Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Supreme Court’

Planned Parenthood Dares Make Demands About Supreme Court Pick


Ann Coulter Letter for June 27, 2018: “Country Overboard! Women and Children Last!”


Commentary by Ann Coulter  

I’m still ticked off at him for not building the wall, but THANK YOU, PRESIDENT TRUMP, FOR POINTING OUT THAT MAXINE WATERS HAS A LOW I.Q.! And there’s more great news! Contrary to every single New York Times editorial and opinion piece on the president’s “Muslim ban,” this week, the Supreme Court upheld the ban.

Or, as a Times op-ed put it back on Jan. 27, 2017: “(T)he order is illegal. More than 50 years ago, Congress outlawed such discrimination against immigrants based on national origin. …” “Trump’s Immigration Ban Is Illegal,” by David J. Bier, immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute.

For your immigration news, New York Times, maybe stop thinking you’re getting “both sides” by going to open borders activists at the International Refugee Assistance Project and, for the opposing view, open borders activists at the Cato Institute.

Last week, in a column that does not misstate the facts and the law about immigration, I covered some typical asylum and refugee admissions to our country, including Beatrice Munyenyezi. She was the Rwandan who got into our country by claiming to be a victim of the genocide that killed nearly a million people, even though she had helped orchestrate it.

Munyenyezi wasn’t the only participant in the Rwandan genocide who’s gotten in as a victim and then been unmasked as a perpetrator. So far, nearly 400 Rwandans granted special refugee status have been convicted of lying on visa applications about their role in the genocide. Great job, U.S. refugee admissions officials!

Courts are dealing with so many genocidal Rwandans who came to America as “refugees” that just last Friday, a federal appeals court upheld the conviction of another one, Gervais “Ken” Ngombwa, who not only lied about his participation in the genocide, but also about his family relationships. (You can’t get anything past our State Department!)

Aside from our immigration authorities missing little things like the Rwandan genocide, what is the argument for taking in millions of people from backward cultures, hotbeds of real racism, pederasty, misogyny — as opposed to the “microaggressions” that are the bane of our culture?

It’s one thing to use quotas as a response to slavery and Jim Crow in our own country, but why do we have to have an immigration quota for “people who don’t live here, have never seen an indoor toilet, and rape little girls for sport”?

Liberals act as if they are striking a blow for feminism by importing desperate women from misogynistic cultures to America. But, even to the extent they’re telling the truth, the women aren’t always victims only. They’re often co-conspirators.

Remember the Baby Hope case? In 1991, a little girl’s unidentified body was found in an Igloo cooler alongside the Henry Hudson Parkway. Twenty-two years later, the New York City police finally solved the case: The perpetrator turned out to be Baby Hope’s illegal alien cousin from Mexico, who had raped and killed her when she was 4 years old.

And how had he escaped justice for 22 years? The girl’s mother and aunt, also illegals, helped orchestrate the cover-up. The aunt helped dispose of the body and the girl’s mother never said a peep, despite admitting that she suspected all along that the corpse in the cooler was her unreported, missing daughter.

Hmong girls in Minnesota are regularly gang raped by Hmong men, but the Hmong community — even the girls’ mothers — blame the rape victims, and the attacks go unreported. These aren’t cultures of strong women and criminal men. It’s more like criminal men and complicit women.

(One of the major articles reporting on the Hmong rape culture, helping diversify America, was Pam Louwagie and Dan Browning’s “Shamed Into Silence,” published in the Minneapolis Star Tribune in 2005. It used to be here: startribune.com/local/11594631.html. The detailed story won first place for In Depth Reporting from the Minnesota Society of Professional Journalists, but it seems to have disappeared from the Tribune’s website. Welcome to the Soviet Union!)

In San Francisco, we had the young Indian sex slaves of pederast Lakireddy Bali Reddy testifying on his behalf. Once he was finally busted — not by our fantastic “democracy dies in darkness” mainstream media, but by a local high school newspaper — we found out his child rape victims thought they deserved it. They could not be coaxed to testify against him. Some took the stand on his behalf. They were all given asylum. We didn’t change them; they just moved here, without altering their belief in human slavery or the caste system one iota.

Americans are told we have to understand that it’s part of their native cultures.

Exactly! It’s their culture. We’re not rescuing anybody; we’re bringing in diseased cultures. The alleged refugees don’t float above and apart from their societies. Feminists may see the world as the Boy team versus the Girl team, but in reality, it’s the Civilized team versus the Primitive team. Virtually every woman outside of the First World lives in an abusive society. We can’t take them all in.

How did violent, backward, misogynistic cultures become our problem? Did we take a vote and agree to be the world’s charity ward?

Democrats who claim to be defenders of the weak, the marginal and vulnerable are happy to toss our safe, functioning country aside — as long as they can wreck America (and get their housework done at the same time!). The left’s central political philosophy is based on resentment toward historical America.

They’re just like the feminists willing to forgive Bill Clinton for rape. Well, you know, taking in the totality of his contributions …Today, it’s: Who cares what kind of society we become — provided America is no more.

Primitive people will not stop trying to come here until America is no different from Calcutta. Then, liberals’ work will be done. And there will be no charity ward left for anyone to flee to.

That’s how much liberals care about women and children.

This Week’s Ann Coulter Letter: “I Have a Dream … About Gay Wedding Cakes”


disclaimerCommentary by Ann Coulter  | 

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2018/06/07/i-have-a-dream-about-gay-wedding-cakes/

The Supreme Court’s recent decision on whether a Christian baker can be forced to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage (no) arriving on the same day that Bill Clinton reared his syphilitic head on NBC’s “Today” reminded me how liberals always use black people as props.

Midway through the last century, bedrock legal principles about property rights and freedom of association were abrogated to deal with a specific, intractable problem: We could not get Democrats to stop discriminating against blacks. 

So Republicans, with very little Democratic help, passed a slew of laws saying: No, even though you own that restaurant, you cannot discriminate against black customers. And no, even though we are a free people, you cannot refuse to associate with black people in your clubs, universities or sports teams.

This should have been a one-time exception to the law for one specific group of people based on an emergency.

But Democrats, never wild about freedom in the first place, saw “civil rights” as a great gig. Instead of civil rights being used to remedy historic injuries done to a specific group of people, they’d use “civil rights” as a false flag for all their pet projects.

Just six years after passage of the historic 1964 Civil Rights Act, Democrats in New York had dropped black people from the equation and moved onto legalized abortion. State senator Manfred Ohrenstein of Manhattan explained why killing the unborn was a “right”: “It was the end of the civil rights era, and we viewed [abortion] as a civil right.”

In the 1991 case Kreimer v. Morristown, a Carter-appointed federal district judge, H. Lee Sarokin, ruled that a public library’s discrimination against smelly, frightening homeless people violated the equal protection clause because it had a “disparate impact” on people who refuse to bathe compared to those who bathe regularly. Three years later, President Clinton promoted him to an appellate judgeship. (The judge, not the homeless person.)

In 2007, then-governor Eliot Spitzer vowed that “New York state will continue to be a beacon of civil rights” — when proposing a state law that would guarantee access to late-term abortions.

In June 2012, The New York Times chirpily reported “gay rights the fastest-moving civil rights movement in our nation’s history”!

These days, you could be forgiven for not realizing that civil rights ever had anything to do with black people. According to Equal Opportunity Employment Commission statistics, for a least a decade, 65 percent of all “civil rights” claims have had absolutely nothing to do with race discrimination.

The gay wedding cake caper is only the most recent example of our majestic “civil rights.”

Instead of basing favored treatment under the law on a history of brutal and widespread injustice in America, liberals thought it should also be based on other forms of suffering, such as: being a woman, being a Muslim, wanting an abortion, having been born in Mexico, being a smelly homeless person stinking up the public library and — according to Ruth Bader Ginsburg this week — being a gay couple who wants to force a Christian to bake a cake for your wedding.

It must make blacks feel great being compared to daft women, smelly homeless people and bossy gays harassing a Christian baker.

And apes!

Princeton ethics professor Peter Singer compares black people to apes, citing the black liberation movement as a model for the liberation of apes. We must “extend to other species,” Singer says, “the basic principle of equality” that we extend “to all members of our own species.”

This wasn’t an Ambien-induced Twitter rant by a comedian. Singer wrote it, calmly and deliberately, in a book on “ethics.”

Still, I believe the greatest insult black Americans have had to endure from liberals was when they called Bill Clinton the “first black president.”

I notice that he was not the first black president when Democrats were singing Fleetwood Mac at his inauguration, nor when he was appointing the first woman attorney general or passing welfare reform. Only after Clinton was caught in the most humiliating sex scandal in U.S. history did he suddenly become “the first black president.” (Which is not true, according to Monica Lewinsky’s description of Clinton’s private parts.)

During the House impeachment hearings, Rep. Maxine Waters ferociously defended Clinton, saying, “I am here in the name of my slave ancestors.” She said she had woken up in the middle of the night, “with flashes of the struggles of my African ancestors for justice.”

What this had to do with Clinton perjuring himself about molesting a chubby Jewish White House intern was anyone’s guess.

Always the master of subtlety, as soon as the Lewinsky scandal broke, Clinton promptly invited the Rev. Jesse Jackson to the White House to “pray” with him. Two months later, he took off on an 11-day, six-nation $43 million trip to — guess where? Africa!

Haven’t black people suffered enough without this horny hick piggybacking on their oppression?

please likeand share and leave a comment

Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Christian Baker Who Refused To Bake Cake for Same-Sex Wedding



disclaimerReported By Jack Davis | June 4, 2018 at 8:19am

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a Christian Colorado baker cannot be forced to make a cake for a same-sex marriage when the ceremony violates his religious principles.praise-the-lord-png

Monday’s 7-2 decision reversed a Colorado court’s ruling against baker Jack Phillips, who in 2012 refused to bake a cake for gay couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins. The decision focused on the initial ruling against Phillips from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and left untouched the broader issue of whether professionals who oppose same-sex marriage can be compelled to provide goods and services for those ceremonies, USA Today reported.

“The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts,” the majority opinion said, noting the broader battle in which this case was one part. “These disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority decision, while Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

“The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression,” Kennedy wrote, according to The Hill.

“While it is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other member of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion.”

The case presented “difficult questions as to the proper reconciliation of at least two principles. The first is the authority of a State and its governmental entities to protect the rights and dignity of gay persons who are, or wish to be, married but who face discrimination when they seek goods or services,” Kennedy wrote.

“The second is the right of all persons to exercise fundamental freedoms under the First Amendment,” he wrote. 

Kennedy said Colorado failed that test.

“Whatever the confluence of speech and free exercise principles might be in some cases, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s consideration of this case was inconsistent with the State’s obligation of religious neutrality. The reason and motive for the baker’s refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions,” Kennedy wrote.

Kennedy noted that the case does represent a collision of rights, according to The Washington Post.

“The Court’s precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws, he wrote. “Still, the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach. That requirement, however, was not met here.”

Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan voted with the majority along with Justices Kennedy, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, as well as Chief Justice John Roberts.

Phillips had lost every round of his lengthy legal fight until Monday. Phillips said the question was not about the customers but rather about violating his own principles.

“It’s not about turning away these customers, it’s about doing a cake for an event — a religious sacred event — that conflicts with my conscience,” he said, according to Fox News.

The Trump administration supported Phillips’ legal claims.
please likeand share and leave a comment

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.

This Trump Decision Is A Major Blow To The Administrative State


Reported by Kevin Daley | Supreme Court Reporter | 3:12 PM 11/30/2017

FILE PHOTO: The seal of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission hangs on the wall at SEC headquarters in Washington, DC, U.S. on June 24, 2011. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo

The Trump administration switched sides Wednesday in a case pending before the Supreme Court that could retroactively nullify tens of thousands of agency decisions.

The case, Lucia v. SEC, has major implications for the process by which federal agencies try or punish those in violation of laws or regulations.

The litigation concerns an agency’s decision to allow career bureaucrats to preside as the functional equivalent of judges during enforcement proceedings. These officials, called administrative law judges (ALJs), are hired by career bureaucrats. They are not appointed by the president, a court or an agency head, but they exercise significant authority on behalf of the U.S. government in official proceedings. ALJs can, among other things, issue subpoenas, make decisions about the credibility of witnesses or the admissibility of evidence, and issues provisional rulings that are generally upheld on final review — if a final review occurs at all.

The Constitution requires that the president, the courts, or the head of an executive department appoint all “inferior officers” of the United States.

A group of investment managers challenged the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) use of ALJs in an enforcement proceeding convened against them for alleged violations of securities law. The managers argue these proceedings are unlawful, because the ALJs are exactly the sort of “inferior officer” who must be appointed by the president, the court, or the head of an agency, since they exercise meaningful discretion on behalf of the federal government.

A lower federal court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, found in favor of the SEC. A three-judge panel found for the SEC, and the full court affirmed that decision on a five to five vote. The investment managers then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Obama Justice Department sided with the SEC in the dispute, but Trump’s new solicitor general, Noel Francisco, changed positions Wednesday, and backed the money managers.

“Upon further consideration, and in light of the implications for the exercise of executive power under Article II, the government is now of the view that such ALJs are officers because they exercise ‘significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States,’” Francisco wrote in a new brief at the Supreme Court.

A Supreme Court ruling against the SEC could have important implications for similarly-situated officials in other agencies. ALJs often preside in actions brought by a whole host of federal agencies. A finding against the SEC would potentially jeopardize, and perhaps invalidate, the legal status of thousands of other agency proceedings.

The Justice Department generally represents federal agencies before the high court. Accordingly, the solicitor general asked the justices to appoint another lawyer to represent the SEC as the litigation continues.

The high court could decide to take the case as soon as January.

Follow Kevin on Twitter

Send tips to kevin@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Gay Couple Lawyers Up Against Christian Baker, Then Trump Steps in


Reported 

URL of the original posting site: https://conservativetribune.com/gay-couple-lawyers-up/?

Advertisement – story continues below

A Christian baker from Colorado received an unexpected blessing from the administration of President Donald Trump last week when the Justice Department filed a brief on his behalf to the Supreme Court, which is slated to hear his religious liberty case upon returning to the bench next month.

For Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips, the trouble started five years ago when he politely refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. Although he only meant to protect his religious beliefs, he wound up triggering a chain reaction of undeserved backlash.

It included death threats from angry activists, character assassinations from the liberal media, a judgment of illegal discrimination from a Colorado civil rights commission and an affirmation of the commission’s ruling by a lower court.

The tide finally began to turn in Phillips’ favor in late June when the Supreme Court agreed to hear his appeal and decide whether he actually discriminated against the gay couple when he refused to bake their cake over his religious objections.

And just on Thursday, he won yet another “huge” victory when Trump’s DOJ filed an amicus brief defending his decision five years earlier to not bake the gay couple’s wedding cake. In the brief, acting Solicitor General Jeffrey B. Wall specifically argued that allowing the lower court’s ruling against Phillips to stand would create a violation of the First Amendment “where public accommodations law compels someone to create expression for a particular person or entity and to participate, literally or figuratively, in a ceremony or other expressive event.”

“When Phillips designs and creates a custom wedding cake for a specific couple and a specific wedding, he plays an active role in enabling that ritual, and he associates himself with the celebratory message conveyed,” he added. “Forcing Phillips to create expression for and participate in a ceremony that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs invades his First Amendment rights.”

This is good. Very good, in fact.

And according to The Washington Times, the DOJ’s surprising decision to file a brief in Phillips’ case “raises the possibility that the government will also ask for time to argue in front of the justices when the case goes for oral argument.”

That would be even better.

During the administration of former President Barack Hussein Obama, a man who loved sitting idly by as Christians were persecuted, the DOJ said nothing about Phillips, instead choosing to allow him to suffer the indignity of being persecuted for his Christian beliefs. But with Trump in the White House, it appears those days are finally behind us. Thank God.

H/T Informed Folks

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: