EXTRA! Supreme Court Kills Roe v. Wade

It has to be probably the least surprising, and most talked about Supreme Court decision in my lifetime. Friday, the Supreme Court announced that they had found for Dobbs in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The decision sparked nationwide protests and violence among the pro-abortion folks, while pro-lifers celebrated.

In the 6-3 finding, the Supreme Court found and pointed to as one of the establishing norms the error that many had cited previously when talking about Roe v. Wade…that the mere fact that the high court back in the 1970’s decided in favor of a nationwide abortion law, that they had erred. It wasn’t about a woman’s “right to choose”. It was about the fact that the Supreme Court doesn’t give rights to anyone. They interpret the Constitution and decide whether the issues that we are experiencing today fall in line with the Constitution as the Founding Fathers saw it.

Obviously, back in the 1700’s, there was no abortion, so there could be no “right to abortion” granted. This was clearly pointed out in the court’s opinion. Now add to the fact that anything that isn’t specified as giving the federal government the power to rule on a topic, goes to the states. The 10th Amendment isn’t what was argued (rather the 9th and 14th Amendments were the key arguments for the pro-abortion crowd).

Just so we’re all on the same page, the 9th Amendment states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People.” The 14th Amendment, better known as the Equal Protection Clause, states “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

So, the argument originally made was that the 9th Amendment states that we all have more rights than are stated in the Constitution (hence, the right to an abortion), and that under the 14th Amendment no state should make or enforce a law which takes away those rights.

What the original finding in Roe missed however was the 10th Amendment, which is basically the whole separation of federal government from the states. It reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

And therein lies the rub with Roe. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that Roe v. Wade was a terrible decision. Oh, she was pro-abortion, no doubt…and had she been alive today, probably would have joined the minority. But, she was correct that it was a bad decision, regardless when it was given.

So, to listen to idiots like Nancy Pelosi talk about the fact “the Supreme Court has taken away a Constitutional right” is just wrong. The Supreme Court does not give rights, and they cannot take away rights. That is reserved, as the Founding Fathers so aptly pointed out, by God Almighty.

The whole basis here is pretty much an over-reaction by the left. If you read the finding (even just the Syllabus on the case), you’ll see that overturning Roe v. Wade does not outlaw abortion. It only sends that decision back to the states to decide for themselves whether or not they will allow abortions, and to what extent. So, if you happen to live in New York, or California, or Washington, or Oregon, I’m sure you’re still going to be able to get an abortion any time you want.

The other point that I have made several times is that you can’t have it both ways. If you are going to say that the federal government shouldn’t stand “between a doctor and a woman when it comes to a decision of getting an abortion”, then how do you justify standing in the way between a doctor an any American citizen when it comes to a decision of getting a vaccine for something like COVID? You have to be consistent here, and this administration was very boisterous at declaring they could give mandates for the American people to have to get a vaccine.

Regardless of which side of the fence you’re on, you have to realize all this court did was correct an error that was made some fifty years ago. Abortion will still be legal, just not everywhere. It will depend on where you live, the same as whether casino gambling is legal in your state. And for once, I applaud Chief Justice John Roberts, who somehow found the ability to “grow a pair” and make a big boy decision.

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

No Right?

If you were to listen to leftist idiots, like Dean Obeidallah, who is nothing more than an attorney and a comedian (what a combination!), you don’t have a right to bear arms. That’s right. He says that the Second Amendment does not give you the right to own a gun. Let’s just take a look at what the Second Amendment to our Constitution says, shall we?

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

And here’s what Obeidallah has to say about it.

“There is NO constitutional right to own a gun. That was literally made up by 5 GOP Justices in 2008 decision of DC v Heller. We need to make overturning Heller a cause like the right made overturning Roe v Wade. Between 1789 and 2008 NO federal court found 2nd Amendment created a PERSONAL constitutional right apart from being in a militia to own a gun. In 2008, five supreme court justices INVENTED that in DC v. Heller. We must OVERTURN Heller so we can pass gun safety laws!”

Now, you’re going to have to forgive me here for a minute. I’m not sure if Obeidallah is coming at us wearing his attorney hat or his comedian hat. Because what he tweeted over this past weekend is absolutely hilarious, and shows he doesn’t really understand our Constitution.

See, as said in the second paragraph above, it says, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” That is rather simple English. I would assume any L-1 student could understand the definitions of words like “keep and bear Arms”, and “people”.

Now, Obeidallah inappropriately claims that no federal court found 2nd Amendment created a PERSONAL constitutional right apart from being in a militia until the DC v. Heller case. That’s a fallacy that any 3rd grader could figure out. No, according to the Supreme Court ruling IN DC v. Heller, you don’t have to be in a militia in order to own a gun.

See, this is what I really hate about liberalism. If they don’t agree with the wording of something, they want to change the wording so it fits their narrative. If they can’t get that done, they’ll do something even more drastic, like term limits for Supreme Court Justices or packing the court. They can’t seem to play by the rules and get things to go their way, and if they don’t, then try again at a later date. That’s what earlier liberals used to do. If they got beat on an issue, they’d get whatever part of the issue they could on the books, then they’d come back later and expand it (I call it the “Seat Belt analogy”. When seat belts were introduced in the 1960’s it was an option. Then it became mandatory, but they couldn’t ticket you. Then they could only ticket you if they pulled you over for something else. Now they can pull you over for not wearing a seat belt.)

People like Dean Obeidallah need to be either corrected or silenced. It’s one thing to have an opinion, and I respect other opinions. It’s quite another to come out with absolutely ludicrous statements and thought processes like we’re hearing from people like Dean Obeidallah. Maybe he just needs to drop being a lawyer and focus on being a comedian. He’s much better at making me laugh than he is at making sense of the law!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

Will The Supreme Court Leak Matter Come November?

It’s a question that will get you a million different answers depending on whom you ask. If you talk to Democrats, it’s the issue that they’ve been waiting for. If you talk to Republicans, it’s no big deal because there are a million other issues that are more prevalent. Will it matter at all?

I am not sure at this point. First of all, if the Supreme Court never had this leak, would it had changed the outcome next month? Doubtful. If they are going to find that the whole national abortion strategy should be a states’ rights issue, it wouldn’t matter if it came out in April, May, or June. When it comes out, regardless the outcome, it will have some impact, for sure.

Is it going to be the calm of the “big red storm” everybody has been predicting? Nope. Sorry, but there are just as many people that feel that abortion shouldn’t be legal and those that feel it should. It’s about as evenly divided as can be in this country. The last poll I saw said 51% said the Supreme Court should not overturn Roe. 49% said they should. That’s not what I would call enough to be the number one issue in an election.

When you look at inflation, supply chain problems, immigration out of control, crime in the streets, a looming recession, and a Congress that can’t get anything done, even though the Democrats control both houses of it, those are issues that matter more to people than abortion. And, even quite a few Democrats (Ruth Bader Ginsburg among them) have said that the logic behind Roe passing muster in 1973 was flawed beyond belief. Justices totally bypassed the 10th Amendment to get to the14th Amendment in finding a way to get it done.

Is this going to tip the balance of power in Congress? Nope. I know Dems are out there fundraising right now trying to tell people that “women’s health” is becoming the number one issue in the country. It hasn’t been for decades, and it won’t be this time around either. I don’t care what side of the abortion issue you’re on, there just aren’t going to be enough people fighting for it to really care and really make a difference. The Supreme Court, if indeed the leaked decision stands, is just correcting a mistake that it made some fifty years ago. I’m surprised actually, that it took this long to get it done.

I still think there is going to be somewhat of a red wave this November. This was a shock to Democrats, but only because they lost and they weren’t thinking they were going to lose. There is nothing that they can do at this point to right that ship because it’s sailed. Packing the court isn’t going to do it because a) there isn’t time and b) even if they got it through both houses of Congress, and got Biden to sign it into law, the blowback from the American people would be vicious. Deciding that the Justices should have term limits of some sort, works a little better in the minds of the public, but then the call for Congress to have term limits will be front and center and that’s something they don’t want to come within a hundred miles of.

And of course, you’ve got conservatives on both parties that are fundraising as well, saying that if Democrats succeed in keeping Congress, it pushes the US further and further to the left and the Supreme Court will be “punished” for what it did to abortion.

Breathe deep and don’t worry. November will be here soon enough!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

So…Who Leaked It?

Well, it wasn’t me. I was really shocked to see that the Supreme Court actually leaked anything regarding probably the most vitriolic decision they had coming down the pike this year. Was I surprised that a 6-3 conservative court would have overturned Roe v. Wade? Not at all. Most court watchers over the years say that when the high court instituted Roe v. Wade back in 1973, it was a bad decision. They said it made no sense and it violated the 10th Amendment even though they cited the 14th Amendment as the reason for allowing it.

But there is an overriding question here. Who leaked this decision? Chief Justice, John Roberts has ordered the Supreme Court Marshall to investigate where the leak came from. What’s fascinating is that the leak itself is actually more historical than the fact they are overturning the Roe v. Wade decision. I’ve gone back and looked and the only “leak” I can find was of a minor case that got out back in 1986.

So who leaked it?

There aren’t many people that you can point the finger at. The first place would probably be a progressive law clerk. Law clerks are not always read in on these decisions ahead of time, so it would have to be someone that was probably helping with the drafting of a dissenting opinion. That said, it’s outlandish to think that someone as bright as a law clerk for the Supreme Court would jeopardize their entire career by leaking a document to Politico. That could absolutely be the ruination of their career before it really ever gets started.

The second theory would be that it would be a conservative law clerk, at the direction of a conservative Justice that leaked it. Why? Well, think back to Obamacare for a minute. Remember, John Roberts was said to be voting with the conservatives AGAINST Obamacare back in 2011. Then is changed his mind. But the leak had already been made, and it was thought that it was made this time to tell Roberts to sh*t or get off the pot. It would be through a law clerk of one of the conservative Justices trying to pin Roberts down on his vote, knowing that there were five votes already voting to overturn Roe.

The third scenario is that it was either Kagen, Sotomayor, or Breyer that leaked it because they wanted to the world to know what was going on, and force at least one, maybe two of the conservatives to change their vote prior to the “official” release in June. Now, this would seem highly improbable. These Justices are set in their ways from an ideological bent, but they do all realize the importance of keeping things “in the family”, regardless if they agree with the decision or not. That is, after all, what dissenting opinions are for. I can’t for the life of me believe that any of the three liberal Justices would stoop so low.

And the fourth scenario has John Roberts himself being the dastardly demon in this case. I really doubt this one, since it was Roberts that called for the investigation. Though he did indeed admit to the world that the leaked decision was valid. Why in the world would a Chief Justice say anything but “No Comment” to the public is beyond me. It’s one thing to have a holy “come to Jesus meeting” with the Justices and their staffs. It’s quite another to admit that this was indeed accurate. CNN reported that Roberts didn’t want to necessarily overturn Roe v. Wade, but wanted to uphold the Mississippi law that was in question, limiting abortions to the first 15 weeks. That could have meant that Roberts was going to side with the liberals on this one, as he has in the recent past. And a 5-4 decision is a lot easier for the left to swallow than a 6-3 decision that would most likely spur Congress to once again, take up packing the court, or limiting the terms of the Justices.

However you want to try and define who it was that ultimately leaked the decision, and we still can’t be guaranteed that this is indeed the final decision, it’s anybody’s guess. We may never know, because one thing the Supreme Court is usually very good at is keeping a lid on their secret negotiations. Well, at least until now.

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

Supremes To Decide Football Coach’s Case

You’ve probably heard about this one. Joseph Kennedy, a football coach at a Bremerton, Washington high school would go out to the 50 yard line after a game with anyone from his team that wanted to go, and would pray. He originally led the prayers as he knelt at midfield. Then the school board found out about it and asked him to stop. So, he didn’t lead the prayer, they had “silent prayer time” after the game. No athlete was ever required to go. It was for those that wanted to be there.

And of course, the school said that violated the student’s rights to freedom of religion. So, it went to court, and kept going until it reached the high court. On Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the case.

Now, let’s understand a couple of things. I know what the liberal elites in this country would like you to believe and I know what the Constitution says. And just so we’re on the same page, here is exactly what the Constitution says about the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I don’t care how you read it, it does say that Congress shall make no law “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. This is known as “freedom OF religion”. Unlike the liberals of the 1960’s who wanted to change it to “Freedom FROM religion”. It doesn’t mean you can’t have religious practices going on in school, or a football field, or in Congress (where they still open each day with prayer). It’s guaranteeing that regardless what your religion is, you are free to practice it. That means that if this football coach wants to go and meet at midfield with his players that want to be there, after a game and pray, he can do that. He is exercising the free exercise of his religion. he cannot, nor should he be able to actually require athletes to be there. That would violate their religious beliefs possibly, and you can’t do that.

This is such a no-brainer, I’m surprised that liberals have a problem with it, unless they have a problem with there being an all-powerful being that created us. And it appears that they do. Why else would they care about who is praying? I don’t know many students who are sitting in a classroom before a final exam that would call themselves atheists at that moment. Depending on how well they prepared for the final, I’m sure a lot of them are praying to their God…as they should.

What the Founding Fathers were trying to do was make it impossible that people were told they couldn’t worship as they wanted. That is, after all, one of the primary reasons our country was founded in the first place. They weren’t saying that the federal government or state government couldn’t put religious symbols up. They were saying they couldn’t make any one religion the “official religion” of the United States. If you want to put up a menorah, and celebrate a Jewish holiday, have at it. If you’re Muslim, and you want to fast for Ramadan, it’s your right. And the government cannot stop you. If you want to believe that when you die, your soul goes to a garage in Buffalo, you have that right as well.

I don’t have to wait until June to tell you how this case is going to come out. It’s going to be a 6-3 decision that the football coach has every right to pray with students that also want to pray, after a game so long as he doesn’t require the whole team to show up and pray.

That is the way the First Amendment should be interpreted. That is what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote it. And it’s as true today as it was back in the 1700’s.

Carry on world…you’re dismised!

Roe v. Wade Really About To Be Overturned?

The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments this past Wednesday on whether or not Mississippi’s abortion law is legal. Now, if all you do is listen obliquely to the talking heads in the mainstream media, you’re going to think that the Supreme Court is about ready to get rid of Roe v. Wade, the decision that allowed abortion to be legal across the United States back in 1973. Unfortunately, once again, the media has got it all wrong.

Abortion will still be legal in this country regardless what the Supreme Court decides.

At issue isn’t whether abortion should be legal. It’s whether or not Mississippi’s law should be legal. And when you look at through that prism, you’re looking at an entirely different set of questions. Whether you are for or against abortion really isn’t at issue here. It’s whether or not in the State of Mississippi, you can get an abortion after the 15th week of pregnancy. Even if the high court finds it legal, abortions in Mississippi are still going to be legal through the fifteenth week of pregnancy.

The bigger issue at hand isn’t whether abortion should or shouldn’t be legal. That’s what the pro-choice crowd want you to believe. The real issue here is whether or not the federal government has the right to make it a law that it’s legal (even though no law has ever been passed by Congress and signed into law by the President). What IS at issue is whether the states have the right to make that call per the 10th Amendment.

The federal government can only make laws based on rights granted to it specifically in the Constitution. That said, abortion was never an issue in the 1700’s, and wasn’t specifically given to the federal government. So, it automatically would fall to the states to decide if abortion was legal in their state or not.

The reason that the pro-choice crowd is getting all up in arms is simply because they realize they aren’t going to have total abortion rights in every state. That is something each state can and I’m sure will decide on their own. In Mississippi’s case, they have every right to make the call at 15 weeks if that is what they decide. And my hunch is that is what the Supreme Court is going to rule.

When you take the emotional crap out of the debate, and look at it from a legal standpoint, it’s the only decision the Supremes can make. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the “right to an abortion” (which isn’t a right at all) to occur. Thus, the feds don’t get a shot at making it happen.

Of course, this will spark a whole new debate on abortion, and it’s legality nationwide. The Democrats are going to cry that poor people living in red states aren’t going to be able to choose to give up their pregnancy like poor women in blue states. But that is exactly what the 10th Amendment is all about. And places like Planned Parenthood will find themselves only working in about half the states in our country.

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

EXTRA! Supremes Hand Biden Second Major Loss

After this week, Joe Biden is going to want to find the nearest basement and stay down there. It’s like the guy can’t catch a break. It’s inept comment after bungled decision after screw up at the White House these days. And when he does make a decision, the Supreme Court is there to whack him across his backside.

They did it again.

First the high court decided on a 6-3 tally that they wouldn’t issue a stay on the Trump-era “Stay In Mexico” policy, whereby illegals trying to get into this country without going through the proper immigration procedures would have to stay in Mexico while they await their court hearing. Donald Trump imposed that directive during his term and along with building “the wall” it seems to have stemmed the tide of illegals trying to breach the border. I mean, who wants to spend 18 months in Mexico when you can gain access to the United States and roam free for a year and a half, and then just not show up for your hearing? Biden decided enough was enough with that and tried to do away with the plan. He was sued, and a lower court judge said that it had to remain in place. It was appealed to the Supreme Court and they said, they would not issue a stay while the appeal was going through it’s process. So, for the time being those folks wanting to break in to our country have to wait outside the gate until they get invited in.

And then the Supreme Court did it again.

On Thursday, even though the Supremes are in recess until the first Monday in October, they slapped down Biden’s extension of his eviction moratorium due to COVID. Biden was afraid that once the eviction moratorium was over, landlords all over the country would demand back rent from their tenants, and if they didn’t cough up what they owed, they’d get booted. So, he extended the moratorium unilaterally until the end of September. Of course, you and I know he was going to try and make it permanent at some point in time. The Supreme Court, on a 6-3 vote (can you guess the three?) decided that wasn’t right. It takes an act of Congress to extend the moratorium. That means it’s pretty much doubtful that Congress is going to do anything before the end of September. They’ve got the infrastructure bill which is waddling it’s way through, and is having a hell of a time in both chambers. They’ve also got that $3.5 trillion budget that the House is excited to pass now that the moderate Democrats have caved, but won’t see the same result in the Senate since Joe Manchin and Krystin Sinema are both against it, so they can’t even get to 50 votes in a budget reconciliation move so K-baby Harris can break a tie. At best it’s going to go down to defeat there 48-52.

So, on top of the misery that he’s caused at the southern border, and on top of the absolute abortion known as the Afghanistan withdrawal, Joe Biden has been swatted pretty hard by the Supreme Court.

All I can say is Thank God for Amy Coney Barrett! She’s been a breath of fresh air on the bench!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

EXTRA! Now THIS Is A Supreme Decision!

The Supreme Court started their long awaited summer vacation yesterday with two very contentious decisions, sparking rumors on Capitol Hill, and the White House, and even among court-watchers everywhere.

First up was the case involving Arizona’s voting laws. There, among ideological lines, the court voted 6-3 to allow Arizona the right to disallow “ballot harvesting”, where anyone can go and collect ballots throughout the neighborhood and bring them to a polling center, as well as Arizona’s practice of not allowing ballots to be cast in the wrong precinct. Those ballots are not counted. Democrats contended that both practices made sure minorities were not able to vote…an argument that usually comes up anytime Democrats can’t get their way with election laws. The vote was 6-3 along ideological lines, with Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan voting in the negative. The majority said that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was not violated, and the ballot harvesting ban was “not enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose”.

In her decent, Kagan actually had to pull one out of the opening on her backside. She actually said that because of the majority’s action, they were “re-writing the law”. Of course, that’s something liberal judges NEVER do, right?

In the other case, it was a California law that got struck down. That law required political and charitable groups to turn over the names of their biggest donors. This law was supposed to disallow “dark money” from creeping in to elections, however groups that were totally on opposite sides of the political spectrum such as the Heritage Foundation and the ACLU fought the law and prevailed in the nation’s highest court. The decision, also along ideological lines of 6-3 struck down that law. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority stated, “The risk of a chilling effect on association is enough, because First Amendment freedoms need breathing space to survive.” The ruling was hailed by non-profits across the political spectrum. Yet, Senate Majority Leader, Chuck Schumer was quick to argue the decision was, “a jaw dropping decision making it much harder to expose the evils of dark money in our political system.”

Those two bombshell court decisions brought back catcalls and yells from the left to pack the court again. That was something which had basically died down because there isn’t enough votes in the Senate to make it happen. And with the election just 17 months away, and next year doubtful that any major legislation will be passed because it’s an election year means that it’s very unlikely to see the light of day.

But that didn’t stop Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer from screaming at the top of their lungs that the high court was biased and out of control and needed to be reigned in, which of course most likely won’t happen. Democrats will use this undoubtedly next year as a campaign issue since there is little else that they can do.

In the meantime, the heat was turned up on one Justice to step down. Stephen Breyer, the oldest member of the court at 80 is feeling the pressure to retire or face the same fate the Ruth Bader Ginsburg faced when she passed away in office, allowing Donald Trump to replace her with Amy Coney Barrett, insuring a conservative court well into the future.

Mitch McConnell has already indicated that they will fight any nomination that occurs if the GOP takes the Senate back in 2022’s election. Democrats are trying to convince Breyer to retire now so that they can move forward with his replacement, guaranteeing that a liberal Justice will replace him. So far, Breyer has been deaf to the suggestion, and doesn’t appear ready to step down, though most retirements come within two weeks of the end of a Supreme Court term.

What yesterday’s rulings show is that regardless how the high court split among their cases prior to yesterday, there is indeed a 6-3 vote in favor of conservatives when it comes to major issues. That fact cannot be denied, and any attempt by the Democrats to pack the court in any way will only result in more Republicans going to the polls in order to reverse a terrible idea.

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

You DO Have Freedom Of Speech

Or at least that’s what the Supreme Court ruled last week. The high court heard the case of a Pennsylvania High School cheerleader who used vulgar language to criticize her school on social media. The school, once they learned about the incident kicked her off the cheerleading squad, so she sued, saying that she wasn’t on school grounds, and the school had no right to go after her.

Apparently the High Court agreed. They voted in favor of her ability to trash the school away from the school by an 8-1 vote.

Frankly, I can’t believe that a school district would have the audacity to want to kick someone who was speaking critically about them off of the cheerleading squad. That sounds very authoritarian and rather czaristic if you ask me. We DO have a freedom of speech in this country. Now, we all get it that it doesn’t extend to harming our neighbors. We cannot yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater (or a sparsely attended on I would assume). Still, do we have the right to criticize an institution when we feel they are out of line? The answer is, and should be, yes!

I wouldn’t be at all proud of a daughter that used the rather vulgar language that this girl used, but I would defend her right to say what she said, even in the rather vulgar manner that she chose to use. It’s not the manner that’s on trial here, it’s the censorship and punishment that came because of the vulgar manner. Take the vulgarity out of it, and does the message become any better for the school? Probably not. There would be a few less “F*** you’s” in there, but that would be about it.

This should be a landmark case. How many times have we seen institutions want to limit our ability to speak our mind, which we are fully capable of doing, and not censoring our thoughts or our ability to communicate them? Take a look at the recent attempt by Big Tech to censor our thoughts if it didn’t meet with their narrative. That, by a very small step should be covered by this very same decision. The only thing that would differ is the fact that this girl chose to use social media as her platform for her angst, and did it away from school, as opposed to actually using social media and having Big Tech allow you to say what you want to.

And that brings up another question…if this was such a bad rant that this girl had and that the school board obviously objected to, then why in the world, in this censor happy age we live in with Big Tech, did they see fit to actually allow the post to go through? Are you telling me that saying the word “COVID” in a post on a place like YouTube, or Twitter may get you a stern warning from the censor du jour, or are you telling me that it’s not ok to do that, but it’s ok for a girl to use vulgarity in describing a situation that she was obviously upset about at school. Which is worse? Especially when we were told that using COVID wasn’t “following the science”. We all know science is never wrong, correct? I mean, how many centuries did many believe that the sun rotated around the earth or that the earth was flat (some people still believe that!)

No, the Supreme Court was right in this one. You cannot limit free speech just because it’s vulgar. As Walter Matthau said in “First Monday In October”, “Crap has the right to be crap”.

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

Busy Month At Supreme Court

It’s June! That means, not only is it the first month of summer, but it’s the last month before the Supreme Court goes on vacation. And that means it’s time for all of the cases they’ve been hearing all year long to finally hit the public with their decisions. And it’s going to be a very busy month.

Here are some of the cases you’ll be hearing about (if not already):

Brnovich v. Arizona Democratic National Committee. Arizona Attorney General, Mark Brnovich (who’s rumored to be running either for Doug Ducey’s Governor’s seat since Ducey is termed out, or Mark Kelly’s Senate seat next year), is trying to make ballot harvesting illegal in the Grand Canyon State. Democrats want to continue to do it.

Mahanoy Area School District v. B. L. This is the one about free speech when stated by minors, off campus. Remember the cheerleader who posted some nasty comments on social media? She got kicked off the cheerleading squad because of it. Well, she sued to get back on. It made it to the Supreme Court, as to whether what you say out of school can get you in trouble in school.

Thomas More Law Center and Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Rodriguez. California passed a law requiring ALL associations and groups to release the names of all of their major donors (not just political groups). They are being sued by a bunch of non-profits and charitable trusts to avoid having to publish their donor lists, since they aren’t political.

Fulton v. Philadelphia. This one deals with religious freedom. The City of Brotherly Love decided to end a contract with a Catholic services organization because they refused to screen same sex couples as foster parents. The organizations claimed religious freedom. Kinda reminiscent of the baker in Colorado who refused to make the wedding cake for the gay couple.

California v. Texas. This is the third attempt to get Obamacare overturned. If you remember back in 2011, the court said that Obamacare was legal because it taxed those that didn’t get it, and Congress has the ability to tax. Well, in 2017, Congress got rid of the individual mandate, and the penalty (or tax) associated with not having Obamacare if you didn’t already have insurance. This is the 26 states that want Obamacare gone. Some of it may remain, but the whole question is whether or not the whole law stands if the part that the Supreme Court said ten years ago was the reason it was legal is still valid without that part. It will most likely be the last issue revealed toward the end of June.

There you have it. And looking forward, it looks like another block-buster year for the high court. Will Stephen Breyer, a liberal, retire during Biden’s term? He says at some point he will retire, but he’s not signaling that it will be any time soon. Will Congress try and pack the Court? They want to do it, but won’t have the ability with a 50/50 split in the Senate unless they can work around the filibuster rule first, and they don’t have the votes to do that yet either. Breyer by the way, like RBG before him, is against the idea of packing the court because it brings politics into a judicial stage.

And then of course, you’ve got the whole idea of who does Biden nominate if Breyer does indeed retire. Uber socialists want a black woman, because currently there is no black woman on the Supreme Court.

As far as the cases coming before the Supremes next year, there is a major abortion case, which will undoubtedly draw many protests outside the court. The Second Amendment will be tested because of a law passed in New York, which could mean actually that the high court could expand gun rights for the first time in about 10 years. There is the possibility of the court hearing a case against Harvard for limiting the number of Asian-Americans on campus, and then there’s women registering for the draft, and the whole which bathroom can transgenders use thing going on.

Get the popcorn ready. Methinks there could be several liberals ready to scream on TikTok over this next year!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!