The Supreme Court Gets Something Right. Reinstitute “Remain in Mexico” Policy

Hat tip tip to the Conservative Tree House for this headline.  I can’t believe SCOTUS did anything this good.  In the words of Vizzini, “Inconceivable!”

Well however it happened a small shot of very good news for us and another thumb in the eye for Dementia Joe.  This week just keeps getting better and better.  The latest approval poll on Joe has him under water 41% to 55%.  Pretty sweet.

The ZMan Has a Post About the Upcoming SCOTUS Cases

ZMan reviews the two rather important upcoming Supreme Court cases on abortion restrictions and gun rights that are expected to be decided this Fall.  The Mississippi case is reviewing the constitutionality of a 15 week maximum on the age of the unborn child before abortion becomes illegal.  The gun case has to do with the New York law that makes it impossible for a gun owner to transport his legal gun out side of his home.

 

https://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=23982

 

The ZMan is of the opinion that the Supreme Court will fold to left-wing pressure in both cases.  He thinks the threat of packing the court is sufficient to get the Roberts court to cringe in fear and do as they’re told by their masters.  He’s probably right.  Roberts is a coward and a fool.  He’s already proved that.

But the real question is the one that is implied by the assumed result of the decisions.  Will Mississippi or some other state that has put restrictions on abortion tell the federal government no?  It would be crossing the Rubicon.  Once a state tells the federal government, “No,” a lot of things could happen up to and including the feds arresting legislators and governors.

Will it happen?  Right now I’m not sure.  I don’t know enough about the men who run these states.  Are they ready for the eventuality?  Have they come up with another intermediate action that will provide a similar result?

Of course it’s easy for me to talk about important people throwing down against the most powerful human organization on the face of the earth as if it were just two men fighting over who gets a parking spot for his car.  Messing with Washington is very consequential.  The last time anyone tried was during the Civil Rights era and Washington came out on top.  Serious individuals would only cross the line if they had a very strong idea about how they could win that fight.

But we’ll all learn something important this Fall.  First off we’ll find out how cowardly and traitorous the Supreme Court really is when it crawls on its belly.  Next we’ll find out if any state has the strength to tell the feds to screw.  That’s something worth knowing.

First Dividend from Installing ACB on the SCOTUS

In a 5-4 decision that saw John Roberts side with the Progs and newly appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett casting the deciding vote the Supreme Court overturned New York State’s onerous restrictions on religious gatherings.

https://archive.fo/xcOt8#selection-2345.139-2345.163

Let’s hope that Barrett’s presence on the bench will give courage to such unreliable votes as Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.  Who knows, maybe the Supreme Court will decide that allowing thugs to run wild in the street and allowing gangsters to steal a presidential election are just a tad Un-American.

 

 

 

 

 

Murkowski Jumps on the Trump Bandwagon

Other than Senator Collins in Maine who is in the fight of her political life for re-election I don’t think any other Republican will vote against Barrett.  Even that gutless weasel Romney can see which way the wind is blowing and will follow the Senate leader’s orders.  But seeing Murkowski cave tells me that she thinks Trump is going to win and she doesn’t want to be his biggest Republican target in two years when she come up for re-election.

 

Listening to these craven fools pretend that they are making decisions based on careful ethical considerations is nauseating.  These sham conservatives are the real problem in our government.  If we had actual conservatives in Washington we wouldn’t be in the end stages of governmental collapse.  Even if she votes for our side this time, I hope an actual conservative runs against her and gives the people a real choice.

Supreme Court Vacancy is a Huge Opportunity for the Trump Campaign

Over the last month the media has been filled with reports of the enormous cash advantage that the Biden campaign is taking over the Trump campaign.  It’s not that the President’s donations have been meager but rather because lefty billionaires are funding super PACs with a fire hose in a desperate attempt to carry Biden over the finish line by any and all means.

And like a deus ex machina (a god from the machine, manna from heaven, a set-up too good to be true) President Trump is handed a situation that allows him to cancel that advantage.  The rage and panic engendered by the opportunity to fill the vacancy is sure to dominate the press for weeks.  The President will tease the selection until Friday.  The hearings will be a three-ring circus.  Every tweet by the President will be a mini-event.  And meanwhile Joe “hidin’” Biden will be standing on the side crying, “doesn’t anyone want to know what I think about this?”

There is an old saying that God helps those who help themselves.  It’s true.  President Trump is an energetic advocate of his interests and when you are paying attention to the situation every once in a while, opportunity knocks.  The flip side of opportunity is the uncertainty and disruption that comes with riding a tiger.  But looking at our opponents and their haplessness in the face of managing the crises they have embraced I’ve got to like our odds of ending up on the winning side of these events.

I remember how even a minor calamity like Hurricane Katrina unraveled the Bush presidency while the true disaster of the COVID crisis is being politically weathered and the BLM insurrection is actually a net positive for the Trump campaign.  To me this is the proof that leadership is much more than just following an MBA slide show template on how a CEO leads an organization.  You truly need to know something about what people are.  And that’s why the Bushes and the Romneys can’t do it.  They’ve never met any actual humans in the wild.  They’ve heard of them at cocktail parties and at management retreats and even seen a few caged ones in their mansions where they keep a zoo of cooks, maids and body guards.  But they’ve never gone out into the forest and studied them.  Somebody like Bill Clinton loved going out in the brush and rub elbows with the common man.  That’s how he got re-elected even after the world knew that he was a lecherous old goat.  When the people looked at him, they knew he was a sinner but they also recognized that he was an actual human being.  No one will ever confuse Mitt Romney with a living man.

So, fate has spun the wheel again for President Trump and as ever he answers the call and puts the machine in gear.  Will he win the game?  It’s absolutely impossible to know for sure.  But I tell ya, I like our odds.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Has Died

I thought she would retire in April but she decided to die in office.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-dies-at-87

This will be an interesting situation for President Trump and especially some senators.  Susan Collins is supposedly in a tight race in Maine and she is always a potential weak link whenever a Supreme Court seat is in question.  Will the senate wait until after election day?  We’ll know pretty soon how they will play this.  From what I’ve heard Trump will pick a conservative woman to replace her.

Well more drama.  Sure, why not?

 

What Are the Priorities for Us in the New America of Neil Gorsuch, BLM and Antifa?

So here we are, the newly minted super-conservative Justice Gorsuch finds transgender rights in the Constitution of the United States.  And under the reliably spineless leadership of John Roberts every major case from illegal immigrants to Second Amendment rights were dynamited against us.  And there was absolutely no fig leaf for any of these decisions.  The Supreme Court is a disaster.  I no longer expect any relief from that Court.

Add onto this problem that Antifa and BLM are now the official enforcement wing of the Democrat party.  In any jurisdiction federal, state or local where they have cover from Democrat elected officials, they are shown to be ready, willing and able to wage literal war up to and including murder and arson against their enemies.  Living in a blue state or even a blue city is tantamount to living in Mao’s Cultural Revolution.  At any time, you can be sucked into a purge or pogrom that really has no limits on what can happen.  Your rights in these jurisdictions do not exist as such.  They can be overridden with no notice and are subject to amendment whenever circumstances make the ruling coalition think they would benefit from it.

Those are the conditions on the ground.  Where does that leave us?

From my point of view that precludes certain strategies.  With the clarification of the role of the Supreme Court I would say any idea that unconstitutional actions will be struck down nationally and thereby benefit people living in blue states is sheer fantasy.  Nothing will be done to restrain places like California, New England, or New York.  They will just make things continually worse until you knuckle under and learn to love Big Brother or leave.

I suppose there are strategies to hide in plain sight in places like these.  I know people who say they can avoid the consequences of living under these regimes and still enjoy life.  I confess I do not possess the coping skills that must be needed to hide your feelings when living in the belly of the beast.  My daily interactions here in New England with the true believers involve mind boggling levels of cognitive dissonance.  It takes every ounce of self-control not to laugh in their faces or explain why the things being claimed are patently absurd.

The alternative then is to revolt against these laws.  Ignoring them or avoiding them by stealth is becoming harder and harder in these places.  Ultimately control over all aspects of life is becoming more stringent everywhere but especially in these blue states.  To the extent that it can be done I suppose that will be the strategy for conservatives living in these areas.  You will have to go underground.  And this means as far as raising children you’ll have to figure out how to work around the indoctrination of the schools and other social settings that the Left has taken over.  This is the Benedict Option that Rod Dreher has talked about.  Ultimately, it’s a temporary measure because eventually they will eliminate freedom of religion entirely.

But from my point of view, the best idea is to live in a deep red state where the political leaders have the means to craft laws that protect their citizens from the unconstitutional consequences of the Supreme Court.  They can make a law upholding the freedom of religion in the Bill of Rights and when the Supreme Court strikes it down the Governor can defy the Supreme Court and say he will protect any of his citizens from federal prosecution.  I could see blanket pardons being handed out on a rolling basis and the bureaucrats in Washington spinning out of control as the President refuses to step in.

A number of states following a plan like this would eventually produce a situation on the ground where essentially you would have two legal entities hidden within one name.  This is sort of like the situation we currently have with marijuana use.  At the federal level and in half of the states it is illegal but in states like California and Colorado it is big business.  The same thing should be pushed as hard as possible for as many different parts of the law as possible.  Just as things like sanctuary cities and legalization of drugs have been dispiriting for our side, freedom of religion would be very dispiriting for them.  It would even have an impact on migration of leftists into red states.  If there weren’t the lifestyle protections available to them, they would be much less likely to inhabit these areas.

So essentially what I am saying is that the deep red states are the only remaining points of resistance to the encroachment of Leftist control.  Everything else has already been conquered.  They will need to be the catalyst for change and that can only happen in conjunction with the four-year protection provided by the beginning of a conservative President’s term.

Hopefully a revolt at the state level will begin and President Trump’s second term will provide that needed protection.

This Year’s Supreme Court Docket

I went through the Supreme Court Docket and picked out the ones I thought could have a major impact on social, political and constitutional issues.  This will be a very important year for a whole host of issues that conservatives are very interested in.  We will find out if Roberts is an enemy.

The issues include:

  1. Trying to force employers to put up with transgender insanity.
  2. Trying to force employers to put up with homosexual insanity.
  3. Trying to stop the federal government from doing its job removing illegal aliens
  4. Trying to force the government to uphold the expired DACA program.
  5. Ruling on New York City’s unconstitutional gun laws.
  6. Ruling on attacks against the religious freedoms of groups and individuals

Below is the list of the relevant cases.

 

October Term 2019

October Sitting

R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, No. 18-107 [Arg: 10.8.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether Title VII prohibits discrimination against transgender people based on (1) their status as transgender or (2) sex stereotyping under Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins.

 

Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, No. 17-1618 [Arg: 10.8.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.

 

Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda, No. 17-1623 [Arg: 10.8.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.

 

Kansas v. Garcia, No. 17-834 [Arg: 10.16.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 3.3.2020]

Holding: The Kansas statutes under which respondents were convicted are not preempted expressly or by implication under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

 

November Sitting

Barton v. Barr, No. 18-725 [Arg: 11.4.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether a lawfully admitted permanent resident who is not seeking admission to the United States can be “render[ed] … inadmissible” for the purposes of the stop-time rule, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1).

 

County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, No. 18-260 [Arg: 11.6.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the Clean Water Act requires a permit when pollutants originate from a point source but are conveyed to navigable waters by a nonpoint source, such as groundwater.

 

Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, No. 18-587 [Arg: 11.12.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy is judicially reviewable; and (2) whether DHS’s decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.

 

Trump v. NAACP, No. 18-588 [Arg: 11.12.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy is judicially reviewable; and (2) whether DHS’s decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.

 

McAleenan v. Vidal, No. 18-589 [Arg: 11.12.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy is judicially reviewable; and (2) whether DHS’s decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.

 

Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media, No. 18-1171 [Arg: 11.13.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether a claim of race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 fails in the absence of but-for causation.

 

December Sitting

 

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York, No. 18-280 [Arg: 12.2.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.

 

Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian, No. 17-1498 [Arg: 12.3.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether a common-law claim for restoration seeking cleanup remedies that conflict with remedies the Environmental Protection Agency ordered is a jurisdictionally barred “challenge” to the EPA’s cleanup under 42 U.S.C. § 9613 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act; (2) whether a landowner at a Superfund site is a “potentially responsible party” that must seek EPA approval under 42 U.S.C. § 9622(e)(6) of CERCLA before engaging in remedial action, even if the EPA has never ordered the landowner to pay for a cleanup; and (3) whether CERCLA pre-empts state common-law claims for restoration that seek cleanup remedies that conflict with EPA-ordered remedies.

 

Ovalles v. Barr, No. 18-1015 [Arg: 12.9.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the criminal alien bar, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), tempered by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), prohibits a court from reviewing an agency decision finding that a movant lacked diligence for equitable tolling purposes, notwithstanding the lack of a factual dispute.

 

Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, No. 18-776 [Arg: 12.9.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether a request for equitable tolling, as it applies to statutory motions to reopen, is judicially reviewable as a “question of law.”

 

January Sitting

 

Babb v. Wilkie, No. 18-882 [Arg: 1.15.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, which provides that personnel actions affecting agency employees aged 40 years or older shall be made free from any “discrimination based on age,” 29 U.S.C. §633a(a), requires a plaintiff to prove that age was a but-for cause of the challenged personnel action.

 

Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, No. 18-1195 [Arg: 1.22.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether it violates the religion clauses or the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution to invalidate a generally available and religiously neutral student-aid program simply because the program affords students the choice of attending religious schools.

 

February Sitting

 

U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith, No. 19-67 [Arg: 2.25.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the federal criminal prohibition against encouraging or inducing illegal immigration for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i), is facially unconstitutional.

 

Nasrallah v. Barr, No. 18-1432 [Arg: 3.2.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether, notwithstanding 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), the courts of appeals possess jurisdiction to review factual findings underlying denials of withholding (and deferral) of removal relief.

 

Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, No. 19-161 [Arg: 3.2.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether, as applied to the respondent, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2) is unconstitutional under the suspension clause.

 

June Medical Services LLC v. Russo, No. 18-1323 [Arg: 3.4.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit’s decision upholding Louisiana’s law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital conflicts with the Supreme Court’s binding precedent in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.

 

Russo v. June Medical Services LLC, No. 18-1460 [Arg: 3.4.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether abortion providers can be presumed to have third-party standing to challenge health and safety regulations on behalf of their patients absent a “close” relationship with their patients and a “hindrance” to their patients’ ability to sue on their own behalf; and (2) whether objections to prudential standing are waivable – per the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 4th, 5th, 7th, 9th, 10th and Federal Circuits – or non-waivable per the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the D.C., 2nd, and 6th Circuits.

 

 

March Sitting

 

Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc., No. 18-956 [Arg: 3.24.2020]

Issue(s): (1) Whether copyright protection extends to a software interface; and (2) whether, as the jury found, the petitioner’s use of a software interface in the context of creating a new computer program constitutes fair use.

 

Tanzin v. Tanvir, No. 19-71 [Arg: 3.24.2020]

Issue(s): Whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, permits suits seeking money damages against individual federal employees.

 

Carney v. Adams, No. 19-309 [Arg: 3.25.2020]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the First Amendment invalidates a longstanding state constitutional provision that limits judges affiliated with any one political party to no more than a “bare majority” on the state’s three highest courts, with the other seats reserved for judges affiliated with the “other major political party”; (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit erred in holding that a provision of the Delaware Constitution requiring that no more than a “bare majority” of three of the state courts may be made up of judges affiliated with any one political party is not severable from a provision that judges who are not members of the majority party on those courts must be members of the other “major political party,” when the former requirement existed for more than 50 years without the latter, and the former requirement, without the latter, continues to govern appointments to two other courts; and (3) whether the respondent, James Adams, has demonstrated Article III standing.

 

U.S. Agency for Int’l Development v. Alliance for Open Society Int’l, No. 19-177 [Arg: 3.25.2020]

Issue(s): Whether – when in Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International Inc., the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment bars enforcement of Congress’ directive, which required respondents, United States-based organizations that receive federal funds to fight HIV/AIDS abroad, to “have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking” as a condition of accepting those funds – the First Amendment further bars enforcement of that directive with respect to legally distinct foreign entities operating overseas that are affiliated with respondents.

 

Pereida v. Barr, No. 19-438 [Arg: 3.30.2020]

Issue(s): Whether a criminal conviction bars a noncitizen from applying for relief from removal when the record of conviction is merely ambiguous as to whether it corresponds to an offense listed in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

 

Trump v. Vance, No. 19-635 [Arg: 3.31.2020]

Issue(s): Whether a grand-jury subpoena served on a custodian of the president’s personal records, demanding production of nearly 10 years’ worth of the president’s financial papers and his tax returns, violates Article II and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

 

Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, No. 19-715 [Arg: 3.31.2020]

Issue(s): Whether the Committee on Oversight and Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives has the constitutional and statutory authority to issue a subpoena to the accountant for President Trump and several of his business entities demanding private financial records belonging to the president.

 

Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG, No. 19-760 [Arg: 3.31.2020]

Issue(s): Whether the Committee on Financial Services and the Intelligence Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives have the constitutional and statutory authority to issue a subpoena to creditors for President Donald Trump and several of his business entities demanding private financial records belonging to the president.

 

Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, No. 19-267 [Arg: 4.1.2020]

Issue(s): Whether the First Amendment’s religion clauses prevent civil courts from adjudicating employment-discrimination claims brought by an employee against her religious employer, when the employee carried out important religious functions.

 

St. James School v. Biel, No. 19-348 [Arg: 4.1.2020]

Issue(s): Whether the First Amendment’s religion clauses prevent civil courts from adjudicating employment-discrimination claims brought by an employee against her religious employer, when the employee carried out important religious functions.

 

April Sitting

 

Chiafalo v. Washington, No. 19-465 [Arg: 4.28.2020]

Issue(s): Whether enforcement of a Washington state law that threatens a fine for presidential electors who vote contrary to how the law directs is unconstitutional because a state has no power to legally enforce how a presidential elector casts his or her ballot and a state penalizing an elector for exercising his or her constitutional discretion to vote violates the First Amendment.

 

Colorado Department of State v. Baca, No. 19-518 [Arg: 4.28.2020]

Issue(s): (1) Whether a presidential elector who is prevented by their appointing state from casting an electoral-college ballot that violates state law lacks standing to sue their appointing state because they hold no constitutionally protected right to exercise discretion; and (2) whether Article II or the 12th Amendment forbids a state from requiring its presidential electors to follow the state’s popular vote when casting their electoral-college ballots.

 

Trump v. Pennsylvania, No. 19-454 [Arg: 4.29.2020]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and the Treasury had statutory authority under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 to expand the conscience exemption to the contraceptive-coverage mandate; (2) whether the agencies’ decision to forgo notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing the interim final rules rendered the final rules – which were issued after notice and comment – invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act; and (3) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit erred in affirming a nationwide preliminary injunction barring implementation of the final rules.

 

Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, No. 19-431 [Arg: 4.29.2020]

Issue(s): (1) Whether a litigant who is directly protected by an administrative rule and has been allowed to intervene to defend it lacks standing to appeal a decision invalidating the rule if the litigant is also protected by an injunction from a different court; and (2) whether the federal government lawfully exempted religious objectors from the regulatory requirement to provide health plans that include contraceptive coverage.