Posts

Supreme Court To Hear Major Case On The Abortion Pill

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Supreme Court will hear on Tuesday a major challenge to the abortion pill brought by doctors and medical associations.

In FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, one of two cases on abortion the Supreme Court will hear this term since overturning Roe v. Wade in 2022, the justices will consider the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) decision to roll back safety regulations for the chemical abortion drug mifepristone. Doctors who sued the FDA contend that the removal of safety standards once deemed “essential” makes it more likely women will require medical treatment, forcing OB-GYNs and emergency room doctors to address the “serious complications caused by these drugs.”

“My moral and ethical obligation to my patients is to promote human life and health,” Dr. Ingrid Skop, a member of the plaintiff organization American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG), wrote in a declaration. “But the FDA’s actions may force me to end the life of a human being in the womb for no medical reason.”

In 2021, the FDA allowed distribution of mifepristone through the mail and removed the requirement for an initial in-person visit. Earlier, in 2016, the agency removed many of the safeguards implemented when the pill was approved in 2000, allowing it to be used through ten weeks of pregnancy, rather than seven. (Read more from “Supreme Court To Hear Major Case On The Abortion Pill” HERE)

Supreme Court Rejects Former New Mexico Official Banned After Jan. 6 Riot

/0 Comments/in , /by

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday tossed an appeal by a former New Mexico state official barred from office after he was involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol Building.

Former Otero County commissioner Couy Griffin, a cowboy pastor whose claim to fame was endorsing former President Donald Trump with several horseback caravans, is a former Otero County commissioner and the only elected official barred from office under the “insurrection” provision of the 14th Amendment, the Associated Press reported.

During a 2022 trial in a state district court, Griffin became the first individual in over a century to be disqualified from office under a provision of the 14th Amendment aimed at preventing former Confederates from holding government positions after the Civil War.

Despite the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that states cannot prevent Trump or other federal office candidates from appearing on the ballot, the justices clarified that distinct rules apply to state and local candidates, the AP report noted.

“We conclude that states may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office,” the justices wrote in an opinion that was not signed. (Read more from “Supreme Court Rejects Former New Mexico Official Banned After Jan. 6 Riot” HERE)

Supreme Court Lifts Stay on Texas Law That Gives Police Powers to Arrest Illegals at Border

/0 Comments/in , /by

A divided Supreme Court has lifted a stay on a Texas law that gives police broad powers to arrest [illegal aliens] suspected of crossing the border illegally while a legal battle over immigration authority plays out.

The Biden administration is suing to strike down the measure, arguing it’s a clear violation of federal authority that would hurt international relations and create chaos in administering immigration law. A judge could then order them to leave the U.S.

Texas has argued it has a right to take action over what Gov. Greg Abbott has described as an “invasion” of migrants on the border. (Read more from “Supreme Court Lifts Stay on Texas Law That Gives Police Powers to Arrest Illegals at Border” HERE)

Bar Exam Will No Longer Be Required to Become an Attorney in this State Because it’s Racist

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The bar exam will no longer be required to become a lawyer in Washington, the state Supreme Court ruled in a pair of orders Friday.

The court approved alternative ways to show competency and earn a law license after appointing a task force to examine the issue in 2020.

The Bar Licensure Task Force found that the traditional exam “disproportionally and unnecessarily blocks” marginalized groups from becoming practicing attorneys and is “at best minimally effective” for ensuring competency, according to a news release from the Washington Administrative Office of the Courts.

Washington is the second state to not require the bar exam, following Oregon, which implemented the change at the start of this year. Other states, including Minnesota, Nevada, South Dakota and Utah, are examining alternative pathways to licensure.

“These recommendations come from a diverse body of lawyers in private and public practice, academics, and researchers who contributed immense insight, counterpoints and research to get us where we are today,” Washington Supreme Court Justice Raquel Montoya-Lewis, who chaired the task force, said in a statement. “With these alternative pathways, we recognize that there are multiple ways to ensure a competent, licensed body of new attorneys who are so desperately needed around the state.” (Read more from “Bar Exam Will No Longer Be Required to Become an Attorney in this State Because it’s Racist” HERE)

Biden Threatens Supreme Court Over Abortion Ruling (VIDEO)

/3 Comments/in , /by

Following in the footsteps of Sen. Chuck Schumer, who earlier publicly threatened members of the U.S. Supreme Court, and other Democrats, Joe Biden took the same approach during his politicized State of the Union speech.

“With all due respect, justices, women are not without electrical power! Excuse me, electoral or political power. You’re about to realize…”

A report by The Gateway Pundit noted the threat was a Biden ad lib, as it was not in the White House transcript prepared for his speech.

That said, “Many of you in this Chamber and my predecessor are promising to pass a national ban on reproductive freedom. My god, what freedoms will you take away next?”

The Daily Mail reported it was one of many “political barbs” in the partisan speech. (Read more from “Biden Threatens Supreme Court Over Abortion Ruling (VIDEO)” HERE)

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Supreme Court Unanimously Affirms Federal Authority: States Cannot Bar Trump from 2024 Ballot

/0 Comments/in , /by

In a historic decision, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Monday that states do not have the authority to disqualify former President Donald Trump from appearing on the 2024 ballot. The landmark ruling overturns a 4-3 opinion from the Colorado Supreme Court, which had held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s “Insurrection Clause” prohibited Trump from featuring on the presidential ballot in the state.

The Supreme Court’s decision marks the first time it has ruled on Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court emphasized that only Congress possesses the authority to disqualify a candidate from the ballot through the Insurrection Clause. This ruling overturns the December opinion from the Colorado Supreme Court and partially reverses a previous decision from November, which concluded that Trump does not meet the definition of an officer of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court’s written opinion highlighted the historical context of the Fourteenth Amendment, emphasizing its role in expanding federal power at the expense of state autonomy. The decision underscored that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment operates by imposing severe penalties, such as disqualification from holding various offices, and affirmed that Congress is empowered to determine the specifics of these determinations.

Chief Justice Chase’s conclusion was cited in the opinion, stating that proceedings, evidence, decisions, and enforcement, formal or otherwise, are indispensable for ascertaining the individuals covered by Section 3. The Court further acknowledged that Congress, through the Enforcement Act of 1870, already provided a mechanism for making these determinations.

Importantly, the Court clarified that while states have the authority to disqualify individuals from holding or attempting to hold state offices, they lack the constitutional power to enforce Section 3 with regard to federal offices, particularly the Presidency. Granting states such authority, the Court argued, would upset the constitutional balance between federal and state power established by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Justice Barrett, while concurring in the judgment, expressed that the majority had decided more than necessary, but emphasized that all nine Justices agreed on the outcome of the case. Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a separate opinion concurring in the judgment, asserting that no state has the authority to disqualify a federal candidate from the ballot.

Following the ruling, former President Donald Trump took to Truth Social, a social media platform, to declare the decision a “BIG WIN FOR AMERICA!!!” The case, titled Trump v. Anderson, No. 23-719, will undoubtedly shape discussions around the intersection of state and federal powers in the electoral process.

Democrats Are Furious That Due Process Is Ruining Their Lawfare Schedule

/1 Comment/in , /by

On Monday, Special Counsel Jack Smith requested the Supreme Court take up the question of presidential immunity in the election interference case against former president Donald Trump. It took only a few hours for the court to grant that request.

Now, you might be under the impression that such a quick result would greatly please Democrats. But there’s a major hitch. It seems that the justices forgot to ask Rachel Maddow to plan their schedules. Though the court expedited the case, arguments won’t be heard until April, with a decision likely to come in late June — making it unlikely, though not impossible, that there will be a trial before the 2024 election.

With this news, scores of left-wing pundits accused the justices of conspiring to help Trump win the election. By granting Smith’s request, Chris Hayes complained it “was a clear, unmistakable sign from the MAGA majority of the Trump-created court that they are with him. That they are going to use their power to make sure that he does not face trial in an election year for attempting to end American democracy.”

Sometimes, I wonder if Hayes and the others who happily watch constitutional protections and procedures dismantled when it suits their partisan needs know they are engaged in a mass act of projection.

Consider that Hayes demands SCOTUS render a judgment on a historic immunity case on a schedule that comports with the partisan objectives of Democrats – namely, putting Trump in front of a judge at the height of a 2024 presidential campaign. Or, in other words, Hayes wants the court to do the very thing he contends is corrupt for the court to do. (Read more from “Democrats Are Furious That Due Process Is Ruining Their Lawfare Schedule” HERE)

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Hollywood Celebrities Freak as SCOTUS Takes Up Trump Immunity Case: ‘F**k The Supreme Court’

/1 Comment/in , /by

The day after the Supreme Court ruled that it would take up former President Donald Trump’s immunity case, Hollywood celebrities appear to have received their marching orders — to smear and delegitimize the court in the mind of the American public.

With alarming ferocity, Hollywood stars are trying to gin up popular outrage, using the ruling as an opportunity to push the Democrats’ agenda of packing the court and singling out Justice Clarence Thomas for more political persecution.

“Fuck the Supreme Court,” wrote Ellen Barkin.

“Thomas needs to be in jail,” rocker Steven van Zandt posted. . .

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court granted former President Donald Trump’s request to decide if he is immune from criminal prosecution for acts taken during his time in office. The ruling represents a significant blow to Special Counsel Jack Smith’s case since it would mean the trial potentially wouldn’t happen until after the November election.

(Read more from “Hollywood Celebrities Freak as SCOTUS Takes Up Trump Immunity Case: ‘F**k The Supreme Court’” HERE)

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Hawaii Court Gives Middle Finger to SCOTUS, Claims ‘Spirit of Aloha’ Overrides Constitution

/3 Comments/in , /by

The Hawaii Supreme Court issued a decision on Wednesday formally infringing on island residents’ right to keep and bear arms because justices claimed guns interfered with the “Spirit of Aloha.” The ruling seeks to nullify not only the authority of the Consitution but also the Supreme Court’s longstanding interpretation of Americans’ Second Amendment protections.

The U.S. Supreme Court held in its 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen decision that citizens’ constitutional right to keep and bear arms for self-defense requires no demonstration of a “special need” like New York required for its unrestricted concealed-carry licenses. Before that, the highest court in the land found in its 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision that DC could not ban handgun possession in the home because, under the Second Amendment, American civilians, not just military personnel, have the right to own firearms and use them for lawful self-defense.

Justices in the Hawaii court rejected both examples of the top court’s jurisprudence when they upheld a conviction for island resident Christopher Wilson, who was charged in 2017 after carrying a loaded gun without a concealed weapons permit.

The state court claimed Wilson could not use Bruen to argue his “constitutional right to protect himself” because he is not a “well-regulated militia” and he did not apply for a concealed carry weapons permit (CCW). The justices claimed that, under the 1968 political interpretation of Hawaii’s 1950 constitution, “the historical background of the Second Amendment indicates that the central concern in the right to bear arms was the right of the states to maintain a militia.”

“When the Hawaiʻi Constitution was first ratified, courts throughout the nation’s history had always interpreted and applied the Second Amendment with the militia-centric view,” the court wrote. “This was what everyone thought.” (Read more from “Hawaii Court Gives Middle Finger to SCOTUS, Claims ‘Spirit of Aloha’ Overrides Constitution” HERE)

Photo credit: Flickr

💪 Dependence on You:

We’ve weathered storms, but today, we rely entirely on your generosity to keep our platform alive. Your support is not just a donation; it’s a partnership in upholding the values that define us. Together, let’s defy challenges and ensure Restoring Liberty thrives for another two decades.

🌐 How You Can Make a Difference:

Your contribution is a vital lifeline for us. By donating HERE, you become an integral part of our mission. Every dollar is an investment in preserving a powerful conservative voice that resonates across the nation.

🙏 Join Us in Shaping the Future:

Help us overcome the financial hurdles that come with independence. Your donation paves the way for continued growth, impact, and influence. Together, let’s empower Restoring Liberty to shape the future of conservative values.

🔗 Donate HERE and be a Guardian of Liberty!

Thank you for being the backbone of Restoring Liberty. With your support, we’ll stand strong for another two decades and beyond!

What to Watch as SCOTUS Considers Whether Colorado Can Ban Trump From Its Ballot

/0 Comments/in , /by

On Thursday morning, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments from attorneys representing former President Donald Trump and those representing a handful of Coloradans who brought legal action in their state that culminated in the state Supreme Court ruling that the 45th president and current 2024 frontrunner was banned from being listed on the primary ballot.

According to the ruling in Colorado, Trump — due to the events of January 6 — is ineligible to be president based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment that states no one “shall be a Senator or Representatives in Congress, or elector of President and Vice president, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State” if they had “previously taken an oath as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States,” but subsequently “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the government.

That decision at the state level barred Colorado’s secretary of state from listing Trump’s name on the primary ballot but put a hold on that action until the Supreme Court had a chance to rule on its decision. And while the Supreme Court is just considering the Colorado ruling, the outcome will be relevant to other states, such as Maine, where the secretary of state booted Trump from her state’s ballot citing the same provision of the 14th Amendment, as well as nearly one dozen other states where the former president’s eligibility is being challenged.

Beginning at 10:00 a.m. ET on Thursday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments from both sides in Trump v. Anderson and, while the exact timeline is unknown, the Court’s decision in the case could be announced as soon as a few days later. What is known is that this is the biggest election case to be decided by the Supreme Court since 2000’s Bush v. Gore — and is likely to set off even more calls from leftists who want to see SCOTUS dismantled, its bench packed, or its authority and role undermined. (Read more from “What to Watch as SCOTUS Considers Whether Colorado Can Ban Trump From Its Ballot” HERE)

💪 Dependence on You:

We’ve weathered storms, but today, we rely entirely on your generosity to keep our platform alive. Your support is not just a donation; it’s a partnership in upholding the values that define us. Together, let’s defy challenges and ensure Restoring Liberty thrives for another two decades.

🌐 How You Can Make a Difference:

Your contribution is a vital lifeline for us. By donating HERE, you become an integral part of our mission. Every dollar is an investment in preserving a powerful conservative voice that resonates across the nation.

🙏 Join Us in Shaping the Future:

Help us overcome the financial hurdles that come with independence. Your donation paves the way for continued growth, impact, and influence. Together, let’s empower Restoring Liberty to shape the future of conservative values.

🔗 Donate HERE and be a Guardian of Liberty!

Thank you for being the backbone of Restoring Liberty. With your support, we’ll stand strong for another two decades and beyond!