Archive for the 'Supreme Court' Category

By now you’ve seen that the case of Texas versus the four states has been docketed and a response has been obtained from Pennsylvania.  In it, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro pulled his pants to his ankles and mooned Texas, the Supreme Court, and indeed every honest citizen in America.

Using strong language rarely seen in Supreme Court filings, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro told the justices that they 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.”

Seditious, he says.  Pennsylvania’s corruption and theft isn’t seditious, one must conclude.  Because reasons, so shut up.

Via WRSA, here is a list of pointers about the lawsuit that makes it unique.  As I’ve said before, anyone who believes that Biden legitimately won the vote is as dumb as a bag of rocks.

Here is a prediction: None of this will matter.  The Supreme Court is more likely to recognize that there are important issues, but point out that the state legislatures are tasked to supervise the electoral process, and they will be loath to step in because they’re cowards.  Of course, the state legislatures are all filled with cowards too, hence the necessity of the lawsuit to begin with.  America is a nation of cowards.

Thus ends the last attempt at an honest and fair election in America in your lifetime.  The electoral college meets soon, and after that, prepare at first for president Biden, and then soon after that, president Harris.

And after that, massive trouble.

This seems accurate.

I don’t think Trump’s record on Supreme Court justices is stellar.  Kavanaugh is a squish, and Gorsuch is just plain odd.  One of my sons sends this tweet.

THREAD: #Barrett sided with the government on almost every civil rights case, every big employer case, every criminal case, while also siding with the government on the lockdowns, on uncompensated takings, on excusing First Amendment infringements & Fourth Amendment violations.

— Robert Barnes (@Barnes_Law) September 22, 2020

On the other hand, there is this article at CNN.

Via WRSA.

pic.twitter.com/54wIuf7YrZ

— CHIZ (@CHIZMAGA) September 19, 2020

News.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose 27-year tenure as the second female justice on the U.S. Supreme Court culminated a legal career dedicated to advancing the rights of women, has died. She was 87.

Her death less than two months before the election gives President Donald Trump a chance to try to shift the already conservative court further to the right.

By their fruits you shall know them.

Q: “Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid abortions for poor women?”

Justice Ginsburg: “Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion.”

And more.

But, Justice Ginsburg explains, “When we no longer need people to keep muskets in their home, then the Second Amendment has no function, its function is to enable the young nation to have people who will fight for it to have weapons that those soldiers will own. So I view the Second Amendment as rooted in the time totally allied to the need to support a militia. So…the Second Amendment is outdated in the sense that its function has become obsolete.”

As for the Heller case, decided by the Court in 2008, Justice Ginsburg says, “If the Court had properly interpreted the Second Amendment, the Court would have said that amendment was very important when the nation was new; it gave a qualified right to keep and bear arms, but it was for one purpose only—and that was the purpose of having militiamen who were able to fight to preserve the nation.”

Battle axe.

This makes things doubly interesting in the next two months.

UPDATE:

David Codrea weighs in.

NRO.

The conservative wing of the Supreme Court reportedly declined to take up a case dealing with Second Amendment rights after Chief Justice John Roberts indicated that he would vote with the court’s liberal justices.

In June, the justices rejected petitions from 10 challenges relating to state restrictions on firearms after Roberts signaled he would not vote with them, depriving the court’s conservatives of the fifth vote needed to overturn gun regulations, CNN reported Monday.

[ … ]

The four most reliably conservative justices were not confident that they would get a fifth vote from Roberts on the case or similar cases addressing the Second Amendment, according to unidentified sources cited by CNN.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh penned an unsigned opinion that was overseen by Roberts for that case in which six justices agreed that the case should be relegated to the lower court. In a separate statement that Kavanaugh signed, he said that the Supreme Court should address “soon” the issue of varying interpretations of the Second Amendment.

Somebody surely has something on Roberts.

So if this report is to be taken as true and accurate, the four justices stopped what could have been a defeat for the observation of gun rights in America by simply refusing to take cases.

Roberts is the stated reason.  If this report is accurate, it’s probably best that nothing was done.

David Codrea.

… here are questions gun owner rights advocates should expect the representatives they enable and support to ask that any qualified candidate shouldn’t have any trouble answering:

• What did the Founders mean by “A well regulated militia”?
• What did the Founder mean by “being necessary to the security of a free State”?
• What did the Founders mean by “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”?
• What did the Founders mean by “shall not be infringed”?
• How can past Supreme Court opinion specifying protected arms as those being “in common use at the time” not apply to the types of firearms needed for militia service?

Hell, correctly answering these should be required to graduate high school. But it won’t happen even with Republicans nominally in control of things, let alone if there’s a blue wave in November. So what “legal” recourse is available?

You can’t hoist them on their own petard. Judicial immunity means you can’t take them to court for the subversion of Founding intent. And good luck getting the current crop of interested/compromised/beholden Deep State Swamp denizens to even suggest impeachment, although allow a Democrat supermajority and don’t be surprised to see Clarence Thomas targeted anew.

There is one other legal alternative. Per the Hoover Institute:

“Congress should exercise its power to limit the jurisdiction of the courts. The Constitution provides that Congress is authorized to establish those federal courts subordinate to the Supreme Court and set forth their jurisdiction. Congress also has the power to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and regulate its activities. Accordingly, Congress should exercise this authority to restrain an activist judiciary.”

I’ve known about this power for a long time.  So have the senators.  They will never use it, especially because they see the black robed tyrants as high priests.

Reason.

That inaction continued today. Once again, the Court refused to hear a major Second Amendment case. And once again, the Court’s failure to act prompted a sharp complaint from Justice Clarence Thomas, who upbraided his colleagues this morning for “prolonging our decade-long failure to protect the Second Amendment.”

Thomas’ complaint came in the form of a dissent from the denial of certiorari in Rogers v. Grewal. The case dealt with New Jersey’s requirement that any person seeking to get a handgun carry permit must first demonstrate to the satisfaction of the authorities “that he has a justifiable need to carry a handgun.” Among other things, the applicant must “specify in detail the urgent necessity for self-protection, as evidence by specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant’s life that cannot be avoided by means other than by issuance of a permit to carry a handgun.” Under the rules, “generalized fears for personal safety are inadequate.”

Thomas Rogers, who operates a business that services automated teller machines, wanted to carry a gun for self-defense while out on the job. But he failed to meet the state’s exacting standards. The Supreme Court today declined to take up his constitutional challenge to the gun control regulation.

“In several jurisdictions throughout the country,” Justice Thomas observed of Rogers’ case and others like it, “law-abiding citizens have been barred from exercising the fundamental right to bear arms because they cannot show that they have a ‘justifiable need’ or ‘good reason’ for doing so. One would think that such an onerous burden on a fundamental right would warrant this Court’s review.” Indeed, Thomas continued, “this Court would almost certainly review the constitutionality of a law requiring citizens to establish a justifiable need before exercising their free speech rights. And it seems highly unlikely that the Court would allow a State to enforce a law requiring a woman to provide a justifiable need before seeking an abortion. But today, faced with a petition challenging just such a restriction on citizens’ Second Amendment rights, the Court simply looks the other way.”

Justice Clarence Thomas.  The last remaining honorable man and scholar on the Supreme Court.  Kavanaugh signed on to the dissent, excepting section 2.  Go read section 2.  There is no good reason any liberty minded patriot should refuse to sign on to section 2.

The Supreme Court has become a college of swine, a gaggle of clowns; frauds, liars and shysters in robes of tyranny.  Roberts is the head clown, the high priest of swindle.

The best indication is to look at fellow crooks and collegial liars.

States can do literally anything they want without being held accountable by the highest court of clowns in the land.