Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘SCOTUS’

BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules on Biden’s Vaccine Mandates


Reported by Katie Pavlich@KatiePavlich | Posted: Jan 13, 2022

Read more at https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2022/01/13/breaking-scotus-n2601816/

BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules on Biden's Vaccine Mandates

Source: (AP Photo/LM Otero)

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday to strike down President Joe Biden’s Wuhan coronavirus vaccine mandate for private businesses. Justices upheld his executive order requiring vaccination for healthcare workers at facilities receiving federal funding. 

The ruling on vaccine requirements for private businesses with more than 100 employees was decided 6-3. Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer dissented. 

“The Secretary of Labor, acting through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, recently enacted a vaccine mandate for much of the Nation’s work force. The mandate, which employers must enforce, applies to roughly 84 million workers, covering virtually all employers with at least 100 employees. It requires that covered workers receive a COVID–19 vaccine, and it pre-empts contrary state laws. The only exception is for workers who obtain a medical test each week at their own expense and on their own time, and also wear a mask each workday,” the opinion states. “OSHA has never before imposed such a mandate. Nor has Congress. Indeed, although Congress has enacted significant legislation addressing the COVID–19 pandemic, it has declined to enact any measure similar to what OSHA has promulgated here. Many States, businesses, and nonprofit organizations challenged OSHA’s rule in Courts of Appeals across the country.”

“The Fifth Circuit initially entered a stay. But when the cases were consolidated before the Sixth Circuit, that court lifted the stay and allowed OSHA’s rule to take effect. Applicants now seek emergency relief from this Court, arguing that OSHA’s mandate exceeds its statutory authority and is otherwise unlawful. Agreeing that applicants are likely to prevail, we grant their applications and stay the rule,” the opinion continues. 

Further, the Justices pointed out the risk from Wuhan coronavirus exists outside of the work place and therefore, limits OSHA’s regulatory power. 

“COVID–19 can and does spread at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather. That kind of universal risk is no different from the day-to-day dangers that all face from crime, air pollution, or any number of communicable diseases. Permitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life—simply because most Americans have jobs and face those same risks while on the clock—would significantly expand OSHA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization,” the ruling states.

The separate ruling on vaccine requirements for healthcare workers at facilities receiving federal funding through Medicare and Medicaid was decided 5-4. Justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett and Samuel Alito dissented. 

“The Government has not made a strong showing that this agglomeration of statutes authorizes any such rule,” Justice Thomas wrote in his dissent. “The Government proposes to find virtually unlimited vaccination power, over millions of healthcare workers, in definitional provisions, a saving clause, and a provision regarding long-term care facilities’ sanitation procedures. The Government has not explained why Congress would have used these ancillary provisions to house what can only be characterized as a ‘fundamental detail’ of the statutory scheme. Had Congress wanted to grant CMS power to impose a vaccine man- date across all facility types, it would have done what it has done elsewhere—specifically authorize one. “

This post has been updated with additional information. 

Biden’s Vaccine Mandate Is Outrageously Unconstitutional. Why Couldn’t Lawyers Make That Argument To The Supreme Court?


Posted BY: MARGOT CLEVELAND | JANUARY 10, 2022

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/bidens-vaccine-mandate-is-outrageously-unconstitutional-why-couldnt-lawyers-make-that-argument-to-the-supreme-court-2656327300.html/

U.S. supreme court at twilight

All the petitioners needed was for the Supreme Court to enter a stay to prevent the Occupational Safety and Health Administration vaccination rule from taking effect, but, truly, was it too much to ask for a defense of limited government, separation of powers, and federalism?

Apparently so, because on Friday, over more than two hours of argument in National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, lawyers pushing the Supreme Court to delay the regulation circled and sidled rather than state clearly that the rule, OSHA, the Biden administration, and the entire federal government represented a mockery of our constitutional order.

On November 5, 2021, OSHA issued the rule under review, framing it as an “Emergency Temporary Standard” or ETS. The ETS required all employers of 100 or more employees to “develop, implement, and enforce a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy,” which required employees to either be fully vaccinated or submit to weekly COVID-19 testing and to wear face coverings at work.

Congress authorized OSHA to issue “an emergency temporary standard to take immediate effect,” and without the traditional notice-and-comment process, if it “determines (A) that employees are exposed to grave danger from exposure to substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful or from new hazards, and (B) that such emergency standard is necessary to protect employees from such danger.”

Massive Overreach Immediately Challenged in Court

The ETS was immediately challenged by individual Americans, religious groups, covered employers, states, and trade organizations, with the cases filed directly in federal courts of appeals throughout the country, bypassing the federal trial courts pursuant to the statute that authorized emergency rules.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals acted first, issuing a stay on November 6, 2021, preventing enforcement of the rule pending briefing. Less than a week later, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit—consisting of Ronald Reagan appointee Judge Edith Jones and two Donald Trump appointees, Judges Kyle Duncan and Kurt Engelhardt—issued an opinion holding that the ETS remain stayed “pending adequate judicial review” of the lawsuit challenging the OSHA rule.

The 21-page opinion, authored by Judge Engelhardt, analyzed the request for a stay and concluded that, for numerous reasons, the petitioners had a strong likelihood to succeed on the merits of their challenge and that without a stay the businesses and other petitioners would suffer irreparable injury.

Shortly after the Fifth Circuit issued its decision, pursuant to the procedures controlling when multiple lawsuits are filed challenging an ETS, all of the cases throughout the various federal circuits were consolidated and assigned by lottery to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Then, on December 17, 2021, the Sixth Circuit vacated the stay entered by the Fifth Circuit.

Sixth Circuit Deadlocks

Judge Jane Stranch, a Barack Obama appointee, authored the decision for the three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit, which Judge Julia Gibbons, a G.W. Bush appointee, joined. Trump-appointee Judge Joan Larsen dissented from the decision, concisely capturing her concern with this opening line: “As the Supreme Court has very recently reminded us, ‘our system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends.’”

Two days before the Sixth Circuit removed the stay, thereby setting the ETS to go into effect this month, the federal appellate court denied a request by the challengers of the OSHA rule for the court to hear the case initially en banc, or as a full court. To obtain en banc review, a majority of the active judges on the Sixth Circuit needed to vote for the full court to decide the case together, but the 16-member court deadlocked 8-8, leaving the three-judge panel in charge.

In voting to hear the request for a stay of the ETS en banc in the Sixth Circuit, Judge John Bush, a Trump appointee, opened with the closer: “Whether it uses a clear statement or not, Congress likely has no authority under the Commerce Clause to impose, much less to delegate the imposition of, a de facto national vaccine mandate upon the American public. Such claimed authority runs contrary to the text and structure of the Constitution and historical practice. The regulation of health and safety through compulsory vaccination is a traditional prerogative of the states—not the domain of Congress and certainly not fodder for the diktat of a federal administrative agency.”

Sidelining the Constitution

With all of the ammunition provided by the dissenting judges in the Sixth Circuit, as well as the Fifth Circuit’s original opinion entering the stay, one would think that when the Supreme Court fast-tracked the case for oral argument, the attorneys seeking the stay would stress the grave attack the ETS represents to our constitutional republic. But they didn’t.

Instead, Scott Keller, counsel for the National Federation of Independent Business, argued “OSHA’s economy-wide one-size-fits-all mandate covering 84 million Americans is not a necessary, indispensable use of OSHA’s extraordinary emergency power which this Court has recognized is narrowly circumscribed.”

Likewise, Benjamin Flowers, the solicitor general of Ohio, arguing on behalf of the slew of states that joined in challenging the ETS, stressed “so sweeping a rule [as the vaccine mandate] is not necessary to protect employees from a grave danger as the emergency provision requires.”

Throughout the argument, Keller and Flowers also focused on the so-called “major questions” doctrine, which stems from a series of Supreme Court cases that stressed that if an agency’s regulatory action “brings about an enormous and transformative expansion in regulatory authority,” Congress must speak clearly that “it wishes to assign to an agency decisions [such issues] of vast ‘economic and political significance.”

The petitioners weren’t wrong. The OSHA rule, which is, in essence, a vaccine mandate given the shortage of tests and the federal government’s decision to force employees to pay for the cost of testing, is not “necessary” to protect employees from a “grave danger” for many reasons.

This Is Obviously Unconstitutional

First, COVID is only a grave danger to a small segment of society, while the ETS adopts the de facto vaccine mandate for all employers of 100 or more employees. The ETS also makes no distinction between employers where working conditions create a higher risk of COVID infection from those facilities where employees have limited risk. Nor, after two years of COVID, with OSHA waiting that time period to issue the ETS and the latest mutation less severe than the former ones, does the ETS fit within the concept of an “emergency” standard.

Also, far from providing the OSHA clear authority to mandate vaccinations (or a weekly medical test) in response to a virus such as COVID, the statute authorizing OSHA to issue an ETS speaks of grave dangers “from exposure to substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful or from new hazards.” Thus, the major question doctrine supports the petitioners’ challenge to the ETS and their request for a stay.

Yes, advocates must be pragmatists, and the petitioners’ attorneys didn’t need a home run; they just needed a rain delay. But so much more could have been said, and indeed needed to be said—and forcefully so—about limited powers, federalism, and separation of powers. Yet in their desire to win the stay, there was barely any mention of these important constitutional principles.

Major Opportunity Lost

Consider this notable exchange between Ohio’s top attorney and Justice Sotomayor.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: “So, if it’s within the police power to protect the health and welfare of workers, you seem to be saying the states can do it, but you’re saying the federal government can’t even though it’s facing the same crisis in interstate commerce that states are facing within their own borders. I — I’m not sure I understand the distinction why the states would have the power but the federal government wouldn’t.”

MR. FLOWERS: “The federal government has no police power, if we’re asking about that.”

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: “Oh, it does have power with respect to protecting the health and safety of workers. We have — we have — accept the constitutionality of OSHA.”

MR. FLOWERS: “Yes. I took you to be asking if they had a police power to protect public health. They — they absolutely have the –”

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: “No, they have a police power to protect workers.”

MR. FLOWERS: “I would not call it a police power. I think the Commerce Clause power allows them to address health.”

“I would not call it a police power” is as much as the Ohio solicitor general could muster for a pushback. But Congress has no “police power” no matter what it is called, and the federal government cannot “pretextually relabel” a federal de facto vaccination mandate “commerce” to gain what is, in effect, a novel police power of the national government.

The breadth of the OSHA rule and its effects on two-thirds of private businesses also threatens the “system of government ordered by the Constitution,” that gave all legislative powers to Congress. The resulting “nondelegation doctrine constrains Congress’s ability to delegate its legislative authority to executive agencies.”

Yet when provided an opportunity to hammer these points, Flowers served up the vanilla point “that although our non-delegation doctrine is not especially robust today, there are limits on the amount of authority that Congress can give away.”

The justices—and Americans—needed to hear these points because COVID has become both the excuse and the case study for authoritarianism. And from OSHA’s most recent rule, we might divine the civil corollary to the “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime,” motto, and it seems to be, “Provide me a public interest, and I’ll find the power.” 

Or, elsewise said, “Cut me a mouse hole, and I’ll squeeze in an elephant.”


Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Misinformation Superspreader

A.F. BRANCO on January 10, 2022 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-misinformation-superspreader/

Sotomayor sounded a bid looney with her unscientific Omicron warnings.

Sotomayor Covid Warning
Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2021.

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 – $5.00 – $25.00 – $50.00 – $100 – it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and shared by President Donald Trump.

Today’s TWO Politically INCORRECT Cartoons by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Undocumented Shoppers

A.F. BRANCO on December 5, 2021 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-undocumented-shoppers/

Minnesota isn’t the only state with ‘Smash and Grab” and it’s not the only crime happening there.

01Mass Thieft AN 1080
Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2021

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Unprotected

A.F. BRANCO on December 6, 2021 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-unprotected/

Democrats threaten to pack the court if the SCOTUS ruling on Texas Heartbeat law doesn’t go their way.

SCOTUS Review Texas Heartbeat Law
Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2021

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 – $5.00 – $25.00 – $50.00 – $100 – it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and shared by President Donald Trump.

Nativity scene held outside Supreme Court day after abortion arguments: ‘Humanity of the baby’


Reported By Nicole Alcindor, CP Reporter| Friday, December 03, 2021

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/nativity-scene-held-outside-scotus-day-after-abortion-arguments.html/

Jesus' Nativity Story
Dozens attended a live reenactment of Jesus’ nativity scene held outside the U.S. Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C. on Thursday Dec. 2 2021. | The Christian Post/Nicole Alcindor

WASHINGTON — Dozens attended a live reenactment of Jesus’ nativity scene held outside the U.S. Supreme Court Building on Thursday, the day after the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that could alter abortion law precedent nationwide.

The annual reenactment, organized by the Christian missionary and spiritual outreach organization Faith & Liberty, was held across the street from the East Façade of the Supreme Court.

The ceremonial event consisted of a little over a dozen impersonators dressed as biblical figures like Mary, Joseph, the baby Jesus, the three wise men, angels and more to shed light on the meaning of Christmas and spread the Gospel message. 

Jesus' Nativity Story
Dozens attend a live reenactment of Jesus’ nativity scene held outside the U.S. Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, Dec. 2, 2021. | The Christian Post/Nicole Alcindor

The reenactment of the virgin birth that occurred over 2,000 years ago came less than 24 hours after the outside of the Supreme Court Building was crowded by thousands of pro-life and pro-choice demonstrators as the nation’s high court heard arguments for and against Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban.

Many believe that with the current 6-3 conservative makeup of the court, the case, Dobbs v. Jackson’s Women’s Health, has the potential to change legal precedent on abortion set in the 1973 case Roe v. Wade. 

At the nativity event, pro-lifers in attendance said it is a “blessing” that Jesus’ “unplanned” birth could be displayed the day after many pro-choice demonstrators openly proclaimed their belief that mothers should have the right to end an unplanned pregnancy.

Jesus' Nativity Story
A woman holds camel during a live nativity scene at the U.S. Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C. on Thursday, Dec. 2, 2021. | The Christian Christian Post/Nicole Alcindor

“Yesterday, the court talked about the shedding of innocent blood,” said Allan Parker, a pro-life attorney and the president of The Justice Foundation, a Christian public interest nonprofit litigation organization.

“And today, we are witnessing the reenactment of the most innocent blood in American history. Jesus shed His most innocent blood so that even murderers could be forgiven. We just have to humble ourselves and say: ‘Lord, forgive me.’”  

Parker believes that the nativity scene “is cleansing the grounds that we stand on after yesterday’s event.”

Parker reasoned that because Mary was shocked to discover that she was chosen to give birth to Jesus, her pregnancy can be viewed as “unplanned” from the worldly perspective. 

Jesus' Nativity Story
Actors reenact Jesus’ nativity scene outside the U.S. Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, Dec. 2, 2021. | The Christian Post/Nicole Alcindor

“Mary’s unplanned pregnancy led to the salvation of the whole world,” Parker told The Christian Post while standing outside on the stairs of the Supreme Court Building. “If Mary were alive today, Jesus might have been aborted, and then Jesus and the world would be in darkness instead of having a chance to step into the light.” 

Many others in attendance believe that Jesus’ birth was “humble” because He came into the world as an infant and a servant when He could have come to earth as a king. 

Nancy Claudio, an 81-year-old pro-life demonstrator who lives in Washington, D.C. and attended the nativity scene, said she thought the reenactment was “breathtaking and encouraging.” 

Claudio felt led to attend the event because she loves Jesus. She said Jesus has been a part of her life as far back as she can remember. She told CP about how Jesus saved and delivered her before she began many years of work as a traveling missionary. 

“I am Spirit-led and I live every day to please Jesus. And we all need to remember that Jesus came to a place that is not fancy, and He came because He loved the world and us,” Claudio said. “Events like this are so important because this happened 2,000 years ago, and we are still celebrating and living in the victory that Jesus brought us through his servant Heart. He was laid in a manger where cattle eat out of, and He came to serve, not be served.”

Judy Mcdonough attended the rally and the nativity scene in association with the Christian organization Intercessors For America. She told CP she believes it is “God’s timing” that both of the days spent at the Supreme Court are related to pregnancy. 

“It’s all about the humanity of the baby in the womb, and every child is so innocent,” Mcdonough, a devoted pro-life Christian, told CP.

“I am all about praying, and the nativity scene today is a way that we can act, pray and exercise our constitutional right. Everything about Jesus goes against what we would naturally think about ourselves and who God should be. He’s the only God who came humbly, and He asks us to respond to Him humbly. He is unique because He came humbled, and at the same time, He says [to] bow before Him.” 

Others who came to view the scene agreed that it is “necessary” to reenact the birth of Jesus in front of the Supreme Court in hopes elected officials cab develop a relationship with Jesus. 

“This showing is desperately needed because the only hope we have is through the life of Jesus, who promises peace, and we have hope for reconciliation, and we were sent to be reconciled to Him and others,” attendee Becky Lyttle said.

“These elected officials need to know that corruption is not the answer because many are corrupt. People in ruling positions need the Word of God. We all desperately need the Lord.” 

Attendees came from across the nation to view the nativity scene.

Coming from Chicago, Debra Smith, who identifies as a charismatic nondenominational Christian, said she attended the nativity scene because she felt led to pray in tongues on the premises of the Supreme Court Building. She had also prayed at the Supreme Court during the oral arguments the day before. 

“His Holy Spirit lives with me, and He is always with me. Jesus is the best because He came as a helpless baby, and there are so many other helpless babies out there that desperately need saving,” she said. 

Joel Enge traveled from Texas and is also a representative from the organization Intercessors of America. He attended both the rally and the nativity scene. 

“We have killed millions in America because we have been pro-death, and this event shows us the life that Christ offers can move us from being a nation of death to life. This is amazing,” said Enge, who attends a Baptist church and is the founder and director of a private Christian school.

“Jesus’ entry into the world is very important because the Creator of the world came to His creation. Jesus became a zygote. He developed in Mary’s womb. He went through the same process that children being terminated went through. There’s no comparison. We can’t compare.” 

Some in attendance said the scene brought them “relief” because it showed them that outward expressions of faith can still exist in similar settings. 

“It was amazing. My whole life is built around the Christian faith,” said Paul Kope from Delaware. “Our country was founded on Christian beliefs and the right to worship. It shows we still have rights that they would do this demonstration.”

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.

Today’s TWO Politically INCORRECT Cartoons by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Conjoined Bullies

AFB on April 19, 2021 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-conjoined-bullies/

Corporate America is merging with the radical left to bring down the republic.

Corporate Merger With Radical Left

Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2021.

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Trigger Lock

A.F. BRANCO on April 20, 2021 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-trigger-lock/

Democrats want to Pack SCOTUS because they stand in the way of their radical socialist agenda.

Democrat Push Packing SCOTUS

Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2021.

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 –  $5.00 –  $25.00 – $50.00 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and shared by President Donald Trump.

History Repeats Itself: Democrats Are Using Tactics of the Marxists of 1917 in Russia to Steal 2020 Election


Reported By Jim Hoft | Published December 22, 2020 at 7:19am

Once again we are republishing this analysis by John L Kachelman, Jr. We first published this piece back in October before the election.

2020 the “Perfect Storm” facing our Republic— All three branches of our Government are in peril

Historical Discovery…An election in 1917 forecast the election in 2020! Here are the elements from 103 years ago!

  • Years of preparatory work were spent in misleading and mis-directional propaganda

  • Contested voting results marred the election’s finality and ultimately its dismissal

  • Claims that the poor were going to be disenfranchised of their votes

  • The scheduled voting was extended by two months

  • Division, violence, slander and libel were widespread

  • A delusional/cunning/conniving campaign made unrealistic promises to win the population

  • Anger and mob violence were deliberately stirred against “privilege,” possessions, and status

  • Deceptive claims persuaded the “majority” they were robbed of their electoral victory

  • Inevitable civil war was sparked at the election’s end because Lenin’s group failed to win the majority

  • The dissolution of the old State and a “transformation” of the new system was promised to lead to true socialism but it brought history’s worst and longest ruling tyrant

And here is how it happened…

Here is a basic reminder of your 9th Grade American Civics materials…The Founding Fathers of our Republic designed a system of governing to prevent the evils inherent in the onerous governing systems of Europe. The Republic was to be governed in a way that the majority would have a say BUT safeguarded against a rogue majority controlling the nation. A deliberate system of “checks and balances” was wisely incorporated against evil efforts to seize national control.

The ultimate safeguard was the separation of the State’s governing into three distinct bodies. While each would have an impact upon the others, that impact was deliberately limited. The Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the Republic were designed to be independent but function with unity to guide the nation, preserve freedoms, and guard the human rights that are often disenfranchised by evil systems and philosophies. One of the greatest feats of our Republic is the exercise of individualism when these three branches of governing are properly functioning.

However, at this point in our nation’s historical narrative the “perfect storm” threatens ALL THREE of these safeguards of our Republic. And my disconcerting observation is that many prance and dance around with a Pollyannish attitude denying the reality of our current situation. The prevailing cultural concern is as absurd as the attitude of one busily rearranging the deck chairs on the sinking Titanic!

The assault on the EXECUTIVE BRANCH

The resistance has been hard at work even prior to President Trump’s inauguration. Attempts to nullify the electoral process have been constant. The evil agenda was visible. Our President has suffered evil resistance of historic proportions. The basic cause is his commitment to the U.S. Constitution. It is the unchanging Constitution that provides the legal governing making the USA an exceptional nation of individuals. This fixed and knowable Constitution gives our nation the strength and energy envied by the world and loathed by tyranny. )The Resistance/DEMS/BLM/ANTIFA demand an activist Court that will change our Republic’s basic foundational principles.)

The stated position of the resistance has been loud and long—they have robbed President Trump of his first four years as President. They have dared to present the most ridiculous reasons for his disqualification and removal. They have manipulated, deceived and extorted support for their evil agenda. They have ignited violence that has divided and destroyed the civility of the USA. Their evil purpose was to achieve the political purge of a duly elected President of the United States of America. Our President has been nominated for multiple Nobel Peace Prizes for his exceptional ability to broker true peace between Middle Eastern nations. But the resistance shrugs forgetting they excitedly embraced the Peace Prize awarded to Obama which is admitted now as an award for nothing! The resistance’s political maneuvering and evil mission is well documented.

Those of the resistance are described by inspiration. Their conniving and cunning evil is a constant action seeking to destroy legitimate order. Psalm 36:4, “He plans wickedness upon his bed; He sets himself on a path that is not good; He does not despise evil.” (See also Ecclesiastes 10:20)

Even the classics describe the reality of this evil. From Stevenson’s pen we remember the confession that describes those seeking to nullify the legality of President Trump’s election. Like the pained soul of Henry Jekyll the resistance can confess, “I lost my identity beyond redemption…had I risked the experiment while under the empire of generous or pious aspirations, all must have been otherwise, and from these agonies of death and birth, I had come forth an angel instead of a fiend…At that time my virtue slumbered; my evil, kept awake by ambition, was alert and swift to seize the occasion.” Perhaps the most troubling reference that Stevenson’s pen gives to the resistance character states, “O my poor old Harry Jekyll, if ever I read Satan’s signature upon a face, it is on that of your new friend.”

Inspiration and the Classics unite in describing today’s controlling evil that occupies every thought of the Progressive/Liberal/BLM/ANTIFA “resistance” as “Satan’s signature upon a face.”

This is the first element of today’s “Perfect Storm.” There are two more elements…

The assault upon the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

It is the Legislative Branch of our Republic’s government that involves the citizenry in the governing process. The population’s vote is a significant and treasured freedom. That vote expresses the desires of each State of the Union and is recorded by the Electoral College so that a free election is not controlled by a militant mob. The Founding Fathers wisely saw the potential of a militant group manipulating and coercing control. The establishment of the Electoral College was a masterful move safeguarding the Republic’s freedoms. By this method the most populous States are equal with the least populous—true equality.

The 2020 General Election is recognized as a critical point in our nation’s history. It can be said that every election is critical and previous elections have suffered the militancy of Progressives/Liberals attempting to undermine the Constitutional foundation of our nation. These past challenges failed because the general population was aware of the evil being campaigned and were educated regarding the safeguards of our Constitution. But the context has dramatically changed for the 2020 General Election. In this current election the Constitutional safeguards are condemned and the population is ignorant of just how fragile individual freedom is. It appears that many have been groomed and are eager to believe the Progressive/Liberal/Democratic lies and embrace anarchy. This is not a new situation. History is amazing as it details how the past continues to explain the present.

Consider the Russian Revolution. I offer just a scant discussion on Lenin’s role in this aspect of Russian politics. Hopefully I will have opportunity to offer a more complete discussion. Consider the first “free election” that Russia experienced. It was held in October or November 1917 (the month depends upon which calendar you consult). Lenin promised a “free” election where all votes would be equal and each citizen would be heard. The election was scheduled and a number of political parties provided the voters a choice. Among the many parties were two dominating parties: the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party (Lenin’s Bolsheviks).

The propaganda fueling this election is intriguing. Lenin had confidence that his party would be an overwhelming victor. He was convinced that his pamphleteering during his exile was persuasive. He was convinced that only he knew best what the poor citizens needed for happiness in life. Lenin had devised a governing system by which the State would help the poor citizen to have free health care, free food, personal land ownership, and the erasure of all class “privileges” by redistributing wealth/financial resources/personal property. Under Lenin’s control there would be no more denial of personal rights, no more prejudice of persons, and no more unjust financial levels. All would be totally “equal” IF Lenin’s perfect Revolutionary State was allowed to transform into the Marxist utopia.

Here is where history becomes instructive regarding the Legislative Body of the State.

When the Tsar abdicated, the Russian Provisional Government was formed. Its purpose was to organize the free elections for the Russian Constituent Assembly. The provisional government lasted only eight months and was replaced by the Bolsheviks. A significant footnote to this period is that the Provisional Government was unable to make decisive policy decisions due to political factionalism and a breakdown of state structures. The anarchy fomented by Lenin and the Bolsheviks rendered a civil governing impossible. Whatever legislative bills were presented were instantly killed by opposition. Revolutionary unrest fueled violence. This was a deliberate design of non-cooperation and pure resistance! The deliberate campaign for divisiveness and refusal to perform governing duties is a sobering similarity to the resistance in modern day American politics. Lenin’s free election was conducted but here are some troubling facts from its history:

1) The election was designed to be held on specific dates BUT some argued that the peasants in the outlying territory needed more time to get their votes counted. So, the ballot counting was extended in some places by TWO MONTHS!

2) Throughout the 1917 campaign Lenin argued that the citizens deserved a government that represented “the proletariat’s interests” because, in his estimation, all other governments represented the “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.” Lenin argued that the rich would never give up their “privileges” and so the soviets would need to seize power by violence. Lenin’s propaganda fueled the division that would destroy the Russian nation. He urged violence nurtured by envy and jealousy arguing that some had “privileged status” that others did not and this great “inequity” could only be removed with a violent overthrow.

3) Even though the first free election included a number of different political parties, Lenin was confident that his Bolsheviks would win. That did not happen. The final tabulation exposed Lenin as suffering defeat and his Bolsheviks only garnered 23.26% of the vote. The Socialist-Revolutionaries emerged  with 37.61% of the vote. Lenin was unhappy and contested the results! Lenin refused to concede protesting the legitimacy of the election.

4) The objective of the resistance was a one-party government and an absolute silencing of opposition. “It is the duty of the revolution to put an end to compromise, and to put an end to compromise means taking the path of socialist revolution” Lenin, Speech On The Agrarian Question November 14 (1917).

Carefully consider how Lenin embraced the freedom of voting while masterfully disguising his evil objective of silencing the opposition and developing a one-party ruling government.

After the election results were announced, Lenin stood and revealed the coup. The results were called flawed. Those in opposition were eventually murdered. Lenin instituted his famous “dictatorship of the proletariat.” Lenin said this was the best course for the average citizen and this dictatorship would dissolve when all privileged distinctions were erased, all wealth inequities removed, and all land ownership seized. And the Russian population permitted this dictatorship to exist!

When applied to the 2020 General Election in the USA, this historical anecdote should sound national alarms! The very concepts that Lenin used to nullify the free election of Russia in 1917 are being used in today’s election. In fact, some of the very words and phrases that were used by Lenin are parroted by the Democratic Progressives today and characterize the membership of Democratic Party in the USA!

When the election process of our governing Constitution is compromised and dismissed as archaic and inapplicable THEN our nation has lost the compass for safely navigating the treacherous existence in this world.

The assault upon the JUDICIAL BRANCH

History reminds its students that the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justices were forever changed in 1987 with Joe Biden’s Judiciary’s malevolent confirmation hearing of Judge Robert Bork. Biden was campaigning to be the nomination of the Democratic Presidential candidate (which he would lose to Dukakis because of Biden’s plagiarism). In 1987 the custom was for such hearings to last two days or less. Under Biden’s chairmanship Bork’s hearing was weaponized and lasted TWELVE days. Such a reprehensible action has earned its own idiom in American language—“so and so was ‘Borked’.”

The 1987 Democratic Party’s politicizing and weaponizing the confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court appointments opened the floodgates for the most contentious events in the governing of the United States of America. One only needs to go back to the recent hearings to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. The personal slander, insidious innuendos, manufactured complaints and a host of other evil actions have become accepted political weapons (Or as Speaker Pelosi remarked, “arrows in our quiver”). In past times it was customary that the sitting President was respected and his nominations were accorded with approval, even if the conservatives knew they were approving a Progressive/Liberal who despised the literalist view of the U.S. Constitution they voted for the confirmation. But now there is a horrid specter of divisiveness and vindictiveness enveloping the process.

The General Election of 2020 spotlights the tragic devolving of the status of the U.S. Supreme Court. It is suggested by some, with validity, that the Supreme Court is no longer focused upon apolitical justice but has assumed an active role in establishing law that the U.S. Constitution reserves only for the Legislative Branch.

The Democrats/Progressives/Liberals have announced their intent to “pack” the Supreme Court with Justices who disrespect the U.S. Constitution. They want a left-leaning Court that will sanction the total dismemberment of the constitutional statutes that made America a great nation. The far-left Daily Kos cautioned Republicans that a “future government controlled by Democrats is likely to pursue — court-packing —  as the best way to rebuff a conservative Court majority viewed as illegitimate.” Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told voters during an October 2018 campaign event that Democrats should “pack the Supreme Court of the United States of America” after taking the House, Senate, and Presidency. Leading Democrats also warned that if the justices issue a pro-Second Amendment ruling, and if Democrats win the White House and the Senate in 2020, then they will fundamentally remake the High Court.

Former President Franklin Roosevelt issued this same threat in the 1930s after facing legal obstacles with his New Deal and subsequently “threatened to expand the Court by six seats for a new total of 15 justices so that he could get the rulings he wanted.” The American people, however, rejected his threat, leading to massive Republican victories in the 1938 midterm elections.

Former Democrat presidential candidates Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and now vice-presidential candidate Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) announced that they were open to reshaping the court. “We are on the verge of a crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court,” Harris said, according to Politico. “We have to take this challenge head on, and everything is on the table to do that.”

During the summer of 2020 several major progressive groups, including Take Back The Court, Demand Justice, Progressive Change Institute, and the Sunrise Movement, signed a letter declaring their support for increasing the number of justices by “at least” two seats. The resistance wrote in part: “The fastest, most effective way to make the court representative of all Americans is to enact legislation increasing the size of the Court by at least two seats, and to quickly fill those seats with justices who will safeguard our democracy.” Note: In the context of this reference it is best to remember Lenin’s manipulative ploy that his “free” election would best represent “all Russians”?

In March 2019, President Trump astutely dismissed mounting calls from his Democratic opponents to pack the Supreme Court. “The only reason they’re doing that is they want to try and catch up, so if they can’t catch up through the ballot box by winning an election, they want to try doing it in a different way,” he added.

The late Justice Ginsburg balked at the proposition of packing the Supreme Court. “It would make the Court look partisan,” the late justice told National Public Radio’s Nina Totenberg last year.

The Judicial Branch of the government is to interpret laws respecting the United States Constitution’s limits. Once this unbiased governing is compromised, there is no lawful regulations for civility in our nation.

Concluding Thoughts…

This is where the United States of America is positioned as the General Election of November 2020 nears. A discord and division prevail that has never existed. This violence has been stoked with bitterness. The Progressives/Democratic Party/BLM/ANTIFA assure us that regardless of the election there will be violence. We are being conditioned to think that electoral results will take weeks or months to be validated and even then, they will be challenged. The vitriol marking the battleground is undeniable. Following Lenin’s example in 1917 the Democrats have been told never to concede. The results are already announced, “Furious Democrats are considering total war — profound changes to two branches of government, and even adding stars to the flag (i.e. adding the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico as States thus insuring Democrats have two solid additions to their column)  — if Republicans jam through a Supreme Court nominee then lose control of the Senate.”

As the National Election of 2020 approaches we read of violence, destruction and carnage in the public sphere…Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s recent death sparked a political firestorm, as Republicans prepare for a contentious, pre-election confirmation showdown and some Democrats threaten to, quite literally, burn the country down.

The ”Perfect Storm” facing the Republic of the United States of America has formed and threatens the three pillars of our civility.

After Lenin’s Bolsheviks permitted a “free election” they moved quickly to strangle freedoms. Lenin’s opinion of the poor proletariat having the right to vote for individual choices morphed into a ruling class identified as the “Politburo.” The first Politburo consisted of: LeninTrotskyKrestinskyKamenev, and Stalin. Lenin died. Trotsky was exiled to Mexico and was murdered. Krestinsky and Kamenev were assassinated. That left Stalin. Stalin manipulated the bureaucratic apparatus and seized power. By the 1930s, Stalin had transformed the Politburo into the supreme executive and legislative body of the Communist party and the Soviet government. Stalin was in command of its membership, decisions, and debates. The party congress now not only did not elect the politburo, but its own membership was fully controlled by the politburo. Not only had Lenin’s vision of a one-party political government been achieved but now it became a one-man political government! Individualism had been erased. The individual had ceased to exist and all had become “the State.”

The ”Perfect Storm” in Russia’s history resulted in the totalitarian reign of Stalin’s terror. Such is the conclusion of Russia’s first free election.

What will YOU do regarding the “Perfect Storm” in which our Republic is now struggling?

Please read the historical documentation available and you will realize
this is not a conspiracy theory but a historical constant!

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Supreme Court blocks ruling against church fighting California’s worship restrictions


Reported By Michael Gryboski, Christian Post Reporter 

Pastor Ché Ahn speaks at Harvest Rock Church in Pasadena, California, 2019. | Facebook/Harvest Rock Church

The United States Supreme Court granted temporary relief to a church fighting a legal battle against California over its restrictions on in-person worship gatherings. Harvest Rock Church and others filed suit against California over ongoing shutdown orders instituted by Gov. Gavin Newsom that they argued are in violation of their religious freedom.

In the Thursday order, the Supreme Court provided “injunctive relief” for the church, vacating a September ruling against the church by a district court.

“The application for injunctive relief, presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court, is treated as a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment, and the petition is granted,” read the brief order.

The Supreme Court cited its recent 5-4 ruling in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo to justify granting the relief and sending the case back to the district court. In that case, the high court majority blocked New York from implementing certain lockdown restrictions on a Roman Catholic diocese and an Orthodox Jewish community.

“Members of this Court are not public health experts, and we should respect the judgment of those with special expertise and responsibility in this area. But even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten,” read the opinion in Cuomo.

“The restrictions at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty.”

In July, Harvest Rock Church and Harvest International Ministry which includes multiple member churches, filed suit against California over its ongoing restrictions in its response to COVID-19. The suit argued that Newsom’s order from July banning indoor worship in as many as 30 counties also bans members from gathering at each other’s homes for Bible studies in said counties. In October, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled 2-1 against Harvest Rock, arguing that they were not being wrongly treated.

“The Orders apply the same restrictions to worship services as they do to other indoor congregate events, such as lectures and movie theaters. Some congregate activities are completely prohibited in every county, such as attending concerts and spectating sporting events,” stated the majority opinion.

Circuit Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain authored a dissent in which he disagreed, arguing that in 18 counties, houses of worship are put under stricter standards than most secular entities.

“… in these same counties, the State still allows people to go indoors to: spend a day shopping in the mall, have their hair styled, get a manicure or pedicure, attend college classes, produce a television show or movie, participate in professional sports, wash their clothes at a laundromat, and even work in a meatpacking plant,” wrote O’Scannlain.

“The Constitution allows a State to impose certain calculated, neutral restrictions—even against churches and religious believers—necessary to combat emergent threats to public health. But the Constitution, emphatically, does not allow a State to pursue such measures against religious practices more aggressively than it does against comparable secular activities.”

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – A Higher Loyalty

Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation will help liberal activists on the court from destroying the Constitution.

Amy Coney Barrett HearingPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2020.
Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 –  $5.00 –  $25.00 – $50.00 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and shared by President Donald Trump.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Shut Door Policy

Biden will not answer the question, will he stack the court with a radical leftist if he is elected.

Biden Stacking the CourtPolitical cartoon ©2020.
Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 –  $5.00 –  $25.00 – $50.00 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and shared by President Donald Trump.

Mark Levin: Democrats Want To End The American Republic


Mark Levin speaks about how the 2020 election is “crucial” to the future of the United States, arguing that Democrats want to pack the Supreme Court and add states to tip the balance of power in Congress to assume permanent power.

Recommended
X
Recommended Videos

MARK LEVIN: This is our country. This is our election. Everything is on the table here. The Democrats want to change this country, turn it into a post-Constitutional, post-Republican type of society. Bernie Sanders’ agenda is on the table. They’re not hiding it from us. They’re going to burn down the Supreme Court by packing it. This was tried before and denounced. They’re going to add four Democrat senators to the Senate, they’ll have the power to do it. They’re going to change the power to legislate so nothing can be slowed down.

Nothing can stop them. They want to change our electoral process so only Democrats have representation to elect a president. Rural and suburban areas — the areas of the country which produce the food and the energy will have no representation. This is not a joke.

This is serious as a heart attack. This is what the election is about. This is why the 1619 project exists, to brainwash and destroy the minds of our kids, brainwash them against this country. You’ve seen this in the streets. The presidential nominee of the Democratic party doesn’t even acknowledge the existence of Antifa – a Marxist, communist organization that says it wants to destroy our country and burn our streets.

This election is a big deal. If you’re on the fence, I don’t know what fence you’re sitting on.

If you’re leaning towards Joe Biden, he says, “I am the Democratic Party.” He ain’t kidding. If you’re leaning towards Joe Biden, this is what you’re going to get. There’s a reason he won’t tell you whether he supports stuffing the Supreme Court — because he does. There’s a reason he won’t tell you about the nominees he has in mind — because they are radicals. This election is crucial. Are you Thomas Paine? Are you Paul Revere? Now’s the time to speak up.

READ MORE AT https://www.conservativereview.com/

Today’s TWO Politically INCORRECT Cartoons by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Fire Damage

Democrats like Governor Walz don’t want you looking at left-wing violence so they demonize Trump.

Walz Deflecting from Left-wing ViolencePolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2020.

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Into The Liars Den

It appears the Democrats have a problem with Justice Barrett’s religion expected to come out in the hearings.

Amy Coney Barrett SCOTUS HearingsPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2020.
Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 –  $5.00 –  $25.00 – $50.00 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and shared by President Donald Trump.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – A Peaceful Threat

Prominent Democrats threaten to burn it down if Trump and the Republicans move ahead with the SCOTUS nomination.

04 Scotus Burn LA 1080Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2020.
Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 –  $5.00 –  $25.00 – $50.00 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco’s NEW Coffee table book “Keep America Laughing (at the left). This is Volume 3 of Branco’s Comically Incorrect Cartoons. Set for release on October 25, 2020. PRE-ORDER HERE!!! 

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and shared by President Donald Trump.

In Historic 7-2 Decision On Obamacare – Supreme Court Says Trump’s Birth Control Exemption Is Lawful


Reported By Adam Casalino | July 8, 2020

In Historic 7-2 Decision On Obamacare – Supreme Court Says Trump’s Birth Control Exemption Is Lawful

What’s Happening:

President Trump has been an outspoken critic of Obamacare since before he entered office. Once president, he began rolling out reforms that weakened Obamacare’s stranglehold on the medical industry.

One of his reforms was to expand birth control exemptions for any employer who expressed concerns based on religious or moral grounds.

The fight was taken to the Supreme Court. And in a historic 7-2 decision, the court says Trump’s birth control exemption is lawful:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the Trump administration’s expansion of ObamaCare birth control exemptions for employers…

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority on Wednesday, said the move by federal agencies under President Trump to expand the carve-outs was lawful.

During the Obama administration, religious nonprofits were the only groups that could claim and exemption from paying for contraceptive coverage. Any other business, regardless of the employers’ religious or moral leanings, was forced to pay for birth control.

According to the Trump administration, this violated the employer’s religious rights. Additionally, he expanded the exemptions so that businesses of all kinds can refuse to pay for employee’s birth control if it conflicted with their beliefs.

Naturally, progressive activists challenged the order, taking it all the way to the Supreme Court. Justice Thomas wrote that employers with “religious and conscientious objections” to birth control should be exempt from this rule.

In a surprise ruling, two of the court’s liberal justices, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer sided with the conservative wing, giving them the 7-2 decision.

Critics of Obamacare frequently questioned the need for employers to pay for a person’s birth control. If it’s “their body, their choice” they argued, why was it someone else’s responsibility to provide contraceptive?

Such concerns were overlooked by the Obama administration, which conservatives accused of trying to push birth control against religious people’s objections.

This ruling strikes a huge blow against Obamacare and moves the U.S. closer to a possible revoke.

Key Takeaways:

  • The Supreme Court ruled to uphold Trump’s expansion of birth control exemptions under Obamacare.
  • The court decided employers don’t have to pay for contraceptive, if it conflicts with moral or religious beliefs.
  • The ruling was a historic 7-2 decision.

Source: The Hill

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Adam Casalino

mm
Adam Casalino is a freelance writer, cartoonist, and graphic designer. He is a regular contributor for the Patriot Journal. Find his other work: http://www.talesofmaora.com

Horowitz: SCOTUS decision redefining sexuality will wreak havoc on society


Commentary by June 16, 2020

SCOTUS ruling

Sarah Silbiger/Bloomberg | Getty Images

When Anthony Kennedy discovered a right to force states to redefine marriage in the 2015 Obergefell case, he promised that religious liberty would remain untouched. “The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered,” wrote the former justice for the majority at the time.

Yeah, right.

Thanks to Justice Gorsuch’s contorted reading of the word “sex” in anti-discrimination law, you now have a right to sue for protection for biological traits you do not possess. This means that legitimate rights of others will now have to yield. Anyone who can’t see the devastating real-world effects of this decision – well beyond firing someone simply because you hate their private behavior – is clearly not paying attention.

Codifying into anti-discrimination law the concept that a man who says he is a woman must be treated according to his mental illness is not something we can live with as a society. Gorsuch might want to dismiss the earth-shattering ramifications of his opinion, but he knows well that there are already pending lawsuits to demand that men be treated as women, in very dangerous or disruptive ways that go well beyond trying to use the boot of government to stamp out mean or discriminatory behavior.

Here is an outline of some of the most immediate threats from this decision. These are not hypothetical societal and legal problems; these issues are in contention as we speak and have now been decided by this court.

Forcing states and doctors to perform castrations

Forcing employers to retain gay employees and not fire them simply because of their private behavior sounds very innocuous and even laudatory. But what about forcing doctors to perform “sex change” operations and forcing states to fund them? Codifying the desires of someone afflicted with gender dysphoria into sex-based anti-discrimination law will force states and hospitals to treat anyone who believes they are really the opposite gender as that preferred gender.

In fact, the Supreme Court has already tacitly mandated this. In May, justices declined to take Idaho’s appeal from the Ninth Circuit, where the lower court ordered the state to pay for a castration surgery for a male serving time in Idaho prison for sexually abusing a 15-year-old boy.

Similarly, a federal judge in Wisconsin mandated that the Badger State use its Medicaid funding to pay for “gender confirmation” mutilations, which can include castration, mastectomies, hysterectomies, genital reconstruction, and breast augmentation.

Those radical decisions will now be backed up in all circuits. There are already numerous lawsuits suing employers to provide castration and hormone procedures under the employer health insurance mandate of Obamacare. Obamacare uses civil rights laws to bar discrimination in offering health care coverage. It would be easy for the courts to now apply Gorsuch’s interpretation of Title VII to other areas of discrimination in the ACA statute.

Will Gorsuch be there for us to overturn those decisions?

Women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, and all-female sports

Barring a male who says he is a female from an all-girls sports team, bathroom, or locker room now constitutes sex-based discrimination. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 reads as follows:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

It’s not even a jump to apply this ruling to that law; it’s a logical outgrowth. All separate gender school activities and private dressing rooms are out the window because the 1972 law, which liberals already felt included transgenderism, will now be so interpreted.

College dorms

As Justice Alito warns, similar lawsuits may be brought under the Fair Housing Act against colleges that have separate dorms for males and females. Also, female prisoners will be subjected to males living with them. Again, once sex is redefined, it is no longer limited to employment or animus-based discrimination. As Alito warned, “The Court … argues, not merely that the terms of Title VII can be interpreted that way but that they cannot reasonably be interpreted any other way. According to the Court, the text is unambiguous.” This wasn’t even a close call for the majority, and it will therefore reverberate across all areas of law, politics, and society.

Religious schools must become pagan

We were told not to worry about Obergefell creating a right to gay marriage because it was merely an issue of a marriage certificate and would never affect private religious institutions. Well, what happens now if a cross-dresser or a prominent homosexual activist wants to teach in a Catholic, Orthodox Jewish, or Muslim school? The majority opinion blithely denied these concerns and noted how title VII protects religious liberty by offering some long-standing exceptions. However, those exceptions have been interpreted more and more narrowly as time goes on. The same way Gorsuch has evolved on the definition of a sex, the courts are evolving on religious protections, and the former will now accelerate the latter.

What about pedophilia, nudity, and the next frontier in our “evolving” society?

Justice Gorsuch dismissed (p. 30-32) the dissent’s charge that he was backfilling into the statute ideas that its crafters would regard as absurd and immoral as “naked policy appeals” and as complaints about “undesirable policy consequences.”

What happens when the next letters of the alphabet get codified into the sacrilege of the sexual behavior legal protections, such as “N” for nudity and “P” for pedophilia?

“My sexual orientation is to be with children.”

“My sexual orientation is to express myself freely and be proud of my body, not to hide it.”

You might laugh, but at the speed with which transgenderism became in vogue, there is nothing stopping more sexual fetishes from joining the quasi “legal” distinction with a fancy acronym. The mainstreaming of pedophilia is already under way. Could employers still not fire those individuals for being disruptive to the decorum of the office the same way they can’t fire a man who walks in one day dressed like a woman, even if he has to deal with clients? Those ideals can be read into the word “sex” of a 1964 statute just as much as transgenderism can. After all, gay expanded to LGB and T, and then an undefined “Q” got added in. Others add on IAPK to include “intersex, asexual, pansexual, and kink.” It has broadly become known in those circles as “LGBTQ+.”

So, Justice Gorsuch, now that man and woman no longer mean what they mean, can you tell us what is and is not included in “sex” and why there should be protection for some fetishes or mental disorders over others? Can we lay down that marker now so that it doesn’t grow?

Freedom of speech

As Justice Alito warned in his dissent, the New York City government has already made it a criminal offense not to address someone by his or her preferred pronoun.

“After today’s decision, plaintiffs may claim that the failure to use their preferred pronoun violates one of the federal laws prohibiting sex discrimination,” wrote Alito.

Supporters of this decision claim that because the court did not create a constitutional right, merely a retroactive reinterpretation of statue, Congress is still free to legislate. But who are we kidding here? The Civil Rights Act is as politically untouchable as the Fourteenth Amendment, and there is no way Congress will have the guts to deal with this fallout. State legislatures will be cut out from the process entirely.

Also, as Alito warns, the jump from codifying transgenderism into statute to into the Constitution is nothing more than a hiccup for its supporters to overcome, and the court has consistently done that in the past. There are already numerous cases percolating in the lower courts to do just that. Once the lower courts codify a new right, we have seen the Supreme Court first ignore the lower court radicalization and then downright legitimize it.

Yesterday, Mitch McConnell didn’t even mention this travesty in his press briefing. Trump bizarrely commented, “they ruled and we live with their decision” and called it a “very powerful decision.”

Very powerful, indeed. Now who will stand up for the forgotten Americans and use separation of powers to push back against this travesty?

Author: Daniel Horowitz

Daniel Horowitz is a senior editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – BOOF!

Now that the smoke has cleared, some say the Democrats will pay a heavy price for their sleazy dirty tricks and assault on Justice Kavanaugh.

Assault on Kavanaugh BackfiresPolitical Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.
More A.F. Branco Cartoons at The Daily Torch.

A.F.Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here

take our poll – story continues below
  • Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court?

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been seen all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News” and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, and even the great El Rushbo.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Justice For All

After all the Democrat’s dirty sleazy tricks, obstructing, and anti-due process rhetoric Judge Kavanaugh is now Justice Kavanaugh on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Justice Kavanaugh of the SCOTUSPolitical Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.
See more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here.

A.F.Branco’s New Coffee Table Book <—- Order

take our poll – story continues below
  • Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court?

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been seen all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, and even the great El Rushbo.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A,F, Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Right To A Life

The “MeToo” movement and the “War On Women” crusade has morphed into an all-out war and assault on men.

War on Men and BoysPolitical Cartoon by A. F. Branco ©2018.
More A.F. Branco cartoons at Constitution.com here.

A.F.Branco’s New Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!

take our poll – story continues below
  • Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician?

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been seen all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News” and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, and even the great El Rushbo

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Slimed

Democrat’s sleazy tactics are all about getting power at the expense of the truth and decency. The ends justify the means.

Sleazy Tactics Destroying KavanaughPolitical Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.
More A.F. Branco Cartoons at The Daily Torch.

A.F.Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here

take our poll – story continues below
  • Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician?

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been seen all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News” and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, and even the great El Rushbo.

Today’s TWO Politically INCORRECT Political Cartoons by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Flake

Jeff Flake flakes out on Kavanaugh enticed by the seductiveness of trying to please the Leftist media and the Democrats.

Jeff Flake Flakes on KavanaughPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Blown Away

The Democrat party has now weaponized the #MeToo movement devastating equal justice under the law along with the presumption of innocence.

#MeToo Injustice for KavanaughPolitical Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.
See more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here.

A.F.Branco’s New Coffee Table Book <—- Order

take our poll – story continues below
  • Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician?

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been seen all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, and even the great El Rushbo.

Ann Coulter Letter: “Haven Monahan To Testify In Kavanaugh Hearings”


Commentary by Ann Coulter  

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2018/09/19/haven-monahan-to-testify-in-kavanaugh-hearings/

If this is what the left pulls against a sweet nerd like Brett Kavanaugh, I can’t wait for the hearings to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg!

Observers of the passing scene were not surprised that the same lunatics screaming that Kavanaugh is going to impose “The Handmaid’s Tale” on America also announced that he had committed attempted rape and murder in high school.

His accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, remembered this in a therapy session 30-plus years after the alleged incident — coincidentally, at the exact moment Kavanaugh was all over the news as Mitt Romney’s likely Supreme Court nominee.

She doesn’t remember the time or place of the assault, told no one for 30 years and has no evidence or corroboration. Maybe the party was at Haven Monahan’s house. (He was the instigator of the fraternity gang rape reported in Rolling Stone, which never happened and — luckily for Monahan! — who doesn’t exist. Otherwise, he was in BIG trouble.)

But the psychology professor at Palo Alto University — who recently signed a letter denouncing President Trump’s border policies (thank you, Attorney General Sessions!) — says a teenaged Kavanaugh threw her on a bed at a party and began groping her, trying to take off her clothes.

Here’s the kicker: “I thought he might inadvertently kill me.”

We went pretty quickly from drunken teenaged groping to manslaughter.

This is always my favorite part of any feminist claim: The leap from “he used a bad word” to “HE ADMITTED COMMITTING SEXUAL ASSAULT!” (That’s what the media lyingly said about Trump’s remarks on the “Access Hollywood” tape, as detailed in Chapter Two of my new book, “Resistance Is Futile! How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind.”)

Kavanaugh emphatically denies that anything of the sort ever occurred at any party, but feminists are already off on, Maybe he’s one of these sick people who rapes corpses!

It’s also great how the media act as if attempted rape was perfectly acceptable in America, until we were educated by the #MeToo movement. No, the breakthrough of the #MeToo movement was that it was finally acceptable to call out liberal sexual predators.

Until recently, it was OK to rape and even murder girls — but only if your name was “Clinton,” “Kennedy” or “Weinstein,” et al. Then Hillary lost, and Teddy was dead, so there was no point in ferociously protecting the Democrats’ rapists any longer.

Thus, for example, The New York Times defended Blasey Ford’s failure to tell anyone about the alleged groping/manslaughter for 30 years, claiming things were different in the 1980s. “More likely,” the editorial explained, “a girl in the early 1980s would have blamed herself than report it.”

As proof, the Times linked to a Washington Post article citing the Times’ own treatment of a Kennedy victim. After Patricia Bowman accused William Kennedy Smith of rape, the Times “reported on her speeding tickets, partying in adulthood and even dredged up an unnamed woman who claimed Bowman showed a ‘little wild streak’ in high school.”

So the Times’ defense of the decades-old, therapy-induced recovered memory by Kavanaugh’s accuser is, Look at the way we abused a Kennedy accuser! We were horrible to her! OK, New York Times, you win.

Most hilarious is the media’s insistence that Kavanaugh’s accuser is putting herself at enormous risk by coming forward. Oh, cut the crap, media. In terms of press coverage, no one alive would prefer to be Kavanaugh than his accuser. Everywhere you look, someone is praising the “survivor” for her stunning, unprecedented courage as she viciously tries to derail Kavanaugh’s nomination.

True, accuse a Clinton, a Kennedy or a Weinstein (et al), and you’ll be treated like dirt. You’ll get the Patricia Bowman treatment. Paula Jones was smeared and laughed at for three years, until Stuart Taylor’s 15,000-word article defending her in the American Lawyer. (That took courage.)

But accuse the elitist white male Duke lacrosse team, Haven Monahan or a Republican nominee to the Supreme Court, and you can upgrade to a much better university and spend the rest of your life being showered with awards, fellowships, honorary degrees, media appearances and so on. Look up “Anita Hill.”

And, boy, was Hill right about Clarence Thomas! (Honorary white male.) He got confirmed, and now he issues conservative rulings. We warned you.

Following days of the entire media demanding that the victim (by which they mean the accuser) be allowed to tell her story, it turns out she’d really rather not. Blasey Ford spent an eternity deciding whether to accept the Senate’s invitation to testify, finally announcing on Tuesday night that she would appear only after a thorough and complete FBI investigation.

Tell me what an “investigation” of this matter involves. Do agents go door to door in Montgomery County, Maryland, asking everyone who went to high school in the early 1980s if they remember going to some kind of party?

Second: IT’S NEVER THE VICTIM WHO NEEDS AN INVESTIGATION! She knows what her story is. It’s the accused who wants an investigation to know exactly what he’s accused of.

Blasey Ford already knows what she thinks happened. I’ve been waiting my whole life to unburden myself about that night in 1981, 1982 or 1983 in a dark bedroom. Well, I’m not sure if it was a bedroom, but it definitely had a door. And a ceiling and a floor-ish kind of thing. And walls — I know I was surrounded by walls. I remember thinking, “OH MY GOSH, I’M IN A CLOSED SPACE!” On one hand, walls keep me warm, but that’s also why I’ve never enjoyed sex.

The only reason for the professor to insist upon an “investigation” is to delay having to give her story under oath until she knows what can be proved — and what can be disproved.

Of course, the main purpose of an “investigation” is to give the media time to browbeat Republicans into withdrawing Kavanaugh’s name and doing the honorable thing by nominating someone more suitable. Someone like Asia Argento.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


Spartacus 2020

Cory Booker is exploiting the Kavanaugh Hearing to grandstand to make way for his presidential run in 2020.

Cory Booker Kavanaugh HearingPolitical Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.
See more Conservative Daily News cartoons here

A.F.Branco’s NEW Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here! 

take our poll – story continues below
  • Are you done with Nike after announcing Colin Kaepernick will be featured in their 30th anniversary “Just Do It” marketing campaign?

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been seen all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News” and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, and even the great El Rushbo.

SCOTUS Nominee Kavanaugh On Roe V Wade In 2017 Speech: It Was A “Freewheeling Judicial Creation Of Unenumerated Rights”


Reported by Dean Garrison

For anyone that thinks Judge Brett Kavanaugh will be an “easy” confirmation, think again.  Recently, there has been a lot of conjecture and concern in the mainstream press on how Kavanaugh might handle abortion cases.

Wednesday The Washington Post reported:

Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh has only one major abortion ruling in his 12 years on the federal bench, but that forceful opinion will define the coming debate on what his elevation to the Supreme Court would mean for a woman’s constitutional right to the procedure.

Antiabortion activists say they are assured, without specific evidence in his writings, that President Trump’s second nominee could provide the long-sought final piece to a Supreme Court majority that would allow far more restrictions on abortion — and perhaps even overturn the court’s abortion rights precedents that began 45 years ago in Roe v. Wade.

On this, abortion rights advocates agree with their opponents, and they point to the strongly worded dissent Kavanaugh issued last fall in a case involving a pregnant immigrant teenagerin federal custody.

But there is more.

Much more.

Lifenews just published text from a 2017 speech in which Kavanaugh slammed Roe V Wade, saying it was a “Freewheeling Judicial Creation of Unenumerated Rights”:

The SCOTUS nominee called Roe a “freewheeling judicial creation of unenumerated rights that were not rooted in the nation’s history and tradition.”

Here’s the text of the speech in context:

In later cases, Rehnquist reiterated his view that unenumerated rights could be recognized by the courts only if the asserted right was rooted in the nation’s history and tradition. The 1997 case of Washington v. Glucksberg involved an asserted right to assisted suicide. For a five-to-four majority this time, Rehnquist wrote the opinion for the Court saying that the unenumerated rights and liberties protected by the due process clause are those rights that are deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition. And he rejected the claim that assisted suicide qualified as such a fundamental right.

Of course, even a first-year law student could tell you that the Glucksberg approach to unenumerated rights was not consistent with the approach of the abortion cases such as Roe v. Wade in 1973—as well as the 1992 decision reaffirming Roe, known as Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

What to make of that? In this context, it is fair to say that Justice Rehnquist was not successful in convincing a majority of the justices in the context of abortion either in Roe itself or in the later cases such as Casey, in the latter case perhaps because of stare decisis. But he was successful in stemming the general tide of freewheeling judicial creation of unenumerated rights that were not rooted in the nation’s history and tradition. The Glucksberg case stands to this day as an important precedent, limiting the Court’s role in the realm of social policy and helping to ensure that the Court operates more as a court of law and less as an institution of social policy.

Will we see an overturning of Roe V Wade in our lifetime?

If Kavanaugh is confirmed it would seem to be a step in that direction.

But it is doubtful that confirmation will happen without a serious fight from the left.

Article posted with permission from Dean Garrison

Today’s Ann Coulter Letter: “Kavanaugh Threatens the Left’s Right to Cheat”


Commentary by Ann Coulter

The fact that the media responded to the nomination of a Supreme Court justice by obsessively covering Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Russia and NATO proves that Trump has checkmated them with Brett Kavanaugh.

Liberals know they can’t stop Kavanaugh’s confirmation, so they’d just as soon not hear any news about it at all. Please cheer us up with stories about Paul Manafort’s solitary confinement!

But there was one very peculiar reaction to the nomination. The nut wing of the Democratic Party instantly denounced Kavanaugh by claiming that his elevation to the high court would threaten all sorts of “rights.”

Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., tweeted: “Our next justice should be a champion for protecting & advancing rights, not rolling them back — but Kavanaugh has a long history of demonstrating hostility toward defending the rights of everyday Americans.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., tweeted: “If Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed to the Supreme Court it will have a profoundly negative effect on workers’ rights, women’s rights and voting rights for decades to come. We must do everything we can to stop this nomination.”

If only these guys could get themselves elected to some sort of legislative body, they could pass laws protecting these rights! Wait, I’m sorry. These are elected United States senators. Of all people, why are they carrying on about “rights”? If senators can’t protect these alleged “rights,” it can only be because most Americans do not agree that they should be “rights.”

That’s exactly why the left is so hysterical about the Supreme Court. They run to the courts to win their most unpopular policy ideas, gift-wrapped and handed to them as “constitutional rights.

What liberals call “rightsare legislative proposals that they can’t pass through normal democratic processes — at least outside of the states they’ve already flipped with immigration, like California.

Realizing how widely reviled their ideas are, several decades ago the left figured out a procedural scam to give them whatever they wanted without ever having to pass a law. Hey! You can’t review a Supreme Court decision!

Instead of persuading a majority of their fellow citizens, they’d need to persuade only five justices to invent any rights they pleased. They didn’t have to ask twice. Apparently, justices find it much funner to be all-powerful despots than boring technocrats interpreting written law.

Soon the court was creating “rights” promoting all the left’s favorite causes — abortion, criminals, busing, pornography, stamping out religion, forcing military academies to admit girls and so on.

There was nothing America could do about it.

OK, liberals, you cheated and got all your demented policy ideas declared “constitutional rights.” But it’s very strange having elected legislators act as if they are helpless serfs, with no capacity to protect “rights.”

It’s stranger still for politicians to pretend that these putative “rights” are supported by a majority of Americans. By definition, the majority does not support them. Otherwise, they’d already be protected by law and not by Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s latest newsletter.

On MSNBC, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said people storming into the streets and making their voices heard about Kavanaugh is “the remarkable part about a democracy.

Actually, that isn’t democracy at all. Liberals don’t do well at democracy. Why don’t politicians run for office promising to ban the death penalty, spring criminals from prison or enshrine late-term abortion? Hmmm … I wonder why those “I (heart) partial-birth abortion!” T-shirts aren’t selling?

Unless the Constitution forbids it — and there are very few things proscribed by the Constitution — democracy entails persuading a majority of your fellow Americans or state citizens to support something, and then either putting it on the ballot or electing representatives who will write it into law — perhaps even a constitutional amendment.

Otherwise, these “rights” whereof you speak are no more real than the Beastie Boys’ assertion of THE RIGHT TO PARTEEEEEEEE!

Gay marriage, for example, was foisted on the country not through ballot initiatives, persuasion, public acceptance, lobbying or politicians winning elections by promising to legalize it. No, what happened was, in 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court suddenly discovered a right to gay marriage lurking in the state’s 223-year-old Constitution — written by the very religious John Adams. (Surprise!) After that, the people rose up and banned gay marriage in state after state, even in liberal bastions like Oregon and California. The year after the Massachusetts court’s remarkable discovery, gay marriage lost in all 11 states where it was on the ballot. Everywhere gay marriage was submitted to a popular vote, it lost. (Only one state’s voters briefly seemed to approve of gay marriage — Arizona, in 2006 — but that was evidently a problem with the wording of the initiative, because two years later, the voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional ban on gay marriage.)

Inasmuch as allowing people to vote resulted in a resounding “NO!” on gay marriage, liberals ran back to the courts. Still, the public rebelled. The year after the Iowa Supreme Court concocted a right to gay marriage, voters recalled three of the court’s seven justices.

A handful of blue state legislatures passed gay marriage laws, but even in the Soviet Republic of New York, a gay marriage bill failed in 2009.

And then the U.S. Supreme Court decided that was quite enough democracy on the question of gay marriage! It turned out that — just like the Massachusetts Constitution — a gay marriage clause had been hiding in our Constitution all along!

Conservatives could never dream of victories like this from the judiciary. Even nine Antonin Scalias on the Supreme Court are never going to discover a “constitutional right” to a border wall, mass deportations, a flat tax, publicly funded churches and gun ranges, the “right” to smoke or to consume 24-ounce sugary sodas.

These are “constitutional rights” every bit as much as the alleged “constitutional rights” to abortion, pornography, gay marriage, transgender bathrooms, the exclusionary rule and on and on and on.

The only rights conservatives ever seek under the Constitution are the ones that are written in black and white, such as the freedom of speech and the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Mostly, we sit trembling, waiting to see what new nonexistent rights the court will impose on us, contravening everything we believe.

So when you hear liberals carrying on about all the “rights” threatened by Kavanaugh, remember that by “rights,” they mean “policy ideas so unpopular that we can’t pass a law creating such rights.

How Do You Choose a Supreme Court Nominee? Ask Hamilton


Posted by Jake MacAulay

Like every other branch of American Government, the Supreme Court is not without its heroes and zeros. However, the Central Judiciary was a desperately needed piece added to the Constitution in Article Three after a season of no Federal judiciary during the time of the Articles of Confederation, Americas first Constitution.

Founding Father Alexander Hamilton postulated: “[A] 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.

This past Sunday President Trump said that he was “close to making a decision” about who he would nominate to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy tweeting:

Looking forward to announcing my final decision on the United States Supreme Court Justice at 9:00pmE tomorrow night at the @WhiteHouse. An exceptional person will be chosen!

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1016071245568380934

So the question is if the president means an exceptional personis a constitutional person.

The dilemma is that most Americans assume rulings and decisions handed down in cases that come before American courts are based on, and consistent with, constitutional law, that is to say real law.

But, regrettably, this is not true.

In American Courtrooms today, court rulings are not based on real law.  Rather, they are based on an imitation system, which is commonly called case law” or the case law method”.

This phony case lawmethod of understanding what law is and where law comes from is taught in virtually every law school in America today.

Let me briefly explain.

Prior to the 1880s, those who desired to practice law studied under experienced attorneys.  Their apprenticeship included both the study of recognized legal scholars such as Blackstone, Montesqieue and Locke, as well as practical experience in writing briefs and memorandums and observing their masters in actual practice before the bar.

Undergirding that system was the universal understanding that law, like truth, is a fixed and certain thing because it is a part of Gods Creation, and that the principles and precepts of law are found in Gods Word and in His Creative Order.

But the case lawsystem replaces the wisdom of Gods Creative Order with the foolishness of mens evolutionary imaginings.

Law students, who, of course, go on to become lawyers and judges and congressmen, are taught that the source of law is the mind of a judge, which is then changed by the opinion of another judge and then, wellyou can tune in tomorrow to see what the law might be then

I pray that the power the President has to appoint is used to select a Justice who can hear the spirit of founding fathers like Hamilton and see it as their duty to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.

Schedule an event or learn more about your Constitution with Jake MacAulay and the Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


By the Book

In an all-out panic over the Kavanaugh pick, Democrats resort to an old passage from their worn-out handbook of fake outrage and warnings of impending doom.

Democrats Hate Kavanaugh

Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.

To see more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here.

A.F.Branco’s New Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been seen all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, and even the great El Rushbo.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


Crying Wolf, Again

Trump choosing Kavanaugh for Supreme court justice would undermine the Democrat’s plan to corrupt the highest court with anti-constitutionalist judges.

Kavanaugh SCOTUS

Watch: Students React To Trump’s SCOTUS Pick … Before He Actually Made One



While the rest of us are speculating about Trump’s SCOTUS pick, these snowflakes are offended by “the guy he picked”.If you’re wondering why we’ve long since stopped caring when the Leftists call us sexist-racist-homophobes blah-blah-blah… have a look at this clip. And remember. This was filmed BEFORE Trump made his second SCOTUS decision. That is to say, the pick which is expected to be announced tonight.

Enjoy the insanity:

Did you catch the ‘White Supremacist Legion of Doom’ comment? These folks are wearing their opinions loud and proud, facts be damned.

The setup was fantastic.

It was basically this formula: With Justice Kennedy stepping down… vacancy… how did you feel about his decision?

An informed voter wouldn’t have taken the bait. Or at most, they’d comment about the ‘short list’. Did they take the wait-and-see approach?

Of course not. They went straight to the outrage. Most, if not all invoked the word racist in there somewhere — without even knowing whether the pick was a man or a woman.

One guy said he was talking about the pick a ‘couple of days ago with his dad’ who didn’t like the pick either.

When asked about what qualities a judge should have, one young woman said ‘liberal’. When the interviewer pointed out that Obama had appointed two judges, she stood there open-mouthed.

Someone was talking about all the news sources that were upset about the disastrous pick he made, and someone else was going on about how Social media was in an uproar over it.

But CNN wants us to LOWER the voting age because these (as Rush calls them) ‘skulls full of mush’ are America’s future?

Behold ‘America’s Future’. That thought alone might be enough to make a praying man out of an Athiest.

If any single art piece could capture the wave that carried DJT to the White House, this is the one…

Drain the Swamp available through the ClashDaily Store.

“I love how Trump looks confident. He’s not weepy or angry. He’s winning and doing exactly what he promised, namely, Making America Great Again. I also really enjoyed painting Comey, Obama, Hillary, Pelosi, Debbie and Anderson Cooper getting sucked down the drain. This is one of the funniest paintings I have ever painted. I couldn’t be happier and I hope these prints adorn the walls of every Trump supporter. I’m so glad Brandon Vallorani commissioned me to paint this epic, hilarious, and patriotic masterpiece.” — Doug Giles

Where can you see this fine — and hilarious — portrait?

No, you don’t have to wait until this beauty is hung in the Smithsonian. You can get your own copy of Drain the Swamp right here.

Getting Caught Up with A.F. Branco Politically INCORRECT Cartoons


It’s Our Time

Instead of Time Magazine creating the phony scenario of a crying little girl looking up at Trump on the cover, a Democrat donkey would have been a much better fit.
Trump Time Cover

Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.

To see more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here.

A.F.Branco’s New Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been seen all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, and even the great El Rushbo.

Mad Max

The face of the Democrat party Maxine Waters suggest the way to resist is to incite mob violence against Trump and his supporters.
Maxine Waters Inciting Mob Violence

Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 92018.

Beat Down

SCOTUS delivered some heavy blows against tyranny this past week with its rulings. That may explain why the Democrat’s heads are explaining.
2018 SCOTUS Rulings

Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco.

Human Shield

Democrats are exploiting children in their war against America, trying to force us to open our borders to ultimately collapse the country.
Democrats Exploit Border Kids

Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.

Today’s TWO Politically INCORRECT Cartoons by A.F. Branco


Flak News

President Trump’s SCOTUS pick is under attack by the left before it is even revealed who it is.
SCOTUS Pick Attacked

Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.

To see more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here.

A.F.Branco’s New Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been seen all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, and even the great El Rushbo.

Sea Changes

The “Big Blue Wave’ May turn out to be nothing more than a ripple when compared to what’s coming in right behind it. Socialist Wave dwarfed by a GOP wave?
Political Waves 2018

Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.

Travel Ban Back in Place, SCOTUS Halts Lower Court Injunctions


Reported by Ian Mason | 4 Dec 2017 | Washington, DC

URL of the original posting site: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/12/04/travel-ban-back-place-scotus-halts-lower-court-injunction/?

President Donald Trump’s travel ban executive order is once again to largely go back into effect after the Supreme Court of the United States stayed two lower courts’ injunctions Monday.

The orders come in response to filings by the Department of Justice Friday, asking the Supreme Court to stay the preliminary injunctions in the two main travel ban cases, Hawaii v. Trump in the Ninth Circuit and International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump in the Fourth Circuit. These cases have been proceeding up and down the federal court system for months.

The district courts, especially that of Barack Obama-appointed District of Hawaii Judge Derrick Watson, have repeatedly ruled that the bans must be blocked from going into effect or must, in the interim, be interpreted in such a way as to have little effect on the list of mostly Muslim majority countries from which travel is prohibited under the orders.

The petitions in the two cases were made to Justice Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts respectively. Only Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor declined to sign on to the orders staying the Fourth and Ninth Circuits.

“This a substantial victory for the safety and security of the American people,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in statement after the orders were announced.

He continued:

We are pleased to have defended this order and heartened that a clear majority Supreme Court has allowed the President’s lawful proclamation protecting our country’s national security to go into full effect.  The Constitution gives the President the responsibility and power to protect this country from all threats foreign and domestic, and this order remains vital to accomplishing those goals.

With the order, the third – permanent – version of the travel ban, promulgated in September after an interagency review of the dangers posed by the different countries included, will go back into effect while the case on the merits works its way through the court system. The Supreme Court had dismissed the earlier lawsuits based on the earlier, temporary versions of the ban because they had expired.

The government, represented by Solicitor General Noel Francisco, asked the justices to re-instate the ban based in part on the findings of the review, which provided new security-based justifications for the inclusion of Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen and, he argues, turns the likelihood of success against the plaintiffs.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoons


Keep Her In!

URL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/06/27/keep-her-in/#EbX6dkqx0u1BHBM8.99

The GOP plan to use Pelosi against the Democrats in the 2018 midterm election.

Political Cartoon by Antonio F. Branco ©2017.

More A.F. Branco Cartoons at Net Right Daily.

A.F.Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!


Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoons from TOWNHALL.COM

Supreme Court to Review Case of a Baker Told He Must Bake Gay Wedding Cake


Reported by  Ryan T. Anderson / / June 26, 2017 /

URL of the original posting site: http://dailysignal.com/2017/06/26/supreme-court-review-case-baker-fined-not-baking-gay-wedding-cake/

A lower court ruling had forced Jack Phillips to choose between obeying the government and following his religious beliefs. (Photo: iStock Photos)

Today was a good day for religious freedom at the Supreme Court. In a 7-2 decision, the court upheld religious liberty by saying that a state cannot exclude a church from a public program just because it’s a church. That was the big case at the court.

In a less-noted move, the court also agreed to review (“granted cert” in the legal jargon) a case about religious liberty, free speech, and government coercion to support gay marriage. The case involves Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, and whether he must create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, even if doing so violates his beliefs. 

The case goes back to 2012, when a same-sex couple received a marriage license in Massachusetts and asked Phillips to bake a cake for a reception back home in Colorado, a state that in 2006 constitutionally defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Phillips declined to create a wedding cake, citing his faith: “I don’t feel like I should participate in their wedding, and when I do a cake, I feel like I am participating in the ceremony or the event or the celebration that the cake is for,” he said.

The couple later obtained a wedding cake with rainbow-colored filling (illustrating the expressive nature of event cake-baking) from another bakery.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint against Masterpiece Cakeshop with the state, alleging violations of Colorado’s public accommodation law.

Administrative Law Judge Robert N. Spencer ruled against the bakery on Dec. 6, 2013, concluding that Phillips violated the law by declining service to the couple “because of their sexual orientation.”

Phillips objected to this characterization and responded that he would happily sell the couple his baked goods for any number of occasions, but creating a wedding cake would force him to express something that he does not believe, thereby violating his freedom to run his business in accordance with his faith.

Phillips is right. As Sherif Girgis and I explain in our new book from Oxford University Press, “Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination,” acting on the belief that marriage is the union of husband and wife does not in itself entail “discriminating” on the basis of sexual orientation. Indeed, part of the problem is that liberals are simply calling anything they disagree with “discrimination.”

This overbroad definition of “discrimination” is part of what creates the problems for the free exercise of religion and free speech. And here a pattern holds: Legally coercing professionals serves no serious need, but works serious harms.

Conservative wedding providers are few and dwindling due to market pressures—and most important, they don’t refuse to serve LGBT patrons. In case after case, bakers have had no problem designing cakes for gay customers for every other occasion. It’s just that an exceedingly small number can’t in good conscience use their talents to help celebrate same-sex weddings by baking a cake topped with two grooms or two brides—or, as in this case, with rainbow filling.

Coercing these cultural dissidents has vanishingly small effects on the supply of products for any given couple, but it impinges seriously on particular vendors’ freedoms of speech, conscience, and religion. If any harm remains in leaving these wedding professionals free, it is only the tension we all face in living with people who disagree with us on the most personal matters.

As Girgis and I explain in our new book, America is in a time of transition. The Supreme Court has redefined marriage, and beliefs about human sexuality are changing. Now, the Supreme Court has the chance to protect the right to dissent and the civil liberties of those who speak and act in accord with what Americans had always previously believed about marriage—that it is the union of husband and wife.

Such a ruling would help achieve civil peace amid disagreement. It would protect pluralism and the rights of all Americans, regardless of what faith they may practice.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Ryan T. Anderson/

Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., is the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation, where he researches and writes about marriage, bioethics, religious liberty and political philosophy. Anderson is the author of several books and his research has been cited by two U.S. Supreme Court justices in two separate cases. Read his Heritage research.

Trump’s Travel Ban Reinstated by Supreme Court


Today, the Trump administration reached a partial victory.  The United States Supreme Court announced there will be a review of the lower court injunctions which are blocking the enforcement of President Trump’s executive order to temporarily stop travel from six Islamic countries.

This means the Court is allowing the ban to go into effect.

Any foreign nationals who lack any “bona fide relationship with any person or entity in the United States,” will be denied entry if they are from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

The court, in a per curiam opinion, left the travel ban against citizens of these six Islamic countries on hold as applied to non-citizens with relationships with persons or entities in the United States:

We now turn to the preliminary injunctions barring enforcement of the §2(c) entry suspension. We grant the Government’s applications to stay the injunctions, to the extent the injunctions prevent enforcement of §2(c) with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. We leave the injunctions entered by the lower courts in place with respect to respondents and those similarly situated, as specified in this opinion.

Such formal relationships include: students accepted to US universities and an employee who has accepted a job with a company in the US.

According to Breitbart: The Court wrote that the lower court injunctions, even accepting the First Amendment arguments against the order as likely to succeed, went too far

[T]he injunctions reach much further than that: They also bar enforcement of §2(c) against foreign nationals abroad who have no connection to the United States at all. The equities relied on by the lower courts do not balance the same way in that context. Denying entry to such a foreign national does not burden any American party by reason of that party’s relationship with the foreign national.

The opinion also announced the Court will consolidate the cases from the U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Ninth and Fourth circuit, Trump v. Hawaii and Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, respectively. Both cases found the executive unenforceable as a likely violation of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment Establishment Clause because the lower courts held it was motivated by an attempt to disfavor Islam.

The Court had requested additional briefing from the parties in both cases earlier this month, signalling they would hear arguments on the case despite the Court going out of its regular term this week. Arguments are expected to be heard when the Court reconvenes in October. Attorney from the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center are expected to face off against a government team now led by acting Solicitor General Jeffery Wall.

The government had argued in the new briefing that the injunctions had delayed the start date for the 90-day order. This would allow the ban… to remain valid despite having been issued in March.

A dissent from the per curiam decision, written by Justice Clarence Thomas and joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, would have gone further and stayed the injunctions in their entirety, allowing the travel ban to go fully into effect immediately.

Will the Trump admin see a full victory in October? Time will tell, but for now we need to be thankful for this small victory.

America just took one step towards the safety of its citizens.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


Hypnotic

URL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/06/20/hypnotic-media/#ydcqktuSlcVq4v2E.99

Democrats and the media, engage the Joseph Goebbels tactic of repeat a lie often enough people will believe it.

Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.

More A.F. Branco Cartoons at Net Right Daily.

A.F.Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!


TODAY’S POLITICALLY INCORRECT CARTOONS FROM TOWNHALL.COM

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoons


Ruthless

URL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/06/05/notorious-ruth-ginsburg/#hUucmemQRFsGBBrB.99

Since Trump is being held to his campaign rhetoric, should Ruth Ginsburg be held to hers and recuse herself in the Travel Oder case?

Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.

To see more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here.

A.F.Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!


Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


waving flagClosing Argument

Tuesday November 8, 2016 – Election Day

The “Closing Argument” for Donald Trump is – Hillary’s choices for SCOTUS Justices would be a disaster for our Constitutional rights.

Election 2016 Closing Argument / Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2016.

More A.F. Branco Cartoons at Net Right Daily.

A.F. Branco 2017 Calendar <—- Order Here!

fight Picture1 get-out-the-vote absurdities evil-copy freedom-is-not-free-vote

This Is One Of The Biggest Pending SCOTUS Cases You Haven’t Heard Of


waving flagAuthored by Photo of Kevin Daley Kevin Daley, Legal Affairs Reporter / 08/23/2016

URL of the original posting site: http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/23/this-is-one-of-the-biggest-pending-scotus-case-you-havent-heard-of/

When Travis Beckles surrendered his sawed-off shotgun to a Miami detective, he almost certainly didn’t expect to instigate a chain of events that could lead to major changes in the way federal agencies operate.

When Beckles was taken into police custody in 2007, his girlfriend asked authorities to remove his gun from her residence; he directed officers to the weapon, concealed under his girlfriend’s mattress. He was later charged and convicted of one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm — Beckles had two prior felony drug convictions. Given these two convictions, the court determined that Beckles was a career offender. The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (USSG), the set of rules which establish uniform sentencing practices across federal courts, instructed that his sentence should therefore be enhanced.

The court also ruled that Beckles’ possession of the shotgun constituted a “crime of violence,” which, per the USSG, also requires a sentence enhancement. The court ultimately sentenced Beckles to a 30-year prison term.

Beckles brought an appeal, Beckles v. U.S., in which he argued that his sentence was wrongly enhanced. He asserts that mere possession of a weapon does not constitute a “crime of violence,” and that his sentence enhancement should therefore be vacated. His appeal was rejected by the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear his case in late June.

His argument was bolstered when the Supreme Court issued it’s ruling last year in Johnson v. U.S. In Johnson the Court found that the phrase “violent felony” — the functional equivalent of the phrase “crime of violence” — as it appears in the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) was unconstitutionally vague. A seven justice majority led by the late Justice Antonin Scalia reasoned by a due process analysis that the phrase, referred to as the “residual clause,” is poorly defined and leads to arbitrary and capricious application, in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

Beckles makes essentially the same argument as Johnson, arguing that the phrase “crime of violence” in the USSG is as vague as the residual clause of the ACCA, and should therefore be struck down (which, by extension, would vacate Beckles’ additional penalties.) His argument could have major consequences for the way federal agencies operate.

Strictly speaking, the USSG does not define possession of a sawed-off shotgun as a “crime of violence.” Instead, commentaries on the guidelines provided by the United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) advise that possessing such a weapon should be considered a “crime of violence.” The government argues that those commentaries are subject to Auer deference, and that the Supreme Court must respect their interpretation of the law.

Auer deference is a legal doctrine which requires a court to defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own rules and regulations as long as its interpretation is not “erroneous” or “inconsistent with the regulation.” In Beckles, the government argues that the USSC commentaries are simply the agency’s interpretation of its own regulation (being the guidelines), and that the Court must defer to the USSC.

The Auer doctrine looms large in the administrative law scene. The doctrine is regularly invoked by agencies to protect their various activities. The U.S. Department of Labor invoked Auer deference when it announced that mortgage-loan officers were entitled to overtime. The Environmental Protection Agency did the same in requiring companies to obtain permits for water runoff from ditches running parallel to logging roads. It is difficult to overstate how much federal activity is protected by the Auer doctrine.

The Beckles case presents the Supreme Court the opportunity to revisit the Auer doctrine. Though it’s entirely possible the justices may sidestep the issue, opponents of Auer deference have gradually emerged on the high court in recent years. Scalia, the author of the Auer doctrine and a champion of judicial deference, made a thorough case for overturning the practice in 2013 in Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center. Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are also likely to share Scalia’s sympathies. (RELATED: Exclusive: Puerto Rico Is Full Of ‘Open Dumps’ Ripe For Spreading Zika, And EPA’s Ignoring Them)

Furthermore, as Andrew Hessick notes in the Yale Journal on Regulations, the case presents exactly the fact posture critics of agency deference often complain about. “The Commission issued a vague guideline through notice and comment and then set its meaning through an interpretation not subject to those procedures,” Hessick writes. “Further, although they must be the product of notice and comment, the sentencing guidelines are not subject to judicial review when they are promulgated.”

In other words, the fact pattern presented in this case is exactly the sort of thing critics of Auer deference complain about. Should the Supreme Court feel so bold, Travis Beckles’ sawed-off shotgun might end up dealing a double-barrel blast to federal agency power.

stupidity or a liar Never-Hillary-Egl-sm fight Picture1 true battle In God We Trust freedom combo 2

LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report


waving flagWednesday, February 24, 2016

For pro-life news updated throughout the day, visit LifeNews.com.

Abortion Clinics Closing at Record Pace as More Babies Saved From Abortions
A new report paints a hopeful picture for unborn babies in America. Abortion clinics are closing at a record pace across the country as they fail to meet new health and safety requirements and the demand for their business drops, according to a Bloomberg analysis.

Donald Trump Wants “Pro-Life, Conservative” Supreme Court Judges, Says Scalia’s a Model
In an interview today with evangelical Pat Robertson, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump answered a question abotu the kind of judges he would want on the Supreme Court. Trump briefly said he wanted “pro-life conservatives” on the nation’s highest court and said recently-deceased pro-life Justice Antonin Scalia is his model.

Click to Read at LifeNews.com: http://www.lifenews.com/2016/02/24/donald-trump-wants-pro-life-conservative-supreme-court-judges-says-scalias-a-model/

Cecile Richards: “I Appreciate Donald Trump’s Kind Words About Planned Parenthood”
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has been taking criticism from pro-life voters for his repeated claims that the Planned Parenthood abortion business does “good work” and “wonderful things.” Today the head of the abortion company took notice and said she appreciates Trump’s kind words about it.

Click to Read at LifeNews.com: http://www.lifenews.com/2016/02/24/cecile-richards-i-appreciate-donald-trumps-kind-words-about-planned-parenthood/

Lands’ End Apologizes for Promoting Abortion Activist Gloria Steinem
 The Land’s End clothing company has issued an apology for promoting abortion activists Gloria Steinem in a new interview spread featured in the latest version of its catalog.

Click to Read at LifeNews.com: http://www.lifenews.com/2016/02/24/lands-end-apologizes-for-promoting-abortion-activist-gloria-steinem/

Lands’ End Scrubs Its Web Site to Hide Donations to Abortion Activist Gloria Steinem
 Just a few hours after LifeNews posted a story about Lands’ End honoring pro-abortion feminist Gloria Steinem and collecting donations for her organization, a flood of criticism from pro-lifers prompted the clothing company to removed all references to Steinem from its website.

Click to Read at LifeNews.com: http://www.lifenews.com/2016/02/24/lands-end-scrubs-its-web-site-to-hide-donations-to-abortion-activist-gloria-steinem/

Abortionist Who Did 1,200 Abortions Explains Abortion Methods and Procedures Used to Kill Babies
 A ground-breaking new video features a former abortionist who is now pro-life who explains the exact abortion methods and procedures abortion practitioners use every day to kill unborn babies. The non-graphic educational video features Dr. Anthony Levatino, a former abortionist, demonstrating and talking viewers through a D&E abortion.

Click to Read at LifeNews.com: http://www.lifenews.com/2016/02/24/abortionist-who-did-1200-abortions-explains-abortion-methods-and-procedures-used-to-kill-babies/

Appeals Court Allows Louisiana Law to take Effect That May Close Three Out of Four Abortion Clinics
 In a victory for pro-life advocates in Louisiana, a federal appeals court has overturned a block a federal judge put in place to stop a new law from taking effect that may close three of the four abortion clinics operating in the Bayou State.

Click to Read at LifeNews.com: http://www.lifenews.com/2016/02/24/appeals-court-allows-louisiana-law-to-take-effect-that-may-close-three-out-of-four-abortion-clinics/

Colorado Once Again Defeats Bill to Make It The 5th State Legalizing Assisted Suicide
For the second time in two years, the Colorado legislature has killed a bill that would have made it the 5th state to legalize assisted suicides, after Oregon, Washington, Vermont and California.

Click to Read at LifeNews.com: http://www.lifenews.com/2016/02/24/colorado-once-again-defeats-bill-to-make-it-5th-state-legalizing-assisted-suicide/

TBS’s Samantha Bee Trashes Ted Cruz: “He Once Killed an Abortion Doctor Through Prayer”
http://www.lifenews.com/2016/02/24/tbss-samantha-bee-trashes-ted-cruz-he-once-killed-an-abortion-doctor-through-prayer/

Man Behind the Planned Parenthood Videos Shares How He Once Thought His Cover Was Blown
http://www.lifenews.com/2016/02/24/man-behind-the-planned-parenthood-videos-shares-how-he-once-thought-his-cover-was-blown/

Man Gets 10 Years for Killing His Unborn Baby, Tricking His Girlfriend Into Taking the Abortion Pill
http://www.lifenews.com/2016/02/24/man-gets-10-years-for-killing-his-unborn-baby-tricking-his-girlfriend-into-taking-the-abortion-pill/

Woman Complains Running Abortion Clinic is Hard: “We Want to be Treated Like Other Businesses”
http://www.lifenews.com/2016/02/24/woman-complains-running-abortion-clinic-is-hard-we-want-to-be-treated-like-other-businesses/

New Taxpayer-Funded App Pushes Birth Control and Sex Education on Teenagers
http://www.lifenews.com/2016/02/24/new-taxpayer-funded-app-pushes-birth-control-and-sex-education-on-teenagers/

If #BlackLivesMatter Remember Planned Parenthood’s the Leading Killer of Unarmed Black People
http://www.lifenews.com/2016/02/24/if-blacklivesmatter-remember-planned-parenthoods-the-leading-killer-of-unarmed-black-people/

I Found Peace After My Baby Miscarried When I Realized Sophie Was God’s Child Not Mine
http://www.lifenews.com/2016/02/24/i-found-peace-after-my-baby-miscarried-when-i-realized-sophie-was-gods-child-not-mine/

Oklahoma Supreme Court Upholds Pro-Life Law Putting Limits on Dangerous Abortion Pill
http://www.lifenews.com/2016/02/24/oklahoma-supreme-court-upholds-pro-life-law-putting-limits-on-dangerous-abortion-pill/

Daily Pro-Life News Report
Twice-Weekly Pro-Life
News Report
Receive a free daily email report from LifeNews.com with the latest pro-life news stories on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Sign up here.
Receive a free twice-weekly email report with the latest pro-life news headlines on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Sign up here.

Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com.
Copyright 2003-2015 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved.

I AM A PERSON with Poem In God We Trust freedom combo 2

 

9 Zingers From the Sharp Mind of Justice Antonin Scalia


waving flagPosted by Ken McIntyre / / February 13, 2016

<!– Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia at a Heritage Foundation event in October 2015. (Photo: Jeff Malet for The Daily Signal) –>

“A law can be both economic folly and constitutional,” Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, pictured here at a Heritage Foundation event in October 2015, once said.

(Photo: Jeff Malet for The Daily Signal)

Justice Antonin Scalia, who died Saturday during his 29th year on the Supreme Court, was known for a sharp wit as well as a brilliant legal mind, and he expressed both with his tongue as well as his pen.

Here is just a sample:

1. “What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you’d like it to mean?” (Remarks at Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars,  Washington, D.C., 2005.)

2. “There is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all.” (Majority opinion, Arizona v. Hicks, 1987.)

3. “God assumed from the beginning that the wise of the world would view Christians as fools … and he has not been disappointed. … If I have brought any message today, it is this: Have the courage to have your wisdom regarded as stupidity. Be fools for Christ. And have the courage to suffer the contempt of the sophisticated world.” (Speech at Living the Catholic Faith conference, 2012.)

4. “If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again. You think the death penalty is a good idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens and enact it. That’s flexibility.” (Speech, Wilson Center,  2005.)

5. “The purpose of the Federalist Society was to bring together young people who had this skepticism about what they were being taught and to let them know that there were others who shared this skepticism.” (Remarks, Federalist Society’s 20th anniversary gala, 2002.)

6. “A law can be both economic folly and constitutional.” (Concurring opinion, CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp of America, 1987.)

7. “If we’re picking people to draw out of their own conscience and experience a ‘new’ Constitution, we should not look principally for good lawyers. We should look to people who agree with us. When we are in that mode, you realize we have rendered the Constitution useless.” (Speech, Wilson Center, 2005.)

8. “It is one of the unhappy incidents of the federal system that a self-righteous Supreme Court, acting on its members’ personal view of what would make a ‘more perfect Union’ (a criterion only slightly more restrictive than a ‘more perfect world’) can impose its own favored social and economic dispositions nationwide.” (Dissent, United States v. Virginia, 1996.)

9. “Bear in mind that brains and learning, like muscle and physical skill, are articles of commerce. They are bought and sold. You can hire them by the year or by the hour. The only thing in the world not for sale is character.” (Commencement address, College of William and Mary, 1996.)

Lyndsey Fifield contributed to this report. It has been modified to substitute one quotation and specify the context for each.

burke cause of death Die Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Cartoon: Problems on the Playground


waving flagDrawn and Posted by Glenn Foden / / February 19, 2016

DSig-Feb 18-SCOTUS-Recovered

Kim Holmes wrote earlier this week on the Supreme Court.

The stakes are high—very high. Finding a replacement for deceased Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia will be a battle royale. But why should one government official’s position be so existentially important? Yes, control of the Supreme Court hangs in the balance, but that raises the question as to why the Court itself is so powerful. Could it be that the answer to that question tells us something about our increasing inability to govern ourselves as a free people?

Let’s face it. Ever since at least the 1960s (and frankly even before) we have increasingly allowed the Supreme Court to decide controversial issues we have been unwilling to solve legislatively.

From civil rights to abortion to the issue of gay marriage, the high court has ruled on key issues well outside the legislative process. New constitutional rights were created out of whole cloth. If abortion couldn’t be legalized at the ballot box, or if gay marriage could not be made lawful by Congress or the states, a majority of the Supreme Court—a mere five people—would step in and do it for us. Using the power of judicial review, a new policy would be imposed simply by redefining it as a constitutional right.

The practice of judicial fiat is so commonplace we seldom realize how radical it is. We are, quite simply, losing our sovereign power to govern ourselves. We have allowed the courts in general but the Supreme Court in particular to become too powerful.Picture13

We are, quite simply, losing our sovereign power to govern ourselves.

No single government official outside the president should be so important that his or her replacement could shift the course and destiny of the nation. And yet that is precisely the case with finding a replacement for Scalia. No matter which way it goes, the next Supreme Court justice will decide the balance of power of an institution that has arguably become more powerful than the Congress and as powerful (at least) as the presidency.

This was not what the Founders intended. Sure, we live in the modern age where a lot of water has flowed under the bridge of judicial review, but that’s precisely the problem. We have allowed those waters over time to become a flood, swamping in some cases the high court’s main purposes of safeguarding our existing rights and preserving the rule of law.

The irony should not be lost on us that it has been primarily liberal activists who have tried to hijack the court to get by judicial fiat what they could not obtain legislatively. For all their professed love of “democracy”—rule by the people—they have resorted to tactics that actually overturn laws passed legitimately by democratic legislatures.SCOTUS GIANT

The very insularity that the Founders had intended to protect the high court from the political passions of the times now serves those passions outright. It is not uncommon for Supreme Court justices to decide cases based on what they think—perhaps “divine” is a better word—the people or legislators really want. Perhaps based on opinion polls, for example, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy may have thought he was merely delivering what the people wanted when he decided in favor of gay marriage. But in doing so, he was overturning actual democratic votes that over the past ten years showed a 60.93-percent to 39.07-percent majority against gay marriage when the issue had been placed on the ballot.

Should not actual votes count more than opinion polls?

As I explain in my forthcoming book,The Closing of the Liberal Mind”:

Ultimately judicial activism is harmful not only to constitutional government but to democratic self-governance. When judges try to ram through their policy preferences by contorting texts, abusing precedents, and making up new constitutional rights, they undermine the credibility of both the Constitution and democracy.

That is why, now more than ever, the next Supreme Court justice must be someone who respects not only the original intent of the Constitution—what Scalia called “originalism”—but the need to restrict the policy activist role played by the court. Nothing less is at stake than our ability to govern ourselves as a free people.

Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Three Reasons Not to Trust Republicans’ Failure Theater on Justice Scalia Replacement


waving flagby Ben Shapiro, 16 Feb 2016

In March 2010, McConnell and then-House Speaker John Boehner wrote an op-ed about Obamacare, stating, “Taxpayers can expect Republicans to stand up for them and do whatever is necessary to prevent Democrats from forcing such an unpopular, unaffordable bill through Congress.” Of course, once that bill was passed and Republicans gained power, both Boehner and McConnell fully funded it.

In October 2014, Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus told Breitbart News:

“We will do everything we can to make sure [executive amnesty] doesn’t happen – defunding, going to court, injunction, you name it. It’s wrong. It’s illegal. And for so many reasons, and just the basic fabric of the country, we can’t allow it to happen, and we won’t let it happen.”Bull

At the same time, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) said, “Because we don’t have the Senate, we don’t have the power of the purse. We’d like to exercise that more effectively, and if we can get the Senate, we can do that.” That, of course, did not happen. The Republicans, instead, fully funded Obama’s executive amnesty last year.no more rinos

In November 2015, in the aftermath of release of undercover videos showing Planned Parenthood executives bargaining over the sale of baby body parts, McConnell stated, “We’re confident that the Obamacare repeal bill … will contain a defund of Planned Parenthood.” When push came to shove, of course, McConnell refused to include a Planned Parenthood funding cut in a spending bill, stating it would be “an exercise in futility.” Planned Parenthood continues to be funded.stupid

So, do we trust Mitch McConnell and company when they say that they will stop President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee?OH HELL NO

The stakes could not be higher here, and McConnell has not earned our trust. Look, instead, for McConnell to engage in play fighting: shouting loudly from the rooftops that Obama’s nominees will be stalled, and then caving in when Obama begins to shut down the government to force the issue.

Here are three factors that will precipitate the kabuki theater:

Obama’s Choice of Nominee.

President Obama is likely to nominate a minority who has already been approved by Republicans in the Senate for a separate position. Today, Tom Goldstein, who runs SCOTUSblog, says that Obama will likely pick polarizing Attorney General Loretta Lynch, stating, “The fact that Lynch was vetted so recently for attorney general also makes it practical for the president to nominate her in relatively short order.” Lynch passed through the Senate 56-43 in her confirmation, and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), among others, praised her. Obama will run his usual game plan, meanwhile: he’ll suggest that Republican opposition is based on her race and his own.

The Republicans’ 2016 Plans.

Many Republicans are fond of promising they’ll stop Obama’s agenda, but like good little Democrats, run for the hills the moment government funding comes under fire. The good news: because Republicans already caved to Obama and passed a massive omnibus package that carries a fully-funded government through the 2016 election, Obama won’t have a lot of leverage here. The bad news: Republicans can always find some leverage to give Obama, particularly if McConnell feels that the hold-up is reflecting badly on Senate Republicans. Plus, Republicans will have to ensure that they never allow a recess to prevent Obama from making a recess appointment.

The Election.

McConnell and company have already set an end-date for their kabuki theater protest: the election. What happens, however, if Hillary Clinton is elected? Do they then allow her to appoint a leftist to the Court, forever shifting the balance of the Court and putting a stake through the heart of the Constitution?OH HELL NO

All of this means that conservatives must continue to place heavy pressure on their senators not to cave here or in the future. That will be a rough road. But any Republican who does cave should face the threat of immediate primary. This isn’t about a reversible government policy implemented by the left. This is about the appointment of a lifetime leftist to a position of ultimate power. It simply can’t be allowed to happen.

Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News, Editor-in-Chief of DailyWire.com, and The New York Times bestselling author, most recently, of the book, The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.

Edward Whelan: Scalia’s Passing Could Cost Americans Their Constitution


by Dan Riehl, 14 Feb 2016, Washington, DC

President Barack Obama and his progressives can grab control of the nation’s constitution if he gets to appoint a Supreme Court replacement for Antonin Scalia, says Ed Whelan, a former law clerk for Scalia.

“If President Obama has another appointee to this Court, we’re going to have an entrenchment of the Left on constitutional issues for the next generations, or so and a great deal will be lost on a whole range of issues in a way that might not ever be recoverable,” he told Breitbart News Sunday host Alex Marlow, on Sirius XM Patriot channel 125.

Whelan, who is now President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and writes at National Review Online’s Bench Memos, joined Breitbart News Sunday to discuss Scalia’s recent passing from a heart attack at age 79, leaving the court with three conservatives, four liberals and one swing-vote.

Whelan wrote yesterday in Bench Memos that:

Senate Republicans would be grossly irresponsible to allow President Obama, in the last months of his presidency, to cement a liberal majority that will wreak havoc on the Constitution. Let the people decide in November who will select the next justice.AMEN

Whelan called Scalia a “gregarious, joyful person” who “loved vigorous argument and struggled to get cases right,” while noting his “wonderful laugh” and calling him “challenging and intimidating, a great mentor and great judge.”

Politically, Whelan said conservatives not only lost a great Justice, and are at risk of losing the Supreme Court and the Constitution given the timing of his passing.

Whelan praised Scalia, saying he “blazed a trail that many others have followed in, his textualist approach (which) is dominant now.” even though some Justices often veer from it to get the result they want.

He credited Scalia and also Judge Robert Bork for reviving “the Constitutionalist or originalist approach to the Constitution in the 1980s — that the words meant what they were understood to mean when they were adopted.”

Whelan said Scalia “transformed” the Court in terms of “how it generally approaches statutory and Constitutional issues” as a rival to living Constitutionalists.

Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


waving flagDeeply Wounded

Scalia Dies, leaving many Americans fearful that SCOTUS will become another tool of the left wing placing the constitution and our liberty in danger.

Scalia Dies / Cartoon by A.F.Branco ©2016.

To see more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here.

 A.F.Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!

SCOTUS GIANT reduced to tears Socialism alert America are you paying attention Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

The world of post-SCOTUS gay marriage and church insurance


waving flagPosted by    Tuesday, July 14, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/07/the-world-of-post-scotus-gay-marriage-and-church-insurance/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LegalInsurrection+%28Le%C2%B7gal+In%C2%B7sur%C2%B7rec%C2%B7tion%29

As told by one of our readers

Supreme Court Gay Marriage Oral Argument Fox News Tax Exemption Liberty
SCOTUS GIANT
Last week, we took a look at an insurance notification received by a church in Oregon. National Review’s David French originally reported the story.

Those fearful Obergefell v. Hodges could spell trouble for religious liberty were validated much sooner than anticipated. Less than 48 hours after the decision was handed down, New York Times columnist Mark Oppenheimer called for the end of tax exemptions for religious institutions. And the piecemeal dismemberment on religious liberties continues.

Now infamous for their intolerance of Christianity, Oregon continues to be ground zero for the cp 11Biblical Principles vs. Ideological Fascism showdown.

National Review’s David French explains an emerging problem for Oregonian pastors seeking liability insurance.

Churches, like virtually every functioning corporation, protect against liability risks and the potentially ruinous costs of litigation through liability insurance. With same-sex marriage now recognized as a constitutional right — and with news of Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries awarding a lesbian couple $135,000 in damages for “emotional, mental and physical suffering” after a Christian bakery refused to bake their wedding cake — pastors are reaching out to insurance companies to make sure they’re covered. And at least one insurer has responded with a preemptory denial: no coverage if a church is sued for refusing to perform a same-sex wedding.Picture2

While denying insurance coverage is not itself an encroachment of religious liberty, lack of protection is as much a problem; one that could easily sink any independent church that winds up the defendant of a complaint.Leftist determonation to destroy freedom of religion

French continues:

On July 1, David Karns, vice president of underwriting at Southern Mutual Church Insurance Company (which “serve[s] more than 8,400 churches”), wrote an “all states” agents’ bulletin addressing same-sex marriage. It begins: “We have received numerous calls and emails regarding the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriages. The main concern is whether or not liability coverage applies in the event a church gets sued for declining to perform a same-sex marriage.” Karns continues:

The general liability form does not provide any coverage for this type of situation, since there is no bodily injury, property damage, personal injury, or advertising injury. If a church is concerned about the possibility of a suit, we do offer Miscellaneous Legal Defense Coverage. This is not liability coverage, but rather expense reimbursement for defense costs. There is no coverage for any judgments against an insured.

In other words: Churches, you’re on your own. (National Review has tried to reach Mr. Karns and Southern Mutual’s corporate office, and they have not yet returned our calls.)

Monday one of our astute readers and blogger at Insureblog (a blog that covers all things insurance), provided a much appreciated technical view of the church insurance/religious liberty discussion.

Henry Stern writes:

SSM & Church Insurance

The other day, we looked at how health insurance (particularly group plans) will be impacted by the recent SCOTUS ruling on Same Sex Marriage (SSM). Now, the legal beagles over at Legal Insurrection have a very interesting post about the future of liability insurance in this new, enlightened age, and it’s not pretty:

“On July 1, David Karns, vice president of underwriting at Southern Mutual Church Insurance Company (which “serve[s] more than 8,400 churches”), wrote … The main concern is whether or not liability coverage applies in the event a church gets sued for declining to perform a same-sex marriage”

The short answer: No.

As usual when it comes to issues involving Property and Casualty (P&C), I turned to good friend and guru Bill M for his insights:

The reason that coverage in such circumstances would (likely) be declined is that it was an intentional act of violating the law. So if (when?) a church (or synagogue, or mosque) is sued for refusing to perform a SSM, the resulting lawsuit would not be covered. That also means the carrier has no “duty to defend” (basically: provide legal counsel).

Of course, any fines imposed by the state would also be excluded.

This is not quite the same as the linked post’s headline:

“Churches refusing to perform same sex marriages may be denied liability insurance”

At this point, no carrier is refusing to actually underwrite and issue a policy to non-complying churches for the simple reason that it’s not currently a part of the underwriting process. That is, there’s no question on the app that reads “Do you refuse to perform gay weddings?” If and/or when a claim arises because of such refusal, the carrier would simply deny coverage.

Now, actually denying to write a policy in the first place is currently pretty speculative. But as Bill pointed out to me, such a scenario is not necessarily farfetched:

Imagine Acme Church Insurance Company with 50,000 policyholders, 10,000 of which get sued for refusing SSM, and all 10,000 of these claims are denied. That’s a lot of ticked off customers, no? So what’s the likelihood that the next application version’s going to include a question about SSM, and if the answer’s not “sure, all the time,” then no soup policy for you.

Is that likely to happen in the next year or two? Probably not, but don’t be surprised when it does happen a few years down the road.

Bill also brought up another very disturbing thought: many (most?) churches have Boards of Directors (or Elders, or Deacons, etc), and thus likely have D&O (Directors and Officers) coverage:

“Errors and omissions coverage for an organization, its leaders, and governing bodies while acting within the scope of their duties.”

The reason for this coverage is that board members could be sued individually, putting their personal assets at risk for something their church or its leaders may have done (or not done).

Bill mused about whether such policies might also decline coverage for SSM-related claims. Talk about a chilling effect on lay folks volunteering for leadership positions in their congregations.

Brave new world, indeed.

Leftist Giant called Tyranny Big Gay Hate Machine Demorates squeeze into mold freedom combo 2

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


waving flagHappy Fourth(?!)

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


waving flag? and Stripes

Gay Rights Adaptation Of Iwo Jima Marines Sparks Outrage


waving flagby Caroline May1 Jul 2015

A gay rights inspired adaptation of the famous image of Marines raising the flag over Iwo Jima in 1945 is sparking outrage following the recent Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage nation-wide.

The image — of four muscular, skin-baring men raising the rainbow flag posed like the Marines at Iwo Jima — was taken some ten years ago and appeared on a gay magazine, but was recirculated last week following the Supreme Court decision.

shameTwitter is in an uproar.

And dont compare gay marriage to the Marines who fought and died in Iwo Jima. The two events are not comparable pic.twitter.com/rqwtR2eoHh — Paulie Walnuts (@PAULme_maybe69) July 1, 2015

Replacing the soldiers on Iwo Jima standing up the American flag with the gay pride flag is disrespectful— Mitchell Moyers (@m_moyers8) July 1, 2015

They really recreated the Iwo Jima flag with the gay flag. Just stop — Evan Moriyama (@AsMoriyama) July 1, 2015

6821 people died in Iwo Jima,over 19,000 wounded.Apparently that ain’t nothi compared to gay people’s struggle huh — AmericanMuscle (@MrFakeDope) July 1, 2015 #gay#TCOT

this is offensive how dare you besmirch Marines at Iwo Jima who gave their lives so there is a supreme ct pic.twitter.com/ARRqXwJC0u — Rosebud (@Murba1515) June 30, 2015

SCOTUS GIANT

The Washington Post highlighted the outcry Wednesday, recalling the bloody operation that spurred to the first iconic photo taken on February 23, 1945 by Associated Press photographer Joe Rosenthal. Three of the Marines pictured were killed in combat, among the nearly 7,000 other Americans who died on Iwo Jima. Another 20,000 American troops were wounded.

The photographer of the gay rights image, Ed Freeman, The Post reports, has received hate mail, backlash on social media, and at least one death threat since the image went viral. “He said if he ever saw me, he’d kill me,” Freeman told The Post. “I got swamped with vitriolic hate mail.”

Freeman received disapproving responses to his when he posted on Facebook that Friday, “When I took this picture almost ten years ago, it never, never occurred to me that it would someday come to symbolize the victory we are celebrating today. Congratulations to all of us! Love to you all.”Big Gay Hate Machine

Freeman told The Post that he did not intend for the image to be disrespectful and chalked the outrage up to people’s frustration with the Supreme Court decision. “The principle complaint that people have is that I am equating the gay struggle with the contribution and sacrifice of American servicemen,” Freeman said. “But there is no equal sign here. This is not meant as a sign of disrespect. For God sake, no. I totally support people in uniform. There is no comparison going on here. The comparison is going on in people’s heads, and they’re spoiling for a fight. They’re already on edge because of  the gay marriage decision.”

Good evil and evil good freedom combo 2

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


waving flagOh, Snap!

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: