Posts

Survey Spells Bad News For Anti-Gunners

/0 Comments/in , /by

Americans own tens of millions of modern semiautomatic firearms that are the subject of a pending Supreme Court case, a Georgetown University professor estimated in a study released in August.

The study, which came five years after an initial effort in 2021, includes new data on the popularity of modern semiautomatic firearms that could influence Viramontes v. Cook County, a lawsuit seeking to invalidate a local ban on so-called “assault weapons” first passed by the Illinois county in 2006. The data suggests these modern firearms could be found to be “in common use,” making them protected under the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment precedents in Heller and Bruen.

William English, an assistant professor of strategy, economics, ethics, and public policy at Georgetown University, surveyed 51,398 U.S. residents aged 18 and older for the study, identifying 16,688 gun owners who provided detailed responses about firearm ownership and use, including the use of firearms for self-defense. English estimated that at least 88 million Americans own over 460 million firearms, including 60 million modern semiautomatic rifles and 539 million detachable magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

“In general, firearms ownership continued to diversify, both with regard to minorities and women in particular,” English told the Daily Caller News Foundation when reached for comment.

In May, Virginia Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed a ban on modern semiautomatic firearms, which drew immediate legal challenges from pro-Second Amendment organizations. Prior to the law taking effect, purchasers raced to buy the banned firearms. (Read more from “Survey Spells Bad News For Anti-Gunners” HERE)

Supreme Court Delivers Win to Trump, Allows Construction to Continue on White House Ballroom

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Supreme Court delivered a win to President Donald Trump, ruling that construction on the $400 million White House ballroom can continue.

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court stopped a ruling from a lower court that would have “restricted construction until Congress provided additional approvals,” the Hill reported.

While the ruling from the court “is not a final decision, and the case could ultimately return to the Supreme Court,” construction on the ballroom can move forward, according to the outlet:

It is not a final decision, and the case could ultimately return to the Supreme Court. But in the meantime, construction may proceed unimpeded. A 250-person crew is working on the ballroom 20 hours a day, seven days a week, court records indicate. . .

While Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts was reported to have joined Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor in dissenting, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett “sided with the president, ruling that a preservationist group likely had no right to sue.” (Read more from “Supreme Court Delivers Win to Trump, Allows Construction to Continue on White House Ballroom” HERE)

Trump Blows His Top at Supreme Court Over ‘Negative’ Rulings: Cost US ‘TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS!’

/0 Comments/in , , /by

President Donald Trump raged against the Supreme Court in a Truth Social tirade on Wednesday evening, saying that recent rulings on his tariffs and birthright citizenship have cost America “TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS.”

“Does anybody have any idea how much Money and Prestige the United States Supreme Court has cost our Nation with their negative Rulings on Birthright Citizenship and TARIFFS?” the president asked in his post just after 6 p.m. ET.

“The answer, TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS!”

In a 6-3 ruling back in February, the Supreme Court ruled that Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs are illegal, a decision Trump called a “disgrace” at the time. (Read more from “Trump Blows His Top at Supreme Court Over ‘Negative’ Rulings: Cost US ‘TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS!’” HERE)

Supreme Court to Hear from Alaskan Bush Pilot Whose Plane was Confiscated over a Six-Pack of Beer

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear an appeal from an Alaskan bush pilot whose plane was seized by authorities after they discovered it was bound for a remote, dry village with beer on board.

The appeal from the 82-year-old pilot, Kenneth Jouppi, could have national implications if the 6-3 conservative court limits the ability of state and local governments to rely on asset forfeiture. Jouppi claims that the taking of his $95,000 Cessna for what amounted to a six-pack of beer violated the 8th Amendment’s bar on excessive fines.

The Supreme Court is likely to hear oral arguments in the case later this year or early next — and hand down a decision by next summer.

“The Excessive Fines Clause of the Constitution was built for cases like this,” said Sam Gedge, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, which is representing the pilot. “As government agencies increasingly exploit fines and forfeitures to pad their budgets, it’s vital that the Supreme Court make clear that the Excessive Fines Clause is a meaningful check on government overreach.” (Read more from “Supreme Court to Hear from Alaskan Bush Pilot Whose Plane was Confiscated over a Six-Pack of Beer” HERE)

DOJ Vows ‘Birth Tourism’ Crackdown after Supreme Court Rules Against Trump in Birthright Citizenship Case

/1 Comment/in , , /by

The Justice Department on Tuesday pledged to crack down on so-called “birth tourism” after the Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s executive order outlawing birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants and US visitors.

Colin McDonald, the DOJ’s assistant attorney general for fraud enforcement, directed federal prosecutors to “zealously protect the sanctity of United States citizenship by investigating and prosecuting those who fraudulently exploit our immigration system” by traveling to the country under “false pretenses” to give birth.

“The criminal laws of the United States already prohibit conduct inherent to so many of these so-called ‘birth tourism’ schemes,” McDonald, the administration’s “fraud czar,” wrote in a memo to DOJ employees. “For example, many such schemes start with a false visa application – with lies about the purpose or duration of one’s travel to the United States.”

McDonald included three examples of birth tourism schemes the DOJ has prosecuted in recent years.

In 2024, Michael Wei Yueh Liu and Jing Dong – a husband-and-wife team – were each sentenced to 41 months in prison after being accused of running a birth tourism business that catered to Chinese nationals. Their company – “USA Happy Baby” — charged clients tens of thousands of dollars and assisted them in fraudulently obtaining US visas, according to McDonald. (Read more from “DOJ Vows ‘Birth Tourism’ Crackdown after Supreme Court Rules Against Trump in Birthright Citizenship Case” HERE)

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Three of Nine Supremes Believe in ‘Transgender Girls’

/0 Comments/in , /by

Three of the nine justices on the U.S. Supreme Court believe that boys can swap their legal sex to become girls by just saying so.

The endorsement of the revolutionary demands of transgenderism came from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, backed by Justice Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who wrote:

[Male] Respondent B. P. J. is a transgender girl who wants to live her life consistent with her gender identity.

The three judges’ acceptance of the so-called “transgender” claim is based on the progressives’ political demand that people they favor can and should be liberated from biological, intellectual, and social constraints that they dislike. In contrast, conservatives believe that civic norms and laws should manage the competitive and unchanging nature of human biology, such as biological differences that would disadvantage nearly all women in mixed-sex sports competitions.

The faith in progressive self-liberation is described in the three judges’ dissent against the court’s majority decision that recognized the legal term “sex” has been based on unchangeable biology:

The term “sex” in Title IX, the Javits Amendment, and the Title IX regulations cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex. The ordinary meaning of the term “sex” at the time of enactment in the early 1970s was biological sex and not gender identity, particularly in the sports context

(Read more from “Three of Nine Supremes Believe in ‘Transgender Girls’” HERE)

Supreme Court Restores Access to Abortion Pill Mifepristone through Telehealth, Mail and Pharmacies

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Supreme Court on Monday restored broad access to the abortion pill mifepristone, blocking a lower-court ruling that had threatened to upend one of the main ways abortions are provided across the nation.

The order signed by Justice Samuel Alito temporarily allows women seeking abortions to obtain the pill at pharmacies or through the mail, without an in-person visit to a doctor.

Those practices had been permitted for several years until a federal appeals court imposed new restrictions last week.

The latest order will remain in effect for another week while both sides respond and the high court considers the issue more fully. (Read more from “Supreme Court Restores Access to Abortion Pill Mifepristone through Telehealth, Mail and Pharmacies” HERE)

SCOTUS Backs Trump: Votes 9:0 to Curb Migrants’ Asylum Claims

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Supreme Court has unanimously decided to handcuff liberal judges who want to help the growing number of migrants who lose their asylum pleas at the Justice Department.

“The unanimous decision in Urias–Orellana v. Bondi is a win for the Trump Administration in maintaining a high burden to overturn [the Justice Department’s] immigration courts in asylum cases,” said lawyer Jonathan Turley.

The decision means that millions of migrants will face even tougher pressure to leave the United States, especially after they are arrested by ICE.

The win is one of many gains by President Donald Trump’s deputies as they try to accelerate the number of self-deportations and ICE deportations. For example, in December, 38 percent of the migrants detained by ICE chose to go home rather than file lawsuits to stay in the United States.

The court decision in Urias-Orellana v. Bondi was written by the court’s most left-wing judge, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. (Read more from “SCOTUS Backs Trump: Votes 9:0 to Curb Migrants’ Asylum Claims” HERE)

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Supreme Court Blocks California Law That Stopped Schools From Telling Parents if Their Kid Is Transgender

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Supreme Court on Monday blocked a law that prevents California schools from telling parents if their child comes out as transgender, after granting an emergency appeal from a conservative legal group.

The order for now blocks a state law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in July 2024 that made California the first state to bar school districts from requiring staff to notify parents of their child’s gender identification.

The ruling also blocks a rule that required teachers to use a student’s preferred pronouns.

Monday’s granting of an emergency appeal from a conservative legal group comes after many parents and teachers challenged the law.

The Thomas More Society, representing two sets of Catholic parents, argued the law causes schools to mislead them and secretly facilitates gender transition in minors. (Read more from “Supreme Court Blocks California Law That Stopped Schools From Telling Parents if Their Kid Is Transgender” HERE)

Trump’s Ominous Two-Word Warning If Supreme Court Rules Against Emergency Tariffs

/0 Comments/in , , /by

President Trump declared Monday that the US would be “screwed” if the Supreme Court rules against his reciprocal tariff policies — arguing the feds would have to “pay back” billions in revenue collected over the past year.

“[I]f the Supreme Court rules against the United States of America on this National Security bonanza, WE’RE SCREWED!” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

“The actual numbers that we would have to pay back if, for any reason, the Supreme Court were to rule against the United States of America on Tariffs, would be many Hundreds of Billions of Dollars,” he wrote.

“[A]nd that doesn’t include the amount of ‘payback’ that Countries and Companies would require for the Investments they are making on building Plants, Factories, and Equipment, for the purpose of being able to avoid the payment of Tariffs.”

Trump argued that “[w]hen these Investments are added, we are talking about Trillions of Dollars! It would be a complete mess, and almost impossible for our Country to pay.” (Read more from “Trump’s Ominous Two-Word Warning If Supreme Court Rules Against Emergency Tariffs” HERE)

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore via Flickr