Court will have a 5 or 6 vote majority for originalism — actually following what the Constitution says, not what Liberals imagine it should have said.  This prospect led David Axelrod warn that progressives will tear the country apart if the Constitution is followed, should Justice Ginsburg succumb before Trump leaves office.  Of course, he used the passive voice to avoid the truth that the Left will be the ones doing the tearing apart.

A storm gathers in the wake of RBG.  Ruth Bader Ginsburg has the Left all anxious because pancreatic cancer threatens to take her out.  That would give right-of-center judges an advantage, or at least a fighting chance, in putting America back on the path where judges interpret the law rather than make the law.  Were their ideas fully explained to and understood by the public, leftists would be overwhelmingly defeated and never win much of anything.  Knowing they cannot win a fair fight, they concentrate on putting judges in office to do their bidding via judicial fiat.

FNC's Wallace:  If Ginsburg Leaves, It'll Make Kavanaugh Hearings 'Look Like a Tea Party'.  On Friday's [8/23/2019] broadcast of Fox News Radio's "Guy Benson Show," FNC host Chris Wallace stated that if Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has to leave the court, the fight over her replacement would make the Kavanaugh hearings "look like a tea party."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Treated Again For Cancer.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has just completed three weeks of radiation treatment at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, the U.S. Supreme Court disclosed Friday [8/23/2019].  The radiation therapy, conducted on an outpatient basis, began Aug. 5, shortly after a localized cancerous tumor was discovered on Ginsburg's pancreas.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg treated for tumor on her pancreas: court spokesman.  Liberal U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has completed a three-week course of radiation therapy to treat a cancerous tumor on her pancreas, a court spokeswoman said on Friday [8/23/2019].  The 86-year old justice, who has had previous cancer scares, tolerated the therapy well and no further treatment is required, spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said in a statement.

David Axelrod warns Supreme Court vacancy fight could 'tear this country apart'.  A former Obama adviser set the stage for a potentially nasty confirmation fight in the Senate next year within an hour of the Supreme Court announcing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently completed three weeks of radiation treatment after doctors found a localized cancerous tumor on her pancreas.  "If there is a SCOTUS vacancy next year and [Mitch McConnell] carries through on his extraordinary promise to fill it — despite his own previous precedent in blocking Garland — it will tear this country apart," David Axelrod said in a tweet Friday afternoon [8/23/2019].

The Editor says...
The country is already torn apart, largely because of ledt-wing baby-killing Democrats on the Supreme Court.

Democratic Senator Faces Ethics Complaint After Warning Justices About Court-Packing.  Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island has attracted an ethics complaint and vigorous criticism from conservatives after raising the prospect of court-packing in a new legal filing before the Supreme Court.  Depending on one's perspective, Whitehouse's extraordinary brief is either a cogent indictment of the court's seemingly partisan valence or particularly blunt strong-arming of the nation's highest judicial tribunal.

Forget it when journalists and other Democrats stand on principle.  Journalists and other Democrats frequently use talking points about the importance of separation of powers, the Constitution, abuse of power, the rule of law and equal treatment under the law, but by their actions we know that they don't really care.  What would the reporting be if five Republican Senators threatened the Supreme Court with packing?  Conservatives frequently don't vote in lockstep, but the liberals almost always do.  The Democrats threatened the court that they better rule the right way.  Is that a joke?

Undaunted, Justice Thomas seeks the court's atonement on abortion.  Another Supreme Court term has ended, and once again the court failed to revisit the question of abortion.  In our time, it seems that abortion is discussed everywhere except the Supreme Court, where most Justices seem intent to do anything to avoid the topic.  And still, each passing term the stain of Roe v Wade seeps deeper, corroding our system of laws from within.  But one Justice is unafraid of the abortion debate.  Undismayed by the Court's inaction, Justice Thomas has masterfully sown together a compelling judicial case for overturning the central holding of Roe.

Five Democrats Warn Supreme Court It Could be 'Restructured;' Urge It to Drop 2nd Amendment Case.  Five Democrat senators have filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, urging it to stay out of a pending Second Amendment case and warning it that a majority of Americans now believe the "Supreme Court should be restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics."  The case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, is the first major challenge to gun laws since 2010, the senators said.  According to SCOTUS blog, the New York State Pistol and Rifle Association, representing gun owners who live in the city, are challenging the city's ban on transferring licensed, unloaded guns anywhere outside city limits — including to a weekend home or to a shooting range.

Dems Now Threaten SCOTUS.  The way the Dems see it, if the Courts rule against their wishes then it stands to reason that there's something wrong with the Court.  Where I come from that's referred to as "having chutzpah."  Imagine the likes of Cory Brooker, Kamala Harris, Crazy Bernie, Elizabeth Warren and Beto O'Rourke, among others threatening the court to fall in line with the liberal side or else.  Or else what?  Or else they'll pack the court with enough liberal judges that even mother rapists and father stabbers will get light sentences to be served weekends and people questioning climate change will get 25 to life.

CO2 and the Supreme Power of sovereignty.  Sir William Blackstone defines sovereignty as "supreme power."  This power is unitary.  It cannot be shared or limited in any way.  Thus, "quasi sovereignty" cannot exist.  The Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (2007) that carbon dioxide is an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act.  The result of that 5-4 ruling was that the EPA could be sued by the states for not controlling CO2 emissions.  The states, according to the court, have "quasi-sovereignty." [...] "Quasi" means "pseudo", "mock", "wannabe" or "virtual".  The states thus have the quasi sovereignty to accept the rules set down by the fully sovereign national government.  These rules are set by the nine lawyers collectively referred to as SCOTUS.

Democrats candidates have embraced four ideas that could end America as we know it.  [#3] Packing the Supreme Court:  About half of the Democratic field, including Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, Pete Buttigieg, and Kamala Harris have said they are open to packing the Supreme Court.  This is a dangerous idea because at best, it could mean the end of a stable legal system and at worst, it could mean the end of our Republic.  When Democrats gained enough power, they would pack the Supreme Court with enough judges to guarantee that anything they proposed would be found "constitutional."  Then when the cycle swung around to Republicans, they would do the same thing.  How do businesses and individuals thrive in a situation where what's "constitutional" can radically shift every few years based on which political party is in power?

America under Attack.  If Justice Ginsberg's concept of a "living Constitution" prevails, none of our liberties is safe.  We could be imprisoned for speaking the name of Christ, and our right to free and fair elections can be stolen by the IRS, the FBI, the Justice Department, and the federal courts themselves.  If society is willing to violate the original text of the Constitution, then it is left with no yardstick for measuring right and wrong.  To ignore the Constitution in the interest of social justice is to open the door to the worst sort of tyranny.

John Roberts, consistently inconsistent.  Late last week, the Supreme Court gave a very odd ruling on the census question related to citizenship.  The court determined that the question was a legal one to ask, under both the Census Act and the Constitution.  However, Roberts ruled with the majority which is adding an additional requirement of Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross.  Ross said he was requesting the question be added back because the Department of Justice asked for it to aid in enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.  However, a memo was uncovered that indicated a change in the way Congressional districts are apportioned based on citizenship, not total population could change the map.  Because of this information, Chief Justice John Roberts decided that he needed to be satisfied that there was not a private motive that was at odds with the public rationale that the Secretary had offered.

Unanimous Supreme Court:  It's 'Predictable' That Noncitizens Will Act 'Unlawfully'.  On its way to ruling by a 5-4 majority that the Secretary of Commerce improperly decided to include a citizenship question in the 2020 Census, the Supreme Court unanimously concluded that states had legal standing to sue the federal government over this issue based on the court's conclusion that it is "predictable" that noncitizens will act "unlawfully" by declining to fill out the Census questionnaire.  The court explained its conclusion on this question in Part II of its opinion, which all nine justices joined.  "To have standing," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in this unanimously-joined part of his opinion in Department of Commerce v. New York, "a plaintiff must present an injury that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the defendant's challenged behavior; and likely to be redressed by a favorable ruling."

Conservatives Win BIG At Wisconsin Supreme Court On Numerous Landmark Laws.  Wisconsin's right-to-work law was a hallmark piece of legislation passed under Scott Walker's watch as governor in 2015.  In fact, it may have largely contributed to the state going red during the last few years as unions have been effectively gutted.  These actions taken by Republican lawmakers at the end of 2018 obviously made Democrats in Wisconsin furious.  Interest groups such as the League of Women Voters contended that the "state constitution does not ascribe the power to call an extraordinary session of the legislature to lawmakers, thereby making the December session and all actions therein unconstitutional and invalid."  So, they went to the Wisconsin Supreme Court to have this matter settled.  However, their hopes were dashed when the court ruled 4-3 in favor of the GOP on Friday, June 21, 2019, effectively discarding an argument that the session was called unconstitutionally.

Supreme Court:  Bad Day for Everyone, Especially Roberts.  Today the Supreme Court issued two major opinions with profound implications for American politics.  It blocked, for now, adding a question about citizenship on the 2020 Census in Department of Commerce vs. New York.  In Rucho v. Common Cause, the Court permanently killed off allowing federal courts to decide that a legislative map gave one side too much of a partisan advantage.  It was a bad day for the right, a very bad day for the left, and an extremely bad day for Chief Justice John Roberts.

SCOTUS Loses Its Census over Citizenship.  Supreme Court Justice John Roberts may go down in judicial history as the worst Republican SCOTUS pick ever.  The man who found ObamaCare constitutional by inventing the fiction that it was a tax has joined the court's four liberals to block a citizenship question on the 2020 Census, not because it is unconstitutional, but rather because he didn't like the Trump administration's reasons for asking for it.  The man who supervises the FISA Court, which blindly accepted every lie and fake document the Obama FBI and DoJ put before it to justify the deep state coup against the Trump presidency, says the reasons Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross presented for requesting its inclusion, well, didn't smell right. [...] The question before the Court is whether adding the question to the Census form was constitutional or not and certainly whatever reason Ross gave made more sense than your reason, Justice Roberts, for calling ObamaCare a tax.

Right on Gerrymandering, Wrong on the Census.  John Roberts took a starring role in two major decisions today:  He wrote a correct opinion on partisan gerrymandering, and a troubling one on President Trump's effort to ask a question about citizenship on the 2020 census.  The gerrymandering issue, as far as the courts should be concerned, is simple.  Under the Constitution, the legislature of each state gets to decide how congressional elections are handled, subject to any laws the federal Congress chooses to enact.  It was clear to the Founders that politicians, being politicians, might draw district boundaries in ways that served their political interests.  They made this the rule anyway.

Top conservative calls for impeachment of Chief Justice Roberts.  A high-profile conservative leader called Thursday [6/27/2019] for the impeachment of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. after he provided the crucial fifth vote in the Supreme Court decision heading off President Trump's goal of including a question on citizenship on the 2020 census.  Matt Schlapp, chairman of the American Conservative Union and husband of top Trump White House aide Mercedes Schlapp, said the ruling showed the chief justice was not the conservative-minded jurist he'd been touted to be, noting his previous decision essentially preserving Obamacare.

Roberts The Mind Reader Joins Liberal Justices On The Census.  The Supreme Court's 5-to-4 ruling on Department of Commerce v. New York is being characterized as nothing more serious than a temporary setback regarding President Trump's wish to reinstate a citizenship question in the 2020 U.S. Census; the administration is expected to whip up a new rationale that the high court won't consider "contrived" and get the question in.  Unfortunately it is far worse than that, and Chief Justice John Roberts is giving further sign that he is yet another unpleasant surprise in GOP appointments to the highest level of the Judicial Branch, following in the footsteps of David Souter (Bush 41), Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor (Reagan), and John Paul Stevens (Ford).

Constitution mandates gerrymandering.  The fifth vice president of the United States pronounced his surname with a hard G, but two centuries later not only do people mispronounce Elbridge Gerry's name but they misunderstand the political tactic that bears his name:  gerrymandering.  The Constitution provides a decennial census, which allocates congressional representation to the states.  The states then divide themselves into districts.  They do the same with state legislative seats and lesser jurisdictions.  The party in power draws these districts to its advantage.  The losers always whine.

Supreme Court says federal courts cannot strike down partisan gerrymandering schemes.  A deeply divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that federal courts may not intervene to block even the most partisan election maps drawn by state lawmakers, a decision that allows such gerrymandering to continue unabated.  The 5-4 opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, who was joined by the court's other conservatives, said partisan election maps drawn by North Carolina Republicans and Maryland Democrats are constitutional despite their one-sided nature.  It was a dramatic withdrawal by the nation's highest court from the political battles that have consumed states for decades, and it was loudly denounced by the court's liberal justices.

Supreme Court rules federal judges have no authority in gerrymandering cases.  The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision on Thursday, ruled that federal courts cannot block partisan gerrymandering.  "We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion for the court.  The justices were weighing two cases from Maryland and North Carolina, where there were allegations that district maps were drawn to benefit one political party.

The Supreme Court just handed Republicans a huge political victory on partisan gerrymandering.  On Thursday [6/27/2019], the Supreme Court showed how much difference who wins the presidency makes.  Armed with a five to four conservative majority thanks to President Donald Trump's appointment of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh over the past two years, the Supreme Court said it had no role to play in partisan gerrymandering — a decision that amounts to a massive political victory for Republicans, not just in the moment, but also likely for the next decade-plus.

The Supreme Court Just Ruled On The Census Citizenship Question.  The Supreme Court ordered further proceedings in the dispute over a citizenship question on the 2020 census form Thursday, saying the Trump administration apparently concealed its true reason for adding the query.  Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the Court's opinion, portions of which were unanimous.

Supreme Court tosses citizenship question from 2020 census forms, a victory for Democratic states.  The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Trump administration cannot include a question about citizenship on the 2020 census form that goes to every U.S. household, giving a win to mostly Democratic populous states that said the question would discourage legal and illegal immigrants from responding and make the population count less accurate.  The court was deeply fractured on the issue, but on the section that essentially eliminated the citizenship question, the vote was 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the four-member liberal wing of the court.

Trump: You Bet I'd Fill Another SCOTUS Seat.  Not that we have word of any openings coming up on the Supreme Court in the immediate future, but it always pays to be prepared, right?  Particularly when you have several justices in their septuagenarian or even octagenarian years and one of them regularly talks about packing up his RV and touring the country.  But given the politically poisonous mood currently gripping both Congress and the nation, would President Trump really want to open that can of worms and introduce a new nominee if someone suddenly retired?

Supreme Court rules 'crime of violence' law is unconstitutionally vague.  A divided Supreme Court ruled Monday [6/24/2019] that a federal law requiring longer prison sentences for using a gun during a "crime of violence" is unconstitutionally vague.  The court voted 5-4 stating the law "provides no reliable way" to determine which offenses qualify as crimes of violence.

SCOTUS decision might lead to release of thousands of violent felons.  Justice Neil Gorsuch seems really determined to give violent gun felons a degree of due process our founders never envisioned.  In yet another opinion, expanding upon previous decisions declaring the "crime of violence" statute unconstitutional, Gorsuch joined with the four liberal justices to vacate the criminal conviction of two violent robbers while declaring the statute upon which the conviction rested as unconstitutional.  Meanwhile, there is no urgency from Congress to promote "criminal justice reform" that would actually stem the tide of judicially-mandated jailbreak of violent criminals.

Washington owes Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch an apology.  "In our constitutional order, a vague law is no law at all."  Those are the words that opened one of the most important decisions of this Supreme Court term, in United States versus Quartavious Davis.  In a 5-4 decision, the majority sided with a habitual offender in striking down an ambiguous provision that would allow enhanced penalties for a "crime of violence."  The author of that sweeping decision in favor of criminal defendant rights was Justice Neil Gorsuch, the first nomination by President Trump to the Supreme Court.  I testified at his Senate hearing, favoring his confirmation despite unrelenting attacks on him as a "rubber stamp" and an ideologue.  Gorsuch has proven his detractors wrong and, as this term has proven, he has emerged as one of the most consistent and courageous voices on the Supreme Court.  Indeed, a number of senators and pundits in Washington owe Gorsuch an apology for their attacks on someone who is building a new legacy that could be one of the most lasting on the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court strikes down federal law banning 'immoral' trademarks.  A federal law that allows the government to reject trademarks considered immoral or scandalous violates the First Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled Monday [6/24/2019].  The law, which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office used to reject an application from [a] clothing brand [which is] pronounced like an obscenity, discriminates on the basis of viewpoint and is "substantially overbroad," the justices found.  The clothing company was founded in 1990 by Erik Brunetti, who applied to register the name in 2011.

Supreme Court rules against newspaper over information request, giving confidentiality win to businesses.  The Supreme Court on Monday [6/24/2019] ruled 6-3 against a newspaper seeking records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) on stores' financial data, finding that sharing the business data could harm the companies.  The Argus Leader in South Dakota had filed a FOIA request with the Department of Agriculture (USDA) asking for stores' redemption data on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).  The USDA fulfilled part of the paper's FOIA request by giving them the names and addresses of the stores, but declined to provide the SNAP data under Exemption 4 of FOIA, which blocks agencies from handing over "trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential."

Supreme Court offers gun-possession loophole for illegal immigrants.  The Supreme Court ruled Friday [6/21/2019] that an illegal immigrant who had a gun — a crime — can't be prosecuted if he didn't know he was in the country illegally.  In a 7-2 decision the justices said in a crime where the status of a person is the "crucial element" to the offense, the government must prove the person was aware of that.  Otherwise, it might just be an innocent mistake.  That could affect "thousands" of previous convictions.

The Editor says...
Anyone who crawled over (or under) a wall or a fence in the middle of the night, and then began a "life in the shadows," should be well aware that he or she is living here illegally.

Three good court rulings today.  The federal courts made a few sensible rulings today.  In my lifetime, this has been all too rare.

Clarence Thomas calls for abandoning 'demonstrably erroneous' precedent, touching off Roe v.  Wade speculation.  In a concurring opinion in a Supreme Court case announced Monday [6/17/2019], Justice Clarence Thomas issued a lengthy call for his colleagues to overturn "demonstrably erroneous decisions" even if they have been upheld for decades — prompting legal observers to say Thomas was laying the groundwork to overturn the seminal 1973 case Roe v. Wade, which established a constitutional right to abortion.  Thomas' blunt opinion came in Gamble v. United States, a case concerning the so-called "double-jeopardy" doctrine, which generally prohibits an individual from being charged twice for the same crime.  But both pro-life and pro-choice advocates quickly noted the implications of his reasoning for a slew of other future cases, including a potential revisiting of Roe.

For Bakers, a Measured Response at SCOTUS.  Aaron and Melissa Klein have spent the last six years praying for a positive ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court.  Yesterday, they got the next best thing — an order that throws out the devastating ruling against them.  Thanks to SCOTUS, the parents of five, who've wrenched plenty of hearts with their emotional story, will have another chance at vindication — in front of the same court that tried to bankrupt the bakers in the first place.  "Try again," the justices seemed to say in their short order to the Oregon Court of Appeals.  It's the second time in a year that SCOTUS has sent a wedding vendor case back to the states for another round of hearings.  And the Kleins are hoping their verdict turns out better than Barronelle Stutzman's.

Why Do Democrats Have a Secret List of Supreme Court Nominees?  If hypocrisy equals people, Democrats in Washington are China.  The latest example of such bold duplicity by the Democratic Party is the secret "A-list" of potential Supreme Court (SCOTUS) judges Democrats refuse to reveal while they turn blue on Capitol Hill screaming for more transparency from the Trump administration.  Democrat leaders and activists working for Alliance for Justice are keeping their SCOTUS list under lock and key.  Why?  What do Democrats want to hide?  Perhaps it's the fact that this list of potential justices for SCOTUS contains the names of the most liberal, activist judges in the land?  Maybe it's because this secret list of potential justices would turn off moderate Democrat voters?  If not, why hide the names from the public?

The Democrats don't want to fix the Supreme Court, they want to break America.  Mayor Peter Buttigieg took a break from running the worst city in Indiana to call for raising the number of Supreme Court justices to fifteen.  The plan comes from the same Rhodes Scholar who claimed that we should move to a popular vote system "if we're going to call ourselves a democracy."  Buttigieg has a degree in history from Harvard, but knows less than a third grader did in 1925.  Court packing schemes have been endorsed by Senator Elizabeth Warren, Senator Kamala Harris, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Robert Francis O'Rourke, Mayor Buttigieg and a bunch of other candidates you never heard of.  Other 2020 candidates, including Senator Bernie Sanders and Senator Cory Booker, have proposed rigging the Supreme Court in another way by introducing term limits for the justices.  These proposals are invariably described with euphemistic verbs like "reform" or "fix".  But the only reason that they suddenly decided SCOTUS needs reforming is because they're no longer in control of it.

Whoa: RBG Just Sided With Conservative Justices.  Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the four liberal justices on the Supreme Court, sided with her conservative colleagues on Monday over a prisoner's supervisory release.  She joined Justices Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh in the majority, deciding that a criminal defendant, in this case Jason Mont, can be sentenced for violating his supervised release, even if the release expires while he is incarcerated ahead of facing new charges.  Her vote was swapped with conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, who joined liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan in their dissent.

Inside Pete Buttigieg's plan to overhaul the Supreme Court.  As Democrats agonize over a spate of state laws restricting abortion rights and even a potential reversal of Roe v. Wade, one 2020 presidential candidate is putting an ambitious, long-shot plan to reform the Supreme Court front-and-center of his campaign.  Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, has talked about his plan to overhaul the high court since his first days as a candidate.  In short, it calls for expanding the number of justices from nine to 15, with five affiliated with Democrats, five affiliated with Republicans, and five apolitical justices chosen by the first 10.

Supreme Court rejects Trump request to fast track decision on DACA case.  The Supreme Court on Monday [6/3/2019] rejected the Trump administration's request to fast track a decision on whether it will hear a case over the president's rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.  The justices, in an unsigned order, denied the request, which was filed on behalf of the administration last month to expedite a decision on whether to review the case.  Solicitor General Noel Francisco, who represents the administration in cases before the Supreme Court, had urged the justices to announce their decision on whether they will hear the case by the end of their term later this month.

If You Can't Beat 'em, Pack 'em.  The selection of Justices Neil Gorsuch or Brett Kavanaugh by President Trump does not compare with the crisis of the Civil War.  Even during the Great Depression, Americans would not stomach such a naked play for unchecked power.  Today, the only reasons progressives give for stacking the court rely on false claims of "stolen seats," or the notional unpopularity of court decisions that hinder progressive agendas.  They would seize power from two branches of government to upset the third branch, because they don't like the checks and balances built into the Constitution.

A huge Supreme Court decision you never heard of.  What puts more bite in the Franchise Board v. Hyatt decision is that Chief Justice John Roberts assigned Clarence Thomas to write the majority opinion.  Thomas is an originalist more than he is a conservative.  A Court conservative, at least how liberals would define one, would honor the principle of stare decisis.  This means that once a decision is made, it stays made.  Thomas instead approaches cases according to the original intent of the Founding Fathers.  He believes if an initial decision was wrong per the original intent of the Constitution, it should be overturned.  This has the four Court liberal dissenters — Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan — in a tizzy.

Kavanaugh Stands Up for Americans Against Big Tech.  U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh ruled with the majority on Monday that iPhone users can sue Apple Inc. over its app prices.  Kavanaugh rejected Apple's argument that consumers could not challenge the company's policy of taking a 30 percent commission from its apps and refusing to let consumers purchase iPhone apps from third parties.  "It is undisputed that the iPhone owners bought the apps directly from Apple," Kavanaugh argued.  While this is a great start, we may need new legislation to prevent monopolies like Apple and Google from discriminating against consumers and small businesses that use their platforms.

Supreme Court hears DUI case in which blood was ordered drawn from unconscious driver without a warrant.  A Wisconsin DUI case in which police officers ordered the blood of an unconscious man be drawn for evidence without first getting a warrant was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday [4/23/2019].  Prosecutors argued that drawing the blood of unconscious drivers helps convict those who kill thousands of people a year in alcohol-related car accidents, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported.  They said the process of getting a warrant is too inconvenient and that Wisconsin's implied consent law does not require officers to get a warrant before drawing the blood of those suspected of driving while intoxicated, including individuals who are unconscious at the time.

Democrats laying groundwork for court-packing by lying about Mitch McConnell.  As the idea of packing the courts starts to become a more mainstream position on the Left, Democrats are now laying the groundwork for such a move by lying about Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's efforts to confirm conservative judges.  On Tuesday [4/16/2019], the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the campaign arm seeking to return Democrats to the majority in the Senate, tweeted that "Mitch McConnell's court-packing agenda" was to "Confirm extreme right-wing judicial nominees as quickly as possible."

The Path Forward for Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  There is no sense ignoring the herd of elephants stomping around the room, so I'll just say it:  Justice Ginsburg is dying. [...] She will probably never admit it in public, but all those progressive journos and liberal law profs who begged her to retire back in 2015 were right.  Yes, just like everybody else, she thought that Hillary was a done deal, RBG would retire right about now, Hillary would appoint her successor, and everything would hum along according to plan. [...] Ginsburg must have watched Rachel Maddow on election night.  She knew right there and then, from the glum, shocked disbelief on Maddow's androgynous face, what it all meant for the court — and for her.

Clarence Thomas addresses Senate Democrats' litmus tests for Catholic judicial candidates.  Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is unimpressed with Senate Democrats' attempts to apply religious tests to Roman Catholic judicial nominees.  That Thomas is saying anything at all on the subject is notable given his reputation for being tight-lipped.  "I thought we got away from religious tests," Thomas remarked this year during Pepperdine University School of Law's annual banquet.  He was referring to Article VI of the Constitution, which states that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Here Are 4 Egregious Ways the Left Wants to Transform American Politics.  [#1] Packing the Supreme Court: [...] The last major attempt to alter the Supreme Court's composition was in the late 1930s.  President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, upset with the conservative "Four Horsemen" of the Supreme Court thwarting parts of his New Deal agenda, tried to persuade Congress to allow him to appoint a "junior justice" for every sitting justice who remained on the Supreme Court beyond age 70.  That measure failed in the Democrat-controlled Senate.  But Roosevelt got the last laugh — he got to "pack" the court the old-fashioned way, and ended up appointing eight justices throughout his time in office.

Thomas asks question for second time in a decade at Supreme Court.  Justice Clarence Thomas, who is known for his silence, shocked spectators in court Wednesday when he asked a question during arguments in a dispute over racial discrimination in jury selection.  Thomas's question, which marks the second time in a decade the court's leading conservative has spoken during arguments, came in the case of a Mississippi man who has been tried six times for the 1996 murders of four people inside a furniture store.  Thomas last spoke in February 2016 when he asked several questions during oral arguments in a gun rights case.

Voters Favor Term Limits For Supreme Court But No More Members.  Democrats, increasingly worried about the U.S. Supreme Court tilting to the right, have been talking lately about changes in its overall makeup.  Most voters like the idea of term-limiting the justices but draw the line at adding more members to the court.  A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that only 27% of Likely U.S. Voters favor increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court.  Fifty-one percent (51%) are opposed, but 22% are undecided.

Rubio introduces constitutional amendment to limit Supreme Court to 9 justices.  Senator Mark Rubio says he plans to introduce a constitutional amendment that would limit the number of Supreme Court justices to 9.  Ribio cited the stated goal of several 2020 Democratic presidential candidates to expand the number of justices.

Why court-packing is a really bad idea.  [C]ourt-packing isn't really a permanent solution, since the two parties enter in a never-ending cycle of one-upmanship as each side seeks to expand the Supreme Court when its side is in power — a recipe for an unwieldy court and increased partisanship on the court.

Why Democrats want to abolish Electoral College, pack Supreme Court.  Elizabeth Warren wants to get rid of the Electoral College. [...] She argued that presidential nominees no longer campaign in places like California and Massachusetts because they're not swing states, instead focusing on battlegrounds that are up for grabs.  That's true, but if you abolished the college tomorrow, candidates would camp out in such megastates as New York, California, Florida, and Texas in an effort to run up their popular vote totals.  The college forces them to move around the country, especially to smaller states whose handful of electoral votes could tip the balance.

President Trump Wins SCOTUS Decision on Detainment and Deportation of Criminal Aliens.  The Supreme Court reversed a prior 9th Circuit Court ruling restricting when illegal aliens could be detained and deported.  The SCOTUS ruling was in favor [of] the Trump administration, allowing federal officials to detain and deport illegal aliens after they have served their time in the U.S. for other crimes regardless of whether they were picked up immediately or later, after criminal release.

SCOTUS Gives Trump a Big Win on Immigration.  On Tuesday [3/19/2019] the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Trump administration in Nielsen v.  Preap, allowing the Department of Homeland Security to detain illegal aliens without bond while awaiting deportation for committing crimes within our borders.  The decision reversed a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  It was authored by Justice Samuel Alito, who was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts as well as Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.  The ruling involved a class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of various resident aliens, including a few with Green Cards, convicted of crimes for which U.S. law mandates deportation.

Trump gets a U.S. Supreme Court victory on immigration detention.  The Supreme Court on Tuesday [3/19/2019] endorsed the U.S. government's authority to detain immigrants awaiting deportation anytime — potentially even years — after they have completed prison terms for criminal convictions, handing President Donald Trump a victory as he pursues hardline immigration policies.

Bias alert:
Enforcing the law is not a hardline immigration policy.

2020 Dems warm to expanding Supreme Court.  After watching Mitch McConnell transform the judiciary over the past four years, liberals are demanding a bold response.  And Democrats are listening.  Sens. Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand told POLITICO they would not rule out expanding the Supreme Court if elected president, showcasing a new level of interest in the Democratic field on an issue that has until recently remained on the fringes of debate.

Supreme Court declines to hear case involving grants to churches.  The Supreme Court will not take up a case involving whether houses of worship in New Jersey can be awarded taxpayer-funded grants for historical preservation, letting stand a lower court ruling that determined they could not.  At issue in the case are historic preservation grants awarded by Morris County, New Jersey, to 12 churches between 2012 and 2015.  The grants are funded by a county tax dedicated to historic preservation.

Kavanaugh slams 'pure discrimination' against churches as court declines to hear religious liberty case.  The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a case about whether churches or other religious institutions in New Jersey are entitled to public funds for historic preservation.  The ruling involved a four-year-long battle in Morris County over whether county money should be used to repair historic churches.  The New Jersey State Supreme Court ruled last year that the county could not continue to give historic preservation grants to 12 churches.  For years, Morris County had been giving churches money to make aesthetic and structural repairs to historic churches under a historic preservation program.  In 2015, a county freeholder objected, arguing that taxpayer funds should not be used to repair places of worship.

Roberts Keeps Joining High Court Liberals.  Chief Justice John Roberts is showing a new willingness to side with the U.S. Supreme Court's liberal wing after the divisive confirmation fight over Justice Brett Kavanaugh.  Roberts joined the liberals Wednesday [2/27/2019] in two rulings that left the conservatives in dissent.  Most notably, he cast the deciding vote to order a new look at the mental competence of a death row inmate who says he can't remember the crimes he committed.

Supreme Court Rejects Abortionists' Demands for Church Emails.  The Supreme Court rejected an abortion provider's bid to obtain private communications of Catholic officials who helped to lay the remains of aborted babies to rest.  On Monday, the high court announced that it would not take up Whole Woman's Health v. Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops in its next term.  The Texas-based abortion chain was appealing a 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that rejected its request to dig into the private communications of church officials who helped to bury the remains of aborted babies.  The 2-1 majority not only affirmed that burying fetal remains was constitutional, but that the request to review Church records was rooted in intimidation.

9-0: SCOTUS Rules That Eighth Amendment's "Excessive Fines" Clause Applies To The States.  Remember the oral arguments in this case?  Sure you do.  They went so badly for the state of Indiana that Court-watchers took to predicting a lopsided defeat afterward, something they normally refrain from doing.  It's the justices' job to be skeptical during questioning, after all.  Can't read too much into when they're hard on one side.  Usually.  But they were right, this was an unholy whupping. 9-0 decisions aren't unusual for the Court but it's a bit unusual to have everyone on one side for a landmark constitutional ruling, finding that the "excessive fines" clause of the Eighth Amendment applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment.

Supreme Court curbs power of government to impose heavy fines and seize property.  In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled to drastically curb the powers that states and cities have to levy fines and seize property, marking the first time the court has applied the Constitution's ban on excessive fines at the state level.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who returned to the court for the first time in almost two months after undergoing surgery for lung cancer, wrote the majority opinion in the case involving an Indiana man who had his Land Rover seized after he was arrested for selling $385 of heroin.  "Protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history for good reason:  Such fines undermine other liberties," Ginsburg wrote.  "They can be used, e.g., to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies.  They can also be employed, not in service of penal purposes, but as a source of revenue."

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Is Expected to Return to the Supreme Court Bench This Week.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is expected to sit for a U.S. Supreme Court argument Tuesday [2/19/2019] for the first time since she underwent surgery in December to remove cancerous masses from one of her lungs.  Ginsburg's presence will be a relief to liberals worried about any prospect that the 85-year-old justice might have to step down and give President Donald Trump a third Supreme Court vacancy to fill.

The Editor says...
An earlier report (immediately below) said she was already back at work.

Ginsburg back at Supreme Court.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was back at the court on Friday for the justices' private conference.  The Supreme Court's Public Information Office told The Hill that Ginsburg was attending the regular closed-door meeting in which the justices consider requests to review cases.  Ginsburg has been absent from the court since undergoing surgery in late December to remove two cancerous nodules from her lower left lung.  The 85-year-old justice missed oral arguments last month while recovering at home from the surgery.  Her absence marked the first time in more than 25 years on the bench she was forced to miss arguments due to her health.

John Roberts joins liberal justices as Supreme Court blocks Louisiana abortion clinic law.  The justices said by a 5-4 vote late Thursday [2/7/2019] that they will not allow the state to put into effect a law that requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

Before Northam, Democrats Didn't Just Dress Up as Klansmen.  In 1937, before Supreme Court nominees received the Brett Kavanaugh treatment, President Franklin Roosevelt placed Hugo Black, a former Klansman, on the high court.  A proto-Patrick Howley revealed Black's resignation letter from the Ku Klux Klan, which he signed under an "I.T.S.U.B."  (In the Sacred, Unfailing Bond) complimentary close — a common, cryptic acronym favored by the secret society — after the Alabaman had secured his spot.  Why did not Roosevelt use the Justice Department to investigate Black?  The president reasoned that "a man's private life is supposed to be his private life."  On the court, Black's private views became public policy.  Black authored the Korematsu decision.  Klansmen have consequences.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Makes First Public Appearance Since Cancer Surgery:  Attends Concert Celebrating Herself.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg appeared in public Monday night, her first public outing since her lung cancer surgery last December.  Ginsburg, 85, attended a concert celebrating herself titled, Notorious RBG in Song, that featured her daughter-in-law, soprano Patrice Michaels.

Mystery: No pictures from first Ginsburg 'public appearance' since surgery?  Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg attended a concert put on by her daughter-in-law at the National Museum of Women in the Arts on Monday, marking her first public appearance since cancer surgery in December.  Attendees at the Notorious RBG in Song described Ginsburg as "glam," and "resplendent," and "magnificent," but you'll have to take their word for it.  In an era when every person is carrying a camera and isn't afraid to use it, there wasn't a single snap of the 85-year-old to be found.  Every media story that covered her alleged appearance used file photos.

The Editor says...
Maybe it wasn't really her.  Maybe it was a "resplendent" and "magnificent" impostor.  Democrats are well known for their willingness to lie if it serves their political purposes.

Justice Ginsburg Reportedly Attends Concert In Her Honor — But No Pics To Verify Accuracy Of Story.  [Scroll down]  Adding yet another wrinkle to the ongoing mystery is a tweet by reporter David Hagedorn who initially said the following:  "What a delight to see RBG tonight at 'Notorious RBG in Song,' written & beautifully performed by her daughter-in-law, Patrice Michaels.  She sat in the back, a few rows behind us, looking resplendent.  Being hugged & wished a happy birthday by her made a grand night spectacular."  That tweet has since been deleted.  Why?  Whatever the reason, Mr. Hagedorn isn't saying but its deletion is leading to more and more wondering if the entire "Ruth Bader Ginsburg makes first public appearance since cancer surgery" story was a complete fabrication.  Some are even suggesting it was a lookalike who actually attended the show.  As bizarre as that seemingly sounds, is it any more bizarre than the lack of a single photo confirming the Justice's presence in public in this era if cell phone domination?

Illinois Traffic Operators Worry About Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  Given that we now know when President Trump will give the State of the Union (and that Stacey Abrams will be given the Democratic rebuttal even though we were all clearly hoping for Cardi B), only one question remains:  will Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg be showing up?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg watch nears the end of its second month.  It has been 54 days since the public laid eyes on the 85-year-old Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and her absence is prompting calls for proof of life.  The last time she was seen was on December 6, 2018, when she heard arguments in person at the Court. [...] The reason her absence is so monumental is that if her health has compromised her ability to do her job as a member of the highest court in the United States, her removal will give President Trump his third justice nomination of his first term.  This would be an apocalypse to the liberal Democrats, who would be faced with the most conservative Supreme Court in modern history for decades to come.  If you thought the Kavanaugh nomination was rough, imagine if Democrats doubled their efforts the third time around.

Packing Supreme Court with more seats does nothing for democracy.  With control of the House for the first time since 2011, Democrats have proposed a number of legislative initiatives, including ways to reform the federal judiciary.  Indeed, following the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, the health scares of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and the frustration with the perceived ideological direction, there has been momentum to change the structure of the Supreme Court.  One of the more disconcerting notions floated is the prospect of adding more seats to the Supreme Court in order to politically "balance it" the next time Democrats control both the White House and Congress.  This is a tactic known as "court packing."  No administration or legislative chamber since Franklin Roosevelt has earnestly tried court packing and for good reason.

As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recovers, the Left courts disaster.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg seems by all counts a nice human being: a good wife and mother, a good friend to her opposite, late Justice Antonin Scalia, a very hard worker, in all ways a mensch.  But this isn't the reason that millions of liberals follow her health with concern, pray every day for her continued survival, and even write in with the offer of one of their kidneys, should the need arise.  The concern for her health above that of all others rises, of course, from one special reason:  If she dies or retires while Republicans hold the White House and Senate, it would leave the liberals on the Supreme Court on the short end of a six-to-three minority.  This would be a huge blow to the pro-abortion agenda that has reigned in the U.S. for the last 40 years.

Supreme Court passes on case removing Whitaker as acting AG.  The Supreme Court denied an effort to strip acting Attorney General Matthew G. Whitaker's name from a pending case, swatting down a push to force the justices to send a signal that President Trump's temporary pick is illegal.  Lawyers had asked the justices to remove Mr. Whitaker and substitute Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, arguing that the latter man is the rightful head of the Justice Department under the law, after former Attorney General Jeff Sessions was ousted last year.

Justice Ginsburg "Not Even In DC" As Grave Health Rumors Swirl.  While some claim she continues to receive treatment and/or recover from her recent cancer diagnosis, others suggest she is in fact receiving hospice care in New York City and hasn't been in Washington D.C. for several days.  The truth perhaps can be found somewhere in the middle of both those extremes but what is undeniable is that should Ginsburg step down the battle to fill that vacancy on the Court will likely be as contentious and hard-fought as anything we've yet seen.

U.S. Media Really, Really Need Everyone to Know that Justice Ginsberg is Healthy.  "The more he spoke of his honor, the faster we counted the spoons."  That's the first sense that comes to mind as left-wing media narrative engineers keep pushing a story that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is "recovering". [...] Justice Ginsburg will be "working" from home, invisibly, for a year or more, even if in a coma; hooked up to breathing apparatus, and being force-fed through a tube.

Apocalypse Ruth.  There are some opponents worthy of grudging respect.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg is a terrible legal thinker, a leftist with no real respect for liberty and a confessed critic of the Constitution over its limitations upon the government's ability to impose her fans' pinko vision of soft, huggy tyranny upon Normal Americans.  But I respect her as an opponent — to do otherwise would be to lie to ourselves that our opponents are hopeless and helpless.  She's a tough old bird, surviving cancer and other perils and yet she always comes back to torment us with her appalling jurisprudence. [...] I think she's misguided, not evil.  But also I think we all need to think about the coming fight when she leaves the Court, because that brawl is coming regardless.

Ginsburg can stay on the Supreme Court and vote, no matter how sick or disabled she becomes.  With Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg continuing to recover from cancer surgery, whispers about whether she should step down have grown louder.  But as a member of the Supreme Court with life tenure, Ginsburg can remain on the bench for as long as she desires, no matter how sick she becomes.  Ginsburg had surgery Dec. 21 to remove two malignant nodules found in her left lung and has been recuperating at her home ever since.  The procedure kept Ginsburg off the bench on Monday and Tuesday, marking the first time she missed oral arguments in her 25-year tenure on the Supreme Court.  Though she was not present for oral arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts said Ginsburg would participate in the cases by reading briefs and argument transcripts.

Supreme Court halts fines against mystery company possibly linked to Mueller investigation.  Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issued a temporary administrative stay of contempt sanctions that have been brought against an unknown company in a mysterious grand jury subpoena fight thought to be linked to special counsel Robert Mueller.  The move is a fairly procedural one, and gives the federal government until Dec. 31 to respond.  Roberts, or all of the Supreme Court, could easily decide to lift the stay even before then, depending on how soon as it hears from the federal government.  However, the stay is not relief against the grand jury subpoena, but rather a contempt citation brought by the federal government against the company, known only as "the Corporation."

Chief Justice Roberts stays court order in mystery grand jury probe.  The Supreme Court appears to have intervened in the operations of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigations for the first time.  But we know precious little about what really is going on, beyond the mechanics of an order issued Sunday afternoon [12/23/2018] by the chief justice of the United States.

Supreme Court Intervenes in Apparent Mystery Mueller Case.  Chief Justice John Roberts stayed a contempt order in a case that likely arose from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation on Sunday night [12/23/2018].  Roberts' order could mark the first time that the Supreme Court has intervened in the Mueller inquiry.  Very little is known of the case, which reached the justices on Saturday, because the matter has proceeded through the federal courts under seal, meaning strict confidentiality prevails over every detail.

Roberts Sides With Liberal Justices, Strikes Down Trump's Asylum Policy.  On Friday, Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the four liberal justices of the Supreme Court once again as they ruled against the Trump administration's request for permission to immediately deny asylum to illegal immigrants.  In the case, titled Trump v. East Bay Sanctuary, Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh voted for the Trump administration; Roberts joined justices Steven Breyer, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor to deny the Trump administration's request.

Deep-State Justice Roberts Is Swing Vote As SCOTUS Stops Trump Ban On Asylum.  The Supreme Court ruled against President Trump's attempt to stop illegal aliens from claiming asylum when they cross the border on a 5-4 decision.  Roberts, who was supposed to be a constitutionalist has once again turned his back on the great paper to side with progressives.  Four justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh — would have granted the administration's request.

Pass Mark Levin's Supreme Court Amendment.  The Supreme Court was never supposed to be this powerful.  Alexander Hamilton claimed in The Federalist No. 78 that the judicial branch was to be the least powerful of the branches.  Though it has judgment, this pales in comparison to the force and will of the other branches.  It, after all, depends on the executive and legislative branches for cases to hear.  Though this was true for the first 14 years of the Constitution, it soon changed.  After the landmark decision of Marbury v. Madison took hold in 1803, it forever changed the power structure of our federal government and effectively derailing checks and balances.  It was the first decision that established judicial review.  Since then, the Court's decision has been final in determining if a law is unconstitutional.

Now That The Supreme Court Isn't Their Puppet, Liberals Want To Destroy It.  Concerted opposition to the independent judiciary has begun to percolate on the left with little scrutiny.  Last week, Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez, Hillary Clinton's former spokesman Brian Fallon, and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna rallied activists seeking to enervate judicial independence through proposals like court-packing and term limits for justices.  Left-wing influencers like Democratic Rep.-Elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and attorney Michael Avenatti have endorsed the former proposition already.  Progressive websites like have repeatedly challenged the notion of judicial review.  And dozens of leading lawyers on the left are organizing support for such ideas.  The list goes on.

Kavanaugh Joins Liberals to Protect Pro-Planned Parenthood Ruling.  The Supreme Court declined to review three cases relating to Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood at the state level Monday, over a vigorous dissent from Justice Clarence Thomas.  The dissent was significant because it indicates that Justice Brett Kavanaugh sided with the high court's liberal wing to deny review of a lower court decision that favored the nation's largest abortion provider.  "So what explains the Court's refusal to do its job here?," Thomas wrote.  "I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named 'Planned Parenthood.'"

SCOTUS Sides with Planned Parenthood — Lib Media Says Undercover Baby Parts Videos Were Discredited(?).  In September 2016 the Center for Medical Progress released a shocking video — the 9th in its series of videos exposing Planned Parenthood of selling aborted babies and their body parts.  The video caught a Planned Parenthood medical director discussing how the abortion company sells fully intact aborted babies.  The liberal media worked overtime to hide these gruesome practices from the American public.  They had to.  The selling of baby body parts is so utterly grotesque and barbaric.  When conservatives compared what Planned Parenthood is doing to Nazi laboratory experiments, they were not exaggerating.

Supreme Court Deals Unanimous, Welcome Blow to Administrative State in Frog Case.  Unanimity is elusive in today's America but the Supreme Court achieved it last week.  Although the dusky gopher frog is endangered, so are property rights and accountable governance.  Both would have been further jeopardized if the frog's partisans in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) had gotten away with designating 1,544 privately owned Louisiana acres as a "critical habitat" for the three-inch amphibian, which currently lives only in Mississippi and could not live in the Louisiana acres as they are now.

The Anti-Trump Hysterics Roll On.  The chief justice, John Roberts, claimed with a straight face that once aboard a federal bench, judges and justices shed any previous political or public-policy biases they might previously have had.  His own Supreme Court and the titanic struggles over confirming nominees of administrations of either party to it, make nonsense out of such a claim.  Roberts's own record in his present exalted office indicates that his theory of the miraculous immaculate transformation of incoming federal judges is bunk, apart from his rescue of Obamacare by his spurious finding that it was a tax (presumably to avoid a massive confrontation of the kind that Presidents Jefferson and Jackson had with Chief Justice Marshall and President Franklin D. Roosevelt had with Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes).

Is Justice Roberts an 'Obama Judge'?  [Scroll down]  Roberts capitulated and said ObamaCare was constitutional because it was a tax, a gross distortion that injected into the law the false notion that government could legally force people to buy a product they did not want.  He knelt before the power of the state and not before the Constitution, the document that is supposed to limit government power that he was sworn to uphold and protect.  In this instance at least, John Roberts became a judicial activist aiding and abetting a community organizer.  He became an an Obama judge.

The Unelected Keep Telling Our Elected President to Shut Up.  Chief Justice John Roberts was appointed to the Supreme Court — appointed.  In fact, the entire judiciary is either clogged by those who have not earned a single vote or by those who won no more than the votes of one of the 50 states.  And yet, when the man chosen by Americans to represent all of America criticizes the judiciary, the top judge in the country tells him to shut up.

Justice Roberts' attack against President Trump was blatantly political and wrong.  In a remarkably inappropriate and blatantly political statement Wednesday, U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts chastised President Trump for the president's quite accurate criticism of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and its rogue district and appellate court judges.  The spectacle of the ostensibly nonpolitical chief justice engaged in a dispute with the president of the United States is insulting to the Supreme Court and to our system of justice.  Shame on the chief justice.  What he did is unforgivable, especially after the corrosive Senate confirmation battle over now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was the subject of bitter and baseless partisan attacks and character assassination by Senate Democrats.

Chuck Grassley to Chief Justice John Roberts:  You Rebuked Trump — But Sat Silent Through Obama's Abuse.  U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts offered rare public criticism of the President of the United States on Wednesday [11/21/2018] when he pushed back against President Trump's claim Tuesday that an "Obama judge" had blocked his effort to deny asylum to those entering the country illegally.  But as outgoing Senate Judiciary Committee chair Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) later noted, Roberts was silent when President Barack Obama attacked the Court during the State of the Union address in 2010.

Midterm Silver Linings.  [Scroll down]  Two Supreme Court justices are in their 80s, Breyer and Ginsburg, and both are solid liberal votes.  If Trump replaces them with another Kavanaugh or Gorsuch, the court will be conservative majority for a generation, long past Trump's presidency or Pelosi's speakership.  Then there are all the federal and lower courts, now with an easier path to confirmation by a more solid Republican Senate.  The White House and Congress often change party control.  But judges are for life.  Having the Senate in solid red territory will add a long-needed constitutional jolt to America's judicial system for decades to come.

Kavanaugh has recused himself in three Supreme Court cases so far.  Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh is recused in three cases to be heard this term by the high court out of the roughly 40 cases that the justices have granted review of so far.  More could come during the course of the court's term through the spring, but as of October, Justice Kavanaugh will only sit out on Jam v. International Finance Corporation, Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission and Azar v. Allina Health Services.  All three cases come before the Supreme Court from the D.C. federal appeals court where Justice Kavanaugh sat as a circuit court judge for 12 years.  He was part of the original three-judge panel in two of the cases and participated in an en banc order in the other.

Supreme Court Halts Wilbur Ross Deposition On Citizenship Question In Census Form.  The U.S. Supreme Court temporarily stopped the scheduled deposition of Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in a legal challenge to the inclusion of a citizenship question on the 2020 census form.  The Monday night [10/22/2018] order was unsigned and the vote count was not disclosed, as is typical of matters of this nature.  The Supreme Court's decision will only remain in effect until Oct. 29, by which point the Justice Department must ask the high court to make a final decision regarding Ross' testimony.

Census Win — Supreme Court Strikes Down Activist New York Court in Census Citizenship Ruling.  The most recent reviews of media presentations for this story (The Hill and CNN) reflect MSM disappointment that SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the administration.  The U.S. Commerce Department is adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census.  An activist judge in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) — framing a challenge based on the question being discriminatory — ruled that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross must submit to a deposition to discover "the motives" of the decision.  An appellate circuit panel initially agreed with the lower court and ACLU lawyers.  However, U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco asked the Supreme Court to stay the circuit court ruling.  SCOTUS agreed with the administration and blocked the ridiculous activist lawyers from questioning the cabinet; the supreme court does allow the plaintiffs to question the DOJ civil rights division lawyer.

James Madison doesn't want your dead cat to vote, and maybe not you either.  In 1987, the eminent jurist Robert Bork was nominated to the Supreme Court.  The American Bar Association evaluated Bork, as they have evaluated nominees since 1956. Despite the fact that the ABA leans left and Bork leaned right, they gave Bork their highest "Well Qualified" rating.  No matter.  Bork was "borked" by a senate smear campaign led by failed presidential candidate, failed husband, failed drinker, failed driver and failed swimmer Ted Kennedy, who avoided failure in only one thing in life — getting repeatedly re-elected by foolish voters in Massachusetts who liked his family name.  After Bork was defeated, a replacement nominee was named, Anthony Kennedy.  He was confirmed by the senate 97-0.  Maybe that's because foolish people, including perhaps Ted, thought he was one of "the" Kennedys (He wasn't).  That was the last unanimous confirmation.

The Democrat Strategy of Crying Rape Is Not Over.  If the Democrats take the House in the midterms, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) would be chairman of the judiciary committee, and he has vowed to pursue the accusations of sexual assault against the newest Supreme Court Justice.  At first glance this seems self-destructive on the part of Democrats, given how the general public hated the cruel and lawless attack on Kavanaugh.  Democrats have a different calculus.  Abortion with no limits is threatened.  There is a conservative majority on the Supreme Court, so the court itself must be besmirched.  What is becoming more obvious by the day is that the Democrats don't care about the general electorate.  They appear bent on destroying unity wherever they find it.  They want to destroy constitutional limits on their power, including the limits brought on by separation of powers or Democrats losing elections.

Liberals Discover the Dangers of a Powerful Supreme Court.  [Scroll down]  For instance, Slate's Mark Joseph Stern warned that the newly confirmed Kavanaugh "will become part of a five-justice-conservative block that will swiftly roll back decades of progressive jurisprudence."  Alas, there is little evidence that any such reversal is likely, or likely to be swift — remember Chief Justice John Roberts' determination to uphold Obamacare on grounds that even the left didn't take seriously, that the program was a tax.  Nevertheless, the imagined progressive golden age inaugurated by enlightened lawyers is going a-glimmering.  Given the fact that it has taken a half dozen GOP presidents decades to create a seemingly "conservative" majority, which has its own divisions over such issues as executive power and civil liberties, liberals shouldn't whine.  They have long enjoyed the benefits of an activist judiciary which only slowed down in recent years.  It seems only fair for democratic change to eventually transform the court.

The Plot Against the Supreme Court.  The attack on Brett Kavanaugh was not just an assault on a man, but an attack on an institution.  Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 85 years old and Stephen Breyer is 80 years old.  Presidential incumbents tend to win reelection.  Even if the Democrats take the Senate, the odds are good that they won't be able to nominate anyone to the Supreme Court until 2025.  That's a long time away, and a lot can happen until then.  Even if Breyer and Ginsburg manage to stay in the game until a Democrat makes it into the White House, with Kavanaugh's appointment the Supreme Court has taken on a 5-4 conservative tilt for the next seven years.  It's been a century since the Supreme Court has been this conservative.  Conservative justices have less power than lefty justices.  The latter can create laws, in defiance of the constitution, while the former eliminate them, in deference to the constitution.  But those seven years can still undermine a great portion of the big government project.

Democrats Abandon the Constitution.  Brett Kavanaugh's appointment to the Supreme Court has sparked a firestorm of outrage and recrimination on the left.  Some attacks seem aimed at intimidating the justices into supporting progressive causes.  "The Court must now prove — through its work — that it is worthy of the nation's trust," Eric Holder, President Obama's attorney general, tweeted Oct. 6.

Ending the judicial Wheel of Fortune:  The need for 18-year Supreme Court terms.  The Democrats have won the popular vote in six of the last seven presidential elections, yet unless Ruth Bader Ginsberg can stay on the bench until she is 87, there may soon be six conservative justices on a Supreme Court no longer in touch with the people.  High court justices live longer and serve longer than they used to.  Until 1970, the average justice served 15 years and retired at 68.  Today, he or she serves 26 years and retires at 79.  Clarence Thomas, for example, has been on the court 27 years, but shows no sign of retiring soon.  Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, just 49 and 53 when President Trump appointed them, could still be on the bench in the 2050s.

The Left is promising to abuse power if they win; voters should take them seriously.  In 2005, the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Kelo v. New London, diminishing Americans' property rights.  The ruling said that governments can seize your home through eminent domain, even if their intention is merely to hand the land over to private developers.  Conservatives saw this as one more bad ruling from a Supreme Court that issued a whole lot of them.  House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was a bit more sanguine, and her famous response exemplifies the respect and reverence that liberals once had for the Supreme Court, just so long as it was influencing culture and moving the national conversation in a way they liked.  "It is a decision of the Supreme Court," she said, emphasizing its finality.  "If Congress wants to change it, it will require legislation of a level of a constitutional amendment.  So this is almost as if God has spoken."

GOP Needs Update to Dems' Cage Match Rules.  It's time to update the GOP's Marquess of Queensbury Rules.  If you saw Ruth Bader Ginsburg at Brett Kavanaugh's swearing-in ceremony, you know that we may need to fill her seat in about 4½ minutes.  Naturally, I hope she lives to be 300 — although parenthetically, it seems she already has.  The confirmation hearings for Kavanaugh made Robert Bork's hearings look like a day at the beach.  At least liberals only lied about Bork's judicial philosophy.  They didn't accuse him of being Ted Bundy.  The next nomination hearing will make Kavanaugh's look like an ice cream social.

Undermining the Supreme Court is incredibly dangerous.  What does it look like when the Supreme Court loses its legitimacy?  We don't want to find out.  Now that Brett Kavanaugh has been appointed to the court after a long and incredibly messy confirmation process, some have suggested this is the moment the institution loses its standing in the eyes of the American public. [...] For more than 200 years, the Supreme Court has served as the final word, more or less, on the hot constitutional issues of the day.  But that power, known as "judicial supremacy," isn't written into the Constitution — the court claimed it back in 1803 in Marbury v.  Madison.  Americans have mostly agreed to go along with it ever since.  But what if they didn't?  There are already rumblings on the left that it's time to stop letting the court have the last word.

In His First Day On The Job, Kavanaugh Hired As Many Black Law Clerks As RBG Has In Her Entire Tenure.  Justice Brett Kavanaugh has hired a black law clerk for his new chambers at the U.S. Supreme Court, matching Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's record of African-American clerkship hiring during her tenure on the nation's highest judicial tribunal.  With his first clerkship hires, Kavanaugh also set a gender composition record, an apparent attempt to buck the high court's hiring patterns, which tend to favor white, male graduates of elite law schools.  Since joining the high court in 1993, Ginsburg has hired over 100 law clerks, just one of whom is black.

Democrats' New Strategy:  Destroy The Institutions Of American Government.  In the aftermath of Justice Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court, Democrats have come up with a plan.  According to The New York Times, Brian Fallon, top spokesman for Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, says that Democrats should consider extreme measures.  What measures are more extreme than slandering a judicial nominee as a gang rapist?  Why, simply packing the court, FDR style! [...] Democrats aren't afraid that the Court will do its job — they're afraid that the Court doing its job will mean checks and balances actually work.  So instead, they want to do away with the Court as a functioning institution.

Liberals' Kavanaugh Blunder:  Raising the Stakes Without Changing The Game.  Liberals have overlooked that, just because the stakes have been raised, does not mean the game has changed.  What these Trump-state Democrats needed to do before, they still need to do now.  However, doing it has gotten harder, thanks to the left.  That such a fundamental mistake could have been thrust upon Democrats by the left is quite plausible:  It was liberals' strategic blunder that put Democrats in this predicament in the first place.  Last year, liberals insisted Senate Democrats pull out what then amounted to all the stops to block Neil Gorsuch's Supreme Court confirmation.  Thinking Republicans could not, or would not, call their bluff to change Senate rules to stop filibusters of Supreme Court nominees, they lost:  Not just Gorsuch's nomination, but the larger war.  Had they allowed Gorsuch's confirmation and maintained the filibuster, they would likely have been able to successfully filibuster Kavanaugh.  But they no longer had it.

Justice Kagan is Concerned About the Supreme Court's 'Legitimacy'if Kavanaugh is Confirmed.  While, in theory, the Supreme Court is an "impartial" group of people deciding and interpreting law that will impact us for generations to come, it's not.  For the most part, we know how justices are going to side.  Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are pretty much always going to fall on the liberal side of the position.  Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas are pretty much always going to fall on the conservative side of the issue.  That leaves Justices Anthony Kennedy falling to the left-of-center and John Roberts falling to the right-of-center.  That's not being impartial in the least bit.  If it was, Kennedy's retirement wouldn't be such a huge deal.

Conservatives: Kavanaugh Confirmation Is a 'Major Step' in Restoring Constitutional Rights.  Conservative groups hailed Justice Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court as a "victory" for American liberty and called it a "major step" in restoring constitutional rights in the U.S.  Conservative think tanks, advocacy groups, and legal organizations dedicated to defending religious liberty weighed in on Kavanaugh's Saturday afternoon confirmation, which was one of the "defining" issues for many voters in the 2016 election.

About Merrick Garland's 'Stolen' Seat.  Lots of noise on Twitter and in the left-leaning opinion precincts still bemoaning the failed nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, and the "theft" of his seat, which was essentially pocket-vetoed by Mitch McConnell in 2016.  Following what's become known as the Biden Rule, McConnell declined to bring the nomination to the Senate floor, and it expired along with the Obama presidency and the Hillary Clinton candidacy that fall.

The Kavanaugh-Garland equivalency is false.  Look at this weekend's mobs of protesters — many of them paid by hugely wealthy and powerful special interests — that thronged the streets around the Capitol and Supreme Court to shout down any difference of opinion.  Jackbooted hippies jeered, harassed and intimidated anyone who hesitated to swear fealty to their warped worldview and twisted lies.  No single lie has been more freely uttered — or is more profoundly dishonest — than the claim that Senate Democrats had every right to kill the Kavanaugh nomination as payback for Republicans' refusal to take up President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland in the final months of his presidency.

Brett Kavanaugh will bring change to the Supreme Court, but maybe not what you think.  [Scroll down]  With regard to Roe v.  Wade — which is really what this entire, embarrassing circus was about, with all the charges and countercharges just being talking points — it's hard to say.  Kavanaugh told the senators that Roe is "settled law."  That's true, in a sense.  But Plessy v. Ferguson, which upheld segregation, or Bowers v. Hardwick, which allowed states to treat gay sex as a felony, were both settled law until they were overturned.  And Justice Sonia Sotomayor told senators that the Second Amendment as an individual right was settled law after District of Columbia v. Heller but then took the anti-Second Amendment side in McDonald v. Chicago the next year.  Even so, overturning Roe would be a huge deal, and I don't think the court has the stomach for it.  There may be a bit of chipping around the edges, as in the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v.  Casey, but not much.  It will take at least two more pro-life justices on the court before Roe is at risk.

The High-Water Mark of the 'Resistance' — for Now.  The judge has been confirmed and sworn in, and is now Justice Kavanaugh.  Long may he sit on the bench as we attempt to correct the course of the ship of state and return it to constitutional principles that have been under attack by the Democrat Party since Aaron Burr murdered Alexander Hamilton. [...] That this is a prescription for the breakdown of our legal system bothers them not one whit; for them, emotions (Burr's wounded pride, Andrew Jackson's anger, John Wilkes Booth's need for revenge, Clinton's gangster background, Obama's Chicago Way) always trump reason, which is why they have so much of the former and evidence so little of the latter.  Despite their defeat in the Battle of Brett Kavanaugh, they (like the Democrat South in the Civil War) will be back for more.

Where do we go from here?  The Democrats' shameful treatment of Robert Bork in 1987 has distorted our politics — not just the politics of the Supreme Court — for the last 30 years.  But the slanders the Democratic Party directed toward [Brett] Kavanaugh were, if anything, even more disgraceful.  We will feel their impact for many years to come.

Save the Supreme Court:  Impose Term Limits on Justices.  While envisioned by Alexander Hamilton as "the least dangerous branch" and "the weakest of the three departments of power," intended to settle disputes rather than make policy, the judiciary has turned into a quasi-legislature, where disappointed activists turn if they lose political battles.  That view of the courts predominates on the Left, for whom the Constitution has virtually nothing to do with constitutional law.  The role of judges is to say what the law should be, not what it is.  What previous generations agreed to is irrelevant, a historical footnote.  A good jurist briefly mentions the nation's founding document while looking for ambiguous language.  He or she then claims to have discovered constitutional penumbras and emanations after great effort.  The opinion then justifies turning the latest political zeitgeist into law.  Jurisprudence is almost entirely result-oriented, with judges expected to vote as if they were legislators.

Ginsburg Forgets [what is in] 14th Amendment, [and someone in the] Audience Has To Give Her [a copy of the] Constitution.  Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg forgot the contents of the 14th Amendment while speaking to the National Woman's Party in late August and needed an audience member to give her a copy of the Constitution so she could remember what it said.  The incident happened on August 26, 2018, when Ginsburg was asked to talk about the Equal Rights Amendment while addressing the audience at the Belmont-Paul Women's Equality National Monument.

After Kavanaugh:  The judicial wars are just getting started.  [Scroll down]  The reason for these increasingly hard-fought and closely decided Supreme Court battles is that the last four nominees have been originalists and textualists who threaten the progressive doctrine of the Living Constitution.  The left's hold over the Supreme Court is under threat.  The Democratic Party and its affiliated interest groups, always eager to appease foreign adversaries, have in this case responded with force.  They understand that the Supreme Court effectively rules the country.  Any restoration of constitutionalism and of the separation of powers depends on control of the Court.  Which is why, given a closely divided Senate, the next originalist nominee will be confirmed with fewer votes than Kavanaugh.

Does Ruth Bader Ginsburg still have the judicial temperament to sit on the Supreme Court?  [Scroll down]  The question that does arise is whether something has changed these past two years in Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  She has become a hero of the Left by attacking President Trump.  It is personal.  She has spoken, and we all have read and heard.  She hates the man, and she surprisingly has lost that internal thermostat that inhibits a proper judge from being so candid about how much she hates someone.  It seems impossible to reconcile how she can sit as a justice on any case matter that touches on Trump Administration policies and initiatives.  Her prejudice is palpable.  It seems quite impossible to reconcile her refusing to recuse herself when any matter stemming from a Trump initiative comes before the Court.

Why the Supreme Court is now America's most dangerous branch.  With its dramatic reveals, shocking allegations and stunning confessions, the fight over the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has had more plot twists than a telenovela.  And the Court has only itself to blame.  "The Court's adventurism and self-aggrandizement has had insidious consequences," said David A. Kaplan, author of "The Most Dangerous Branch" (Crown), out now.  This month's bare-knuckle brawl in the Senate is all the proof we need that judicial activism has grotesquely warped American politics, Kaplan argues.

Brett Kavanaugh and the Limits of Social-Class Privilege for Conservatives.  Brett Kavanaugh's true sin isn't his connections, his popularity, or his prep school.  His true sin is that he's a conservative.  And now he's a particular kind of conservative — a conservative who matters, a conservative who will have the power (and might actually have the convictions) to threaten one or more of the most sacred elements of progressive jurisprudence.  He can potentially affect the law and the culture in a profound way.  So what we're watching is the systematic revocation of his elite privilege.

With the Kavanaugh Charade, Do Polls Now Replace the Constitution?  The Constitution clearly spells out the role of the Senate in selecting Supreme Court justices.  Article 2 dictates that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the Supreme Court..."  Advice and consent means that Senators can provide input, question nominees about their future role as a Supreme Court Justice, then vote to approve the nomination.  Typically, presidents are given deference to make nominations, and as long as such nominees are not clearly unqualified, to confirm these nominees to the court.  Nominees are usually confirmed without much fanfare, even those who are ideologically out of the mainstream, such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg, confirmed 96-3.  Barack Obama's two nominees were confirmed, but by a closer margin, Elena Kagan 63-37 and Sonia Sotomayor 68-31.  Enter Donald Trump and "advice and consent" yields to blatant partisanship.  His first Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, squeaked by 54-45.  Trump's current nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, is the star attraction in the newest reality show, not featuring housewives, but instead, "The Real Obnoxious Senators of Washington, D.C."

Kavanaugh's accuser recovered her memory at the time Dems were panicked Romney would win and nominate him to SCOTUS.  Bookworm has noticed an odd coincidence: after telling no one her story about the alleged incident for decades, she suddenly remembered and spoke about it in couples' therapy in 2012, when leftists perceived the possibility that Mitt Romney, ahead in the polls, would win the presidency and appoint Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

The Dems "Anita" Brett Kavanaugh.  It's uncanny how closely the Democrats are following the Anita Hill playbook as they try to "Anita" Brett Kavanaugh, looking to prevent his confirmation as a Supreme Court Justice. [...] Having watched Kavanaugh's testimony and having heard the encomia on his character from the many women whose careers he has fostered as a judge and professor, as well as from his colleagues, I strongly doubt that he did what Ford alleges, and what her allegation suggests was a rape attempt was, by her own description, nothing of the kind — though, following the Hill playbook, she has already taken a lie-detector test and hired a well-known lawyer. [...] But ever since their savaging of Robert Bork, no dirty trick is too dirty for the Democrats when it comes to the Supreme Court.

The real Christine Blasey Ford.  "Now I feel like my civic responsibility is outweighing my anguish and terror about retaliation," Christine Blasey Ford told the Washington Post.  "Retaliation"! Au contraire, this will make your career.  Like Anita Hill, you'll dine out on this the rest of your life.  A book or two, a professorship at an Ivy, and the lecture circuit.  Maybe some "journalist" can tell us whether she has proactively retained a booking agency?  I can already hear her keynoting the Democrat convention in 2020.

Democrats Want Their Pound of Kavanaugh Flesh.  The 27-year-old "Anita Hill" strategy of digging for dirt on a Supreme Court nominee didn't work with Clarence Thomas back in 1991.  But desperate times for liberals call for desperate measures.  Just as with Anita Hill, no doubt it took a concentrated effort of importuning by a host of liberal Senate staffers and interest-group partisans to wrest from another college professor a last-minute allegation of sexual misbehavior designed to sink a Supreme Court appointment at the eleventh hour.

Here's Why The Revelation Of Judge Kavanaugh's Accuser Was Inevitable, And Why It Still Means Nothing.  [Scroll down]  And it was becoming all too clear that "anonymous accuser" wasn't going to cut it, not with so much at stake.  Enter Christine Blasey Ford, the as-of-Sunday no-longer-anonymous (and already lawyered-up) Kavanaugh accuser who contends that the then-prep-school student [... highly questionable details omitted for brevity, among other things.] The alleged incident left Ford so traumatized, apparently, that she neglected to go public or even file a police report for [...] 36 years. [...] Sounds serious, and it would be if it were true.  But most people who almost get killed by criminals "trying to attack" them, you know, go to the police.

Why The GOP Should Confirm Kavanaugh In Spite Of This Last-Minute Accusation.  Sen. Dianne Feinstein's September surprise exploded yesterday as Christine Blasey Ford, a professor in California, came forward as the woman accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault in 1981.  The Washington Post broke the tale she was apparently reluctant to tell.  With Kavanaugh about to swing the court to fascism, according to the left, well, her reluctance relented.  Now we must decide how the Senate should react to this last-gasp attack.  The answer is pretty simple:  He should be confirmed.  For whatever reason, Feinstein decided that these allegations should remain under wraps even from other Democrats during the hearing process.  That was the time Kavanaugh and witnesses could have been confronted by these allegations.  But no, Feinstein waited, and threw this grenade into the final moments of his nomination.

Republicans Question Democrats' 'Tactics and Motives' in Producing Accusatory Letter Now.  Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee released a statement after learning that an anonymous woman claimed she was sexually assaulted by Judge Brett Kavanaugh.  "If ranking member Feinstein and other Committee Democrats took this claim seriously, they should have brought it to the full Committee's attention much earlier," the statement said.

Kavanaugh Classmate Named in Letter Strongly Denies Allegations of Misconduct.  On Friday morning [9/14/2018], The New Yorker's Jane Mayer and Ronan Farrow reported on a letter alleging possible sexual misconduct by Brett Kavanaugh while he was a high-school student. [...] The Kavanaugh classmate quoted in the New Yorker is Mark Judge, a writer in Washington, D.C. Judge spoke to The Weekly Standard Friday afternoon, strongly denying that any such incident ever occurred.  "It's just absolutely nuts.  I never saw Brett act that way," Judge told TWS.

Author Stephen King threatens to destroy Susan Collins if she votes to confirm Brett Kavanaugh.  Author Stephen King has threatened to "defeat" Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, if she votes to confirm President Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh.  Presuming to speak for "most Americans," King tweeted that people are "angry" over how the conformation "is being railroaded through." [...] Senate Democrats, backed by the party's hard-left base, have fully embarrassed themselves with their antics to oppose a highly respected Judge Kavanaugh.

Some 'journalists' happy to pitch in on last-ditch hit job on Kavanaugh.  The Supreme Court nomination seems like a new season of "House of Cards," with many in the media helping write the script.  It's had everything it needed to be a hit:  lies about what nominee Brett Kavanaugh said; journalists thrilled by a self-aggrandizing senator who was lying and fantasizing he was "Spartacus"; another senator who promoted a phony video of the testimony; hundreds of radical protesters intent on shutting down the hearing and even attempts to threaten or possibly bribe a senator into voting him down.  Now there's a last-second allegation from ... high school.  The accusation was Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein's First-Monday-in-October surprise.

Ronan Farrow Reports Kavanaugh Accuser Refuses to Come Forward, No Witnesses.  Ronan Farrow — a journalist who has gained notoriety for his investigative reporting on sexual predators, including disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein and CBS executive Leslie Moonves — worked with another writer at the New Yorker to report on the last-ditch effort by Democrats to derail Kavanaugh's confirmation.  Unlike Farrow's earlier reports on Weinstein and Moonves — in which victims are named and interviews included in the piece, the Kavanaugh accuser is different — and less credible — for several reasons.

'The System's Not Working' Is Liberal Speak For 'We're Not Getting What We Want'.  CNN released a new poll this week that alleges only 38 percent of Americans support the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, while 39 percent do not.  It was the lowest net approval of any Supreme Court nominee since Harriet Miers. [...] Kavanaugh is down by a single point in a CNN poll in a nation where more than half the people can't even name a single Supreme Court justice.  Never mind either that 2016 was the most SCOTUS-centric election we've had in modern times.  The GOP's presidential candidate provided a list of names then promised to nominate those people if he became president.

Barely Coherent:  Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Makes an Appearance.  A few weeks ago American media began heavily promoting a generally odd video of Supreme Court Justice doing a workout.  It seemed weird.  Today, the motive of putting out that video becomes transparent.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg appears at an event hosted by the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association.  [Video clip]  How long can the left-wing apparatchik maintain a ruse that Justice Ginsburg is fit to remain on the court?

Kavanaugh Needs No Defense.  Every time a conservative jurist is nominated to the Supreme Court, he's accused of perpetrating some heinous deed or harboring some reprehensible opinion.  Neil Gorsuch was a plagiarist.  Sam Alito was a racist and a sexist.  John Roberts supported abortion clinic bombers.  Clarence Thomas liked to talk about weird sex to female subordinates.  Robert Bork was one of the worst people who ever lived.  Brett Kavanaugh was subjected to some of the most mindlessly tendentious treatment we've ever witnessed in a Senate confirmation hearing.  Particularly memorable was Cory Booker's demand that Kavanaugh explain a 16-year-old email on racial profiling without telling Kavanaugh what the email said (Booker claimed he couldn't release the email although he had been cleared to do so — then released it as though he were breaking Senate rules).  Kamala Harris cleverly edited a video to make it sound as though he considered birth control and abortion-inducing drugs the same thing, then posted the video on Twitter and claimed Kavanaugh was "going after birth control."

Sixty-Five Women Who Went to High School With Brett Kavanaugh Write Their Own Letter About His Character.  Five dozen women who went to high school with Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh have written a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein backing his character.  "We are women who have known Brett Kavanaugh for more than 35 years and knew him while he attended high school between 1979 and 1983.  For the entire time we have known Brett Kavanaugh, he has behaved honorably and treated women with respect.  We strongly believe it is important to convey this information to the Committee at this time," the letter states.  "Brett attended Georgetown Prep, an all-boys high school in Rockville, Maryland.  He was an outstanding student and athlete with a wide circle of friends.  Almost all of us attended all girls high schools in the area.  We knew Brett well through social events, sports, church, and various other activities.  Many of us have remained close friends with him and his family over the years."

Theater of the Absurd Has Taken Over the Senate.  The central complaint of the Democrats is that they haven't been given access to records from Kavanaugh's time working in the Bush administration.  They demand their release by the current White House, or the Senate Judiciary Committee, or Kavanaugh, or, perhaps by this writing, Aslan the Lion, deity of Narnia.  Explaining the ginned-up controversy would be a waste of time, because the point of these demands merely is to put on an absurdist drama in which the finale is never in doubt.  Judge Brett Kavanaugh, an indisputably qualified nominee, even according to the typically liberal American Bar Association, will be confirmed no matter what the Democrats do and no matter how many indecipherable yawps get shouted by the hysterics in the hearing room.

Democrats Have Very Good Reasons To Go Crazy Over Kavanaugh.  [President] Trump won the Republican nomination in substantial part because of his dramatic pivot on judicial nominations, especially for the Supreme Court.  He once spoke cavalierly of nominating his sister, who is not seen as a particularly conservative jurist, to our nation's highest court.  Seeing the reaction to Scalia's passing, Trump promised to nominate justices from a list compiled by future White House Counsel Don McGahn (not to mention Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society).  "The List" was an unprecedented move in presidential politics, designed to bring distrustful Republicans to Trump's side, or at least blunt their opposition during the primaries.  It became a prime argument on Trump's behalf on talk radio and in opinion columns seeking to reassure conservatives that there was something in a Trump candidacy for them.

The Character Assassination of Brett Kavanaugh.  There is certainly an honorable way to oppose the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.  It's simple.  A progressive senator can simply declare that he or she does not agree with Kavanaugh's judicial philosophy, explain why, and vote against him.  There is no constitutional rule that declares a senator must vote for every qualified Supreme Court nominee.  There's also an honorable way to investigate Kavanaugh's fitness for the bench, regardless of his judicial philosophy.  A judge at any level — much less the Supreme Court — should exhibit a basic and enduring commitment to honesty and integrity.  So, yes, scrutinize his record.  Diligently investigate his background.  If a serious character issue emerges, expose it.  But it's low and dishonorable to skip the principled opposition and simply smear a good man, engaging in cheap character assassination as Judge Kavanaugh's Democratic opponents have this week.

The Supreme Court's days as a super-legislature are over, and Democrats aren't happy about it.  Democrats placed themselves one after another into Kavanaugh's seat on the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals to second-guess rulings, which is only natural for those who think the courts are there to make policy decisions. [...] All these opinions about Kavanaugh's rulings have one thing in common:  They come from politicians who seem to think judging is a lot like what they do for a living.  But judges don't make policy, and the Supreme Court is not a super-legislature.  That's why a good judge who decides cases based on law and precedent will not like all the outcomes of the cases he hears.  Federal judges don't run for their seats or make promises on how they will vote.  And they are not supposed to make rulings that set the policies that affect millions of Americans.  Policy is supposed to be a function of the democratic process, not something created by a lifetime-appointed nine-person oligarchy.

Sen. Grassley Calls Out Media 'Double Standard' in Kavanaugh Coverage.  Resuming the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh Tuesday afternoon [9/4/2018], Republican Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley blasted his Democratic colleagues and their liberal media allies for blatant hypocrisy when it came to criticism of the judicial branch of government, pointing to routine attacks on conservative Supreme Court justices.

Sens. Dianne Feinstein, Kamala Harris have agendas in Brett Kavanaugh hearings.  For California Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris, there's more at stake in this week's Judiciary Committee hearings for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh than his expected confirmation.  When the first of four scheduled days of hearings begins Tuesday, Kavanaugh and the future of the high court will be the focus.  Feinstein, Harris and the other eight Democrats on the committee will be pushing hard to turn any wavering Republican senators — and public opinion — against the 53-year-old appeals court judge, whom President Trump nominated in July to replace retired Justice Anthony Kennedy.  In the end, a party-line vote to advance Kavanaugh to the full Senate with a favorable recommendation is the most likely outcome.

The ABA Just Gave Brett Kavanaugh Its Highest Possible Rating.  The American Bar Association's (ABA) standing committee on the judiciary released its evaluation of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh Friday, awarding him a unanimous "well-qualified" rating.  The ABA panel issues its evaluation based on a variety of measures including integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament.  "The committee's objective is to provide impartial peer evaluations of the professional qualifications of judicial nominees in order to assist the Senate Judiciary Committee in assessing whether such individuals should be confirmed by the Senate," an ABA memo detailing the process reads.

The Vindication of Clarence Thomas — And the Left's Freakout.  I'm gaining weight and running out of popcorn watching the left freak out about the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy.  But beyond just the theatrics of the left's primal screams and desperation tactics it is delightful to see the left begin to reckon with something more fundamental going on, which in one sentence I'll assert is the growing vindication of the constitutional originalism of Justice Clarence Thomas.

Don't sacrifice Democrats' Senate seats in a futile fight against Kavanaugh confirmation.  Barring some explosive last-minute scandalous revelation, Brett Kavanaugh will be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.  Attracting a couple of Republicans to turn thumbs-down on the judge seems increasingly remote.  Nothing that either Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins or Alaska's Sen. Lisa Murkowski have done or said suggests that either of them will jump ship.  Nonetheless, Democratic activists have been hounding Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to coerce West Virginia's Sen. Joe Manchin, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp from North Dakota and Indiana's Sen. Joe Donnelly into falling on their swords by voting against Kavanaugh.  Such acts of self-sacrifice would be unimaginable in today's Senate where careers are not tossed away lightly.  And even in the unlikely event that Schumer could persuade these Democrats to walk the plank, the party would end up being far worse off than it is now.

White House Slams Schumer, Feinstein for 'Disingenuously' Demanding Kavanaugh Docs.  The White House slammed Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer and Judiciary ranking member Dianne Feinstein for "disingenuously" demanding records about Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh that are "irrelevant" to his legal views.  "Despite published reports, the White House's requests for meetings between Judge Kavanaugh and Senators Schumer and Feinstein remain unanswered after over three weeks," White House spokesman Raj Shah said in a statement.

Opposition to Kavanaugh Cracks as Liberal Feminist Democrat Endorses Him.  Democratic opposition to Judge Brett Kavanaugh took a hit Thursday when liberal feminist Lisa Blatt, who is a Supreme Court star, called upon her fellow Democrats to vote for Kavanaugh's confirmation to the nation's highest court.  "I am a liberal Democrat and a feminist," Blatt told readers in a Politico op-ed.  "But we all benefit from having smart, qualified and engaged judges on our highest court, regardless of the administration that nominates them."  Blatt has argued 35 cases before the Supreme Court, more than any other woman.  She praised Kavanaugh for his proactive hiring of women clerks, comparing him in that regard to the Supreme Court justice for whom Blatt clerked, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg claims she has 5 more years on SCOTUS and the jokes write themselves.  Don't worry, Lefties, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is apparently psychic and claims she still has five more years on the Supreme Court.  Of course, that would make her 90 YEARS OLD before she retires but we suppose if you're of the Leftist persuasion you'd prefer a senile old lady who can't stay awake to Trump appointing another stellar justice.

Ginsburg suggests she has at least five more years on the Supreme Court.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she hopes to stay on the Supreme Court until the age of 90.  "I'm now 85," Ginsburg said on Sunday [7/29/2018].  "My senior colleague, Justice John Paul Stevens, he stepped down when he was 90, so think I have about at least five more years."  She has already hired law clerks for at least two more terms.

The Editor says...
Neither you nor I nor Justice Ginsburg nor anyone else knows how much time remains in our lifetimes — especially someone who is already 85 years old.  [Psalm 90:10]

Liberal 2020 hopefuls quote [The] Bible in [their] call to reject Judge Brett Kavanaugh.  Liberal 2020 presidential hopefuls quoted from the Bible Tuesday [7/24/2018], saying the responsibility of the Senate to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court is a moral choice.  Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker said the choice is between a pro-corporate court or one that sides with minorities and people in need, claiming that since 2006 the court under Chief Justice John G. Roberts has sided with the pro-business Chamber of Commerce 70 percent of the time.  They questioned what Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, President Trump's Supreme Court nominee, would add to the court since he was vetted by the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation, two conservative organizations.

Also posted under the one-sided separation of church and state.

SCOTUS is too powerful.  How can we change that?  [Scroll down]  The culprit in all this insanity is the Congress.  The original Constitution died with the passage of the Judiciary Act in June of 1789.  You see, the friends of the document, John Marshall included, insisted the SCOTUS would never invalidate a State law unless it clearly violated Article I, Section 10, and even then there was some debate about what powers the SCOTUS would have in relation to constitutional interpretation.  Section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 allowed for State court decisions to be appealed to the Supreme Court.  That should never have happened.  But it did, and now we are suffering the consequences.  Everything is a "national" issue even if it isn't.

Gunning for Judge Kavanaugh.  It's not just the wrongly decided Roe V. Wade decision that liberals fear is in jeopardy with the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.  They also fear their crusade against "semi-automatic" weapons may be exposed as the semantic, visual, and judicial fraud that it is.

Leading Hispanic Advocacy Organization Releases Statement Supporting Brett Kavanaugh's Nomination.  The Latino Coalition, a "leading, national non-partisan advocacy organization representing Hispanic businesses and consumers," released a statement on Tuesday [7/17/2018] supporting Judge Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the United States Supreme Court.

GOP has to act fast to confirm Kavanaugh before it's too late.  President Trump nominated his justice quickly; Republican senators need to act just as fast.  If history tells us anything, it's that they may not get another chance, even if Trump is re-elected in 2020.  Clarence Thomas is now the only Supreme Court justice nominated by a president of one party and confirmed (narrowly) by a Senate controlled by the other party.  The rest were appointed and confirmed in the brief periods when one party controlled both the White House and the Senate.

The Left's dismally weak case against Brett Kavanaugh.  The venerable Washington Post, the newspaper that brought down a Republican president and spawned at least two Hollywood movies, a paper backed by the resources of the wealthiest man in America, sicced three reporters (including a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter) and six researchers on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.  This fearsome team produced two exposes on the nominee revealing that — drum roll, please — Kavanaugh drinks Budweiser at his local pub and used a credit card to buy season tickets to his hometown baseball team.  When NARAL, the multimillion-dollar abortion lobby, trained its resources on the man, they came up with — another drum roll, if you please — a tweet mocking his name and calling him a frat boy.

Shifting the Roe Burden Back to Schumer.  [Scroll down]  Honest progressives have long recognized Roe's faults.  Edward Lazarus, who clerked for Blackmun and worked on Barack Obama's first presidential campaign, has described Roe as "a jurisprudential nightmare": Blackmun's extension of the "unenumerated constitutional right to privacy to cover a woman's choice to have an abortion required an analytical leap with little support in history or precedent."  Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, who served as a judicial adviser to Obama, has observed:  "One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found."  Roe is a judicial fraud and usurpation.  Schumer cannot prove otherwise and should not demand that Kavanaugh join in the constitutional charade of the High Court's abortion jurisprudence.

Democrats' clown show of outrage over Kavanaugh fools no one.  President Donald Trump's nomination of eminently qualified, mainstream conservative Brett Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court — combined with the predictable Democratic outrage machine — has put red state Democratic US senators in a political box: side with their constituents or with the clown show that is the modern American left.

Everyone Loves Brett.  Subtlety not being Donald Trump's customary approach to his job, his nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court was a surprisingly artful political play.  For the many Trump supporters who delight in the president's thumb-in-the-eye approach, the court vacancy was an opportunity for Trump to actually earn the prefab fulminations from Democrats, which were coming no matter whom he chose, by selecting a nominee that another Republican president might have deemed too risky.

Hollywood Balks At Brett Kavanaugh.  No one is more upset about Trump's second Supreme Court nomination than the liberal media ... unless it's the entertainment elites in Hollywood and Manhattan.  These liberals couldn't see the flagrant hypocrisy surrounding their sentences as they unloaded their fear and loathing on television and Twitter.  For example, notice the white male late-night comedians mocking Trump for naming a white male to the court.  On ABC, Jimmy Kimmel joked Trump "narrowed his candidates down to three — but, in the end, Kavanaugh was the white man for the job."  Stephen Colbert pulled a Bingo card from his pocket on CBS.  "I have Trump nomination Bingo," he announced.  "You see, all the squares say 'White Guy.'" [...] Merrick Garland is another one of those white guy judges out there.  But Obama nominated him, so who cares?

Media, Dems Can't Find Dirt On Kavanaugh — So Instead They Throw Mud.  Now the long, hard slog of getting a Supreme Court nominee onto the bench begins.  As always, Democrats, the FBI and the media have launched into an intense investigation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh's background.  And, so far, there's not much grist for the old Washington, D.C. scandal mill.  But it's not for a lack of trying.

Democrats target Murkowski, Collins in campaign against Supreme Court nominee.  Liberal political strategists hope to block President Donald Trump's next Supreme Court nominee by replaying a strategy they used to help defeat the Republican effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act last year.  The multimillion-dollar plan of advertising and grass-roots activism will focus heavily on convincing two Republican defenders of the ACA, Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine, to buck the president again by denying his first choice to replace retiring Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

Supreme Court Poised for Rightward Shift Under Kavanaugh.  "Brett Kavanaugh is among the most distinguished and respected judges in the country, with nearly 300 opinions that clearly demonstrate fairness and a commitment to interpreting the Constitution as it's written and enforcing the limits on government power contained in the Constitution," said Leonard Leo, the Federalist Society's executive vice president.  A double Yalie with some two decades experience as a government lawyer and appeals judge, Kavanaugh is an archetypal Supreme Court nominee.  He was notes editor of the Yale Law Review, clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy, and practiced at an elite firm before entering the George W. Bush administration.

Levin: Democrats don't want a Supreme Court — they want a 'politburo' to impose their agenda.  Monday [7/9/2018] on the radio, LevinTV host Mark Levin shared his thoughts about President Donald Trump's imminent Supreme Court nominee announcement.  "The key is to pick a constitutionalist," Levin said.  "Not a leftist, not a rightist — a constitutionalist.  And you assume and hope that a constitutionalist will do the right thing — whatever the issue is."  Levin noted that the Left has become increasingly extremist.  Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., used the term "far right" to describe conservative organizations that helped the Trump administration put together its shortlist of nominees.  "He is, of course, a disgrace who is bought and paid for by the radical socialist left of the Democrat party," Levin said.

CNN: Too Many Catholics on the Supreme Court.  [Of the Supreme Court justices,] 6 are Catholic, 3 are Jewish.  That might not be proportional to the population, but likely is a result of both religions having a studious culture that tends to pore over details and the philosophies behind laws.

Can Kavanagh Be Trusted on Obamacare?  Texas v. United States is, of course, the latest challenge to Obamacare's constitutionality.  It was filed by Texas and nineteen additional states not long after Congress reduced the "tax penalty" associated with the health care law's individual mandate to zero.  In 2012 Chief Justice Roberts ruled, in NFIB v. Sebelius, that the individual mandate was constitutional because it was essentially a tax collected by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for purposes of raising revenue for the government.  The plaintiffs argue that the elimination of the tax penalty by Congress last year rendered the Roberts ruling both "irrational" and "legally impossible."  The case is currently being argued in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas before Judge Reed O'Connor, who is almost certainly going to rule in favor of the plaintiffs.  After going through the usual tedious appeals process, it will inevitably end up before SCOTUS.

Maybe the left should answer some questions instead of Kavanaugh.  Greg Sargent of the Washington Post, Senator Chuck Schumer, and others on the left are trying to trash President Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, in as many ways possible.  One of their many lines of attack is that Trump knows that Kavanaugh will let Trump off on any potential legal problems, presumably from Special Counsel Robert Mueller.  The first question that Sargent, Schumer, and other leftists of this state of mind should be asked is which law Trump broke.  What's more, how would some garden-variety stealing-or-lying charge, whatever it is, somehow make it to the Supreme Court?  More to the point, how would that cause any Supreme Court justice to let him off?

Brett Kavanaugh:  An Excellent Beginning.  Some observations:  [#1] President Trump's introduction of Kavanaugh was beautifully conceived and delivered.  Was there a teleprompter that I missed?  Trump's announcement seemed to be extemporaneous, and it was done flawlessly.  Barack Obama was never able to talk off the cuff like this.  [#2] Trump emphasized Kavanaugh's establishment credentials. [...] [#6] Kavanaugh shrewdly noted that Elena Kagan, now a Democratic Supreme Court justice, hired him to teach at Harvard Law School.

Trump makes a shrewd political move with Supreme Court pick.  By picking Brett Kavanaugh as his Supreme Court nominee, President Trump showed that credentials and connections still matter — when backed up by results.  One of the most scholarly members of the judiciary, Kavanaugh's more than 300 opinions are read widely and influence courts across the country — including the one that he now hopes to join.  There are few if any more respected lower-court judges.  More important than his erudition is Kavanaugh's intense commitment to constitutional structure.  As Anthony Kennedy, the justice he clerked for and now seeks to succeed, often emphasized, this is vital not simply to the functioning of our government, but to securing our freedom.

Democrats Endorse Judicial Tyranny.  Essentially the Democrats who run the NYT are saying that because Congress won't do what they want it to do — that's what they mean by "gridlock" — a group of five rich white lawyers on the Supreme Court should take over the job of running the country.  This is nothing less than a call for revolution and a demand that America become a banana republic ruled not by the people but by a few rich lawyers.  While this openness about their beliefs is new for Democrats, they've been espousing their desire to turn America into an authoritarian state for decades.

President's SCOTUS Adviser:  Find Nominees 'Who Believe in the Constitution As It's Written'.  "Looking forward to announcing my final decision on the United States Supreme Court Justice at 9:00pmE tomorrow night at the @WhiteHouse,' President Donald Trump tweeted on Sunday [7/8/2018].  "An exceptional person will be chosen!" he promised.  Leonard Leo, formerly of the Federalist Society, a group that helped draw up a list of conservative Supreme Court nominees, is among those advising the president on his next pick.  Democrats already are campaigning on the issue, warning Americans that Republicans aim to stack the court to take away their rights.

Moments After Trump Announces SCOTUS Pick, Damning Video Of Ginsburg Surfaces.  On Monday evening [7/9/2018], President Donald Trump announced his pick to fill retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy's seat on the Supreme Court.  Moments later, with the left screaming about Trump's "extreme" choice, a damning video of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg surfaced online. [...] Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told an Egyptian TV station in 2012 that she would not recommend using the U.S. Constitution as a model for writing a modern-day constitution, suggesting instead that up-and-coming governments look to the examples of countries like South Africa and Canada.  "I can't speak about what the Egyptian experience should be, because I'm operating under a rather old constitution.  The United States, in comparison to Egypt, is a very new nation, and yet we have the oldest written constitution still in force in the world," Ginsburg told MEMRI TV.

'Activist' judges [are] suddenly a bad thing as Democrats await Trump Supreme Court pick.  The liberals rightfully recognize that Roe v. Wade might be overturned by a more conservative Supreme Court faithful to the original meaning of the Constitution and the intent of its framers.  The simple fact is that the Supreme Court created a constitutional right to abortion out of whole cloth 45 years ago with the Roe v. Wade decision.  The Constitution says absolutely nothing about abortion — and the framers never even considered making it a constitutional right to abort unborn babies at nearly any point in a pregnancy.  Instead, the supposed right to abortions sprang from the imaginations of liberal activists who invented nonexistent constitutional rights to advance their ideological agenda.

Kavanaugh Threatens the Left's Right to Cheat.  [Scroll down]  These are elected United States senators.  Of all people, why are they carrying on about "rights"?  If senators can't protect these alleged "rights," it can only be because most Americans do not agree that they should be "rights."  That's exactly why the left is so hysterical about the Supreme Court.  They run to the courts to win their most unpopular policy ideas, gift-wrapped and handed to them as "constitutional rights."  What liberals call "rights" are legislative proposals that they can't pass through normal democratic processes — at least outside of the states they've already flipped with immigration, like California.

Nominating Amy Barrett Would Be Political Genius.  I have no standing at all to intuit whom the president may nominate.  But if, as I suspect, it is Judge Amy Barrett, it would be a tactical masterpiece on the level of Napoleon's conduct of the Battle of Austerlitz, or Hannibal at Cannae.  The U.S. Senate confirmed Barrett to the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on October 31, by a 55-43 vote.  Three Democrats voted for her and two did not vote.  It would not be easy to justify changing their votes now, as she has served unexceptionably.  At her confirmation hearings, Senator Dianne Feinstein, the Judiciary Committee's aged ranking Democrat, asked Barrett about her religious views, and the nominee responded that no judge should allow personal views, whether based on faith or anything else, to influence the imposition of the law.  "The dogma lives loudly within you, and that is a concern," Feinstein said infamously.  This was an outrageous comment; Feinstein doesn't know anything about the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, and she has no idea what privately motivates Judge Barrett.

Amid Supreme Court fight, desperate forces on the Left declare open season on the truth.  Dishonesty is ever-present in the political fray.  Factual errors crop up everywhere.  But the truth rarely seems to take a beating as much when a Supreme Court seat is up for grabs.

Abortion Advocates Think Amy Barrett is a Member of a "Cult" Because She's Catholic.  The mudslinging against Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a possible nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, continued this week with abortion activists claiming she is a member of a "cult."  She is believed to be one of four candidates that President Donald Trump is considering to fill retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy's seat.  Particularly abhorrent to abortion activists, Barrett is a devout Catholic, a conservative and a woman.  Abortion supporters have honed in on Barrett's affiliation with People of Praise, an ecumenical Christian group that focuses on prayer, counseling, marriage guidance and acts of service for families in need.  Labeling the group a "cult," abortion activists claim Barrett is a "dangerous religious extremist" because of her affiliation with the group.

Wisconsin Supreme Court sides with conservative professor disciplined over blog.  A conservative political science professor who sued Marquette University after the Milwaukee Jesuit school suspended him for blogging about gay marriage won his case Friday in the Wisconsin Supreme Court.  The high court ruled that Marquette University should immediately reinstate former political science professor John McAdams, finding that the college failed to give him the academic freedom he is guaranteed under his contract.  The court's conservative majority opinion ruled the private university's faculty panel exhibited "unacceptable bias" when it suspended him, and eventually stopped paying him.  The liberal justices disagreed, saying in the minority opinion that academic freedom "does not protect McAdams from discipline."

Mark Levin:  If stare decisis is paramount, put monkeys on the Supreme Court.  The Constitution as written may be frustrating, and it may not precisely define and balance powers as it should, but it is better to have a Constitution that prevents the government from imposing its will than a Constitution that gives the government unfettered power.  Right now, our government is tremendously powerful, having a say in nearly every aspect of our lives.  We're light-years away from the weak central government of the Articles of Confederation days.  But liberals are results-oriented.  They want a justice who will uphold certain cases without ever referencing the Constitution.

The real meaning of Democrats' Supreme Court panic.  Democrats are in a state of sheer panic.  They're panicking because last week, Justice Anthony Kennedy — a reliable vote in favor of certain leftist priorities including abortion and same-sex marriage — announced that he will step down from the Supreme Court, leaving President Trump a second selection.  This apparently will lead to the end of a free America.  According to Jeffrey Toobin of CNN, the remade Supreme Court will spell doom:  "Abortion illegal; doctors prosecuted; gay people barred from restaurants, hotels, stores; African-Americans out of elite schools; gun control banned in 50 states; the end of regulatory state."  None of this is true, of course.  It simply demonstrates the wild overreach to which the left has subjected the judicial branch to date.

Every Justice currently serving attended either Harvard or Yale Law School.
The Diversity Nominee.  Of the nine Supreme Court Justices currently sitting, three are Jewish and six are baptized Catholics.  The most glaring absence is that of a Protestant in what is still a Protestant-majority country, though the Catholic Neil Gorsuch attends an Episcopal Church with his wife, who is British and a member of the Church of England. [...] The overriding consideration, however, is that our justices be faithful constitutionalists — and by that I mean, jurists whose decisions are guided by the text, logic, structure, and original public meaning of the Constitution.  These are people who do not pretend that things that are not in the Constitution are there (lurking, perhaps, in "penumbras formed by emanations" or in the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments interpreted "substantively"), or that things that actually are in the Constitution are not there.

Did You Ever Face a Real Judge?  [Scroll down]  The new justice whom President Trump names to succeed retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy should be a person of demonstrated sparkling intellect who can grasp the deepest meaning of each word in a Constitutional law, or who can wade and row successfully through the most turgid and sometimes internally contradicted prose of a poorly constructed Congressional enactment, and who brilliantly can apply that law dispassionately to the facts of the case at bar. [...] Beyond that, the justice should be an excellent writer because every word that he or she pens will be analyzed and interpreted by thousands of lower-court judges, their clerks, attorneys, litigants, law professors, journalists, and laity for decades, as they each respectively derive from the written judicial opinion the rules going forward.

Dems on SCOTUS: Catholics Need Not Apply.  Catholics are the sole remaining religious group that it is politically correct to slander and denigrate and the consideration of nominees for the Supreme Court vacancy left by the retiring Anthony Kennedy has brought out the liberal anti-Catholic bigots en masse.  Their target is Justice Amy Coney Barrett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.  Just as John F. Kennedy was said by some to be a stalking horse for the Vatican who would clear each major decision with the Pope, Barrett a practicing Catholic who actually gets it right, has been charged with embracing Catholic dogma so tightly that there is no room left for the Constitution and those "emanations from a penumbra" that sanctified Roe V. Wade.

Chuck Schumer Tells Trump Who SCOTUS Nominee Should Be.  [Scroll down]  Of course, Elena Kagan was nominated by former president Barack Obama in May 10, 2010, and confirmed by the U.S. Senate on August 5, 2010, which was a midterm election year, so there's that...  CNBC reported that when Schumer called Trump, he warned that picking a justice hostile to Roe v. Wade or Obamacare would be "cataclysmic."

Roe v.  Wade and the Confusion of Sen. Collins.  We know what the Supreme Court debate is all about — the debate, that is to say, over who shall take retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy's seat.  The debate is about abortion.  Declares Sen. Susan Collins, the Republican moderate from Maine, whose vote could prove essential to confirmation of whatever nominee the White House puts forward:  "A candidate for this important post who would overturn Roe v.  Wade would not be acceptable to me.  That would indicate an activist agenda that I don't want to see a judge have.  And that would indicate to me a failure to respect precedent."

The Editor says...
The Roe v.  Wade decision itself was part of "an activist agenda."  Overturning that decision would be the correction of a murderous error.

The generic editorial against Trump's next pick.  Writing newspaper editorials is an exercise in exasperating futility.  They have scant impact.  243 newspapers endorsed Hillary.  20 endorsed Donald John Trump.  Who won?  To those still laboring at a craft that last had impact in the 19th century, I draw upon my 27 years of experience to offer this generic editorial on whomever President Trump nominates for the Supreme Court.  You may cut and paste it, and your boss will not notice the difference.

Where's the Independent Voice Among Justices Appointed by Democrats?  As Justice Anthony Kennedy prepares to retire, all eyes in Washington will be on the battle to confirm whomever President Donald Trump nominates.  Prepare for warnings by Senate Democrats that the new nominee will not be sufficiently "independent," as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and others said last year of now Justice Neil Gorsuch.  An appointee of President Ronald Reagan, Kennedy was reliably independent, the famous swing vote who at times stood with the four fellow justices appointed by Republican presidents and at others with the four appointed by Democrats.  On the high-profile political decisions, the four justices appointed by Democrats pretty much can be counted on to vote as one.  Independent?  No, they're too high-minded to deviate.

Hot New Lefty Idea:  Let's Pack The Court With Liberals As Soon As Democrats Are Back In Power.  It's understandable as a tantrum borne of frustration that the Court's about to swing further right but bananas as a semi-serious idea, especially with a loose cannon like Trump in charge.  A President Romney or McCain wouldn't have entertained the idea of Court-packing for an instant.

The Democrat Plot to Stop Trump's Supreme Court Pick.  Heeding the call of their radical left base and a pliant Trump-hating media, Democrats are promising total resistance to even meeting with the president's nominee before the mid-term elections, let alone holding any hearings or an up or down floor vote.  They are still sore over what they view as the Supreme Court seat stolen from the left in 2016 when Senator McConnell, backed by the Republican majority in the Senate, refused to allow hearings or a vote on former President Obama's nominee to fill the seat left vacant by Justice Scalia's passing, Judge Merrick Garland.

Is Trump the Most Fun President Ever?  [Scroll down]  The President intends to name his choice — from a list he distributed before his election — on July 9, and despite the perfervid announcements on the left, he is likely to have his second Supreme Court judge seated by the new term.  For a number of decades, the left has derided originalism — the notion that judges should follow the clear words of the Constitution and the intent of the drafters.  Instead they argued that the judiciary — which they largely controlled — should treat the document as a "living instrument."  In truth, that meant that the subjective feelings of the judges with their "penumbras" and "emanations" should prevail over the text.

Rage at the End of Justice Kennedy's Camelot.  If John F. Kennedy's presidency was, for Democrats, a kind of three-year "Camelot," then Anthony M. Kennedy's three-decade tenure on the Supreme Court was also, for Democrats, a kind of judicial Camelot.  A place where progressive rights could be created and protected, safe from the people outside the castle.  Since at least 1992, when the Reagan appointee unexpectedly joined the bloc of centrist justices to save Roe v. Wade's right to abortion, liberals placed immense hope in Justice Kennedy to advance progressive cultural policies by the judicial creation and expansion of constitutional rights not actually specified in the Constitution — especially, rights to abortion and (in Obergefell v. Hodges) same-sex marriage.

Leftist Justices Don't Like the Law.  The left doesn't like the rule of law much.  If they legally lose an election, they take to the streets as if some injustice had been done to them.  If we enforce our border laws, they become hysterical and try to intimidate and bully public officials.  If they can't get a law passed by constitutional means, they are perfectly happy to use regulation to exert extra-legal control over the citizenry.  All of which is bad enough in leftist media, leftist mobs and leftist officials.  But in leftist Supreme Court justices, it's even worse.  In an interview on my podcast this week, constitutional law attorney Jenna Ellis — the director of public policy at the James Dobson Family Institute — put several recent Supreme Court decisions in context as "compelled speech cases."  Whether it was allowing a Christian cake designer to refuse to use his art to celebrate gay marriage in Masterpiece Cakeshop, preventing the state of California from forcing abortion advertising on anti-abortion pregnancy centers in NIFLA v Becerra, or allowing public employees to work without funding leftist unions in Janus, the court, Ellis explained, has declared "the government cannot compel you as an individual to participate in or subsidize speech that you fundamentally disagree with."

Sore Loser Hillary Clinton Works to Block President Trump's Next Supreme Court Nominee.  President Trump is choosing Justice Kennedy's replacement from a list of 25 judges — the same list he chose Justice Neil Gorsuch from last year.  On Friday [29/2018], President Trump said he cut his list of potential Justice nominees down to five candidates, including two women; he will be announcing his pick on July 9th.  Twice-failed presidential hopeful, Crooked Hillary wasted no time and immediately got to work fighting Trump's next SCOTUS nominee.

Judge Nap:  SCOTUS Deals 'Catastrophic' Blow to Labor Unions, Democratic Party.  Judge Andrew Napolitano said Wednesday the Supreme Court dealt a "catastrophic" blow to the nation's labor unions and the Democratic Party when it ruled 5-4 that state government workers cannot be forced to pay fees to support collective bargaining and other union activities.  While the current case applies only to public-sector employees, the political and financial stakes are potentially huge for the broader American labor union movement, which had been sounding the alarm about the legal fight.

Good riddance to Justice Anthony Kennedy.  The Supreme Court's longest service justice announced his retirement shortly after casting the deciding vote on a string of decisions that were seen as wins for the conservative side of the bench.  Kennedy's stepping down didn't come as a surprise.  There have long been rumors in Washington that he was considering hanging up his robe.  With a Republican-controlled Congress and White House, the timing couldn't be better, so as to ensure his seat would be filled with someone from the right side of the ideological spectrum.

'We're Looking at the Destruction of the Constitution': Kamala Harris Rips Trump's Potential SCOTUS Picks.  California Senator Kamala Harris (D) claimed that President Trump nominating a new justice to the Supreme Court in the wake of Anthony Kennedy's retirement means "we are looking at the destruction of the Constitution."  Harris, considered a potential opponent to Trump in the 2020 presidential election, said on MSNBC that Trump has consistently nominated "ideologues" to lifetime appointments on other federal courts.

Janus Ruling Could Cost Unions Hundreds of Millions.  The Supreme Court has put an end to compulsory union dues and fees for government workers, spurring praise from labor watchdogs and public outcry from organized labor.  A five-justice majority ruled that mandating union fees as a condition of employment violates the free speech rights of workers.  The ruling in Janus v.  American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees overturned the 1977 Abood precedent, which allowed compulsory unionism as a means of promoting labor harmony.  Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, said the government should not force workers to finance political speech against their will.  "The State's extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public-sector employees violates the First Amendment," the ruling written by Justice Alito said.

Democrats Plot to Block Trump Kennedy Replacement.  Justice Anthony Kennedy's announcement Wednesday of his retirement from the Supreme Court has sent the left into a tizzy.  Although Justice Kennedy has often sided with the more conservative-leaning Justices in 5-4 decisions, he has also joined the four liberal-leaning Justices as the swing vote on several contentious cases important to the left involving such issues as abortion rights and same-sex marriage.  With Justice Kennedy's retirement, which will take effect at the end of July, the door is open for President Trump to nominate a more reliable conservative replacement in the mold of his first pick, Justice Neil Gorsuch.  "We have to pick a great one.  We have to pick one that's going to be there for 40 years, 45 years," President Trump told supporters at a campaign rally Wednesday night [6/27/2018] in North Dakota.

Life after Janus.  Government unions dodged a bullet in 2016 when an eight-member Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4 on a case that would have ended the right of labor groups to collect fees from workers who don't want to be members.  In late February 2018, with Justice Neil Gorsuch replacing the late Antonin Scalia, who died before the Court rendered the 2016 decision, the justices heard a new challenge to the compulsory fees in Janus v.  AFSCME.  Though the Court isn't likely to render a decision on the case until late spring, worried labor leaders, anticipating that the ruling will go against them, are scrambling to prepare for the worst:  a world in which they can no longer forcibly dun workers.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Forced Public-Sector Union Fees.  In a decision that holds massive up-front ramifications for Democrats, the Supreme Court ruled today [6/27/2018] that non-union members cannot be forced to pay for union representation.  This is a devastating blow to the Big Club political caucus.  The justices said in a 5-4 opinion that state government workers who choose not to join a union cannot be compelled to pay a share of union dues for covering the cost of negotiating contracts.  This allows state union workers to withdraw funding for the political aspirations and objectives of union leadership who work against their interests.

Government Workers 'Free at Last'.  Rank and file government workers won big over union bosses Wednesday [6/27/2018] when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Mark Janus, an Illinois state worker who refused to join the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees.  The court struck down an Illinois law that allowed the union to deduct fees from Janus's paycheck despite his refusal to join.  The Janus ruling smashes laws in 22 states — including New York, Connecticut, New Jersey and California — that compel nonmembers to support unions.  Until now, if you wanted a government job in these states, you had to pay up.  But now firefighters, teachers and other public employees won't have to fork over a penny to a union if they choose not to join.  For the average worker who opts out, it will mean hundreds of dollars more in take-home pay a year.

Supreme Court upholds Trump travel ban on some Muslim-majority nations.  The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld President Trump's controversial travel ban affecting several mostly Muslim countries, offering a limited endorsement of the president's executive authority on immigration in one of the hardest-fought battles of this term.  The 5-4 ruling marks the first major high court decision on a Trump administration policy.  It upholds the selective travel restrictions, which critics called a discriminatory "Muslim ban" but the administration argued was needed for security reasons.

Anthony Kennedy to retire:  Here's what Trump should look for in a nominee.  Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announced Wednesday that he will retire from the Supreme Court of the United States, NBC reported.  Kennedy, appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, has been a swing vote, leaning to the left in recent landmark cases, and wrote the court's opinion in Obergefell v.  Hodges in 2015, striking down bans on same-sex marriage nationwide.

SCOTUS on immigration restrictions:  A sovereign republic — if you can keep it.  Congress and the president have the full power to deny entry to any non-citizen or class of non-citizens seeking to enter this country for any reason — good or bad.  Those decisions are exclusively up to the political branches of government, to be debated in the political realm, and there is no opening for the courts to get involved.  This principle "has become about as firmly embedded in the legislative and judicial tissues of our body politic as any aspect of our government," not "merely" by "a page of history ... but a whole volume" (Galvan v.  Press).  The concept is "inherent in sovereignty," consistent with "ancient principles" of international law, and "to be exercised exclusively by the political branches of government."  (Kleindienst v.  Mandel).

The big picture:  Conservatives win big at Supreme Court.  Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy will retire — effective July 31 — giving President Trump a chance to pull the court significantly to the right for decades to come. [...] This is seismic — for politics as a whole, for the court and, ultimately, for the millions of Americans whose lives are shaped by its rulings.

High Court declares government union mandates unconstitutional.  Government workers can no longer be forced to pay union fees to keep their jobs, which could cost labor groups hundreds of millions of dollars.  On Wednesday [6/27/2018] the Supreme Court declared coercive unionism an unconstitutional infringement on First Amendment rights, overturning the 1977 Abood precedent that allowed agencies to make all workers pay a labor organization dues and fees.  "The State's extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public-sector employees violates the First Amendment," the ruling written by Justice Samuel Alito said.  "Forcing free and independent individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable raises serious First Amendment concerns."

Obviously Mr. Kennedy thinks Donald Trump will be re-elected.
Anthony Kennedy Announces He Will Retire From Supreme Court.  Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announced Wednesday [6/27/2018] he would retire, giving President Donald Trump the opportunity to make two appointments in two years to the nation's highest court.  Appointed by President Ronald Reagan, Kennedy has served on the Supreme Court since 1988.  Kennedy wrote a letter to Trump announcing he would step down from the court effective July 31.  "This letter is a respectful and formal notification of my decision, effective July 31 of this year, to end my regular active status as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court," he wrote.

Supreme Court NIFLA decision is major victory for pro-life groups.  Tuesday's 5-4 Supreme Court decision overturning a California law that required pro-life pregnancy centers to provide women with information about abortion is a victory for the First Amendment, for women seeking support during their pregnancies, and for the pregnancy centers.  The decision came in the case of National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v.  Becerra.  Every pregnancy is tough.  Pregnancy without sufficient support, financial or emotional, can seem impossible.  Every year, pregnancy centers across the United States offer a helping hand to thousands of women so that they can confidently choose life for their babies.

Supremes Deal Victory For Trump, Uphold Travel Ban.  A five-justice majority of the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the latest iteration of President Donald Trump's travel sanctions Tuesday [6/26/2018].  Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch.  "The president has lawfully exercised the broad discretion granted to him under [federal law]," Roberts wrote.

Supreme Court rules for crisis pregnancy centers in free speech dispute.  The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday [6/26/2018] in favor of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that counsel pregnant women to make choices other than abortion, invalidating a California law requiring them to prominently post information on how to obtain a state-funded abortion.  The court, in a 5-4 ruling, said the state law likely violates the First Amendment.  The court also cast doubts on similar laws in Hawaii and Illinois.

Supreme Court rules for Trump in challenge to his administration's travel ban.  The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday [6/26/2018] in favor of President Donald Trump's September order to restrict travel from several majority Muslim countries to the United States.  In the 5-4 opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court found that Trump's travel restriction fell "squarely" within the president's authority.  The court rejected claims that the ban was motivated by religious hostility.  "The [order] is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices," Roberts wrote.  "The text says nothing about religion."

Supreme Court gives Texas partial victory in gerrymandering case, state must redraw one district.  The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday [6/25/2018] that the Republican-led Legislature in Texas improperly used race to draw a predominantly Hispanic House district in Fort Worth, but overturned a lower court ruling that invalidated other legislative and congressional districts under challenge for allegedly diluting the voting power of black and Latino voters.

Supreme Court sidesteps consideration of partisan gerrymandering in Wisconsin, Maryland redistricting cases.  The Supreme Court on Monday [6/18/2018] took a pass on deciding the limits of partisan gerrymandering — or efforts by state legislatures to create voting maps most favorable to one political party.

Nothing Narrow About this Huge Win in the Culture War.  The opinion of Justice Kennedy, who I would love to see retire and spend more time with his family, nevertheless wrote a powerful rebuke to bigoted bureaucrats who never even bothered to hide their anti-religious zealotry when persecuting a guy for refusing to submit and acknowledge their supremacy.  Their prejudice was stunning, not least for its shamelessness — these moral illiterates made no effort to hide their seething contempt for believers.  And guess what?  That's not okay.  You don't get to persecute religious people in America.

Supreme Court sides with Colorado baker who refused to make wedding cake for same-sex couple.  The Supreme Court ruled Monday [6/4/2018] in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, in one of the most closely watched cases of the term.  In a 7-2 decision, the justices set aside a Colorado court ruling against the baker — while stopping short of deciding the broader issue of whether a business can refuse to serve gay and lesbian people.  The opinion was penned by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is often the swing justice in tight cases.

Why Did Elena Kagan Vote for the Masterpiece Cakeshop Supreme Court Ruling?  Observers of Monday's Supreme Court ruling in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple in 2012 may have been surprised to find that two of the court's liberal justices, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer, joined with the conservative majority for the opinion.  But a legal expert told Newsweek this was the result of the very specific nature of this case.  "The reason and motive for the baker's refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.  Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented while Breyer and Kagan, considered to be liberal-leaning, joined the more conservative justices in a majority ruling.

Supreme Court likely to rack up more reversals for West Coast's 9th Circuit.  The federal appeals court that covers the country's West Coast is doing little to shake its reputation as the most out-of-touch circuit, already having notched seven cases that have been reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court so far this year and 115 over the past decade.  As the justices prepare to release final rulings in 29 cases, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit again will be in the spotlight with some of its major cases, such as President Trump's travel ban, up for review — and potential reversal — by the high court.

Supremes Lift Decision Ordering Trump Administration To Facilitate Abortions For Alien Minors.  In a partial victory for the Trump administration, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated a lower court ruling requiring the government to facilitate an abortion for an undocumented minor in federal custody.  The unsigned five-page opinion did not issue a judgement as to the merits of the dispute but approved the administration's request to vacate the ruling under a legal rule called Munsingwear vacatur.  There was no noted dissent.

Nancy Pelosi on Supreme Court Ruling:  Bake That Cake, Christians!.  Would-be Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) slammed Monday's 7-2 Supreme Court ruling in the Masterpiece Bakeshop case, attacking "discriminatory practices behind the guise of religious liberty."  The Court found in favor of a Colorado baker who was sued when he declined to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage because of his Christian beliefs.  The baker asserted his religious liberty under the First Amendment.  The decision avoided ruling on the broader question of whether religious liberty trumps non-discrimination on the basis of sexuality, and held only that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had not given the baker a fair hearing.

The Limits of Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Usefulness.  To understand the liberal worldview, the contrived campaign to make Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg into some kind of a folk hero is a useful object of study.  She has been the subject of a variety of hagiographical portraiture, ranging from fawning magazine profiles and sycophantic treatment in film to illustrated children's books.  She inspires her followers to get her image tattooed onto their bodies, to mimic her fitness routines, to feel as she felt and to weep as she wept.  This behavior lends itself to quite a few descriptors, but you cannot call it a cult.  The cult leader is nigh infallible, but that is not Ginsburg's role.  Her relationship with the flock is transactional, and she can transgress against progressive tenets as easily as anyone.

New York Times Editorial Board Begs Justice Kennedy Not to Retire.  Remember all those times during the Barack Obama presidency when the New York Times begged Justice Anthony Kennedy to not retire from the Supreme Court?  No?  Well, that's probably because it never happened.  However, now that Donald Trump is president, the Times is begging Kennedy, considered to be a swing vote, to remain on the High Court bench.

Supreme Court justices to weigh in on Trump's powers with travel ban case.  What the Supreme Court does with President Trump's travel ban case, which reaches the justices this week, is likely to determine whether courts across the country give him the usual deference due a president and allow him leeway to pursue his immigration crackdown — or whether they join the anti-Trump resistance determined to thwart him at every turn.  From battles in California, Illinois and Pennsylvania over sanctuary cities, to illegal immigrant teens gaining abortion rights, to the border wall, to Mr. Trump's attempts to limit some paths to legal immigration and to cancel the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program for illegal immigrant Dreamers, immigration rights activists and the administration have been battling on nearly every front of the issue.

The Courts Rule Supreme Over Immigration Policy.  President Trump's Supreme Court appointee Neil Gorsuch sided with his liberal colleagues Tuesday [4/17/2018] in making it harder to deport non-citizen criminals.  Surprisingly, Gorsuch's divergence from fellow conservative justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito was enthusiastically received by conservatives.  "I'm actually reading Gorsuch's concurrence and find myself nodding along with him," talk radio host Erick Erickson tweeted.  "His basic argument is that the law, as construed, gives judges way too much discretion to act on their whims because Congress was too vague in how it wrote the law."  "No, the opinion is actually highly conservative — and it has nothing to do with immigration as such," pro-Trump columnist Kurt Schlichter argued in response to criticism of Gorsuch's decision.

Strange Solidarity.  One of the highly watched cases of the Supreme Court's current session, Janus v.  American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, has sparked such passion that some 73 interested parties have filed amicus briefs in the matter. [...] A social worker, Janus has sued to overturn a state law requiring him to pay AFSCME a fee to represent him, even though he had declined to join the union.  He has asked the court to reverse a 1977 decision, Abood v.  Detroit Federation of Teachers, which upheld state laws that give government unions the right to collect fees from nonmembers in a workplace where collective bargaining is in place.  Janus contends that the activities of a government union, including collective bargaining, are political by their very nature, and that the union fee compels him to finance ideas with which he disagrees.

What Frightens the Left Most?  The Constitution.  The Left — which is by turns both malevolent and cowardly, and therefore both tantalized by and fearful of firearms — has never made its hostility toward the Second Amendment a secret, but for decades it was able to keep it under wraps during the half-century or more between the effective closing of the borders to immigration in 1921 and the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, known as the Hart-Celler Act but today chiefly remembered as Ted Kennedy's lasting gift to the American people.  That period saw the rise of urban ethnic gangsters (mostly Irish, Italians, and Jews, immigrants or children of immigrants, and thus "foreign" to largely Protestant America) and of the indigenous Midwestern bank robbers being chased around the prairies by the FBI, both groups long since tamed and romanticized.  When, in 1939, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Miller that a certain kind of sawed-off shotgun could be banned, and cited the Second Amendment's subordinate "militia" clause as its justification, few kicked about it, because by then gangland had been largely cornered and the country was at peace.  The Miller decision was effectively overturned in 2008 by the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which finally got around to adjudicating and establishing the individual right aspect of the amendment.

Supreme Court Takes Two Cases that Could Scale Back Federal Power.  The Supreme Court on Monday granted review in two new cases that raise significant constitutional issues for reining in the scope and powers of the federal government.  With few exceptions, almost all of the Court's cases are discretionary:  the justices can decide whether to take the case.  The High Court receives over 7,000 petitions for review each year — called a petition for a writ of certiorari — and grants fewer than 80.  The justices' decisions on which cases to grant sometimes signal that changes in the law are in the offing.  The two cases they took this week will either bring about such change or will reaffirm doctrines that conservatives have long hoped to change.

Supreme Court session on political buttons gets testy.  When is a button more than just a button?  That was the issue before the Supreme Court on Wednesday [2/28/2018], in a touchy First Amendment case over a state law banning "political" garments or insignia at polling places.  It was a messy hour of oral arguments, as nearly every justice expressed frustration at lawyers from both sides who were unable to articulate a workable standard to help the court decide when personal expression — like political buttons — crosses the line into voter disruption or intimidation.  The case started when a Minnesota voter sued after being told to remove a "Please I.D. Me" button and Tea Party t-shirt at his polling place.

Fun with Justice Alito During SCOTUS Oral Arguments.  How often does laughter repeatedly rock the Supreme Court during oral arguments?  How often are oral arguments at the Supreme Court this hilarious?  Defending a state law allowing censorship based on political content before the justices of the Supreme Court is not a job I would volunteer for (even if I were qualified for it, which I am not).  So attorney Donald Rogan, representing Minnesota in the case Minnesota Voters Alliance v.  Mansky, 16-1435.a, may have had a thankless task.  Nonetheless, Justice Alito had a bit of fun leading him through questioning of what kinds of political content would or would not be allowed in various hypothetical situations.

Supreme Court weighs government's reach of records kept on foreign servers.  The Supreme Court pressed Congress on Tuesday to update the country's data privacy laws for the internet age, as justices grappled with tricky questions about the reach of federal powers over data that's controlled by an American company but kept on overseas servers.  The case before the justices involves the government's demand to see emails of a Microsoft customer.  Microsoft says contents of the emails are stored in Ireland, and releasing the information would conflict with that country's laws.  But the justice also said the 32-year-old Stored Communications Act, which governs the situation, never envisioned that kind of interconnected world.

Supreme Court Refuses to Weigh into DACA Fight — For Now.  The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday denied the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ's) petition to decide whether the Trump administration's decision to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is permitted by federal law.  But the Court also made clear that it was only denying DOJ's extremely rare request to skip the federal appeals court that currently has the case, making it almost certain that the nation's highest court will take up the case later this year.

Janus v.  AFSCME.  The Supreme Court heard arguments Monday morning [2/26/2018] in a case set to undo a seminal 40-year-old precedent that required all public sector employees to pay their union a "fair share fee" whether or not they'd elected to join.  Janus v.  AFSCME is an effective redo of the 2015 case Friedrichs v.  California Teachers Association, which ended in a 4-4 tie following Justice Scalia's death — another opportunity to overturn 1977's Abood v. Detroit Teachers Association.

Desperately Hating Clarence Thomas.  Of all the desperate and futile attempts at revisionist history, few are as careless as the attempt to destroy the reputation of one of the finest Supreme Court justices this country has ever produced.  Now comes another volley.  New York magazine has assembled "The Case for Impeaching Clarence Thomas."  The author is longtime anti-Thomas journalist Jill Abramson.  [...] Justice Thomas has been a distinguished member of the Supreme Court for more than 26 years now.  In the years since, Abramson has assembled ... well, nothing.  Meanwhile, the case against Hill's unproven charges has grown only stronger, and Abramson's record of objectivity — if there ever was one — is evermore tattered.

Jill Abramson Reboots Her 'High-Tech Lynching' of Clarence Thomas.  Former New York Times Executive Editor Jill Abramson served only three years in that role; she was reportedly fired in 2014 for an ill-founded complaint about her compensation and for her "brusque" workplace manner.  Her editorial competence was not questioned, however.  In the era of #MeToo equalizing the perpetrators of rape with those of inadvertent microaggressions, perhaps no one remains in elite New York media qualified to make such a judgment, anyway.  This week, Abramson's reputation seemingly landed her a 4,000-word New York magazine cover story, which resurrects the sexual harassment complaints against Justice Clarence Thomas.

New Talk Of Impeachment, But Not For Trump.  Since it's impossible to separate the politics out of this, we have to at least wonder whether the Democrats would be onboard with this idea.  While they might like to see a conservative justice taken down, the end result for them could be worse than any satisfaction they derived from it this year.  Clarence Thomas will turn 70 this year, and while his health seems fine and his mind is still sharp, that's about the age where the clock starts ticking toward retirement if he ever plans on doing so.  Impeaching him any time between now and next year (at the absolute soonest) would mean that President Trump would be dredging up another name from his list and nominating a replacement.  This would likely be someone much younger and every bit as conservative as Thomas.

Clarence Thomas bemoans judicial confirmation process.  Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas lamented the confirmation process for judicial nominees, calling them "spectacles" and warning Thursday [2/15/2018] he fears the federal judiciary will lose "some of our best people" who decide not to go through with it.  "I don't think the process is what it ought to be," Thomas said Thursday during an event at the Library of Congress.  "These are serious jobs, and they should be serious.  I don't think they should become spectacles.  This is not the Roman Colosseum.  We're not gladiators."

The 2018 Elections Just Got A Bit Easier For Democrats Thanks To The Supreme Court.  The Pennsylvania legislature will redraw the state's congressional district lines in advance of the 2018 midterm elections, after the Supreme Court Monday declined to overturn an order requiring a new map.  The decision is a victory for Pennsylvania Democrats, who convinced the state supreme court in January that the current map is gerrymandered to favor Republicans, in violation of the state constitution.  The court ordered the GOP-controlled legislature to produce a new map by Feb. 9.

Sounds like a closed-minded political activist.  Exactly what the Supreme Court does not need.
Justice Ginsburg Has Never Attended A Republican President's SOTU.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will not attend President Donald Trump's State of the Union address Tuesday, given a prior commitment at Roger Williams University School of Law in Providence, R.I.  Though the configuration of justices who attend the event has fluctuated over the years, one variable remains constant — Ginsburg has never attended an address to Congress given by a Republican president.

Justice Ginsburg, 84, signals intent to work for years more.  In different circumstances, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg might be on a valedictory tour in her final months on the Supreme Court.  But in the era of Donald Trump, the 84-year-old Ginsburg is packing her schedule and sending signals she intends to keep her seat on the bench for years.

The Editor says...
Yes, I know there are no term limits on the Supreme Court.  Maybe that should change.

In unusual move, White House to ask Supreme Court to rule on DACA before appeals court.  The Trump administration said Tuesday [1/16/2018] that it will rush to the U.S. Supreme Court within a few days by skipping over a federal appeals court, hoping for quick action in the legal battle over shutting down the DACA program. [...] A federal judge ruled Jan. 9 that the government could not end the program on March 6, as President Donald Trump proposed to do.

End Judicial Tyranny with One Single Word.  Since the election of President Trump, we have witnessed a series of rulings by Clinton- and Obama-appointed federal judges to block executive orders (E.O.) related to immigration.  In each case, the current system has allowed a single unelected judge to block the actions of a duly elected president who has attempted to exercise the authority conferred upon him by the Constitution and the voters.  Such judicial tyranny cannot be tolerated.  The only court created by the founders of the Constitution is the Supreme Court (SCOTUS), with all other federal courts established by Congress and administered by the Judicial Branch of government.  District courts, appellate courts, and the various circuits are all congressional initiatives.  Federal judges are nominated by the Executive Branch but confirmed by the congressional arm of government.

Supreme Court's Refusal To Hear Two "Discrimination" Cases Means WIN For Religious Freedom.  In April 2016, Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant signed HB 1523.  The law, known as the Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act officially protects religious and moral convictions within the state from action by the government.  The convictions specific to the bill regard the definition of marriage, sexual relations within a marriage, and "an individual's immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth." [...] Naturally, this law does not mean members of the LGBT community are barred from buying a cake, scheduling a photographer, booking a clergyman for their wedding, getting a marriage license, or using a spa.  What it does mean is that should one of the above-mentioned individuals have a religious or moral conviction that prevents them from providing services to an interested party, they will be free to live by their convictions and will not face government interference.

Why Masterpiece Cakeshop case could bring a major Supreme Court ruling on free expression.  The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Tuesday in a landmark case that could determine if the First Amendment to the Constitution will continue to protect the freedom of artists who wish to act in a manner consistent with their sincerely held beliefs.  The case before our nation's highest court is called Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.  The organization that I lead, Alliance Defending Freedom, is representing the cake shop and its owner, cake artist Jack Phillips.  Phillips said he couldn't design a custom wedding cake for two men who requested it.  He declined because using his artistic talents to celebrate a same-sex marriage would violate his Christian faith and his artistic freedom.

Republicans Just Gotta Stop Clobbering Each Other Like the Three Stooges.  These "kinder-gentler" Republicans put into the Supreme Court the likes of Earl Warren and William Brennan (named by Ike), Harry Blackmun (named by Nixon), John Paul Stevens (by Ford), David Souter (by Bush I), and almost Harriet Miers (Bush II).  Even President Ronald Reagan, hampered by a House of Representatives that the Democrats overwhelmingly controlled throughout his eight years in office, and with the Senate controlled by Democrats for two of those years, compromised by naming Justice Sandra O'Connor, agreed to massive amnesties for illegal immigrants, allowed the welfare state to balloon in return for tax cuts, and endeavored gallantly to advance conservative values while bedeviled by a Left media before alternative conservative outlets existed to offset the endless stream of Fake News.

Why The Supreme Court Is Likely To Rule For Jack Phillips While Dodging The Big Religious Liberty Question.  [Scroll down]  However, the Supreme Court later clarified in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v.  City of Hialeah, a law is not neutral "if the object of a law is to infringe upon or restrict practices because of their religious motivation." The court added:  "There are, of course, many ways of demonstrating that the object or purpose of a law is the suppression of religion or religious conduct... Official action that targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment cannot be shielded by mere compliance with the requirement of facial neutrality.  The Free Exercise Clause protects against governmental hostility which is masked, as well as overt."  The author of Lukumi Babalu?  Justice Kennedy.  The swing vote.  The justice who saw little concern with Masterpiece Cakeshop's free speech claim.  The justice who raised the free exercise claim, highlighted the anti-religion sentiments of one of the commissioners, then concluded:  "Counselor, tolerance, is essential in a free society.  And tolerance is most meaningful when it's mutual.  It seems to me that the state in its position here has been neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips' religious beliefs."

A piece of cake for the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court on Tuesday [12/5/2017] heard oral arguments in a case about a cake artist in Colorado.  Jack Phillips is being persecuted for harboring private beliefs insufficiently enthusiastic about gay marriage.  Phillips made custom cakes to order and served any customer, regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation.  But there were some things he wouldn't do.  One was to subscribe to the cause of same-sex marriage, to spread a message about that newfangled institution that he believed to be false.  He would not say gay marriage is equal to sacramental matrimony between a man and a woman.

Day one of oral arguments for Masterpiece Cakeshop.  [Scroll down]  Justice Roberts asked the attorney representing the Colorado Civil Rights Commission a hypothetical about whether Catholic Legal Services should be compelled to represent same-sex couples against their religious beliefs or if the legal group should be forced to close its doors.  The attorney skirted the question.  Justice Kennedy then rattled off sections from the record showing the commission's bias against Jack Phillips's sincerely held religious beliefs.  Then, in the most important moment of the argument, Justice Kennedy commented that Colorado has not been tolerant of Jack Phillips.  And there it is, the crux of the case:  tolerance.  Should a state be tolerant of its citizens' religious beliefs?  May it disallow certain beliefs with which it disagrees, demanding that its citizens express antithetical beliefs or face punishment?

The Gay Marriage Ruling Supports the Baker.  The Court has declared that the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause include "intimate choices that define personal identity and belief."  But saying that one is glad to serve gays but not willing to support a gay "wedding" is precisely a choice that defines personal identity and belief.  Hence the Court now faces a quandary.  They can either ignore what they wrote in Obergefell or they can refuse to impose the moral view of the left on all Americans by upholding the First Amendment rights of those who don't wish to be forced to support something that is in direct contradiction to their "...choices that define personal identity and belief."  The reality is that when leftists, including those on the Supreme Court, write about liberties they are actually thinking only of liberties that they endorse.  For example, the same leftists who scream that pornography is protected by the First Amendment tell us that peacefully trying to change a woman's mind as she enters an abortion clinic is not protected by the First Amendment.

Justices Sharply Divided in Wedding Cake Case.  The case, which pits claims of religious freedom against the fight for gay rights, has attracted extraordinary public attention and about 100 friend-of-the-court briefs.  Mr. Phillips says that he should not be forced to use his talents to convey a message of support for same-sex marriage.  The couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, say that businesses open to the public should not be allowed to discriminate against gay men and lesbians. [...] Justice Sonia Sotomayor appeared unpersuaded.  "When have we ever given protection to a food?" she asked.

Supreme Court Today Mulls Whether Bakers Can Be Forced to Make Gay Wedding Cakes.  This morning [12/5/2017] the Supreme Court will be hearing arguments in a case that may determine whether businesses providing services for weddings — like bakers, florists, photographers — may decline to provide goods and services for same-sex couples based on their religious objections to gay marriage.  In Masterpiece Bakeshop Ltd. vs.  Colorado Civil Rights Commission, bakery owner Jake Phillips was ruled to have violated the state's anti-discrimination and public accommodation laws by declining to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.  Phillips has countered that his speech is being compelled and his religious freedom is being violated by being forced by law to produce a cake for the couple.

Supreme Court Allows Latest Travel Ban To Take Full And Immediate Effect.  The U.S. Supreme Court Monday [12/4/2017] allowed the latest iteration of President Donald Trump's travel ban to take full effect for the time being, as lower courts continue to wrestle with lawsuits fighting the ban.  The order permits the administration to enforce the president's September proclamation, which suspends entry of foreign nationals from seven nations, including Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen.  Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor noted their dissent from the Court's decision.

In a Win for Trump, Supreme Court Upholds 'Extreme Vetting' Travel Ban.  President Donald Trump won a big victory Monday in the Supreme Court, which upheld his "extreme vetting" on immigration into the United States.  The dispute over the policy stemmed from its application to six majority-Muslim countries.  Lower federal courts in California, Hawaii, and Maryland ruled the ban was unconstitutional.  In September, the administration revised the policy to add North Korea, Venezuela, and Chad to the list.  It dropped Sudan and kept Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen.

Supreme Court Rules Full Enforcement of Trump Travel Ban Can Go Into Effect.  The supreme court has granted a stay against all lower court rulings allowing the full President Trump travel and VISA ban to go into effect.  This is a BIG win for President Trump.

Donald Trump's 'Muslim ban' allowed by US Supreme Court.  The United States Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to enforce his controversial "Muslim ban".  The ban is now set to go into "full effect", although it is not clear on what timescale this will happen.  Legal challenges against the controversial measure are still making their way through the US courts, and have not yet reached the Supreme Court.

ACLU Official:  Justice Kennedy Will be 'Torn' Between LGBT and Religious Rights.  Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, known as a champion for gay rights, is expected to play a key role in the outcome of the Supreme Court's review of a Colorado baker's decision to refuse service to a same-sex couple on religious grounds.  A senior director with the American Civil Liberties Union said Thursday [11/23/2017] that Kennedy has been distracted by the "deep faith" of Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, who refused to bake a wedding cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins.  Kennedy, an 81-year-old Republican, has been instrumental in scoring several key judicial victories for gay rights.

Supreme Court Tosses Case Against Trump's 'Travel Ban'.  The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a case against President Donald Trump's controversial executive order restricting travel and immigration from several terror-prone states on Tuesday [10/10/2017].  The reason:  the president issued a new version of the order last month that replaces the older version that had been the subject of litigation in the Fourth Circuit, rendering the case moot.  Though many lower federal courts in liberal circuits ruled against the executive order, the Trump administration was set for victory in June, when the Supreme Court lifted an injunction against the enforcement of the so-called "travel ban," leaving the case to be argued in the fall.

In victory for Trump, Supreme Court dismisses travel ban case.  The Supreme Court dismissed a major challenge to President Trump's travel ban on majority-Muslim countries Tuesday [10/10/2017] because it has been replaced by a new version, sending the controversy back to the starting block.  The ruling is a victory for the Trump administration, which had asked the court to drop the case after Trump signed a proclamation Sept. 24 that replaced the temporary travel ban on six nations with a new, indefinite ban affecting eight countries.  That action made the court challenge moot, the justices ruled.  "We express no view on the merits," the justices said in a one-page order.

Chief Justice Roberts Calls Proof of Wisconsin Gerrymandering 'Gobbledygook'.  The Court has long said that, however distasteful, partisan gerrymandering is usually constitutional — unlike, say, drawing districts based on race.  The Court has also said that, theoretically, such finagling may be so egregious that it violates constitutional rights to equal protection, and perhaps to freedom of association and speech.  But it has never been able to agree on how much is too much — and today's arguments illustrated why.

Justice Ginsburg has to choose her historic legacy now.  How is Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a spirited fighter all her life, going to react to the letter from 58 House Republicans who called for her recusal on the forthcoming travel ban case because of her public disparagement of President Trump during the campaign?  Normally, all three branches of the federal government jealously protect their powers from encroachments by the other two.  And Supreme Court justices are exempt from the rules of judicial conduct that would force a lesser judge in Ginsburg's position to recuse herself.

SCOTUS reinstates substantially all of Trump Travel Order.  In a per curiam Order, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Trump Travel Order cases, and also substantially lifted the injunctions, with the exception of people seeking admission who already have a bona fide connection to the U.S.  This represents a huge win for Trump.  The key element of his Second Travel Order (the one at issue on appeal) was to exercise his constitutional and statutory power to exclude persons from the U.S.  The lower courts effectively took that power away, and substituted their own judgments as to security threats.  With a relatively narrow exception, that power has been reinstated to the presidency, pending a full decision on the merits of the case.

Justices Thomas, Gorsuch blast court decision to reject gun rights appeal.  Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch issued a scathing dissent Monday to a Supreme Court decision turning away yet another gun rights case.  On a busy morning of decisions, the court on Monday [6/26/2017] rejected a challenge out of California regarding the right to carry guns outside their homes, leaving in place a San Diego sheriff's strict limits on issuing permits for concealed weapons.  But Thomas, in a dissent joined by Gorsuch, countered that the case raises "important questions" — and warned that Second Amendment disputes aren't getting the attention they deserve from the Supreme Court.  "The Court's decision ... reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right," they wrote.

Supreme Court takes case on cake for same-sex marriage.  The Supreme Court decided Monday to hear a case involving a Colorado baker's refusal to design and make a cake for a same-sex marriage.  The baker, Jake Phillips, declined to make the custom cake and said it conflicted with his religious beliefs.  The Colorado Civil Rights Commission decided that Phillips' actions amounted to sexual orientation discrimination under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.  The Colorado Court of Appeals said the commission's ruling did not violate the First Amendment because Phillips' speech was "conduct compelled by a neutral and generally applicable law," as attorneys for Phillips noted in their petition to the high court.

Trump's travel ban victory should force media to examine itself.  Samuel Johnson once said, "When a man knows he is to be hanged ... it concentrates his mind wonderfully."  For opponents of the Trump immigration order, minds became distinctly more concentrated around 11am this morning [6/26/2017], when the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated much of Trump's order in a reversal of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  While the court will hear the merits in October and could still rule against the administration, these preliminary decisions often reflect a view of underlying merits.  For those of us who have long argued that the legal authority supported Trump, the order was belated but not surprising.  However, the order does offer a brief respite for some self-examination for both legal commentators, and frankly, the courts.

Don't pop the champagne yet over Trump's SCOTUS immigration win.  The Supreme Court agreed to stay part of the injunction against Trump's temporary immigration moratorium.  This demonstrates just how crazy some of the lower courts have been on the issue of sovereignty.  However, once again, Chief Justice John Roberts has shown that he is not anywhere near a full constitutionalist, and only three justices would have lifted the lower court injunction entirely.  While the news headlines indicate this is a big win for the administration, the relief granted by the Supreme Court is limited, and the ACLU will continue to rack up victories in the lower courts until the Supreme Court hears the case in October.  Meanwhile, Congress can still act to reclaim sovereignty.

Donald Trump Celebrates Supreme Court Decision to Clear Parts of Travel Ban.  President Donald Trump celebrated the unanimous per curiam opinion by the Supreme Court, effectively clearing lower court attempts to stay his travel ban, calling it a "clear victory" for national security.  "Today's unanimous Supreme Court decision is a clear victory for our national security," the president said in a statement to reporters.  Trump's ban sought to limit people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen from entering the United States, citing a national security risk.

Trump claims 'clear victory' after Supreme Court says his 'Muslim' travel ban can go into effect NOW against people without U.S. ties.  President Donald Trump took a victory lap on Monday after the Supreme Court restored most of his executive order banning incoming travel from six terror-prone countries.  'Today's unanimous Supreme Court decision is a clear victory for our national security,' the president said in a statement shortly after the high court ruled.  'It allows the travel suspension for the six terror-prone countries and the refugee suspension to become largely effective.'

Same-sex married couples can be listed as father, mother on birth certificate, Supreme Court rules.  Arkansas cannot refuse to list both names of same-sex married parents on a baby's birth certificate just because one of them is not a biological parent, the Supreme Court ruled Monday [6/26/2017], in a decision that suggests the extent to which the justices will push their 2015 decision on same-sex marriage equality.  Arkansas had resisted, arguing that the birth certificate was a record of parentage for the child, rather than a document about the marriage.

SCOTUS: Blocking Church Daycare From Grant Money Is 'Odious to Our Constitution'.  The Supreme Court on Monday [6/26/2017] ruled 7-2 in favor of a Lutheran daycare that sought state grant money for rubberized playing surfaces, scoring a victory for religious liberty proponents.  Missouri originally denied funding to Trinity Lutheran Church based on its status as a religious institution, but its defenders argued that this constituted religious discrimination.  Other private schools were eligible, but Missouri's constitution has an amendment forbidding public funds for religious organizations.  Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion and explicitly said that denying money for religious reasons is unconstitutional.

Sotomayor Sees 'Radical Mistake' in Letting Churches Compete for Playground Grants.  In dissenting from the Supreme Court's 7-2 decision that Missouri cannot discriminate against a Lutheran church that sought to compete in a state grant program that paved playgrounds with material made from recycled tires, Justice Sonia Sotomayer argued that the court's opinion "would mark a radical mistake."  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the only justice to join Sotomayor in dissenting from the majority's opinion in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v.  Comer.  Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts, joined in full by liberal Justice Elena Kagan, concluded that a state government could not categorically deny churches that have playgrounds from competing with other institutions in the state grant program.

Justice Thomas Calls Out The Supreme Court For Not Believing In The Second Amendment.  Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas had stern words for his colleagues when the Court declined to hear a case challenging California's handgun laws, saying that the jurists do not understand the importance of self-defense.  The case, supported by the National Rifle Association, involves San Diego resident Edward Peruta, who challenged his county's refusal to grant him permission to carry a concealed firearm outside of his home.

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Appeal Seeking Gun-Carrying Rights.  The U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider loosening restrictions on carrying firearms in public, rejecting an appeal by California gun-rights advocates and continuing to steer clear of one of the nation's most polarizing issues.  The justices left intact a San Diego County policy that requires people to show a special need in order to get a license to carry a concealed handgun outside the home.  A divided federal appeals court had upheld the policy.  Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch said the high court should have heard the case.

Dershowitz: Ginsburg Should Recuse Herself from 'Any Case Involving' Trump.  Former Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz said Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg should recuse herself from "any case involving the president" because of her past public comments on President Donald Trump.  Dershowitz, a Democratic author and criminal appellate lawyer, noted during an interview Monday on "The Laura Ingraham Show" that Ginsburg has issued some harsh, partisan critiques of Trump — even though Supreme Court justices typically take care to remain as politically neutral as possible.

Republican lawmakers want Ruth Bader Ginsburg to recuse herself from Trump cases.  Fifty-eight House Republicans signed a letter calling for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to recuse herself from the upcoming travel ban case due to her comments about President Trump during the election. [...] The congressmen argued Ginsburg's previous public comments about Trump, which included calling him a "faker" and saying he has an "ego," merited her recusal from the case.

Supreme Court:  Immigrants Who Lie to Feds to Become Citizens May Lose Citizenship.  The Supreme Court on Thursday held that federal law authorizes courts to strip immigrant citizens of their U.S. citizenship if they obtained it as a result of making false statements to the federal government.  Federal law found at 18 U.S.C. §1425(a) makes it a crime to "knowingly procur[e], contrary to law, the naturalization of any person" to become a U.S. citizen.  Moreover, a second federal statute, 8 U.S.C. §1451(e) adds that a foreigner who obtains U.S. citizenship through such a violation will lose that newly granted citizenship.

Supreme Court limits government's ability to strip citizenship.  The government cannot strip citizenship from someone who lied during their application process if the false statement wasn't central to their claim for immigration benefits, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday [6/22/2017].  The decision could make it tougher for the government to oust people it deems to have misled immigration authorities.  Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court in the unanimous decision, said the government must prove that the lie was serious enough that if officials had known the truth at the time, they would have denied citizenship.

Supreme Court:  There's No "Hate Speech" Exception to the 1st Amendment.  The Supreme Court ruled this morning [6/19/2017] that the government cannot deny full trademark protection to allegedly racially offensive trademarks. [...] The case involved an Asian-American band called "The Slants."  It sought federal registration of that mark.  The Patent and Trademark Office denied the application under a Lanham Act provision prohibiting trademarks that may "disparage... or bring... into contemp[t] or disrepute" any "persons, living or dead."  The Court ruled in favor of The Slants.  The vote was unanimous, though the Court split 4-4 on some of the finer points.

The Chevron Shakedown artists are rejected at the Supreme Court.  You may recall that about one month ago, the plaintiffs in the case, led by Manhattan Attorney Steven Donziger and his group of "environmentalist" allies, filed an appeal from the last in a long series of judgements which had gone against them.  Having unsuccessfully tried to pick Chevron's pockets to the tune of billions of dollars in a corrupt trial in Ecuador, Donziger had been found to have engaged in racketeering and massive corruption.  He had hoped to take a last ditch chance and ask the Supreme Court to hear his appeal.  This week that last chance fell through as the Supremes passed on the invitation, allowing the lower court's judgement to stand.

Supreme Court suggests constitutional right to Facebook, other social media.  The Supreme Court ruled Monday [6/19/2017] that a convicted sex offender can't be barred from getting on the internet, in a decision that lays out the beginnings of a constitutional right to surf the web.  Justices struck down a North Carolina law that had prohibited sex offender from logging onto social media, saying that such a broad ban would be cutting someone off from what has become the most robust forum for politics, free speech and commercial activity.

Supreme Court strikes down sex offender social media ban.  The Supreme Court struck down a North Carolina law Monday [6/19/2017] that bars convicted sex offenders from Facebook, Twitter and other popular sites.

Gender-Based Citizenship Rules Unconstitutional, Supreme Court Says.  The U.S. Supreme Court decided that federal citizenship rules violate the Constitution by making it harder for some foreign-born children of American men to become citizens than children born abroad to American women.  The court, however, said it wouldn't confer citizenship on the man who challenged the policy.  The justices instead made it harder for the future offspring of American women to become citizens.

Ginsburg Better Do Right Thing and Recuse Herself From Trump Travel Ban Case.  If campaign comments are evidence of bias in a way that invalidates the actions of a decision-maker (as the 4th Circuit claimed), then the same logic the 4th Circuit used to deny Trump's travel ban must require Ginsburg's recusal in the Supreme Court's review of that travel ban.  The standard for recusal does not require a judge admit their bias.  It only requires a review whether the public might "reasonably question" the "impartiality" of the judge in the matter.  Liberals argued Justice Scalia merely hunting with a Vice President compelled his recusal.  As Justice Scalia recognized, recusal is appropriate whenever a Justice has "said or done something" that impacts the perception of impartiality on a pending case.  As Justice Scalia implicitly recognized, recusal may be necessary when the Court's judgment would have "any bearing upon the reputation and integrity" of a party before the court if that individual Justice has voiced a prior opinion on that individual through friendship or hostility.

US top court rejects 'gay conversion' therapy ban challenge.  The US Supreme Court on Monday [5/1/2017] left intact California's ban on "gay conversion" therapy aimed at turning youths under age 18 away from homosexuality, rejecting a Christian minister's challenge to the law asserting it violates religious rights.  The justices, turning away a challenge to the 2012 law for the second time in three years, let stand a lower court's ruling that it was constitutional and neither impinged upon free exercise of religion nor impacted the activities of clergy members.

We're down to one branch of government.  How did we reach the place where nobody knows what the "law of the land" is until the Supreme Court rules?  How did the Supreme Court acquire so much blatantly unconstitutional and immoral power?  The answer is easy:  the Court stole it.

Supreme Court Rejects Challenge Over Merrick Garland Nomination, Shows Why 'Emoluments' Suit Against Trump Will Fail.  On Monday morning, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case of Michel v.  McConnell, where the courts below rejected a citizen's effort to sue senators for inaction on D.C. Circuit Chief Judge Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court.  The lower courts' opinions explain why another controversial dispute, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) v. Donald J. Trump, will also fail — with only days left until the government's response is due in that case.

Gorsuch Casts First Major Tie-Breaking Vote Allowing Arkansas Executions To Proceed.  In what will undoubtedly be a memorable first major tie-breaking vote as a Supreme Court Judge, Neil Gorsuch cast the deciding vote last night to allow Arkansas to begin executing a group of 8 death-row inmates.  The decision came after attorneys for the State of Arkansas sought an expedited process to allow for the executions to proceed before their lethal-injection drugs expire at the end of April.

American Resurrection.  The week started with the swearing in of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.  This portends a potentially sane court policy for years.  Another ideological leftist on the court would have been a disaster.  Instead, we have a stabilizing, common sense, intellectually clear judge to countermand the court's drift to the left.  It means we still have a reasonable shot at holding on to being a country of laws, rather than a country of cool personalities with bad ideas.

Obergefell's Toxic Judicial Legacy.  The cultural, legal, and political consequences of establishing a right to same-sex marriage have dominated discussions regarding Justice Kennedy's Obergefell decision.  Will religious institutions that oppose same-sex marriage lose their tax-exempt status?  What will happen to vendors whose consciences prohibit them from participating in same-sex weddings?  How and when will schools address same-sex marriage?  Those consequences are important and merit serious discussion.  However, another aspect of the case — Justice Kennedy's instructions regarding judges' authority to create new "rights" — will prove equally important in the long run.  In Obergefell, Justice Kennedy did far more than merely discover a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.  He wrote that judges have an ongoing "duty" to identify and protect new "fundamental rights."  He maintained that judges should institute new rights whenever their "reasoned judgment" suggests that it is appropriate to do so.

Gorsuch vs.  Sotomayor.  It is surprising that, throughout the convolutions of the Gorsuch hearings, no mention has been made of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, whose nomination and confirmation were — with one important difference — a mirror image of the present proceedings.

Gorsuch confirmed to Supreme Court.  The Senate confirmed Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court on Friday, filling the critical ninth seat that has been vacant for over a year and capping a tumultuous debate that saw Republicans overhaul the way the chamber operates in order to overcome what they described as an unprecedented Democratic filibuster.  The 54-45 vote, in which three Democrats crossed party lines to support the appeals court justice, is expected to restore a 5-4 conservative tilt on the bench.  Once sworn in, Gorsuch will join the court and begin to hear cases, in the seat once held by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February 2016.

Dianne Feinstein In 2006: You Can't Block A SCOTUS Nominee Because You Disagree With Him.  The Democrats are going crazy over the appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.  Gorsuch is completely qualified but they're trying to block him just because they hate Trump for winning.  Back in 2006, Dianne Feinstein had a much more reasonable view on this subject.  [Video clip]

Abandoning All Intellectual Honesty, Democrats Attack One of Elena Kagan's Loves.  The Federal Society is so nefarious, secretive, and extreme that every single sitting member of the United States Supreme Court has spoken at its events.  Justice Elena Kagan, when she served as Harvard Law School's dean, declared "I love the Federalist Society."  Justice Sotomayor spoke during a Federalist Society panel discussion.  Justice Breyer had the audacity to join Justice Scalia at a Federalist Society event.  Even the Notorious RBG herself, Ruth Bader Ginsburg has participated in Federalist Society events.  It is that extremist and secretive.  The Federal Society was founded in 1982.  It is a nonpartisan organization, but it is definitely a group dedicated to originalism.  Justice Elena Kagan has noted that we are all originalists now and that is in large part due not just to Justice Scalia, but due to the Federalist Society.

Supreme Courts slaps down EEOC on subpoenas.  The Supreme Court on Monday [4/3/2017] said it supports a lower-court ruling that limited the authority of the Equal Employment Opportunity Employment Commission to subpoena companies for information when it is bringing a case against an employer.  In a 7-1 decision, the justices slapped down the EEOC's argument that a district court should have backed the EEOC's effort to fully enforce its request for documents, even after the company argued the request was too broad.

The Left Distorts Originalism to Attack Judge Gorsuch.  This morning, Senator Dianne Feinstein fresh from lecturing Neil Gorsuch on the novel constitutional concept of "super precedent" purported to attack Judge Gorsuch's legal philosophy by reading a question from a law-school dean: [...] Note what happened here.  Feinstein's dean went straight from a quote to a straw man, fundamentally mischaracterizing Scalia and originalist jurisprudence in one consequential sentence.  First, Scalia's consistent position wasn't that the equal-protection clause offered "no protection" to women or gays, but rather that it did not offer special or extraordinary protection.  For example, here he was dissenting in Romer v. Evans, a decision that struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment prohibiting local governments from outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation:

Even Dick Durbin Blasts Democrat Anti-Gorsuch Strategy.  Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) has taken a different tone regarding the confirmation process of Judge Gorsuch, and his Democrat colleagues should take note.  While radical left-wingers like Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, and Jeff Merkley have said they would oppose Gorsuch even before the hearing, Sen. Durbin stated rejected that kind of behavior, saying:  "I don't think that serves the country well."

Sorry Dems, Judge Gorsuch is un-Borkable.  Gorsuch's credentials are too impeccable, his intellect too keen and his temperament too even to fall victim to the kind of debasement that felled Judge Robert Bork and coined an infamous phrase.  If the Gorsuch confirmation hearings have proven anything, it's that his opponents have no powder in their guns.  Try as they may, there is little in the record of Neil Gorsuch that can be faulted.  His rulings have been fair, his legal mind agile, and his fidelity to the law unimpeachable.

Ted Cruz:  Not One Democrat — Including Hillary and Obama — Voted Against Neil Gorsuch's Federal Judgeship.  On the first day of confirmation hearings for Federal Appeals Court Judge Neil Gorsuch to be named as a Supreme Court Justice, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) reminded the Democrats, who one after another criticized the nominee, that during his confirmation hearing a decade ago for the federal seat he holds now, not one Democrat — including Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama — voted against Gorsuch.  "A decade ago, Judge Gorsuch was confirmed by this committee for the Federal Court of Appeals by a voice vote," Cruz said.  "He was likewise confirmed by the entire United States Senate by a voice vote without a single Democrat speaking a word of opposition.

Former Female Student Making Allegations Against Gorsuch Has Ties to Obama, Democrats.  Judge Neil Gorsuch's former law student who is accusing the Supreme Court nominee of encouraging firms to engage in sexist and possibly illegal hiring practices has close ties to the Democratic Party, The Daily Signal has learned.  Jennifer Sisk, a 2016 graduate of the University of Colorado Law School, wrote a scathing letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sunday [3/19/2017].  In the letter, Sisk detailed her account of Gorsuch's telling his law students that "many" women manipulate their employer's maternity benefits after giving birth.  Multiple media outlets including NBC News, NPR, and Think Progress first reported on this allegation without any mention of Sisk's ties to Democrats.

Feinstein: Constitution A 'Living Document;' 'Originalism... Very Troubling'.  Several Senate Democrats were unified in deriding originalism as a judicial philosophy during Monday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to Supreme Court justiceship[.]  Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), ranking Democrat of the committee, described originalism as a "very troubling" jurisprudential approach.  The Framers, she added, intended for the Constitution to be continuously reinterpreted over time [...]

Neil Gorsuch Is the Impartial Judge Our Supreme Court Needs.  The impartial judge embodies the role envisioned by the Founders in our Constitution, fulfilling his duty to "say what the law is," rather than reinventing the law as he wishes it would be.  By contrast, the political judge views the role of the judiciary as no different than that of the legislature, using judicial review as a metaphorical "second bite at the apple" to achieve his preferred political objectives.  The stakes in this conflict are enormous:  It determines whether the country is governed by the sovereign people or by unelected, unaccountable judges.

American Bar Association Gives Neil Gorsuch Highest Possible Rating For SCOTUS.  The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary voted unanimously to rate Neil Gorsuch as "well qualified" to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States.  "Well qualified" is the best possible rating a Supreme Court nominee can receive from the ABA.

U.S. Supreme Court Cancels Transgender Bathroom Showdown.  The U.S. Supreme Court canceled a scheduled showdown over the bathroom rights of transgender students in public schools, sending the case back to a lower court after the Trump administration changed a pivotal federal policy.  The justices were planning to hear arguments March 28 in the case of Gavin Grimm, a transgender Virginia high school student suing his school district to get access to restrooms that align with his gender identity.

Ted Cruz Says Another SCOTUS Vacancy Is Just Months Away.  Texas Sen. Ted Cruz anticipates another vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court will arise in a matter of months.  "I think we'll have another Supreme Court vacancy this summer," Cruz said at the Conservative Political Action Conference Thursday [2/23/2017].  "If that happens, as much as the left is crazy now, they will go full Armageddon meltdown because the next vacancy is where we'll have the ability to act and restore basic constitution protections."  Though Cruz was not more specific, as a former law clerk to Chief Justice William Rehnquist, he enjoys access to a network of former clerks privy to the plans of their former bosses.  Rumors have abounded since fall 2016 that Justice Anthony Kennedy may seriously be mulling retirement.

Supreme Court enters Mexico border debate with Texas shooting case.  As if U.S.-Mexico relations could get no worse, the Supreme Court enters the fray Tuesday [2/21/2017] with a case that may set them back further.  Either the justices will decide, as two lower federal courts before them, that 15-year-old Sergio Adrián Hernández Güereca was killed by a U.S. Border Patrol agent without any possible legal recourse for his distraught parents — or that Jesus Mesa, the agent, can be sued for damages for violating the boy's constitutional rights.

Fox News Poll:  Nearly half of voters would confirm Gorsuch.  It looks like Judge Neil Gorsuch would have an easier time making it to the U.S. Supreme Court if voters — rather than U.S. Senators — had to confirm him.  That's according to the latest Fox News Poll of registered voters nationwide.  President Donald Trump nominated Judge Gorsuch to fill the vacancy created by Justice Antonin Scalia's death.  If Gorsuch is confirmed by the Senate, it will likely be a razor-thin victory.  Yet voters give him a 12-point edge.  The new poll, released Wednesday, finds that by a 49-37 percent margin, voters would confirm Gorsuch.  Fourteen percent are undecided.

Against "Judicial Engagement".  The death of Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia last year created an unexpected vacancy on the badly split Supreme Court, which throughout the presidential campaign focused attention on the importance of the Court and the selection of Scalia's successor.  "I feel strongly that the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people, not on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy," said Hillary Clinton in the final debate.  Advocating desirable policy outcomes without even mentioning the Constitution itself, as Clinton did in the debate, is a hallmark of the "living Constitution" philosophy, which has prevailed among liberals since the New Deal.

The Gorsuch Confirmation and the Finnis Connection.  In addition to having a law degree from Harvard, it is notable that Gorsuch also took a leave from his lucrative law practice to attend Oxford University to earn a Ph.D under the direction of John Finnis.  Never heard of John Finnis?  I predict you will in the confirmation hearings.

How to Drain the Judicial Swamp.  It's no surprise the Democrats plan to fight against the nomination of President Trump's Supreme Court pick, 10th Circuit Court of Appeals judge Neil Gorsuch.  There are no confirmation battles like Supreme Court confirmation battles because, as we always hear, such a decision can "shape the country for a generation."  This doesn't sound like the role envisioned by the founders.  As Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist, No. 78, the judiciary is (theoretically) the "least dangerous" branch of government because it "has no influence over either the sword or the purse."  So how have the courts been afforded so much power?  "Afforded" is the word.  In reality, the judiciary has become the most dangerous branch due to ignorance and congressional abdication of responsibility.

Neil Gorsuch, Guns & the Second Amendment: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know.  Donald Trump's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court is generally regarded as a supporter of the Second Amendment and gun rights.  Vigorously praised by the National Rifle Association, Neil Gorsuch "has endorsed Second Amendment rights," says FiveThirtyEight.  However, there is one ruling that gives some conservatives concern, relating to when police can disarm those carrying firearms.  Although Gorsuch's positions on some hot button issues — like abortion — are less clear, his stances on the Second Amendment and guns are clearer.

The Myth of the Stolen Supreme Court Seat.  The confirmation battle over Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch is off and running, and opponents already know he's superbly qualified with a fine judicial temperament.  But Democrats are still itching for a fight, and their first line of offense is the myth of the "stolen" seat.

Gorsuch nomination a lose-lose for the Democrats.  First of all, keep in mind that the stakes in the Gorsuch nomination do not include alteration of majority control.  A conservative justice would replace a conservative justice if he is confirmed.  Second, remember that the filibuster is the sole legislative weapon available to the minority Democrats to halt this and any subsequent nomination.  If they use the filibuster to try to stop Gorsuch, they risk Republicans using the so-called nuclear option and ending the filibuster entirely for the Supreme Court.  They are in no position to object on principle, having used the nuclear option themselves to enable President Obama to fill the district and appellate courts with liberal-left judges.  The most pressing concern of the Democrats is stopping Trump's next nominee, in the expectation that another vacancy could be on the way, either through mortality or resignation.

Democrats are already plotting to block Trump's Supreme Court pick.  Eager for political payback, Senate Democrats plan to do everything they can to block President Trump's nomination for the Supreme Court — even though they don't know who it will be.  Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said Monday [1/30/2017] that he will filibuster any pick that is not Merrick Garland — former President Obama's nominee to replace the late Antonin Scalia — who was never granted a hearing or a vote by the GOP-controlled Senate.  "This is a stolen seat.  This is the first time a Senate majority has stolen a seat.  We will use every lever in our power to stop this," Merkley told Politico, adding that an overwhelming majority of his Democratic caucus will oppose Trump's pick.

Democrats, Including Chuck Schumer, Voted Unanimously to Confirm Neil Gorsuch in 2006.  President Donald J. Trump on Tuesday nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch for the U.S. Supreme Court.  Democrats immediately pounced on the decision with preprepared statements they would've released regardless of whom the president nominated.  Judge Gorsuch, 49, who serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Colorado, was appointed in 2006 by President George W. Bush.  In July 2006, the U.S. Senate confirmed him unanimously by a voice vote, in which had the support of the very Democrats who are now objecting to his nomination.

5 Things You Should Know About Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch.  On Tuesday [1/31/2017], President Donald Trump nominated appellate judge Neil Gorsuch to serve on the Supreme Court.  Trump fulfilled his pledge to select a nominee "in the mold of Antonin Scalia," for Gorsuch seems cut from exactly the same cloth.  Like Scalia, Gorsuch is both a textualist and an originalist — he interprets legal provisions as their words were originally understood, and not according to doctrines like the "Living Constitution."  This is important, and points to how he will rule on pivotal cases if confirmed by the Senate.

Trump nominates 'brilliant' Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court - making him the youngest candidate in 25 years.  President Donald Trump has announced his choice of Neil Gorsuch, a U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit judge with conservative and Ivy League credentials, to the Supreme Court.  If confirmed by the bitterly-divided Senate, Gorsuch will fill the vacancy created by the February 2016 death of Antonin Scalia.

Democrats announce plans to filibuster of Gorsuch nomination.  Democrats have already decided they will force a filibuster on Judge Neil Gorsuch, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer said Tuesday [1/31/2017], just minutes after President Trump announced the pick.  "The Senate must insist upon 60-votes for any Supreme Court nominee," Mr. Schumer said in a statement.  Republicans could counter with the so-called "nuclear option," using a shortcut to change the rules and eliminate the 60-vote filibuster threshold.  But GOP leaders have been circumspect on that option.

Judge Neil Gorsuch:  Some Cause for Concern.  According to the 10th Circuit's opinion, the police are justified in forcibly disarming every armed citizen based on nothing more than the presence of a concealed firearm.  This allows the police to treat every law-abiding gun owner like a criminal — which, in many cases we have seen, includes rough treatment such as grabbing him, twisting his arm behind his back, slamming him down on the ground, and handcuffing him.  Far too many police officers do not like anyone to be armed other than themselves and have taken it upon themselves to intimidate those who dare to exercise Second Amendment rights.

Do Not Touch The Guns.  Any man who believes that LEOs have the right to disarm innocent civilians because they feel like it isn't fit to be on any bench, much less the Supreme Court of the United States.  Neil Gorsuch should resign his post along with his colleagues on the tenth circuit and be replaced by good men who believe in the constitution.

2 Judges on Trump's Short List Received Unanimous Senate Approval.  Two of the judges on President Donald Trump's reported short list for the Supreme Court received unanimous Senate approval during their respective Senate confirmations.  Judge Neil Gorsuch was confirmed by the Senate on July 20, 2006, to serve as the judge for the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.  Judge Thomas Hardiman was confirmed by the Senate on March 15, 2007, to be a U.S. circuit judge.  Both received significant bipartisan support during their confirmations.

Trump backs curbing filibuster if Dems block Supreme Court pick.  President Trump is urging Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to abolish the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees if Democrats block his pick.  Trump told Fox News that he would back getting rid of the 60-vote threshold for high court nominees if he can't win over the support of at least eight Democrats for his nominee, who is expected to be announced next week.  "We have obstructionists," Trump said, pointing to Democrats' treatment of his Cabinet nominees and their push to delay a committee vote on Sen. Jeff Sessions's (R-Ala.) attorney general nomination.

Democrats to Fight Any Trump Supreme Court Nominee:  Schumer.  Suggesting that turnabout is fair play, the Senate's new top Democrat promised Tuesday night [1/3/2017] to do his best to block whomever President-elect Donald Trump nominates to the Supreme Court. [...] Senate Republicans blocked President Barack Obama's March 16 nomination of U.S. Appeals Judge Merrick Garland for more than nine months — more than twice as long as any other nomination to the court has gone without a vote.  Garland's nomination expired Tuesday as the new 115th Congress was sworn in.

Obama could still force Merrick Garland onto court during 'intersession recess'.  President Obama will have one last chance to force Judge Merrick Garland onto the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday [1/3/2017] — but it's a legal gamble and one that has so many pitfalls that even those who say he could get away with it believe it isn't worth the fight.  Mr. Obama's moment will come just before noon, in the five minutes that the Senate gavels the 114th Congress out of session and the time the 115th Congress begins.  In those few moments the Senate will go into what's known as an "intersession recess," creating one golden moment when the president could test his recess-appointment powers by sending Judge Garland to the high court.

Supreme Court Freakout at the New York Times.  The New York Times was once known as The Grey Lady.  Today, a more apt moniker would be The Hysterical Bag Lady.  The Times editorial board is home to the most immoderate, shrieking Leftism you will find this side of the Nation.  On Christmas Eve, the Times editorialized on The Stolen Supreme Court Seat.  It is a classic of the post-Trump-election freakout genre: [...] This is the substance of the Times's complaint:  that Senate Republicans "broke with longstanding tradition" by deferring the next Supreme Court selection until after the November 2016 election.  How do the editorialists support their claim?  By citing their own paper.

U.S. chief justice refuses to force vote on Obama high court pick.  U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts on Monday [12/19/2016] rejected a New Mexico lawyer's long-shot bid to force a Senate confirmation vote on President Barack Obama's Supreme Court pick, Merrick Garland, after Republican senators refused to act on his nomination.  Steven Michel, a Santa Fe environmental attorney, filed suit in U.S. federal court in August, arguing that the Republican-led Senate's failure to act on Garland's nomination deprived Michel of his rights as a voter under the U.S. Constitution's 17th Amendment, which outlines how senators are elected.

Smear Campaign Against Sessions Ignores the Facts.  Let's stipulate upfront that the Senate battle over Jeff Sessions' nomination for U.S. attorney general is not about Jeff Sessions.  Everybody knows this.  Everybody also knows the Senate is going to confirm Sessions.  No, the opposition to Alabama's senator is about two things:  One, the left's reflexive opposition to all things Donald Trump.  Two, the left's prep work for the next confirmation battle over Trump's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.  The fight over Sessions' confirmation to head the Justice Department is spring training, a preseason tune-up for the regular season, i.e., the confirmation showdown with Senate Democrats over Trump's pick for the high court.

No, Senate Democrats Can't Use The 'Nuclear Option' To Confirm Merrick Garland.  Having watched continued control of the White House slip away, progressive activists are now furiously searching for ways to rescue Merrick Garland's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court before President-elect Donald Trump takes office.  Unfortunately for these activists, their latest scheme to install Garland, who was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Obama last March, has absolutely no basis in reality.  The primary torchbearer for this plan is Daily Kos editor David Waldman, who claims that Senate rules allow Democrats to confirm Garland after the current congressional term expires, but before new senators take office.

Manchin: Unwise to block Trump's Supreme Court pick.  West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin on Monday [12/5/2016] warned the Democratic Party not to engage in payback when it comes to President-elect Trump's nomination to the Supreme Court or they will continue to lose a significant portion of the electorate in rural states like his who helped hand Trump the presidency.  "We have to be careful how we go down this road," Manchin said during a panel discussion at a centrist "No Labels" conference in Washington.  Manchin was referring to Senate Democrats' willingness to use the filibuster to try to block Trump's high court pick and cautioned against doing so.

Judicial Activism Set the Stage for Trump Win.  Donald Trump's election as president is due in no small part to the prominence of the Supreme Court in the campaign, following a spike in judicial activism this decade.  Doubts about Trump faded when Republicans and like-minded voters looked back at the High Court's unmistakably activist decisions on ObamaCare and same-sex marriage, and considered the consequences of a Court dominated by Hillary Clinton appointees. [...] Voters who called High Court appointments the most important factor in their presidential choice constituted a full 21% of the electorat