Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Supreme Court of the United States of America’

BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules on Biden’s Vaccine Mandates


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

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

BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules on Biden's Vaccine Mandates

Source: (AP Photo/LM Otero)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been updated with additional information. 

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


How is Dobbs different than other abortion cases?

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

Viability

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

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

Why is this question significant?

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

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

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

What are the potential outcomes to Dobbs?

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

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

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

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

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

Option 2: A middle ground option

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

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

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

Option 3: An Overturn of Roe v. Wade

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

How will each justice likely rule in Dobbs?

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

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

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

Chief Justice Roberts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice Thomas

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

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

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

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

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

Justice Breyer

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

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

Justice Alito

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice Sotomayor

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice Kagan

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

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

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

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

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

Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice Barrett

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 2018

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

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

November 2018

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

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

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

December 2019

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

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

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

June 2020

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

May 2021

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

December 1, 2021

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


Originally published at Standing for Freedom Center

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

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.

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

This Outrageously Simple Image Should Clear Up Any Of The Media’s Delusions About Hobby Lobby


http://www.ijreview.com/2014/07/153409-outrageously-simple-image-clear-medias-delusions-hobby-lobby/

By Emily Hulsey

Since news of the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling on the Hobby Lobby case broke Monday, critics have been bashing the company for refusing to provide birth control to its employees.

However, this is extremely misleading, and this image from The Daily Signal explains why:

HobbyLobbyNEW-01-1260x650 (1)

Traditional media have been posting headlines blasting Hobby Lobby for denying its employees contraceptives or birth control, America the movie with hyperlinkthose allegations are wrong. While the ruling could have implications affecting birth control coverage from other companies, that is simply not what Hobby Lobby fought for or achieved.

Rather, the company only wanted the right to not pay for what its owners view as drugs that terminate a pregnancy after the egg has been fertilized – emergency contraceptives such as Plan B. In other words, Hobby Lobby still provides birth control for its employees.

For Hobby Lobby specifically, this case was never about birth control but, rather, abortion – an action which 58% of Americans believe is wrong.

But then again, it’s a whole lot easier to wage a “war on women” when you say a company refused to pay for birth control…

cp 12

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

War on Christians

Article collective closing

 

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: