The big story of the day, of course, started out to be President Trump’s appeal of the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling that because they’ve determined he’s an “insurrectionist,” they have the power, by virtue of the 14th Amendment, to take him off the state GOP primary ballot, effectively disenfranchising Trump supporters throughout the country.  Would the U.S. Supreme Court uphold this or not?  Even before arguments took place, many legal experts saw this as extremely unlikely.

(By the way, the Colorado court specified in their ruling that the Colorado Secretary of State should not even count write-in votes for Trump, creating an even more thoroughly in-your-face disenfranchisement of his supporters in that state!)

The hearing on Thursday morning was spectacular.  If you’re dismayed by the level of discourse in 2020s America --- and how could you not be? --- we encourage you to take a couple of hours, perhaps over the weekend, and listen to the entire hearing for Trump v. Anderson.  One of the few good things that came out of the COVID pandemic is that the Supreme Court started posting the audio of their hearings online.

Later in the day, this hearing was overshadowed by another story, as Special Counsel Robert Hur released his report on the President Biden classified documents case.  But the two big stories taken together send a stark message about the two-tiered justice system as currently practiced in our country.  We have an all-out legal assault on one President, on numerous fronts, with the law contorted almost beyond recognition in order to “get him” in any way possible, while reasons are found to let another President get by with an arguably much more serious case of mishandling documents.

Talk about a double standard.  Trump got an all-out early-morning FBI assault on Mar-A-Lago by 30 armed agents.  Biden got a pass.

In fact, when Hur released the report saying he wouldn’t be pursuing the classified documents case against Biden, Trump’s first reaction was to call for Special Counsel Jack Smith to immediately drop the classified documents case against HIM, the one Smith is trying to bring to trial before the November election.

The bigger story of the Hur Report, of course, is that it brought to the fore the issue of Biden’s serious cognitive decline, but Hur’s conclusion also is reminiscent of then-FBI Director James Comey’s infamous press conference of July 5, 2016, in which he outlined Hillary Clinton’s serious CRIMES of obstruction of justice and destruction of subpoenaed evidence and then went on to say “no reasonable prosecutor” would take the case.  We knew there had to be prosecutors who would line up around the block to take that case, given the amount of evidence.

The Hur Report and subsequent nuclear-disaster of a press conference held by Biden, which served to confirm in front of all the world the report’s comments about his shocking cognitive slide, are covered in detail elsewhere in the newsletter.  But I’ll just say here, that presser was so bad that one has to wonder if those around Biden might have even orchestrated it, knowing exactly what they were doing and thinking it was time to start taking him off the stage and primping another candidate for November.  There’s been buzz that this might happen around May (with Michelle Obama likely waiting in the wings), so this feels a little early, but with the report on Biden coming out, they might have had no other choice.

In an interview with Sean Hannity, legal expert Alan Dershowitz found it instructive to compare the two Thursday cases: “You know, there is a connection between today’s case [Hur] and this morning’s case in the Supreme Court...It’s so hard to remove a President under the 25th Amendment.  You need the Cabinet...the Framers made it so difficult.  And yet this morning, the State of Colorado said, ‘Want to get rid of a President?  Snap your fingers; the Secretary of State; all you need is a 4-3 decision; one state; you get rid of the President.’

“There’s such an incompatibility, an inconsistency,” he continued.  “The problem with our country today is everybody sees the law through the prism of partisan politics.  Everybody tries to weaponize the Constitution to support their political candidate, and the losers are the American people.”

Not surprisingly, Dershowitz put his finger on the problem, but it must be said that it’s the Democrats, in particular, who have increasingly relied on this strategy.  Dershowitz is still a Democrat, supporting both Clintons and Joe Biden (last time), but he made it clear he’d rethink his vote if it meant voting for someone with a degenerative brain disease.  Guess that’s the definition of “die-hard Democrat”: when the only thing precluding your vote for the Democrat is when the “D” by his name stands for DEMENTIA.

With all the above in mind, let’s focus on the Supreme Court hearing.  SCOTUS hasn’t heard a potentially more consequential election case since Bush v. Gore in 2000, which involved another portion of the 14th Amendment, Bush’s right to the equal protection clause.    

Trump’s attorney was former Texas Solicitor General Jonathan Mitchell, who clerked for the late and extremely great Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.  Mitchell has argued many cases before the Court and, as THE EPOCH TIMES reports, “has been credited with the controversial enforcement mechanism in Texas’ heartbeat law, which the top court allowed to proceed after a challenge in 2021.”  He was mightily prepared for the Justices’ questions.

Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswald was represented by Colorado Solicitor General Shannon Stevenson, and the voters were represented by Jason Murray.  Law professor Jonathan Turley was not impressed with Murray’s lack of answers.

Turley (like us) was fascinated by how many of the questions came from left-leaning Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan.  He posted on X: “The argument is now over.  The disqualification advocates may have expected a cold reception, but this was perfectly glacial.  Notably, some of the toughest and most skeptical questions came from the left of the Court.”

For example, Kagan saw the effect that one state-level secretary of state could have on a nationwide election as “quite extraordinary.”  For this reason, she thought that “whatever means there are to enforce it would suggest they have to be federal, national means.”

“Maybe put most boldly,” she said, “I think that the question you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be President of the United States.”

It was Justice Jackson, a Biden appointee, who pointed out to Murray that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not mention the office of President.  “The thing that’s really troubling to me,” she said, “is --- I totally understand your argument --- but they were listing people who were barred, and ‘President’ is not there.”  Here’s a good write-up of that exchange.

Here’s another example of Murray being stumped, this time with a question by Clarence Thomas:

When pressed, Murray couldn’t give one example of a state ever removing anyone from a national ballot.  State ballots, sure, but nothing like what he was saying they had the authority to do.

Trump didn’t attend the hearing but did watch it, and he seemed to have liked what he saw.  As the DAILY CALLER reported, Trump addressed the press on the steps of Mar-A-Lago afterwards.  “I think it was well received, I hope it was well received,” he said.  “I hope that democracy in this country will continue because right now we have a very tough situation with all of the radical left ideas with the weaponization of politics.  They weaponize it like it’s never been weaponized before.”

He blamed whatever “insurrection” there might have been on then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  And it’s true:  if she’d accepted his offer of 10,000 National Guard troops, there’d have been no riot.

More here…

William A. Jacobson, a Cornell law professor who writes at the LEGAL INSURRECTION blog, offers a good summary.  (Apology:  the language in the tweets from some other observers gets quite rough at times.)  Trump had a great attorney, and we would add that it never hurts to have the law on your side.

Imagine how thinly Trump’s attorneys must be stretched this week.  As we reported yesterday, they just found out on Tuesday that they have only till next Monday, February 12, to file their request with the Supreme Court for an appeal in Jack Smith’s “election interference” case based on presidential immunity.  Otherwise, the stay would no longer be in force and the case would go right back to court in DC, where pre-trial steps would continue as Jack Smith rushed frantically to try and convict Trump before the election.

And today, the High Court is hearing the Colorado 14th Amendment case.  As Victoria Taft says for PJ MEDIA, this is “Democrats’ latest effort to weaponize the law to make Donald Trump unelectable --- and broke --- in the 2024 election cycle.”  On Thursday, she says, “the Supreme Court now becomes the center ring in their Get Trump circus.”

Many legal experts have looked at this case and said it could --- and should --- be a unanimous decision by the Court that the 14th Amendment cannot be used in this situation.  To start with the obvious, Trump is NOT an insurrectionist.  (Recall what Scott Adams said about this:  that if at this point you think January 6 was actually an insurrection, you are too dumb to hold public office and should resign immediately.)  And it’s not up to a state court to simply declare him one.  He’s never been charged, let alone found guilty, of insurrection.  (Pelosi’s House impeached him in a blatantly political process, if you want to count that as being “charged,” but the Senate did not convict.)  Even Trump-hating special counsel Jack Smith, whom you KNOW would’ve charged Trump with insurrection if he’d thought he could, didn’t do that.

But the Supreme Court might not even need to get into those issues (although one might wish they would).  Legal experts have said that the President isn’t even covered by the language of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which specifically applies to an “officer” of the United States.  In U.S. v. Mouot (1888), the Supreme Court ruled that “unless a person in the service of the government...holds his place by virtue of an appointment...he is not, strictly speaking, an officer of the United States.”

Constitutional scholar Steven Calabrisi has explained why the writers of the Amendment would have meant it this way.  The wording of Article II, Section 2, shows that the President and “officers” are spoken of separately.  “Officers” are people who have been commissioned by the President, not the President himself, as he doesn’t commission himself!  Plus, there’s a really big clue that they didn’t mean to include the President:

“The words ‘President or Vice President’ were deliberately edited out of the final version of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. This, together with the disqualification of presidential electors and vice-presidential elector(s) who have engaged in ‘insurrection or rebellion’ makes it clear that the Framers of Section 3 did not intend for it to apply to presidents or vice presidents who engaged in insurrection.” 

There you are.  If it can be shown that the framers of Section 3 DELIBERATELY EDITED OUT the words “President or Vice President,” then clearly, they did not want that section to apply to those positions.  We don’t see how their intention could have been clearer.

As Pavlich also reported, Vivek Ramaswamy filed an amicus (friend-of-the-court) brief arguing that same point, that the President is not an “officer.”  He also said that the Democrats “have resorted to antidemocratic methods because they doubt that they can beat him in a fair election.”  He also expresses concern that such a precedent would “warp incentives for state decision-makers and voters alike.”  As if these weren’t getting warped enough as it is.  See Colorado and Maine.

So this might be a good time to pray for Trump, his legal team and the Justices, that wisdom might prevail and we have no further warping of the electoral system.

Finally, here’s some good news for all of us who desire transparency on the part of sneaky Special Counsel Jack Smith, who won’t even divulge the names of his legal team.  District Court Judge Aileen Cannon, who’s presiding over the “classified documents” case in Florida, has ruled that some discovery material Smith wanted to keep under seal will have to be disclosed.

Smith had tried to argue “witness safety and intimidation concerns,” but the judge seems not to have been impressed.  She found his response “sparse and undifferentiated” and said it “fails to provide the Court with the necessary factual basis to justify sealing.”  So, “there shall be no filing under seal of any unclassified material in this case,” she said, unless the Court has given permission to do so, which would be only in “clear and supported cases of risk to personal safety or national security.”  As it should be.  Thank you, Judge Cannon.


January 20, 2023

After months of investigation of about 80 suspects among SCOTUS clerks and others, the US Supreme Court Marshal announced that they have been unable to "identify a person responsible by a preponderance of the evidence" for leaking the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade.

Supreme Court News

October 4, 2022

A new session of the Supreme Court starts this week, and observers are watching closely to see if all the attempted threats and intimidation from the left over the overturning of Roe v. Wade will dissuade the Justices from blocking liberal activist rulings. I wouldn’t bet on that.

Most of the news outlets are leading with outraged mobs of leftists throwing fits and screaming about the end of Roe v. Wade. As usual, their reporting reflects an incorrect view that aside from a handful of fringe crazies, everyone agrees with the left’s viewpoint. In fact, there are tens of millions of Americans, the majority of them women, who have worked for years to overturn Roe and who see the loss of over 60 million babies to abortion as an unspeakable national tragedy. For them, Friday wasn’t a “dark day for women,” it was a long-hoped and prayed-for miracle. Let’s take a look at their victory celebrations first before getting into the really ugly stuff.

Last night, pro-abortion activists (I’m not going to call them “pro-choice” because they have no interest in women having any choice other than abortion) held their threatened “Night of Rage.” This might have been more effective if the left didn’t react to every election, court decision or stand-up comedian’s joke that doesn’t go exactly the way they want by flying into a quivering rage. Fox News has a continually-updated roundup of stories about the giant national tantrum following the SCOTUS overturning Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood.

Breitbart also has a running account of the left’s meltdown…

Protesters at the Arizona State Capitol gave January 6th Committee viewers a helpful demonstration of what a violent insurrection attempt looks like.

Great quote at that link from Arizona state legislator Warren Peterson: “Feeling safe at the Capitol as I sit by 3 of my fellow senators who are armed."

Of course, the Night of Rage was preceded by a Morning of Mindlessness, a Midday of Hypocrisy and an Afternoon of Incitement. To listen to the insane ranting, from unhinged Twitter warriors urging violence (and of course, not being suspended by Twitter)…

…to allegedly responsible Democratic Party office holders, you could safely assume that they didn’t even read the decision, or for that matter, know anything at all about the original Roe ruling. I wonder if they know that Roe originally legalized abortion fully only in the first trimester? If it still held, abortion laws in many blue states would be much stricter than they are now. 

The cluelessness wasn’t limited to American liberals. French President Macron took to Twitter to denounce the SCOTUS and declare abortion a “fundamental right of women.” The Mississippi law the Court upheld bars abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. In France, it’s barred after only 12 weeks.

I’ve also never seen so many hard leftists morph instantaneously into hardcore Libertarians. They’re now railing against unelected judges making decisions about something that should be determined by the people. They apparently don’t comprehend that that’s what Roe was, as the pro-life side has been pointing out for half a century. By overturning Roe, the Court voided the judicial overreach and sent decisions about abortion back to the people’s elected representatives in the states.

It’s mind-boggling to see so many leftists denouncing judicial activism when this is actually the opposite of that. Particularly since judicial activism has been the left’s favorite way of sidestepping legislatures and imposing their will on the people for decades. It’s how they forced abortion on America with Roe because they couldn't convince the voters. But what the Courts do, the Courts can undo. It’s tempting to tell them the same thing parents often say to children who are throwing tantrums: “You brought this on yourself.”


Sadly, the Democrats once again proved themselves unworthy of holding any position of responsibility, from the President on down. Biden could have reacted to the decision in a statesmanlike fashion and attempted to calm the fury and urge Americans to come together and respect our Constitutional system. He could have at least denounced the illegal protests at Justices’ homes and the threats against them and churches and pro-life pregnancy centers. Instead, he chose to demagogue, throw more gas on the fire (I’m amazed he could afford it), and exploit the rage to shill for votes for Democrats.

I don’t believe this will be the turning point issue they think it will be. Most Americans are at least somewhat pro-life. The number of abortions has been falling in recent years. And acting like violent lunatics, threatening people who disagree with you and calling for burning down the Supreme Court when you don't get your way is not a good way to convince voters to give you more power. Besides, a new McLaughlin poll found that only 5% of voters call abortion a “top concern” to them.

FYI: Joe Biden used to be pro-life himself. In fact, in 1982, he proposed a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade and return the issue of abortion to the states. Sound familiar?

It was only as recently as 2019, when he had to pander to the far left to win the Democratic Presidential nomination, that he dropped his support for the Hyde Amendment barring federal funding of abortions.


Attorney General Merrick Garland, who has yet to do his duty and arrest people protesting at SCOTUS Justices’ homes, again proved that he either doesn’t grasp or doesn’t care that his job requires him to enforce laws objectively and not display political prejudice. He issued a statement condemning the Court ruling and declaring that the “Justice” Department will “work tirelessly to protect and advance reproductive freedom.” Not only was this wildly inappropriate (it’s described at the link as the “most overtly political moment in DOJ history"), it also contained elements that could easily be taken as racist. As if the incoming GOP Congress didn’t have enough reasons to impeach and remove Garland, this alone is more than enough.

Over in Congress, Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi took a break from accusing Republicans of violent insurrection against a branch of the government to rush into the streets and demand violent insurrection against a branch of the government.


Naturally, AOC joined in the irresponsible, insurrection-y rhetoric, with a side order of her specialty: clueless ignorance about the Constitution and how our government works. And just one day before, this woman was complaining about how underpaid she is at only $174,000 a year. 

You didn’t think Maxine Waters was going to act like a responsible adult, did you?

Far-left Rep. Cori Bush joined in the loon squad by telling a crowd that called abortion an “act of love” and was chanting, "Free abortion on demand, the people hate abortion bans!" that these “unelected” Justices (at least she knows that much) made a decision that will affect people “whose children and children’s children they will never know.” I doubt that’s going to be an issue to the people she was talking to.

Law professor Jonathan Turley tried to correct some of the Democrats’ spit-flecked hysteria, but it will probably be as effective as trying to reason with a bobcat.


In the meantime, leave it to the Babylon Bee to sum up the day’s news perfectly:



What Dobbs means

June 27, 2022

Now that I’ve covered all the screaming people who don’t understand what this ruling means in depth, here are some stories about what it actually does mean. First of all, it doesn’t mean that the Court is about to overturn same-sex marriage or legal contraceptives. The decision authored by Justice Alito makes it clear that this applies only to abortion and Roe and Casey. Here’s what it means and why even liberals like Ruth Bader Ginsburg always knew it was a badly-flawed ruling.

And if Democrats really think Republicans want to take away contraceptives, why have Democrats repeatedly blocked Republican efforts to make oral contraceptives available over-the-counter, so they’ll be easier to obtain and cheaper?

President Biden’s claim that the ruling makes the US an “outlier” among nations when it comes to allowing abortion is, like most things he says, nonsense. In fact, most nations have abortion laws more restrictive even than some red states. This actually moves us away from extremes like China and North Korea and more toward the abortion laws in Europe.

As I’ve been telling people for years, this doesn’t mean abortion is now illegal nationwide. It means it’s up to the states to decide. Some states already had laws restricting abortion ready to go that would be triggered if Roe was overturned, and the first to take effect was in Missouri.

But 12 other states had similar trigger laws, and up to 26 are considered “certain or likely” to ban abortion to at least some extent. Other states will no doubt legalize abortion up to the moment of birth. California Gov. Gavin Newsom wants to make his state an “abortion destination,” surely the sickest appeal to tourism this side of package tours of Vlad the Impaler’s castle. I pray that once the hysteria calms down that people in those states will change their hearts and minds and realize what a horrific stand they’re chosen to take.

In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court has struck down New York’s requirement that citizens prove to the government that they have a specific need to carry a weapon for self-defense outside their homes.

Writing for the majority, Justice Thomas said the Second Amendment right to bear arms for self-defense is not a second class right subject to an entirely different body of rules than other rights. For instance, you don’t have to prove to the government that you have a need to voice unpopular speech or freely exercise your religious beliefs.

Justice Alito concurred, writing, "Today, unfortunately, many Americans have good reason to fear that they will be victimized if they are unable to protect themselves. And today, no less than in 1791, the Second Amendment guarantees their right to do so.”

This is a major victory for gun rights, but if you follow the Constitution, it’s hard to imagine it going any other way. The law was obviously unconstitutional from the start, and with each passing day, as New York’s liberal policies hampered police responses and allowed crime to flourish, the need for self-protection wherever you went became increasingly urgent. Personally, I don’t know how the Justices could keep a straight face listening to lawyers from New York argue that nobody needs to carry a weapon to feel safe…in NEW YORK.  

Kavanaugh Shooter Update

June 13, 2022

The 911 call that led to the arrest of the armed young man outside SCOTUS Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home confirmed that he came there intending to kill Kavanaugh because he was all fired up by incendiary rhetoric about the possible overturning of Roe v. Wade. We know this because the would-be assassin made the call himself.

He said he found the house thanks to an article containing a photo and the address (nice doxing job, guys), but when he saw there were officers there, he left and called 911 to give himself up. He admitted needing psychiatric help and said he wanted to be fully compliant.

We can learn a few things from this. Like how incredibly dangerous it is to print the addresses of Supreme Court Justices. And how shockingly irresponsible it is for people like Chuck Schumer to make threatening comments intended to influence the judges’ votes, knowing that there might be mentally unstable people listening and taking him seriously (if you listen to Chuck Schumer at all and take him seriously, you’re likely mentally unstable.) And we learn that the gun didn’t come to shoot a Justice all by itself. As is often the case, it was carried there by someone who had mental health issues.

Of course, some people are incapable of learning, which is why radical pro-abortion groups like Ruth Sent Us are continuing their unconscionable intimidation campaign against not only the Justices but Amy Coney Barrett’s children at her school. And we learn that Attorney General Merrick Garland’s refusal to enforce federal law against harassment of judges at their homes is not only emboldening these dangerous people, it’s also adding more grounds for Garland’s inevitable (and I hope, swift) impeachment in the upcoming GOP Congress.

Related: The New York Times buried the story below 16 other stories, and headlined it, “Armed Man is Arrested Near Home of Justice Brett Kavanaugh.” Wonder how they would’ve treated it if it had been an armed man in a MAGA cap admitting he intended to assassinate Justice Sotomayor?

Roe leak reactions

May 9, 2022

To sum up this past week, Spencer Brown at recaps some of the left’s most ludicrous and hysterical reactions to the leak of the SCOTUS draft ruling on Roe v. Wade. From their reactions, you’d think it was not only going to ban abortion, but also interracial marriage, contraceptives and owning more than five cats. Their bonkers response is perfectly encapsulated in the title: “Did Democrats Even Read the Leaked SCOTUS Draft?

Personally, I suspect they haven’t read most things they get spitting mad over, from “Huckleberry Finn” to the Constitution. If they think all this lunatic behavior will help them in November, they obviously haven’t yet read a new CNN poll, taken after the SCOTUS leak. It found that while the abortion issue has increased voter enthusiasm among Democrats, it’s increased it even more among Republicans, and “the overall picture for the midterm elections is little changed after this week’s news.” Yes, this is actually from CNN:

“The share of registered voters who say they are extremely or very enthusiastic about voting this fall rose 6 points between the first survey and the second, but that increase is about even across party lines. Among Democrats, 43% now say they are extremely or very enthusiastic, up 7 points. Among Republicans, it’s 56%, up 9 points. And voters who say overturning Roe would make them 'happy' are nearly twice as enthusiastic about voting this fall as those who say such a ruling would leave them 'angry' (38% extremely enthusiastic among those happy, 20% among those angry).”

The poll also found that while majorities don’t want Roe overturned, and if it is, want a national law allowing abortion, it’s not the primary issue driving most voting decisions. In fact, the Republican edge over Democrats on the generic ballot actually increased since the previous poll to 49-42%.

I also have a feeling the enthusiasm to rush to vote Democrat to protect abortion will also wane as time goes by and people realize just how much of what they’re currently hearing is groundless hysteria completely unhinged from fact. Even Bill Maher is already pointing that out.

For the record, longtime Democrat strategist Doug Schoen is also trying to warn the Party that they’re deluding themselves about unfettered abortion being a winning issue, but I doubt they’ll listen to him any more than they do me.

Some Republicans are worried that what appeared to be a blowout victory in November may be derailed by a fired-up Democrat base returning to the Party due to Roe v. Wade being overturned. It’s definitely an unexpected turn, but I doubt it will have the impact that the bellowing loons in the liberal media are hoping for. There are several reasons:

1. As I’ve been telling people for decades (liberals really should read my newsletter and watch my shows), overturning Roe v. Wade will not mean abortion is banned. It will just return it to the states to be decided by the people’s elected representatives (“our democracy!”) Some states will limit or ban abortion, but Republicans are likely to win those states anyway. Other states are already passing pro-abortion laws that I’d call infanticide, and thanks to Roe, there was nothing stopping them from doing that for 49 years. They’re already lopsidedly blue.

2. As usual, the left is wildly overplaying its hand, taking things too far, and crying “Wolf!” through Led Zeppelin’s old wall of amplifiers. They didn’t have the sense to wait until just before the election, they had to leak the decision and start ringing all the alarm bells now. By the time November finally arrives, voters will have realized that it really didn’t make that much difference and be focused on other issues, like $7 gas, empty store shelves, their deflated 401Ks, and all the illegal immigrants pouring in by the thousands. What they’ll remember about this moment is all the people running for important offices screaming like lunatics on cable TV as their supporters ran wild in the streets, threatening Supreme Court Justices and calling for “burning it all down.”

3. The idea that women (whose rights have been under such assault by Democrats that until this week, they refused to admit that the concept of a “woman” even existed) will vote based entirely on protecting unfettered abortion is highly oversold. Recent polls show that while a majority of Americans didn’t want Roe v. Wade overturned (and I think it’s because they’d been misled about what that would mean, which will soon be cleared up for them), 20% want abortion banned entirely and another 50% want at least some restrictions. That leaves only 30% who want the kind of unlimited slaughter of babies in the womb that the Democrats are selling. That’s not a winning coalition, and most of them already live in districts where, as Nancy Pelosi once said, a glass of water with a (D) after its name could get elected.

4. Besides, the liberal media talking heads overlook the fact that this decision will also rally and galvanize millions of pro-life Americans to vote. They don’t think about them because they’ve never actually met any of those people.

I could go on with more false narratives currently being pushed, but Athena Thorne at PJ Media wrote an excellent piece on that, so please give it a read:

It’s always hard to choose the dumbest, most hysterical reaction from the left to any news story that doesn’t go their way, but it’s a safe bet that the best place to start is with Rep. Eric Swalwell. Although to be fair, he’s not the only one to make the jaw-droppingly stupid claim that “the Republicans won’t stop with banning abortion. They want to ban interracial marriage. Do you want to save that? Well, then you should probably vote.”

That’s about the most succinct example I’ve seen that the Democrats intend to demagogue the SCOTUS’ Roe ruling to the hilt in a cynical attempt to get people to vote for more of the misery that having them in power inflicts on us all. I would never insult anyone by assuming they’re dumb enough to actually swallow (or Swalowell) this tripe, but for the record:

The Alito draft decision makes it crystal clear that this decision applies solely to the uniquely incorrectly-decided Roe v. Wade ruling on abortion and not to any other ruling or right.

One of the conservative Justices concurring in the opinion is Clarence Thomas, who is in an interracial marriage. He would probably agree with the outrage expressed by a number of other black Republicans at the idea that they want to outlaw their own interracial marriages.

Also worth noting: polls show that 94% of Americans approve of interracial marriages while 71% want abortion banned or restricted. Why are the Democrats attacking our democracy?

Bombshell story

May 3, 2022

Before I say anything about last night’s big bombshell story about the Supreme Court and Roe v. Wade, let me get a few caveats out of the way:

The initial draft of a majority opinion allegedly written by Justice Alito appears genuine, but that doesn’t mean it is. Also, initial drafts are just that: drafts. They can change over time as the Justices continue to debate. They can even change their votes. And this decision was not set to be released for a couple of months yet. Also, while it seems that the most likely culprit to have leaked it would be a liberal law clerk hoping to gin up public pressure on the Justices to change their votes, we don’t know for sure who leaked it. Now, on to the story:

Politico released what it claims is a leaked initial draft of a majority opinion of the SCOTUS, overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling legalizing abortion (and isn’t it bizarre that the media suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story on the excuse they don’t publish hacked evidence – which that wasn’t – but they ran to get this out, when it could have been stolen by hackers.)

As you’d expect, the legal reasoning of the alleged Alito-written opinion is rock solid, and nothing new to anyone who’s paid attention over the past five decades. Roe was a ruling with zero basis in the Constitution; a political statement disguised as a judicial ruling. The draft opinion points out that there is nothing in the Constitution about a right to abortion, and the long history of laws banning abortion shows that the Founders never intended to include such a right. The Constitution also does not prohibit citizens of the states from banning or regulating abortion. This was clearly a profound moral question that the Founders left up to elected representatives in each state. It says that with the Roe v. Wade ruling, the SCOTUS arrogated that authority, which the Court now returns “to the people and their elected representatives.”

The Facts, For Those Who Care…

Not that they matter to the hopped-up radicals currently screaming all over TV and social media, but here are some facts:

If it is true that the SCOTUS has voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, it will not be unprecedented. There have been bad rulings before, and some have been overturned by the Court while others were killed by subsequent laws.

It also will not mean that abortion will be banned. As I’ve been saying for years, it would return the question to the states. We already have blue states that are passing abortion bills so radical, they’ve virtually legalized infanticide. And there are red states like my home state of Arkansas that have recognized the sanctity of life from the moment of conception and passed laws limiting abortion to before a detectible heartbeat, or other early points of development.

As legal scholar Mark Levin explained, the Founders intended the federalist system to respect the individual cultures of the states, while allowing free travel between them for those who disagreed. There would be nothing stopping someone who wanted an abortion from going to a state that allowed them. While I would hope that the pro-abortion side would change their hearts (and open their minds to rapidly evolving science on what’s happening in the womb), for the foreseeable future, there would still be states that allowed abortion. Those who argue that poor women couldn’t afford to travel could just give them money for a bus ticket instead of showering millions on Planned Parenthood.

The Secondary Bombshell

What is unprecedented is the leaking of this SCOTUS draft, which was described by law professor Jonathan Turley as “unspeakably unethical” and by the SCOTUS Blog as “the gravest, most unforgivable sin,” an “earthquake” in terms of the destruction of trust among Justices and staff. The Justices need to be able to freely debate cases without concerns about their private thoughts leaking and being politicized, and that’s exactly what happened the second Politico released this.

The “scream-at-the-sky” crazy leftwing went predictably berserk, forcing authorities to put security and barricades outside the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roberts reportedly wants an FBI investigation to identify who leaked this. There’s some question as to whether it’s a federal offense, but Fox News’ Laura Ingraham, who clerked at the SCOTUS, said clerks are told on day one that if they ever leak any private material, they are done at the Court and their law careers will be over. She called it “a line that could never be crossed.”

I assume that if a liberal clerk did this, he/she/xe doesn’t care and assumes the perfidy will result in a fat book contract, a CNN commentator gig and the other perks that typically support loyal leftists whose lack of ethics has left them otherwise unemployable.

And The Dems Are Off To The Races (the November Races)…

Naturally, some Congressional Democrats immediately seized on the news, since they’re desperate for any emotional issue to fire up their voters before the coming elections and make them forget just how terrible they are at governing.

The very first reaction of leftists such as Sen. Bernie Sanders was to call for either trying to stack the Court or circumventing the ruling by passing a national abortion legalization bill already passed on party lines by the House – and if they don’t have enough votes, then kill the Senate filibuster to shove it down Americans’ throats with 51 votes. That’s their typical “my way or the highway,” "cheating is justified when we do it" attitude. Lots of yak-yak about “diversity,” but zero tolerance for diversity of thought. And does Bernie really think Joe Manchin would vote to go along with that?

It’s so on-brand of today’s Democrats that after spending over a year accusing Republicans of launching an assault on the sacred institutions of democracy, they turn on a dime and rush to destroy the sacred institutions of democracy to get their way. It’s also very predictable that the bill they want to pass to legalize abortion bears the wildly misleading title, the “Women’s Health Protection Act.” If they truly believed that aborting babies was morally and ethically justifiable, then why do they struggle so hard to come up with fuzzy euphemisms to hide what they’re really doing, like “women’s health” or “reproductive justice”?

Or as President Biden put it as he tried to turn it into a winning election issue, “A woman’s right to choose is fundamental.” Two questions: To choose WHAT, Joe? Also, could you please define “woman”?

Many legal experts are warning that if the intent of the leak was to gin up the mob to threaten the Justices into changing their votes, that’s likely to backfire. The Justices take very seriously their duty to rule based on the cases and the Constitution, not heated political considerations. In fact, the conservative most likely to compromise or vote with the liberals, Chief Justice Roberts, is also known for being very concerned about maintaining the integrity and image of the SCOTUS, and appearing to bow before a mob would undermine it even worse than this leak.

Again, this is an alleged leaked draft, and the Court has NOT yet ruled on this case. Mature adults know that you wait until the decision is released and then deal with it like rational people who respect the Constitution and the diversity of opinion among the various states (look at me, having to defend diversity from angry leftists!)

But the Democrats are reacting like hyperactive children, throwing a tantrum and threatening to burn down the house if they don’t get what they want. If they really think this is going to convince people to keep them in power, I can understand why they’re dumb enough to believe that Roe v. Wade was such a solid Constitutional ruling that it could never be overturned.

I was on Newsmax last night, talking about this issue, to emphasize that the Democrats’ version of “The Big Lie” is claiming that overturning Roe v. Wade would ban abortion. Also, that this leak is the Democrats’ version of “Insurrection” in attempting to undermine, damage and even destroy the institution of the Supreme Court.

PS: To correct a live TV slip of the tongue, I meant that 62 MILLION babies have been sacrificed on the altar of this terrible ruling since 1973.

Ketanji Brown Jackson

Republican Sen. Susan Collins has already voiced her intentions to vote to confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson for the Supreme Court, as has Democrat Sen. Joe Manchin, so it’s now being treated as a certainty. Democrats are rushing forward with a vote today to advance her nomination out of the Judiciary Committee and hurry it to a floor vote.

But her confirmation process has actually made her appear less qualified than she seemed at first glance. Her record of going easy on pedophiles is disturbing enough. And the New York Post obtained transcripts of some of those rulings that are even more disturbing that we’ve been led to believe (warning: graphic details at the link.)

Also, the Democrats have refused even to release other records on her. And Sen. Ted Cruz revealed that in the written questions he submitted to her, she claimed she was unable to state whether Americans have natural rights. I’m not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure the Founders listed our God-given rights in a PS to the Constitution called “The Bill of Rights.”

I get that she was too afraid of the trans lobby to admit that she knows what a “woman” is, but who is she afraid of offending by admitting that she knows Americans are endowed by their Creator with certain natural rights? Personally, I don’t want someone who’s unclear on that concept sitting on the Supreme Court for life.

Republicans may not have the majority, but lest we forget, neither do the Democrats. They just have the Veep to break ties. There is still a way that the Republicans could stop this headlong rush to place someone on the SCOTUS who doesn’t know a woman from a natural right. Allan Stevo at American Greatness explains how, but it would require all the Republicans to stand together to protect America. Let’s hope that’s not too much to ask of some of them.

Republicans scored a couple of important court victories this week. The Supreme Court rejected an attempt to replace the Wisconsin legislature’s voting district map with one drawn by the Governor that created an extra 7th majority black district. Defenders claimed this was necessary to comply with the Voting Rights Act.

The SCOTUS ruled that this was in error. In Shaw v. Reno (1993), the Court ruled that under the Equal Protection Clause, districting maps that sort voters on the basis of race “are by their very nature odious.” Any state that draws districts based on race has to withstand strict scrutiny in proving that there’s a compelling state interest in doing so, and it must be “narrowly tailored” to comply with the Voting Rights Act.

The larger point here is that the Court reaffirmed that states can’t use the Voting Rights Act as a blanket excuse to gerrymander voting districts based solely on race. That can only be done in a very limited way, and they must have a solid reason for why it’s necessary.

The other court win came in Ohio, where federal District Judge Michael Newman ruled in favor of attorneys general from Arizona, Montana and Ohio in a lawsuit against Department of Homeland Security Director Alejandro Mayorkas.

Mayorkas issued a memo to ICE agents, ordering them to prioritize deportations of illegal aliens who pose a threat to national security or public safety, or who recently came to the US. As for the rest, he wrote, “In exercising our discretion, we are guided by the fact that the majority of undocumented noncitizens who could be subject to removal have been contributing members of our communities for years…The fact that an individual is a removable noncitizen therefore should not alone be the basis of an enforcement action against them. We will use our discretion and focus our resources in a more targeted way. Justice and our country’s well-being require it.”

As you might imagine, federal immigration law doesn’t include an exception for those who’ve managed to dodge deportation long enough (those he euphemically called "removable noncitizens.") The judge quite correctly ruled that Mayorkas was attempting to rewrite the law to make it more to his liking. He cited a quote from a 1952 SCOTUS decision that we should probably embroider onto samplers and send to DC to decorate the entire executive branch:

“In the framework of our Constitution, the President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker.”

That’s a bedrock tenet of the Constitution that the Obama Administration regularly flouted and that Biden has continued. Whenever Obama didn’t like a law Congress had passed, his DOJ would simply refuse to enforce it; and when Congress refused to pass a law he wanted, even one he admitted he had no power to enact, he would go ahead and create it anyway by “executive order.” Too many times, activist liberal judges went along with the insane idea that somehow, Obama had the power to create laws by executive order, but Trump didn’t have the power to rescind those unconstitutional edicts.

Let’s hope that this ruling heralds a trend of judges putting the brakes on Biden’s attempts to continue lawless rule by executive order and ignoring laws that he took an oath to enforce.

Ketanji Brown Jackson

Tuesday, questioning got underway in the Senate confirmation hearing of Biden SCOTUS nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson. As has become standard for these hearings, it was a made-for-TV production, except the shows produced for Republican nominees like Kavanaugh and Barrett resembled “American Horror Story” while the shows produced for Democrat nominees are more like “Queen For A Day.”

To draw a few “Goofus and Gallant”-like comparisons: Democrats grilled Kavanaugh about the meaning of in-jokes from his old high school yearbook that he didn’t even write. But they accused Republicans of racism for asking Jackson about judicial rulings that she did write.

Kavanaugh was expected to remember every detail of what he did every day when he was a teenager. Jackson claimed not to remember the basis of the Dred Scott Decision, one of the most important SCOTUS rulings in history, and that was fine.

With Kavanaugh, everything from his beer consumption to his personal diary was fair game for questioning. With Jackson, thousands of pages of documents have been withheld from Republicans, from records of her tenure on the US Sentencing Commission to her own probation rulings.

Kavanaugh was falsely accused of being a rapist. Republicans were criticized for even asking Jackson why she routinely gave lower-than-requested or suggested sentences to child porn defendants.

I could go on and on, but you get the idea. Other highlights of the day included Jackson saying that “Critical Race Theory doesn’t come up in the work I do as a judge.” Sen. Ted Cruz then read a quote from her saying that Critical Race Theory is part of her work as a judge.

Jackson also claimed that she couldn’t define what a “woman” is...

…She doesn’t know when life begins…

…And she thinks “illegal aliens” are simply “non-citizens.”

I can only imagine the media reaction if a Republican woman had professed such shocking ignorance of issues she regularly deals with in her job.

Ironically, in this theatrical production, Jackson is playing the role of a conservative centrist who respects the Constitution, which I don’t find convincing, but she's getting raves from the media for her performance. Kavanaugh and Barrett actually were conservative centrists who respect the Constitution, and the same critics savaged them. So I guess claiming to be a conservative centrist who respects the Constitution is only praiseworthy if the media knows you’re acting.

We all like to think, or at least hope, that likely voters are the best informed voters. But a shocking new CSPAN poll of likely voters may shake our faith.

It found that 44% of respondents didn’t know that the three branches of government were co-equal. Nearly half (46%) think the SCOTUS is a partisan institution (granted, they might have a point, at least unofficially.) 61% claimed they were closely following Biden’s SCOTUS nominee, but 72% have no idea who it is, and 85% didn’t know she’s a black female, which was Biden’s #1 criteria for choosing a nominee. And while Roe v. Wade was the best-known SCOTUS decision, only 6% knew Brown vs. Board of Education, the landmark ruling that ended segregation in schools.

But that’s not the only poll that reflects badly on the public’s grasp of important information. A YouGov America survey found that people must assume that the louder a voice a group has in the media, the larger it is, which ain’t necessarily so.

Asked to estimate the size of various groups, on average, respondents thought that 21% of the US population is transgender (it’s actually 1%), that 26% make over a million dollars a year (in reality, less than 1%), that 27% are Muslim (1%), 27% are Native American (1%), 30% are Jewish (2%), 30% are gay or lesbian (3%), 33% are atheist (3%), and that 41% of Americans are black (actually 12%.) Although it’s possible that 41% of people currently in TV commercials are black.

Again, this is a great example of the premise of Dr. Todd Rose’s book “Collective Illusions,” that so much of what people believe is based on misconceptions and falsehoods, many of them promulgated by groups with an agenda that are trying to sound bigger and more powerful than they really are. And the way they keep those illusions alive is by scaring people out of questioning them.

The first day of the Senate confirmation hearings for Biden Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson consisted of nothing but opening statements by Jackson and the Senators.

Jackson said, “During this hearing, I hope you will see how much I love this country, the Constitution, and the rights that make us free. I decide cases from a neutral posture. I evaluate the facts, and I interpret and apply the law to the facts of the case before me without fear or favor, consistent with my judicial oath. I know that my role as a judge is a limited one – that the Constitution empowers me only to decide cases and controversies that are properly presented. And I know that my judicial role is further constrained by careful adherence to precedent.”

That’s reassuring, but also hard to believe. Jackson wasn’t chosen by whoever’s making President Biden’s decisions for him just because she brings much-needed diversity to the SCOTUS by being yet another liberal Harvard alum. There were other judges who checked Biden’s “black/female” boxes, but Jackson was known as the most leftwing activist of the choices.

Senate Democrats provided the comic relief by admonishing Republicans that they had promised to keep the process “civil.” This from the same people who accused Judge Barrett of being in a "Handmaid's Tale" style religious cult and who smeared Brett Kavanaugh as a drunk, rapist and rape gang organizer with zero evidence.

As Sen. Ted Cruz reminded them, it’s the Democrats who have a disgusting history of turning SCOTUS hearings into “high tech lynchings” (Clarence Thomas’ term for the hearings he faced, thanks to then-Senator Joe Biden.) Biden also voted against a black female Bush nominee. He claimed it was because he disagreed with her philosophy and rulings, but by the Democrats' own claims, we can assume he just was being a racist.

The Republicans launched no personal attacks on Judge Jackson, but they made it clear that they had serious reservations about her previous statements and rulings. These include seven cases in which she gave pedophiles sentences far more lenient than federal guidelines called for, and her comments praising “The 1619 Project” and saying that judges should consider Critical Race Theory in sentencing defendants.

That doesn’t sound like being neutral and applying the facts without favor and in adherence to precedent. It would be nice to know more on her thinking about sentencing, but Sen. Chuck Grassley complained that his request for public records on Jackson’s four years on the US Sentencing Commission (which Democrats cited as part of her valuable experience) had been blocked and 48,000 pages worth of documents withheld from view.

Republican Senators, and indeed all Americans, deserve to know whether an unelected judge who may be handing down decisions that affect all our lives for decades to come is telling the truth about respecting the Constitution, the rule of law and limits on judicial power. Without that reassurance, we could end up with a two-tiered “justice” system – one in which people who, say, attempted to block the sacred duties of Congress by creating a disturbance in the chamber to block the Kavanaugh confirmation were let go without being accused of “insurrection” while a Trump supporter who was told by a Capitol Police officer that he could enter the Capitol, so he came in, looked around and left, faces up to 20 years in prison.

It never used to be necessary even to ask SCOTUS nominees if they believed in the type of banana republic “justice” system where people are punished or released based on their political beliefs rather than their actions. Unfortunately, now it is. And Republicans didn’t create that.

Despite the Supreme Court’s split ruling that OSHA doesn’t have the power to mandate vaccinations but the HHS can mandate them for healthcare workers, this court battle might not be over yet for all healthcare workers.

In a subscriber-only story, the Epoch Times reports that the Liberty Counsel has filed a brief with the SCOTUS on behalf of 2,000 health care workers in Maine who are seeking religious exemptions from the vaccine mandate. They’re using the same argument that succeeded in a Texas federal court against the Defense Department: if you allow for medical exemptions, people getting those exemptions pose the exact same risk to the state’s goals as those seeking religious exemptions. The virus doesn’t know the difference. So to allow secular exemptions and deny religious exemptions is unconstitutional religious discrimination.

I’ll keep you apprised on how this case goes. In the meantime, there are indications that support for vaccine mandates may be waning. For instance, there's this prominent person in the UK who says that considering that Omicron is a mild variant, Britain's mass vaccination effort is a "waste of time" and should come to an end. He says the government should focus instead on protecting the most vulnerable, such as unvaccinated elderly people.

Now, before I get censored and demonetized for spreading "misinformation" from some quack, I should quickly note that those comments came from Dr. Clive Dix, the former chairman of Britain's Vaccines Taskforce.

The Supreme Court just struck down a California regulation that’s been around since 1975 and that the SCOTUS previously declined to consider.

The regulation allowed union organizers to come onto employers’ property during non-work hours to talk to agricultural workers. Proponents claimed it was necessary to allow unions to contact and organize farm workers. Opponents say it’s outdated, since that can now be done online.

But what’s most interesting, and has broader implications, is that the SCOTUS rejected it as a clear violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments and the employers’ property rights. I’m sure California’s uber-liberal, pro-union leaders will be shocked to hear this, but the Court ruled that “the Founders recognized that the protection of private property is indispensable to the promotion of individual freedom. This Court agrees, having noted that protection of property rights is ‘necessary to preserve freedom’ and ‘empowers persons to shape and to plan their own destiny in a world where governments are always eager to do so for them.'”

They’re correct: the right to private property is one of the most maligned and belittled of all American rights, but it is fundamental to all rights. If the government has control over your property, then you don’t really own it, any more than you “own” a movie if your streaming service can cut it off any time they want. When the government controls “private” property, that’s not a free country, it’s a socialist state.

In a separate ruling, the SCOTUS reversed the (again) California Supreme Court, which ruled that a police officer can enter a suspect’s home without a warrant if the cop is in pursuit of someone for whom there’s probable cause that he committed a misdemeanor. The Court ruled that cops don’t have to wait for a warrant if it’s an emergency, but they would not “print a new permission slip” to violate the sanctity of someone’s home without a warrant or a pressing reason.

Another major rebuke to the leftist “all property belongs to the government” crowd is that these rulings were not narrow partisan splits, but 6-3 decisions. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan even wrote the one on warrantless entry! Unless far-left Democrats achieve their dream of packing the Supreme Court, this is bad news for all radical plans that involve seizing people’s property or telling them what they’re allowed to do on it. And that’s very good news for Americans.

The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of a former high school cheerleader who was punished by her public school for posting a profanity-laced caption on Snapchat when she was off school grounds.

It seems like a somewhat frivolous case (and I don’t like being forced to defend profanity), but it has major implications. As Justice Breyer wrote:

"It might be tempting to dismiss (the student's) words as unworthy of the robust First Amendment protections discussed herein. But sometimes it is necessary to protect the superfluous in order to preserve the necessary.” He said that students "do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression even at the schoolhouse gate. But we have also made clear that courts must apply the First Amendment in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. The school itself has an interest in protecting a student's unpopular expression, especially when the expression takes place off campus. America's public schools are the nurseries of democracy.”

That’s an important ruling because lately, too many schools have just seemed like nurseries, with the most immature brats in charge. By protecting the right to frivolous speech off-campus, the SCOTUS is also protecting serious speech. Let this be a warning shot to leftist school officials who are trying to monitor social media to bully and silence students who express non-“approved” political opinions off-campus. It’s past time they learned that they have no more power to silence free speech off-campus than they do on-campus.