Justice Alito Goes Scorched Earth on Democrat Senator for Pushing an ‘Affront to the Constitution and the Rule of Law’

Justice Alito Goes Scorched Earth on Democrat Senator for Pushing an ‘Affront to the Constitution and the Rule of Law’

On Thursday, US Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito fired back at Democratic members of Congress over a brief they filed in a recent Second Amendment case, and condemned them for trying to strong-arm the Supreme Court.

In remarks to the Federalist Society Alito slammed Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, that cocky, smarmy jerk from Rhode Island who came up with a wacky conspiracy theory against now Justice Amy Coney Barrett during her confirmation hearings, who is one of the brief’s authors, for floating the idea of “restructuring” the Court in response to a pro-gun ruling.  Alito called the idea “an affront to the Constitution and the rule of law.”  And that’s about par for the course with Democrats these days.  They have become of a despicable nature who now openly show they have no respect for the US Constitution and our Constitutional rights.

The comments made by the justice, who was nominated in 2006 by President George W Bush, are raising eyebrows:  Supreme Court justices rarely trade barbs with politicians, and Alito’s blunt remarks offered a rare view inside the Court after an election cycle where packing the court was a major issue.

I contend that Democrats pushing the idea of politicizing the Supreme Court by adding even more left-wing justices who rule based on what the leftist mob wants, rarely having anything to do with Constitutional law, as a remedy to their anger over President Donald Trump nominating Justice Barrett, a Constitutional originalist and textualist, as a threat to democracy is damn kooky and should be excoriated by a sitting justice.

Alito also weighed in on issues from gun rights to the coronavirus, telling the audience that for many Democrats, the Second Amendment is “the ultimate second-tier constitutional right,” and that the broad restrictions politicians enacted to combat the Chinese virus pandemic have revealed their contempt for Religious Freedom.   The former has been understood for decades, but the latter of his argument is a topic with fresh sunlight as Democrat governors and mayors throughout the coronavirus pandemic enforced double standards that were openly apparent.  While they locked down churches and religious ceremonies claiming health arguments against spreading the virus, the same elected politicians had no problem whatsoever with protesters, looters and rioters taking to the streets all summer with zero regard to social distancing and wearing masks outside of the chaos, mayhem, death and destruction they brought to much of our society.

“Take a quick look at the Constitution” Alito said. “You will see the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, which protects religious liberty. You will not find a craps clause, or a blackjack clause, or a slot machine clause.”  Alito was referring to a Nevada law that gave the okie dokie for casinos to open but put restrictions on the number of people who could attend services in churches.  That’s because the state makes more money in tax revenues from casinos than from churches, synagogues and masques, and many Democrats hate religions because they preach that there is a higher power than government.

Rhode Island’s Sheldon Whitehouse was mentioned with a special rebuke by Alito singling out a recent brief filed by the left-wing senator and four other Democrats on a New York City firearms transportation ordinance.Whitehouse and other senate Democrats threatened that a “pro-gun” ruling would further provoke the growing movement to “restructure” the Court, which means to add leftist justices who disdain the Constitution to rig the outcome of rulings from now on.

“The senators’ brief was extraordinary,” Alito added. “I could say something about standards of professional conduct. But the brief involved something even more important. It was an affront to the Constitution and the rule of law.”

Alito went on to remind people that the Supreme Court was created by the Constitution and not by the Congress and that under the Constitution, the Supreme Court exercises the judicial power of the United States.  Alito argued that Congress has no right to interfere with that work any more than the Court has the right to legislate.

And there goes the rub.  All leftist judges in my opinion believe they have the right to legislate from the bench.  For example, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court changed an election law that helped Democrats and harmed Republicans in the 2020 election.  Article I, Section 4 of the US Constitution gives sole power of state election laws to the state Legislature.  The PA legislature in 2019 created a law called Act 77, which gave the state the right to implement a mail-in voting scam, er, system in the wake of the Chinese virus pandemic.  Part of Act 77 stipulates that all ballots must be received, postmarked by Election Day or not, by 8 pm on Election Day.  When the PA Supreme Court changed that law by giving Democrats an extension of three more days, they violated the Constitution by changing a law that the Constitution clearly stipulates they can not do.

Alito went on to stress that the Supreme Court’s obligation is to try cases “based on the law, period,” and that is is wrong for any member of Congress to try to influence the Court’s decisions with threats or anything other than legal argumentation.  Democrats talk a good game about fairness and democracy (even though we live in a republic) but that’s only platitudes for when things go their way.  When things don’t go their way they always try to come up with ways to rig the system, and the recent calls to pack the court is a perfect example.

Don’t forget that back in March the Senate minority leader, who I pray will remain the minority leader, Chuck Schumer (D-NY), threatened Justices Neal Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh over possible abortion rulings, and then he denied he threatened them, and the Fake News mainstream media got his back to gaslight you into thinking it never happened.  He’s full of horse hockey.  He threatened the justices and we heard it.  And if that’s the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, you can only imagine how bad the rest of the partisan Democrats are.

WATCH:

Folks, this is the result of a party going unhinged when everything they are raging over is 100 percent Constitutional.  They just don’t like the way things are legally playing out, and so they turn to threats.  That pretty much sums up what Justice Alito was saying to warn America.

Biden Signs Executive Order to Create a Commission As a Formality For Packing the US Supreme Court

Biden Signs Executive Order to Create a Commission As a Formality For Packing the US Supreme Court

On Friday, the White House made an announcement that President Joe Biden is going to sign an executive order creating a commission to study reform ideas for the US Supreme Court, including packing the Court, something he said he was “not a fan” of during the 2020 campaign. Everyone knew he was going to do it, so this should not come as a surprise.

The White House statement said, “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 added that the panel includes experts on Constitutional law, political science, and history. In other words, a bunch of leftists who hate the Constitution and our country.

Biden himself back in 1983 said during a Senate hearing that FDR’s move to pack the Court was a “bonehead idea,” and “a terrible, terrible mistake to make,” and “it put in question for an entire decade the independence of the most significant” body in government in this country.

WATCH:

So what’s changed? Biden is president now, that’s what’s changed.

The White House announcement somewhat addresses a presidential campaign promise from Biden as the radical Left repeatedly pressured him to say he would pack the court with additional leftist justices to dilute the Court’s growing conservative majority, including three justices nominated by former President Donald Trump and confirmed by the Senate. The number one thing for all Democrats is they always want a rigged system. They don’t like to lose, and they don’t like to have to work that hard to get what they want.

First off, Chief Justice Roberts is not a conservative, he’s a Hollywood guy. Kavanaugh is not an originalist either, his vote’s up for grabs. The jury is still out on Amy Coney Barrett. Gorsuch is close to being an originalist, but he votes with Kavanaugh sometimes I believe the only two originalists on the Court are Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Biden said in October that he would put together a “bipartisan commission” to address the High Court “because it’s getting out of whack.” See what I mean? Unless the Court is majority leftists on the bench, it will be considered out of whack. They want a rigged Supreme Court.

For Democrats, the term “bipartisan” means one of two things, either that Republicans cave and give them everything they want, or a panel of bipartisan members that means there are leftist Democrats and RINO Republicans who will cave and give them everything they want. Rigged.

Cased in point, Biden’s list for the panel features leftist Democrats and leftist legal scholars (whatever that means) and a few Republicans, most of them critical of President Donald Trump and the America First movement. There are no prominent conservatives or legal scholars. Rigged.

The only reason Biden is doing this is to pacify radical leftists who demand that he expand the Supreme Court for power. The court has had nine justices for over 150 years. That means nothing to radical leftists, as they want a rigged Supreme Court. And packing the court with more justices will do nothing more than what Joe Biden said. It will question the integrity of the court. The entire country will know that every ruling coming out of a

FDR’s attempt to pack the courts failed, because back then there were Democrats who joined Republicans to defeat his bonehead proposal.

In order for the Democrats to pack the Court, they have to do it through legislation. The White House also said that the panel will discuss term limits for Justices on the Court, but that will never happen because in order to do that they have to amend the Constitution.

The commission will be co-chaired by two former Obama officials (some bipartisanship) Bob Bauer, a former White House counsel for former President Obama, and Cristina Rodriguez, a former Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel in the United States Department of Justice.

The White House said the so-called bipartisan commission will address the Supreme Court’s role in the Constitutional system, which is ludicrous because it is a separate power created by the Constitution. The other two branches do not get to decide what the High Court’s role is in the Constitutional process, and if we had an honest press, the American people would learn about that. But we don’t have an honest press, we have a press that is champing at the bit to help the Democrats destroy our entire constitutional system.

SCOTUS Denies Texas Case Claiming Lack of Standing, It’s Not Over

SCOTUS Denies Texas Case Claiming Lack of Standing, It’s Not Over

On Friday, the US Supreme Court rejected the Texas lawsuit seeking to overturn Joe Biden’s ill-gotten win in four key battleground states.

First off, it’s not over yet, folks. There are still battles to fight. Have the faith.

The ruling was delivered with only three sentences. The order was also not signed.

“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. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections,” the Court wrote. “All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.”

Justice Samuel Alito wrote that, “In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.”

Justice Clarence Thomas concurred with Alito’s statement.

This means the ruling was 7 – 2.  Three of the justices Donald Trump put on the bench sided to hear the case.  They sided with the liberal judges.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton brought the lawsuit and then 17 states joined and more than half of the Republicans in the House of Representatives and President Trump.  The suit sought to invalidate millions of votes cast in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. All four of these states Joe Biden won by what all evidence shows from election fraud.  All four states violated multiple Articles in the US Constitution that effectively helped the Democrats cheat to get Biden into the White House.

According to The Hill, the Texas filing cleared the way for the country’s High Court to issue an order on the state’s request for a preliminary injunction.

The Roberts Court basically sent a message that the Supreme Court does not want to get involved.  They made the decision quickly, because on Monday the Electoral College meets to formalize Joe Biden’s ill-gotten victory over President Donald Trump.

One-hundred twenty-six members of Congress and 17 Republican Attorneys General, including President Donald Trump joined Texas to convince the Supreme Court to overturn elections in those states due to Constitutional violations that harmed the many states that voted to reelect Trump.

On Friday, House Republican minority leader Kevin McCarthy of California and minority whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana signed onto a brief backing the lawsuit.

Friday afternoon, Trump tweeted “If the Supreme Court shows great wisdom and courage, the American people will win perhaps the most important case in history, and our electoral process will be respected again.”

On Thursday, the states mentioned by the lawsuit backed by the president shot back at Texas with incredibly lame arguments like Texas was committing seditious acts. So when Estate is trying to acknowledge that other states violated the constitution during a presidential election, they want us to believe that that is sedition.   It’s a hell of a world we live in.  State officials told the High Court that the state of Texas has no right to tell another state how to conduct its elections.   But they do have a right to point out that Texas followed the Constitution and they voted to reelect Donald Trump while these other four key battleground states violated the constitution, they did not follow the rule of law, and they did it to help Joe Biden get elected. That gives them standing, because what Biden administration could do to the state of Texas and every other state that followed the Constitution and voted for Trump could be horrible for them.

“The Court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated,” state of Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro wrote.  We haven’t heard a peep out of Josh Shapiro about Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar changing election laws when she did not have the authority to do so. We also heard nothing from Josh Shapiro about the Pennsylvania Supreme Court changing election law which they did not have the authority to do.

If nothing else the lawyers fighting this battle are trying to make future elections more free and fair. The Democrats may have gotten away with the biggest election cheating of our lifetime, but the republic goes on when we keep fighting for the Constitution.

Contrary to the lies reported by the mainstream media, the Pennsylvania case is still alive and I believe it’s stronger than the Texas case, because that case has material evidence of voter and election fraud to argue, and the Supreme Court pretty much just told us that the Texas case wasn’t strong enough for them to intervene. So, it’s not over yet, and we fight on.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has granted the Trump campaign’s request for an expedited review of its election case in Pennsylvania.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has granted the Trump campaign’s request for an expedited review of its election case in Pennsylvania.

“One odd thing about the #Pennsylvania election results is Biden outperformed Obama’s ’12 total by over 500K votes. He even outdid his old boss in Philly by over 47k. The population has stayed essentially the same,” Randy DeSoto, a senior staff writer for The Western Journal posted on Twitter.

The order posted by Jenna Ellis, legal adviser to President Donald Trump’s campaign, stipulates that the brief must be filed by 4 p.m. on Monday.

Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar then will be required to file a response Tuesday at the same time.

The grant of appeal came following a Saturday ruling by U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann that dismissed the Trump campaign case.

OANN Reported:

President Trump’s campaign is quickly moving up their case against potential voter fraud in Pennsylvania. On Sunday, the campaign’s legal team, which is headed by attorney Rudy Giuliani, submitted an appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

The move came less than a day after Pennsylvania District Judge Matthew Brann dismissed the case. Giuliani and his team have been working tirelessly to bring forth evidence of more than 600,000 illegally cast ballots.

“The reason for the application and the reason to keep all these things together is precisely to avoid what the Democrats did in this election, which is to misuse the absentee ballot process and the mail-in ballot process in order to cheat,” stated the Trump attorney.

District Judge Brann ruled that the Trump campaign didn’t have enough evidence to overturn the election results. However, both President Trump and his legal team said they were not allowed to produce witnesses or evidence to the court.

“Justice Alito handles emergency appeals FROM the Third Circuit TO the Supreme Court. Each SC justice “covers” a federal circuit. The PA matter is an appeal TO the Third Circuit. It’s nowhere near the Supreme Court.,” one election watcher wrote.

Fox News, who wrote about Justice Alito on Nov. 6th, and his opinion at the time that mail-in ballots needed to be separated.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has issued a temporary order requiring Pennsylvania elections officials to segregate ballots received after 8 p.m. on Election Day.

The move grants a GOP request, at least for now, to place the ballots in a secure, sealed container and have them counted separately, if at all.

The Pennsylvania GOP asked the Supreme Court for an emergency order after it was unable to get at least 25 of the county boards to confirm they were already doing that, and Alito agreed.

He declined to address a separate request for an emergency order to stop those ballots from being tallied,” Fox News reported at the time.

Here is how the left reported the story:

Maryclaire Dale from the AP wrote,” US appeals ct lets Trump lawyers brief appeal to revive lawsuit over #Pennsylvania election results. But no arguments set. Campaign now says they don’t want to toss all 6.8M votes – just mail-in ballots in Dem counties. Read more on PA, Mich. from @AP

Here is how the right sees it:

“BREAKING: The 3rd Circuit Court of appeals in PA just approved and accepted Trump Team’s request to expedite the lawsuit moving it up the chain to where we want to be! Praise God for making this go quickly!!” one Trump supporter wrote.

The Democrat allies in the media are not happy about any change in PA, because victories there for Biden are very important to the narrative that he is the “President elect”.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has granted the Trump campaign’s request for an expedited review of its election case in Pennsylvania.

“One odd thing about the #Pennsylvania election results is Biden outperformed Obama’s ’12 total by over 500K votes. He even outdid his old boss in Philly by over 47k. The population has stayed essentially the same,” Randy DeSoto, a senior staff writer for The Western Journal posted on Twitter.

The order posted by Jenna Ellis, legal adviser to President Donald Trump’s campaign, stipulates that the brief must be filed by 4 p.m. on Monday.

Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar then will be required to file a response Tuesday at the same time.

The grant of appeal came following a Saturday ruling by U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann that dismissed the Trump campaign case.

OANN Reported:

President Trump’s campaign is quickly moving up their case against potential voter fraud in Pennsylvania. On Sunday, the campaign’s legal team, which is headed by attorney Rudy Giuliani, submitted an appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

The move came less than a day after Pennsylvania District Judge Matthew Brann dismissed the case. Giuliani and his team have been working tirelessly to bring forth evidence of more than 600,000 illegally cast ballots.

“The reason for the application and the reason to keep all these things together is precisely to avoid what the Democrats did in this election, which is to misuse the absentee ballot process and the mail-in ballot process in order to cheat,” stated the Trump attorney.

District Judge Brann ruled that the Trump campaign didn’t have enough evidence to overturn the election results. However, both President Trump and his legal team said they were not allowed to produce witnesses or evidence to the court.

“Justice Alito handles emergency appeals FROM the Third Circuit TO the Supreme Court. Each SC justice “covers” a federal circuit. The PA matter is an appeal TO the Third Circuit. It’s nowhere near the Supreme Court.,” one election watcher wrote.

Fox News, who wrote about Justice Alito on Nov. 6th, and his opinion at the time that mail-in ballots needed to be separated.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has issued a temporary order requiring Pennsylvania elections officials to segregate ballots received after 8 p.m. on Election Day.

The move grants a GOP request, at least for now, to place the ballots in a secure, sealed container and have them counted separately, if at all.

The Pennsylvania GOP asked the Supreme Court for an emergency order after it was unable to get at least 25 of the county boards to confirm they were already doing that, and Alito agreed.

He declined to address a separate request for an emergency order to stop those ballots from being tallied,” Fox News reported at the time.

Here is how the left reported the story:

Maryclaire Dale from the AP wrote,” US appeals ct lets Trump lawyers brief appeal to revive lawsuit over #Pennsylvania election results. But no arguments set. Campaign now says they don’t want to toss all 6.8M votes – just mail-in ballots in Dem counties. Read more on PA, Mich. from @AP

Here is how the right sees it:

“BREAKING: The 3rd Circuit Court of appeals in PA just approved and accepted Trump Team’s request to expedite the lawsuit moving it up the chain to where we want to be! Praise God for making this go quickly!!” one Trump supporter wrote.

The Democrat allies in the media are not happy about any change in PA, because victories there for Biden are very important to the narrative that he is the “President elect”.

Our “Safe Space” Universities: University of Nebraska On Slippery Slope Toward Suppression of Free Speech

Our “Safe Space” Universities: University of Nebraska On Slippery Slope Toward Suppression of Free Speech

The University of Nebraska-Lincoln recently announced that they have added a campus climate/culture option to their TIPS incident reporting system, allowing students to report incidents that violate “the university’s core values and beliefs”, even if they do not directly violate the written Student Code of Conduct.

“Students, faculty and staff who has been a victim of bias or feels unsafe/uncomfortable due to an incident have access to a number of university resources,” says their website.

The climate/culture option was added “to capture broader issues”, specifically those incidents that “discriminate, stereotype, exclude, or harass an individual based on identity” but are not addressed directly in the university’s Code of Conduct.

“A climate-based concern can include actions that discriminate, stereotype, exclude, or harasses anyone in our community based on their identity (such as race, color, ethnicity, national origin, sex, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, disability, age, or religion). Concerns may stem from fear, misunderstanding, hatred, or stereotypes. Behaviors may be intentional or unintentional. Climate concerns may not classify as a compliance violation but do counter our core values and beliefs.”

Climate/Culture Incident Description

A concerned student reached out to “Live Not By Lies” author and The American Conservative senior editor Rod Dreher about the matter, calling the new expansion “a very slippery slope”.

“I don’t know how anyone can read that type of broad and unclear language and just expect the university administrators tasked with responding to these ‘incidents’ to act with deference to the ideas of free speech,” the student wrote. “That leaves way too many doors open for abuse of such a policy by those who react to expressed disagreement…”

Dreher said the policy “gives tremendous power to students who wish to use it to punish anyone they don’t like.”

Indeed, opening up a reporting mechanism for behavior not specifically outlined in the university’s Code of Conduct not only creates ambiguity about what behaviors will and will not be punished, it opens the doors for suppression of free speech when said speech makes anyone else uncomfortable.

The University of Nebraska student is not alone in his concerns. The protection of free speech on college campuses nationwide has been of concern for several years now.

Justice Samuel Alito recently warned of the current danger to free speech in a virtual keynote address to the Federalist Society.

“One of the great challenges for the Supreme Court going forward will be to protect freedom of speech,” he told his audience. “Although that freedom is falling out of favor in some circles, we need to do whatever we can to prevent it from becoming a second-tier constitutional right.”

This morning I was driving from Portland, Oregon back to my home in the Puget Sound. I spent most of my route listening to Joe Rogan’s old 2016 interview with Jordan Peterson. You should listen. It’s filled with golden moments of deep insight from the West’s current favorite professor.

In that interview, Peterson alleges that universities now do more harm than good due to their rejection of Western principles like free speech.

Rogan: Well it’s just so strange that these sort of courses and these sort of ideologies are thriving in universities, and it’s really disconcerting to someone who has children. And you know that your children are going to go there and they’re going to be –

Peterson: Send them to trade school.

Rogan: Wow! A guy that used to teach at Harvard just said “send them to trade school.”

Peterson: I think the universities – I think you could make a reasonable case that the universities do more harm than good now. I hate to say that.

The University of Nebraska-Lincoln just became another reason that Peterson’s encouragement to look at trade school options as alternatives to traditional educational institutions may be a good idea.

Supreme Court Hands President Donald Trump Two Major Victories In One Day By Deciding On Obamacare and School Religious Freedom Cases

Supreme Court Hands President Donald Trump Two Major Victories In One Day By Deciding On Obamacare and School Religious Freedom Cases

President Donald Trump and conservatives have scored two major victories in the Supreme Court with religious freedom on the line.

In a 7 – 2 decision that united some liberals with the conservatives on the court, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Little Sisters of the Poor, The Daily Mail reported

n the Obamacare case, the high court ruled 7-2 the administration acted properly when it allowed more employers who cite a religious or moral objection to opt out of covering birth control.

“We hold today that the Departments had the statutory authority to craft that exemption, as well as the contemporaneously issued moral exemption. We further hold that the rules promulgating these exemptions are free from procedural defects,” Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said in the majority decision.

As a result of the Obama-era health law most employers must cover birth control as a preventive service, at no charge to women, in their insurance plans. The Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania case tested whether the law properly provided religious exemptions is called. 

The other ruling Wednesday also dealing with religious exemptions was in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru.  

The court sided with two Catholic schools in a ruling that underscores that certain employees of religious schools, hospitals and social service centers can’t sue for employment discrimination.

“The religious education and formation of students is the very reason for the existence of most private religious schools, and therefore the selection and supervision of the teachers upon whom the schools rely to do this work lie at the core of their mission,” Justice Samuel Alito said in the decision.

“Judicial review of the way in which religious schools discharge those responsibilities would undermine the independence of religious institutions in a way that the First Amendment does not tolerate,” he said, CNBC reported.

Alito’s opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.

The schools argued that the ministerial exception prevented them from facing those lawsuits, but the teachers countered that they should not qualify as ministers under the 2012 Supreme Court precedent that established the rule.

In that case, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC, the Supreme Court outlined four factors for lower courts to consider when weighing whether an employee.

Liberal Leaders Furious After Ruth Bader Ginsburg Sides With President Trump On HUGE Deportation Case

Liberal Leaders Furious After Ruth Bader Ginsburg Sides With President Trump On HUGE Deportation Case

Opinion| In a stunner for Supreme Court watchers and liberals everywhere, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has sided with President Donald Trump on an asylum issue.

It was a major victory for President Donald Trump and his administration on Thursday when the Supreme Court ruled that asylum seekers who have their claims rejected cannot object, The New York Times reported.

In a victory for the Trump administration, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that immigrants whose requests for asylum were rejected in bare-bone summary proceedings may not contest the denials in federal court.

The case, which concerns the fundamental question of who is entitled to seek habeas corpus, will affect thousands of asylum seekers.

The vote was 7 to 2. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented.

The case concerned Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam, a member of Sri Lanka’s Tamil ethnic minority who was apprehended about 25 yards north of the Mexican border near San Ysidro, Calif.

He sought asylum, saying he would face a credible fear of persecution if he were returned to Sri Lanka.

His request was considered under “expedited removal” procedures called for by a 1996 law that streamlined asylum applications from people caught near the border and barred courts from reviewing most aspects of the determinations made under the procedures.

Mr. Thuraissigiam, a farmer, told an asylum officer that he had been savagely beaten in Sri Lanka by men who had blindfolded and abducted him.

He said he had spent 11 days in a hospital recovering from his injuries. “Habeas has traditionally been a means to secure release from unlawful detention, but respondent invokes the writ to achieve an entirely different end, namely, to obtain additional administrative review of his asylum claim and ultimately to obtain authorization to stay in this country,” the decision written by Justice Samuel Alito said.

He notes–concluding that this approach “fails because it would extend the writ of habeas corpus far beyond its scope ‘when the Constitution was drafted and ratified.’”

The decision was joined by all conservative members of the court, including Chief Justice John Roberts, and another liberal Justice Stephen Breyer. Democrats on Twitter were furious with Justice Ginsburg, someone who they routinely celebrate.

Ouch!

Supreme Court Gives HUGE Victory To Religious Freedom Over COVID-Related Restrictions on Worshipping

Supreme Court Gives HUGE Victory To Religious Freedom Over COVID-Related Restrictions on Worshipping

On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that California cannot block churches and other religious organizations from conducting services indoors because of the COVID-19(84) pandemic. The decision was a huge victory for First Amendment rights and for Religious Freedom.

But the Court failed to roll back all coronavirus-related restrictions enacted on religious gatherings in California, so believers still live in a religious gulag out there.

Even though Chief Justice Roberts once ridiculed President Donald Trump by claiming there are no Obama judges and Trump judges, the Court voted along ideological lines 6-3 that California can no longer ban indoor worship.

What gets me is that not a single person in the entire mainstream news media will point out the fact that there are three Supreme Court justices who voted against stopping a governor, the state if you will, from trashing the First Amendment’s Freedom of Religion clause.

Apparently, the justices were incapable of coming to an agreement on certain other restrictions created against religious gatherings like not allowing singing in church and lowering the lawful capacity of churches during services because the state said they were necessary for public health.  The numbers have come out and COVID-19 has a mortality rate just under that of the flu, and we haven’t banned religious services for the flu.

If the state argued that the virus is more easily transmitted indoors, then why has it been so hell-bent on locking its citizens down in their homes during the pandemic?  Are they arguing that the pandemic virus spreads more easily only inside houses of worship and nowhere else indoors?  Did anyone think to ask that question?

Chief Justice Roberts wrote in his opinion that “federal courts owe significant deference to politically accountable officials with the ‘background, competence, and expertise to assess public health.'”

“The State has concluded, for example, that singing indoors poses a heightened risk of transmitting COVID–19. I see no basis in this record for overriding that aspect of the state public health framework,” Roberts wrote.  “At the same time, the State’s present determination—that the maximum number of adherents who can safely worship in the most cavernous cathedral is zero—appears to reflect not expertise or discretion, but instead insufficient appreciation or consideration of the interests at stake.”

The state didn’t force such draconian restrictions on many other types of businesses, so it came off looking like a bunch of godless socialists wanted to attack houses of worship, because, well, obviously.

Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas excoriated California for having “openly imposed more stringent regulations on religious institutions than on many businesses.”

Gorsuch wrote in his opinion “California singles out religion for worse treatment than many secular activities” evern after the High Court recently made “it abundantly clear that edicts like California’s fail strict scrutiny and violate the Constitution.”

Democrats have not abode by the Constitution for a very long time so they are expected to not adhere to rulings that come down from the Supreme Court that they disagree with.

Gorsuch went further and accused California officials of “playing favorites during a pandemic, expending considerable effort to protect lucrative industries … while denying similar largesse to its faithful.”

Gorsuch concluded, “As this crisis enters its second year— and hovers over a second Lent, a second Passover, and a second Ramadan—it is too late for the State to defend extreme measures with claims of temporary exigency, if it ever could. Drafting narrowly tailored regulations can be difficult. 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.”

I am shocked and stunned that Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) hasn’t already publicly threatened Gorsuch for making a ruling that he doesn’t like.  Oh, wait, he already did that last year.

Remember this?

The Court’s three radical Woke Justices  stephen+breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor sided with the California dictators in full.

Writing the dissenting opinion, Kagan claimed the court’s decision “orders California to weaken its restrictions on public gatherings by making a special exception for worship services.”  Maybe that’s because worship services have a Constitutional guarantee in the First Amendment.  Kagan should read it sometime.

“Justices of this Court are not scientists. Nor do we know much about public health policy. Yet today the Court displaces the judgments of experts about how to respond to a raging pandemic,” Kagan wrote. “Under the Court’s injunction, the State must instead treat worship services like secular activities that pose a much lesser danger. That mandate defies our caselaw, exceeds our judicial role, and risks worsening the pandemic.”

The same argument could be made about Governor Gavin Newsom and his band of legislative marauders.  They are not scientists nor do they know about public health policy.  If they can listen to the “science” then so can six conservatives who sit on the Supreme Court.  Either way Religious Freedom will take the win.

0