Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Archive for the ‘Law’ Category

John Wesley Reid Op-ed: Roe v. Wade in the balance: What you need to know about Dobbs v. Jackson


Commentary By John Wesley Reid, Op-ed Contributor| Tuesday, November 30, 2021

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/voices/what-you-need-to-know-about-dobbs-v-jackson.html

Supreme Court
Participants in the March for Life 2019 assemble at United States Supreme Court on January 18, 2019. | Photo: The Christian Post

On December 1, Roe v. Wade will face a significant threat: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health.

Capitol Hill police expect up to 20,000 protestors on the morning of December 1, a historic turnout of pro-life and pro-choice advocacy that will likely result in a larger crowd than any Supreme Court demonstration ever.


How is Dobbs different than other abortion cases?

The Supreme Court has reviewed several cases related to abortion since 1973’s Roe decision. But of these cases, only Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992 addressed the Roe precedent. Other cases involving abortion were related to late-term abortions, free speech rights of pro-life advocates, and restrictions on abortion providers based on ambulatory care or proximities to particular medical services, among other issues.

Viability

A major component to Roe was the issue of viability. In Dobbs, the Supreme Court has agreed to address the question:

“Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.”

Why is this question significant?

This question is significant because Roe forbids states from prohibiting abortion pre-viability. This prohibition is the very reason why lower courts have kept Roe in place. Indeed one of the judges that struck down Mississippi’s law in the lower federal courts said,

“In an unbroken line dating to Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s abortion cases have established (and affirmed, and re-affirmed) a woman’s right to choose an abortion before viability. States may regulate abortion procedures prior to viability so long as they do not impose an undue burden on the woman’s right, but they may not ban abortions.”

The fact that the U.S. Supreme Court is revisiting viability is entirely implicative that their decision will, in some fashion, directly impact the Roe precedent.

What are the potential outcomes to Dobbs?

There are essentially three possible outcomes of Dobbs: The Court can strike down the Mississippi abortion law, the Court can uphold the Mississippi abortion law while still maintaining Roe, or the Court can uphold the Mississippi abortion law and overturn Roe altogether. John Bursch, who serves as senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, spoke with the Freedom Center’s managing editor John Wesley Reid to expound on the potential outcomes of Dobbs.

Bursch has argued 12 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and over 30 state Supreme Courts. According to the Federalist Society, Bursch has the “third-highest success rate for persuading justices to adopt his legal position,” compared to other lawyers not working for the federal government.

Option 1: A strike down of Mississippi’s 15-week ban

If the Supreme Court affirms the lower court rulings, Mississippi’s 15-week ban on abortion will have reached its terminal demise. While Mississippi does have the option to request a reconsideration from the Court, such petitions are rare, their approval is rarer and a reversed decision is even rarer.

Ultimately, if the Supreme Court affirms the lower court rulings, the fight against abortion will remain in place as it was before Dobbs. For some pro-life advocates, this would be a debilitating setback. For others, it would inspire them to fight harder.

Option 2: A middle ground option

If the Court rejects the lower courts’ rulings and upholds Mississippi’s law, they could also uphold Roe. This would look like the Court rejecting the viability clause in Casey since viability is not objectively known. In 1973, the gestational age at which a child could generally survive outside of the womb was seen as later in the development stage.

But there have been great medical advancements in neonatology since even 1992 when Casey was heard, and so a child’s viability could be recognized by the Court as being much sooner in the development stage. In fact, with medical technological advancements, we now know that viability is sooner than the 24 weeks gestation that the courts have unofficially held to in the past. In fact, over the past few years, the world has seen multiple examples of babies surviving as young as 21 weeks, debunking the generalized 24 week idea. So, the middle ground option could appear as a new standard for statewide abortion regulation.

From a pro-life perspective, this option is an incremental victory, not a pragmatic victory. The vast majority of abortions happen before 15 weeks gestation. Thus, the middle ground option would bring pro-life efforts closer to their goal but would still only be a chip of their larger agenda.

Option 3: An Overturn of Roe v. Wade

If the Court sees reason to, a complete overturn of Roe v. Wade could result from the Dobbs decision. In the event of a Roe overturn, it is widely agreed that regulatory power will return to the states, enabling them to outlaw abortion if they so choose — and many of them are trying to do so already.

How will each justice likely rule in Dobbs?

It is naive to assume that a justice’s ideology will follow their decisions in every ruling and, by extension, an ideological majority should be seen with the same scrutiny.  While it’s easy to assume that the right bloc will rule conservative and the left bloc liberal, that isn’t always the case on the ideological spectrum, even with specific issues. How the justices will decide the Dobbs case can subjectively be analyzed based on their prior rulings and personal positions towards abortion.

To be fair, not all of the cases below relate to the viability aspect of Roe and Casey. This arguably renders them irrelevant to the following analysis, except that some of the justices still refer to Roe and Casey in their opinions despite the case’s irrelevancy towards viability. So, even “irrelevant” cases are worth considering.

Listed by seniority, here are the current justice’s voting records and statements related to abortion:

Chief Justice Roberts

Conservatives have largely coined the Chief Justice as a wild card, given some of his decisions, which, technicalities aside, have not landed on the right, i.e. upholding “Obamacare” in National Federation of Independent Business et al. v. Sebelius, effectively redefining “sex” in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in Bostock v. Clayton County, among others. Some have gone so far as to call him a liberal. But that logic is self-defeating. That is, to ideologically categorize someone based on the minority of their opinions, what does that say to the majority of their opinions? If a reputably conservative justice rules in 10 cases, in which three they take liberal leanings, what is one to say of the liberal justice who votes conservative in three of ten decisions? The conservative court of public opinion would certainly not hail the liberal justice as a conservative.

To be fair, Roberts does push the envelope in general. But on abortion, Roberts has ruled ideologically right in most abortion-related cases before him.

In Carhart v. Gonzales, Roberts ruled in the majority to uphold the Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003. He was joined by current Justices Thomas and Alito.

In Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt Roberts ruled in the minority to uphold a Texas law that would require certain restrictions on abortion clinics, such as shorter proximities to admitting hospital care. He was joined by current Justices Thomas and Alito.

In June Medical Services v. Russo, Roberts ruled in the majority against a law that mirrored the law in Hellerstedt. The curious move from the chief justice after he ruled to uphold the similar law in Texas was, in his words, because “the Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents.” Even though Roberts voted to uphold the Texas law in Hellerstedt, since the majority opinion struck it down, Roberts felt that precedent takes priority over reconsideration. This is important to note since the upcoming Dobbs case directly counters the precedent set in Roe and Casey. Roberts may have jurisprudential reason to think that Roe was a bad call, but he also thought that about the Hellerstedt decision, and based his June Medical decision off of the precedent of a decision he dissented with.

In NIFLA vs. Becerra, Roberts ruled to strike down a California law that required non-abortive pregnancy centers to provide abortion referrals. While this case was more about free speech than it was about abortion, the Court ruled on ideological lines. Roberts was joined by current Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch.

In addition to his rulings, Roberts was the signatory of a 1990 Bush Sr. White House brief that stated Roe was “wrongly decided” and “should be overruled.” Whether this brief may have been more in step with the administration as a whole and not just Roberts is debated. At the time, Roberts was the Deputy Solicitor General. During Roberts’ confirmation hearings both to the D.C. Circuit Court and U.S. Supreme Court, he was aggressively pressed for his position on abortion and Roe, to which he provided diplomatic non-answers, as is routine for federal judge appointees.

Verdict: Still a wild card, but evidence hints that he might uphold Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban with the middle-ground option.

Justice Thomas

Thomas has ruled ideologically rightin every abortion-related case before him.

The longest seated jurist on the current Court, Justice Thomas’ record is perhaps the most absolute when considering whether he’d overturn Roe, since he in fact did rule to overturn Roe when given the chance. Thomas is the only justice on the current Court who was also seated during the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision, for which he ruled in the minority.

Thomas opposes the Roe and Casey precedents — and enthusiastically so. In June Medical v. Russo, a win for abortion advocates, Thomas dissented and said of abortion precedents:

“But those decisions created the right to abortion out of whole cloth, without a shred of support from the Constitution’s text. Our abortion precedents are grievously wrong and should be overruled. Because we have neither jurisdiction nor constitutional authority to declare Louisiana’s duly enacted law unconstitutional, I respectfully dissent.“

Verdict: No wild card here. Justice Thomas looks like a sure win to uphold Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban and overturn Roe.

Justice Breyer

Considered moderately liberal, Justice Breyer, the eldest of the justices, has ruled ideologically left in every abortion-related case before him.

Verdict: Justice Breyer is very likely to rule against Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban.

Justice Alito

Like Thomas, Justice Alito has ruled ideologically right in every abortion-related case before him.

While a federal judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Alito was one of three judges to rule on Planned Parenthood v. Casey (before the case was heard by the Supreme Court). Alito was the lone dissenter in an overturn of the spousal notification portion of the law being challenged.

Alito also expressed personal opinions about abortion, particularly about Roe, before his career as a federal judge. In a 1985 memo, he said,

“We should make clear that we disagree with Roe v. Wade and would welcome the opportunity to brief the issue of whether, and if so to what extent, that decision should be overruled.”

While this quote does not provide an absolute current position taken by Alito, it does reinforce the rest of his reputation towards abortion and Roe. To be fair, Alito is also on the record as having acknowledged that Roe is precedent. But in the same fairness, these remarks were made during his confirmation hearing to the Appeals and Supreme Court where any appointee will refuse to give their position on a judicial matter.

Verdict: Alito is very likely to uphold Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban and overturn Roe.

Justice Sotomayor

The anchor of the Court’s left bloc, Justice Sotomayor has ruled ideologically left in every abortion-related case before her.

A constant supporter of abortion, Sotomayor has been less than shy in her dissents. In a 5-4 decision last September, the Court refused to interfere with the Texas heartbeat law, effectively upholding it. In her dissent, Sotomayor said,

“For the second time, the Court is presented with an application to enjoin a statute enacted in open disregard of the constitutional rights of women seeking abortion care in Texas. For the second time, the Court declines to act immediately to protect these women from grave and irreparable harm.”

Though the Court later decided to hear the case, Sotomayor gave a strong statement of opposition towards her juristic colleagues in reference to the Court’s original denial of injunctive relief. While addressing law students via virtual appearance, Sotomayor said,

“You know, I can’t change Texas’s law. But you can, and everyone else who may or may not like it can go out there and be lobbying forces in changing laws that you don’t like.”

Verdict: Given her opinions, and the reasons for them, Justice Sotomayor is very likely to rule against Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban.

Justice Kagan

Similar to Justice Breyer, Justice Kagan is a moderate on the Court’s left bloc but has ruledideologically left in every abortion-related case before her.

The only hint she has ever shown towards abortion restrictions came while working in the Clinton White House, when she urged the president to support a partial-birth abortion ban, though it is generally agreed that her motive was for political purposes and not ideological. Regardless, partial-birth abortions are outside the parameters of Roe’s application. One can consistently support Roe while opposing partial-birth abortions, thus even if she is opposed to partial-birth abortion, her record shows unfettering support for Roe.

During the oral arguments for the Texas heartbeat law challenge, Kagan expressed her opposition to the law but also affirmed the Court’s precedent:

“The actual provisions in this law have prevented every woman in Texas from exercising a constitutional right as declared by this court … That’s not a hypothetical. That’s an actual.”

Verdict: Justice Kagan is very likely to rule against Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban.

Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh

Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have much shorter records to analyze on abortion, though both have ruled ideologically right in every abortion-related case before them.

Gorsuch, while on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled on a unique string of abortion-related cases, though none that address the Roe precedent.

Off the bench, their personal opinions on abortion are also limited and not directly related to Roe.

For a clarifying point about Kavanaugh, many who opposed his appointment to the Supreme Court alluded to a 2003 email between Kavanaugh and James C. Ho, then-Chief Counsel for the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights. An excerpt from the email reads,

“I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level since Court can always overrule its precedent, and three current Justices on the Court would do so.”

The email does not provide any substantial reason to suggest that Kavanaugh, who was working in the Bush Administration at the time, would overturn Roe, despite what his critics said of the email during his 2018 confirmation. Still, Kavanaugh was clear that precedent is not as concrete as perhaps Chief Justice Roberts would hold. So, if Kavanaugh did have reservations about overturning Roe, we can likely eliminate precedent as his hesitancy.

The three justices Kavanaugh was likely referring to were Thomas, Scalia and Rehnquist considering they were the only three justices on the Court in 2003 who ruled to overturn Roe in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.

Verdict: It is likely that both Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will rule to uphold Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban. Whether they’d take the middle ground option or overturn Roe is not clear.

Justice Barrett

The newest of the justices, and the youngest woman ever appointed to the High Court, Justice Barrett has ruled ideologically right in every abortion-related case before her — but it’s worth noting the secondary nature of abortion in these cases.

While on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Barrett ruled on cases where abortion was secondary, including the disposal of fetal remains and whether abortion on the basis of race, sex, or gender is lawful. Barrett also favored a ruling that would require doctors to inform parents of a minor seeking an abortion.

While on the Supreme Court, Barrett has only had the opportunity to grant or deny injunctive relief when opposition tried to halt the Texas heartbeat law, which she refused along with Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

Despite her minimal ruling history on abortion, there is reason to believe Barrett is pro-life. In 2006, Barrett and her husband Jesse endorsed an advertisement with Right to Life St. Joseph County that condemned Roe v. Wade. In 2008, Barrett co-authored a journal entry for the Notre Dame School of Law which stated that abortion “is always immoral.” When questioned about this publication during her confirmation hearings, Barrett said that she and her co-author were referencing the standard of the Catholic Church’s teachings and said that if she was confirmed, her faith would have no influence “on the discharge of my duties as a judge.” While this could sound as if her pro-life position is dormant in her jurisprudence, it is crucial to remember the normalcy of neutral answers during confirmation hearings.

Verdict: Justice Barrett is likely to uphold Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban and overturn Roe.

The Battle Timeline of Mississippi’s 15-Week Abortion Ban:

March 2018

On March 19, then-governor of Mississippi Phil Bryant signs the 15-week abortion ban into law. Hours later, the Center for Reproductive Rights files suit in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Mississippi.

On March 20, 2018, the Center for Reproductive Rights is granted their request of a temporary restraining order, blocking the 15-week ban for 10 days.

November 2018

The Center for Reproductive Rights is granted a permanent injunction by the same federal court, blocking Mississippi’s 15-week ban on abortion indefinitely. When issuing the order, Judge Carlton Reeves delivers a strong rebuke of the Mississippi legislature:

“…the real reason we are here is simple. The State chose to pass a law it knew was unconstitutional to endorse a decades-long campaign, fueled by national interest groups, to ask the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. This Court follows the commands of the Supreme Court and the dictates of the United States Constitution, rather than the disingenuous calculations of the Mississippi Legislature.

“Mississippi’s law violates Supreme Court precedent, and in doing so it disregards the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of autonomy for women desiring to control their own reproductive health.”

December 2019

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirms the lower court’s decision, with Judge Patrick Higginbotham opining,

“In an unbroken line dating to Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s abortion cases have established (and affirmed, and re-affirmed) a woman’s right to choose an abortion before viability. States may regulate abortion procedures prior to viability so long as they do not impose an undue burden on the woman’s right, but they may not ban abortions.”

Mississippi then requests a hearing en banc, which would summon the entire 5th Circuit and not just a panel of three. This request is denied the following January.

June 2020

Mississippi files a writ of certiorari requesting the U.S. Supreme Court review the 15-week abortion ban.

May 2021

The U.S. Supreme Court grants Mississippi’s request.

December 1, 2021

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for Dobbs.


Originally published at Standing for Freedom Center

John Wesley Reid is the editor-in-chief at the Standing for Freedom Center. Follow him on Twitter at @johnwesleyreid.

Kyle Rittenhouse Acquitted On All Charges


Reported by BRIANNA LYMAN | REPORTER | November 19, 2021

Read more at https://dailycaller.com/2021/11/19/kyle-rittenhouse-acquitted-all-charges/

Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Continues In Kenosha, WI
(Photo by Mark Hertzberg-Pool/Getty Images)

Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted Friday of all charges in relation to the deaths Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber.

Rittenhouse was acquitted on the following charges:

CHARGE: First-Degree Reckless Homicide, Use Of A Dangerous Weapon

VERDICT: Acquitted

The charge alleged Rittenhouse was responsible for Rosenbaum’s death under circumstances that showed an utter disregard for human life. The decision by prosecutors to charge reckless homicide rather than intentional homicide indicated the prosecution was unsure what Rittenhouse’s intent was. The charge carried up to 60 years in prison.

—-

CHARGE: First-Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety, Use Of A Dangerous Weapon 

VERDICT: Acquitted

This charge relates to Rittenhouse’s alleged reckless endangerment of individuals on scene at the time of the incident, including Daily Caller Video Director Richie McGinniss, who testified he was in the line of fire when Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum. This charge carried a maximum 12 1/2 year sentence.

—–

CHARGE: First-Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety, Use Of A Dangerous Weapon

VERDICT: Acquitted

Video footage of the fatal night showed an unidentified individual, known as “Jump kick man” appearing to try and kick Rittenhouse as Rittenhouse laid on the floor just before Huber moved toward Rittenhouse with his skateboard. Rittenhouse appeared to fire two rounds at the unidentified individual but missed as the man ran away. This charge carried a 12 1/2 year sentence.

—-

CHARGE: First-Degree Intentional Homicide, Use Of A Dangerous Weapon

VERDICT: Acquitted

Prosecutors alleged Rittenhouse intentionally killed Huber, who had been seen on video attempting to hit Rittenhouse in the head with a skateboard and trying to grab Rittenhouse’s gun before Rittenhouse fatally shot him. Prosecutors argued Rittenhouse pointing the gun at Huber and firing was intentional, though Rittenhouse’s right to self-defense trumped the intentional charge.  A guilty verdict for first-degree intentional homicide carried a life in prison sentence.

—-

CHARGE: Attempted First-Degree Intentional Homicide, Use Of A Dangerous Weapon

VERDICT: Acquitted

Rittenhouse wounded Gaige Grosskreutz in the arm just after fatally shooting Huber. Grosskreutz was seen in video footage approaching Rittenhouse with a pistol drawn before Rittenhouse fired a single round at Grosskreutz, injuring his arm. The charge carried a maximum sentence of 60 years.

Judge Bruce Schroeder dismissed the charge of possession of a dangerous weapon by a minor Monday. Rittenhouse was 17-years-old at the time of the shooting. The charge only applied if the individual possessed, or was armed with a rifle or shotgun that was a short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun, or if the person was not in compliance with certain hunting restrictions. Schroeder dismissed the charge on the grounds of an exception within the law relating to the gun’s barrel.

Schroeder had previously dismissed a curfew violation charge against Rittenhouse, with the judge agreeing with the defense that the prosecution had not provided sufficient evidenced that a curfew had been in effect.

This is a breaking story and will be updated as information becomes available. 

Rittenhouse Prosecutors Close With Story Backed Up By Neither Evidence Nor Eyewitness Testimony


NOVEMBER 16, 2021 By Eddie Scarry

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2021/11/16/rittenhouse-prosecutors-close-with-story-backed-up-by-neither-evidence-nor-eyewitness-testimony/

Rittenhouse Prosecutors Close With Story Backed Up By Neither Evidence Nor Eyewitness Testimony

Closing arguments of Wisconsin state prosecutors against Kyle Rittenhouse can best be summed up for the jury as, “Never mind! Don’t believe the video evidence or independent witnesses introduced in this trial; believe this alternate version of events that we’re telling you right now instead.”

Deliberations start Tuesday, and the jury has two options. It can acquit Rittenhouse based on scores of video evidence and testimony that show and say Rittenhouse shot three men who were chasing him and trying to get his gun. Or it can convict him based on a weird story that contradicts the state’s own witnesses and that requires a belief that 18-year-old Rittenhouse, for no obvious reason, felt like shooting some random people, all white men, that night last August.

During summations on Monday, Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger claimed that Rittenhouse was in Kenosha, Wis., at the time because, “We all know someone like the defendant,” who “enjoys the thrill of telling people what to do without the courage or honor to back it up.”

This is the baby-faced, then-17-year-old jurors saw on video walking around that night with a medic kit calling out “medical” to protestors on the scene who might need assistance and “friendly, friendly, friendly” so rioters would know he posed no threat.

Binger then described Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, as having done no wrong that evening of rioting before he was hunted down by a bloodthirsty Rittenhouse. By contrast, jurors had seen Rosenbaum on video antagonizing others, lighting a dumpster on fire, and repeatedly yelling at someone, “Shoot me, n——!”

It was Rosenbaum whom witnesses said was yelling at bystanders that he would kill them. It was Rosenbaum who someone described as a “babbling idiot.” And it was ultimately Rosenbaum who then chased Rittenhouse into a dark parking lot before finding himself at the wrong end of an AR-15, and who, again, according to a witness, tried grabbing the barrel before being shot.

The overwhelming evidence showed that Rittenhouse shot someone who was pursuing him. After that, he headed in the direction of police as a mindless mob of rioters gathered to take him down. Two more men made attempts at taking Rittenhouse’s gun, with one of them striking him over the head with a skateboard while he was on the ground. The other one pointed his own gun at Rittenhouse.

Binger, however, is insisting to jurors that they disregard the video evidence and his own witnesses. They should instead trust in his personal assessment that Rittenhouse is a person who “enjoys the thrill of telling people what to do without the courage or honor to back it up.” Whatever that means.

If you told me Binger was given this case as part of a humiliating hazing ritual, I’d believe it. I’d even be relieved to know that he followed through with the case against his will and isn’t actually this stupid.

It’s possible that the jury, nervous about more rioting that an acquittal could bring, will choose Binger’s storyline. If they do, it will mean they followed the prosecutor’s suggestion to set aside what they saw on video and heard from Binger’s own witnesses.

Eddie Scarry is the D.C. columnist at The Federalist and author of “Privileged Victims: How America’s Culture Fascists Hijacked the Country and Elevated Its Worst People.”

Alan Dershowitz: Rittenhouse ‘should be acquitted,’ then sue liberal media outlets for their ‘deliberate and willful lies’; ‘It’s the New Yorker and CNN that are the vigilantes’


Reported by PHIL SHIVER | November 16, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/dershowitz-rittenhouse-should-be-acquitted-sue-liberal-media/

Former Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz blasted liberal media outlets such as CNN and the New Yorker over the weekend for their biased and erroneous reporting on the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. The scholar said the Illinois teenager charged with killing two men and wounding another during Black Lives Matter riots in Kenosha, Wisconsin, last summer “should be acquitted” and then should go on the offensive against the media outlets that have branded him a white supremacist vigilante before the conclusion of his trial.

“If I were a juror, I would vote that there was reasonable doubt [and] that he did act in self-defense,” Dershowitz told Newsmax on Saturday.

“Then he’ll bring lawsuits, and that’s the way to answer … vigilante justice is what CNN is doing, not what a 17-year-old kid under pressure may have done right or wrong. It’s CNN who is involved in vigilante justice. It’s the New Yorker that’s guilty of vigilante justice,” he added.

Dershowitz compared Rittenhouse’s case to former Kentucky high school student Nicholas Sandmann, who became the target of left-wing media attacks following an encounter with a Native American activist in Washington, D.C. Sandmann later sued CNN and the Washington Post. Both the network and the paper ended up settling.

“The idea is to make the media accountable for deliberate and willful lies,” Dershowitz explained.

He added in a Sunday conversation with Breitbart’s Joel Pollak that “CNN and some of the other TV stations” are the “ones who want to put not the thumb, but the elbow on the scale of justice.”

“They want to influence the outcome of this case,” he argued. “And there are others who are threatening violence if there is anything but convictions in this case, as they threatened violence in previous cases and will in subsequent cases unless something is done about it. It’s the New Yorker and CNN that are the vigilantes. They’re the ones who are trying to influence justice without regard to evidence or the law.”

Rittenhouse is currently facing multiple felony murder charges — including first-degree intentional homicide and first-degree reckless homicide — for fatally shooting Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26, and wounding Gage Grosskreutz, 28.

Rittenhouse’s defense team has maintained that their client was in Kenosha on Aug. 25, 2020, to protect local businesses and provide medical aid during the uprising and that he was only acting in self-defense when he fired the shots.

Videos of the incidents seen by the public appear to show Rittenhouse being chased and physically threatened before firing his gun. The prosecution, however, argued that the defendant provoked the attacks by bringing an AR-15 to the protests.

As of Tuesday afternoon, the jury was still deliberating over the verdict.

North Carolina High School SUSPENDS 15 Year Old Female Student For Reporting Sexual Assault in Girls Restroom – School Accused Teenager of Filing a False Report Even AFTER Male Student Confessed to Police and Was Charged


Reported By Julian Conradson | Published November 7, 2021

Read more at https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/11/readyvictim-blaming-north-carolina-high-school-suspends-15-year-old-female-student-reporting-sexual-assault-girls-restroom-school-accused-teenager-filing-false-report-even-m/

Last month, a 15-year-old student in Charlotte, North Carolina confided in her school’s administrators that a classmate had sexually assaulted her in the girl’s restroom. She claimed that the unnamed male student had been following her into the bathroom, groping her without consent and that he had been doing so “for weeks” before she was able to work up the nerve to come forward.

But instead of intervening or protecting her, the woke administrators at the Hawthorne Academy of Health Sciences inexplicably called her a liar and suspended her for “filing a false report,” even though the police had already charged the male student with two counts of sexual battery and even coaxed a confession out of him.

The school has reportedly not punished the alleged attacker in any way.

“They are making her feel like she is being punished for coming forward,” the mother told WBTV.

Mgid
Mgid

The assaults went unreported for quite some time because, according to the Daily Beast, the victim “was afraid no one would believe her,” which makes the school’s punishment of her for coming forward that much more unsettling – also begs the question, what kind of ‘culture’ is in place at Hawthorne that would make a student feel that way?

After enduring the abuse for weeks, she felt confident enough to speak up after attending a Title IX assembly earlier in the year that encouraged students to come forward about instances of abuse.

From The Daily Beast:

“Around the time of the assembly, the girl spoke with another student who told her she had had a similar experience with the same assailant. The two of them brought their allegations to the assistant principal, who notified the police, triggering an investigation. (A copy of the police report reviewed by The Daily Beast states that two minors reported that the suspect “attempted to engage in sexual contact against the victims will.”)

A few weeks later, her mother said, the police called to say the alleged assailant had confessed. He was later charged with two counts of sexual battery.”

The Legacy Report

The whole situation has left the victim’s mother completely shocked, especially with the school’s decision-making. While remaining anonymous for her daughter’s protection, she told The Daily Beast this week that she believes the school “has failed” her daughter.

“Schools teach your kids – ‘you see something, you say something’ – and in this case my daughter did, and it seems that the school system has failed her.”

Shortly after the school was notified of the incidents, the victim’s mother was informed by Hawthorne’s assistant principal – Nina Adams – that they had found no evidence of a sexual assault, and instead accused her daughter of filing a false report based on lies. When the mother confronted Adams with the fact that the police had gotten a confession to the assaults from the male student, she brazenly replied “unfortunately, the police department has nothing to do with the school system.”

“I said to her, ‘I’m a little confused because this student admitted to the detectives that interviewed him at the police station that he did in fact do this,’’’ the mother recalled. “And she said, ‘Unfortunately, what the police department does has nothing to do with the school system.’”

Keep in mind, this is a PUBLIC school official…

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg School District has been largely silent throughout the incident. Members of the board who were questioned by WBTV refused to comment at all, and even the mother of the victim said she had not heard from them until this Friday when someone from their office called to say they were opening an investigation. Hawthorne’s principal – Diann Weston – has not reached out to the mother or the victim even once.

The only one to issue a public statement was the District’s Superintendent, Earnest Winston, who said he could not release “confidential information about such matters as individual student discipline or ongoing police investigations.”

Despite intense criticism and protests by students and parents, the school is refusing to back down from requiring the victim to not only serve her suspension but also sign a “non-retaliation” agreement against her attacker and unbelievably attend a class called “sexual assault is preventable” before they allow her to return to class.

By forcing her to attend this class, the administrators are directly implying that the 15-year-old could have prevented the assaults if she modified HER behavior in some way.

It is a bit similar to the Loudon County assault case.

If you are a parent or have any concerns you would like to share with the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School District about this incident and their decision to punish the student for coming forward, they can be contacted HERE – and the School Board can be found HERE.

Or you can contact the Hawthorne Academy of Health Sciences directly HERE.

Supreme Court To Decide If Dred Scott Should Apply To All Americans On Guns


Commentary By David Kopel | NOVEMBER 2, 2021

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2021/11/02/supreme-court-to-decide-if-dred-scott-should-apply-to-all-americans-on-guns/

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, to decide whether the Second Amendment right to “bear arms” is a legally enforceable right. The case raises some of the same questions that were at issue at the infamous 1857 Supreme Court case Dred Scott v. Sandford.

The Dred Scott majority held that free blacks could never be citizens of the United States, so plaintiff Scott could not bring a case in federal court. In support of the supposed “absurdity” of free blacks having citizenship rights, Chief Justice Taney described a parade of horribles that would ensue.

Free black citizens would have the right to travel about the United States“‘without pass or passport,” to enter any state, to stay there as long as they pleased, and within that state they could go where they wanted at any hour of the day or night, unless they committed some act for which a white person could be punished. Further, black citizens would have “the right to . . . full liberty of speech in public and private upon all subjects which [a state’s] own citizens might meet; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.” (Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 Howell) 393, 417 (1857)).

Most of the rights on the list were straightforward rephrasings of the Bill of Rights. Instead of “freedom of speech,” Taney wrote “liberty of speech”; instead of the right “peaceably to assemble,” he discussed the right “to hold meetings,” and instead of the right to “keep and bear arms,” he discussed the right to “keep and carry arms.” Although the right to travel is not textually stated in the Constitution, it has long been found there by implication.

So according to the Supreme Court, the “right to . . . keep and carry arms” is like “the right to . . . full liberty of speech,” the right to interstate travel, and the “the right to . . . hold public meetings on political affairs.” Each is an obvious individual right of American citizenship.

Congress Shall Not Infringe

Although resolving the citizenship issue was sufficient to end the Dred Scott case, the Taney majority decided to address what it considered to be an error in the opinion of the circuit court. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress had no power to outlaw slavery in a territory, as Congress had done in the 1820 Missouri Compromise for the future Territory of Nebraska. The Court noted the universal assumption that the Bill of Rights constrained congressional legislation in the territories:

No one, we presume, will contend that Congress can make any law in a territory respecting the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people of the territory peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances.

Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel anyone to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding.

Because Congress could not infringe the Bill of Rights in the territories, Taney concluded that Congress could not infringe the property rights of slave-owners by abolishing slavery in the territories. Again, the Taney Court treated the Second Amendment as one of the constitutional rights belonging to individual Americans.

What This Has to Do with Bruen

Dred Scott has several implications for the Bruen case. First, it affirms that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is a normal individual right, like the other individual rights listed in the case, such as free exercise of religion, freedom of speech and of the press, jury trial, and so on.

In Bruen, several amicus briefs have asserted that District of Columbia v. Heller was wrongly decided, because the Second Amendment was supposedly only for militiamen. The argument is based on a misapplication of a form of legal scholarship known as “corpus linguistics”—essentially, searching historic databases for certain words, and counting how often those words were used in various ways.

There is no dispute that in the Founding Era, “bear arms” was frequently used in a military context. That does not mean that militia service was the only meaning of bear arms. Indeed, when one looks for “bear arms” in the context of the word “right,” or when one looks for the phrase “keep and bear arms,” most of the uses unmistakably point to a general right of all citizens, not solely for militiamen.

Dred Scott shows that the Second Amendment’s original public meaning from 1791 remained the same through 1857. The Scott Court put Second Amendment rights into lists of other ordinary rights belonging to all citizens, not solely for a subset of citizens engaged in military service.

No, Gun Bans Were Not the Norm

Another argument of some anti-rights briefs in Bruen is that as of the mid-nineteenth century, Americans had no right at all to bear arms. The no-rights argument asserts that England’s 1328 Statute of Northampton was still the law in the United States, and that it banned arms-carrying.

However, the American case law is exactly the opposite. For example, the North Carolina Supreme Court in 1843 explained that the Statute of Northampton (while not applicable in North Carolina), was just a formalization of a common law rule (which did apply in North Carolina) against carrying arms “to terrify and alarm.”

As for peaceably bearing arms, “[T]he carrying of a gun per se constitutes no offence. For any lawful purpose . . . the citizen is at perfect liberty to carry his gun” (State v. Huntley, 25 N.C. 418, 420 (1843)).

As of 1857, eight states and the District of Columbia had statutes allowing lawsuits against persons whose bearing of arms threatened to cause a breach of the peace. If the defendant was proven to have been carrying in an unpeaceable manner, then he could continue to carry only if he posted a bond for good behavior. Aggressively misreading the Massachusetts statute and its parallels in some other states, several anti-rights amicus briefs assert that carrying guns was generally prohibited by these statutes.

However, a detailed survey of newspaper reports of the enforcement of these statutes has found that the very rare instances of someone being haled into court for peaceable carry all involved black defendants—two in Boston and two in the District of Columbia. Only one of the defendants had the resources to appeal, and when he did, the prosecutor withdrew the case.

Dred Scott refutes the notion that bans on bearing arms were the norm in the United States (or in any State). According to Dred Scott, American citizens have always had the right “to keep and carry arms wherever they went”—so recognizing blacks as citizens would mean recognizing their right to bear arms.

Supreme Court Justice Lists 2A as Constitutional Right

Dred Scott’s treatment of the Second Amendment was consistent with legal tradition. In the 18th and 19th centuries, Supreme Court justices individually “rode circuit,” by serving as judges in lower federal courts when the Supreme Court was not in session. In 1833, Supreme Court Justice Henry Baldwin, while circuit-riding, gave a jury charge that listed some of the constitutional rights possessed by the plaintiff.

Justice Baldwin pointed out that Article IV of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that “the citizens of each state shall be entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.” As part of the list of “the privileges and immunities” of U.S. citizens, Baldwin stated: “The second amendment provides, ‘that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed’” (Johnson v. Tompkins, 13 F. Cas. 840, 850 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1833) (No. 7416)).

Since Johnson’s lawsuit was against an employee of a subdivision of the Pennsylvania state government, Justice Baldwin’s listing of the Second Amendment implied that he considered the Second Amendment to be a restriction on state actions against individuals.

Sen. Stephen Douglas summed up the litany of individual rights that Dred Scott said could not be violated in the territories:

Nothing can be more certain than that the Court were here speaking only of forbidden powers, which were denied alike to Congress, to the State Legislatures, and to the Territorial Legislatures, and that the prohibition extends ‘everywhere within the dominion of the United States,’ applicable equally to States and Territories, as well as to the United States.

While agreeing that no government within the United States could violate the right to bear arms, Douglas argued that there were particular historic and legal reasons the Court’s protection of property in slaves could not be applied to States that chose to forbid slavery.  Stephen Douglas, The Dividing Line Between Federal and Local Authority: Popular Sovereignty in the Territories, Harper’s (Sept. 1859).

Dred Scott’s holding that blacks are not citizens was repudiated in 1868 by the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, which declares that all persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.

Other language of the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to prevent state and local governments from infringing the enumerated rights of American citizens listed in the Bill of Rights. For example, in congressional debate on the proposed Fourteenth Amendment, Representative Henry Raymond (R., N.Y.) stated: “Make the colored man a citizen of the United States and he has every right which you or I have as citizens of the United States under the laws and Constitution of the United States,” among which is “a right to bear arms” (Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 1266 (1866)).

Yes, States Must Obey the Bill of Rights

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court was initially hostile to requiring states to adhere to the Bill of Rights. Slowly, the court has corrected its earlier errors. McDonald v. Chicago in 2010 held that states must obey the Second Amendment, and Timbs v. Indiana in 2019 held that states may not levy “excessive fines” in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Yet today, New York State still refuses to comply with the Second Amendment. State statutes entirely prohibit open carry of handguns. Concealed carry is allowed only with a license, and officials in many counties refuse to issue licenses to adults who have passed a fingerprint-based background check and safety training, and simply want to exercise their Second Amendment right to peaceably bear arms.

The law-abiding citizens of New York are thus placed in the same position as free people of color in the slave states. Although early North Carolina had included free blacks in the state and colonial militia without discrimination and had not restricted the rights of free persons of any color to carry firearms peaceably, in 1841 the legislature enacted a statute that all free persons of color must have an annual license from the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions in order to own or carry firearms, swords, daggers, or bowie knives (“An Act to prevent Free Persons of Colour from carrying Fire-arms,” ch. 30, 1840-41 N.C. Laws 61-62 (1841)).

When the law was challenged, the trial court held it unconstitutional, but the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed. The North Carolina Supreme Court wrote that that “free people of color have been among us, as a separate and distinct class, requiring, from necessity, in many cases, separate and distinct legislation.” It was up to “the control of the County Court, giving them the power to say, in the exercise of a sound discretion, who, of this class of persons, shall have a right to the licence, or whether any shall” (State v. Newsom, 27 N.C. (5 Iredell) 250 (1844)).

Likewise, the Georgia Supreme Court stated in 1848 that “Free persons of color” were not citizens, and thus “not entitled to bear arms” (Cooper v. City of Savannah, 4 Ga. 68, 72 (1848) (upholding municipality’s special tax on free persons of color who moved into the city)). These were the kinds of laws that Dred Scott’s anti-citizenship holding protected.

It is not surprising that the plaintiffs’ briefs in Bruen, and several of the amicus briefs in support of the plaintiffs, directly address the Dred Scott case. It is revealing that neither the Bruen defendants nor their many amici claiming expertise in American legal history even dare to mention Dred Scott. The case destroys their assertions that bearing arms was generally prohibited in the antebellum United States.

Yet it would have been proper for the supporters of the current New York system to defend and extol Dred Scott v. Sandford. The ultimate principle that the anti-rights briefs support is that Dred Scott’s holding against the rights of free people of color should be affirmed and extended to all people, regardless of color. Should the Bruen defendants prevail, then all Americans will be reduced to the degraded legal status of free people of color in North Carolina as of 1844, with the exercise of their right to bear arms contingent on an official’s discretion about “whether any shall.”

David Kopel is research director at the Independence Institute in Denver. He is coauthor of the law school textbook “Firearms Law and the Second Amendment.”

Supreme Court vacates decision against religious groups fighting NY abortion coverage mandate


Reported By Michael Gryboski, Christian Post Reporter | Monday, November 01, 2021

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/scotus-vacates-decision-against-diocese-suing-ny-abortion-mandate.html/

supreme court
U.S. Supreme Court is seen in Washington, U.S., November 27, 2017. | (Photo: REUTERS/Yuri Gripas)

The U.S. Supreme Court has vacated a lower court ruling against multiple religious employers seeking an exemption to a 2017 New York regulation requiring employers to provide healthcare plans that include coverage of medically necessary abortions. In an order released Monday morning, the nation’s high court vacated a lower court ruling in the case of Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, et al. v. Emani, Shiri, et al., remanding the case back to the New York Court of Appeals. 

The Supreme Court cited its unanimous July decision in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia to justify the order. In that case, the high court ruled that Philadelphia officials could not exclude a Catholic charity from its foster program because the organization refused to place children with same-sex couples for religious reasons.

Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch voted to hear the charities’ appeal rather than send the case back to the lower courts. 

Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, a legal nonprofit that represents the diocese, said in a statement that he is “thankful” for the order.

“New York clearly learned nothing from the federal government’s own attempts to force nuns to pay for contraceptives and is now needlessly threatening charities because they believe in the dignity and humanity of every human person,” stated Baxter.

“We are thankful that the Supreme Court won’t allow the New York Court of Appeals’ bad ruling to be the last word on the right of religious ministries to serve New Yorkers of all faiths.”

A group of religious organizations and orders, including multiple Roman Catholic dioceses, Catholic Charities, an Anglican order of nuns and multiple Protestant churches filed lawsuits against New York over its abortion coverage mandate.

“We believe that every person is made in the image of God,” said Mother Miriam of the Sisterhood of Saint Mary, the oldest Anglican religious order founded in America. “That’s why we believe in the sanctity of human life, and why we seek to serve those of all faiths — or no faith at all — in our community. We’re grateful that the Supreme Court has taken action in our case and hopeful that, this time around, the New York Court of Appeals will preserve our ability to serve and encourage our neighbors.”

The New York Codes, Rules and Regulations, Title 11, Section 52.16 (o) prohibits healthcare policies from limiting what it describes as “medically necessary” abortions.

“No policy delivered or issued for delivery in this State that provides hospital, surgical, or medical expense coverage shall limit or exclude coverage for abortions that are medically necessary,” the section reads.

“Coverage for in-network abortions that are medically necessary shall not be subject to copayments, or coinsurance, or annual deductibles, unless the policy is a high deductible health plan … in which case coverage for medically necessary abortions may be subject to the plan’s annual deductible.”

The New York mandate allows for a religious exemption, provided that the insurer for the religious employer “obtains an annual certification” confirming their status and that the insurer issues “a rider for coverage of medically necessary abortions.”

In section 52.2 of the New York Codes, a “religious employer” is defined as an entity that engages in the “inculcation of religious values,” “primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the entity,” “serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the entity” and “is a nonprofit organization.”

The plaintiffs contend that New York holds too narrow of a definition on what constitutes a religious employer and unlawfully restricts who can receive an exemption.

“But religious organizations that have a broader purpose, such as serving the poor, or that employ or serve members of other faiths or no faith, must cover abortions in their health plans,” stated the plaintiffs’ petition to the Supreme Court filed in April.

The U.S. Supreme Court has previously ruled in favor of Christian-owned businesses and religious groups that sued for an exemption to an Obamacare mandate that required employers to provide health plans that cover birth control. 

Follow Michael Gryboski on Twitter or Facebook

Kyle Rittenhouse judge slams ‘vast amount’ of ‘irresponsible and sloppy journalism’ surrounding case


Reported by PHIL SHIVER | November 02, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/rittenhouse-judge-slams-irresponsible-sloppy-journalism/

The judge presiding over the highly anticipated Kyle Rittenhouse homicide trial recently criticized what he called a “vast amount” of “irresponsible and sloppy journalism” covering the events surrounding the case.

While speaking with potential jurors during the jury selection process on Monday, Kenosha County Circuit Court Judge Bruce Schroeder said that those selected for the task may need to disregard much of what they have heard in the media about the case.

“This case has become very political. It was involved in the politics of the last election year,” Schroeder said in the court session, adding, “To this day, you can go out and read things from all across the political spectrum about this case, most of which is written by people who know nothing.”

“The price we pay for having a free press is a lot of irresponsible and sloppy journalism,” he continued, adding that his charge “is not an attack on the media” but a reality check for potential jurors about the need for a fair and impartial trial.

Schroeder said that he has read some things about the case that have been “perfect,” but noted that most of the reporting has either been “sloppy” or “deliberately biased.”

“It can be frightening,” he added while urging jury candidates to abandon their presuppositions and focus solely on the evidence presented at trial. He reminded them that the right to a fair trial is an important right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

What’s the background?

The news comes only days after Schroeder ruled that the men Rittenhouse, 18, fatally shot or wounded on Aug. 25, 2020, in Kenosha, Wisconsin, can’t be referred to as “victims” by prosecutors — but can be called “rioters” and “looters.”

Rittenhouse — then 17 — allegedly took a gun to riots in the city in order to defend local businesses against looting and ransacking in the wake of a white police officer’s shooting of Jacob Blake, a black man. During the mayhem, Rittenhouse shot three men, killing two. Rittenhouse was charged with multiple felonies, including first-degree intentional homicide, first-degree reckless homicide, attempted first-degree reckless homicide, and first-degree reckless endangering safety. If convicted, he could serve a mandatory life sentence in prison.

Rittenhouse’s defense team has insisted he was acting in self-defense, and videos of the shootings from that night appear to back up his claims. He later told reporters he doesn’t regret taking a gun to protests on the night of the shootings, saying he “would’ve died” if he hadn’t.

By Monday evening, 20 jurors had been selected, and now the trial is set to be heard.

(H/T: Townhall)

Potential Jurors In The Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Are Scared, And They Have Every Reason To Be

NOVEMBER 2, 2021 | By Eddie Scarry

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2021/11/02/potential-jurors-in-the-kyle-rittenhouse-trial-are-scared-and-they-have-every-reason-to-be/

Kenosha County, Wis., Circuit Court Judge Bruce Schroeder has a fanciful idea: That the trial he’s overseeing that includes murder charges against 18-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse can be removed from politics. He said so on Monday during jury selection. “We don’t want to fall into the trap,” he said, “that many in the media have, a large percentage of the media, and discuss this as a political trial or that there are bigger factors at stake in this trial.”

How naive. Of course this is a trial of political consequence and of course there are bigger factors at stake. The potential jurors know it, and that’s why during selection several of them expressed concern that their city or they personally might be the targets of rioting or harassment, regardless of the verdict the jury renders. All of the potential jurors are kept anonymous until after the trial is over but here’s a sample of what some of them said during selection:

—One said that no matter the verdict, “half the country will be up in arms about it.”

— Another said, “I’m more afraid of our community and the outsiders of our community that are coming in… It just brings us back to August (2020).” She also said she was “potentially” afraid of reliving riots depending on the verdict.

— A third said it was “scary” to be on a case like this one, specifically citing “riots” and wondering aloud, “Am I gonna get home safe?”

Those are legitimate concerns. We saw what happened earlier this year in Minneapolis, when businesses and restaurants boarded up their storefronts in anticipation of a possible acquittal of former police officer Derek Chauvin, who ultimately was convicted of killing George Floyd. If things don’t go a certain way in politically charged trials like that, despite evidence leading a deliberate jury to the opposite conclusion, well, that might very well mean more rioting, looting, arson, and violence. Potential jurors in the Rittenhouse trial received the message loud and clear that this isn’t just a murder trial. This is about the broader question of whether some types of political violence are acceptable, even necessary.

Rittenhouse is charged with the murder of two men and the attempted murder of a third. All relevant parties are white (sadly robbing the media of a beloved racially charged narrative) and it isn’t disputed that each of them had been chasing the teen and attempting to apprehend his weapon. All of it was in the context of several nights of destructive rioting in Kenosha, which resulted in a total of $50 million in damages to the city. The mayhem was sparked by the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a black man who was wanted for violating a restraining order stemming from claims he had sexually assaulted a woman. Blake is on video resisting his arrest and defying police orders by moving to enter his vehicle as they tried to apprehend him.

The city went up in flames and the national media to this day characterize the chaos as a “Black Lives Matter march” because they, along with leaders in the Democratic Party, believe all of it was justified.

Rittenhouse may have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, but that’s not a crime and it’s not what he’s on trial for. He’s on trial for shooting men who pursued him and made moves to grab his gun, something that is seen on video, testified by at least one witness, and written out in the state’s own complaint against Rittenhouse.

A jury will inevitably render its verdict, but contrary to what the judge says, there’s no way around it— this is a political trial and that should scare the jurors.

Eddie Scarry is the D.C. columnist at The Federalist and author of “Privileged Victims: How America’s Culture Fascists Hijacked the Country and Elevated Its Worst People.”

Teen Immigrant Charged with 3 Counts of Murder, Released from Jail to Attend School


Reported By Jack Davis  October 26, 2021

Read more at https://www.westernjournal.com/teen-immigrant-charged-3-counts-murder-released-jail-attend-school/

A Sudanese teenager will resume his life now that he is free on bail only weeks after being charged with three counts of murder. Ahmedal Tayeb Elnouman Modawi, 17, made bail over the weekend, according to KPRC-TV in Houston. Modawi faces three counts of murder and one count of aggravated assault with serious bodily injury stemming from an Oct. 1 joyriding incident that ended in tragedy. As a condition of his release, Modawi can attend school and church, and must wear a GPS ankle monitor.

Modawi is a Sudanese national who has lived with his family in Houston for the past five years. He is not an American citizen.

The teenager who had worked as a valet at a Houston restaurant, was spotted by police at about 10:30 p.m. on Oct. 1 while driving a customer’s white Infiniti G37 and doing various stunts in a parking lot. Modawi fled when the officer who spotted him hit the lights and siren. He did not get far but struck and killed three valets who worked at another restaurant, Eric Orduna, 22; Nick Rodriguez, 23; and Fran Measho, 18. He then flipped the car before it crashed into a fence. Modawi and a passenger each suffered leg injuries.

“We’re talking about three individuals who were just out here working. They were out here doing their job. They were coming back from parking cars going to get more cars,” Sean Teare, Harris County assistant district attorney, told KPRC after the incident. “We’re going to prosecute this person to the fullest extent because this is completely unacceptable.”

Modawi’s bond was set at $350,000 but was later reduced to $220,000.

Johntrel Lewis, the customer who owned the vehicle Modawi was driving, had left the car to be parked that night when he went into a sports bar.

“I’m trying to figure out what you were you thinking when you jumped in the car,” Lewis said, according to KPRC.

He had come out of the bar to take a picture of the accident when he realized it was his own car.

“I took a picture of it and I’m sending it to my friends like, ‘Bro, somebody’s car is jacked up, they’re going to be mad in the morning,’” he said. “That was my car.”

After getting a ride home, he said, he received a call from the police.

“That’s when the detective called me,” he said. “He was like, ‘Your car was involved in a homicide. It was used in a homicide. It’s totaled. There’s nothing you can do.’”

Bob Lowry was at a nearby establishment when the crash happened.

“It sounded like a clap of thunder. I looked over and a car just came flying through the air and hit the ditch,” Lowry told KPRC.

He said he was sorry for the valets who were mowed down.

“Just doing their jobs, God bless them. I hope justice has a swift hand,” Lowry said.

Jack Davis, Contributor

Jack Davis is a freelance writer who joined The Western Journal in July 2015 and chronicled the campaign that saw President Donald Trump elected. Since then, he has written extensively for The Western Journal on the Trump administration as well as foreign policy and military issues.

Juvenile court judge finds teenager guilty of ‘nonconsensual sex’ with student in Loudoun County bathroom assault case


Reported by CARLOS GARCIA | October 25, 2021

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/juvenile-court-judge-finds-teenager-guilty-of-nonconsensual-sex-with-student-in-loudoun-county-bathroom-assault-case-2655369291.html/

A juvenile court judge found a teenage boy guilty of “nonconsensual sex” with a female student in the controversial case from Loudoun County in Virginia. The sexual assault became a national outrage after public school officials denied any knowledge of an assault during a heated confrontation with parents protesting against a transgender bathroom rule proposal.

Scott Smith, the father of the victim, was dragged out of the June 22 board meeting by police after engaging in an altercation with a woman who accused his daughter of lying about the assault. That altercation was used to justify an announcement by U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland that the FBI would investigate threats against school board members.

On Monday, Juvenile Court Judge Pamela Brooks found that the evidence presented was sufficient to find that the 15-year-old suspect had engaged in “nonconsensual sex” with the victim during the bathroom assault on May 28 at Stone Bridge High School. The suspect was also accused of sexually assaulting a second victim early October after he had been moved to another school in the district.

“The matter will be continued for review, to determine the outcome of the second set of charges against the same young man, who is accused of sexually assaulting a second Loudoun County student after being transferred to Broad Run High School,” read a statement from attorney Elizabeth Lancaster, who represents one of the victims in the case.

The boy reportedly said in court that he had worn a skirt into the restroom.

Parents and other critics of the Loudoun County school board have called for resignations of those members who are accused of covering up the sexual assaults at their schools in order to push liberal policies. The Smith family said in a statement Monday that they would continue to press for accountability from the school officials responsible for the scandal.

“We are relieved that justice was served today for the Smith’s daughter,” the statement said. “This horrible incident has deeply affected the Smith family, and they are grateful for today’s outcome.”

Here’s a news report about the shocking Loudoun school scandal:

‘Reformed’ child sex offender released from registry arrested on 9 new child sex abuse charges


Reported by SARAH TAYLOR | October 25, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/reformed-child-sex-offender-released-from-registry-arrested-on-9-brand-new-child-sex-abuse-charges/

Authorities arrested a “reformed” child sex offender after he was busted for a variety of child sex abuse crimes that purportedly took place as late as 2020. The suspect, 45-year-old Derrick Crooms, was previously placed on a child sex abuse registry following similar convictions in 1996, but was able to persuade a judge to remove his name from the registry in 2017 after claiming he was reformed and led a good and decent life.

Earlier in October, federal marshals in conjunction with the Newton and Oconee County Sheriff’s offices took Newton County, Georgia, resident Crooms into custody and charged him with two counts each of incest, aggravated sexual battery, aggravated child molestation, and child molestation, plus one count of enticing a child for indecent purposes. He is being held without bond in the Newton County Detention Center at the time of this reporting.

In a statement on the arrest, Georgia Bureau of Investigation Assistant Special Agent in Charge Lindsay Marchant said that the agency began investigating Crooms in December 2020.

“In December 2020, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation’s Child Exploitation and Computer Crimes Unit received a request for assistance from the Oconee County Sheriff’s Office in the investigation of numerous sex offenses against children by Crooms,” Marchant said in the news release. “The investigation revealed that these crimes allegedly occurred in Newton County, Georgia, as well as several different locations throughout the United States.”

One of Crooms’ previous victims — who was instrumental in helping capture him in 2020 — spoke out in response to the new charges, according to WAGA-TV.

Jeanie Fulcher, now 34, said, “He took my innocence when I was seven. I don’t know if you can ever really heal from that.”

Fulcher said that in 2017, Crooms was successfully able to petition a judge to remove his name from the sex offender list despite her begging and pleading otherwise.

“Their argument was that he was a changed man and he was a model citizen that didn’t get in trouble anymore, hasn’t committed crimes since,” she said.

She added, “I do think that our justice system has failed us. I believe that once you plead guilty to raping children, molestation charges, you shouldn’t get out of prison at all. You shouldn’t get a second chance.”

Crooms served just four years of his 20-year sentence before being released from prison in connection with the 1996 convictions.

Man arrested at Loudoun County school board meeting says officials covered up his daughter’s rape


Reported by CHRIS PANDOLFO | October 12, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/man-arrested-at-loudoun-county-school-board-meeting-officials-covered-up-daughters-rape/

Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Amid heated debate over controversial transgender-affirming policies in Virginia’s Loudoun County this summer, school officials concealed that a ninth-grade girl was allegedly sexually assaulted by a gender-fluid male student in a bathroom, the Daily Wire’s Luke Rosiak reported.

The girl’s father, Scott Smith, was arrested during a raucous June 22 school board meeting that shut down public comment from incensed parents who came to protest critical race theory and proposed transgender policies. Smith was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest after he had an argument with a woman for whose daughter Smith’s wife had been a Girl Scout leader. Smith’s arrest was captured on video and went viral, calling national attention to parent protests at school board meetings. The National School Board Association cited his arrest in a letter to the Biden administration requesting that the Department of Justice classify threats and intimidation from angry parents as “domestic terrorism.”

Telling his side of the story publicly for the first time, Smith told the Daily Wire that he had been provoked by the woman, who said she did not believe his daughter, and by Loudoun County school officials who had covered up the alleged sexual assault. The Daily Wire reported that while juvenile court records are sealed, Smith’s attorney, Elizabeth Lancaster, said a boy at Stone Bridge High School was charged with two counts of forcible sodomy, one count of anal sodomy, and one count of forcible fellatio related to an incident on May 28, when Smith says his 15-year-old daughter was attacked in a school bathroom. Smith says that the boy wore a skirt when he entered the girls’ bathroom and allegedly attacked his daughter. After the alleged attack, the administration called Smith to come to the school and told him it would handle the incident “in-house.” When he began to make a scene, as any outraged parent would, he says the school called police officers on him and it was only after he managed to avoid getting arrested that he convinced police to escort his daughter to the hospital to have a rape kit administered.

A records request from the Daily Wire confirmed that a report titled “Offense: Forcible Sodomy [and] Sexual Battery” was filed matching the date and location of the alleged assault.

Later that day, the school principle sent an email to the community informing them of “an incident in the main office” that required a police presence. “There was no threat to the safety of the student body,” the principal wrote. He offered counseling services for any student who was upset by Smith’s behavior but made no mention of the alleged assault.

“LCPS washed their hands of this,” Smith told the Daily Wire, adding that the incident was only taken seriously because of the sheriff’s office.

A spokeswoman for Loudoun County Public Schools said, “Any information related to student information is confidential under state and federal laws regarding student privacy.”

According to Smith’s attorney, the suspect made self-incriminating statements during an interview with prosecutors and a conviction is “expected imminently, likely in the form of a plea deal to a charge of felony aggravated sexual battery.”

School officials never publicly acknowledged the incident even as the district debated adopting policies that would permit transgender students to use bathrooms that matched their self-declared gender identity. During the June school board meeting, school officials told parents minutes before Smith’s arrest that concerns about transgender students in bathrooms or locker rooms were a “red herring” and that there were no records of assaults occurring in bathrooms. They did not inform the public of the alleged assault against Smith’s daughter, which was reported to police three weeks before.

Smith stood there and listened as members of the school board lectured the public about how there were no issues involving transgender students and that “if a crime or violation of the rules were committed, that would be investigated and dealt with to the full extent of the rules or the law.”

Members of the public were permitted to speak, and while many parents voiced their opposition to critical race theory and transgender policies, other speakers who supported the transgender policies accused them of being hateful. One woman who attended, a left-wing activist named Jackie Schworm, confronted Smith and his wife Jess, demanding to know which side they were on. Jess, a Girl Scout troop leader, had mentored Schworm’s daughter as part of her troop.

The Daily Wire reports that the confrontation between Smith and Schworm, which led to Smith’s arrest, unfolded as follows:

Schworm was at the June 22 school board meeting, wearing a shirt with a rainbow heart on it. As a Girl Scout troop leader, Jess had mentored Schworm’s daughter. Smith and Jess said Schworm sought them out in the crowd, demanded to know which side they were on, then berated them that they were wrong. “Jess, who is this?” Smith asked his wife.

“I thought she was my friend,” Jess replied.

Smith tried to tell her what happened to his daughter, he said. “And she looks me dead in the eyes and says ‘that’s not what happened.'”

Schworm noticed that Smith was wearing a shirt with the name of his plumbing business on it, “And she goes ‘Oh… I’m going to ruin your business on social media,'” he said.

“You’re a bitch,” Smith told her, video shows. A police officer monitoring the tension-filled exchange pulled on Smith’s arm, he yanked it away, and soon, Smith and the officer were wrestling. Other officers pinned Smith to the ground, bloodying his lip in the process, as Smith uttered, “I can’t breathe.”

Jess cried out, in words lost in the chaos: “My child was raped at school, and this is what happens!”

Smith was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.

During an interview with the Daily Wire, Schworm made contradictory statements denying that she had an argument with Smith (an argument that was caught on video) and also made “repeated comments” about Smith’s daughter’s “mental stability.” She also repeatedly brought up that Smith was convicted of a crime and sentenced to 10 days in jail.

The arrest and the subsequent negative media coverage of Smith has taken an emotional toll on the family. Smith told the Daily Wire he had to install temporary fencing around his house to keep news reporters away. On social media, Smith was mocked for his physical appearance and demonized for his arrest.

Buta Biberaj, Loudoun County’s progressive top prosecutor, personally appeared in court to prosecute the case against Smith. The Daily Wire noted that Biberaj was elected on a platform opposed to “mass incarceration” but sought to put Smith in jail for misdemeanor charges.

Meanwhile, the 15-year-old male suspect who allegedly attacked Smith’s daughter has not yet been convicted and is accused of sexually assaulting another girl at a different school.

On Oct. 7, the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office announced that “a teenager from Ashburn has been charged with sexual battery and abduction of a fellow student at Broad Run High School.”

“The investigation determined on the afternoon of October 6, the 15-year-old suspect forced the victim into an empty classroom where he held her against her will and inappropriately touched her,” police said.

The Daily Wire reported that the suspect is the same male student who allegedly assaulted Smith’s daughter.

Prosecutors in Loudoun County have reportedly moved the date the suspect was expected to plead guilty to assaulting Smith’s daughter from Oct. 14 to Oct. 25., so that both cases could be handled together.

The Loudoun County School Board approved the policy permitting transgender students to use whatever bathroom they wish on Aug. 11. Parents were never told about the alleged assault of Smith’s daughter until the Daily Wire’s report was published late Monday evening.

Editor’s note: This story has been corrected to note that the Daily Wire’s report was published on Monday evening, not Sunday.

Suspected Texas School Shooter Released from Jail as Family Claims He’s ‘No Bad Kid’


Reported By Jack Davis  October 8, 2021

Read more at https://www.westernjournal.com/suspected-texas-school-shooter-released-jail-family-claims-no-bad-kid/

A Texas teenager who allegedly shot a classmate and a teacher on Wednesday was freed on bail Thursday as his family members tried to paint the suspected shooter, Timothy Simpkins, as the victim of bullying. In the shooting, which followed a fight, Simpkins, 18, has been accused of wounding a 15-year-old boy multiple times at Timberview High School in Arlington, Texas, according to The Dallas Morning News. Teacher Calvin Pettitt was injured when he was shot in the back while trying to break up the fight. Two other people were injured in the incident. One student was grazed on the arm by a bullet, and a teacher fell in the confusion of the fight and its aftermath.Advertisement – story continues below

Cint Wheat, a cousin of Simpkins, posted on Facebook that “At the end of the day my lil cousin was bullied I don’t know to feel about this he not no bad kid.”

Carol Harrison Lafayette, who identified herself as a family member and said she would speak for the family, said Simpkins had been robbed at the school in the past, according to the Morning News.

“He was robbed,” she said. “It was recorded. It happened not just once, it happened twice. He was scared, he was afraid.”

“There is no justification of anybody … being hurt,” she said.

“We have to take a look at the fact that bullying is real. And it takes us all. And I do apologize. We ask as a family for forgiveness of any type of hurt.”

Simpkins lives in a $400,000 home with his grandmother and drives a $35,000 Dodge Challenger, according to the Daily Mail.

“He was able to get things that other teenagers cannot have; because he wore nice clothes, because he drove nice cars, he was like a target,” Lafayette told the outlet.

Simpkins had been held by police on a $75,000 bond on three charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, but Thursday, the bond was posted, and he left Tarrant County Jail, the Daily Mail reported.

One Twitter poster who said her brother was a victim was outraged that Simpkins was freed.

The Daily Mail reported that Pettitt was still hospitalized with a wound that narrowly missed his aorta, and the 15-year-old Simpkins allegedly was fighting with was in critical condition.

police report outlines what allegedly took place, according to the Daily Mail: “Multiple teachers and coaches were working to break up the altercation between Simpkins and the juvenile victim. Once the fight was broken up, the juvenile witness observed Simpkins go to an orange backpack and retrieve a black firearm.

“The witness observed Simpkins point the firearm at the juvenile victim and sees Simpkins shoot, from her account, seven to eight times. The witness then observed the juvenile victim fall to the ground.’

Jack Davis, Contributor

Jack Davis is a freelance writer who joined The Western Journal in July 2015 and chronicled the campaign that saw President Donald Trump elected. Since then, he has written extensively for The Western Journal on the Trump administration as well as foreign policy and military issues.

‘A massive success’: 47 rescued, 102 arrested in human trafficking investigation across 12 states


Reported By Michael Gryboski, Christian Post Reporter | Monday, August 30, 2021

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/102-arrested-in-human-trafficking-investigation-across-12-states.html/

Eric Schmitt
Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt gives remarks on Operation United Front, a joint state and federal anti-human trafficking operation, in a video uploaded to YouTube on Friday, Aug. 27, 2021. | Screenshot: YouTube/Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt

A major human trafficking law enforcement operation has resulted in the rescue of 47 people who were trafficked and the arrest of 102 individuals across 12 states. Two of the victims rescued are minors. 

Known as “Operation United Front,” the endeavor was led by the Missouri Attorney General’s Office and the Missouri State Highway Patrol and included the participation of law enforcers from the federal government and other states. Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt said in a statement released last Friday that his office’s anti-human trafficking task force is “a national leader for our efforts to investigate and eradicate human trafficking in Missouri.”

“Through that task force, we were able to engage law enforcement agencies and attorneys general from across the country to organize and lead Operation United Front, which was a massive success,” stated Schmitt.

“Operation United Front was an unprecedented human trafficking operation that brought together law enforcement agencies from different jurisdictions – something that rarely happens. When we all come together, we can affect change and more effectively fight human trafficking, a crime that is often multi-jurisdictional in nature.”

In addition to Missouri, Operation United Front also involved arrests and rescues in Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin. In South Dakota, nine individuals were arrested for alleged involvement in human trafficking while attending the annual Sturgis Motorcycle Rally, according to a statement from the United States Department of Justice earlier this month.

Eight of the nine men arrested at Sturgis face charges of attempting to entice a minor using the internet. One is facing charges of attempted commercial sex trafficking of a minor.

If found guilty for attempted enticement of a minor via the Internet, the penalty can include 10 years to life in prison. If found guilty of attempted commercial sex trafficking of a minor, the penalty can include 15 years to life in prison and a $250,000 fine.

In recent years, there has been a concerted effort among states and the federal government to crackdown on human trafficking in the United States.

In March, Texas authorities arrested around 30 people attempting to buy sex and rescued a minor over the course of three days as part of “Operation Cupid.”

“Operation Cupid aimed to combat human trafficking in Fort Bend County by identifying and arresting those intending to buy sex,” stated Assistant District Attorney Craig Priesmeyer, according to the Fort Bend Herald.

“Commonly known as ‘johns,’ they create the demand for human trafficking and contribute to the pervasive problem the community faces from these crimes. We are focused on saving victims by following basic economics; removing the demand will reduce the supply.” 

In Arizona in February, police arrested 37 people charged with child sex crimes and human trafficking as part of the multi-agency “Operation Broken Hearts.”

In January, 33 missing children were rescued as part of “Operation Lost Angels” in California. The effort was led by the FBI in conjunction with over two dozen law enforcement and non-governmental partners. 

Last November, the Tallahassee Police Department in Florida announced that over 170 people were charged in a two-year investigation into a sex trafficking network in the state.

Follow Michael Gryboski on Twitter or Facebook

Va. Supreme Court upholds reinstatement of Christian teacher who opposed trans pronoun policy


Reported By Michael Gryboski, Christian Post Reporter | Tuesday, August 31, 2021

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/va-court-upholds-reinstatement-of-teacher-in-trans-pronoun-case.html/

Tanner Cross
Byron Tanner Cross, a physical education teacher at Leesburg Elementary School, speaking before a meeting of the Loudon County School Board of Loudon, Virginia on Tuesday, May 25, 2021. | Screengrab: Vimeo/LCPS Board Meetings

The highest court in Virginia has rejected a request by the Loudoun County School Board to allow the suspension of a Christian teacher punished for criticizing a proposed policy requiring teachers to use trans students’ preferred names and pronouns to take effect.

In an order issued Monday, the Virginia Supreme Court granted an appeal to review the merits of a lower court decision in favor of elementary school teacher Byron Tanner Cross and agreed to keep an injunction reinstating the teacher in place. Cross, a physical education teacher at Leesburg Elementary School for the past eight years, recently sued the Loudoun County School Board for suspending him after speaking out in his personal capacity at a May board meeting against a proposed policy.

Policy 8040, which was enacted earlier this month, requires teachers to use the preferred pronouns of trans-identified students. In his speech before the school board, Cross cited his Christian faith and said he could not “lie” to students. 

“Looking to federal precedent as persuasive, it is settled law that the government may not take adverse employment actions against its employees in reprisal for their exercising their right to speak on matters of public concern,” reads the order in part.

“Because the remaining interests the Defendants raise do not override Cross’ and other teachers’ interests in exercising their constitutionally protected right to speak on the proposed transgender policy, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion.”

The Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal nonprofit helping to represent Cross, celebrated the Virginia high court order. The organization also suing on behalf of other teachers to get the policy struck down.

“Teachers shouldn’t be forced to promote ideologies that are harmful to their students and that they believe are false, nor should they be silenced for commenting at a public meeting,”  ADF Senior Counsel Tyson Langhofer said in a statement released Monday.

“[B]ecause Loudoun County Public Schools is now requiring all teachers and students to deny truths about what it means to be male and female and compelling them to call students by their chosen pronouns or face punishment, we have moved to amend our lawsuit to challenge that policy on behalf of multiple faculty members.”

Cross was placed on administrative leave after expressing opposition to Policy 8040 during the May school board meeting, although he did so in his personal capacity. 

“My name is Tanner Cross, and I am speaking out of love for those who suffer with gender dysphoria,” he said at the meeting. “I love all of my students, but I will never lie to them regardless of the consequences.”

“I’m a teacher, but I serve God first and I will not affirm that a biological boy can be a girl and vice versa because it’s against my religion,” he added.

The school board claimed that following Cross’ comments, parents and students “expressed fear, hurt and disappointment about coming to school.” Contending that the suspension was the appropriate response, the school district argued in court that Cross is unlikely to succeed on his free speech claim because his comments created disruption at Leesburg Elementary. 

In June, Judge James E. Plowman of the 20th Judicial Circuit of Virginia granted Cross’ request for a temporary injunction. Plowman wrote that putting Cross on leave was “extreme” and “an unconstitutional action” since the teacher’s words, even if controversial, were nevertheless “permissible.”

“The Court agrees with Plaintiff’s analysis and concludes that Defendants’ actions to suspend the Plaintiff, as well as the additional restrictions placed upon him, adversely affected his constitutionally protected speech,” wrote Plowman.

The school board appealed the decision, arguing in a statement that the words of Cross were harmful to trans-identified students.

“LCPS respectfully disagrees with the Circuit Court’s decision to issue the injunction, and it is appealing this ruling to the Supreme Court of Virginia,” stated the school district.

“Many students and parents at Leesburg Elementary have expressed fear, hurt and disappointment about coming to school. Addressing those concerns is paramount to the school division’s goal to provide a safe, welcoming and affirming learning environment for all students.”

The Cross legal complaint was later amended when the school district passed the proposed policy in August by a vote of 7-2. Multiple teachers want to have the new policy struck down. 

Follow Michael Gryboski on Twitter or Facebook

Hobby Lobby ordered to pay $220K for not allowing trans employee to use women’s restroom


Reported By Ryan Foley, Christian Post Reporter| Wednesday, August 18, 2021

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/hobby-lobby-fined-for-making-trans-employee-use-unisex-restroom.html/

hobby lobby
(Photo: Flickr Creative Commons)

A state court has ordered the Christian-owned craft store chain Hobby Lobby to pay over $200,000 in fines for refusing to allow one of its trans-identified employees to use the women’s bathroom. A three-judge Illinois appellate court panel unanimously ruled Friday that Hobby Lobby violated the Illinois Human Rights Act by declining to allow one of its employees to use the bathroom that corresponds with the person’s gender identity instead of biological sex.

Friday’s ruling reinforces an earlier conclusion of the Illinois Human Rights Commission. The company was ordered to pay its longtime employee $220,000 in attorneys’ fees for “emotional distress.” The company argued the fine was excessive. However, the court did not find Hobby Lobby’s arguments persuasive. 

The retail chain, owned by the Green family, has become known for its adherence to Christian principles. As explained in the decision, the employee, a biological male who now identifies as Meggan Sommerville, began working for Hobby Lobby in 1998. In 2007, while working as an employee of the Hobby Lobby in East Aurora, Sommerville began to transition from male to female.

The transition became official in 2010 when Sommerville “formally informed Hobby Lobby of her transition and her intent to begin using the women’s bathroom at the store.” Sommerville presented the store with an updated driver’s license, Social Security card and name change court order. Although Hobby Lobby changed Sommerville’s personnel records and benefits information to reflect a “female identity,” the store never allowed the employee to use the women’s restroom over the past decade. Sommerville has faced disciplinary action for using the women’s bathroom.

The East Aurora store did install a unisex restroom in 2013, enabling store employees and customers to “use either the bathroom corresponding to their [biological sex] or the unisex bathroom.” Sommerville contended, however, that being forced to use the unisex bathroom made it seem as if “they were segregating me,” adding, “I felt as though there were the guys, the gals, and then me.”

“Hobby Lobby’s provision of a unisex bathroom available to all employees and customers cannot cure its unequal treatment of Sommerville with respect to the women’s bathroom,” the court maintained. “If every employee and customer except Sommerville may use either the unisex bathroom or the bathroom corresponding to their sex, but Sommerville’s choices are limited to the unisex bathroom or a bathroom that does not correspond to her sex, Hobby Lobby is still discriminating unlawfully.”

Sommerville alleged that the inability to use the women’s restroom led to severe mental anguish, and the court agreed. It ruled that Hobby Lobby’s actions violated a law barring “discrimination against any individual because of his or her … [sex], or sexual orientation … in connection with employment … and the ability of public accommodations.” 

Additionally, the law makes it illegal for “any employer to … segregate, or act with respect to … discipline … or terms, privileges or conditions of employment on the basis of unlawful discrimination” and for places of public accommodation to “deny or refuse to another the full and equal enjoyment of the facilities.”

The court emphasized that “discrimination against a person because of his or her actual perceived … sex … [or] sexual orientation” constitutes “unlawful discrimination.” 

“Hobby Lobby’s conduct thus falls squarely within the definition of unlawful discrimination under the Act, as it treats Sommerville differently from all other women who work or shop at its store, solely on the basis that her gender identity is not ‘traditionally associated with’ her ‘designated sex at birth,’” the court argued. “The Commission did not err in finding that Hobby Lobby’s conduct of denying Sommerville access to its women’s bathroom violated her civil rights under articles 2 and 5 of the Act.” 

While the court’s opinion never discussed Hobby Lobby’s Christian faith or religious beliefs, it did mention that the arts-and-crafts chain sees “an individual’s ‘sex’ — the status of being male or female” as “an immutable condition.”

Hobby Lobby gained national recognition for citing its religious beliefs when objecting to the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. The mandate forced employers to cover their employees’ birth control in employer-sponsored healthcare packages. 

Hobby Lobby asserted that providing its employees with contraception coverage, including abortion-inducing drugs, would violate the company’s sincerely held religious beliefs.

In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Hobby Lobby v. Burwell that companies could refuse to provide contraception for their employees if doing so violated their religious beliefs. 

The Illinois appellate court’s ruling against Hobby Lobby comes as congressional Democrats are pushing for the passage of the Equality Act, which would enshrine nondiscrimination protections for the LGBT community into federal law. The language of the Equality Act is similar to that of the Illinois Human Rights Act. Many conservatives have expressed concern about its implications for religious liberty. 

Ryan Foley is a reporter for The Christian Post. He can be reached at: ryan.foley@christianpost.com

Teachers ask court to halt Va. school district policy forcing them to use trans pronouns


Reported By Michael Gryboski, Christian Post Reporter | Tuesday, August 17, 2021

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/teachers-ask-court-to-halt-school-districts-trans-pronoun-policy.html/

Kim Wright (R) and Monica Gill (L)
Loudoun County, Virginia teachers Kim Wright (R) and Monica Gill (L) | Alliance Defending Freedom

A pair of teachers are seeking to take a Virginia school district to court over a newly passed policy requiring, among other things, that staff uses the preferred names and pronouns of trans-identified students. Loudoun County High School history teacher Monica Gill and Smart’s Mill Middle School English teacher Kim Wright filed an amended complaint to block the new policy passed last week by the Loudoun County School Board.

By a vote of 7-2, the board passed Policy 8040: Rights of Transgender and Gender-Expansive Students last week despite considerable opposition to the proposal from some teachers and parents. 

Gill and Wright propose to be added to a pre-existing legal challenge over the school district’s treatment of Leesburg Elementary School teacher Bryon Tanner Cross, who was placed on leave after voicing his displeasure with the policy proposal during a school board meeting. 

Filed Monday, the amended complaint argues that Cross, Gill and Wright oppose the new policy because they believe it “communicates that gender identity, rather than biological reality, fundamentally shapes and defines who we truly are as humans, that our sex can change, and that a woman who identifies as a man really is a man.”

The complaint further alleges that if the teachers were to comply with the policy, “they would be forced to communicate a message they believe is false.”

“[I]f they refer to students based on their biological sex, they communicate the views they actually believe — that our sex shapes who we are as humans, that this sex is fixed in each person, and that it cannot be changed, regardless of our feelings or desires,” the amended complaint states. 

The legal filing adds that the school district has “refused to find middle ground” and “made this case about far more than titles or pronouns.”

“[T]hey have taken a side in a national debate over competing views of human nature and compelled conformity to, and support for, only one view,” the complaint charges. “Under the timeless free speech principles enshrined in the Virginia Constitution and laws, Defendants cannot compel one side to voice the other’s beliefs.” 

Tyson Langhofer of the Alliance Defending Freedom, the legal nonprofit representing the teachers, said in a statement on Tuesday that he believes the teachers “shouldn’t be forced to promote ideologies that are harmful to their students and that they believe are false.”

“Loudoun County Public Schools is now requiring all teachers and students to deny truths about what it means to be male and female and is compelling them to call students by their chosen pronouns or face punishment,” stated Langhofer.

“Public employees cannot be forced to contradict their core beliefs just to keep a job. Freedom — of speech and religious exercise — includes the freedom not to speak messages against our core beliefs.”

Policy 8040 requires that school faculty and staff use the chosen name and pronouns of a student who identifies as “gender-expansive or transgender.”

“School staff shall, at the request of a student or parent/legal guardian, when using a name or pronoun to address the student, use the name and pronoun that correspond to their consistently asserted gender identity,” the policy reads.

“The use of gender-neutral pronouns is appropriate. Inadvertent slips in the use of names or pronouns may occur; however, staff or students who intentionally and persistently refuse to respect a student’s gender identity by using the wrong name and gender pronoun are in violation of this policy.”

The policy allows students to use the restroom or locker room “that corresponds to their consistently asserted gender identity,” advising school administrators to consider adding “gender-inclusive or single-user restrooms” for more privacy.

According to a frequently-asked-questions document, LCPS recommended that schools “make efforts to eliminate gender-based practices to the extent possible,” claiming that these practices “can have the effect of marginalizing, stigmatizing, and excluding students, regardless of their gender identity or gender expression.”

“Examples of practices that may be based on gender, and which should be eliminated, include grouping students for class activities, gender-based homecoming or prom courts, limitations on who can attend as ‘couples’ at school dances, and gender-based events such as father-daughter dances,” reads the FAQ document.

The policy garnered national headlines when LCPS suspended Cross after he spoke out in his personal capacity against the policy at a school board meeting in May.

“My name is Tanner Cross, and I am speaking out of love for those who suffer with gender dysphoria,” stated Cross at the time. “I love all of my students, but I will never lie to them regardless of the consequences.”

Cross sued the school district in response to the suspension, with a judge granting the Christian teacher a temporary injunction for his reinstatement in June while the lawsuit proceeds. LCPS is appealing the judge’s decision. 

“LCPS respectfully disagrees with the Circuit Court’s decision to issue the injunction, and it is appealing this ruling to the Supreme Court of Virginia,” stated LCPS back in June.

“Many students and parents at Leesburg Elementary have expressed fear, hurt and disappointment about coming to school. Addressing those concerns is paramount to the school division’s goal to provide a safe, welcoming and affirming learning environment for all students.”

Follow Michael Gryboski on Twitter or Facebook

Judge blocks several Indiana abortion laws; parental notification, ultrasound requirement upheld


Reported By Ryan Foley, Christian Post Reporter| Friday, August 13, 2021

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/judge-blocks-several-indiana-abortion-laws-parental-notification-upheld.html/

Baby in the womb
An image of an unborn child. | Reuters

A federal judge has struck down several pro-life laws in Indiana, dealing a blow to the momentum experienced by pro-life activists in the state following a previous court decision.

Judge Sarah Evans Barker, a senior judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, originally appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan, issued a lengthy ruling Tuesday weighing in on the constitutionality of several pro-life laws enacted in the state in recent years. Barker’s ruling follows a lawsuit filed by Whole Woman’s Health Alliance, All-Options, Inc., and Dr. Jeffrey Glazer seeking to challenge “Indiana’s statutory and regulatory restrictions on abortions.”

Barker’s ruling struck down several Indiana laws, including a requirement that abortionists schedule in-person visits with their patients before dispensing abortion pills, thus prohibiting clinics from dispensing the drugs to women via telemedicine appointments. It also struck down laws requiring that second-trimester abortions be performed in hospitals or surgical centers, and that abortion clinics meet basic health and safety standards. In addition, Barker ruled that mandatory disclosure requirements included in a perinatal hospice brochure informing women seeking abortions about a baby’s ability to feel pain, the fact that life begins at conception and the mental health risks associated with abortion were unconstitutional.

She contended that this information violated the “truthful and non-misleading standard” laid out in the 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, that upheld the right to obtain an abortion as determined by Roe v. Wade

Under the aforementioned standard, Barker explained, “the state may enact measures aimed at ensuring that the woman’s choice [to have an abortion] is philosophically and socially informed and communicate its preference (if it has one) that the woman carry her pregnancy to term.” However, the measures must include information that is “truthful and not misleading.” 

Barker cited testimony from Dr. Daniel Grossman, described by National Review as a “prominent abortionist and abortion advocate,” who argued that the brochure’s assertion that “human physical life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm” did not live up to that standard because “there is no recognized medical definition for ‘human physical life,’ nor is there any scientific, medical consensus as to the moment in time or human biology when ‘life’ begins.”

While Barker did uphold some of Indiana’s abortion laws, pro-life groups and politicians characterized her ruling as a major disappointment. Indiana Right to Life CEO Mike Fichter slammed Barker’s ruling as “horrific,” warning in a statement that it will “lead to a massive expansion of chemical and late-term abortions in Indiana.”

“The sweeping blockage of these common sense laws jeopardizes the health and safety of women, [and] leaves women in the dark on issues of fetal pain and the development of human life,” he added. “This is judicial activism at its worst.”

Rep. Jackie Walorski, R-Ind., also released a statement in response to Barker’s ruling, and expressed disappointment that “the U.S. District Court struck down several common sense, pro-life provisions in Indiana state law that were designed to protect women and children.”

Walorski added, “The U.S. Constitution clearly safeguards life, and it’s my hope that this decision will be appealed.”

The laws Barker upheld include: Requiring that abortion facilities show the ultrasound image to mothers before deciding whether to go through with an abortion; that minors seeking an abortion obtain permission from a parent or guardian; that abortion doctors have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital; abortion facilities collect detailed information about their patients and enter it into a database and undergo annual inspections by the state, as well as a law requiring that only licensed doctors perform first-trimester abortions.

Barker’s ruling comes less than two weeks after the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an Indiana law requiring abortion facilities to report to the state any complications that arise from abortions performed at their clinics. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky had challenged the law as being “unconstitutionally vague.” 

As Indiana’s Attorney General Todd Rokita indicated in a statement, the Seventh Circuit also upheld the in-person counseling law that Barker struck down as part of her ruling. Rokita hinted that his office intends to appeal Barker’s ruling to the Seventh Circuit, vowing to “continue to fight to defend Indiana’s common sense laws and to build a culture of life in Indiana.” 

Ryan Foley is a reporter for The Christian Post. He can be reached at: ryan.foley@christianpost.com

“Let the Depositions Begin” – New York Supreme Court Sides with Project Veritas in Suit Against New York Times


Reported By Cristina Laila | Published August 12, 2021

Read more at https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/08/let-depositions-begin-new-york-supreme-court-sides-project-veritas-suit-new-york-times/

James O’Keefe

The New York Supreme Court on Thursday sided with Project Veritas in its lawsuit against the New York Times. Project Veritas will be permitted to depose the New York Times. A motion for a stay was denied.

The New York Times tried to dismiss the case but the New York Supreme Court denied their motion, ruling terms “deceptive” and “disinformation” apply to the New York Times reporters’ actions and claims.

The Court blasted the Times in an opinion:

“Here, having failed to convince the Court that [Project Veritas’] case should be dismissed, [The New York Times] also failed to demonstrate the extraordinary justification required for the imposition of the drastic remedy of a stay pending appeal.”

The Court also said that “despite the fact that the NY Times has been permitted to file anti-SLAPP motions to dismiss for decades, the NY Times failed to cite any cases in which an unsuccessful moving was granted a stay pending appeal.”

“Ladies and gentlemen: Let the depositions begin. Stay tuned. We’re about to drop the first New York Times deposition any day,” Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe said on Thursday.

Cristina Laila

Cristina began writing for The Gateway Pundit in 2016 and she is currently the Associate Editor.

Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban is mainstream, most European laws more strict: report


Reported By Ryan Foley, Christian Post Reporter| Wednesday, July 28, 2021

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/mississippis-abortion-ban-in-line-with-most-european-laws-report.html/

Abortion
Demonstrators hold signs outside the U.S. Supreme Court as the court is due to issue its first major abortion ruling since 2007 in Washington, U.S. June 27, 2016. | Reuters/Kevin Lamarque

A new report reveals that Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban, the subject of litigation before the U.S. Supreme Court, is in line with most European laws on abortion.

The Charlotte Lozier Institute, the research arm of the pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List, published a study concluding that “Mississippi’s 15-week Gestational Limit on Abortion is Mainstream Compared to European Abortion Laws.”

Conducted by the Charlotte Lozier Institute associate scholar Angelina Nguyen, the report comes as Supreme Court justices are poised to hear a case involving the law.

After lower courts have ruled in favor of the abortion clinic seeking to invalidate the law, the state of Mississippi, which supports the bill, has asked the Supreme Court to review those decisions. The justices are expected to hear oral arguments in the case of Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in its upcoming term, scheduled to begin in October, and will make a decision next year. 

The report analyzed the abortion laws of 50 European countries, finding that “the majority of European countries that allow elective abortion limit it to 12 weeks.” Specifically, while 42 European countries permit elective abortions, 39 of those nations only allow the procedure to take place when the child is at 15 weeks gestation or less. A majority of European countries actually have stricter restrictions on abortion than Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban. Croatia, Portugal, Serbia, Slovenia and Turkey only permit elective abortions within the first 10 weeks of a pregnancy.

Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Moldova, Northern Ireland, North Macedonia, Norway, Russia, Slovakia, Switzerland and Ukraine restrict the procedure to the first 12 weeks.

Austria and Italy only permit elective abortions in the first three months of a pregnancy, while Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, Romania and Spain have 14-week limits on the procedure. 

Only three European countries allow elective abortions to take place more than 15 weeks into a pregnancy: Iceland, the Netherlands and Sweden. The Netherlands has the most permissive abortion law of the three countries, allowing elective abortions to take place as late as 24 weeks into a pregnancy. Iceland and Sweden limit elective abortions at 22 weeks and 18 weeks gestation, respectively. 

In contrast to elective abortion, or “abortion without restriction as to reason,” eight European countries require women seeking an abortion to have a specific reason for doing so: Andorra, Finland, Lichtenstein, Malta, Monaco, Poland, San Marino, and Great Britain. Restrictions in these countries range from “most protective of life (to save the life of the mother or completely prohibited) to most permissive of abortion (socioeconomic grounds) with various reasons in between (e.g., physical health, mental health).” 

As noted in the report, the “United States Supreme Court precedent allows for elective abortions through all nine months of pregnancy, and only permits states to enact limitations on abortion on demand after viability, a legal definition which has not kept pace with science and is usually marked around 24 weeks.” 

In 2017, a Washington Post fact check, citing a previous study from the Charlotte Lozier Institute, confirmed that the United States was one of only seven countries in the world to allow late-term abortions. The others are Canada, China, the Netherlands, North Korea, Singapore and Vietnam.

Nguyen and Charlotte Lozier Institute President Chuck Donovan elaborated on the results of the study and abortion laws in the U.S. in a USA Today op-ed where they said: “We reached this inglorious status by judicial decree, joining only Canada in the dubious distinction of completely sidelining the consent and consensus of the governed.” 

“We reached this inglorious status by judicial decree, joining only Canada in the dubious distinction of completely sidelining the consent and consensus of the governed.” 

As Donovan and Nguyen indicated in their op-ed, the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade and subsequent Supreme Court decisions have determined that women have a right to obtain an abortion throughout the first two trimesters of pregnancy, thereby limiting the ability of states to restrict the procedure. Pro-life activists see the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization as an opportunity to reverse the longstanding abortion precedent in the U.S.

When the Supreme Court announced that it would hear the state of Mississippi’s challenge to a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision ruling the state’s 15-week abortion ban unconstitutional, Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser praised the development as “a landmark opportunity for the Supreme Court to recognize the right of states to protect unborn children from the horrors of painful late-term abortions.” 

Dannenfelser added, “It is time for the Supreme Court to catch up to scientific reality and the resulting consensus of the American people as expressed in elections and policy.”

In addition to pro-life advocates, the attorney general of Mississippi and other pro-life politicians have explicitly called for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe. In a brief submitted to the Supreme Court last week, Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch argued that Roe and the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey that upheld Roe’s central finding were “egregiously wrong.” She described the case for overturning the precedent of those two decisions as “overwhelming.”

“Roe and Casey are profoundly unprincipled decisions that have damaged the democratic process, poisoned our national discourse, plagued the law, and harmed the perception of this Court. Retaining those precedents harms this Court’s legitimacy. This Court can thus offer the Nation an overwhelming case for overruling Roe and Casey,” she added.

Fitch also pointed to scientific advancements as another justification for reversing Roe and Casey, specifically highlighting that “advances in ‘neonatal and medical science’ … now show that an unborn child has ‘taken on the human form in all relevant respects’ by 12 weeks’ gestation.”

“And while the Roe Court thought there was no ‘consensus’ among those ‘trained in … medicine’ as to whether ‘life … is persistent throughout pregnancy’ … the Court has since acknowledged that ‘by common understanding and scientific terminology, a fetus is a living organism while within the womb’ before and after viability … Yet Casey and Roe still impede a state from acting on this information by prohibiting pre-viability abortions.” 

Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Mike Lee, R-Utah, filed a separate brief with the Supreme Court, maintaining that “Roe and Casey should be overruled, and the question of abortion legislation should be returned to the states.” If the Supreme Court sides with the state of Mississippi in Dobbs, abortion would not automatically become illegal in all 50 states. 

Instead, states like Mississippi would have the ability to limit abortions to the first 15-weeks, while states like New York could continue to enforce permissive abortion laws like the Reproductive Health Act, which allows women to obtain abortions up to the moment of birth. 

Ryan Foley is a reporter for The Christian Post. He can be reached at: ryan.foley@christianpost.com

Christian web designer opposed to creating same-sex wedding websites loses at 10th Circuit


Reported By Michael Gryboski, Christian Post Reporter | Tuesday, July 27, 2021

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/10th-circuit-rules-against-web-designer-challenging-lgbt-law.html/

Lorie Smith
Lorie Smith | Alliance Defending Freedom

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit has ruled that a Christian web designer must create websites that conflict with her religious views. In a 2-1 decision released Monday, the circuit panel ruled against Lorie Smith and her web design company, 303 Creative, stating that they must provide services for same-sex marriages if they offer said services for traditional weddings.

Smith filed a pre-enforcement legal challenge in 2016 to the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, arguing that the law would compel her to provide services that go against her religious beliefs and is unconstitutional.

At issue was a plan to start building websites for weddings, but with the desire to not provide those services for same-sex weddings due to religious objections to the unions. In 2017, a district court ruled that Smith couldn’t challenge the law and upheld that decision in a subsequent ruling.

Circuit Judge Mary Beck Briscoe, a Clinton appointee, authored the majority opinion. The appeals court acknowledged that 303 Creative could face prosecution under CADA if they refused to build websites celebrating same-sex weddings while offering such services for opposite-sex weddings.

Nevertheless, Briscoe concluded in part that “CADA is a neutral law of general applicability, and that it is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad.”

“Colorado has a compelling interest in protecting both the dignity interests of members of marginalized groups and their material interests in accessing the commercial marketplace,” wrote Briscoe.

“When regulating commercial entities, like Appellants, public accommodations laws help ensure a free and open economy. Thus, although the commercial nature of Appellants’ business does not diminish their speech interest, it does provide Colorado with a state interest absent when regulating noncommercial activity.”

Regarding the intentions of 303 Creative to put a statement on its website explaining its refusal to create websites for same-sex weddings, the majority opinion concluded that “Colorado may prohibit speech that promotes unlawful activity, including unlawful discrimination.”

Lawyers for Smith say that the state has placed a “gag” rule that prohibits designers and artists from expressing religious views in the online marketplace about marriage that indicate someone is “unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable.”

“Having concluded that the First Amendment does not protect Appellants’ proposed denial of services, we also conclude that the First Amendment does not protect the Proposed Statement,” continued the majority opinion.

“Parts of the Proposed Statement might not violate the Accommodation Clause, such as those parts expressing Appellants’ commitment to their clients or Ms. Smith’s religious convictions. Yet, the Proposed Statement also expresses an intent to deny service based on sexual orientation — an activity that the Accommodation Clause forbids and that the First Amendment does not protect.”

Tenth Circuit Chief Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich, a George W. Bush appointee, authored a dissenting opinion. He argued that “the Constitution protects Ms. Smith from the government telling her what to say or do.”

“But the majority takes the remarkable — and novel — stance that the government may force Ms. Smith to produce messages that violate her conscience,” wrote Tymkovich.

“In doing so, the majority concludes not only that Colorado has a compelling interest in forcing Ms. Smith to speak a government-approved message against her religious beliefs, but also that its public-accommodation law is the least restrictive means of accomplishing this goal. No case has ever gone so far.”

Tymkovich contends that while “Colorado is rightfully interested in protecting certain classes of persons from arbitrary and discriminatory treatment,” the state should not “turn the tables on Ms. Smith and single out her speech and religious beliefs for discriminatory treatment under the aegis of anti-discrimination laws.”

“CADA forces Ms. Smith to violate her faith on pain of sanction both by prohibiting religious-based business practices and by penalizing her if she does speak out on these matters in ways Colorado finds ‘unwelcome’ or ‘undesirable,’” he continued.

Attorney John Bursch of the nonprofit legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, representing Smith, denounced the panel decision and declared plans to appeal the ruling.

“The government should never force creative professionals to promote a message or cause with which they disagree. That is quintessential free speech and artistic freedom,” Bursch said in a statement.

“Lorie is happy to design websites for all people; she simply objects to being forced to pour her heart, imagination, and talents into messages that violate her conscience.”

Critics of 303 Creative’s efforts include Americans United for Separation of Church & State. The progressive advocacy group joined several other groups in filing amicus briefs in 2020.

“The sweeping exemption for religiously motivated discrimination that 303 seeks so that it may deny equal service to same-sex couples would necessarily also permit businesses to deny service to people of the ‘wrong’ religion (or race, or sex, or any other characteristic protected by the Act),” the Americans United brief argues.  

“A ruling in 303’s favor would therefore undermine, not strengthen, religious freedom by impairing the ability of the people of Colorado to live as equal members of the community regardless of faith or belief.”

In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Colorado’s treatment of a Christian baker punished for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding in defiance of the state’s discrimination laws. However, the Supreme Court this month refused to hear the case of a Washington florist who was punished for refusing to provide floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding. 

Follow Michael Gryboski on Twitter or Facebook

Judge rejects churches’ challenge to Virginia’s LGBT antidiscrimination law


Reported by By Michael Gryboski, Christian Post Reporter | Thursday, July 22, 2021

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/judge-rejects-churches-challenge-to-virginia-lgbt-antidiscrimination-law.html/

Gay pride parade
Participants carrying a rainbow flag attend the annual gay pride. | Reuters/Annika Af Klercker/TT News Agency

A judge has ruled against a group of churches, schools and a pro-life pregnancy center challenging a Virginia law that adds sexual orientation and gender identity to state antidiscrimination law. Judge James E. Plowman Jr. issued a ruling from the bench last week in favor of the Virginia Values Act, which was passed by the Democrat-controlled state government in 2020.

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring released a statement last Friday expressing support for the ruling, which will be entered as an order within the next few weeks.  

“Our landmark civil rights protections will remain in place, and Virginia will remain a place that is open and welcoming to all, no matter what you look like, where you come from, how you worship, or who you love,” stated Herring.

“I was proud to support passage of the Virginia Values Act and am so proud of our work to successfully defend the law twice against legal attack.”

In late September of last year, Alliance Defending Freedom filed a lawsuit on behalf of two churches, three private schools, and a pregnancy care center against the Virginia Values Act. In the suit, Calvary Road Baptist Church of Fairfax County and its school, Community Fellowship Church of Staunton and its school, Community Christian Academy of Charlottesville, and Care Net of Loudon County claimed that the new law forced them to compromise various hiring and employment practices based on their sincere religious beliefs.

“[The Act] puts the Ministries in an impossible position: they must either abandon the religious convictions they were founded upon, or be ready to face investigations, an onerous administrative process, fines up to $100,000 for each violation, unlimited compensatory and punitive damages and attorney-fee awards, and court orders forcing them to engage in actions that would violate their consciences,” stated the suit, in part.

“Even merely posting their religious beliefs on their own websites could subject the Ministries to prosecution and exorbitant fines. These penalties could easily exceed a million dollars, ruin the Ministries financially, and make continuing their Christian missions impossible.”

In March, U.S. District Court Judge Claude M. Hilton rejected a separate challenge to the Virginia Values Act, another lawsuit filed by the ADF, this time on behalf of Robert Updegrove of Bob Updegrove Photography. In his decision, Hilton argued that the Updegrove lacked the standing to sue since the Act “has never been enforced against” him “or any other person.”

“In the almost nine months since the statute became effective, no complaint has been filed under the statute,” wrote Hilton in late March. 

“No case or controversy exists when a person expresses a desire to change his previously compliant conduct to violate a new statute that no person, government or otherwise, has ever sought to enforce.”

Follow Michael Gryboski on Twitter or Facebook

Capitol Rioter Sentenced To 8 Months In Prison In First Felony Case


Reported by ANDREW TRUNSKY, POLITICAL REPORTER for DailyCaller.com | July 19, 2021

Read more at https://dailycaller.com/2021/07/19/capitol-riot-paul-allard-hodgkins-sentence-felony-donald-trump/

Congress Holds Joint Session To Ratify 2020 Presidential Election
(Win McNamee/Getty Images)

A Florida man who breached the Senate floor on Jan. 6 while carrying a Trump flag was the first Capitol rioter sentenced with a felony offense.

Prosecutors are seeking a minimum 18-month sentence for Paul Allard Hodgkins. In a July 14 court filing, they alleged that he, “like each rioter, contributed to the collective threat to democracy” as they forced lawmakers, reporters, staff and Vice President Mike Pence into hiding as they convened to certify President Joe Biden’s victory.

He was sentenced to eight months in prison.

Video footage described in the report shows Hodgkins, 38, sporting a Trump T-shirt and flag on the Senate floor. At one point he took a selfie with the self-described shaman, who is also awaiting trial for participating in the riot. 

Rioters enter the Senate Chamber on January 6. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Lawyers for Hodgkins had argued that the court of public opinion was enough punishment to avoid a prison sentence.

“Whatever punishment this court may provide will pale in comparison to the scarlet letter Mr. Hodgkins will wear for the rest of his life,” his lawyer, Patrick N. Leduc, wrote in a filing on July 12.

That filing likens Hodgkins’ actions to those of Anna Lloyd Morgan, a 49-year-old from Indiana who was the first of hundreds to be sentenced. She pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct in June and was given three years of probation

Hundreds of rioters stormed the Capitol as Congress sought to certify President Joe Biden’s victory. (Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

Though Hodgkins was never accused of assaulting anyone or damaging property, prosecutors noted that when he boarded a bus from Tampa, Florida, to D.C. he had rope, protective goggles and latex gloves, and said that demonstrated that he was prepared for violence.

Prosecutors also said, however, that Hodgkins deserved leniency for immediately coming forward and pleading guilty to his obstruction charge, which carries a maximum sentence of two decades. But they noted that “time and time again, rather than turn around and retreat, he pressed forward.” 

“When a mob is prepared to attack the Capitol to prevent elected officials from both parties from performing their constitutional and statutory duty, democracy is in trouble,” Federal District Judge Randolph Moss said Monday. “The damage that they caused that day is way beyond the delays that day. It is a damage that will persist in this country for decades.”

Leduc argued in his filing that Hodgkins was “a man who for just one hour on one day lost his bearings” and “made a fateful decision to follow the crowd.” It also noted former President Abraham Lincoln’s attempt to reconcile immediately after the Civil War.

“The court has a chance to emulate Lincoln,” Leduc wrote.

Police investigate attempted murder of Maryland cop: Nearly 100 shots fired during Independence Day block party that preceded attack


Reported by SARAH TAYLOR | July 08, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/police-investigate-attempted-murder-maryland-cop/

The Wicomico County Sheriff’s Office in Salisbury, Maryland, is conducting an investigation into the attempted murder of a police officer, according to WBOC-TV. The incident took place early Monday morning when a suspect reportedly fired on an occupied patrol vehicle in Salisbury. Authorities said that a deputy inside the vehicle came under fire while responding to reports of shots being fired.

The station reported that the investigation of the incident revealed that a “large block party” celebrating Independence Day drew at least 200 attendees. As the party progressed, authorities said an altercation broke out, prompting gunfire.

“An investigation of this scene revealed evidence that more than 100 shots were fired, although [authorities believe] most of them were celebratory for the holiday,” the outlet reported.

Several homes and vehicles in the area were reportedly struck by gunfire, but there were no reports of injuries.

WBOC reported, “It is presumed the gunshot that impacted the marked patrol vehicle in the driver’s door was fired out of a sedan that was leaving the area upon the deputy’s arrival.”

Additional officers responding to the scene recalled seeing a suspect fleeing from the area and attempted to stop the driver. Officers attempted to catch the vehicle, but it turned off its lights, according to the station. Though the driver apparently intended to go incognito, officers were able to track the vehicle to an area 7-Eleven. Upon realizing they were caught, the suspects abandoned the vehicle and began running away. Deputies were able to detain two of three suspects.

In a statement on the attack, Wicomico County Sheriff Mike Lewis said, “This deputy is an awesome deputy. He is a young deputy, very impressionable, less than a year on the job. He is a very valued member of our patrol force, and thank God he was not struck by gunfire.” The deputy was uninjured in the incident.

The two suspects initially taken into custody were released due to a lack of evidence.

Lewis added, “It pained us to cut them loose, but we recognized that we had insufficient evidence to charge them. With the collection of DNA and ballistic evidence at the scene, and the processing by the Maryland State Police Crime Lab, we are going to try to put the pieces of this puzzle together.”

The investigation into the incident continues.

Authorities ask anyone with insight on the attack contact Crime Solvers at (410) 548-1776. Those with information could qualify for a cash reward.

Dad shoots ‘peeping Tom’ after allegedly catching creep staring at his young daughter through her bedroom window


Reported by PHIL SHIVER | June 29, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/texas-dad-shoots-peeping-tom/

A Texas father took action with his licensed firearm over the weekend after allegedly catching a man peeping at his young daughter through her bedroom window and fondling himself. The father, along with his wife, reportedly confronted an intoxicated man who was inappropriately touching himself outside their 10-year-old daughter’s window late Sunday night, according to KTRK-TV.

The child spotted the man first and screamed, alerting her parents to the situation. When they came running into the bedroom, the couple said they saw the man looking into their child’s window. The parents, both armed with handguns, then ran into the front yard and attempted to detain the “peeping Tom.”

The father reportedly told Harris County Sheriff’s deputies that he and his wife instructed the man to lie down in the grass and wait for police to arrive, but the suspect didn’t listen. Instead, he fled across the street to a Valero gas station, and the couple followed him. At the gas station, the father recalled to KTRK that while he went inside to ask the attendant to call the police, his wife held the suspect at gunpoint. The suspect, however, was able to wrestle with the mother and take her gun away. The father said he exited the gas station to find the man pointing a gun at his wife — and that’s when he opened fire, striking the man three times.

According to the sheriff’s office, the suspect was taken to a nearby hospital in critical but stable condition. No other injuries were reported.

Deputies noted that both the husband and wife are licensed handgun carriers.

The mother, who wishes to remain unidentified, later recalled the terrifying details of the incident to KPRC-TV.

“She looks over at the window and this guy is at her window,” the mother said of her daughter. “I can’t say that he tried to take my daughter’s innocence. He took my daughter’s innocence.”

Then describing what was going through her mind when the suspect wrestled with her in the gas station parking lot, she said, “He is wrestling with me, with my gun, and I’m like, ‘I’m not going to let you get my gun, you are not going to kill me or shoot me.'”

“My husband just said he heard a ‘ca, ca,’ but by that time the guy had already grabbed me, got my gun, and pulled it on myself,” she said.

“We didn’t want this guy to get shot,” the mother added. “We were waiting for police to detain him because I’m pretty sure if he did this to my children, he’s doing it to a lot of other children out here.”

“We are praying for the suspect and we are also praying for his family,” the mother went on to say. “Because [just like how] we have children, a mother, a father, grandparents, and friends, and other family — he does, too.”

The father, who also wishes to remain unidentified, reportedly told KTRK that his daughter had complained about someone watching her through the window in the past, but he didn’t believe her. He added that while he pursued the suspect across the street, the man pleaded with him, saying he “wouldn’t do it again.”

The incident will now reportedly be referred to the Harris County District Attorney’s Office for a grand jury review.

Yes, States Can Nullify Some Federal Laws, Not All


MARCH 18, 2013 COMMENTARY By Robert A. Levy

Read more at https://www.cato.org/commentary/yes-states-can-nullify-some-federal-laws-not-all

Fans of nullification count on the states to check federal tyranny. Rumblings from ardent states’ rights advocates grow louder in the wake of perceived federal overreach in such areas as health care, immigration reform, marijuana regulation and gun control.

Indeed, on March 13 (2013) the Oklahoma House voted overwhelmingly to invalidate President Barack Obama’s signature legislation, the Affordable Care Act. That process is known as nullification. But is it constitutional?

In a nutshell: (1) State officials need not enforce federal laws that the state has determined to be unconstitutional; nor may Congress mandate that states enact specific laws. But (2), states may not block federal authorities who attempt to enforce a federal law unless a court has held that the law is unconstitutional. And (3), individuals are not exempt from prosecution by the federal government just because the state where they reside has legalized an activity or pronounced that a federal law is unconstitutional; if convicted, individuals can attempt to vindicate their constitutional rights in court.

Fans of nullification count on the states to check federal tyranny.

Let’s examine each of those questions:

First, are states required to enforce federal laws and enact regulatory programs that Congress mandates? The answer on both counts is “No.”

  • In the 1997 case, Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not command state law enforcement authorities to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers.
  • In the 1992 case, New York v. United States, the Court ruled that Congress couldn’t require states to enact specified waste disposal regulations.

The second question is more difficult: Can a state impede federal authorities from enforcing their own law if the state deems the law to be unconstitutional. The answer is “No,” although more radical nullification proponents would disagree. They point to the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and 1799, in which Thomas Jefferson and James Madison asserted a state’s right to nullify the Alien and Sedition Acts.

But consider those resolutions in context: Jefferson and Madison had argued that the states must have the final word because the Constitution had not expressly established an ultimate authority on constitutional matters.

Four years later in Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall resolved that oversight. He wrote: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Since then, instead of 50 individual states effecting their own views regarding constitutionality, we have one Supreme Court establishing a uniform rule for the entire nation.

The Framers concurred. In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton had written: “\ limited constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the constitution void.” Madison shared that view. He wrote: “(I)ndependent tribunals … will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive.”

Even before Marbury, the Virginia General Assembly had passed Madison’s Report of 1800. It acknowledged that states can declare federal laws unconstitutional; but the declaration would have no legal effect unless the courts agreed. Here’s what Madison wrote: State “declarations … are expressions of opinion, (intended only for) exciting reflection. The expositions of the judiciary, on the other hand, are carried into immediate effect.”

Madison also published Notes on Nullification in 1834. There, he wrote that an individual state cannot unilaterally invalidate a federal law. That process requires collective action by the states. Similarly, Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions had described nullification as an act by “the several states” that formed the Constitution.

Moreover, seven states rejected resolutions similar to Virginia’s and Kentucky’s; six states passed alternate resolutions holding that constitutionality was for courts to decide; four states took no action. No other state went along with Virginia or Kentucky.

Since then, nullification attempts have failed on three occasions: In 1828, South Carolina tried to nullify two national tariffs. President Andrew Jackson proclaimed nullification to be treason; Congress authorized Jackson to send troops, and the state backed down. In 1859, the Supreme Court rejected nullification in Ableman v. Booth.

Booth had frustrated recapture of a slave in violation of the Fugitive Slave Act. Wisconsin’s Supreme Court held the act unconstitutional, but the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the conviction. In 1958, after southern states refused to integrate their schools, the Supreme Court in Cooper v. Aaron held that nullification “is not a constitutional doctrine … it is illegal defiance of constitutional authority.”

Fans of nullification count on the states to check federal tyranny. But sometimes it cuts the other way; states are also tyrannical. Indeed, if state and local governments could invalidate federal law, Virginia would have continued its ban on inter‐​racial marriages; Texas might still be jailing gay people for consensual sex; and constructive gun bans would remain in effect in Chicago and elsewhere.

Finally, question #3: If a state deems a federal law to be unconstitutional, what’s the proper remedy? The answer is straightforward. Because the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority, the remedy is a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the suspect federal regulation or statute.

Good guy with a gun intervenes in attempted mass killing, blows gunman away. Neighbors say it could have been much worse.


Reported by NEWSSARAH TAYLOR | May 18, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/good-guy-with-gun-stops-mass-killing/

An unnamed “good guy with a gun” put a stop to what could have been a horrific mass killing over the weekend by using his own weapon to gun down a massacre suspect, KFSM-TV reported. Authorities said an armed 26-year-old Zachary Arnold, a resident at the Fort Smith, Arkansas, apartment complex where the event occurred, was outside his building Saturday morning when he began screaming for residents to come outside.

Arnold, who was armed with a rifle, was first met by an elderly neighbor, 87-year-old Lois Hicks. One neighbor told the station that Hicks and another elderly woman came out to “console” Arnold when he opened fire.

“There were two older women, both had come out,” the neighbor explained. “One of them had ran back in, and the other one ran back in, but she didn’t close her door, then he walked in and did what he did.”

After fatally shooting Hicks, authorities said, Arnold continued to fire rounds from his rifle and tried to persuade other residents to come out of their homes. Another neighbor told the station, “He was yelling and screaming, ‘You guys get out here, come out here, everyone get out of this building right now!'”

One neighbor, who remains unnamed at the time of this reporting, grabbed his own rifle and bravely exited his apartment to put a stop to the mayhem. The male neighbor fatally shot Arnold, immediately ending the would-be mass killing.

A resident told the station, “If he didn’t do that, who knows how much worse it could have gotten.”

It currently remains unknown what prompted Arnold to storm his own apartment complex, and the incident remains under investigation. It is unclear whether the unnamed good Samaritan will face charges in connection with the shooting. No other residents were injured, and KARK-TV reported that the Fort Smith Police Department said they will submit a completed case file to the Sebastian County prosecuting attorney’s office for review.

Dixie Property Management issued a statement on the killing and said, “We are terribly saddened by the incident which happened this morning. We are working diligently with the police in any way we can. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families today.”

FSPD public information officer Aric Mitchell told KNWA-TV that the department is grieving with the rest of the community.

“Our hearts and prayers are with everyone affected by today’s events,” Mitchell told the station. “We will release additional information when appropriate and at the conclusion of our investigation.”

Disabled veteran says four black women brutally attacked her on Mother’s Day: ‘F*** you, you white b****’


Reported by NEWSCHRIS ENLOE | May 15, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/disabled-veteran-says-four-black-women-brutally-attacked-her-on-mothers-day-f-you-you-white-b/

Police in Louisville are reportedly investigating a potential hate crime after a disabled army veteran was viciously attacked in a parking lot on Mother’s Day. Pamela Ahlstedt-Brown, a disabled Army veteran, told WAVE-TV she was trying to back out of a handicapped parking space at her local Kroger grocery store when she noticed a vehicle parked behind her, preventing her from leaving. Ahlstedt-Brown said she confronted the passengers inside the vehicle, whom she identified as four young black women in a Dodge car.

“I get out and I say, ‘Do you guys need any help?’ and she said, ‘F*** you, you white b****.’ I said, ‘Hold on, you don’t even know me,'” Brown said. “I said, ‘That’s fine. If you don’t need anything, that’s fine. I’ll get back in the car,'” Ahlstedt-Brown explained.

That’s when Ahlstedt-Brown was attacked, she told WAVE.

“I mean, they were beating me, and I was in a fetal position, covering my face, making sure they didn’t get my eyes,” she explained.

According to WAVE, strangers in the parking lot — not Kroger security guards — stopped the attack.

More from WAVE:

Brown said she went back to the Kroger on Sunday to speak to LMPD officers and tried to retrieve security footage. Tuesday, her daughter called the police multiple times to obtain security footage to no avail.

“They told her, ‘You could have got the video from Kroger the first day.’ And then he followed that up with, ‘Well, a detective has it, so you can’t get it from Kroger.’ So which was is it? His response was to hang up on her,” Brown said.

Ahlstedt-Brown told WAVE she sustained a broken nose during the attack.

A spokesman for the Louisville Metro Police Department reportedly said detectives are investigating the incident as a possible hate crime.

“We’re gonna collect all the evidence, present it in court, and they will decide,” a LMPD spokesman reportedly said. “A hate crime is an enhancement, in this case, it’s an assault is where we are at at this time. The courts will eventually decide that.”

TheBlaze reached out to Kroger about the incident, but did not receive a response as of press time.

Judge sides with trans-identified boys as female athletes’ high-profile case is dismissed


Reported By Ryan Foley, Christian Post Reporter| Monday, April 26, 2021

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/judge-tosses-lawsuit-challenging-conn-trans-athlete-policy.html/

Selina Soule | Alliance Defending Freedom

A federal judge has tossed out a high-profile lawsuit filed on behalf of four female athletes suing to stop a Connecticut high school athletics association policy allowing biological males who identify as females to compete in girls’ sports at the K-12 level. Lawyers representing the athletes plan to appeal the ruling.

Judge Robert Chatigny, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, issued a ruling Sunday determining that the lawsuit filed against the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference and the Connecticut Association of Schools was “not justiciable at this time.” 

He contends that “courts across the country have consistently held that Title IX requires schools to treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity.” 

Appointed to the bench by former President Bill Clinton, Chatigny faced criticism last year from Alliance Defending Freedom, the legal nonprofit representing the plaintiffs, for telling ADF attorneys to refer to biological male athletes as “transgender females.” His insistence that the attorneys avoid referring to the athletes as “males” led to demands that he be removed from the case due to a lack of impartiality. But those calls went unanswered. The plaintiffs, who were all high school students when the lawsuit was filed, contend that allowing biological males to compete in women’s sports violates Title IX, which was designed to provide equal opportunities for females in education. 

ADF announced the intention to appeal the ruling Sunday, stating that its lawyers “will continue to challenge the policy before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.”

“Our clients — like all female athletes — deserve access to fair competition; that means authentically equal opportunities to compete, achieve, and win. But competition is no longer fair when males are permitted to compete in girls’ sports,” said ADF Legal Counsel Christina Holcomb. 

“Males will always have inherent physical advantages over comparably talented and trained girls; that’s the reason we have girls’ sports in the first place. Unfortunately, this court has chosen to ignore our clients’ demoralizing experience of losing to male runners.”

Holcomb argued that while the case centers on female athletes in Connecticut, there is more at stake. 

“Girls and women deserve opportunities that are truly equal — without being sidelined or dominated by males choosing to join their sport,” she added.

According to the ADF, Selina Soule, Chelsea Mitchell, Alanna Smith and Ashley Nicoletti have been “deprived” of “honors and opportunities to compete at elite levels.” Mitchell would have won the 2019 state championship in the women’s 55-meter indoor track competition, ADF reports. However, two biological male competitors took first and second place. Meanwhile, Soule, Smith and Nicoletti “have been denied medals and/or advancement opportunities.”

The ruling states:

“Chelsea Mitchell would have finished first in four elite events in 2019, and qualified for the 2017 New England Regional Championship in the Women’s 100m; (2) Selina Soule would have advanced to the next level of competition in the 2019 CIAC State Open Championship in the Women’s Indoor 55m; (3) Ashley Nicoletti would have qualified to run in the 2019 CIAC Class S Women’s Outdoor 100m; and (4) Alanna Smith would have finished second in the Women’s 200m at the 2019 State Outdoor Open.”

ADF states that due to CIAC’s policy, two males were permitted to compete in girls’ athletic competitions starting in the 2017 track season, who have taken 15 women’s state championship titles previously held by nine different girls between 2017-2019. The law group contends that the two athletes have taken away 85 opportunities to participate in higher-level competitions from female track athletes from 2017 to 2019. 

“Today’s decision ignores the unfairness of the CIAC’s policy, which allows biological males who identify as female to compete in the girls’ category,” said Soule, one of the four athletes who challenged Connecticut’s policy. “During all four years of high school, I worked incredibly hard to shave fractions of a second off my time, only to lose to athletes who had an unfair physical advantage.” 

“I don’t want any other girl to experience the pain and heartbreak I had to go through, and I will continue to stand up for fairness in women’s sports for as long as it takes,” she vowed.

Smith, another plaintiff, described the decision as “disheartening for athletes like me who train hard every day to be our physical and mental best at the starting block.”

According to Smith, “biological unfairness does not go away because of what someone believes about gender identity.”

“Biology — not identity — is what matters on the field, and that’s why I will continue to stand up to restore fairness to my sport,” she said. 

Mitchell called the ruling “discouraging,” claiming the judge “ruled to dismiss my right to compete on a level playing field.”

“Today’s ruling ignores the physical advantages that male athletes have over female athletes,” she argues. “Female athletes like me should have the opportunity to excel and compete fairly. No girl should have to settle into her starting blocks knowing that, no matter how hard she works, she doesn’t have a fair shot at victory.”

Nicoletti warned that girls like her “have suffered countless losses because of the CIAC’s policy.”

“[A]nd today’s ruling ignores this fact,” she stated. “I will continue to tell my story and fight for fairness in women’s sports.”

While female athletes decried Sunday’s decision, LGBT activists reacted very favorably to Chatigny’s ruling. 

“This is good news for transgender students in Connecticut and around the country,” declared ACLU Staff Attorney Joshua Block in a statement. “Today’s ruling shows that allowing transgender students to participate in school — including sports — is consistent with existing federal law. This is yet another sign that lawmakers attacking trans youth in states around the country have no legal basis for their claims.”

Additionally, Rahsaan Yearwood, the father of one of the two biological male athletes who now identify as females who are also named defendants in the lawsuit, cheered the decision.

“One of our most marginalized communities has the opportunity to rejoice in their authentic being and feel affirmed in doing so,” Yearwood was quoted as saying. 

As the debate about women’s sports continues across the U.S., several states have passed laws restricting participation in women’s sports to biological females. This year alone, Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi and Tennessee have already passed such laws. State lawmakers in more than two dozen other states have introduced similar legislation.

Meanwhile, Democrats in Congress want to pass the Equality Act, which would codify nondiscrimination protections for the LGBT community into federal law. Critics of the sweeping legislative initiative argue that the protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity will require biological males who identify as females to compete on sports teams that correspond with their gender identity as opposed to their biological sex.

Even though the Equality Act has failed to become law because of opposition from both Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. Senate, President Joe Biden has already signed an executive order prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. 

“Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports,” the order stated.

Derek Chauvin Guilty of Murder in Death of George Floyd


Tuesday evening April 20, 2021

DID THE JURY GET IT RIGHT, OR DID THE MOB WIN?

Please let me know.

Jerry Broussard of WhatDidYouSay.org

33 missing children rescued in major human trafficking investigation in California


Reported By Anugrah Kumar, Christian Post Contributor 

Human trafficking | Reuters

During a human trafficking investigation in California, called “Operation Lost Angels,” the FBI recovered 33 missing children, eight of whom had been sexually exploited, the agency said.

For the operation, which began Jan. 11, the FBI worked with more than two dozen law enforcement and non-governmental partners “to identify, locate, and recover missing children, particularly those who have been or were suspected of being sexually exploited and/or trafficked.”

Of the underage victims recovered, eight were being sexually exploited at the time of recovery, the agency said in a statement, as part of Human Trafficking Awareness Month.

“Two were recovered multiple times during the operation while on the ‘track,’ a common term used to describe a known location for commercial sex trafficking. It is not uncommon for victims who are rescued to return to commercial sex trafficking either voluntarily or by force, fraud, or coercion,” it said.

“The FBI considers human trafficking modern day slavery and the minors engaged in commercial sex trafficking are considered victims,” said Assistant FBI Director Kristi K. Johnson.

In the 2020 Report on U.S. Government Efforts to Combat Trafficking in Persons, the State Department warned about “the increasing number of people vulnerable to exploitation by traffickers due to the instability, isolation, and lack of access to critical services caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.”

“The effects of COVID-19, as with other catastrophic events, are disproportionately impacting communities suffering from systemic or generational inequality – the same communities traffickers often prey upon,” the report said.

The FBI also revealed that its caseload for trafficking-related crimes, for both sex and labor, had increased significantly in the past several years. Last year, the agency started 664 human trafficking investigations across the country, arresting 473 people. As of last November, there were more than 1,800 pending trafficking investigations, including those involving minors exploited through commercial sex trafficking, the FBI said.

The Tallahassee Police Department, Florida, announced last November that more than 170 people were charged as part of a two-year investigation uncovering a sex trafficking network in the state.

“Operation Stolen Innocence,” a secretive probe into the commercial trafficking of a teenaged girl, began in November 2018 when police investigators saw images of a child being posted on a website advertising sex for money.

Last October, the U.S. Marshals rescued 27 missing children in Virginia as part of nationwide operations to save exploited children. The Department of Justice announced at the time that the five-day law enforcement effort, called “Operation Find Our Children,” took place throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia.

DOJ says Capitol rioters intended to ‘capture and assassinate’ elected officials


A Justice Department court filing has revealed a plan that rioters purportedly designed to “capture and assassinate” elected officials during last week’s raid on the U.S. Capitol. Federal prosecutors in the filing asked an Arizona judge to detain Jacob Chansley, an Arizona man who was pictured wearing face and body makeup and buffalo horns while standing at Vice President Mike Pence’s desk in the Senate. Chansley is set to appear in a federal court on Friday.

The FBI, according to the DOJ, investigated Chansley, who reportedly left a note on the vice president’s desk staying that “it’s only a matter of time, justice is coming.” 

A portion of the federal prosecutors’ Thursday filing states, “Strong evidence, including Chansley’s own words and actions at the Capitol, supports that the intent of the Capitol rioters was to capture and assassinate elected officials in the United States government.”

According to a Friday report from Reuters, prosecutors said the charges against Chansley involve active participation in an insurrection attempting to violently overthrow the United States government and that Chansley is a serious flight risk.

“Chansley has spoken openly about his belief that he is an alien, a higher being, and he is here on Earth to ascend to another reality,” prosecutors added in the filing.

He also reportedly phoned the FBI after the riots and told them that he was “glad he sat in the vice president’s chair because Vice President Pence is a child-trafficking traitor.”

A lawyer for Chansley is reportedly seeking a pardon from President Donald Trump for his client’s role in the U.S. Capitol raid. Chansley has allegedly stated that he “accepted the president’s invitation” to march on the U.S. Capitol “with good intentions.”

Chansley’s attorney, Albert Watkins, issued a statement Thursday on his client, saying that he should be pardoned.

“My client had heard the oft-repeated words of President Trump,” Watkins said about the incident. “The words and invitation of a president are supposed to mean something. Given the peaceful and compliant fashion in which Mr. Chansley comported himself, it would be appropriate and honorable for the president to pardon Mr. Chansley and other like-minded, peaceful individuals who accepted the president’s invitation with honorable intentions.”

Watkins concluded, “Mr. Chansley is an American; he served honorably in the US military. He has zero criminal history. He is a lover of nature, routinely practices meditation, is an active practicer of yoga, and eats only organic food. He took seriously the countless messages of President Trump. He believed in President Trump. Like tens of millions of other Americans, Chansley felt — for the first time in his life — as though his voice was being heard.”

A Short History Of Democrats’ Vicious Tactics For Controlling The Judiciary


Reported by Frank Scaturro DECEMBER 4, 2020

As the courts have become hyper-politicized over the past few decades, the judicial nomination process has deteriorated. With this presidential term drawing to a close, we should note the new depths of obstruction that have become a part of the Senate Democrats’ playbook these past four years.

Origins of Obstruction

Matters were already bad when a Democratic Senate rejected Robert Bork for the Supreme Court in 1987 with such notorious vilification that “bork” was added to the dictionary as a verb denoting such unfair and harsh tactics. Four years later came personal vilification for Clarence Thomas before he squeaked by the Senate on a 52–48 vote.

Thomas nonetheless made it through a Democratic Senate that had not entirely shaken a long tradition of bipartisanship on judicial nominations. In fact, from the government’s establishment in 1789 through 2000, 97 percent of Senate-approved judges faced no recorded opposition, and 96 percent were confirmed by voice vote or unanimous consent as opposed to roll-call votes.

Recorded votes tended to be lopsided. When President Bill Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer to the Supreme Court, instead of Republicans retaliating for past treatment, the nominees were confirmed respectively by margins of 96–3 and 87–9. This was despite a number of known controversial positions Ginsburg had taken during her career that Republicans chose not to highlight.

During George W. Bush’s administration, Democrats engaged in wholesale filibusters of circuit court nominees, a tactic that resulted in the defeat of several. Previously, only one judicial nomination fell apart after coming up short on a vote on cloture — the procedure by which senators, with a supermajority vote, could end debate and force a confirmation vote. That was the fate of Justice Abe Fortas, whom Lyndon B. Johnson tried to elevate to chief justice in 1968.

Whether Fortas could garner the simple majority of senators required for confirmation was unclear. His unusual case included bipartisan opposition and ethical questions — he actually resigned from the Supreme Court the following year — and did not leave even the most strident opponents of Bork and Thomas with a sense that they had the filibuster in their procedural toolbox.

In 2005, early in Bush’s second term, Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist proposed to change the supermajority requirement for cloture on nominations (then at 60 votes) to a simple majority, an idea known as the “nuclear option,” which would have effectively ended judicial filibusters. Democratic Minority Leader Harry Reid threatened to retaliate with an unprecedented level of obstructionism that would freeze most Senate business. This scenario did not play out after a compromise, engineered by the “Gang of 14,” derailed any change to cloture.

Eight years later, however, Reid was majority leader, and with the shoe on the other foot, he orchestrated by parliamentary maneuver the very rule change that had once evoked his threats of senatorial Armageddon, essentially ending the filibuster for all nominations other than for the Supreme Court in 2013.

Unprecedented Partisanship During the Trump Era

Gorsuch Filibuster

That exception for filibusters on Supreme Court nominations was quickly put to the test after Donald Trump became president in 2017 and Democrats launched a filibuster of the new president’s first judicial nominee to reach the floor, Neil Gorsuch. Thanks to Reid’s handiwork in 2013, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell garnered support for adding Supreme Court nominations to the others that were subject to simple majorities to invoke cloture.

Abuse of Cloture Motions

Although Democrats were in the minority in the Senate throughout Trump’s term, they used the tools in their arsenal more than any Senate minority before them. While the simple majority threshold made it easier than before to invoke cloture, even when a cloture motion succeeded, a confirmation vote was not immediate but subject to a limit of 30 hours of further consideration.

That time notoriously went by with little-to-no actual debate on the nomination at issue, but of course, actual deliberation was not the goal. By forcing votes on cloture, Democrats could take up more of the Senate’s time and make it that much more difficult to process nominations, not to mention other business.

This the Democratic minority did indiscriminately. All three of Trump’s Supreme Court nominees — Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — were subjected to cloture votes. Adding Samuel Alito (a George W. Bush appointee) to those three, four of the six sitting Republican-appointed justices have faced cloture votes, in contrast to all four of the justices nominated by Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

Senate Democrats have also regularly forced cloture votes for even noncontroversial nominees to circuit courts, district courts, and even the non-life-tenured courts of federal claims. Eight district court nominees who had previously been nominated by Obama before Trump renominated them were subjected to cloture votes despite a lack of meaningful opposition; five of them received between 95 and 100 votes for confirmation and zero against, and another was confirmed by a voice vote.

It was only after the cloture rule was broadened in 1949, during Harry Truman’s presidency, to cover any pending matter that nominations could be subject to a cloture motion. Since then, there were a total of 136 cloture votes on judicial nominees through the end of the Obama administration. Trump’s nominees have considerably more than that entire total, at 192 and counting.

The Disintegration of Bipartisanship

The bipartisanship that used to attend most judicial nominations is also falling apart. According to the Heritage Foundation, more confirmed judges received more than 30 percent opposition votes during the Trump administration than during all previous administrations combined, from George Washington to Obama. Moreover, the majority of negative votes cast against judicial nominees in American history were against Trump nominees.

The three Trump-appointed Supreme Court justices were confirmed with almost total Democratic opposition. Only three Democrats voted to confirm Gorsuch, one to confirm Kavanaugh, and none to confirm Barrett, making her the first Supreme Court nominee to be confirmed without any votes from a major minority party since 1869.

In Kavanaugh’s case, Democrats employed kitchen-sink tactics of obstruction that included repeated interruptions during his hearings and deluging him with more written questions for the record than the combined number of such questions to prior Supreme Court nominees in American history. All other tactics were eclipsed by the disgraceful last-minute attempt to destroy Kavanaugh, when Christine Blasey Ford’s sexual-assault allegation, after being buried for six weeks by ranking member Sen. Dianne Feinstein, was sprung on the committee after the initial hearings, a desperate tactic that flouted the process for handling sensitive matters.

Weaponization of the Blue Slip

On top of everything else, Democrats tried, in the words of long-serving Senate Judiciary Committee member (and former chairman) Orrin Hatch, to “weaponize the blue slip” tradition for circuit and district courts. That was the courtesy established in approximately 1917 in which a nominee’s home-state senators receive blue pieces of paper on which they could express their views about the nomination to the committee. It was a tradition (as opposed to a rule) intended to encourage pre-nomination consultation, but Democrats during this administration routinely withheld positive blue slips, especially for circuit nominees, as a workaround in the absence of a true filibuster.

“Today, Democrats are trying to turn the blue-slip process into a de facto filibuster,” Hatch charged in 2017. “They want a single senator to be able to do in the Judiciary Committee what it once took 41 senators to do on the Senate floor.”

Sen. Chuck Grassley, who chaired the committee during the first two years of the Trump administration, noted that only two of 19 Judiciary Committee chairmen who served over the span of a century treated the blue slip as a strict veto that would preclude a hearing in the absence of two positive blue slips, and he was not going to allow Democratic obstructionism to prevent him from proceeding with hearings for circuit nominees. Still, the blue slip has impeded the advancement of district court nominations through committee, and many trial court judgeships in states with Democratic senators remain vacant due to the withholding of blue slips or the threat of doing so.

It is thanks to current Republican leadership in the Senate and specifically the Judiciary Committee that so many nominees have been processed and made their way to confirmation. As the repeated operation of the 30-hour rule took its toll on nominations, McConnell garnered a majority to reduce the post-cloture clock to two hours for district court nominations.

To date, the Senate has confirmed 229 Article III (life-tenured) judges nominated by Trump. That total includes 53 circuit court judges, which ranks second among all four-year presidential terms to that of Jimmy Carter, who, boosted by the creation of 35 new seats on the courts of appeals in 1978, holds the record at 56. For several months this year, there was no room for Trump to increase his appointments to the courts of appeals because every vacancy had been filled.

Historical Support for Lame-Duck Confirmations

There are now two more appellate nominees, Thomas L. Kirsch II for Barrett’s former seat on the Seventh Circuit and Raúl M. Arias-Marxuach to fill the First Circuit vacancy created by the death of Juan Torruella on Oct. 26. There is no reason they cannot be confirmed before Inauguration Day. Kirsch already had his hearing before the Judiciary Committee, as have 11 pending nominees to district or federal claims courts.

While any nomination that is not processed by Jan. 3, the end of the current congressional term and beginning of the next, is automatically returned to the president, it can be resubmitted and processed without the need for a new hearing. There is ample precedent for lame-duck judicial confirmations, from John Adams’ appointment of John Marshall as chief justice after his re-election defeat, to Carter’s appointment of Breyer to the First Circuit after his loss to Ronald Reagan.

There is an unmistakable dissonance between Joe Biden’s calls for national unity and his party’s judicial obstructionism over the past four years. As a Judiciary Committee chairman, Biden helped to lay much of the groundwork for this sorry state of affairs. For his Democratic successors in the Senate, obstructionism is an ongoing project that seems to find no limit.

Consider the exception that proved the rule: When leftist interest groups criticized Feinstein after she praised Graham’s handling of Barrett’s Supreme Court nomination hearings and gave the chairman a hug — never mind that every Democrat voted against the nominee — Feinstein’s party compelled her to step down as the Judiciary Committee’s top Democrat. Is there any level of malevolence toward judicial nominations that would satisfy today’s Democratic leadership?

Frank Scaturro served as counsel for the Constitution on the staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee between 2005 and 2009, in which capacity he worked on the nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court and Neil Gorsuch to the Tenth Circuit. He is the author of, among other titles, “The Supreme Court’s Retreat from Reconstruction” (Greenwood Press, 2000). Follow him on Twitter at @FrankScaturro.

Alan Dershowitz: ‘I Do Think that Trump Will Win the Pennsylvania Lawsuit’ if Enough Votes at Stake


Reported by ROBERT KRAYCHIK | 1

Read more at https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2020/11/13/dershowitz-i-do-think-trump-win-pennsylvania-lawsuit-enough-votes-stake/

Election workers sort absentee ballot envelopes at the Lansing City Clerk’s office on November 02, 2020 in Lansing, Michigan. For the first time, Michigan law is allowing clerks in Michigan cities to expedite the vote-counting process by removing secrecy envelopes from outer mailing envelopes one day ahead of the election. …John Moore/Getty Images

Dershowitz predicted that the U.S. Supreme Court would take up the Trump campaign’s lawsuit if the number of votes being challenged are enough to change the outcome of the presidential election in Pennsylvania.

“I do think that Trump will win the Pennsylvania lawsuit,” said Dershowitz on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight with host Joel Pollak, “namely, the lawsuit that challenges ballots that were filed before the end of Election Day but not received until after Election Day.”

Dershowitz continued, “The [Pennsylvania] legislature had basically said no to that and the [Pennsylvania] Supreme Court said yes because of the pandemic. That may have been the right decision in some theoretical sense, but the Constitution doesn’t permit anybody in the state but the legislature to make decisions about elections.”

LISTEN:

“That was decided correctly in Bush versus Gore, and I think that four-to-four vote would become a five-to-four vote if the issue came before the Supreme Court and there were not disputed ballots to make a difference in the outcome of the election. That remains to be seen.”

Dershowitz remarked, “As I understand the facts of the case — although I think what the judiciary did may have been the right thing morally: if you get your ballot in on time, you shouldn’t be denied the vote just because the post office screwed up — I don’t think you can really make that argument under Article Two. I do think that the Republican argument is the stronger one.’

“The Supreme Court will take the case only if it would make a difference, only if the plaintiffs — the Republicans — can show that the number of disputed ballots that were subject to sequestration by Justice Alito’s decision exceeds the difference between the winning margin and the losing margin.”

Dershowitz concluded, “The Pennsylvania constitutional argument is a wholesale argument that clearly belongs in federal courts..”

The Supreme Court ordered Pennsylvania election boards on November 6 to separate the count of mail-in ballots that arrived after Election Day in the event that the Supreme Court revisits election lawsuits related to such votes.

Breitbart News Tonight broadcasts live Monday through Friday on SiriusXM’s Patriot channel 125 from 9:00 p.m. to midnight Eastern (6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Pacific).

Partisans Cheating By Ignoring Election Law Is A Problem As Big As Vote Fraud


Reported by Margot Cleveland NOVEMBER 13, 2020

Fraud represents only one aspect of concern over the results from last week’s election. Of equal import when judging the legitimacy of the next president of the United States is whether states complied with the election rules established by their legislatures. These are not questions of mere “technical errors,” but raise significant constitutional concerns.

On Wednesday, Jim Geraghty of National Review tweeted his “Morning Jolt” summary of post-election lawsuits. “The Trump campaign,” Geraghty stressed, “conceded in oral arguments they were not contending fraud or improper influence, merely technical errors,” he wrote of a recent election case. Geraghty’s article, linked in his tweet, continued: “It is one thing to fume on Twitter that there is a sinister effort to steal an election; it is another thing to assert that sweeping claim in a court of law, before a judge, under penalty of perjury and/or disbarment.”

Not to pick on Geraghty, whom I respect immensely, but he is conflating two separate issues: fraud and violations of the election code. Those are two distinct problems, yet there has been little analysis of the latter, which over the next several weeks might prove more significant.

There are multiple allegations of fraud, such as the middle-of-the-night arrival of unsecured ballots in Detroit or the dead man voting in Nevada. Then there’s the even more devastating suggestion that votes for Donald Trump were swapped to Joe Biden via vulnerable computer systems. Frankly, this idea strikes me as unbelievable, but then again, so did the idea that the FBI would obtain illegal secret court warrants to spy on the Trump campaign, and we know how that turned out.

Election Code Violations Might as Well Be ‘Fraud’

Violations of the election code, however, are a different matter, and unfortunately, sometimes the public views election officials’ bending of the rules as a harmless ignoring of technicalities. As the attorney in the Montgomery County Board of Elections case noted after “conceding” he was not alleging fraud: “The election code is technical.”

That makes technical violations constitutionally significant because Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 grants state legislatures the ultimate authority to appoint the electors who choose the president: “Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.”

In Bush v. Gore, former Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist stressed the significance of this constitutional provision in a concurrence joined by Justice Clarence Thomas and former Justice Antonin Scalia. As Rehnquist wrote, that clause “convey[s] the broadest power of determination” and “leaves it to the legislature exclusively to define the method” of appointment of electors. Furthermore, “a significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question.”

The three concurring justices in Bush v. Gore concluded that the Florida Supreme Court’s order directing election officials to count improperly marked ballots was a “significant departure from the legislative scheme,” and “in a Presidential election the clearly expressed intent of the legislature must prevail.” Accordingly, those justices would have declared the Florida recount unconstitutional under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2.

While the concurrence in Bush v. Gore failed to garner support by a majority of the justices, the Supreme Court’s composition has changed dramatically since then, and the reasoning of this concurrence provides a strong basis to view deviations from the technicalities of the election code as unconstitutional. As Rehnquist stressed, “[I]n a Presidential election the clearly expressed intent of the legislature must prevail.”

So, if the legislative branch mandates voter signatures, or verification of signatures, or internal secrecy sleeves, or counting only in the presences of poll-watchers from each party, it is no answer to say it is a technicality and not fraud at issue. The state legislatures, through the election code, define the validity of votes, and allowing state officials or courts to read those provisions out of the law raises serious questions under Article 2 of the Constitution.

Ignoring the Election Code Denies Equal Protection

Allowing state officials to fudge on the mandates of the election code raises a second significant constitutional issue, this one under the Equal Protection Clause, which served as the basis for the majority opinion in Bush v. Gore. The majority in Bush v. Gore held that the varying standards violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, reasoning: “The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another.”

When state officials ignore the technicalities of the election code, however, it virtually guarantees voters will be denied equal treatment. The proof is in Pennsylvania. There, for instance, even though the election code prohibited inspecting ballots before Election Day, some county officials — those in larger counties with access to mail-sorting machines that could weigh ballots — weighed the ballots to determine if the voter failed to include the required inner secrecy sleeve.

Then those officials, again contrary to the election code, provided information to representatives of the Democratic Party so they could identify the voters whose ballots would be canceled. Voters whose election officials abided by the technicalities of the election code, however, did not receive that notice nor the opportunity to “cure” their ballot.

Now thanks to the unprecedented push toward mail-in voting over the last year, we are seeing this same pattern repeat itself throughout the country. Some election officials bent (or broke) the rules the legislative branch had set, while others followed the letter of the law. As a result, voters in different counties in the same state were treated disparately and on an arbitrary basis. Unlike the situation in Bush v. Gore, however, it is not the state courts altering the plain language of the election code, but secretaries of state or local election officials.

The majority in Bush v. Gore recognized the rightful place of election officials to interpret and apply the rules established by the legislative branch. This difference provides some leeway to states, which through interpretative guidance tweak the technicalities of the election code. But as in other areas of the law, such interpretations must be reasonable and must not violate the clearly expressed intent of the legislature.

The Supreme Court will likely decide where that line will be drawn in the coming days.

Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist. Cleveland served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk to a federal appellate judge and is a former full-time faculty member and adjunct instructor at the college of business at the University of Notre Dame. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

Alito’s politically charged address draws heat


Reported by JOSH GERSTEIN | Politico | November 13, 2020

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito delivered an unusually inflammatory public speech Thursday night, starkly warning about the threats he contends religious believers face from advocates for gay and abortion rights, as well as public officials responding to the coronavirus pandemic. Speaking to a virtual conference of conservative lawyers, the George W. Bush appointee made no direct comment on the recent election, the political crisis relating to President Donald Trump’s refusal to acknowledge his defeat or litigation on the issue pending at the Supreme Court.

However, Alito didn’t hold back on other controversial subjects, even suggesting that the pressure Christians face surrounding their religious beliefs is akin to the strictures the U.S. placed on Germany and Japan after World War II.

“Is our country going to follow that course?” Alito asked. “For many today, religious liberty is not a cherished freedom. It’s often just an excuse for bigotry and can’t be tolerated, even when there is no evidence that anybody has been harmed. … The question we face is whether our society will be inclusive enough to tolerate people with unpopular religious beliefs.”

Alito argued that some recent Supreme Court decisions, including the landmark ruling upholding a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, fueled intolerance to those who believe marriage should be limited to unions between one man and one woman.

“Until very recently, that’s what the vast majority of Americans thought. Now, it’s considered bigotry,” he said.

Alito also seemed to minimize the significance of a refusal of a Colorado baker to produce a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The justice noted that the couple involved “was given a free cake by another bakery” and that the high-profile standoff prompted “celebrity chefs” to come to their defense.

Justices often include pointed, even barbed, language in their opinions. Indeed, Alito regularly does so, and many of his remarks Thursday night echoed similar comments he’s made in caustic dissents. Still, it is uncommon for a justice to weigh in on hot-button topics like abortion or gay rights in speaking appearances open to the press or public.

During his half-hour-long speech, Alito warned that not only is freedom of belief increasingly under threat, but freedom of expression is as well.

“One of the great challenges for the Supreme Court going forward will be to protect freedom of speech. Although that freedom is falling out of favor in some circles, we need to do whatever we can to prevent it from becoming a second-tier constitutional right,” he said.

While the conservative justice insisted he was not opining on the legal questions related to coronavirus lockdown orders and similar restrictions, he painted those moves as oppressive.

“The pandemic has resulted in previously unimaginable restrictions on individual liberty,” Alito said, insisting that such an observation was transparently true. “The Covid crisis has served as a sort of constitutional stress test and in doing so it has highlighted disturbing trends that were already in evidence before the pandemic struck.”

Alito also used his address to trash a brief Democratic senators filed last year in a gun rights case, warning the court that lawmakers might move to restructure the court if it continued to produce what the senators asserted were politically motivated rulings.

“It was an affront to the Constitution and the rule of law,” Alito said, paraphrasing remarks he made in court. “It is … wrong for anyone, including members of Congress, to try to influence our decisions by anything other than legal argumentation. That sort of thing has often happened in countries governed by power, not law.”

Alito did not make reference to Trump’s numerous public affronts to federal judges. In 2018, those relentless attacks prompted Chief Justice John Roberts to issue an unusual statement coming to the defense of the independence of the judiciary.

Many lawyers took to Twitter on Thursday night to accuse Alito of hypocrisy for delivering a highly politically charged speech that was devoted in part to complaining about lawmakers casting the court as political.

“This speech is like I woke up from a vampire dream,” University of Baltimore law professor and former federal prosecutor Kim Wehle wrote. “Unscrupulously biased, political, and even angry. I can’t imagine why Alito did this publicly. Totally inappropriate and damaging to the Supreme Court.”

Alito also engaged in another regular lament from legal conservatives, complaining that law schools are hostile to those with right-of-center political views and others whose beliefs go against the majority viewpoint.

“Unfortunately, tolerance for opposing views is now in short supply in many law schools and in the broader academic community,” the justice said. “When I speak with recent law school graduates, what I hear over and over is that they face harassment and retaliation if they say anything that departs from the law school orthodoxy.”

Alito, who attended Princeton as an undergraduate and Yale for law school, used a century-old precedent related to a smallpox outbreak in Cambridge to take a not-particularly-veiled shot at a prominent Ivy League school he did not attend: Harvard.

“I am all in favor of preventing dangerous things from issuing out of Cambridge and infecting the rest of the country and the world. It would be good if what originates in Cambridge stays in Cambridge,” the justice joked.

US Marshals rescue 27 missing kids in Virginia during ‘Operation Find Our Children’


The Department of Justice announced on Friday that the U.S. Marshals had rescued 27 missing children in Virginia during “Operation Find Our Children.” The mission lasted only five days, but was able to recover 27 missing kids throughout the state, and located six more children who were reported as missing but were found to be in the custody of their legal guardian.

The multi-agency effort involved more than 60 law enforcement investigators, including members from the U.S. Marshals from the Eastern and Western Districts of Virginia, U.S. Marshals Service Capital Area Regional Fugitive Task Force, federal and state law enforcement agents, and local police departments. There were also over 50 employees from the Virginia Department of Social Services, as well as a team of medical professionals and experts from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

“I can think of no more critical or satisfying mission for a law enforcement officer, than rescuing an endangered child,” Nick E. Proffitt, U.S. Marshal for the Eastern District of Virginia, said. “This operation brought together a formidable team that was, and is, determined to come to the aid of our youth and bring to justice those among us that choose to prey on these vulnerable children.”

“I am proud of the Deputy Marshals in the Eastern and Western Districts of Virginia and their partners for the work they accomplished this week – and the results speak for themselves; these 27 children are safe once again,” Proffitt continued. “I am deeply humbled and highly honored that our team in Eastern Virginia is a continuing part of this critical Marshals Service mission. We want the missing children across this great nation to know the U.S. Marshals Service will never stop looking for you, we will find you.”

“The U.S. Marshals Service has a legendary history of finding fugitives and bringing them to justice,” Thomas L. Foster, U.S. Marshal for the Western District of Virginia, said. “Because of this specialized skill set, finding missing children is a natural extension of the Marshal’s mission.”

“Although many of the 27 recoveries occurred in Virginia’s larger population centers, seven occurred in the Western District of Virginia to include Roanoke and Abingdon,” Foster added. “This operation brought missing and exploited children to a place of safety and those who made the decision to prey upon them to justice.”

“The Department of Justice is dedicated to protecting the most vulnerable children in our society and ‘Operation Find Our Children’ does just that,” Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen said. “While this Virginia operation is the most recent recovery of endangered and missing children led by the U.S. Marshals Service this year, we have also recovered more than 440 kids in Georgia, Ohio, Indiana, Louisiana and other states. Because of this initiative, the recovered children are now out of harm’s way.”

  • Last week, the United States Marshals Service announced the recovery of 45 missing and endangered children in Ohio and West Virginia during “Operation Autumn Hope.” The operation also resulted in 179 arrests that were made by the Central Ohio Human Trafficking Task Force.
  • On Oct. 1, the agency rescued 11 children in New Orleans, two of which were in extreme danger.
  • On Sept. 21, U.S. Marshals announced that they had recovered 35 missing children during “Operation Safety Net” in Ohio.
  • On Sept. 17, U.S. Marshals Service completed “Operation Triple Beam,” a 60-day mission to decrease violent gang crime in Oklahoma City. U.S. Marshals made 262 arrests, seized illegal firearms and narcotics, as well as located five missing children,
  • On Sept. 4, the U.S. Marshals Service said that they had rescued eight “highly endangered” missing children in Indiana during “Operation Homecoming.”
  • On Aug. 27, U.S. Marshals found 39 missing children in Georgia and Florida during “Operation Not Forgotten.” Authorities said the children were between the ages of 3 to 17. Of the 39 endangered children, 15 were victims of sex trafficking.

Barrett’s Speech After Swearing In: ‘I Will Do My Job Without Any Fear Or Favor’


Reported By  Hank Berrien  | DailyWire.com

Clarence Thomas, associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, right, administers the judicial oath to Amy Coney Barrett, associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, during a ceremony on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, D.C.,
Ken Cedeno/CNP/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett was sworn in by Justice Clarence Thomas on Monday night amid whoops and cheers from the audience on the White House lawn. After President Trump opened the proceedings with a speech, Justice Thomas swore Barrett in, and Barrett followed with a speech in which she vowed, “I will do my job without any fear or favor,” adding, “I love the Constitution and the democratic republic that it establishes, and I will devote myself to preserving it.”

President Trump began, “This is a momentous day for America, the United States Constitution, and for the fair and impartial rule of law. The Constitution is the ultimate defense of American liberty; the faithful application of the law is the cornerstone of the Republic. That is why, as president, I have no more solemn obligation and no greater honor than to appoint Supreme Court Justices.”

He said of Barrett, “She is one of our nation’s most brilliant legal scholars and she will make an outstanding Justice on the highest court in our land. Justice Barrett’s oath will be administered by the Court’s longest serving member currently on the bench; a man whose allegiance to the law has earned him the respect and the gratitude of all Americans: Justice Clarence Thomas.”

After thanking Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senate Judiciary Chairman, Lindsey Graham, GOP senators, Vice President Pence and White House counsel Pat Cipollone, Trump drew a laugh from Barrett when he acknowledged her seven children, asserting, “They’ve become very popular in this nation.”

Trump also stated, “But I speak to everyone when I say that the Barrett family has captured America’s heart; it is highly fitting that Justice Barrett fills the seat of a true pioneer for women: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.”

Trump noted that Barrett was the first Justice in American history to serve on the court as a mother with school-age children. He noted, in a statement that was a tribute to conservatism, “Justice Barrett made clear she will issue rulings based solely upon a faithful reading of the law and the Constitution as written, not legislate from the bench.”

After Barrett took the oath from Justice Thomas, she gave a prepared speech:

Thank you. Thank you so very much. Thank you all for being here tonight, and thank you, President Trump, for selecting me to serve as an Associate Justice at the United States Supreme Court. It’s a privilege to be asked to serve my country in this office. I stand here tonight truly honored and humbled. Thanks also to the Senate for giving its consent to my appointment. I am grateful for the confidence you have expressed in me and I pledge to you and the American people that I will discharge my duties to the very best of my ability.

This was a vigorous confirmation process, and I thank all of you; especially Leader McConnell and Chairman Graham for helping to navigate it. My heartfelt thanks go out to the members of the White House Staff and Department of Justice, who worked tirelessly to help to support me through this process. Your stamina has been remarkable and I have been the beneficiary of it. Jesse and I are also so grateful to the many people who have supported our family over these last several weeks. Through ways both tangible and intangible, you have made this day possible. Jesse and I have been truly awestruck by your generosity.

I have spent a good amount of time over the last month at the Senate; both in meetings with individual senators and in days of hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The confirmation process has made ever-clearer to me one of the fundamental differences between the federal judiciary and the United States Senate, and perhaps the most acute is the role of policy preferences. It is the job of a senator to pursue her policy preferences; in fact, it would be a dereliction of duty to put policy goals aside.

By contrast, it is the job of a judge to resist her policy preferences.  It would be a dereliction of duty for her to give in to them. Federal judges don’t stand for election, thus they have no basis for claiming that their preferences reflect those of the people. This separation of duty from political preference is what makes the judiciary distinct among the three branches of government. A judge declares independence not only from Congress and the president, but also from the private beliefs that might otherwise move her. The judicial oath captures the essence of the judicial duty; the rule of law must always control.

My fellow Americans, even though we judges don’t face elections, we still work for you. It is your Constitution that establishes the rule of law and the judicial independence that is so central to it., The oath that I have solemnly taken tonight means at its core that I will do my job without any fear or favor and that I will do so independent of both the political branches and my own preferences. I love the Constitution and the democratic republic that it establishes, and I will devote myself to preserving it. Thank you.

LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report | Wednesday, October 14, 2020


Top Stories
Americans Support Amy Coney Barrett’s Confirmation By Double-Digit Margin
Mazie Hirono Under Fire for Asking Amy Coney Barrett if She’s Ever Raped Anyone
Amy Coney Barrett: Roe v. Wade Can be Overturned, It is Not a “Super-Precedent”
Kamala Harris Tried to Put Pro-Lifers in Jail Who Exposed Planned Parenthood Selling Baby Parts

 

More Pro-Life News
Amy Coney Barrett Slams Liberals for Attacking Her Adopted Children: This is “Cruel”
Andrew Cuomo Blames President Trump for His Order Killing 15,000 Nursing Home Residents
Senator Lindsey Graham Praises Amy Coney Barrett For Being “Unashamedly Pro-Life
Facebook Censors News Story Exposing Kamala Harris Trying to Put Pro-Lifers in Prison
Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories

PLEASE HELP! LifeNews.com needs your help during our Fall fundraising campaign. Please click here to support pro-life ministry with a donation.

 

Americans Support Amy Coney Barrett’s Confirmation By Double-Digit Margin

A new national poll shows Americans support the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett by double-digit margins.


 

 

MORE PRO-LIFE NEWS FROM TODAY

Planned Parenthood CEO: “Biden-Harris Victory Could Really Help Move” Our Abortion Agenda Forward

Amy Coney Barrett Signed Letter Condemning Obama for Forcing Christians to Fund Abortions

Most Americans Don’t Support Roe v. Wade, A Majority Actually Oppose Abortion

CNN Slams Amy Coney Barrett: “Stolen” Court Seat Belongs to Justice Ginsburg

Democrat AGs and Prosecutors Refuse to Prosecute Abortionists for Killing Babies if Roe is Overturned

THE VIRGIN MARY SPEAKS TO AMERICA: “Come to Me, all mothers who weep for their children. Come to Me and I will solace you, and you will find great comfort with Me.” – Blessed Virgin Mary –  Join in Our Lady’s 50th Anniversary Vigil, September 26 to 28, 2020.  Priests go free, domestic air, hotels, meals. Buses available in various states. For info www.smwa.org or call 609-654-0245 or 609-206-2963.  For a free rose petal blessed by Jesus and Mary write to St. Michael’s World Apostolate, PO Box 514, Bayside, NY 11361 (ADVERTISEMENT)

Ten Reasons Americans Should Vote for President Donald Trump

LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report | Tuesday, October 13, 2020


Top Stories
Amy Coney Barrett: Roe v. Wade is Not a “Super-Precedent” That Can’t be Overturned
Judge Amy Coney Barrett: “I’m Committed to the Rule of Law”
“Impressive!” Asked to Show Her Notes, Amy Coney Barrett Holds Up a Blank Notepad
Washington Post Attacks Amy Coney Barrett’s Children, Accuses Them of Spreading COVID

 

More Pro-Life News
Amy Coney Barrett Hints That Roe v. Wade Could be Overturned
There is NO Pro-Life Case for Voting for Pro-Abortion Joe Biden for President
Amy Coney Barrett: Justice Antonin Scalia is My “Mentor,” I’m an “Originalist” Like Him
CNN Slams Amy Coney Barrett, Complains She Will “Undo Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Legacy”
Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories

PLEASE HELP! LifeNews.com needs your help during our Fall fundraising campaign. Please click here to support pro-life ministry with a donation.

 

Amy Coney Barrett: Roe v. Wade is Not a “Super-Precedent” That Can’t be Overturned

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett says she doesn’t consider the Roe v. Wade decision that allowed abortion on demand a “super-precedent” that can’t be overturned.


 

 

MORE PRO-LIFE NEWS FROM TODAY

Democrats Attack Amy Coney Barrett on Abortion Because Her Qualifications are Exceptional

Trump v. Biden is a Battle for the Soul of America and The Lives of Millions of Babies

CBS Praises Andrew Cuomo Despite Him Killing 15,000 Nursing Home Patients

Joe Biden Just Told 56% of Americans They Shouldn’t Vote for Him

Netflix CEO Defends “Cuties,” Says Conservatives Misunderstand Show That Sexualizes Children

THE VIRGIN MARY SPEAKS TO AMERICA: “Come to Me, all mothers who weep for their children. Come to Me and I will solace you, and you will find great comfort with Me.” – Blessed Virgin Mary –  Join in Our Lady’s 50th Anniversary Vigil, September 26 to 28, 2020.  Priests go free, domestic air, hotels, meals. Buses available in various states. For info www.smwa.org or call 609-654-0245 or 609-206-2963.  For a free rose petal blessed by Jesus and Mary write to St. Michael’s World Apostolate, PO Box 514, Bayside, NY 11361 (ADVERTISEMENT)

Pete Buttigieg is Wrong on Late-Term Abortions, Most are Done on Healthy Babies

LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report | Monday, October 12, 2020


Top Stories
Judge Amy Coney Barrett: “I Believe in the Power of Prayer.” Thank You for “Praying for Me”
Senate Democrats Trash Amy Coney Barrett: The Right to Kill Babies in Abortions “is at Stake”
Catholic Bishop Asks Joe Biden: How Will You Explain Supporting Abortions to God?
Biden Considering Andrew Cuomo for Attorney General Despite Killing 15,000 Nursing Home Residents

 

More Pro-Life News
Joy Behar: Amy Barrett Supporters are Racists, Sexists. They Have a “Male White Panic”
Senator Slams Democrats’ Attacks on Amy Coney Barrett’s Christian Faith: It’s “Demeaning to Women”
Planned Parenthood CEO: Amy Coney Barrett is a “Vocal Threat” to Abortion
Feminists Trash Amy Coney Barrett’s Large Family: She Has a “Clown Car Vagina”
Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories

PLEASE HELP! LifeNews.com needs your help during our Fall fundraising campaign. Please click here to support pro-life ministry with a donation.

 

Judge Amy Coney Barrett: “I Believe in the Power of Prayer.” Thank You for “Praying for Me”

Judge Amy Coney Barrett delivered her opening remarks to the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning and she made two major points.


 

 

MORE PRO-LIFE NEWS FROM TODAY

Liberal Media Tells Us President Trump Can’t Win, But the Only Poll That Matters is Election Day

American Bar Association Gives Amy Coney Barret Its Highest “Well-Qualified” Rating

Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Full Opening Statement Before the Senate Judiciary Committee

Democrats Will Try To Block Amy Barrett’s Confirmation By Not Giving Republicans Quorum

Mark Cuban: “I’m OK” With NBA Doing Business With China Though It Forces Women to Have Abortions

THE VIRGIN MARY SPEAKS TO AMERICA: “Come to Me, all mothers who weep for their children. Come to Me and I will solace you, and you will find great comfort with Me.” – Blessed Virgin Mary –  Join in Our Lady’s 50th Anniversary Vigil, September 26 to 28, 2020.  Priests go free, domestic air, hotels, meals. Buses available in various states. For info www.smwa.org or call 609-654-0245 or 609-206-2963.  For a free rose petal blessed by Jesus and Mary write to St. Michael’s World Apostolate, PO Box 514, Bayside, NY 11361 (ADVERTISEMENT)

Pro-Abortion Senator Ironically Claims Amy Barrett’s Confirmation Will Set Back Women

LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report | Wednesday, October 7, 2020


Top Stories
Vice President Mike Pence: “I’m Pro-Life, I Don’t Apologize for It”
Kamala Harris Refuses to Say if She’d Pack Supreme Court With Liberal Judges
CNN Host Chris Cuomo Wants to “Choke” and “Punch” Tucker Carlson
The View Hopes President Trump Dies So Nancy Pelosi Can Become President
Abortion Activist Jane Fonda Calls Coronavirus “God’s Gift to the Left”

 

More Pro-Life News
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris Support Legalizing Abortions Up to Birth Nationwide
Democrats Oppose Amy Coney Barrett Because She Once Called Abortions “Barbaric”
Joe Biden Will Force Americans to Fund Abortions and Planned Parenthood
Planned Parenthood Calls Kamala Harris a “Champion” for Killing Babies in Abortions
Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories

PLEASE HELP! LifeNews.com needs your help during our Fall fundraising campaign. Please click here to support pro-life ministry with a donation.

 

Vice President Mike Pence: “I’m Pro-Life, I Don’t Apologize for It”

During tonight’s presidential debate with Kamala Harris, Vice President Mike Pence was not backing down in any way, shape or form, from his pro-life position against killing babies in abortions.

Kamala Harris Refuses to Say if She’d Pack Supreme Court With Liberal Judges

Just like Joe Biden in the first presidential debate, Kamala Harris refused to say whether or not she would pack the Supreme Court with activist judges.


 

 

MORE PRO-LIFE NEWS FROM TODAY

Bogus CNN Poll Falsely Claims Biden Will Defeat Trump in a Landslide

Democrats Trash Amy Coney Barrett’s Faith, Slam Her Because She’s a Christian

Vatican Tells United Nations: Killing Babies in Abortions is Not a Human Right

Liberal Washington Post Calls Amy Coney Barrett a “Handmaid,” Trashes Her Christian Faith

New Poll Shows Americans Don’t Really Support Roe v. Wade After All

 

THE VIRGIN MARY SPEAKS TO AMERICA: “Come to Me, all mothers who weep for their children. Come to Me and I will solace you, and you will find great comfort with Me.” – Blessed Virgin Mary –  Join in Our Lady’s 50th Anniversary Vigil, September 26 to 28, 2020.  Priests go free, domestic air, hotels, meals. Buses available in various states. For info www.smwa.org or call 609-654-0245 or 609-206-2963.  For a free rose petal blessed by Jesus and Mary write to St. Michael’s World Apostolate, PO Box 514, Bayside, NY 11361 (ADVERTISEMENT)

Two Women Bleed Profusely After Botched Abortions at Austin Women’s Health Center

LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report | Wednesday, September 30, 2020


Top Stories
Joe Biden Says “I am the Democratic Party.” It Supports Killing Babies in Abortions Up to Birth
Chelsea Clinton Opposes Amy Coney Barrett Because She Supported Pro-Life Laws
Joe Biden Supports Abortions Up to Birth During Debate: “Roe v. Wade is at Stake”
Joy Behar Wants Moderator To Hit Trump With Taser Every Time He Interrupts Biden

 

More Pro-Life News
Joe Biden Wants Abortion Any Time, Anywhere, Under Any Circumstances
Pro-Abortion Groups Spending Millions Trying to Defeat Amy Coney Barrett
Amy Coney Barrett Open to Overturning Roe v. Wade Because Precedent Isn’t Forever
President Trump is Ending Liberal Domination of Federal Courts
Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories

PLEASE HELP! LifeNews.com needs your help during our Fall fundraising campaign. Please click here to support pro-life ministry with a donation.

 

Joe Biden Says “I am the Democratic Party.” It Supports Killing Babies in Abortions Up to Birth

During last night’s first presidential debate, Joe Biden declared that he was the Democratic Party.


 

 

MORE PRO-LIFE NEWS FROM TODAY

New York Times Pushes Bogus Poll Falsely Claiming Americans Support Abortion

Feminist Brags About Killing Her Baby in an Abortion to Oppose Amy Coney Barrett

Kamala Harris Refuses to Say if Biden Will Pack Supreme Court With Activist Judges

Female Senators Say Amy Coney Barrett Will “Inspire Our Daughters And Granddaughters”

Satanic Temple Sues Billboard Company That Refused Signs for Abortion Ritual Killing Babies

 

THE VIRGIN MARY SPEAKS TO AMERICA: “Come to Me, all mothers who weep for their children. Come to Me and I will solace you, and you will find great comfort with Me.” – Blessed Virgin Mary –  Join in Our Lady’s 50th Anniversary Vigil, September 26 to 28, 2020.  Priests go free, domestic air, hotels, meals. Buses available in various states. For info www.smwa.org or call 609-654-0245 or 609-206-2963.  For a free rose petal blessed by Jesus and Mary write to St. Michael’s World Apostolate, PO Box 514, Bayside, NY 11361 (ADVERTISEMENT)

Judge Blocks Tennessee Law That Saves Babies From Abortion

Biden Refuses to Say if He’d Pack Supreme Court With Liberal Judges: “I Won’t Answer the Question”

LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report | Tuesday, September 29, 2020


Top Stories
Biden Refuses to Say if He’d Pack Supreme Court With Liberal Judges: “I Won’t Answer the Question”
Joe Biden Flubs During Debate, Says “I’m Not Opposed” to Amy Coney Barrett’s Nomination
Catholic Cardinal Says Joe Biden Shouldn’t Receive Communion Because He’s Pro-Abortion
Biden Campaign Refuses to Allow Inspection of Electronic Ear Pieces During Tonight’s Debate

 

More Pro-Life News
Planned Parenthood Opposes Amy Coney Barrett: She’s an “Insult to RBG’s Legacy”
Amy Coney Barrett Destroys the Feminist Claim That You Need Abortion to Have a Career
Abortion Activist Punches Pro-Life Woman Holding Sign Supporting Amy Coney Barrett
Feminists Hate Amy Coney Barrett Because She Didn’t Abort Her Kids to Have a Career
Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories

PLEASE HELP! LifeNews.com needs your help during our Fall fundraising campaign. Please click here to support pro-life ministry with a donation.

 

Biden Refuses to Say if He’d Pack Supreme Court With Liberal Judges: “I Won’t Answer the Question”

Joe Biden refused to say whether or not he would pack the Supreme Court when questioned during Tuesday night’s presidential debate.


 

 

MORE PRO-LIFE NEWS FROM TODAY

Congressman Files Resolution Condemning “Vicious Attacks” on Amy Barrett’s Christian Faith

CBS Brings on Anita Hill to Attack Amy Coney Barrett, Say Democrats Should Block Her

Planned Parenthood Opposes Amy Coney Barrett: States Will Ban Abortions if She’s Confirmed

Study: Liberal Media Boost Joe Biden With Softer Coverage Than Hillary in 2016

Violent Feminists Assault Police and Destroy Buildings Protesting for Abortion

 

THE VIRGIN MARY SPEAKS TO AMERICA: “Come to Me, all mothers who weep for their children. Come to Me and I will solace you, and you will find great comfort with Me.” – Blessed Virgin Mary –  Join in Our Lady’s 50th Anniversary Vigil, September 26 to 28, 2020.  Priests go free, domestic air, hotels, meals. Buses available in various states. For info www.smwa.org or call 609-654-0245 or 609-206-2963.  For a free rose petal blessed by Jesus and Mary write to St. Michael’s World Apostolate, PO Box 514, Bayside, NY 11361 (ADVERTISEMENT)

ACLU Wins Battle to Force Federal Government to Arrange Abortions for Illegal Immigrants

Abortion Pill Has Killed Dozens of Women and Hospitalized Thousands, Where are the Feminists?

LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report | Monday, September 28, 2020


Top Stories
Planned Parenthood Opposes Amy Coney Barrett: “It’s Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Seat, We Demand a No Vote”
Media Attacks Amy Comey Barrett’s Kids: She’s a “White Colonizer” for Adopting Black Children
Liberals Attack Amy Barrett’s Children, Claim Her Kids Were Illegally Adopted
Catholic Bishop: “It is Not Possible to be a Catholic in Good Standing and Support Abortion”

 

More Pro-Life News
Kamala Harris Opposes Judge Amy Coney Barrett: She Will be a Threat to Abortion
Judge Amy Coney Barrett Blasted Democrats After They Trashed Her Christian Faith
Liberal Media Calls Joe Biden a “Devout” Catholic, Attacks Amy Coney Barrett’s Christian Faith
Catholic Archbishop: Vote Pro-Life, Nothing More Important Than the “Basic Right — to Live”
Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories

PLEASE HELP! LifeNews.com needs your help during our Fall fundraising campaign. Please click here to support pro-life ministry with a donation.

 

Planned Parenthood Opposes Amy Coney Barrett: “It’s Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Seat, We Demand a No Vote”

The political arm of Planned Parenthood is urging supporters to demand that the U.S. Senate oppose the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.


 

 

MORE PRO-LIFE NEWS FROM TODAY

Pregnant Mom Diagnosed With Cancer Refuses Abortion, She and Her Baby Survive

Abortion Activist Trashes Amy Barrett: She “Hates Your Uterus” Because She’s Pro-Life

Joe Biden Would Only Nominate Pro-Abortion Radicals for the Supreme Court

Feminist Trashes Amy Coney Barrett: “She’s Weaponizing Her White Womanhood to Grab Power”

White House Ready to Defend Amy Barrett: We Will Aggressively “Fight False Attacks” on Her

 

THE VIRGIN MARY SPEAKS TO AMERICA: “Come to Me, all mothers who weep for their children. Come to Me and I will solace you, and you will find great comfort with Me.” – Blessed Virgin Mary –  Join in Our Lady’s 50th Anniversary Vigil, September 26 to 28, 2020.  Priests go free, domestic air, hotels, meals. Buses available in various states. For info www.smwa.org or call 609-654-0245 or 609-206-2963.  For a free rose petal blessed by Jesus and Mary write to St. Michael’s World Apostolate, PO Box 514, Bayside, NY 11361 (ADVERTISEMENT)

President Trump: It’s “Certainly Possible” Amy Coney Barrett Could Vote to Overturn Roe v. Wade

MSNBC Freaks Out That SCOTUS May Overturn Roe After Amy Coney Barrett is Confirmed

LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report | Friday, September 25, 2020


Top Stories
President Trump Will Nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett to Replace Ginsburg on Supreme Court
Amy Barrett Believes Life Begins at Conception, Questions Roe’s “Judicial Fiat” of “Abortion on Demand”
Sarah Palin to Lisa Murkowski: Vote for Trump’s SCOTUS Nominee or I May Run Against You
Pro-Abortion Alabama Senator Doug Jones Refuses to Support Trump’s Nominee

 

More Pro-Life News
Pro-Life Professor: Amy Barrett is an “Unbelievable Mom” Who Respects the Constitution
Liberal Media is Trashing Amy Barrett’s Christian Faith, And It’s About to Get Worse
President Trump Expands Pro-Life Policy Protecting Americans From Funding Abortions
Joe Biden Tries to Get Catholics to Vote for Him, But He Supports Abortions Up to Birth
Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories

PLEASE HELP! LifeNews.com needs your help during our Fall fundraising campaign. Please click here to support pro-life ministry with a donation.

 

President Trump Will Nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett to Replace Ginsburg on Supreme Court

President Donald Trump is expected to nominate federal appeals court Judge Amy Coney Barrett to replace pro-abortion Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who recently passed away, according to multiple media reporting citing a senior White House official.


 

 

MORE PRO-LIFE NEWS FROM TODAY

Catholic Bishop Urges Americans to Vote Pro-Life: “The Right to be Born” Depends on It

Abortion Activists Blast Trump Because He Signed an Order to Stop Infanticide

Americans Should Vote for Trump Because There’s Nothing More Important Than the Right to Life

President Trump Signs Executive Order Protecting Americans With Pre-Existing Conditions

Liberal Activist: I’m So Mad Ruth Bader Ginsburg Died I Became a Satanist

THE VIRGIN MARY SPEAKS TO AMERICA: “Come to Me, all mothers who weep for their children. Come to Me and I will solace you, and you will find great comfort with Me.” – Blessed Virgin Mary –  Join in Our Lady’s 50th Anniversary Vigil, September 26 to 28, 2020.  Priests go free, domestic air, hotels, meals. Buses available in various states. For info www.smwa.org or call 609-654-0245 or 609-206-2963.  For a free rose petal blessed by Jesus and Mary write to St. Michael’s World Apostolate, PO Box 514, Bayside, NY 11361 (ADVERTISEMENT)

Doctor Who Euthanized Patients Now Warns Against Legalizing Assisted Suicide

Sick New Abortion Finder Tool Connects Women With Hundreds of Clinics to Kill Their Baby

LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report | Monday, September 21, 2020


Top Stories
Abortion Activist Nancy Pelosi Receives Communion Despite Violating Church Teachings
Senate Approves Six More Trump Judges, Including Pro-Life Judges Who Want Roe Overturned
Nancy Pelosi Teams With Catholic Nuns to Try to Fool Christians Into Voting for Joe Biden
Biden Campaign Downplays Abortion, Killing 62 Million Babies Is Just Another “Issue”

 

More Pro-Life News
CNN Says “Make America Great Again” is Trump’s “Racist Insult” Because He Hates Blacks
Charges Dropped Against Pastor for Holding Church Services in Defiance of Democrat Lockdown
Black American Says: If Black Lives Matter, Talk About Black Babies Killed in Abortions
Sandra Merritt Appeals $2 Million Judgement Against Her for Exposing Planned Parenthood
Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories

PLEASE HELP! LifeNews.com needs your help during our Fall fundraising campaign. Please click here to support pro-life ministry with a donation.

 

President Trump Will Nominate SCOTUS Justice Friday or Saturday Who Will “Abide by the Constitution”

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has essentially admitted to violating a city coronavirus health order by attending Catholic mass.


 

 

MORE PRO-LIFE NEWS FROM TODAY

Pro-Life Democrats Slam Joe Biden for Supporting Abortions Up to Birth

Potential Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett: “I Take My Faith Seriously”

Senator Thom Tillis Says He Will Support President Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee

Ben Sasse Slams Disgusting Attacks on Amy Barrett’s Faith: It’s “Anti-Catholic Bigotry”

President Trump’s Supporters More Enthusiastic Than Joe Biden’s About Voting for Him

THE VIRGIN MARY SPEAKS TO AMERICA: “Come to Me, all mothers who weep for their children. Come to Me and I will solace you, and you will find great comfort with Me.” – Blessed Virgin Mary –  Join in Our Lady’s 50th Anniversary Vigil, September 26 to 28, 2020.  Priests go free, domestic air, hotels, meals. Buses available in various states. For info www.smwa.org or call 609-654-0245 or 609-206-2963.  For a free rose petal blessed by Jesus and Mary write to St. Michael’s World Apostolate, PO Box 514, Bayside, NY 11361 (ADVERTISEMENT)

Congressman Slams Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: “RIP to 30 Million Innocent Babies”

Kamala Harris Prosecuted Pro-Lifers Who Exposed Planned Parenthood Selling Baby Parts

Kim Kardashian Plans to Divorce Kanye West Because He’s Pro-Life

LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report | Wednesday, September 15, 2020


Top Stories
Jill Biden Says “Vote for Science,” But She Doesn’t Think Unborn Babies are Human Beings
Catholic Bishop Claims Catholics Can Vote for Pro-Abortion Joe Biden “in Good Conscience”
President Trump’s Son: My Father Will Never Stop Fighting for Religious Freedom
Joe Biden’s Campaign Slogan “Build Back Better” is a Mantra Used By Radical Pro-Abortion Groups

 

More Pro-Life News
Catholics for Biden Co-Chair is Trying to Put David Daleiden in Prison for Exposing Planned Parenthood
Netflix Cancellation Rate Jumps 8 Times Higher Than Average After “Cuties” Show Airs
Joe Biden Endorses Congressional Candidate Who Called Straight Women “Breeders”
Lifelong Democrat Official Becomes Republican Because Democrats are Radically Pro-Abortion
Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories

PLEASE HELP! LifeNews.com needs your help during our Fall fundraising campaign. Please click here to support pro-life ministry with a donation.

 

Jill Biden Says “Vote for Science,” But She Doesn’t Think Unborn Babies are Human Beings

Jill Biden, the wife of Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden, urged Americans to “vote for science” Tuesday as if to imply that President Donald Trump opposes everything scientific.


MORE PRO-LIFE NEWS FROM TODAY

Black Lives Matter Founder Sends Donations to Communist China

This Premature Baby Girl Was Born at 23 Weeks, While Abortions are Still Legal

UN Passes Coronavirus Resolution Promoting Abortion as “Health Care” Worldwide

Feminist Writer Thinks Killing Unborn Babies in Abortions is Funny

Hundreds of Michigan Overseas Mail-in Ballots Omit Vice President Mike Pence’s Name

THE VIRGIN MARY SPEAKS TO AMERICA: “Come to Me, all mothers who weep for their children. Come to Me and I will solace you, and you will find great comfort with Me.” – Blessed Virgin Mary –  Join in Our Lady’s 50th Anniversary Vigil, September 26 to 28, 2020.  Priests go free, domestic air, hotels, meals. Buses available in various states. For info www.smwa.org or call 609-654-0245 or 609-206-2963.  For a free rose petal blessed by Jesus and Mary write to St. Michael’s World Apostolate, PO Box 514, Bayside, NY 11361 (ADVERTISEMENT)

Just One Pregnancy Center Saved 575 Babies From Abortion, There are Thousands Nationwide

 

Missouri Governor Candidate Nicole Galloway is Radically Pro-Abortion

Minnesota Abortions Have Fallen 48% Since 1980 as More Babies Saved From Abortion

Whoopi Goldberg: Supporting Trump is “Like Being in a Cult. Same Mindset as Jim Jones”

 

Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com.
Copyright 2003-2020 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved.

LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report | Monday, September 14, 2020


Top Stories
President Donald Trump Expands Executive Order Defunding International Planned Parenthood
Jim Caviezel Blasts Democrats: They Think Abortions are Essential But Churches are Not
CNN Says Trump Voters are Stupid, Don’t Care About Americans Dying From Coronavirus
President Trump Slams Joe Biden on Abortion: “He Supports Baby Execution”

 

More Pro-Life News
Trump Doing 21% Better With Hispanics in 2020, Latinos Will Help Him Defeat Joe Biden
Pro-Lifers Protest “Catholics for Biden” Event: “He Believes in Abortion. That is Not Catholic”
Catholic Bishop: We Need to Stop Abortion Like We Stopped Slavery
Liberal Media Defends “Cuties,” Say Critics of Netflix Show are Just “Afraid of Child Sexuality”
Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories

PLEASE HELP! LifeNews.com needs your help during our Fall fundraising campaign. Please click here to support pro-life ministry with a donation.

 

President Donald Trump Expands Executive Order Defunding International Planned Parenthood

President Donald Trump took another step to defund the abortion industry Monday through a new proposed rule to expand the Mexico City Policy.


 

 

MORE PRO-LIFE NEWS FROM TODAY

Pro-Abortion Group Says Abortion Will End if President Trump is Re-Elected

Michael Bloomberg Spending $100 Million Bankrolling Joe Biden’s Campaign in Florida

Unborn Babies are Human Beings Who Have a Right to Live

Facebook and Twitter Censor President Trump’s Message Making Sure People’s Votes Count

Mayor Says Opening Planned Parenthood Abortion Business is Like Starting a Church

THE VIRGIN MARY SPEAKS TO AMERICA: “Come to Me, all mothers who weep for their children. Come to Me and I will solace you, and you will find great comfort with Me.” – Blessed Virgin Mary –  Join in Our Lady’s 50th Anniversary Vigil, September 26 to 28, 2020.  Priests go free, domestic air, hotels, meals. Buses available in various states. For info www.smwa.org or call 609-654-0245 or 609-206-2963.  For a free rose petal blessed by Jesus and Mary write to St. Michael’s World Apostolate, PO Box 514, Bayside, NY 11361 (ADVERTISEMENT)

California School District Adopts Sex Ed Curriculum Teaching Abortion to Pre-Teens

 

Congressmen Slam Disney for Filming Mulan in Region With Forced Abortions

Pro-Life Group Endorses Senator Bill Cassidy for Re-Election in Louisiana

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris Want to “Codify Roe,” Making Abortions Legal Up to Birth Nationwide

 

Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com.
Copyright 2003-2020 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved.

LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report | Wednesday, September 9, 2020


Top