A unanimous Supreme Court found that the First Amendment exists even in New York, even when the government hates what you have to say. As unbelievable as it sounds, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the opinion stating, "The critical takeaway is that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from wielding their power selectively to punish or suppress speech, directly or (as alleged here) through private intermediaries." //

The NRA appealed because if the Second Circuit's ruling prevailed, the First Amendment basically ceased to exist. Even the ACLU recognized the danger and represented the NRA.

This decision is a clear victory for the First Amendment and for the NRA. The case is headed back for trial in district court, and given this decision and Sotomayor's reasoning (yes, it's scary to write that), it will be difficult for Vullo to evade what happens next. The only rathole available to her is a claim of "qualified immunity." Sotomayor told the Second Circuit to determine if Vullo was eligible, but the original district court ruling and a footnote in Sotomayor's opinion cast a lot of doubt on that claim.

Like a rabid dog gnawing on a bone, the New York Times will just not let go of the non-story involving Justice Samuel Alito's wife, Martha-Ann, and a 2021 dispute with a neighbor that allegedly culminated in Mrs. Alito "briefly" flying the American flag upside down 11 days after the Capitol riot.

Not even counting the guest essays, letters to the editor, opinion pieces, and Spanish language versions they've published on the issue, by my count they've published nine - count 'em - nine articles over the last two weeks related to flag-flying at the homes of the Alito family, from the upside down one at their primary residence in 2021 to the Revolutionary War-era "Appeal to Heaven" flag that was flown at various points in 2023 at their beach house.

The insinuations have been clear in all of them: In their view and that of their "experts," due to the alleged Jan. 6th symbolism of the flags, Mrs. Alito is sympathetic to the beliefs of the Capitol rioters and as such, her alleged beliefs have compromised Justice Alito's ability to impartially judge cases related to Jan. 6 and the 2020 presidential election. //

We are looking at a completely fabricated outrage, and the press has resorted to reporting on the “growing” tide of indignation to have Alito step down – coming from the press. This lame attempt is producing little more than eye-rolling from the public. The news outlets need to wave their white flags on this issue.

And upside down if they have to.

As Alito has famously said in the past, Congress did not create the Supreme Court, the Constitution did. It is not any Democrat hack's job to "fix" the court, and certainly, no one in Congress has the credibility to do absolutely anything regarding it.

"Fixing" it isn't the real purpose of the current left-wing hysteria, though. The real purpose is to garner more power.

My words will perhaps seem somewhat vintage in character rather than current or up-to-date. In that context, I admit to being unapologetically Catholic, unapologetically patriotic, and unapologetically a constitutionalist.

[...]

Let me offer you, this year’s graduates, a few brief suggestions about making your deposits in the account of liberty. Today is just the end of the beginning of your young lives, and the beginning, the commencement of the rest of your lives. There is much more to come, and it will not be with the guiding hands of your parents—indeed, they may someday need your hand to guide them. Some of you will most assuredly be called upon to do very hard things to preserve liberty. All of you will be called upon to provide a firm foundation of citizenship by carrying out your obligations in the way so many preceding generations have done. You are to be the example to others that those generations have been to us. And in being that example, what you do will matter far more than what you say.

Thomas… described Washington as a place where “people pride themselves in being awful.”

“It is a hideous place as far as I’m concerned,” Thomas said.

“It’s one of the reasons we like RVing,” he added. “You get to be around regular people who don’t pride themselves in doing harmful things merely because they have the capacity to do it or because they disagree.”

Thomas should know—he was at the center of the Anita Hill fiasco—overseen by then-Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Joe Biden—where he was subjected to evidence-free, humiliating claims of sexual harassment during his SCOTUS confirmation hearings in 1991. Biden not surprisingly—in a preview of what has befallen us—utterly failed to control the proceedings, and they became a national embarrassment that decades later led to the equally clownish Brett Kavanaugh confirmation process.

Central to the former Justice Antonin Scalia law clerk's arguments in January and Thursday is that when a man becomes president, he becomes a part of the constitutional machinery, no longer a regular citizen.

In this construct, the president is always the president, and the only way to laicize him is through a House impeachment and a Senate conviction for conduct that then becomes vulnerable to criminal prosecution. //

etba_ss Cappy Hamper
2 hours ago
It is actually worse. Roberts is the worst sort of justice, where in an attempt to preserve the "integrity" of the Court and avoid wading into political matters, his decisions are always guided by politics, not the law. In an effort to appear above politics, he is the most political creature on the Court.

Not political in the sense of advancing one party, but political in that every decision is filtered through the lens of how it will be viewed, the consequences, attacks, and preserving the Court's power. He sees himself as the hero of the SCOTUS, whose job it is to protect its power far more than to correctly interpret the Constitution and the law. This is why he upheld Obamacare under the "tax" provision, while ignoring that he had to disagree with his own opinion to take the case up. This is why he wanted to uphold the LA law in Dobbs, but not overturn Roe.

I think it would be preferable if they had pictures of him. Instead, he really just is this cowardly, feckless, weak and depraved. //

Random US Citizen etba_ss
2 hours ago
Roberts has turned the SC in to My Lai--he's destroying the court in order to "save" it. History isn't going to look kindly on that, either because constitutional order will fail and Roberts attacks on the rule of law will be seen as one cause of the collapse, or because constitutional order will prevail (an unlikely outcome) and he'll be seen as an obstacle that had to be overcome.

Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius. //

anon-of-yo-biz
2 hours ago
Is it really being argued that Bin laden was a "political" enemy? Was Hitler a "political" enemy? Can we never object against tyranny, hatred, and murder unless we have compatible political or religious views? It seems that the word bigot has grow to include all forms of just resistance. //

Cafeblue32 anon-of-yo-biz
an hour ago edited
This is intentional. The left is destroying language by making specific terms no longer their definition, or getting rid of them altogether. The purpose of language is clear and precise comminication so as to not be misunderstood and creat a bunch of unneccesary problems.The left's purpose is to deconstruct language to be less clear, so specific sexes become they/thems, Catperson, or whatever the hell. They remove gender indicators in gender-specific languages. They use persons instead of men and women, family units instead of marriage and family, how is everyone instead of "How are you guys doing?" The more generic they can make the language, the more they can re-invent it to mean whatever they want it to mean.

And here we are-men are women, Israel is genocidal, Palestine is a legitimate state, Putin is ready to roll into New York, illegal able bodies men wearing expensive jeans and sneakers are refugees, illegal squatters are residents, the American flag is racist and the LGBTGFY flag is to fly high above them all everywhere an American flag is flown around ther world. Working class conservatives are racists and fascists while Palestininas calling for the end of Jews and demand for sharia law are freedom fighters. Etc etc.

Rush said it long ago: words mean things. That's why they work so hard to destroy them.

Blue State Deplorable
5 hours ago

Justice Alito just asked Dreeben about the wisdom of his approach to just rely on the discretion and good motivations of Justice Department officials given the history of abusive, partisan prosecutions...

That’s one hellluva rebuke right there from Justice Alito. 😂

2E Son of Nel
5 hours ago

Roberts just slammed the lower court "a former president can be prosecuted for his official acts because the fact of the prosecution means that the former president has acted in defiance of the laws."

Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty? "The fact of prosecution" does not mean that he has "acted in defiance of the laws." It merely means that he's accused of acting in defiance of the laws. Presumably the accuser still has to prove his case.

Roberts was entirely correct here. But with Democrats prosecuting Republicans it's always "the seriousness of the charges" and not the evidence that matters. //

Min Headroom llme 2E Son of Nel
3 hours ago edited
I found the argument that being prosecuted is proof that the defendant broke laws breathtaking. It’s worthy of Stalinist Russia, and if democrats want to blather about threats to democracy, then this is it. //

bpbatch
5 hours ago
The breakneck speed that all of these trials are occurring and the reaction immediately necessitated by SCOTUS is more Cloward/Piven "flood the system" Marxist garbage in real time. Pray the Court takes the time to breathe and make an intelligent, measured, and patient decision in all of these matters. //

To this point, the conservative justices have shown some skepticism of the government's case, which U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar is presenting. On that front, Justice Neil Gorsuch asked a question that many of us have been pondering. Namely, he asked whether Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), who pulled a fire alarm before an important House vote and impeded a congressional proceeding, could be charged under the same statute. Astonishingly, the government responded with a "no." //

Returning to Bowman, he pulled a fire alarm during a voting session in the House of Representatives. Congressional members had to be evacuated, and the vote was postponed. That is a textbook example of obstructing an official proceeding, and the government's justification for not charging him is basically "because we say it doesn't count." //

etba_ss
an hour ago
I'm not sure they really care at this point. They've milked and milked and milked J6 as much as they can. They've set an example and a standard that they can do whatever they want to you if your politics do not align. The time to have been providing relief in these cases is not April 2024, but in April 2021.

I don't mean to say that it doesn't matter, but this is one of those issues that the damage has largely been done on. The whole point of J6 is to influence elections and suppress dissent, including covering up fraud and electioneering during the 2020 election. All serious efforts at exposing the issues in 2020 stopped after J6. That was the main purpose and it was instantly successful.

The time is coming where Governors, state legislators, sheriffs, etc. decide if they will follow the law and the Constitution or the federal government and the court system. The two things are not the same. We shouldn't ignore the courts for "light and transient causes", but if our Founders were willing to pick up a musket and risk the very real possibility of being hung for traitors, telling the federal government and/or the federal courts "no" isn't too much to ask. Again, you don't do this because you disagree with some largely irrelevant statute, but when it comes to such basic things as border security, liberty and political prosecution, those things aren't "light and transient causes", but ones that are fundamental to the existence of a constitutional republic. //

etba_ss Hallen
38 minutes ago edited
The problem with the court upholding the law, even if they thought it was valid and could be applied is that selective prosecution violates a higher law. The Constitution is supreme to the court or to any Congressionally issued statute or law. The Constitution includes "equal protection under the law". Selective prosecution on the basis of political connections or ideology is a direct violation of the US Constitution. So Congress could pass a law saying that it is illegal to be a Republican. That law would violate the Constitution and be thrown out.

So either the law itself must be thrown out, or at least its application in this case must be thrown out. It is a gross violation of the Constitution, which is what Gorsuch is pointing out.

As you may have noticed, I’m a fan of history. So, I’ll close with a piece of historical trivia:

Only one man has ever been both president (1909-1913) and then on the Supreme Court, weighing 320 pounds at 5-foot-11. That was Ohioan William Howard Taft, who liked steaks so much he would at times have one at every daily meal.

Taft was a friendly man, the first president to own a car, and the last to keep a cow at the White House for fresh milk. He also began the presidential tradition of throwing out the first baseball of a new season.

Taft lost reelection in 1912 to Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt. In 1921, President Warren Harding named him Chief Justice.

Taft took retirement in February 1930. It was brief. He died one month later.

Irrespective of how it comes down in this case, the federal government’s position combined with the clear-cut support from the court’s three left-most judges speaks to the extent to which free speech is in deep trouble in this country.

What follows are some of the most critical, and often disturbing, takeaways from oral arguments.

1. Feds Are Appalled at the Probing of Their Speech Policing

2. Feds Believe Their Censorship Is Legitimate So Long as it Doesn’t Strong-Arm Anyone

3. Feds Framed Their Censorship as a Right to Speak

4. The Feds Want SCOTUS to Bless Their Speech Policing During the Election

5. Public Health Emergencies Justify Censorship, Feds Argue

6. Justice Jackson Revealed Her Radical Anti-Speech Position

7. Justice Kavanaugh Seems Likely to Cave

8. The Plaintiffs Backed Down Under Duress, and That’s Concerning for All of Us

If this view prevails, we will face an extinction-level event for the First Amendment, or at least what’s left of it.

Anya Bidwell, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, the organization representing Gonzalez claims the city arrested the former councilmember as retaliation for her constant criticism of the mayor and other officials.

“In America, we don’t arrest our critics," she said.

The arrest led to Gonzalez’s lawsuit against the city, which invoked qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that protects government officials from civil liability unless it is established that they violated a Constitutional right.

The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling on this case could reach far beyond Castle Hills. It could redefine the landscape of free speech and government accountability. Depending on how the court decides, it could become harder for government officials to use their positions to punish those who criticize them.

Again, though, this says nothing about the merits of Fikre's claim (or the government's maintenance of such a list). It just says the government cannot render a case moot merely by undoing what it initially did without some reasonable demonstration that it won't turn right back around and do the same thing.

So why is Ford back in the news? On the surface, it's to make money off her new memoir, but that only speaks to her motivation. The motivation of ABC News and other outlets to once again platform her is not some book that likely won't sell well. It's to ramp up attacks on the Supreme Court during an election year.

Members of the press and the Democratic Party are currently in the midst of a war against the nation's highest court, and the goal is to discredit it by any means necessary heading into November. The more anger is driven at the Supreme Court, the more the left feels it will benefit from voters who disapprove of recent decisions spanning abortion to gun rights. Marching Ford back into the spotlight is yet another way to act as if the current makeup of the court is illegitimate.

One interesting twist is that in the Harrel v. Raoul case, the National Association of Police has filed an amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” brief supporting the Harrel Petitioners. This brief, available for review here, argues that the “Seventh Circuit’s legal standard eviscerates the Second Amendment, that the Illinois law’s “restrictions [approved by the Seventh Circuit] threaten to leave American citizens without effective means to utilize the sort of weapons employed by criminals throughout the country—and employed by nearly all police departments to fight them.”

And in a key paragraph:

In the world far removed from courtrooms, judge’s chambers and lawyers’ offices, Americans are using guns to defend themselves and others at extremely high rates—up to 2.8 million times a year. More than half of the incidents of self-defense involve more than one assailant, in which the ability to fire more defensive rounds obviously assumes more importance. Indeed, 3.2% of incidents involve five or more attackers, where the ability to shoot more than ten rounds is obviously critical. There are, of course, numerous reported incidents of citizens defending themselves who have been required to use more than ten shots to do so—or failing to defend themselves when only ten rounds were available. //

henrybowman | March 17, 2024 at 2:23 pm

“The panel did so after ruling that “large capacity magazines” (LCMs) are rarely used in self-defense…
…owners of the affected magazines, which come standard with most modern firearms.”

And the second observation proves that the first must indeed have been not a finding of fact, but an arbitrary ruling. //

oldvet50 | March 17, 2024 at 2:37 pm
This amendment was explained to our class in junior high school American History when I attended in 1962. A well regulated (trained) militia is necessary to protect our country. A standing army did not exist at the time, but could be formed when needed out of the citizenry (males). They would need to supply their own weapons and be proficient in their use. It has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with fighting our enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC. How we even got to this point in banning certain weapons is beyond my comprehension. //

SHV | March 17, 2024 at 2:58 pm
This one is interesting. A 2A ruling from far left judge.

“District Judge: Gun Ban For Illegal Immigrant Unconstitutional”

https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2024/03/16/district-judge-gun-ban-illegal-immigrant-unconstitutional/

“The Court finds that Carbajal-Flores’ criminal record, containing no improper use of a weapon, as well as the non-violent circumstances of his arrest do not support a finding that he poses a risk to public safety such that he cannot be trusted to use a weapon responsibly and should be deprived of his Second Amendment right to bear arms in self-defense.”

Matt Whitlock @mattdizwhitlock
·
This city of Honolulu is suing oil and gas companies for bad weather, accusing them of causing climate change.

The Hawaii Supreme Court - who said the 2nd Amendment “violates the spirit of Aloha” green-lit the absurd case.

It’s up to the Supreme Court to fix this.

Alliance For Consumers @for_consumers
Replying to @for_consumers

Pay attention to this new cert petition coming out of the Hawaii Supreme Court...

It's a golden ticket that just got placed before the Supreme Court, at least for those of us who want to see the Left’s public nuisance campaign grind to a halt:

https://supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-947/301676/20240228105935605_Sunoco_pet.pdf

Background: Honolulu is suing energy companies for their alleged role in driving climate change. There are two dozen other cases making these types of claims in other states.

What makes this case interesting is that it’s the first big-ticket climate change case where a state supreme court conclusively weighed in on the merits of how these cases should work…

The Hawaii Supreme Court said that these claims can go to trial in state court irrespective of federal law.

The Hawaii Supreme Court decision is a dangerous precedent – it allows a single judge or jury in state court to weigh liability for global greenhouse gas emissions and assign billions in fines, effectively steering energy policy for the rest of the country. And it did so based on its own reading of federal law.

Make no mistake, lawsuits like this one are designed to reshape entire sectors of the economy.

Judge William Alsup, a Clinton appointee in San Francisco, said as much in a decision dismissing Oakland’s climate-nuisance suit….

8:34 AM · Mar 6, 2024

Lara Logan @laralogan
·
Imagine if your enemies fear you this much? Tells you everything. They just made Clarence Thomas a legend. This is pure desperation on their part. As if Thomas would be intimidated by these tactics. He’s way too smart & been around too long. John who? This guy is nothing.

johnny maga @_johnnymaga
State owned “comedian” John Oliver offered Clarence Thomas a luxury RV and $1M a year to resign from the Supreme Court

“Get the f*ck off the Supreme Court!”

They’re terrified that SCOTUS is going to foil their plans to bar Trump from the presidency
Embedded video
7:37 PM · Feb 19, 2024 //

Carrie Severino @JCNSeverino
·
Justice Thomas to his critics in the media:

“I will absolutely leave the Court when I do my job as poorly as you do yours.” //

Thomas said one of his responses to the media back then when they talked about how he does his job was, “I will absolutely leave the Court when I do my job as poorly as you do yours." Now that's the perfect burn, and Thomas wryly added, "And that was meant as a compliment," as he laughed with a deep, delightful laugh.

"It really is good to be me," Thomas said, continuing to laugh as he just squashed the media nonsense. //

Clare Boothe Lucid
2 hours ago
While offering the bribe Oliver alluded Thomas saying the job was not worth the grief. As usual a lefty takes a conservative’s words out of context. Thomas once said, “The job is not worth doing for what they pay. It’s not worth doing for the grief,” he said. “But it is worth doing for the principle.”

Graham Allen
@GrahamAllen_1
·
Follow
Justice Thomas is ON FIRE.

He took down Colorado attorney Jason Murray BASELESS CLAIMS during Donald Trump's 14th Amendment hearing at SCOTUS.

Thomas - "What are the examples?"
Murray - Provides no examples.
Thomas - "Do you have any examples of this?"

4:46 PM · Feb 8, 2024 //

Kraken from the Metacosmos
3 hours ago
Colorado argues that what even though Trump was never charged, never indicted, never convicted, what he did was so heinous he has to banned from the ballot. What utter drivel. I can't see the Supremes buying an argument that stupid. //

Terrible System
3 hours ago
The odds were much higher that this case would be decided 9-0 in Trump’s favor than that Trump would lose. Maybe one or two of the leftist justices writes a concurring opinion instead of agreeing entirely with the majority, but without a conviction or even a pending charge of insurrection by a criminal court, the argument that Trump should be treated as guilty of a crime based on the fact that Democrats don’t like him is quite possibly the thinnest argument with which any attorney has ever walked into the Supreme Court.

If we want Washington to work for us, the American people, we must start by restoring power back into the hands of those we elect and away from unelected bureaucrats. A critical aspect of this transformation hinges on addressing a doctrine known as Chevron Deference. Far more than a mere technicality, this legal principle has significantly shifted the dynamics of our nation's lawmaking, blurring lines of accountability and diminishing the legislative role of Congress.

For over 40 years, Congress has been derelict in its duties, hiding behind Chevron Deference, established in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984), to delegate its power to federal agencies. This abdication of responsibility has led to vaguely worded legislation, paralyzing gridlock, and sprawling omnibus bills. One stark example of this issue is the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule. Under the influence of Chevron Deference, its interpretation has been subject to dramatic shifts with each changing administration, illustrating the instability and confusion bred by this doctrine. //

The doctrine of Chevron Deference is a fundamental deviation from the constitutional design of our government. The legislative branch, intended by the framers of the Constitution to be the sole creator of laws, has enabled unelected bureaucrats to interpret and effectively create laws, eroding this principle. This isn't about the intelligence or capability of bureaucrats, but about the principle of democratic representation and accountability.

To ensure that laws reflect the will of the people and maintain the balance of power essential to our constitutional republic, we must end Chevron Deference. This change is vital for restoring legislative power to elected representatives. Additionally, adopting single-issue legislation would compel Congress to draft laws that are precise, transparent, and accountable, reflecting the true intent of our Founding Fathers. Single-issue bills, as advocated by James Madison in The Federalist No. 62, would ensure that each law is thoroughly debated and understood before being passed. This approach would eliminate the complexities often buried in omnibus packages, allowing for greater transparency, less government waste, and a greater public understanding of legislation. //

SLOTown Hoosier
3 days ago
This common-sense analysis is hindered by the fact that most Americans have little common-sense, but much sense of self and self-interest. All they care to know about Chevron is that they can fill up their cars.

“Many people consider the things government does for them to be social progress, but they regard the things government does for others as socialism."― Earl Warren //

Random US Citizen
3 days ago
This will help, but the real issue is the SC decision in NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp in 1937 in which the court decided that anything that had the slighted effect on "interstate commerce" could be regulated by congress. A vast swath of unconstitutional laws and regulations hinge on the idea that congress can regulate almost anything as long as there's even the most tenuous connection to commerce. Pick a federal law that's a bad idea and the chances are better than even that the reason it exists is because the black-robed tyrants decided that what they "felt" about an issue was more important than the rule of law or the plain text of the constitution.

Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.

ColderWeather Random US Citizen
3 days ago
NLRB was expansionary for sure, but the one that really had the effect you state here is Wickard. As bad a decision as Dred Scott, Plessy, and Korematsu. //

ConservativeInMinnesota
3 days ago edited
Departments can't make their own rules, that authority belongs to Congress. Congress doesn't have the constitutional power to delegate rulemaking authority to the administrative state. The Constitution requires Congress to make all laws, carry them into execution, and explicitly calls out any department of the US.

Art 1 Sec 8
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Wednesday’s arguments were all about whether the Supreme Court should do away with the unworkable Chevron deference. //

Another common theme pushed, especially by Kagan, concerned the question of “who decides?” If there is an ambiguity, Kagan posed several times, do we want the agency or the courts to make the policy decision?

The correct answer, however, is neither: Congress should make policy decisions and draft statutes that provide clarity on the law. When Congress delegates authority to administrative agencies, such authority should similarly be clear.

Chevron deference has allowed Congress for far too long to avoid making tough calls, and while some of the justices seemed fine with that approach, it is inconsistent with our constitutional structure. //

Businesses need certainty, the solicitor general argued, and overturning Chevron would destroy the predictability of the law.

On the contrary, the fishing businesses’ attorneys stressed, what creates uncertainty is Chevron deference, which allows for each new administration to reverse prior regulations. Several justices seemed to share that viewpoint as well. Further, as several of the justices noted, the unworkability of a legal rule can justify its reversal, notwithstanding stare decisis — and several of the exchanges on Wednesday showed Chevron deference, in its current iteration, is unworkable. //

Right there could be the reason two undecided justices join to form a majority to overturn Chevron — it is just not workable because the lower courts won’t do the work required.

What happened to the 1995 ruling my client won in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña? //

A new president in 2025 must end DEI and all race-based hiring and decision-making by federal departments and agencies. Meanwhile, Congress must codify the Supreme Court’s ruling in Adarand and compel the federal government to comply with the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee. To paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., it is the only way to pay the “promissory note” set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.