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!

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!