Texas Supreme Court Tosses Out Restraining Order Against Salon Owner

Texas Supreme Court Tosses Out Restraining Order Against Salon Owner

A Dallas salon owner has won a major court victory. Dallas salon owner Shelly Luther, whose stand against a lockdown order made her a national figure of resistance to Big Government, had a court rule that the injunction keeping her from opening was the result of an activist judge meeting an irresistible politically correct case.

The judge also set aside a $7000 fine levied against her for keeping her salon open during a lockdown.

On Friday, the Texas Supreme Court said that the judge who issued a restraining order against Luther was wrong to do so since the court order had no basis in law. In other words, he was just making it up to conform with his ideology.

State District Judge Eric Moyé had banned Luther from operating her salon while under a lockdown order. Luther spent 2 days in jail out of a seven-day sentence before the Supreme Court ordered her freed.

The ruling said:

“We now conclude that the temporary restraining order failed to set forth the conduct required and the legal basis for its issuance in clear, specific and unambiguous terms.”

The ruling said:

“Luther could not know without analyzing a multitude of regulations — state, county, and city emergency orders referenced in the temporary restraining order, plus the federal guidelines they referenced — what conduct was prohibited at any given time the temporary restraining order was in effect.” 

Judger Moye told Luther he would sentence her to jail time unless she admitted that she put her own self interest ahead of the community but she refused to do so. She told the judge:

“I have much respect for this court and laws. I have never been in this position before and it’s not someplace that I want to be. But I have to disagree with you sir, when you say that I’m selfish because feeding my kids — is not selfish.”

“I have hair stylists that are going hungry because they’d rather feed their kids. So sir, if you think the law is more important than kids getting fed, then please go ahead with your decision but I am not going to shut the salon.”

The city of Dallas has sued her and she then countersued the city over the forced closing. The case is to be heard in December but I don’t see how the city can win after the Supreme Court ruling. But I do see how she can win her countersuit. I hope she collects millions.

Harry Reid Warns Democrats Against Packing Supreme Court with Liberal Justices: ‘Be Very, Very Careful’

Harry Reid Warns Democrats Against Packing Supreme Court with Liberal Justices: ‘Be Very, Very Careful’

Former majority Senate Leader Harry Reid is warning Democrats about packing the Supreme Court with liberal judges. Reid knows of whence he speaks. Under his watch, he did away with the filibuster on judges that made it possible for Trump to appoint three justices to the court. Packing the court or ending the filibuster would have dire consequences once Republicans have control of the government again.

Reid made his comments just one day after Biden announced a commission into looking at packing the court. Reid told CNN that if Democrats pack the Supreme Court it would backfire on them with consequences they do not want to face in the future.

In fact, Reid warned them about even making threats on packing the court because voters would see this as politicizing the Supreme Court.

Reid said:

“I have no problem with the commission, but I think that the commission is going to come back and disappoint a lot of people because I think they’re going to come back and say, ‘We should just kind of leave it alone.'” 

“I think it would be inappropriate at this time after that long history we’ve had in the country to have term limits for judges.” 

“I think that we better be very, very careful in saying that we need to expand the Supreme Court. I think we better be very, very, careful.” 

The Democrats began lobbying for court-packing after President Trump was able to appoint a justice to replace Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who went from hero to goat for not retiring during the Obama administration.

From The Blaze

The White House said in a statement:

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 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 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.

14 States Ask Supreme Court to Let Them Defend Immigrant Self-Sufficiency Rule

14 States Ask Supreme Court to Let Them Defend Immigrant Self-Sufficiency Rule

Fourteen states ask the Supreme Court to allow them to defend the immigrant self-sufficiency rule.

The self-sufficiency rule is very simple. Anyone who comes to this country must be able to prove that they can support themselves and not be a burden to the state and federal government.

In other words, they cannot expect to come here and have Americans provide them with everything they need to live.

This is a problem for the states especially when it comes to [programs with a finite amount of money to spend such as HUD grants for low-wage earners. There are only so many grants to go around so every time an illegal alien or a legal immigrant is given a grant, one American that qualifies does not get theirs.

States such as Texas where Biden is dumping huge numbers of illegals in an effort to turn those states blue are burdened by the poor granted entrance to this country.

The fourteen states who are asking SCOTUS for relief include Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and West Virginia.

Some public charge rules date back a hundred years before the United States was a country.

Immigration was never meant to be a welfare program and the United States used to require that you have a sponsor who agrees to cover the costs if the immigrants can’t.

The application states:

“In particular, the States have important interests in conserving their Medicaid and related social-welfare budgets. Providing for the healthcare needs of economically disadvantaged individuals represents a substantial portion of the States’ budgets. For example, in Texas in 2020, over 4 million Texans relied on Medicaid.”

From The Epoch Times

On March 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit lifted its stay of the U.S. District Court’s Nov. 2, 2020, decision vacating the public charge rule nationwide, a move that allowed the district court’s invalidation of the rule to take effect.

As a result of the ruling, on March 9, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) stopped enforcing the rule. Before that, on Feb. 2, President Joe Biden had indicated he was considering abandoning the rule. On that day, he issued Executive Order 14012, which directed government officials to review the rule.

On Feb. 22, the Supreme Court had agreed to hear the federal government’s appeal of a lower court decision against the rule in the case of U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) v. New York, court file 20-449, which began when Donald Trump was president.

Justice Clarence Thomas Shines a Light on the Shocking Failure By Supreme Court

Justice Clarence Thomas Shines a Light on the Shocking Failure By Supreme Court

SCOTUS, in a long string of abuses against the American people, refusing to address historical violations in numerous state’s constitutional laws to change voting law right before the 2020 Presidential election, has refused again to hear the merits of election cases.

“The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision violated the Constitution” – Clarence Thomas, who dissented. 

The lawsuit to hear about ballots unconstitutionally accepted after the Election Day deadline was rejected as “moot.”

“The justices on Monday declined to take up cases challenging a Pennsylvania state court decision that extended the ballot-receipt deadline in last November’s election by three days due to the coronavirus pandemic,” reported Politico.

In dissent were Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito on the matter of hearing the case.

COMPLETE SHAME ON THE COURT

The highly anticipated Trump-appointed justices turned judicial activists for the Marxist left: Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh dodged. The liberal disappointment Chief Justice Roberts once again refused to make his job rule on an important legal matter.

The most steady conservative over decades of service was Justice Clarence Thomas, an American hero.

His dissent was firey.

clarence-thomass-dissent

Elections are “of the most fundamental significance under our constitutional structure.” Through them, we exercise self-government. But elections enable self-governance only when they include processes that “giv[e] citizens (including the losing candidates and their supporters) confidence in the fairness of the election.”

“Not only did parties on both sides agree that the issue warranted certiorari, but there also was no question that petitioners faced irreparable harm.  Petitioners further established a fair prospect of certiorari and reversal. For more than a century, this Court has recognized that the Constitution “operat[es] as a limitation upon the State in respect of any attempt to circumscribe the legislative power” to regulate federal elections. McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 25 (1892).

Because the Federal Constitution, not state constitutions, gives state legislatures authority to regulate federal elections, petitioners presented a strong argument that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision violated the Constitution by overriding “the clearly expressed intent of the legislature.”  But by that time, election day was just over a week away. So we denied
the motion to expedite even though the question was of “national importance” and there was a “strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution.”

Republican Party of Pa. v. Boockvar, ante, at 3 (statement of ALITO, J.).
II
Now that the petitions are before us under the normal briefing schedule, I see no reason to avoid them. Indeed, the day after we denied the petitioner’s motion to expedite in No. 20–542, the case became even more worthy of review.

4 REPUBLICAN PARTY OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DEGRAFFENREID THOMAS, J., dissenting

This divide on an issue of undisputed importance would justify certiorari in almost any case. That these cases concern federal elections only further heightens the need for review.

“Justice Thomas shared the truth today when he wrote, “By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us,” one Twitter poster reported.

Supreme Court Set to Consider High-Profile Election Lawsuits This Week

Supreme Court Set to Consider High-Profile Election Lawsuits This Week

The Supreme Court will hear five cases in reference to voting irregularities and broken state laws.

They will hear cases brought by Sidney and Lin Wood on Michigan and Georgia. One case brought by Rep Mike Kelly, and two lawsuits filed in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania by former President Donald Trump’s campaign. The cases will be heard and the court will decide whether or no0t to consider the cases.

If any of the cases are heard in the main session, they will be heard and decided in October. My guess is that no matter what the courts decide, it will not change the election results. But, it could change the way elections are run if the court reestablishes that only state legislatures can decide how elections are run in their state.

This would stop governors, SOSs, and AGs from unilaterally setting election laws like was done in 2020.

The main sticking point could be mail-in voting because no swing state has proof of the chain of custody of the votes or signature matching. This could allow a large number of manufactured votes to be accepted by people like Mickey Mouse and Babe Ruth. There is also the issue of out of state voting and voting by illegal aliens. The Supreme Court under the direction of John Roberts has not been praised for its courage.

The court challenge was originally asked to be moved up on the calendar before inauguration day which leads me to believe that they will do much in the way of securing the vote. If nothing is done at all, then you can write of the Supreme Court as an arbiter of the constitution. And if that happens it’s just a matter of time before the entire country collapses.

From The Blaze

Now, all of the cases mentioned above are scheduled for a conference taking place this Friday, February 19, according to records on the Supreme Court’s website.

In nearly every plea, attorneys backing Trump’s election challenges insisted their cases be heard prior to President Joe Biden’s inauguration on Jan. 20, or else their success would be unlikely, the Washington Examiner reported. However, even now that Biden’s inauguration has come and gone, the lawsuits have not been withdrawn.

“Our legal issue remains important and in need of the court’s review,” Trump lawyer John Eastman told the Examiner in reference to Pennsylvania’s handling of the 2020 election. Kelly’s lawyer Greg Teufel added that he has no plans to drop the lawsuit.

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.

US Supreme Court Schedules Pennsylvania Election Case, Sidney Powell’s Michigan Case and Lin Wood’s Georgia Case for Feb 19 Conference

US Supreme Court Schedules Pennsylvania Election Case, Sidney Powell’s Michigan Case and Lin Wood’s Georgia Case for Feb 19 Conference

The Supreme Court has scheduled three voter fraud cases to be heard on February 19th. The three cases all revolve around increased mail-in balloting.

The cases involve Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia. The Pennsylvania case was brought by Rep Mike Kelly.

The Georgia case was brought by Lin Wood and Michigan is a case from Sidney Powell. But, even if they win all three it is not going to change anything. Biden will still be president.

President Trump had predicted that the election would be decided by fraud if enhanced mail-in balloting was used. 

In Michigan, it could include the fact that ballots were received over three hours aft6er the time limit. There is now definitive proof of that fact after the Gateway Pundit released a video of the delivery.

Even though they won’t change the election results, these cases are important. That is because it can prevent this type of behavior during future elections. Otherwise, we are talking about perpetual cheating and a one party rule.

The most important thing that could come out of this is the Supreme Court ruling that only state legislatures can set election rules and not crooked SOSs such as Brad Raffensperger.

True, blue states can just pass the mail-in ballot through the legislature but Republicans are never going to win in California or New York, so that won’t matter. But criminals within the Republican party can’t put the fix in like was done in Georgia. No changing of the rules just because the candidate does not go along with establishment politicians.

Georgia has voter ID laws that were circumvented by Brian Kemp and Raffensperger.

From The Gateway Pundit

The Washington Examiner reported:

The Supreme Court on Friday listed several high-profile election lawsuits for consideration at its mid-February conference.

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.

But after the court pushed them off, many lawyers said that the challenges were still important and could have long-term implications for election fairness. Trump lawyer John Eastman told the Washington Examiner that even with Trump out of office, it was important to settle the issues raised by expanded mail-in voting.

Judicial Watch Asks Supreme Court to Uphold Court Ruling Requiring Hillary Clinton to Testify Under Oath About Her Emails

Judicial Watch Asks Supreme Court to Uphold Court Ruling Requiring Hillary Clinton to Testify Under Oath About Her Emails

Judicial Watch (JW) is heading to the Supreme Court over Hilary Clinton testifying under oath over her illegal server and the Benghazi attacks.

A federal judge ordered Clinton to do the deposition but  D.C. Appeals Court set aside the decision.

JW is not discouraged, they are taking the case to the Supreme Court. They want them to set aside the ruling of the D.C. court. Clinton is fighting them tooth and nail.

Judicial Watch has been able to get more information from the government that even Congress couldn’t get.

Their persistence pays off and the documents that they have uncovered have been considerable. But perhaps a release of information in about 80 days could be the topper.

That’s when the FBI must turn over all of their documents on Seth Rich.

For the longest time, the FBI claimed they never investigated the death of Rich or examined his computer.

Judicial Watch refuses to back down and is now taking the fight to the US Supreme Court:

Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a petition for writ of certiorari (“cert petition”) with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to take up its challenge to an appeals court order exempting Hillary Clinton from testifying under oath about her emails.

Judicial Watch argues the court should hear its case because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit erred in giving Clinton unwarranted special treatment that conflicts both with Supreme Court precedent and the precedents of other courts of appeal, including its own.

In effect, it eliminates any discovery into the actions of agency officials or employees other than FOIA officers – walling off from any inquiry officials or employees who may be less than honest with FOIA officers or who might seek to conceal agency records from FOIA officers to prevent disclosure to the public, among other matters plainly relevant to an agency’s good faith in responding to FOIA requests.

Judicial Watch is making the case that no judge or court has the jurisdiction to undermine the Freedom of Information Act and that Hillary is not above the law.

But they are wrong. The Clintons have been above the law their entire political lives.

0