Posts

Electors Must Vote for Their State’s Preferred Candidate, Supreme Court Rules

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled Monday that states can require members of the Electoral College to vote for the same presidential candidate as their respective state.

The ruling puts an end to the occasional so-called faithless electors, who vote for a candidate different than that of the state they are representing. Though many states already have laws in place that require electors to vote for the winner of their state’s popular vote, electors have at times failed to do so.

“Today, we consider whether a State may also penalize an elector for breaking his pledge and voting for someone other than the presidential candidate who won his State’s popular vote. We hold that a State may do so,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the court’s majority opinion for the case Chiafalo v. Washington.

Though rare, as few as 10 faithless electors could have changed the outcomes of five of the previous 58 presidential elections, The New York Times reported. . .

In 2019, the Washington State Supreme Court upheld $1,000 fines on electors who had voted for Colin Powell instead of Hillary Clinton, saying that the Constitution allowed for states to insist that their electors vote according to their respective popular votes, according to The New York Times. The electors appealed to the Supreme Court after the decision, setting the foundation for the Monday decision on Chiafalo v. Washington. (Read more from “Electors Must Vote for Their State’s Preferred Candidate, Supreme Court Rules” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Supreme Court Hands Huge Victory to Families on School Choice

/0 Comments/in , /by

In a 5-4 decision Tuesday, the Supreme Court held that families have a right to seek the best educational opportunities for their children, by preventing states from blocking the participation of religiously affiliated schools in state school choice programs.

In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, the court ruled that the application of a “no-aid” provision in Montana’s Constitution violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, since it barred state tax credit scholarships from being used at private religious schools.

In a huge win for families, the high court held that states cannot apply the no-aid provision to discriminate against religious schools by excluding them from private school choice programs.

In 2002, the court’s ruling in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris held that the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution did not block parents from choosing schools that are the best fit for their children, including religious schools.

Tuesday’s decision in Espinoza removed the largest state constitutional obstacle by holding that so-called Blaine Amendments cannot be used to deny choice to parents.

Under the U.S. Constitution, states no longer may prevent parents from choosing religious schools if they are participating in a school choice program.

“A state need not subsidize private education. But once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools simply because they are religious,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the opinion of the court in Espinoza.

This decision struck a blow to the notoriously anti-Catholic Blaine Amendment in Montana’s Constitution that sanctioned explicit discrimination against religious schools in funding. Montana’s discrimination hurt families who have a wide variety of values and preferences when it comes to their children’s education.

As the Supreme Court had previously noted, Blaine Amendments have an “ignoble” history. The amendments are named after Sen. James G. Blaine of Maine, who in 1875 sought a federal constitutional prohibition of aid to “sectarian” schools.

“Consideration of the amendment arose at a time of pervasive hostility to the Catholic Church and to Catholics in general, and it was an open secret that sectarian was code for Catholic,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the court’s Mitchell v. Helms decision in 2000.

As Jarrett Stepman and one of us, Lindsey Burke, wrote previously in the Journal of School Choice:

Catholics sought to establish their own schools, and proposed that funding should follow, as it had to the common school (proto-public schools).

Supporters of the common school movement perceived a threat to its mission in such proposals. … Against this backdrop, Blaine [Amendments] sought to prevent aid to Catholic schooling as part of a wider reaction to increased Catholic immigration.

Blaine’s effort to amend the U.S. Constitution failed in 1875, but his effort still served as a major impediment to school choice, continuing to thwart modern-day school choice programs in the 21st century.

That’s because 37 states went on to adopt similar amendments, sometimes referred to as “baby Blaine Amendments.” Prior to today’s ruling, in states such as Montana, many of these state Blaine Amendments and similar “compelled support” clauses restricted or outright prohibited the use of taxpayer funds at private religious schools.

This timeline shows when states adopted Blaine Amendments and similar “compelled support” clauses.

The Supreme Court made it clear Tuesday that the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution prohibits discrimination against religious schools on the basis of their religious status—a status that provides families with more education options that best meet the needs of their children.

The high court said that if states create a publicly available benefit, such as a scholarship program, they must allow religious schools to participate. The states that have Blaine Amendments in place are now prohibited from excluding religious school options.

In Mitchell v. Helms, Thomas wrote of Blaine Amendments: “This doctrine, born of bigotry, should be buried now.” On Tuesday, the Supreme Court’s decision in Espinoza took us one step closer to achieving that goal.

Now is the time for states to cast aside these 19th-century rules rooted in prejudice that unfairly punish religious families, students, and schools. The Constitution requires states to provide a level playing field for religious and secular education.

The legal impediment to school choice programs is now gone, and it’s up to state legislatures to move forward advancing education choice.

The court made it clear that policymakers across the country now have the power to enact robust school choice programs. They should do just that. (For more from the author of “Supreme Court Hands Huge Victory to Families on School Choice” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

John Roberts Screws Protectors of Life Again, Strikes Down Louisiana’s Abortion Law

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Supreme Court on Monday struck down a Louisiana abortion law, handing a win to abortion rights advocates who feared the conservative court would break with past rulings to rein in protections that emerged from the landmark decision in Roe v. Wade.

The justices voted 5-4 to invalidate Louisiana’s admitting-privilege law in the first major abortion ruling of the Trump era, which came after the court struck down a nearly identical Texas restriction four years ago.

The ruling, which underscored the razor-thin voting margin over abortion rights, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the court’s four liberals, is likely to make future Supreme Court decisions over a woman’s right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy an even more pressing issue in the coming presidential election.

The decision is also the clearest indication yet that the court, which now tilts more conservative with the addition of President Trump’s two nominees, is pursuing a more restrained approach than many abortion rights advocates feared.

In a concurring opinion, Roberts said his vote was guided by deference to prior rulings, particularly the court’s 2016 decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, which struck down a nearly identical Texas law. (Read more from “John Roberts Screws Protectors of Life Again, Strikes Down Louisiana’s Abortion Law” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Colorado Supreme Court Upholds Gun Magazine Law

/0 Comments/in , /by

. . .The Colorado Supreme Court issued it’s ruling Monday morning, ending the seven-year challenge by Loveland-based Rocky Mountain Gun Owners.

In 2013, one year after the Aurora Theater Shooting, Colorado’s democratic-controlled legislature passed a number of gun reform bills, including House Bill 13-1224, which banned the sale and transfer of magazines that hold more than 15 rounds of ammunition. Then-Gov. John Hickenlooper signed the bill into law, which took effect July 1, 2013.

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners sued in state court, saying it violated the right to bear arms under Colorado’s Constitution. Because of that, Monday’s ruling is final and cannot be appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

. . .”We hold that HB 1224 is a reasonable exercise of the police power that has neither the purpose nor effect of nullifying the right to bear arms in self-defense encompassed by article II, section 13 of the Colorado Constitution,” the 7-0 ruling concluded.

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners sued in state court, saying it violated the right to bear arms under Colorado’s Constitution. Because of that, Monday’s ruling is final and cannot be appealed to the United States Supreme Court. (Read more from “Supreme Court Upholds Gun Magazine Law” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Woman Turns to Supreme Court to Get Her Guns Back

/0 Comments/in , /by

In 2013, Lori Rodriguez called San Jose police to her home because her husband was having a mental health crisis and making violent threats. Seven years later, she is petitioning the Supreme Court to force the city to return her guns.

“It’s not right. I shouldn’t have to do this to get back what’s mine,” Rodriguez told the Washington Free Beacon. “They violated several of my constitutional rights.”

Rodriguez claims police ordered her to open the couple’s gun safe so they could seize all of the weapons in the home after her husband was detained for making threats that the city says included “shooting up schools.” Cops seized not only her husband’s weapons but also the guns that were personally registered to Rodriguez. The city has repeatedly rebuffed her requests to return her property.

The suit is now the sole case with Second Amendment implications remaining before the Court after the justices rejected 10 other gun-rights cases on June 15. Rodriguez’s legal challenge comes as the federal government and a number of states debate “red flag” bills that would allow authorities to deny gun rights to citizens. It has the potential to clarify the extent to which the Second Amendment protects individuals from seizures of firearms.

San Jose city attorney Richard Doyle did not respond to a request for comment. The city defended its actions, saying that authorities were within their rights to confiscate the guns, calling Rodriguez’s claim “borderline frivolous.” (Read more from “Woman Turns to Supreme Court to Get Her Guns Back” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Supreme Court Rules Women Are No Longer Real but Just Fantasies

/0 Comments/in , , /by

This past Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled by a vote of 6-3 that a woman is not real.

Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch announced, “The six of us on the Court who are clearly smarter than the dissenting three, and, likewise, much brighter and wiser than the hundreds of millions of you deplorable rubes across the land who still believe in biology and genetics, have decided, by god-like fiat, that as of June 15, 2020, a female is no longer a fact, but a fantasy.” . . .

“Therefore, on this grand day of enlightenment, we proclaim that throughout the land, all subjects of the United States of America must now bow in submission to the Rainbow altar and its golden calf. You must pay homage to our Cult of Feelings. You must deny reality and cast all reason aside.

“How foolish of you think that there is a God and that He created man as a binary male and female. How naive of you to think a female is a fact. She is not!

“In our day of gnosis, we know that nothing can be known and, therefore, we know that a woman is little more than a fantasy and a fabrication. We are sure that nothing is sure, but of this one thing we are sure … Being a woman is a social construct and not an objective reality. (Read more from “Supreme Court Rules Women Are No Longer Real but Just Fantasies” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Justices Continue Long, Shameful Silence on Second Amendment

/0 Comments/in , /by

When the Supreme Court earlier this spring dismissed a New York gun case from its docket without ruling on the merits, disappointed Second Amendment advocates still had high hopes.

After all, even though the court hadn’t decided a meaningful Second Amendment case in more than a decade, at least four justices had recently signaled their desire to do so in the near future.

We comforted ourselves with reminders that the court had plenty of pending Second Amendment cases it could take up for next term. Many of them provided even better opportunities for protecting the right to keep and bear arms than those presented in the New York State Pistol & Rifle Association case the court declined to decide in April.

Unfortunately, the court this week dealt a serious blow to hopes that it would hear a Second Amendment case in its next term, denying certiorari in all the gun-related cases pending before it.

In laymen’s terms, the court effectively said, “We will not review the lower court decisions upholding these constitutionally questionable gun control laws.”

Of course, the court could decide later this year to grant certiorari in a different Second Amendment case that has not yet been filed. But the reality is that the justices were presented with a perfect opportunity unlikely to repeat itself later this term, and still declined to take up a case.

That does not bode well for the near future.

To put it bluntly, the justices had their pick of the litter. There was a slew of excellent cases to choose from, representing a wide variety of Second Amendment issues from different states and with different plaintiffs.

Several cases involved state bans on the possession of so-called “assault weapons,” where the court could have clarified whether semi-automatic rifles are the sorts of firearms “commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes” that are protected under District of Columbia v. Heller.

Several more cases challenged state requirements of “good cause” for concealed carry permits, where the court could have addressed the scope of the Second Amendment’s protection outside the home.

Other cases dealt with tangential but nonetheless important questions: Can California limit ownership of handguns to a select list of those it arbitrarily deems “safe”? Can states effectively prohibit concealed carry permits for nonresidents? Did the federal government violate the Second and Fifth Amendments by banning interstate handgun sales?

Given these options, the court’s blanket refusal to take up a new Second Amendment case was not a matter of simply waiting for a better fact pattern on the basis that “bad cases make bad law.”

No. This was, at a fundamental level, another abdication by the court in which it once again declined to do its job of saying what the law is with respect to the Second Amendment.

That’s particularly shocking when it comes to the line of cases involving “good cause” requirements for concealed carry permits, where lower courts are split on the matter.

That abdication did not go unnoticed by some members of the court. Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, dissented from the denial of certiorari in Rogers v. Grewal, which challenged a New Jersey “good cause” law that, in practice, resulted in a near-total prohibition on concealed carry permits for law-abiding citizens.

Thomas correctly pointed out that “[o]ne of this court’s primary functions is to resolve ‘important matters’ on which the courts of appeal are ‘in conflict.’ The question of whether a State can effectively ban most citizens from exercising their fundamental right to bear arms surely qualifies as such a matter.”

In Thomas’ view, the court should “settle the conflict among the lower courts so that the fundamental protections set forth in our Constitution are applied equally to all citizens.”

Thomas further noted that many lower courts have routinely undermined the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. Not only have these courts created a Second Amendment test that is “entirely made up,” but the practical results of that test have been to limit a constitutional right to a judge’s assessment of whether the right is useful at the moment.

How can we possibly explain the court’s continued silence on such an important constitutional issue? After all, it would seem unthinkable that the court would go 10 years without deciding a meaningful First Amendment case, particularly if several states passed statutes requiring “good cause” showings when applying for “public speech permits.”

Given that four of the “conservative” justices—Thomas, Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch—have previously signaled their desire that the court address important Second Amendment questions, the problem appears to lie with Chief Justice John Roberts.

It’s possible, though not likely, that Roberts—who joined the Heller and McDonald majorities without reservation—has reevaluated his previous positions on the Second Amendment. Perhaps he never believed the Second Amendment protected much more than an individual right of private citizens to possess handguns inside the home, the most narrow and limited position of the holdings in those cases.

But, more likely, he simply has not tipped his hand in a meaningful way, and the other four conservative justices fear that forcing the issue may have disastrous consequences.

Why might Roberts refuse to tip his hand? It seems at least plausible that Roberts, ever concerned with “institutional legitimacy,” is waiting for a better “political moment.”

Instead of worrying whether the cases before the court present valuable opportunities to correct lower court errors and clarify what the law is, Roberts might be worried about whether the cases present an opportunity for judicial unity.

That makes sense in light of the one Second Amendment case Roberts felt comfortable hearing earlier this year. New York City’s law in the now-dismissed case was so insanely restrictive that, had the city not slightly amended the law and successfully argued the case was moot, the majority opinion might have garnered at least one vote (and perhaps more) from the court’s liberal wing.

By avoiding a contentious 5-4 ruling split along conservative-liberal lines, the court would also avoid the all-too-common outcry from liberal politicians who lambaste justices and demand a court-packing plan because they didn’t get the result they wanted.

It seems more than possible that Roberts is waiting for another “slam dunk” case.

The problem is that, even if another justice had joined a hypothetical majority opinion in New York State Pistol & Rifle, he or she likely would have done so only on the narrowest of grounds, overturning New York City’s particular law without agreeing to any jurisprudence that endangered more common gun control laws.

In other words, none of the liberal justices is likely to ever side with Roberts, et al., in a meaningful Second Amendment case that would broadly strike down “assault weapons” bans or “good cause” concealed carry laws.

If we are waiting for Roberts to find a Second Amendment “judicial unity” case for this court’s current composition, we will be waiting in vain for another decade.

The nation can’t afford that type of wait. We need a court with the courage to say what the law is, even when some politicians don’t want to hear it. (For more from the author of “Justices Continue Long, Shameful Silence on Second Amendment” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Trump Is Calling for ‘New Justices’ on Supreme Court

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Trump, in the wake of Thursday’s defeat at the Supreme Court in his efforts to repeal the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, called for new justices as conservatives took aim at Chief Justice John Roberts for what they called a “pattern” of siding with the liberal wing in key decisions.

“The recent Supreme Court decisions, not only on DACA, Sanctuary Cities, Census, and others, tell you only one thing, we need NEW JUSTICES of the Supreme Court. If the Radical Left Democrats assume power, your Second Amendment, Right to Life, Secure Borders, and … Religious Liberty, among many other things, are OVER and GONE!” he tweeted.

He went on to promise that he will release a “new list of Conservative Supreme Court Justice nominees, which may include some, or many of those already on the list, by September 1, 2020.”

Trump’s call comes after the court ruled Thursday, in a 5-4 decision penned by Roberts, that his reversal of former President Barack Obama’s executive order –­ that shielded immigrants who came to the country illegally as children from deportation –­ was in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which sets out rulemaking procedures for federal agencies.

(Read more from “Trump Is Calling for ‘New Justices’ on Supreme Court” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Justice Gorsuch Fires a Torpedo at Trump’s Re-Election

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch fired a torpedo at President Trump’s re-election campaign on Monday morning. That almost certainly wasn’t his intent, but it will be the political effect of the majority decision he authored in Bostock v. Clayton County and Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda.

Progressives will cheer the high court’s 6-3 decision, ruling that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects gay and transgender Americans from discrimination in employment. But the fact that the majority decision was authored by Gorsuch and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, leaving just three of the court’s five conservatives in lonely dissent, will have explosive implications on the right.

During the battle for the Republican nomination in 2016, Trump at first appealed to less religious members of the party while the religious right (conservative white evangelical Protestants and conservative white Catholics) gravitated elsewhere — some to evangelical author Ben Carson, others to Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, and still others to Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. Only after Trump had locked down the nomination and pledged to appoint judges to the federal courts who had been verified as reliably conservative by the right-leaning legal organization The Federalist Society did these crucially important groups come around to supporting the ideologically and temperamentally unorthodox (and morally repellant) nominee.

These voters stuck with Trump through the election and have become some of his most loyal supporters ever since for one reason above all others: because Trump vowed to deliver the federal courts to social conservatives. Trump made good on this promise right out of the gate by nominating conservative Gorsuch to the seat on the Supreme Court formerly held by Antonin Scalia, who died in February 2016 and whose seat Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had held open through the remainder of Barack Obama’s final year in office.

By the time Gorsuch was confirmed and McConnell began fast-tracking a series of judicial nominations to the federal courts, the religious right was firmly in the president’s pocket. That conservatives got a second nomination to the high court less than two years into the Trump administration, replacing the ideologically heterodox Anthony Kennedy with Federalist Society stalwart Bret Kavanaugh, only solidified the bond between Trump and social conservatives. (Read more from “Justice Gorsuch Fires a Torpedo at Trump’s Re-Election” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

‘Conservative’ Supreme Court Sides With Liberal Courts on Transgender Prison Surgery, Religious Liberty, Criminal Release

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Illegitimate: Establishment-Controlled John Roberts Decides that Constitutional Protections for Religious Liberties No Longer Apply

By Mark Sherman. Over the dissent of the four more conservative justices, Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s four liberals in turning away a request from the South Bay United Pentecostal Church in Chula Vista, California, in the San Diego area.

The church argued that limits on how many people can attend its services violate constitutional guarantees of religious freedom and had been seeking an order in time for services on Sunday. The church said it has crowds of 200 to 300 people for its services.

Roberts wrote in a brief opinion that the restrictions allowing churches to reopen at 25 percent of their capacity, with no more than 100 worshipers at a time, “appear consistent” with the First Amendment. Roberts said similar or more severe limits apply to concerts, movies, and sporting events “where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time.” (Read more from this story HERE)

______________________________________

U.S. Supreme Court Forces Idaho to Pay for Tranny Surgery for Inmate, Requires 837 Criminals to be Released in Idaho

By Daniel Horowitz. In a matter of a week, the much-vaunted “conservative” Supreme Court sided with two lower court decisions in separate cases to force the state of Idaho to offer a castration “operation” to a male inmate who thinks he’s a female and to release 837 criminals in Ohio. Meanwhile, the court refuse to intervene on behalf of our inalienable rights being trampled every day by state governments. If this is what a conservative Supreme Court is all about, I’d hate to see what a liberal court looks like.

It’s truly hard to conjure up a more extreme ruling from a court than one suggesting that it’s cruel and unusual punishment NOT to offer a castration to a male inmate in prison requesting one. Yet that is exactly what the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did when three judges issued an order in August requiring Idaho’s Department of Corrections to fund “gender confirmation surgery” for Adree Edmo.

Unfortunately, none of us are shocked by the depravity from the Ninth Circuit any more. What is shocking, however, is the fact that the Supreme Court refused to stay the ruling last Thursday. One would have expected the high court that is supposedly conservative to easily overturn this decision at the first opportunity. In Estelle v. Gamble (1976), the Supreme Court already set the standard of an Eighth Amendment violation for denying medical care to prisoners as “only medical care so unconscionable as to fall below society’s minimum standards of decency.” Moreover, a First Circuit ruling in 2014 and a Fifth Circuit ruling in March 2019 stated the exact opposite of the Ninth Circuit.

Yet on May 21, the Supreme Court denied the motion from Idaho to stay the Ninth Circuit’s order. According to the court’s order, only Justices Thomas and Alito would have granted the application for stay from the state. How the other three GOP appointees, especially Roberts and Kavanaugh who seem to worship precedent, could allow a ruling like this to stand is stupefying.

This is the second time in recent months that the “conservative” Supreme Court has denied a stay to Idaho in the face of an unprecedented Ninth Circuit ruling creating radical phantom rights centered on twisting the Eighth Amendment. In September, the high court denied a stay of a Ninth Circuit ruling creating an Eighth Amendment right to camp out on Boise’s city streets. The city issued a public health and safety ordinance to clear out these encampments, but the Ninth Circuit ruled that it would be tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment to do so – just like denying the “right” to a castration procedure.

Now let’s move on to the Ohio prison case, because it appears that criminals are the only ones with rights these days. On April 22, a federal judge in Ohio ordered the Bureau of Prisons to release 837 federal inmates in one Ohio facility into home confinement for fear of the coronavirus. Courts all over the country have already mandated the release of state prisoners. In total, 67,000 have been released from state prisons and jails at a very painful cost to public safety. This is the first fight over the federal prison system. Yesterday, the court voted 6-3 to deny a request for a stay, at least for now. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch would have granted the stay.

It’s truly shocking to watch how the virus can be used as a pretext to eliminate the entire Bill of Rights for peaceful Americans without due process. However, these same courts have no problem using the virus to override the very generous due process that resulted in incarceration of dangerous criminals. The Ohio judge said that anyone deemed at risk from the virus must be released, regardless of his threat level or how much time he has served.

As I’ve observed before, the virus has already spread far and wide in prisons, and there is no point in mass releases now. The death rate in prisons is remarkably low, most cases are asymptomatic, and there is therefore no reason why prisoners should have a greater right to avoid the virus than the general population. In fact, by releasing these criminals, not only would the federal government endanger public safety, but it would be releasing younger people into the general population, where they would be more likely to spread the virus. The BOP has already taken more precautions to quarantine in the facilities than the prisoners would abide by were they released.

Isn’t it interesting how some of these same allegedly conservative justices refuse to side with individual rights when it comes to states shutting down businesses, infringing upon individual movements, and mandatory mask requirements, yet they suddenly discover individual liberty for criminals, including the “right” to a taxpayer-funded castration, the right to criminal release, and the right to homeless encampments on city streets?

Hey, phony conservative justices: If you are so into transmogrifying the Cruel and Unusual Punishment clause of the Bill of Rights – even against public safety goals of a state – shouldn’t that apply to the lockdowns and unprecedented assaults against our rights? Or is the Bill of Rights only for criminals?

If the “my body, my choice” mantra applies to murdering the unborn and requesting us to pay for castration, then it should apply to our own bodily integrity not to wear masks and not to be spied on by the corona fascists. (For more from the author of “‘Conservative’ Supreme Court Sides With Liberal Courts on Transgender Prison Surgery, Criminal Release” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE