Posts

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!

So Sad: First Woman of Color and Latina to Ascend to the Highest Court is Overwhelmed by Workload

/1 Comment/in , , /by

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor vented about being “tired” from her demanding workload on the high court as well as her “frustration” with the conservative-dominated bench.

Speaking to a group of students at the University of California, Berkley School of Law, the 69-year-old jurist opened up about the vicissitudes of serving on the court while increasingly in the political crosshairs.

“Cases are bigger. They’re more demanding. The number of amici are greater, and you know that our emergency calendar is so much more active. I’m tired,” she said, per Bloomberg Law.

“There used to be a time when we had a good chunk of the summer break. Not anymore. The emergency calendar is busy almost on a weekly basis.”

Sotomayor had been elevated to the Supreme Court by former President Barack Obama back in 2009. She was the first woman of color and Latina to ascend to the highest court in the land. (Read more from “So Sad: First Woman of Color and Latina to Ascend to the Highest Court is Overwhelmed by Workload” HERE)

🚀 Why Your Support Matters:

In the past 20 years, we’ve garnered hundreds of thousands of monthly views, expanded our influence with engaging articles, and delivered exclusive content every week. However, the journey to safeguard liberty online comes with its challenges. As pioneers, we faced the adversity of being one of the first political websites nationwide to be demonetized by Google.

💪 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!

Looks Like Pretty Much Every Left-Wing Group Is Hellbent on Defending the Administrative State

/2 Comments/in , /by

Major left-wing organizations and donors have thrown their support and funding behind a coalition slamming a recent Supreme Court case that could rein in the administrative state as an anti-democratic “power grab by the MAGA supermajority.”

United for Democracy, a coalition that includes over a hundred left-wing organizations, launched earlier this year with a $1 million ad campaign warning voters that “extreme right-wing justices are exploiting their power” and urging them to back court reform. The coalition’s member organizations include a who’s who of left-wing organizations, including Planned Parenthood, March for Our Lives, the National Education Association and NARAL Pro-Choice America, among others.

At a rally outside the Supreme Court last week, the coalition opposed the lawsuit brought by small fishing companies who challenged an agency rule that forces them to shell out close to 20% of their revenue to pay for federally mandated on-board observers. Many of the member groups painted the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce cases, which challenge a decades-old legal principle instructing courts to defer to agency interpretations of laws or “Chevron deference,” as a right-wing donor-funded power grab and a “threat to democracy.”

“United for Democracy is comprised of over hundred left-wing dark money groups that are eager for unelected and unaccountable administrative agencies to continue to do their deep state bidding,” JCN President Carrie Severino told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “It’s not surprising these groups are very motivated to keep Chevron deference, which gives federal agencies significant power to advance the Left’s political agenda.”

(Read more from “Looks Like Pretty Much Every Left-Wing Group Is Hellbent on Defending the Administrative State” HERE)

🚀 Why Your Support Matters:

In the past 20 years, we’ve garnered hundreds of thousands of monthly views, expanded our influence with engaging articles, and delivered exclusive content every week. However, the journey to safeguard liberty online comes with its challenges. As pioneers, we faced the adversity of being one of the first political websites nationwide to be demonetized by Google.

💪 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!

Disgusting: Supreme Court Allows Federal Agents to Destroy 30 Miles of Texas Border Barriers

/1 Comment/in , /by

A divided Supreme Court passed a measure allowing federal border agents to remove razor wire installed by Texas along its US-Mexico border — the latest volley in an ongoing legal battle between President Biden and Governor Greg Abbott over border security.

Justices voted 5-4 on Monday to vacate a December injunction blocking Customs and Border Protection (CBP) from removing Texas-installed barriers, allowing the removals to move ahead along a 30-mile stretch near Eagle Pass.

Their vote was divided largely along party lines, with Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Thomas voting to deny the vacation. Conservative Justice Coney Barrett, however, along with Justice Roberts, voted in favor of the motion.

Biden and Abbott have been lobbing lawsuits back and forth for months over the wire installed along the fraught stretch of Eagle Pass, which has become the epicenter of the migrant crisis in Texas.

Blaming the president for failing to take aggressive action to secure the southern border, Abbott has undertaken aggressive border security measures like using state troops to seize Eagle Pass land along the Rio Grande and installing barriers like razor wire. (Read more from “Disgusting: Supreme Court Allows Federal Agents to Destroy 30 Miles of Texas Border Barriers” HERE)

🚀 Why Your Support Matters:

In the past 20 years, we’ve garnered hundreds of thousands of monthly views, expanded our influence with engaging articles, and delivered exclusive content every week. However, the journey to safeguard liberty online comes with its challenges. As pioneers, we faced the adversity of being one of the first political websites nationwide to be demonetized by Google.

💪 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!

Trump Ballot Ban Appealed to U.S. Supreme Court by Colorado GOP

/4 Comments/in , /by

The Colorado Republican Party on Wednesday appealed that state’s supreme court decision that found former President Donald Trump is ineligible for the presidency, the potential first step to a showdown at the nation’s highest court over the meaning of a 155-year-old constitutional provision that bans from office those who “engaged in insurrection.”

The first impact of the appeal is to extend the stay of the 4-3 ruling from Colorado’s highest court, which put its decision on pause until Jan. 4, the day before the state’s primary ballots are due at the printer, or until an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is finished. Trump himself has said he still plans to appeal the ruling to the nation’s highest court as well.

The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which was added after the Civil War to prevent former Confederates from returning to government. It says that anyone who swore an oath to “support” the constitution and then “engaged in insurrection” against it cannot hold government office. (Read more from “Trump Ballot Ban Appealed to U.S. Supreme Court by Colorado GOP” HERE)

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Delete Facebook, Delete Twitter, Follow Restoring Liberty and Joe Miller at gab HERE.

Jack Smith Denied! SCOTUS Won’t Fast-Track Trump Immunity Case

/4 Comments/in , /by

The Supreme Court of the United States will not immediately hear former President Donald Trump’s case for presidential immunity, siding with Trump, who argued the court should reject Special Counsel Jack Smith’s request for a speedy review and decision.

The high court on Friday declined Smith’s request for a quick review, meaning that the case will go through the normal process in the appeals court and likely make its way to the SCOTUS from there.

This is a significant victory for Trump and a major setback for Smith, who is racing against the clock to put Trump on trial in front of a heavily Democrat jury before the election.

Polling shows that a conviction could cost Trump several million votes, and if Trump does not have time to get the conviction reversed on appeal before November, there is a chance it could cause damage on Election Day. Trump has denounced the timing of Smith’s prosecution as “election interference,” calling it a political attempt to manipulate the upcoming presidential race.

The SCOTUS’s refusal of an immediate review of Trump’s claims of presidential immunity comes less than two weeks after Smith’s original request, in which he asked the justices to quickly determine if Trump could be legally prosecuted over the various charges related to January 6, which contend that Trump supposedly attempted to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. (Read more from “Jack Smith Denied! SCOTUS Won’t Fast-Track Trump Immunity Case” HERE)

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Delete Facebook, Delete Twitter, Follow Restoring Liberty and Joe Miller at gab HERE.