Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘SCOTUS’

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!

American College of Pediatricians on Marriage Ruling: “A Tragic Day for America’s Children”


waving flagReported by June 30, 2015

This past Friday, the President of the American College of Pediatricians, Dr. Michelle Cretella, ripped the Supreme Court’s decision to force every state in America to allow sodomy-based “marriage.”  Dr. Cretella argues that“[T]his is a tragic day for America’s children. The SCOTUS has just undermined the single greatest pro-child institution in the history of mankind: the natural family. Just as it did in the joint Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton decisions, the SCOTUS has elevated and enshrined the wants of adults over the needs of children.”

At their website, the College has posted a wealth of information and scientific evidence that same-sex “marriage” is destructive to children and that children do best in natural families. In April, the College posted the following press release to their website, urging the Supreme Court to protect America’s children.

The American College of Pediatricians urges the Supreme Court of the United States to consider the well-being of children in the case before them this week to legalize same-sex marriage.  While the debate over the legitimacy of same-sex “marriage” can be viewed from many perspectives, there should be little debate about the effects it has upon children: Same-sex “marriage” deliberately deprives the child of a mother or a father, and is therefore detrimental The College advocates for children in this debate from an objective position grounded in scientific evidence.

President, Michelle Cretella, states, The court must understand the gravity of their decision in its impact upon children around the world.  Every child needs a mother and a father.  Same-sex marriage directly disenfranchises children of this right.”

 There is unequivocal evidence of the fundamental value of the married, father-mother family unit to the optimal development of the child.  For more information, including a link to the Amicus Brief filed with the Supreme Court, visit the Same-Sex “Marriage page on the College website.

The College joined an amici brief in the recently decided Obergefell v. Hodges case; in their brief they recounted that there is sound scientific research to defend traditional marriage while trying to discourage sodomy-based “marriage.”

Despite being certified by almost all major social science scholarly associations—indeed, in part because of this—the alleged scientific consensus that having two parents of the same-sex is innocuous for child well-being is almost wholly without basis. All but a handful of the studies cited in support draw on small, non-random samples which cannot be extrapolated to the same-sex population at large. This limitation is repeatedly acknowledged in scientific meetings and journals, but ignored when asserted as settled findings in public or judicial advocacy.

You could say that the science on same-sex “marriage is settled,”… but you know those anti-science liberals — they’re always so narrowminded.

Big Gay Hate Machine SCOTUS GIANT Leftist Giant called Tyranny freedom combo 2

States move to counter gay marriage ruling


By Tim Devaney06/30/15

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/246582-states-move-to-counter-gay-marriage-ruling

burke

More than a dozen states that saw gay marriage bans struck down last week by the U.S.  Supreme Court are vowing to protect religious liberty, even though they grudgingly accept that the ruling is now the law of the land.

  • In the wake of Friday’s decision, Texas’s attorney general told county clerks in the state that they have a statutory right to refuse marriage licenses to same-sex couples if they have religious objections to gay marriage.
  • In Alabama, state Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore — a staunch opponent of same-sex marriage — said a new state court order could temporarily delay the practice, only to walk back the remarks.
  • And in Louisiana, the attorney general contends there is nothing in the Supreme Court’s ruling that renders it effective immediately, raising questions about how soon the state would have to comply. Leftist Giant called Tyranny

Many other states across the South and upper Midwest are criticizing the ruling as an encroachment on states’ rights and religious freedom, though most acknowledge they cannot ignore it. “Ultimately, my position is that the state should have been legally entitled to define marriage,” South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley told The Hill. “I feel the state has traditionally held that role, and certainly when it’s in the state’s constitution it should be respected.” “But we are a nation of laws and we must respect that,” he added.

Before the Supreme Court’s ruling last Friday, those states and 11 others — Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio and Tennessee — had laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. Though not outright defying the high court’s decision, states are now seeking to make clear the limits of its scope. “The ruling does not tell a minister or congregation what they must do, but it does make clear that the government cannot pick and choose when it comes to issuing marriage licenses and the benefits they confer,” said Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway.Giant Government Compliance Officer

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said the state would issue exemptions to county clerks, judges and justices of the peace who express religious objections to issuing gay marriage licenses, promising to “defend their religious beliefs.” The government cannot force them to conduct same-sex wedding ceremonies over their religious objections,” Paxton said, accusing the Supreme Court of “ignoring the text and spirit of the Constitution to manufacture a right that simply does not exist.”

In cases where there are objections, however, other public officials would issue the documents.

A federal judge ruled in May that Alabama’ s same-sex marriage ban was unconstitutional and stayed her opinion until the Supreme Court ruled on the issue. This week, Moore — the state Supreme Court’s chief justice — initially said a new motion in the earlier case would effectively table Friday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage, a case known as Obergefell v. Hodges.
But same-sex marriage advocates argued that the order has no tangible effects thanks to a federal injunction, and Moore later backed away from the assertion. “In no way does the order instruct probate judges of this State as to whether or not they should comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell,” he said.SCOTUS GIANT

Still, Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange accused the Supreme Court of “overturning centuries of tradition and the will of the citizens.” “I expect the focus will now turn to the exercise of one’s religious liberty,” Strange said.

A number of attorneys general also complained that the Supreme Court’s decision infringes on states’ right to define marriage how they see fit. Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell said the court’s ruling “overturns the will of the people of Louisiana, and it takes away a right that should have been left to the states.”

Caldwell is threatening to essentially disregard the Supreme Court’s ruling for the time being, saying there is “nothing in [the] decision that makes the court’s order effective immediately. Therefore, there is not yet a legal requirement for officials to issue marriage licenses or perform marriages for same-sex couples in Louisiana.”

Gay rights activists warn that any acts of perceived defiance would threaten to undermine the legal system. “It’s a dangerous message for southern governors to disobey an order from the Supreme Court,” said Marc Solomon, national campaign director at Freedom to Marry. “The notion that public employees get to pick and choose which laws they follow based on their religious beliefs is a really dangerous precedent and a terrible public policy,” he added. “If you’re a public official, you need to carry out those laws, and you don’t get to decide whether they’re right or wrong.”
Big Gay Hate Machine
The attorneys general in North Dakota and Mississippi both said they are waiting on other court cases to be resolved before they enforce the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage. Other states like Ohio and Nebraska expressed disappointment that the Supreme Court was interfering with their marriage laws but also indicated they would respect the ruling.

And top officials in a handful of states that formerly banned gay marriage are now welcoming the Supreme Court’s ruling. Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster said he would move swiftly to recognized same-sex marriage in the wake of the court’s ruling. “The history of our country has always been one of moving toward inclusion and equality,” Koster said in a statement. “I applaud the court for their courage and strong sense of fairness. Missourians should be seen as equals under the law; regardless of their gender, race, or whom they love.”It HasNever Been About Marriage

Austin Yack, Hanna Krueger, Kate Hardiman and Rachel Ravina contributed.

freedom combo 2

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


waving flagThe Proverbial Camel

How to fight judicial tyranny


waving flagPosted by on June 29, 2015

In Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges he said, “It is of no special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.”

Whatever one’s views on marriage, our Founders made it clear that the federal government is a child of the states — not the other way around. The Supreme Court’s decision to legislate from the bench on a matter rightly left to the purview of the states is among the most blatant instances of federal overreach this country has ever seen.

Gov. Mike Huckabee, who also endorses the Convention of States Project, laid out the problem clearly in a recent op-ed:

Can the Supreme Court “decide” this? They cannot. Under our Constitution, we have three, co-equal branches of government. The courts can interpret law but cannot create it. The ruling still requires congressional funding and executive branch enforcement. The Supreme Court is not the “Supreme Branch,” and it is certainly not the Supreme Being. If they can unilaterally make law, and just do whatever they want, then we have judicial tyranny.

Throughout our nation’s history, the court has abused its power and delivered morally unconscionable rulings. They have rationalized the destruction of innocent human life, defined African Americans as property and justified Japanese-American internment camps. U.S. presidents, including Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, ignored Supreme Court rulings, rejecting the notion that the Supreme Court can circumvent the Constitution and “make law.”

I also reject the idea of “judicial supremacy” as just another flawed, failed feature of big government, inconsistent with what our founders fought a revolution to establish.SCOTUS GIANT

But there is hope. A constitutional recourse to judicial tyranny is gaining momentum around the country. A Convention of States, called under Article V of the Constitution, can impose constitutional limits on the federal government’s power — limits that will ensure an end to the overreach we witnessed last week.

So what can YOU do?

1. Learn about Article V and the Convention of States movement. All the most important info is on our Learn page.

2. Click here to sign petition. It will be automatically sent directly to your State Senator and House Member.

3. Click here to find out how to become a leader for our effort in your area. We need more District Captains, and we’d love to work with you.

4. Send this post to everybody you know. Tell your friends. Tell your family. Tell your coworkers. Tell everybody about what we are doing. Spread the word about the Convention of States Project. Join the 300,000 plus people on the Convention of States Facebook page at www.facebook.com/conventionofstates and Like your state’s page as well.

We can restore our country to the principles of self-governance upon which our country was founded. The Founders gave us the tool — it’s time we use it.

freedom combo 2

THAT’S SO GAY: White House Lights Up in Rainbow Colors, Satan Does a High-Five


waving flagPosted on June 27, 2015

Screen Shot 2015-06-27 at 8.13.12 AM

The Obama administration is having a gay ‘ole time with the gay marriage ruling. Check out some of their Tweets and video from last night after the SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage:

tw01 tw02 Big Gay Hate Machine muslim-obama burke freedom combo 2

Marriage, Church and the State


waving flagAuthored by avatar  on 30 May, 2015


RNS-SCOTUS-MARRIAGE b

Sometime next month the US Supreme Court will issue its decision on homosexual marriage.

Many of us fear it will be another disaster, like Roe v Wade – a handful of unelected and unrepresentative judges will strike down the nation’s and/or states’ laws and seek to force sodomite marriage on everyone, whether they like it or not.

Everyone concerned about the fundamental institution of marriage, especially Christians, will need to have a major rethink as to how we respond, and what changes, if any, we embark upon. The whole issue of the state’s role in matters of marriage and family may well need to be reassessed.

Libertarians of course have long argued that the state should get out of the marriage business altogether, or at least just let individual states decide on which way to go. I have elsewhere argued against the libertarian position, believing there is a place for the state in this.

Libertarianism and Marriage, Part I

Libertarianism and Marriage, Part IIMore forced

A few simple truths need to be kept in mind here: marriage as an institution has preceded the state as an institution. The state has simply come along and recognized and affirmed the pre-existing and socially valuable institution of marriage. Because marriage is the world’s best institution to ensure the well-being of children, of the next generation, states have always acknowledged the importance of marriage, and have treated it accordingly. Because heterosexual marriage confers such tremendous benefits to society, societies have in turn conferred benefits on marriage.

While other close and committed forms of relationships can be of value, the state has only seen fit to give heterosexual marriage special status and special recognition, and rightly so. But as we go down the road of the state giving equal recognition and status to other types of relations, including homosexual ones, which are not of course in themselves open to procreation, then marriage loses its special place, and in effect is rendered null and void.

So by pushing for sodomite “marriage” we are not broadening marriage – we are destroying it. As I said, we now may have to think again about these sorts of relationships, especially if SCOTUS does its worse as we fear.Same Sex Marriage

One US state has already acted preventively here: Alabama. They have decided that it will stop issuing marriage licenses. One report on this begins this way:

The battle has been raging over redefining marriage in Alabama, as the state’s constitution declares marriage to be between a man and a woman. However, federal courts are attempting to force the state to issue marriage licenses to those practicing sodomy. In an attempt to stop probate judges from issuing licenses arbitrarily, the Alabama Senate passes bill by a vote of 22-3 without having to obtain permission from a government official.

Senate Bill 377, a bill which would end marriage licensing and replace it with a contract process, was approved by the Alabama Senate on May 19. According to the text of the bill, it would abolish the requirement to obtain a marriage license from the judge of probate. “This bill would provide that marriage would be entered into by simple contract, would specify the information required to be included in the contract of marriage, would specify that each party entering into a contract of marriage would submit a properly executed contract to the judge of probate for recording, and would require the judge of probate to forward a copy of the contract of marriage to the Office of Vital Statistics,” reads the synopsis of the bill….

In other words, [Senator Greg Albritton (R-Bay Minette), who introduced the bill] wants the issue of marriage back in the hands of the Church. While the contract portion would be recognized legally, the requirements for marriage to be handled lawfully under the umbrella of the Church would remain intact.

This is one option, but whether it is the best option remains to be seen. As I mentioned above, there can indeed be a role for the state in marriage matters. And by seeking to argue for church-based marriage, while allowing for other forms, we may end up creating a two-tiered (or more) marriage system. This too would work against marriage and its purposes.

The issue of who conducts a marriage or who issues licenses is just a small portion of the debate. The bigger issue here is will we allow marriage to become whatever anyone wants it to become? By letting marriage simply be that which lies in the eye of the beholder, we again effectively destroy marriage.

When marriage can mean anything, then marriage means nothing. So we have to be careful as we seek to resist the harm of a possible SCOTUS ruling that we don’t also create harm elsewhere. One Christian writer has already weighed in on the Alabama decision. Bryan Fischer says it is “a mistake to get pastors out of signing marriage licenses”. He writes:

A rear-guard movement has recently emerged to get the state out of the marriage licensing business altogether, in what will prove to be a vain attempt to slow down the rampage to impose sodomy-based marriage on the entire country.

Alabama’s state senate has made the latest foray in this direction by passing a bill that makes marriage a mere matter of contract. Under this bill, the state would no longer issue marriage licenses but simply enter privately forged marriage contracts in some kind of registry. Civil government would not be approving of such marriages, it would only be recording them. In practice, this means if the Supreme Court imposes sodomy-based marriage on the entire nation next month, Alabama would instantly become the easiest place in America for two homosexuals to get married. All they’d have to do is sign a piece of paper and turn it in. Easy-peasy. I don’t think this is what the well-intentioned legislators in Alabama have in mind. But that’s what they will get.

Other voices are urging pastors to get out of the role of signing wedding licenses on behalf of civil government, as if this represents some inappropriate mixing of church and state. They want a wedding to be a purely spiritual, religious affair with no involvement, participation or recognition by civil government whatsoever.

This, however, ignores the likelihood that gay activists would still go after pastors to press them to do purely religious ceremonies for them. Eventually, they will find a judge who will order pastors to perform such purely religious ceremonies, on the grounds that a (counterfeit) constitutional “right” to have a homosexual wedding ceremony trumps the actual constitutional right to decline to perform one.burke

He raises some valid points here (see his entire article). There is much to think about, and many issues need to be weighed up. The truth is, marriage is under attack, and if SCOTUS does not launch the final nail in the coffin in June, there will be other attempts to do the same. One thing is for sure: it will no longer be business as usual. The church will be impacted by this – big time. How should it respond? Let me close with the words of Rick Scarborough, President of Vision America Action:

Because of the trends and cultural shifts that we have witnessed in culture over the past 40 years, we have all known that this day would likely come and Christians would be put at odds with the culture and the courts. I believe we are there. We are approaching a Bonhoeffer moment in America.Picture2

Outrageous penalties are now being assessed against people of faith and conviction who haven’t changed their position on marriage. Rather it’s the courts that have changed the definitions, the rules and laws that now govern us. They are ruling against Nature’s Law and Nature’s God. Christians are being declared the lawbreakers when we are simply living by what we have always believed, and by a set of laws that the culture historically has agreed to.

My desire as a pastor is to see another Great Awakening, and I pray that those caught up in any sin will find Jesus and God’s grace, but that can only come when there is a biblical standard lifted up and acknowledged as truth. Right now the courts are changing the playing field and declaring that what the natural eye can see and natural law reveals is not truth. Therefore, this is a Bonhoeffer moment. What will we do, and how will we respond?

Civil disobedience will likely have to be one of our responses. But we can and must, in the meantime, pray like never before and work like never before while waiting for this SCOTUS ruling.

freedom combo 2

Supreme Court rules prayer before public meetings is constitutional


http://www.humanevents.com/2014/05/05/supreme-court-rules-prayer-before-public-meetings-is-constitutional/

Supreme Court rules prayer before public meetings is constitutional

In a decision that is likely to guide how local governments throughout the United States handle the question, the court said on a 5-4 vote that officials in the town of Greece did not violate the law when picking prayer-givers, who were overwhelmingly Christian.

Even the plaintiffs challenging the practice in Greece, a Rochester, New York, suburb of 100,000 people, conceded that some types of nonsectarian prayers are permitted under the Constitution. The difficulty facing the justices was how to decide how courts should consider when a prayer could violate the First Amendment calling for separation of church and state.

The court was divided along ideological lines, with the conservative wing of the court saying the prayers were acceptable, while the liberal justices said the practice violated the First Amendment.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court’s swing vote, wrote the majority opinion, saying that the town’s prayers are consistent with the high court’s 1983 precedent in a case called Marsh v. Chambers. That case allowed prayers before legislative sessions based in large part on the historical nature of the practice.

Although the policy in the town of Greece does not embrace a particular religion, in practice all members of the public who gave a prayer were Christians until some residents filed suit in 2008.

Kennedy wrote that public prayers need not be nonsectarian.

“To hold that invocations must be nonsectarian would force the legislatures that sponsor prayers and the courts that are asked to decide these cases to act as supervisors and censors of religious speech,” Kennedy wrote.

An awful lot of these epochal decisions boil down to a battle for the heart and soul of Swing Justice Anthony Kennedy (that really should be his official title) but his reasoning here seems sound enough.  The path of least government intrusion against religious freedom clearly lay with overturning the appeals court decision against the town of Greece, whose prayers before meetings clearly did not constitution the government’s establishment of an official religion.

As the Supreme Court’s decision notes, the prayers at these town hall meetings were “given by clergy selected from the congregations listed in a local directory,” and while the program was officially open to all creeds, “nearly all of the local congregations are Christian; thus nearly all of the participating prayer givers have been too.”  In his concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito notes that even if the town of Greece is lumped in with its entire county, which includes the city of Rochester, only 3 percent of county residents with a listed religious affiliation proclaim themselves to be Jewish, “and for other non-Christian faiths, the percentages are smaller.”

Kennedy points out that the district court ruling overturned by the Supremes “found no authority for the proposition that the First Amendment required Greece to invite clergy from congregations beyond its borders in order to achieve a minimum level of religious diversity.”

Alito mildly chastises the town council of Greece for not reaching a bit outside its boundaries to include the Rochester synagogues where its Jewish residents worship on the list of invited clergy, but he characterizes this as the sort of very minor complaint upon which much of the Court minority’s dissent rests.  He also writes of the difficulty in designing a truly “non-sectarian” prayer that would be completely acceptable to the members of every religion practiced in the United States, whose very diversity and inclusiveness make its religious tapestry a most complicated and colorful weave.  It is perverse to suppose that the First Amendment should then be interpreted as a gag order against speech the government decides is not sufficiently diverse.

In other words, there is nothing structurally exclusionary about the program, and the Court majority observed that it was not oppressive against non-Christians in practice:

The prayer opportunity is evaluated against the backdrop of a historical practice showing that prayer has become part of the Nation’s heritage and tradition.  It is presumed that the reasonable observer is acquainted with this tradition and understands that its purposes are to lend gravity to public proceedings and to acknowledge the place religion holds in the lives of many private citizens.

Furthermore, the principal audience for these invocations ins not the public, but the lawmakers themselves.  And those lawmakers did not direct the public to participate, single out dissidents for opprobrium, or indicate that their decisions might be influenced by a person’s acquiescence in the prayer opportunity.  Respondents claim that the prayers gave them offense and made them feel excluded and disrespected, but offense does not equate to coercion.

That sounds like a slap against the entire modern culture of hyper-sensitivity, in which “offense” is entirely in the mind of the offended.  It doesn’t matter what the speaker means, or what the historical context of his speech might be, if someone with a bit of political or legal pull declares themselves insulted, and calls for silence.

This is also a decidedly “conservative” decision, given the emphasis it puts upon historical precedent and common-sense understanding.  Justice Alito, who observed that the authors of the First Amendment certainly didn’t seem to think chaplains offering prayers at the beginning of legislative sessions were a violation of it, pronounced himself “troubled by the message that some readers may take from the principal dissent’s rhetoric and its highly imaginative proposals” – in other words, the liberal justices’ tendency to cook up fanciful scenarios that have nothing to do with practices in the town of Greece, or anywhere else in America, such as a polling place conveying “the expectation that citizens wishing to vote make the sign of the cross before casting their ballots.”

Alito worried that some will interpret the liberal justices’ dissent as a warning that Monday’s decision would lead “to a country in which religious minorities are denied the equal benefits of citizenship,” a train of thought he described as going “far astray” from what the majority actually ruled.  That’s another rebuke to the cult of perpetual outrage and its insistence that American society should be fenced in until there are no more hiding places for their bugbears and hobgoblins.

VOTE 02

 

Gay Marriage is So Yesterday, Say Hello to Polygamy!


By / 26 June 2013 / 115 Comments

ClashDaily- The SCOTUS’ decision today on DOMA now opens the door for legalizing polygamy.

Thom Hartmann talks with Mark Henkel, Polygamy rights advocate & founder-TruthBearer.org (FYI…their slogan is “bringing Christian Polygamy to the Church.”)

SEE VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lrtC7V65Sfk#t=0s

Website: www.nationalpolygamyadvocate.com, who advocates the decriminalization of polygamy in the U.S.

Read more: http://clashdaily.com/2013/06/slippery-slope-gay-marriage-is-so-yesterday-say-hello-to-polygamy/#ixzz2XLt5hXFU
Get more Clash on ClashDaily.com, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: