Daily Broadside | What Dirt Does the Deep State Have on Amy Coney Barrett?

Some “””conservative.”””

The Supreme Court voted 5–4 vote to allow U.S. Border Patrol agents to remove razor wire that was set up along the U.S.–Mexico border by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, while a legal challenge plays out.

In a brief order, the high court vacated a ruling issued in mid-December 2023 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh voted to deny the application to vacate that lower court injunction, which would have prevented Border Patrol agents from removing the barrier.

Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor, sided with the Biden administration. No one provided an explanation for their vote.

Roberts is completely unreliable and blows with the wind of political opinion. Coney Barrett, hailed as a rock-solid Catholic conservative, is proving to be a huge disappointment and just as unreliable.

With an invasion of massive proportions, she says it’s just dandy for the federal government to remove razor wire barriers to allow foreigners unimpeded access to the country. If we were processing the illegals and deporting them or testing their claims of hardship, that would be one thing, but we’re in the middle of a full on invasion that is being facilitated by the United States governement.

We’re under occupation by a ruling class that has no interest in enforcing the law.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton isn’t giving up yet, promising “that ‘the fight is not over’ after the Supreme Court granted an emergency appeal by the Biden administration to allow Border Patrol agents to resume cutting razor wire set up by Texas at the southern border.”

“The Supreme Court’s temporary order allows Biden to continue his illegal effort to aid the foreign invasion of America,” Paxton said in a statement to Fox News Digital. 

“The destruction of Texas’s border barriers will not help enforce the law or keep American citizens safe,” he said. “This fight is not over, and I look forward to defending our state’s sovereignty.”

Since when is a State not allowed to secure its borders? When is it not allowed to protect its citizens? In what way does “federal” law trump “state” law?

If you recall, the first Civil War got started as a dispute over States’ rights. Could this be the flashpoint that starts a new clash? Citizens have had enough too:

TakeOurBorderBack.com

After what the Deep State has put us through with its lying and destruction of evidence while sentencing ordinary Americans to lengthy jail terms over January 6, I’m surprised and pleased that there are still Americans willing to confront the government. But how much you want to bet that anyone who shows up will be photographed, identified, hunted down, arrested, detained indefinitely and then tried and sentenced for treason and sedition in opposing the government’s will?

Once Trump is the nominee, we have to put aside all bickering and close ranks behind him. If Trump is not elected, we face the destruction of our republic and the banishing if not outright national cleansing of conservatives and Christians. There is no room for error.

Politics has become a brawl. We need a fighter. Trump is our last best hope.

Daily Broadside | A Spot Opens on the Supreme Court and We Already Know Who Will Fill It

Daily Verse | Exodus 23:2
Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong.

Thursday’s Reading: Exodus 25-28

Thursday and the big news is that Brandon will get to appoint a justice to the Supreme Court. Justice Stephen Breyer is stepping down at the end of the current Supreme Court term.

Breyer, who is 83, has been the subject of rampant speculation about his retirement. Liberal activists were calling for the justice to retire soon after Biden was inaugurated. Sources close to Breyer, however, said the justice made the decision on his own terms and was not forced out. 

Breyer is a consistently liberal justice, so any pick by Brandon won’t change the make-up of the court. Observers currently assess the court as 6-3 conservative leaning, although with some of the more recent decisions, you could’ve fooled me (looking at you, Chief Justice Roberts).

Brandon promised to nominate a black woman to the court to secure Rep. Jim Clyburn’s, (D-S.C.), endorsement during the 2020 South Carolina primary.

“In the wake of Justice Breyer’s retirement, I want to voice my support for President Biden in his pledge to nominate the first Black woman to the Supreme Court. The Court should reflect the diversity of our country, and it is unacceptable that we have never in our nation’s history had a Black woman sit on the Supreme Court of the United States,” [Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash.,] said. 

We’re now at that stage in our country’s dissolution when superficial characteristics, like skin tone, are a priority when choosing someone to fill a powerful and enduring role. Like VP (Virtue Pick) Kamala Harris, so this one will be. Rather than focusing on the person’s ability to objectively and impartially interpret the U.S. Constitution, identity politics has taken over and progressives will relentlessly push a radical who will give them what they want that they can’t get otherwise through the legislative process.

In other words, the person won’t earn the position based on merit.

Instead of a political appointment, what we need are ORIGINALISTS who interpret the constitution as it was written, not reading new “rights” into it like Roe v. Wade or Obergefell v. Hodges. Nor do we need picks who simply fulfill some aggrieved constituency’s demands, like Sen. Murray and Rep. Clyburn are demanding.

Speaking of Virtue Picks, Justice Sotomayor just wrote a scathing dissent over S.B. 8, “the six-week ban that allows virtually anyone to sue providers and their ‘abettors.'”

As she did during each previous encounter with S.B. 8, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a seething dissent from her colleagues’ refusal to provide relief. Her latest opinion reaches a new level of bruising, eloquent fury. It also conveys the very strong impression that the Republican-appointed justices are on the brink of overturning Roe outright, and there is nothing she can do but denounce its imminent downfall.

What did the “wise Latina” write?

I dissented in Whole Woman’s Health II because the Court’s dismissal of the most important portions of the petitioners’ claims, beyond being unfaithful to our precedents, left all manner of constitutional rights vulnerable to nullification. I explained that the Court had “clear[ed] the way for States to reprise and perfect Texas’ scheme in the future” in order to target this and other rights with impunity.

Today’s decision shows that any hope that Whole Woman’s Health II might protect the Constitution’s guarantees in this case was illusory. As it turns out, Texas did not even have to amend its law to sidestep the minimal relief this court left available. Instead, Texas wagered that this court did not mean what little it said in Whole Woman’s Health II or, at least, that this Court would not stand behind those words, meager as they were. That bet has paid off. Despite this Court’s protestations over the “extraordinary solicitude” it gave this case and the narrowness of any dispute, it accepts yet another dilatory tactic by Texas. As a result, the District Court will remain powerless to address S. B. 8’s unconstitutional chill on abortion care, likely for months to come.

This case is a disaster for the rule of law and a grave disservice to women in Texas, who have a right to control their own bodies. I will not stand by silently as a state continues to nullify this constitutional guarantee. I dissent. 

That doesn’t sound like a reasoned opinion. It sounds like a tantrum—a tantrum thrown by a liberal.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who is very concerned with the perception of the Supreme Court, once rebuked president Trump when he complained about decisions the court had made. “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them … That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.” He also once said, “We don’t work as Democrats or Republicans.”

That sounds noble and there’s probably some truth to it, but the greater truth is that the justices work as Liberals and Conservatives and sometimes as Swing Votes. Everybody knows it. Every pick is made with an eye on the nominee’s politics and judicial philosophy.

Breyer, 83, has served on the court since 1994, after he was appointed by President Bill Clinton to replace the liberal icon Harry Blackmun. One of the body’s most prominent liberals, Breyer consistently found himself at odds with the court’s conservative majority, and even more so during Donald Trump’s White House tenure after the Senate confirmed Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.

So don’t believe that SCOTUS is an impartial body. They’re not. And the Democrats will nominate as radical a pick as they think they can get through the Senate, with Virtue Pick Kamala Harris being the deciding vote.

If you want a peek at the list of Brandon’s nominees, look what The Babylon Bee found: Exclusive: The Babylon Bee Has Obtained Biden’s List Of Possible SCOTUS Nominees.

Don’t write me letters.