Supremes Begged To Back Out Of NC Elections Case

It’s a very rare move to say the least. Usually, when a case has been agreed to be heard by the United States Supreme Court, it gets stuck on their calendar for oral arguments, the Justices then research the merits and demerits of the case, and usually by the end of June which is the end of their term, they announce their decision, which has the weight of law. What makes this particular case rare is the fact that the Biden administration is asking the Supreme Court to back out of a case they have already heard the oral arguments for.

That probably isn’t going to happen.

The case involves what is being termed as “Independent State Legislature Theory”. In North Carolina, they are pushing that state justices are not allowed to get involved in elections in any way. Basically that means that they can’t rule on voter eligibility, mail-in ballots, or congressional district lines (redistricting) for federal elections. Only the state legislature would be allowed to weigh in on those things. The North Carolina Supreme Court didn’t like it and struck down the law. But it worked it’s way to the US Supreme Court, who has already heard oral arguments this past December. It’s scheduled to have the decision made by the end of the Court’s term.

The reason the Biden administration is getting involved is, the North Carolina Supreme Court wants to revisit at least some of the dispute, and argues that would negate the US Supreme Court from getting involved because it would be a “state matter” and not a federal matter. By the way, the North Carolina Supreme Court is made up of seven justices, five of whom are Republican, two are Democrats. The North Carolina Statehouse flipped to the GOP back in November.

Now, what all of this REALLY means is that the Biden administration is duly afraid that the current make up of the US Supreme Court (6-3 Conservative) is probably going to side with the North Carolina legislature, and allow states to decide if justices in their state have the right to interfere in federal elections. That would be a HUGE balloon pop for the Democrats who love to challenge every federal loss in court. If the Supreme Court decides to go through with the case, and actually finds for the North Carolina legislature, it could open the door for other states to pass similar bills, which would not allow state judges to weigh in on the matter.

This takes a rather large piece of ammunition out of the Democrats’ playbook if it comes to fruition. So, it does beg the question, why would five of seven Republicans State Supreme Court Justices decide to go against a Republican legislature? Well, it takes a lot of the battles out of the state courts’ hands. And they are thinking that down the road, if the Democrats take over the State House, it could mean that the pendulum would swing the other way with no way the GOP could fight it in a state court. Notice, this is ONLY for federal elections. It doesn’t have anything to do with the state-wide and local elections.

The way I see it, there are way too many lawsuits after elections as it is in this country. What we need is a rock-solid plan to make sure that everyone that is registered to vote can vote…ONCE. We need to take all of the doubt out of whether or not an election has been tampered with. After all, this isn’t China, or Russia, or Venezuela. This is a place where we value free and fair elections. And when the majority of people feel that the election was stolen, or tampered with, or there is some proof that’s been happening, we’ve basically lost control of the country. It’s no longer, “We The People”, it’s “them the party” that controls things.

Here in Arizona, I was surprised to see that 55% of voters in the Grand Canyon State believe that the voting problems that happened here in Maricopa Country in 2022, affected the outcome of the election, both for the Senate race (Mark Kelly over Blake Masters), and the Governor’s Race (Katie Hobbs over Kari Lake). 35% of the those surveyed felt it was very likely to have happened. That’s the doubt that needs to be erased. And if that can be stopped simply by slowing down all of the lawsuits after an election, and allowing the state legislatures to write laws that determine who can vote, how it’s counted, mail-in balloting, ballot harvesting, and drawing the districts, then so much the better.

My hunch is the Supreme Court will follow through with this lawsuit to it’s natural conclusion and not listen to what the Biden administration has to say. I may be wrong, but Joe Biden doesn’t seem to have much sway in convincing these folks in SCOTUS to do his bidding.

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

The Final Word On Student Loan Debt

You KNEW it was going to end up with SCOTUS, right? I mean, when Biden announced that he was going to wipe some $400 billion off the books, which was basically another lie because he was transferring it to the rest of America, you KNEW that the states weren’t going to go for that.

And they didn’t.

Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments on why the government should and shouldn’t be allowed to wipe away the student loan debt. Initially, the plan is to drop up to $10,000 from anyone making $125,000 a year or less, or with a married filing jointly income of $250,000 or less. If the person had a Pell Grant, they could take up to $20,000 off what they owe.

OK, so that’s the plan, the numbers say that it’s going to cost us (you and me) about $400 billion over the next 30 years. Now, can anyone tell me the last time the government got the estimated cost of anything right? Buhler…Buhler… That’s right. The answer is never. They usually are two to five times below what the final costs are going to be. So, count on paying up to $2 trillion! The good news is, I’ll probably be dead in 30 years!

There are 40 million student loan borrowers in the country that are eligible for at least some forgiveness. If there is a silver lining in this anywhere it’s that 53% of them owe less than $10,000.

But the high court heard arguments Tuesday on two different levels. First there is the lawsuit from two students that have loan debt, but they wouldn’t benefit from all of the provisions. I really expect the high court to deny both of these petitioners their day. One of the students claims that they were denied because back in the day, their parents made too much money to qualify them for any relief. The other says she didn’t qualify because the loan was “privately held”.

The second part of the lawsuit is from six states, mostly in the midwest. They are fighting this on the basis that it’s not loan forgiveness, but rather a loan shift. It will still be paid back, only the US taxpayers will be the ones doing the paying. The fly in the ointment for the Biden administration (among others) is the fact that the President cannot pass new taxes. That requires Congress to get involved. So, if the money is being shifted to the taxpayers, that’s a tax increase. That’s illegal.

Of course, there is the moral aspect to this as well. No one held a gun to the head of these students and told them they HAD to take out a loan in the first place. They were totally free not to accept the terms of the agreement and to walk away. They chose not to do that. Another problem I personally have is that it sets a terrible precedent. If I take out a new mortgage loan on my house now, and decide in two years that I don’t have the money to pay for the loan, can I ask for a bailout? Why not? It’s been given to students because they were dumb enough to take it. Why not me?

And then of course, there is the fact that those are people that chose to get a higher education. It’s not like they were forced to go to college. And they could be forcing people who didn’t go to college to pay their debt. They also are forcing people like me that actually DID go to college, and DID pay back debt, to pay more debt. That’s debt that I frankly, didn’t incur, and shouldn’t have to pay back.

And finally, the straw that will break the camel’s back in this situation is the fact that Biden chose to use the “Emergency Clause”, which isn’t even written for students. It became law because of people serving overseas in the armed services. If they got into trouble paying back a loan because they were serving their country, they could have the loan or a part of it forgiven. It has nothing to do with college students. And of course, the fact that Biden tied it to the COVID pandemic, when he claims is over, and is officially set to end (according to the government) on May 11th. If there is no longer an “emergency”, then why do we need to have loan forgiveness? The students haven’t had to make payments on the loan since Donald Trump incorporated the waiver back in 2020 when the pandemic first hit. Biden keeps kicking the can down the road with extensions on waiving payments.

I would be very surprised by anything less than a 6-3 repudiation of Biden’s attempt to bypass the Constitution and impose a tax on America without Congress’ consent. Mark my words, no one will be getting their student loan debt forgiven. Bet the kids’ college fund on it! You can collect in early July when the ruling is released.

Carry on world…you’re dismiss.

It’s Not About What You Think…

No, you probably woke up this morning and checked to see what I had to say about the Warnock v. Walker outcome in Georgia, right? Sorry to disappoint. But today I’m talking about something that will be on your lips far longer than those two. Today we’re going to discuss the goings on with Moore v. Harper.

Moore v. Harper?

Yup. You’ve probably never heard about it, but you will. Oral arguments will take place today at the Supreme Court surrounding this case. It was decided by a federal appeals court that the state of North Carolina’s legislature cannot have the election districts they drew up because it favored Republicans. See, in North Carolina, their state house is made up of mostly Republicans. That means that the GOP would like nothing better than to draw districts that would pretty much guarantee that Republicans would get elected. Oh, it’s not that rare. Democrats do it too. And there are always court fights over it. And it depends which appellate court gets it as to whether or not they side with the Democrats or the Republicans. But you knew that already, didn’t you?

In Moore v. Harper, the issue is does a state, which is supposed to get the right to set it’s own election rules, have the right to draw districts that will favor one party over another. 29 states currently have state houses that favor Republicans. 19 have state houses favoring the Dems, and 2 are split. Both sides want to insure that they have the ability to gerrymander in their favor to set their agenda far into the future. And the question before SCOTUS is, if you’re going to allow states to make election rules, are you going to allow federal judges to overrule those rules?

Now, add to that question the fact that the Supreme Court is 6-3 conservative, and four of the nine Justices have already expressed the view that they feel the Constitution gives states the right to design their own election laws. That being the case, it will most likely fall that SCOTUS comes down on the side of the state on this one. And if they do, they’ve gone on record as saying that the states can do as they please when it comes to elections. The consequences, regardless which way this falls, would be enormous.

If you take away the ability of the losing side in each state’s right to set their election districts, you basically are giving 29 states the right to be Republican, and 19 states the right to be Democrats forever. Or at least until enough of the minority party moves into that state to change things. You’re starting to see that now in states like Arizona, Utah, and even Texas where Californians are moving to get away from high taxes. And you’ve seen that recently in Georgia. Ten years ago, no one would have thought Georgia, in the deep south would have two Senators in the US Senate from the Democrats’ side. But that’s what happens. Just like no one thought Florida would ever be anything but a toss-up state, especially after the 2000 election! It’s so red now, you’d think it’s on fire.

This is probably the greatest case to come before the Supreme Court…well…ever? It could not only determine what state houses around the country look like, but Congress in Washington as well (yes, the states set those districts too!) And that could just give the Republicans whatever edge they need to gain permanent majority in the House and the Senate for decades to come.

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

The “Same Sex Marriage” Thing

Congress is well on their way of spending their precious time left with Democrats in charge chasing after issues that really aren’t being on any list of what Americans care about. They aren’t doing anything special to deal with inflation. They aren’t doing anything to spur the economy that’s headed for recession next year. They haven’t solved the out of control crime problem, and they aren’t tackling immigration reform and shutting down the southern border from illegals.

No. They’ve decided to “codify same sex marriage”.

And it’s probably one of the worst decisions this congress has made. Here’s why. First of all, even though the Supreme Court has come out in favor of same sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2014. That opened the door for every state in the union to go ahead and accept the marriage of gay couples.

I’m not here to debate whether the SCOTUS decision was right or wrong. It was. That’s history. And as much as liberals try to rewrite it, once it happens it happens. I doubt seriously that this Supreme Court, as conservative as they appear to be, is going to change that after a scant eight years.

Here’s why it’s a waste of congress’ time. According to Gallup, there have been 491,000 same sex marriages since the high court okayed it. That’s up from 368,000 last year. Gallup has also come out and said that 3.9% of the population is gay. So, we’re not talking about a huge number here. That’s roughly the same number of people that have come to the United States from Austria or Belgium. So, first of all, we’re not talking a lot of folks.

Second, the Supreme Court has already come out and made their decision. It’s not like abortion where you can turn off the spigot and say, “No more abortions”. You can’t “unmarry” someone by fiat. Once you’re married, unless you get a divorce or one of the participants dies, you’re married. And you can’t call this a “states’ rights” issue, because Maryland can’t say that you’re married, but Wisconsin say that you’re not. There’s no way that works out. So, this is something that HAS to be a federal issue. The genie is out of the bottle on this one, and you can’t close the door on it now.

So, why is congress deciding to waste time talking about “codifying same sex marriage” when there are so many other important issues that they could try and solve? Because it’s low hanging fruit. They know there are members of the Republican party that will go along with it (it got advanced in the Senate by a 62-37 vote with 12 Republicans joining all of the Democrats). It will face the same deal in the House. Whether you believe same sex marriage is right or wrong doesn’t matter any more because it just plain IS. That’s the story here.

I would much prefer that maybe congress tackle something that effected more Americans, dealt with one of the problems that we as a nation feel is more important, and didn’t waste time piddling around with things that don’t need their attention. No one is coming after the gays today. And no one is going to come after the gays tomorrow. But, what do you say, Congress? Let’s try doing something and shutting off the southern border. People who live in Yuma, Arizona are having illegals just walk into their house and take food out of their refrigerators, WHILE THEY ARE HOME! If it happened here in my house, there would be some illegal corpses to clean up. And Arizona law protects you if you shoot an intruder in your home (there are exceptions).

Codifying same sex marriage is something you do when you have tackled all of the really tough problems. Democrats are pandering once again and don’t want to go out of power with anything controversial that they can’t win. THAT is the reason we’re getting this now.

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

The Difference Between The Right And The Left

I have sat quietly watching the Supreme Court decisions unfold in June. Oh, don’t get me wrong. I was happy to see the fact that the state of New York, which quite frankly I’ve always viewed as not just liberal but run by a bunch of narcissistic idiots that would never be allowed to even run for office in another state, get their anti-gun carry law banned. And I was happy that a “right” that was never granted by the Constitution (abortion) was overturned and given it’s rightful place back to the states, as should have happened some 50 years ago.

But what all of this has taught me is the overriding difference between the left and the right.

When the right has something passed that they don’t like, they go along with it until it can be changed. Oh, they may hold peaceful (that should have been underlined, in bold and in Italics!) rallies, as the pro-life group had done with abortion for decades. But they don’t riot in the streets. They don’t threaten bodily harm to the members of the high court. They don’t cry and weep incessantly like we’ve seen over the past few weeks. They go with the flow, gather up their members and when the time is right they change it.

What the left does is hold riots. They threaten. They go to violence almost immediately. If you don’t go along with what the left wants on an issue, you’re “cancelled” or banned. You’re the pariah. You’re the problem. It doesn’t matter that what they want makes no sense. It doesn’t matter that what they want is wrong. That doesn’t have anything to do with it. They want some crazy idea to be thrust, and they are going to spin it as “saving the children” (well, not in abortion’s case), or taking medicine or food out of grandma’s mouth. But they never give you both sides of the equation. Just because in the New York case, people can carry guns now without going through an arduous process, they think it’s going to lead to more crime. And the liberal media is going to highlight any time there is a shooting anywhere in the state, just wait.

As far as abortion is concerned, the left has always been more about protecting a non-existing “right” of women’s ability to choose what to do with her own body, rather than protecting the life of the unborn within that body. They knew they could never win an argument if killing a baby was a part of it, so they made it about “women’s health”. It’s not about women’s health. It’s about eliminating a pregnancy without regard to what they are actually doing so the women who are doing it don’t feel ashamed or guilty for killing a baby.

Of course, there are other differences as well. There’s the whole large government vs. small government argument. And you’ve got the states rights vs. federal government argument (which I thought the 10th Amendment answered quite clearly). And they don’t accept any argument that runs counter to their addle-minded way of thinking.

One of the best arguments I heard over the few weeks was, “Guns are in the Constitution. Abortion is not. Period.” Tough to argue with that one.

And until we get the youth of America educated properly, and not indoctrinated in our public schools, this fallacy of whatever I believe is right and what you prove to me that it isn’t right is dead wrong and you don’t deserve to live! has to be eliminated from our society.

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

Liberals Don’t Understand Dobbs v. Jackson Ruling

I get it that liberals and women who wanted to end pregnancies early was upset with the Dobbs v. Jackson ruling by the Supreme Court this past week. I mean, who could not see this one coming. The actual decision was leaked a month ago. And I know that as divisive as abortion is as a topic, one side was going to be utterly unhinged when it came out. But there was one thing that actually shocked me in the aftermath.

Democrats and liberals just don’t seem to understand the ruling.

How many times have you heard Nancy Pelosi, or AOC, or some other person in Congress….the very people that MAKE the friggin’ laws come out and say they have to “codify Roe v. Wade into law”. Even Joe Biden, with his half-century of public service in Washington, DC said he’d be in favor of it. In fact, Biden went so far as to waffle once again on getting rid of the Senate filibuster “in this case only” to allow the Senate to pass a law codifying Roe with only 50 votes (plus the Vice President’s tie-breaking vote). But all of the caterwauling is for naught.

SCOTUS didn’t say that abortion was illegal. They never made that claim. And so, it’s not a situation that Congress can come in and “codify” it with a law. Here’s where they went wrong.

Had the Supreme Court said that Roe was flawed because it’s unconstitutional because a law wasn’t passed in Congress (like they did with the EPA ruling that followed on Thursday last week), that would be an easy fix. Then the House and Senate could pass a law, Biden could sign it, and it would be nice and legal. But that’s not the issue here.

The issue that apparently no one on the left wants to grasp is, the Supreme Court said it wasn’t unconstitutional to make abortion legal. It was unconstitutional for the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to make abortion legal. That was a power not given to the federal government. Then the whole thing becomes a states’ rights issue. And if the states want to decide to make abortion legal, or legal with limitations, or illegal altogether, they have that power. And if the federal government wants to pass a law codifying Roe into law, they’re going to find themselves back in front of SCOTUS once again, probably in the fall, trying to explain how they didn’t dance around the states’ rights issue.

If I can get this one figured out, with no law degree, never attending a law class in my life, and only using a half-addled brain to read the Constitution, are you telling me that the people that have been elected to be the leaders of this country can’t figure this one out as well? It brought th whole states’ rights issue to the forefront, and that was probably the one thing the left didn’t want to have to deal with. Because there is no way around that argument. They cannot make abortion legal nationally without a Constitutional Amendment. By the way, the last Constitutional Amendment passed in May of 1992. And it’s only happened a total of 17 times (outside the Bill of Rights).

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

Dobbs v. Jackson did one thing. It brought th

Here’s Who To Thank For Defeating Roe v. Wade

Now, before I give you the answer, you know I have to tell you I was never a Never-Trumper. I wasn’t ever in his camp fully. I thought in 2016 that Trump made a much better candidate and would be a much better president than Hillary Clinton. And I thought in 2020 that Joe Biden was a doddering old fool who’s time had long since passed him by. I wasn’t enamored with Donald Trump but of the people running, he was certain by far the best candidate. And though I never liked his “style” of running things, not even when he hosted The Apprentice, I did like most of the policies that he implemented during his four years in office.

And Donald Trump is the guy we need to kiss his ring and thank because of the high court getting rid of Roe v. Wade.

When you think of it, Trump promised he would nominate conservative justices to the Supreme Court. He had not one, not two, but three nominations. Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. I think he got more conservative the more people he nominated. And it was because of the Barrett nomination that turned the tide of Dobbs v. Jackson. Oh, it could have been a 5-4 ruling had a liberal taken Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s place, and kept the seat liberal. But by moving ahead with a nomination just a couple of months before a presidential election, Trump cemented the over-turning of Roe v. Wade.

And yes, he promised to do that! Another campaign promise kept, 18 months after he left office!

Now, Trump was quick to take the victory lap, and take credit for the monumental decision. He was very quick to remind everyone of the campaign promise that he made to nominate justices to the Supreme Court that would overturn Roe. And he is deserving of this particular victory lap. In a time when we judge Trump’s effectiveness as a politician on whether his endorsements make it through primaries, this one has to stand out as the most shining example of his conservative values. With lesser men (or women) in power at the time, they may have acquiesced to waiting and letting the winner of the 2020 election decide who should be nominated.

Had someone waited, I don’t think Roe would have ever been overturned. Amy Coney Barrett was basically the one that allowed John Roberts to move to the conservative side. He wanted so badly to see that overturning Roe wasn’t going to be a 5-4 decision, and thus susceptible to being reviewed in a year or two once say, Clarence Thomas leaves the court. No, Roberts wanted it to make a statement. 6-3 makes a much louder statement than 5-4 decisions ever could.

So, I will congratulate and give Donald Trump his due today. He is deserving of this one. Take as many victory laps as you need big man. You’ve earned it.

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

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!