Tag Archives: scotus

by

The Broadside | Mushhead Wants to Control the Supreme Court in Order to Save Democracy

Keeping it short this morning.

Failed career politician Joseph Robinette Biden, the first sitting president seeking re-election to withdraw from a presidential election, has decided that even though he’s incompetent to serve another term, he’s competent enough to demand changes to the Supreme Court, including term limits.

President Biden on Monday came to the LBJ Presidential Library to deliver a sweeping indictment of the U.S. Supreme Court, calling its rulings “dangerous,” its ethics code “weak” and its practices in desperate need of reform.

Biden, a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee who oversaw numerous confirmation battles, said the court has become unmoored from its traditional role. “We live in a different era,” he said during a 25-minute address in an auditorium filled with hundreds of people. “In recent years, extreme opinions the Supreme Court has handed down have undermined long-established civil rights principles and protections.”

What he says “extreme opinions” he means decisions that go against the commie Democrats’ evil inclinations to tear down Western civilization and finish fundamentally transforming the United States of America.

Biden had long resisted calls to reform the Supreme Court, and the announcement Monday marked a major shift in his posture. After the addition of three justices nominated by Trump, the court has veered sharply to the right — overturning Roe v. Wade, ending affirmative action in college admissions and weakening federal agencies’ power by overturning a 40-year decision. The conservative majority also invalidated Biden’s student-loan forgiveness program.

Roe v. Wade was written as law, not as a judicial opinion. Most legal experts agreed that it was a terrible decision. Affirmative action gave preference to minorities in a policy that was essentially reverse discrimination. Federal agencies were never meant to have the power they have, making rules that have the effect of federal law, a power reserved to Congress alone. And Biden doesn’t have the authority to forgive student loan debt.

So, yeah, Democrats are ticked because their extra-constitutional lawmaking is being rebuked.

Only one line in the WaPo article rang true: “Conservatives argue that proposals like Biden’s stem from a dislike of the court’s recent rulings, not a genuine desire for reform.”

Bingo.

If Resident Brandon wants to accomplish his attempts to interfere with the Supreme Court, he’ll have to do it with a constitutional amendment. As Ace says, SCOTUS is “an independent branch of government which is co-equal to both the Congress and the executive and therefore answers to neither.”

In my view, this is the first step in a psyop, plowing the ground among the radical progressives to get the seeds planted. What Brandon wants won’t happen, not now, but that won’t stop the anti-American Left from agitating for it.

by

The Broadside | Supreme Court Rules Trump Partly Immune To Prosecution; Dems Cry Moar

You may have noticed that I changed the title of my post from “Daily” Broadside to “The Broadside.” It’s apparent to me that as much as I want this to be a daily, it’s been a challenge over the last couple of years to figure out the right mix of priorities in life to make it happen, not to mention the unexpected circumstances that sometimes frustrate my intentions.

So I’m conceding to the reality that I can’t easily make it a daily post and relieving myself (and you) of the expectations the title promised. The change gives me the cover to write as often as I can and when I miss—well, it’s not promising to be daily now, is it?

The best news yesterday was that SCOTUS ruled that U.S. presidents have blanket immunity that covers their “core” acts; their “official” acts may or may not be covered; and “unofficial” acts, have no immunity.

From Ace who knows a whole lot more about this than I do:

The Supreme Court did what many expected it would do: It recognized that presidential immunity exists, but only for certain official actions taken by the president.

First of all, the Court notes that previous decisions have held there is no presidential immunity when it comes to subpoenas for evidence. But the Court rules that these precedents are limited to the case of subpeonaeing records, and do not rule out immunity to criminal prosecution.

It broke the scheme of presidential acts into three categories:

“Core” official acts, which I assume are presidential actions taken in furtherance of the president’s specified duties in the Constitution. So a President could never be prosecuted for conducting foreign policy or directing the military.

“Official” acts, which may or may not qualify for immunity. Which acts are “official” and which of those “official” acts will qualify for immunity has to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Finally, “unofficial” acts are those that the president undertakes not in furtherance of a presidential power, but only in his capacity as an individual. These never qualify for immunity.

So what this does is puts it back to the lower court to determine what sort of “acts” Trump is being prosecuted for. Were they “Core” acts? “Official” acts? “Unofficial” or personal acts? And how will such acts be defined?

In any case, this will likely push the window for prosecuting Trump past the November election; it certainly stops Jack Smith’s case dead in its tracks.

The usual suspects were pulling out all stops, including Schmuck Chumer.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) criticized the “MAGA SCOTUS” on Monday after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of former President Donald Trump in his case against January 6th prosecutors.

Former President Donald Trump is facing charges in Washington, D.C., filed by Special Counsel Jack Smith concerning his actions on January 6, 2021, when rioters stormed the Capitol. Trump contends that he is immune from prosecution for his official duties.

As previously reported, the Court ruled that presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts but not for unofficial acts. The case has been sent back to the trial court to determine the distinction between the two.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer led Democrats in expressing outrage over the 6-3 decision, in which the conservative majority was led by Chief Justice John Roberts. In a post on X (formerly Twitter), Schumer blamed the three justices appointed by Trump.

Cry moar, Schmuck.

by - 1 Comment

Daily Broadside | Texas Can Arrest Illegals But Illinois Judge Rules Illegals Can Carry Guns

Sorry I missed yesterday. Went to bed early with a headache.

Tuesday was Illinois’ primary voting day, so the missus and I carried out our civic duty. I was disappointed in the turnout … our voting precinct location was super quiet around 5:30 PM. I suppose there could have been more voters that came after work, but there was no line, no wait while we were there.

Empty.

I guess if the result is a foregone conclusion, voters aren’t motivated to show up. I vote as a matter of principle. Exercise your right to vote, just like you exercise your muscles.

Two really interesting developments concerning illegal aliens flooding our country. First, the US Supreme Court rescinded its stay on a Texas law that provides for the arrest and deportation of illegal aliens.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday lifted its freeze of a Texas immigration law which allows state and local law enforcement to arrest illegal immigrants and empowers state judges to deport them.

The Court’s six conservative justices dismissed the Biden administration’s emergency appeal, allowing the law to remain in effect while the issue is adjudicated by lower courts. The majority did not explain its reasoning, as is typical, but Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, issued a concurring opinion explaining that Texas should be allowed to enforce its law until a lower court definitively strikes it down.

Note that the case has not been decided yet. This ruling was about whether the Texas law can continue to operate while the case is decided. It can, which means that Texas will begin to enforce its new law against illegal immigration.

Good.

Second, an astonishing ruling from a federal judge appointed by Obammy in (*ahem*) Illinois gives illegal immigrants the right to carry guns. I repeat: foreigners who are in this country illegally, who have no business being here, are allowed to carry.

A federal judge in Illinois has found that the Constitution protects the gun rights of noncitizens who enter the United States illegally.

U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman on Friday ruled that a federal prohibition on illegal immigrants owning firearms is unconstitutional as applied to defendant Heriberto Carbajal-Flores. The court found that while the federal ban is “facially constitutional,” there is no historical tradition of firearm regulation that permits the government to deprive a noncitizen who has never been convicted of a violent crime from exercising his Second Amendment rights.

“The noncitizen possession statute … violates the Second Amendment as applied to Carbajal-Flores,” the judge wrote. “Thus, the Court grants Carbajal-Flores’ motion to dismiss.”

Coleman, a President Obama appointee, cited the landmark Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), which established a new standard to determine whether a law violates the Second Amendment. Since Bruen, a multitude of federal and state gun control measures have been challenged in courts with mixed results. 

The “new standard” referred to is that the government must show that each regulation “is consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” This gets a little complicated, because there is federal law that prohibits noncitizens who are illegally here from possessing a firearm.

Carbajal-Flores is an illegal immigrant who, on June 1, 2020, was found to be in possession of a handgun in the Little Village neighborhood of Chicago. He was subsequently charged with violating a federal law that prohibits any noncitizen who is not legally authorized to be in the U.S. from “possess[ing] in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.” 

In an April 2022 decision, Coleman denied Carbajal-Flores’ first motion to dismiss his indictment, finding that the ban was constitutional. However, Carbajal-Flores asked the court to reconsider that ruling following the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen and appellate decisions in the Third and Seventh circuits that considered whether people convicted of nonviolent crimes can be prohibited from possessing firearms.

Basically, the foreigner here illegally is challenging what he and his lawyers consider a conflict between the federal law prohibiting possession of a gun, and the “new standard” that SCOTUS created to determine whether a law violates the Second Amendment.

I am not a lawyer and I don’t play one on TV, so while this decision makes no sense to me on the surface, there are likely legal subtleties that are playing out under the surface.

For instance, how is someone who is violating our law with their very presence here somehow covered by the US Constitution, which was written by and for US citizens?

If illegals can carry guns, what does that mean for the 10 million illegals that have poured over our southern border over the last three years of the treacherous Brandon administration?

The article didn’t say whether Carbajal-Flores had concealed-carry license. If he didn’t, why do Illinois citizens have to have one? If he did, how did he get one if he’s an illegal alien?

From my go-to newspaper, The Epoch Times:

The ruling drew a range of reactions from people in the legal community.

“Supreme Court has said the ‘people’ are members of the political community,” Larry Keane, a lawyer for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, wrote on X. “Illegal aliens in US are not part of the political community and thus do not have 2A rights.”

Kostas Moros, a lawyer who represents the California Rifle and Pistol Association, said that he also saw the issue that way.

“Bruen asks for a historical tradition of modern regulation that justifies the modern law, and one plainly exists here,” he wrote, noting that groups that have been disarmed in the past, including loyalists, have the common thread of being “outside of the political community.”

What gobsmacks me is that the judge considers the new standard to overrule the clear language of the federal law prohibiting possession by illegals. We have a group of activist judges who are making novel rulings that violate the letter and the spirit of the law.

This ruling is particularly troubling because of news like this:

The leader of a notorious street gang that has been terrorizing business owners and residents in Colombia’s capital was arrested earlier this week in Texas, where he was seeking asylum.

Venezuelan national Aderbiss Pirela was taken into custody by federal and local agents in New Braunfels, outside San Antonio, on Tuesday, Homeland Securities Investigations confirmed Wednesday. 

Pirela, according to Colombian authorities, is the second-in-command of ‘Los Satanás,’ and was one of the seven most wanted murderers in Bogotá. 

My recommendation is that you haven’t yet, arm yourself and buy ammo—lots of ammo.

And don’t forget that the muttonhead and his cabal in the White House are the ones who have done this to us.

by - 1 Comment

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.

by - 1 Comment

Daily Broadside | But Muh Democracy! Colorado Supreme Court Rules Trump Ineligible To Be on Ballot For Inciting “Insurrection”

Amazeballs.

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that former President Donald Trump is ineligible to appear on the state’s primary ballot.

However, the court stayed its ruling until Jan. 4, 2024, “pending any review by the U.S. Supreme Court.”

If the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to review the issue by Jan. 4, the Colorado Secretary of State will be required to continued to include President Trump on the primary ballot. Otherwise, he will be removed from the primary ballot.

The hysterical and criminal Democrats are using lawfare any way they can to kneecap Trump in his quest to retake the White House in 2024, after stealing “fortifying” the 2020 election.

“We conclude that because President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Secretary to list President Trump as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot,” reads the majority opinion.

“Section Three” of the 14th Amendment reads,

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The Colorado Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, has disqualified Trump for something he hasn’t been charaged, tried or convicted for. They’ve just decided that he engaged in “insurrection” and have ruled that he can’t be on the Colorado ballot.

Trump responded with his usual biting tone:

Trump Campaign Spokesman Steven Cheung wrote in a statement that an appeal would be filed on Tuesday night.

“Unsurprisingly, the all-Democrat appointed Colorado Supreme Court has ruled against President Trump, supporting a Soros-funded, left-wing group’s scheme to interfere in an election on behalf of Crooked Joe Biden by removing President Trump’s name from the ballot and eliminating the rights of Colorado voters to vote for the candidate of their choice. Democrat Party leaders are in a state of paranoia over the growing, dominant lead President Trump has amassed in the polls. They have lost faith in the failed Biden presidency and are now doing everything they can to stop the American voters from throwing them out of office next November,” Cheung wrote.

“The Colorado Supreme Court issued a completely flawed decision tonight and we will swiftly file an appeal to the United States Supreme Court and a concurrent request for a stay of this deeply undemocratic decision. We have full confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court will quickly rule in our favor and finally put an end to these unAmerican lawsuits,” he added.

This is an escalation of the war on Trump, on his MAGA supporters and on conservatives everywhere. I’ve said before, many times, that the trajectory we’re on will lead to a civil war, and the Left seems to be actively trying to start one.

All seven of the Colorado Supreme Court justices were appointed by Democrats, so one can’t plausibly argue that it was a partisan decision. Further, the Justices recognized that their judgement would be appealed, so they stayed their decision until January 4, 2024 to see what the U.S. Supreme Court says.

I’m sure the majority weren’t influenced at all by their personal ideology. Not a whit!

It’s unlikely that Trump not being on the ballot would change the outcome of the election, since Brandon won Colorado by 13.5 points in 2020. It’s more the seriousness of the ruling, which is novel interpretation of Section Three, orignally written to keep former Confederate soldiers out of the government.

But there’s this:

Similar challenges have been heard or are pending in half the states across the nation, and state courts have thus far ruled that they do not have the jurisdiction to interpret and apply Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for a presidential primary.

Those states that still have pending disqualification lawsuits relating to Trump’s appearance on the ballot include Texas, Nevada and Wisconsin, and you can bet they will be watching how this plays out. It’s all going to boil down to defining an “insurrection” and whether Trump is guilty of engaging in one.

by

Daily Broadside | SCOTUS Rulings Offer Mixed Bag of Results

Last day of June and we’ve completed half of 2023. About 18 months left for the sock puppet in the White House to finish off America. Unless he’s re-elected, you understand. And by “re-elected,” I mean “re-installed.” Nobody in their right mind would vote for the Resident again. And those who would vote for him again only make my point.

The Supreme Court of the United States is issuing its decisions this week, a couple of which have substantial implications for our life together as citizens. The first was a 6-3 decision in the case of Moore v. Harper which examined who has the power to set elections rules.

In a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that limited state courts’ ability to wrest control of elections law from state legislatures in a North Carolina redistricting case. The ruling does not, however, entirely stymie activist attempts to use courts to override elected legislators’ decisions about election law.

In Tuesday’s Moore v. Harper decision, SCOTUS held that the U.S. Constitution’s elections clause “does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections.” But it also failed to defend state legislatures’ constitutional right to control elections law, including redistricting, as shielded from court review.

In essence, SCOTUS ruled that state legislatures do not control policies around federal elections in spite of the clear language of the Constitution. Constitutional lawyer Mark Levin was apoplectic.

“[Republican Justices] Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett are truly pathetic,” a frustrated Levin tweeted. He added two long tweets arguing that the SCOTUS decision undermined the Constitution of our besieged republic. The decision seems to be in direct conflict with Article 1, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing [sic] Senators.

Only the states and Congress can regulate elections, according to the Constitution. But not according to SCOTUS.

Levin called out the Supreme Court for flouting the Constitution. “So, now the Framers’ and ratifiers’ clear language in the Constitution about state legislatures (not state governors or state courts) having the final say on electoral matters is the interpretation of right-wing kooks,” he asked sarcastically. Only Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito dissented from the majority opinion. So much for the “conservative” Supreme Court.

”[T]he Supreme Court just ruled that those who wrote the Constitution, adopted it, and ratified it really didn’t mean for final authority to rest with the state legislatures,” Levin explained. “They [supposedly] intended absolutely nothing by that language.  The lawlessness continues, and the Court has opened even further the interference in our elections by activist bureaucrats and courts, and the controversy that will continue to ensue, for as long as this unraveling republic exists.”

Given the 2024 election, this is a terrible decision. Poorly decided with especially poor timing.

The second significant decision is that in a 6-3 decision, SCOTUS outlawed affirmative action, which began under President Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s.

The Supreme Court has ruled that it is unlawful for colleges and universities to use race as a factor in admissions, overturning rulings from as far back as 1978 that claimed institutions of higher education had a valid interest in promoting racial diversity on campus and could thus give favorable consideration to black and Latino applicants in their admissions process.

Two separate decisions were reached in which the nation’s highest court ruled that Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill engaged in unlawful discriminatory practices based on race that violated the Constitution. “[T]he Harvard and UNC admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause,” the opinion read. “Both programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points. We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today.”

All the liberal justices dissented, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts joined with the conservative court members, writing for the majority. 

From where I sit, this is a long-needed decision. Affirmative action policies used in college admissions — let’s just call them what they are: quotas — violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. But because progressives live and die by the myth that institutionalized racism is still a thing, they believe minorities can’t succeed on merit alone and need the state to step in to give them a hand up.

Maybe 50 years ago there was a need for affirmative action, but affirmative action at its core is unfair and discriminatory. How many qualified students, ie., based on merit, were rejected from schools they wanted to attend because of an affirmative action admission that was based not on merit, but on the color of the student’s skin?

Equality, not equity.

This principle holds true in God’s kingdom, too. No one gets into heaven based on the color of their skin. God doesn’t look at the masses in heaven and say, “there’s not enough diversity here. I need some affirmative action policies.” No, we all, no matter tribe, nation, color or creed, are saved only by the merit of Jesus Christ.

No exceptions.

Have a good weekend.

by

Daily Broadside | Oh Noes! AOC And Illy Omar Are Arrested And (Not) Taken Away in Handcuffs!

Daily Verse | Ecclesiastes 4:4
And I saw that all labor and all achievement spring from man’s envy of his neighbor.

Wednesday’s Reading: Ecclesiastes 7-12

It’s Wednesday and if you’ve been reading my posts long enough you’ll know that I believe that the Democrats lie as naturally as breathing. Of them it could be said, like Jesus said of the devil, “When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44).

I know that sounds uncharitable, but I’ve long documented the lies that Democrats and progressives tell, so don’t shush me by complaining that not all Democrats lie or that some conservatives and Republicans lie. Yes, they do. But that doesn’t change the fact that the Democrats and their progressive shock troops lie like a rug.

Trump is a Russian agent! If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor! Those border agents whipped those migrants! We only have <insert preferred number> years to save the planet!

And on and on it goes.

The latest example is of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar being arrested for blocking traffic outside the Supreme Court while protesting the recent Roe v. Wade decision. It’s not a lie that they were arrested, but it is a lie that either one of them were handcuffed.

But they posed as if they were handcuffed while being arrested.

Nobody walks like she was walking with their hands behind their back if they aren’t handcuffed. It’s unnatural. Yet notice that at the end of the clip she raises her fist to acknowledge the crowd and then puts it right back where it was behind her.

Then there’s Ilhan Omar who apparently arrested herself.

Omar gets up from where she was sitting and, without a police escort, she walks herself away with her hands behind her back in imaginary cuffs.

Note that, just like AOC, she also raises her fist (just as the clip ends).

AOC and Omar lied about being handcuffed.

Why? For the photo op, of course. And the legacy media gives them exactly what they want. Notice the text of the tweet above: “under arrest and in handcuffs.”

No, they weren’t.

But that doesn’t stop the MSM from complying. Note the images below.

It sure LOOKS like they’re in handcuffs. How stunning! How brave!

The media—that independent, free press that is supposed to keep the government in check—supports them in their deceit. They don’t call them out for their acting. They’re in cahoots with the Dems.

These two women are lying, giving the false impression that they are in handcuffs, when in fact neither of them are. But this is stock-in-trade for Democrats. It’s all smoke and mirrors, deception and misdirection, a stunt, a little drama. They are agitators and for them, the ends justifies the means.

Just like the rest of their miserable tribe.

This is a perfect example of why nobody trusts the media, and why nobody should trust the Democrats.

by

Daily Broadside | Shocker: Man Tries to Kill Justice Kavanaugh Because He Was Upset Over the Leaked Draft Opinion on Roe v. Wade

Daily Verse | Job 42:2
“I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted.”

Thursday’s Reading: Psalms 1-6

Happy Thursday and let’s jump right into the anarchy that the anti-American progressive Marxist true believers, including Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff, AOC, Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger and other RINOs, have unleashed on our country.

The armed California man arrested near the Maryland home of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh Wednesday morning has been identified as Nicholas John Roske, law enforcement sources tell Fox News.

Roske of Simi Valley, California, was carrying a gun, knife and pepper spray when arrested and had made violent threats against Kavanaugh, sources said. Roske was picked up on a nearby street after calling police on 911 to report himself.

A criminal complaint obtained by Fox News shows that Roske is being charged with attempting to murder a United States Supreme Court Justice. He is scheduled to have a first appearance in federal court in Maryland Wednesday afternoon.

He told officers that he wanted “to give his life purpose” and purchased the gun and other items for the purpose of breaking into Kavanaugh’s home and killing the justice and then himself. Roske admitted in a second interview with the FBI of his intent to kill Kavanaugh and himself, according to an affidavit in support of the criminal complaint.

Roske told detectives that “he was upset about the leak of a recent Supreme Court draft decision regarding the right to an abortion as well as the recent school shooting in Uvalde, Texas,” and believed Kavanaugh “would side with Second Amendment decisions that would loosen gun control laws,” according to the affidavit.

The guy reported himself. What if he hadn’t?

The White House responded with a statement on behalf of the Resident.

White House spokesperson Andrew Bates said in a statement that Joe Biden “condemns the actions of this individual in the strongest terms” and that he’s “grateful to law enforcement” for quickly taking the suspect into custody.

“As the President has consistently made clear, public officials—including judges—must be able to do their jobs without concern for their personal safety or that of their families,” Bates said in the statement. “And any violence, threats of violence, or attempts to intimidate justices have no place in our society.”

Pfffft. I’m old enough to remember this attempt “to intimidate justices” over abortion:

And this attempt to intimidate members of Trump’s cabinet:

And this bit of wisdom from the Loser:

“You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about,” Clinton declared in a recent CNN interview. When and if Democrats assume power in Congress, she said, “that’s when civility can start again.” Members of the American left agreed; those on the American right did not. 

The Democrats are the ones calling for violence. It’s the progressives who rant and rave, who agitate, who act violently, who have fire-bombed pro-life clinics. The violence is coming from the Left, not the Right.

I wonder if Roske was on Merrick Garland’s list of domestic terrorists?

After the leak of the draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, the Senate introduced and passed the Supreme Court Police Parity Act, by unanimous consent. It’s now stalled in the Democrat-controlled House where they’re hoping one of the conservative justices will be assassinated so that they can quickly replace him or her with a trans-woman-of-color.

Following news of the arrest, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell urged Democrats to pass the Supreme Court security bill.

“House Democrats must pass this bill and they need to do it today. No more fiddling around with this, they need to pass it today … before the sun sets,” he said on the Senate floor.

Roske was arrested and was found with an arsenal on him.

A black tactical chest rig and tactical knife, Glock 17 pistol with two magazines and ammunition, pepper spray, zip ties, a hammer, screwdriver, nail punch, crowbar, pistol light, duct tape, hiking boots with padding on the outside of the soles, and other items were found in his suitcase and backpack.

He apparently was planning to murder Justice Kavanaugh, then kill himself. Instead, he was arrested and charged with attempted murder.

Chief Justice Roberts is partly culpable for this turn of events. Writes Josh Blackman:

Every day that goes by, and Dobbs remains undecided, is a day that the lives of the Justices and their families are at risk. Immediately after the leak, I wrote that the Court should issue a one-sentence per curiam opinion, with a reasoned decision to follow–follow the path of Ex Parte Quirin. Lurking in the back of mind was the risk that a Justice could be assassinated. Now, that risk looks so much more real …

… Why is there a delay? So Roberts can take yet another ill-fated attempt to pick off one or two votes? A real leader would have put aside his quixotical quest for balance. Every day that passes, as the Chief haggles over votes, a target remains on the backs of his colleagues.

The Dobbs 5 should immediately issue an unsigned per curiam order, with an opinion to follow, even over the Chief Justice’s objection. The Justices should send a clear and unequivocal message that they will not be intimidated by these acts of violence.

This is where the progressive Left has brought us: conspiracies, mob tactics, intimidation, and near-assassination attempts. That’s how they intend to get the outcomes they want. Not through the democratic process, but through force.

God help us.

by

Daily Broadside | Local Attorney in Virginia Refuses to Prosecute Pro-Abortion Protesters

Daily Verse | Ezra 3:12
But many of the older priests and Levites and family heads, who had seen the former temple, wept aloud when they saw the foundation of this temple being laid, while many others shouted for joy.

Wednesday’s Reading: Ezra 4-6

Wednesday and I’ve mentioned this before, but one of my go-to news sources is The Epoch Times. They describe themselves as “founded in the United States in the year 2000 in response to communist repression and censorship in China. Our founders, Chinese-Americans who themselves had fled communism, sought to create an independent media to bring the world uncensored and truthful information.”

And while they still have a focus on China, they also cover news across the U.S. in a professional and objective approach. I have a paid subscription and highly recommend them.

Also, I was not paid for that endorsement.

I give them a nod because I’m highlighting an exclusive report they published yesterday that I found encouraging.

Virginia’s attorney general is calling on prosecutors to enforce a law that bars disruptions outside people’s homes after about 100 hundred protesters descended on the residence of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.

At issue is Virginia code that forbids gathering outside a person’s house “in a manner which disrupts or threatens to disrupt any individual’s right to tranquility in his home.”

The law “states that protesting in front of an individual’s private residence is a class 3 misdemeanor,” Victoria LaCivita, a spokeswoman for Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares, told The Epoch Times in an email.

“Under Virginia law, local commonwealth’s attorneys are responsible for prosecuting violations of this statute. Attorney General Miyares urges every commonwealth’s attorney to put their personal politics aside and enforce the law,” she added.

The call comes after a noisy protest outside Alito’s home in Alexandria on May 9. Protesters shouted through loudspeakers and chanted “[expletive] Alito.”

You may remember that in 2021, Virginia businessman and political novice Glenn Youngkin beat former Governor Terry McAuliffe (D-Woke) in the gubernatorial election and Republican Jason Miyares beat incumbent attorney general Mark Herring, becoming the first elected Cuban American and Hispanic attorney general of Virginia. Their elections, along with the election of Republican Winsome Sears as lieutenant governor (becoming the first woman, the first woman of color, and the first Jamaican American elected to the post), electrified the nation as conservative Virginians pushed back—hard—on the efforts of the woke mob to corrupt our children in public schools through CRT and gender confusion, and the horrific attitude of then-governor Ralph Northam toward children who survive a third trimester abortion.

“The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

With the infanticidalist out of office, no one could have guessed that Roe v. Wade was itself about to be aborted, with a pro-life attorney general in office in a state in which several Supreme Court Justices live.

The irony.

The point is that in a country where mostly peaceful rioting is tolerated unless you’re a Trump supporter and the current administration is all but endorsing a campaign of intimidation against one of our last “independent” institutions, Virginia is uniquely situated to punch back twice as hard on the anarchists.

Unfortunately, it seems that Miyares has to prompt the local commonwealth’s attorneys to actually take action.

Fairfax Commonwealth’s Attorney Steve Descano did not respond to a voicemail or emailed questions after Miyares, a Republican, urged him to take action.

Descano, a Democrat who was a federal prosecutor in the Obama administration, has not remarked publicly on the protest.

Descano said on May 3, in response to the leak of the draft opinion, “I will never prosecute a woman for making her own healthcare decisions.”

A Democrat who served in the Obama administration.

You don’t say.

We should make it easy to impeach and remove these so-called “law enforcement” officials when they refuse to enforce the laws that were legally enacted by duly elected representatives and signed by the chief executive. No more of this, “I’ll decide which laws to uphold.” The office is supposed to enforce all of them, buster, not just the ones that fit your political priorities.

Federal law bars protesting near the homes of any judges “with the intent of influencing” them, but U.S. prosecutors have shown no indication they plan on pursuing charges against protesters, who recently went to the homes of several other justices in Maryland.

My shocked face is all worn out.

Brandon isn’t going to prosecute. He’s the titular head of an illegal junta that is all about finishing the fundamental transformation of the United States that Barack Hussein Obama started. And they don’t care how many laws they have to break to get there.

by - 2 Comments

Daily Broadside | It’s Weird to Hear Abortion Supporters Say SCOTUS is Removing Their Rights

Daily Verse | 2 Chronicles 21:13
“But you have walked in the ways of the kings of Israel, and you have led Judah and the people of Jerusalem to prostitute themselves, just as the house of Ahab did.”

Thursday’s Reading: 2 Chronicles 24-25

It’s Thursday and Cinco de Mayo. I hope my appropriation of that term doesn’t trigger anyone.

The news that continues to shock and awe observers is the leak of the Dobbs opinion. It was obviously a coordinated leak, as the rent-a-mob spooks were already cued, and the Democrats had their talking points ready to go at a moment’s notice. But now that the dust has settled some, cooler heads are examining the fallout, much as investigators pick over the remains of a downed airliner.

Here’s what some of them are saying.

“It is the first time a full draft opinion has been leaked in the Supreme Court‘s 233 year history, according to former law clerks.” The Left does nothing but criticize and destroy, whether it is people, traditions, culture or institutions. This is just the latest in a long history of destruction wrought by the militant Marxists who infest the weight-bearing walls of our American home.

It has done great damage to the institution of an impartial judiciary. “Davis, who now works with the Article III Project told me on KTTH Radio that the leak was ‘shocking, shameful, and likely illegal. I think this is unprecedented. It’s very clear that someone is leaking this opinion to try to influence justices’ votes on this Dobbs case to overturn Roe and Casey. And in that case, we’re looking at potential obstruction of justice charges against whoever did this.'”

“Midterm voters care about affordability first and foremost, and they are not people who are worried every single day about losing access to abortion,” says Roginsky. “My fear continues to be that sometimes we as Democrats run on things that we wish the voters cared about, rather than what the voters do care about.” This is a good sign that even one of their own recognizes their overreach on this issue.

“Additionally, the timing is off for Democrats. I predicted that the Dobbs decision would be old news by November, and some Democrat strategists think so, too. Politico notes, ‘Even before the [leaked] draft was reported, Democrats bullish on the political effects of Roe being overturned feared a June release of the decision might come too soon to help them in November. The disclosure pushed the Democratic outrage earlier in the calendar, with six months before the elections.'”

“All the states in the union are aware of the impending court decision and have already or are currently preparing their own laws regarding the practice of abortion. As these laws will be crafted at a more local level, they will better reflect the preferences of each state’s citizens. By the time November rolls around, there may even be less discord and strife regarding abortion than there is now. At any rate, the Worst Thing Ever! will have come to pass, the world will have continued to turn, and people will have gone back to being more concerned about inflation, the Biden Recession, and looming war.”

Exactly. The anti-life anarchists are all amped up now, but in November, Dobbs will be a speck in the review mirror. Good luck restarting the rage machine then.

On the decision itself. “That is particularly true when it comes to abortion, the most vital Leftist sacrament, an action of holy import. For the Left, abortion represents the power to deny the objective value of human life; it represents willingness to engage in the highest form of self-serving moral relativism. Absence of abortion presents the possibility that actions have moral consequence, that the value of life is not an arbitrary and subjective one, that women and men have duties to their children. All of which challenges their basic worldview.”

“Old Joe Biden said Tuesday that Justice Samuel Alito’s leaked draft majority opinion overturning Roe v. Wade was ‘really quite a radical decision’ and ‘a fundamental shift in American jurisprudence,’ but as usual, he was lying. Alito’s decision appears to be carefully reasoned, firmly based on what the Constitution actually says, and written with a full recognition of the nature and importance of judicial precedent. What is unprecedented is the leak that has allowed us to evaluate this decision before the Court has actually ruled on the case at hand, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.“

“Samuel Alito’s crafted opinion strikes at a vast body of evil—a lethal evil, massive in its scale—but at the same time it holds out an assurance that this ‘right,’ which some people see as bound up with nothing less than their personal freedom, will remain secure for them, at least in the States where they wish to live. But when people came out in pro-life marches in the worst weather in Washington, they were registering their opposition to the poisoning or dismembering of babies in the womb. They never thought that they were arguing for a license to keep engaging in that killing on a massive scale, so long as it was done in Blue States.”

“The opinion’s careful analysis of text therefore represents not only the overruling of Roe but also a sea change in the appropriate method of reasoning about the Constitution. What was notable about Roe was that it failed to locate the abortion right in the text of the Constitution or even in previous precedent. As law professor John Hart Ely said about Roe, ‘it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.’ (Not surprisingly, Alito quotes Ely.) But Roe was also the culmination of decades of loose thinking about constitutional interpretation, as expressed in cases that ignored the original meaning of text and were driven by what the justices thought of as good policy. If the Dobbs decision follows this draft opinion, then its most important legacy will be the restoration of a more rigorous method of reasoning to the heart of constitutional law. And it represents a triumph for the conservative legal movement in its decades-long fight to restore the original meaning as the centerpiece of constitutional interpretation.”

“Even so, Alito’s draft is consequential. It not only represents a potential preview of one of the most significant Court decisions in a generation, but also articulates a compelling understanding of the nature of liberty and the role of the judiciary in American constitutional law.

“First, it’s important to understand the question before the Supreme Court. It is not ‘Should American women possess a right to abortion?’ but ‘Does the American Constitution protect abortion rights?’ The distinction is of paramount importance. The Court’s job is not to determine which rights we should possess but rather the rights we do possess.”

Abortion as a Constitutional right was created by SCOTUS in 1973. For those wailing about SCOTUS “taking away” that “right,” remember that you will still have that “right” in states which have provided for abortion. In those states that don’t provide for abortion or severely limit abortion, you can elect representatives who will legislate such a right.

Not that you should. But you could.

What SCOTUS gives, SCOTUS can take. Especially when the original opinion was so wrongly decided.