Posts

Supreme Court Slaps Down Unequal Treatment of Churches in COVID Rules

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Supreme Court sided with a rural Colorado church Tuesday that challenged the state Democrat governor’s COVID rules restricting building capacity in some parts of the state.

The 6-3 decision overturned lower court rulings that had upheld Gov. Jared Polis’s church gathering limits to a maximum of 25 percent or 50 people, whichever is fewer, and ordered lower courts to re-examine the case.

Today in Colorado it is perfectly legal for hundreds of shoppers to pack themselves cheek by jowl into a Lowes or other big box store or patronize any one of the thousands of other retail establishments that are not subject to draconian numerical limits,” church attorney Barry Arrington told National Review.

In the brief unsigned order, Justices Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor dissented, arguing the case was moot given the state had already repealed its COVID orders on churches following a November ruling in a similar case out of New York nullifying religious restrictions. (Read more from “Supreme Court Slaps Down Unequal Treatment of Churches in COVID Rules” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

You Think Trump’s SCOTUS Picks Are Making a Difference? Think Again

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari Monday in a case that threatened to chip away at marriage equality. The Court’s denial will disallow Indiana’s effort to discriminate against same-sex couples, and will continue to preserve the meaning of Obergefell v. Hodges.

Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill (R) took the position in Box v. Henderson that same-sex spouses should not have the same rights to be listed on state-issued birth certificates as opposite-sex spouses. The case arose as the result of several lesbian couples who conceived via artificial insemination; Indiana refused to list birth mothers’ wives on their children’s official birth certificates, but regularly listed birth mothers’ husbands on birth certificates without additional requirement. . .

By the time Indiana appealed its loss at the Seventh Circuit, SCOTUS would include Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and many court-watchers wondered whether the change to the bench would result in the Court’s eroding its landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges to allow the discrimination Indiana sought to conduct.

(Read more from “You Think Trump’s SCOTUS Picks Are Making a Difference? Think Again” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Supreme Court Flooded with Filings in Texas Challenge to Voting Procedures

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Supreme Court has been flooded with filings since Texas launched its case against Pennsylvania and three other states on Monday night, increasing the likelihood that the Court will finally hear a challenge to the 2020 presidential election results. . .

The sheer scale of filings in just three days — including from Democrats and groups on the left — for a case that the Supreme Court has not yet said it will hear may increase the chance that it will do so.

The Pennsylvania filing calls the Texas lawsuit a “seditious abuse of the judicial process,” prompting a shocked response from constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley: “Filing with the Supreme Court is the very antithesis of sedition.”

(Read more from “Supreme Court Flooded with Filings in Texas Challenge to Voting Procedures” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against California’s Worship Bans

/1 Comment/in , /by

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday against California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) restrictions on indoor worship services, agreeing with religious groups they are unconstitutional.

The High Court granted a petition from Harvest Rock Church in Pasadena that sought to overturn a lower court’s ruling in favor of Newsom’s restrictions.

The ruling cited the Supreme Court’s decision last week in a similar case in which it ruled in favor of faith groups that challenged New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s (D) worship restrictions. . .

“Governor Gavin Newsom’s orders ban ALL in-person worship for 99.1 percent of Californians,” the nonprofit litigation firm stated, adding that while Newsom has banned the majority of in-person religious services, “warehouses, big box centers, shopping malls, liquors stores, family entertainment and destination centers, gyms, fitness centers, and museums receive preferential treatment with either no capacity limits or no numerical limits.” (Read more from “U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against California’s Worship Bans” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

SCOTUS Blocks Cuomo’s COVID Restrictions on Church Attendance in New York

/0 Comments/in , /by

In a 5-4 ruling late Wednesday night, the U.S Supreme Court barred the state of New York from imposing strict attendance limits on religious services, in a major win for religious freedom.

Orthodox Jewish group Agudath Israel of America and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn sued New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo for discriminatory targeting of religious groups with COVID restrictions, as houses of worship were being held to far more stringent standards than neighboring businesses.

At the time of the lawsuits filing, both the Agudath Israel of America and Diocese of Brooklyn fell into red or orange zones, which under state law allowed only 10 or 25 people into a house of worship at any time, regardless of the building’s typical capacity. At the same time, stores and business deemed essential were given far laxer standards, some even lacking any limits on their capacity.

Newly minted Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas in support of the aggrieved religious groups, while Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

The per curium opinion determined that New York’s targeted responses run in direct opposition to the First Amendment, stating, “Even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten. The restrictions at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty.” (Read more from “SCOTUS Blocks Cuomo’s COVID Restrictions on Church Attendance in New York” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Reverses Ruling in Election-Observers Case

/0 Comments/in , /by

Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned an order requiring that election observers be allowed within six feet of ballot-counting operations.

In its decision, the court said state law only requires that observers be allowed “in the room” where ballots are counted and does not mandate a minimum distance, NBC News said.

The 5-2 majority opinion also found that the Philadelphia Board of Elections “did not act contrary to the law in fashioning its regulations governing the positioning of candidate representatives,” according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. . .

The ruling reverses a Nov. 5 order in which Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Judge Christine Fizzano Cannon sided with the Trump campaign and agreed to reduce the 25-foot distance from which “candidates, watchers or candidate representatives” could watch the votes being counted. (Read more from “Pennsylvania Supreme Court Reverses Ruling in Election-Observers Case” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

President Trump Rails Against Supreme Court for Extending Ballot Deadlines

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Trump took to Twitter to blast the Supreme Court following its decision this week to allow Pennsylvania and North Carolina to count mail-in ballots after Election Day.

“If Sleepy Joe Biden is actually elected President, the 4 Justices (plus1) that helped make such a ridiculous win possible would be relegated to sitting on not only a heavily PACKED COURT, but probably a REVOLVING COURT as well,” Trump tweeted just before 3 a.m. Friday. “At least the many new Justices will be Radical Left!” . . .

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld previous decisions to extend absentee ballot deadlines. That will allow ballots to be counted up to three days after Nov. 3 in Pennsylvania and nine days in North Carolina — both key battleground states that Trump won in 2016. . .

The president lashed out against the highest court in the land again Friday morning, responding to a Wednesday story about North Carolina’s extension.

“This decision is CRAZY and so bad for our Country,” he wrote. “Can you imagine what will happen during that nine day period. The Election should END on November 3rd.” (Read more from “President Trump Rails Against Supreme Court for Extending Ballot Deadlines” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Republicans Go on Offense on Religion at Barrett Hearing as Democrats Pivot to Obamacare

/0 Comments/in , /by

Senate Republicans at the Monday Supreme Court confirmation hearings pushed harder against “religious tests” posed to Judge Amy Coney Barrett, even as Senate Democrats dropped the subject and pivoted toward criticisms of her alleged opposition to the Affordable Care Act.

The Republican strategy, prompted by criticisms of Barrett’s Catholicism in the weeks leading up to the hearings, featured prominently in the opening remarks of many members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, including those of Chuck Grassley, Ben Sasse, and Josh Hawley. All three claimed Democrats have been biased against Barrett, as well as other religious nominees, because they hold personal views out of step with the legal consensus on abortion, gay marriage, and religious liberty.

Both Sasse and Hawley delivered lengthy speeches on the subject, with Sasse decrying “religious tests” posed by Democrats and Hawley slamming the party as displaying unconstitutional, open hostility to faith.

“This bedrock principle of American liberty is now under attack,” Hawley said, referencing previous questions about faith posed by Democrats to Barrett and others.

Democrats, however, denied the bias and steered clear of religion. Instead, they focused on healthcare, arguing that Barrett is an opponent of former President Barack Obama’s signature achievement in office. Sen. Chris Coons said in his remarks that he and other Democrats will not consider Barrett’s faith, but rather her legal record. He said that a court with Barrett would do “irreparable harm” to civic order, pointing specifically to the Obamacare lawsuit. (Read more from “Republicans Go on Offense on Religion at Barrett Hearing as Democrats Pivot to Obamacare” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Amy Coney Barrett Aligns Legal Philosophy With Late Justice Antonin Scalia in Opening Statement; CNN Skips Majority of SCOTUS Hearing

/0 Comments/in , /by

By Fox News. Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, in her opening statement on Monday to the Senate Judiciary Committee, emphasized the role of the judicial branch and said it is not the court’s duty to “solve every problem or right every wrong” in American life.

“Courts have a vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law, which is critical to a free society,” Barrett said Monday, the first of a four-day hearing on her nomination to the Supreme Court. “But courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life.”

She continued: “The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the People. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try.”

In her four-page opening statement, Barrett aligned her legal philosophy with that of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, a member of the court’s conservative wing for whom she previously clerked.

“It was the content of Justice Scalia’s reasoning that shaped me. His judicial philosophy was straightforward: A judge must apply the law as written, not as the judge wishes it were. Sometimes that approach meant reaching results that he did not like,” Barrett told senators. (Read more from “Amy Coney Barrett Aligns Legal Philosophy With Late Justice Antonin Scalia in Opening Statement” HERE)

_________________________________________________________

CNN Skips Much of Historic Amy Coney Barrett Hearing, Gets Bashed

By Fox News. The historic Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court kicked off Monday morning, but anyone who relies on CNN for news might not have any idea.

The liberal CNN raised eyebrows by cutting away from the hearing early on, instead having pundits bash Barrett and then pivoting to mostly coverage of the coronavirus pandemic. . .

The socially distanced hearing is nothing like any Supreme Court hearing in the past, with the nominee wearing a black face mask in the television split-screen as senators give their opening statements. Some senators are beaming in virtually as they aim to remain safe from the coronavirus pandemic. The unprecedented news event was aired by MSNBC and Fox News as CNN largely ignored the early session.

“Aside from missing out on partisan commentaries from Senators that could just as easily be delivered by Brianna Keilar or Anderson Cooper, it’s sadly not surprising that CNN has shown little interest in the hearing,” NewsBusters managing editor Curtis Houck told Fox News.

“It’s as if the hearing hasn’t been going on this morning. Just as soon as the statements from Chairman Graham and Ranking Member Feinstein concluded, CNN bailed,” Houck added. “And then it was back to their predictable drivel, trying to strike fear into the hearts of viewers on coronavirus and offer newscasts that are in-kind donations to the Biden campaign.” (Read more from “Cnn Skips Much of Historic Amy Coney Barrett Hearing, Gets Bashed” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Shameless Media Peddling Democrat Propaganda on Court-Packing; Senator Says That Confirming Barrett ‘Constitutes Court-Packing,’

/0 Comments/in , /by

By Townhall. . .On Sunday, the Associated Press rolled out Newspeak, adopting a Democrat euphemism for court-packing, which is the Democrats’ plan to subvert the rule of law by transforming the Supreme Court into another legislative body via the addition of new judgeships. The AP published the following passage:

“[Gov. and Sen. candidate Steve Bullock (D-MT)] said that if Coney Barrett was confirmed, he would be open to measures to depoliticize the court, including adding judges to the bench, a practice critics have dubbed packing the courts,” reads the original AP story.

Only after sharp criticism from conservatives on Twitter did the AP remove its Newspeak. This is why Jack Dorsey and his liberal cohorts at Twitter are rolling out temporary speech codes to crack down on free speech and interfere in the election. . .

Free speech is under attack. The truth is under attack. Our constitutional republic is under attack. The media has been infiltrated by far-left activists working for the Democratic Party who are hellbent on indoctrinating the American people and destroying our system of government to advance the far-left agenda. The stakes couldn’t be higher this November.

(Read more from “Shameless Media Peddling Democrat Propaganda on Court-Packing” HERE)

_______________________________________________________

Coons Says That Confirming Barrett ‘Constitutes Court-Packing,’ Sasse Responds That’s ‘Obviously’ Incorrect

By Fox News. Senate Judiciary Committee member Sen. Chris Coons said on Sunday that the Senate moving to confirm President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett “constitutes court-packing,” and called the nominee’s views “disqualifying.”

Coons, D-Del., made the comments during an interview with “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace. Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., also spoke with Wallace Sunday.

“I’m going to be laying out the ways in which Judge Barrett’s views … are not just extreme, they’re disqualifying,” Coons said of Democrats’ strategy for Barrett’s hearings. “It constitutes court-packing.”

Court-packing’s traditional definition is expanding the Supreme Court by law and then confirming justices to those seats, not what Republicans are doing, which is filling a naturally occurring vacancy. Sasse shot back that Coons’ definition of court-packing was “obviously” incorrect and accused the Democrat of using “Orwellian” language. (Read more from “Coons Says That Confirming Barrett ‘Constitutes Court-Packing,’ Sasse Responds That’s ‘Obviously’ Incorrect” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE