Posts

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.

Here’s What You Should Know About the Four Justices Who Deemed Trump Ineligible to Run for President

/2 Comments/in , , /by

Earlier this week, the Colorado State Supreme Court determined in a 4-3 ruling that Trump is ineligible under the 14th Amendment to appear on the ballot in the state. This nonsensical ruling essentially declares that even though Trump has never been convicted of, much less tried with sedition or participating in an insurrection, he is nevertheless guilty of such. The ruling is bound to be taken up by the Supreme Court, and experts on both sides of the aisle believe it will be promptly overturned. . .

Of course, the obvious thing is that the justices who sided against Trump were all appointed by Democrats. But even that doesn’t fully explain everything because all seven of the justices were Democrat-appointed. But, there is something that separately the 4 justices who voted to ban Trump from ballot and the three who didn’t.

Three of the four justices who voted against Trump were Ivy League graduates.

“The four Democratic-appointed justices who ruled to nix Trump from the primary ballot included three Ivy League graduates, showing a stark divide between the legal mindsets of those who were educated at elite institutions compared to the three justices who said they would not remove the Republican front-runner from the state’s ballot,” reports the Washington Examiner. “Three justices who said they wouldn’t bar Trump from the ballot, Carlos Samour, Maria Berkenkotter, and Chief Justice Brian Boatright, all attended Sturm College of Law in Denver.”

As for the justices who voted to boot Trump from the ballot, Justice Monica Marquez not only got her law degree from Yale, but is the first Latina and openly LGBT justice to serve on the court. “She also worked as an assistant solicitor general and as assistant attorney general in both the Public Officials Unit and Criminal Appellate Section before she was appointed to the state’s high court in 2010,” explains the Washington Examiner. “The justice is also a member of the Bench Dream Team, which is a group of judges in the Colorado judicial system that promotes diversity and inclusion.” (Read more from “Here’s What You Should Know About the Four Justices Who Deemed Trump Ineligible to Run for President” HERE)

Photo credit: Flickr

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

Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Obstruction Charge Case With Implications for Trump

/0 Comments/in , /by

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether a man involved in events at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, can be charged for obstructing an official proceeding in a case that could have significant implications for the federal government’s prosecution of Donald Trump.

The defendant, Joseph Fischer, was indicted on seven charges after January 6, but the charge in question is a count under a provision enacted after the Enron scandal for anyone who “corruptly … obstructs, influences and impedes any official proceeding,” known as 18 U.S.C. 1512.

Trump’s allies argue that the provision was clearly intended to cover the destruction of evidence related to white-collar crime and that the Supreme Court’s decision to examine this issue is bad news for U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith and the government’s broad interpretation of the statute.

“Today was a bad day for Jack Smith, and a good day for the rule of law,” former U.S. Ambassador Ken Blackwell exclusively told Breitbart News.

Prosecutors say Fischer assaulted the police to disrupt the congressional certification of the results of the 2020 election and that his actions fit under 18 U.S.C. 1512. Although Trump is not part of Fisher’s case, the statute is a central piece of Smith’s criminal prosecution of the former president. (Read more from “Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Obstruction Charge Case With Implications for Trump” HERE)

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

Supreme Court to Quickly Decide Whether or Not to Hear Trump Immunity Defense in Special Counsel Prosecution

/0 Comments/in , /by

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide in coming weeks whether or not to expedite deciding if former President Donald Trump is immune from prosecution on charges of attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election, as Special Counsel Jack Smith petitioned the court Monday.

A federal trial court recently ruled in Smith’s favor that Trump is not immune from prosecution, but Smith’s request seeks to prevent a drawn-out Trump appeal that could delay his trial, currently set to begin March 4, 2024.

“It is of paramount public importance that respondent’s claims of immunity be resolved as expeditiously as possible,” Smith wrote in his petition to the Supreme Court.

Trump recently appealed Judge Tanya Chutkan’s immunity ruling, a step that suspended the trial until the question is resolved. By plucking the appeal from the appeals court, the Supreme Court could definitively resolve the question of Trump’s immunity earlier and prevent the beginning of Trump’s trial from slipping.

A federal grand jury in D.C. indicted Trump on four counts on August 1. Trump insists that his actions within the indictment fall within the “outer perimeter” of his official duties as president, and therefore he enjoys absolute immunity. He also argued that having been impeached for his actions on January 6 and then acquitted by the U.S. Senate preclude him from prosecution on double jeopardy grounds. (Read more from “Supreme Court to Quickly Decide Whether or Not to Hear Trump Immunity Defense in Special Counsel Prosecution” HERE)

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

Supreme Court Declines To Take Up Challenge To ‘Conversion Therapy’ Ban

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Supreme Court decided not to take up a challenge to Washington State’s ban on “conversion therapy” for minors on Monday, allowing a lower court decision upholding the law to stand.

The High Court was divided in its decision, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh indicating he would have heard the case and conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito penning separate dissents. The law, called SB 5722, was passed in 2018 and adds “conversion therapy” for minors to the list of violations that could cost a therapist their license.

“Under SB 5722, licensed counselors can speak with minors about gender dysphoria, but only if they convey the state-approved message of encouraging minors to explore their gender identities,” Justice Thomas wrote, continuing:

Expressing any other message is forbidden—even if the counselor’s clients ask for help to accept their biological sex. That is viewpoint-based and content-based discrimination in its purest form. As a result, SB 5722 is presumptively unconstitutional, and the state must show that it can survive strict scrutiny before enforcing it.

(Read more from “Supreme Court Declines To Take Up Challenge To ‘Conversion Therapy’ Ban” HERE)

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

SCOTUS Dockets Emergency Application Over ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban

/2 Comments/in , /by

The Supreme Court of the United States received and docketed an emergency application seeking an injunction against enforcement of Illinois’ “assault weapons” ban while the appeal process is ongoing.

The case is National Association for Gun Rights v. City of Naperville, Illinois. The plaintiffs include the National Association for Gun Rights, Robert C. Bevis, and Law Weapons, Inc. d/b/a Law Weapons and Supply.

The plaintiffs seek an en banc hearing before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and an injunction against enforcement of the Protect Illinois Communities Act until the hearing is held.

The Supreme Court’s Office of the Clerk of Court responded to the emergency application by noting that Justice Amy Coney Barrett has ordered a briefing. (Read more from “SCOTUS Dockets Emergency Application Over ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban” HERE)

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