Category: Supreme Court

This SCOTUS Ruling was MASSIVE — Ketanji Brown Jackson is Clueless!

Blaze Media D.C. correspondent Christopher Bedford breaks down the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling limiting nationwide injunctions, hailed as a win for common sense after 40 such orders — 62% against Donald Trump. He critiques Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s baseless dissent, contrasting it with Amy Coney Barrett’s sharp rebuttal, amid growing judicial animus post-filibuster changes. Bedford warns of future legal challenges from the Left to hinder Trump’s agenda, citing historical data of 167 injunctions since 1963, with a majority targeting Trump.

John Roberts SILENCED as Trump Goes OFF in Supreme Court Showdown!

When a federal judge blocked President Trump's immigration order, few expected what would follow. Instead of issuing a press statement or posting on social media, Trump demanded something unprecedented: a face-to-face confrontation inside the Supreme Court, with Chief Justice John Roberts seated just feet away. What played out wasn't politics as usual—it was something far bigger. With cameras rolling, Trump questioned the unchecked power of unelected judges and asked the question millions have been thinking but few dared to say out loud: Who really runs this country? This wasn’t about one ruling. It was about decades of silence, power without accountability, and a system many believed was beyond reach—until now. If you thought the courtroom was sacred ground, wait until you see what happens when the president walks in and refuses to walk out quietly.

Unpacking SCOTUS’s Latest EMBARRASSING Decision On USAID Funding

In a devastating ruling by the Supreme Court that 'shocked' Justice Alito, two GOP judges sided with the Democrats to undo President Trump's executive order, which froze $2 billion in USAID funding. That's what's at stake here: $2 billion of YOUR tax dollars potentially funding anti-American agendas or worse, with no accountability thanks to the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act diluting responsibility. This raises the question—who truly controls government? Congress as the chef, the President as the manager, or an overreaching Supreme Court as food inspector? President Trump MUST continue to fight back against the DOJ while eyeing a Scalia-like justice to fix a possibly rigged system. ENOUGH with these wishy-washy judges, Glenn argues. We need a BULLDOG.

Supreme Court Will Hear Case That Could Bankrupt the Palestinian Authority

“Pay-For-Slay” in the Limelight

 by 

[Craving even more FPM content? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more. Click here to sign up.]

Two cases, to be heard jointly by the Supreme Court, which could potentially bankrupt the Palestinian Authority and the PLO, will be decided in the next few months. More on the cases, and their possible devastating effect on the Palestinian Authority’s finances, can be found here: “Supreme Court to hear case on Palestinian Authority’s ‘martyr’ payments,” by Marc Rod, Jewish Insider, February 10, 2025:

The Supreme Court is set to hear a case in the coming months to decide whether American victims of Palestinian terror attacks can sue the Palestine Liberation Organization and Palestinian Authority for damages based on support for such attacks through the “pay for slay” program that compensates individuals who have carried out attacks as well as their families.These cases raise the question of whether a 2019 act of Congress, asserting jurisdiction over the PA and PLO, is constitutional.

The Supreme Court cases — Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization and United States v. Palestine Liberation Organization, which the court will hear jointly — pertain to a decades-long series of litigation efforts by American terror victims and their families to sue the PLO and the PA.

In one case in 2015, a lower court awarded a group of victims more than $650 million. But the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals has repeatedly ruled as unconstitutional multiple pieces of legislation passed by Congress to assert U.S. jurisdiction over the PLO and PA and enable such lawsuits….

Mark Pinkert, an attorney at Holtzman Vogel who filed the brief on behalf of the groups, told Jewish Insider that, through repeated legislation, Congress has made its intentions clear.

Congress said, ‘We want to make sure victims get access to justice, and we think that civil liability is a really important tool for fighting foreign terrorism,’” Pinkert explained, adding that creating such civil liability is part of Congress’ efforts to end the PA’s payment program….

Pinkert said that the justices’ decision will likely ultimately revolve around questions of whether the Fifth Amendment limits Congress’ ability to pass such legislation; the victims argue that it does not.

Pinkert said that given the court’s current originalist bent, it may favor that interpretation of the intent of the Fifth Amendment, though Supreme Court decisions are often difficult to predict.

He added that, although the Supreme Court is independent, it will be “hard for them to ignore” the strong bipartisan support for PSJVTA and efforts to hold the PA and PLO civilly liable.

“It’s a big deal to strike down a federal statute, and not just any federal statute, but one that has been passed over and over again with bipartisan support and with so many amicus groups supporting the petitioners,” Pinkert said. “On a practical level, I think that’s going to be in the back of the Supreme Court justices’ minds.”

If the Supreme Court decides that the Fifth Amendment does not limit Congress’ ability to pass such legislation, so that the 2019 law, the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA), is declared constitutional, the effect will be to allow lawsuits by relatives of victims of Palestinian terrorism against the PA and the PLO, first for supporting terrorism with its “Pay-For-Slay” program and second for being a designated terrorist organization, which would likely bankrupt both. The Court’s conservative majority is almost certain to declare the legislation constitutional.

SCOTUS Declines Trump’s Bid To Delay N.Y. Sentencing

Justices of the US Supreme Court pose for their official photo at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC on October 7, 2022. (Seated from left) Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate Justice Samuel Alito and Associate Justice Elena Kagan, (Standing behind from left) Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. (Photo by OLIVIER DOULIERY / AFP) (Photo by OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images)
Justices of the US Supreme Court pose for their official photo at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC on October 7, 2022. (Seated from left) Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate Justice Samuel Alito and Associate Justice Elena Kagan, (Standing behind from left) Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. (Photo by OLIVIER DOULIERY / AFP) (Photo by OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images)

OAN Staff Sophia Flores
4:45 PM – Thursday, January 9, 2025

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has denied President-elect Donald Trump’s request to stop the sentencing in his so-called “hush money” case in New York.

In a 5-4 ruling on Thursday, SCOTUS rejected Trump’s emergency request to delay the proceedings.  

Justices on the bench, including Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, voted to approve Trump’s request. However, Trump-appointed justice Amy Coney Barrett voted against it with the Democrat justices. In January 2024, she also previously sided with the Biden administration on a border measure.

Justice John Roberts also voted against the request, siding with the Democrats.

In a brief order, the justices gave two reasons for their decision.

“First, the alleged evidentiary violations at President-elect Trump’s state-court trial can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal. Second, the burden that sentencing will impose on the president-elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial in light of the trial court’s stated intent to impose a sentence of ‘unconditional discharge’ after a brief in-person hearing.”

Trump is set to be sentenced on Friday, just ten days before he is set to be inaugurated on January 20th for a second term.

This is a breaking story. Check back for updates.

Stay informed! Receive breaking news blasts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts

Trump Victory, Senate Majority Assures 2nd Amendment Friendly Supreme Court

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2024/11/trump-victory-senate-majority-assures-2a-friendly-supreme-court; republished below in full, unedited, for informational, educational, & research purposes:
Donald Trump IMG WhiteHouse-gov
Former and future President Donald J. Trump’s return to office will assure more 2A-friendly federal court nominations and a reversal of Joe Biden’s crusade against gun rights. (Donald Trump IMG WhiteHouse-gov)

The silver lining of Donald J. Trump’s re-election as the 47th President Tuesday is that for the next two, and possibly four years, he will be able to fill federal court vacancies, including any open seats on the U.S. Supreme Court, with Second Amendment-friendly judges and justices.

It was a repudiation of the policies of anti-gun President Joe Biden and his equally anti-gun Vice President Kamala Harris. It was also a triumph over Democrats from the Biden-Harris administration on down who have waged a war against the former president beginning when he first took office in 2017 and have not relented over the past four years in an effort to prevent him from running for another term.

Gun owners should expect the new Trump administration to quickly do a couple of things:

  • Abolish the Biden-Harris White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention. This blatant creation of an internal administrative mini-bureaucracy whose only purpose was to lobby for stricter gun control laws was considered an open declaration of war on the Second Amendment and the nation’s gun owners.
  • Fire and replace ATF Director Steve Dettelbach. Install someone in that position who does know something about firearms, and who can tell the difference between honest American gun owners and violent criminals who belong in prison.

This person should quickly change policies regarding the regulation of traditional gun shows across the country.

Gun owners are also expecting President Trump to nominate a U.S. attorney general who directs his/her attention to prosecuting and imprisoning genuine violent criminals, rather than adopt and enforce policies designed to make criminals of law-abiding gun owners.

Here are a few suggestions for Republicans in the House and Senate:

  • Pass legislation prohibiting waiting periods for anyone with a concealed carry license or permit issued by any state.
  • Pass national reciprocity legislation, requiring states that do not already have so-called “constitutional carry” statutes to recognize carry permits/licenses issued by any other state.
  • Pass legislation allowing cross-state purchase of handguns, with enough funding to improve the FBI’s National Instant Check System (NICS). (After all, an individual who can pass a background check in his/her home state should be able to pass a background check in any state.)
  • Pass legislation requiring photo identification for voting. (People must show valid photo ID to open bank accounts, make major purchases, buy firearms and do all sorts of other things. It should be the same for voting in any election.)

It is clear gun owners in critical battleground states turned out to help move the vote for Trump and away from Harris, who could not shake her position on “mandatory buybacks” despite efforts by her campaign to walk it back.

As noted by Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, “In this election, the Democrats shot blanks and the voters buried their gun ban agenda. I bet they will double down on gun prohibition because they know that it was gun owners that removed them from power and they are gunning to get even. The fight to defend gun rights is not over and every gun owner who helped win this battle must remember that the war on gun rights is ongoing.”

One major disappointment came from the Pacific Northwest, where voters elected vehemently anti-gun Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson as the state’s next governor. He may have an awkward time of things, considering his history of filing lawsuits against the president-elect during his first term.

As noted by Fox News, Ferguson “came to national prominence by repeatedly suing the administration of former President Donald Trump, including bringing the lawsuit that blocked Trump’s initial travel ban on citizens of several majority-Muslim nations.”

Ferguson reminded his supporters of his history of litigating against Trump, beginning almost immediately after the president took office in 2017.

In his victory speech, Ferguson declared, “I will lead a government that protects our core freedoms.” That may not apply to Article I, Section 24 of the state constitution, which declares “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired.” Yet Ferguson has lobbied for bans on so-called “assault weapons” and “large-capacity magazines.”

The concern now will be how fast Washington lawmakers move to make the Evergreen State just like New Jersey or California. Watch for an exodus of gun owners to neighboring Idaho, or states where they will be welcomed, such as Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona or Texas.

About Dave Workman

Dave Workman

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Backs GOP In Mail-In Ballot Dispute

Applications to vote are available on a check-in table at a polling location where voters cast their ballots during Michigan's early voting period on October 29, 2024 in Dearborn, Michigan. Early voter turnout has been heavy in Michigan, a key battleground state with 14 electoral votes, with over 250,000 early votes being cast in just the first two days. (Photo by Bill Pugliano/Getty Images)
Applications to vote are available at the check-in table at a polling location where voters cast their ballots during Michigan’s early voting period on October 29, 2024 in Dearborn, Michigan. (Photo by Bill Pugliano/Getty Images)

OAN Staff Abril Elfi
4:00 PM – Saturday, November 2, 2024

SEE: https://www.oann.com/newsroom/pennsylvania-supreme-court-backs-gop-in-mail-in-ballot-dispute/; republished below in full, unedited, for informational, educational, & research purposes:

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has blocked an attempt to allow mail-in ballots without a handwritten date from being counted in the 2024 election.

Friday's decision reverses a previous Commonwealth Court ruling that had declared the requirement for a handwritten date on ballots unconstitutional. Following an appeal by the Pennsylvania GOP, the state Supreme Court’s ruling now ensures that undated mail-in ballots will not be counted in the upcoming election.

Justice Kevin Dougherty criticized the Commonwealth Court for its decision.

“‘This Court will neither impose nor countenance substantial alterations to existing laws and procedures during the pendency of an ongoing election.’ We said those carefully chosen words only weeks ago. Yet they apparently were not heard in the Commonwealth Court, the very court where the bulk of election litigation unfolds,” Dougherty wrote.

“Today’s order, which I join, rights the ship. It sends a loud message to all courts in this Commonwealth: in declaring we would not countenance substantial alterations to existing laws and procedures during the pendency of an ongoing election, we mean what we meant and meant what we say,” he continued.

Pennsylvania Republicans praised Friday’s ruling, claiming that Democrats have repeatedly attempted to undermine the requirement for a handwritten date on ballots.

State officials supporting the counting of undated ballots argue that this change would simplify the process for election workers. 

Prior to the court’s ruling, the Pennsylvania Department of State submitted a brief advocating for the change.

“The requirement that county boards set aside mail ballots with declaration-date errors — and particularly the requirement that they set aside mail ballot envelopes with ‘incorrect’ dates — imposed a significant burden on county boards. Election workers must manually review each ballot envelope to determine whether it has a ‘correct’ date,” the brief said, according to the Pennsylvania Capital-Star.

Friday’s decision marks the second time this month that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has halted Democrat-supported attempts to remove the dating requirement.

Stay informed! Receive breaking news blasts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts

SCOTUS Halts Lower Court Order To Reinstate 1,600 Noncitizen Voters In Virginia

NEW YORK, NEW YORK - OCTOBER 29: New Yorkers participate in early voting at a polling site in Brooklyn on October 29, 2024 in New York City. As Election Day approaches on November 5th, millions of Americans are casting their ballots early at polling sites or drop boxes. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
(Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

OAN Staff James Meyers
8:34 AM – Wednesday, October 30, 2024

SEE: https://www.oann.com/newsroom/scotus-halts-lower-court-order-to-reinstate-1600-noncitizen-voters-in-virginia/; republished below in full, unedited, for informational, educational, & research purposes:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to temporarily halt a Virginia court ruling after a federal judge ordered the state to reinstate hundreds of noncitizens from the state’s voter rolls. 

The major decision, favoring the wishes of Governor Glenn Youngkin (R-Va.) and other Americans concerned about election fraud, comes just days after the Old Dominion state filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court to halt a lower court decision.

The lower court decision was in relation to ordering the state to restore the names of almost 1,600 suspected fraudulent voters to its voter rolls. 

However, the issue with the case was whether Virginia’s voter removal process violates a so-called quiet period under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), or a federal law requiring states to halt all “systematic” voter roll maintenance for a 90-day period before a federal election. 

The argument prompted the Biden administration’s Department of Justice to sue the state over its removal program earlier this month, coming after Youngkin, who has maintained that the state’s process is “individualized” and conducted in accordance with state and federal law. 

The state’s voter poll maintenance program was implemented in August and it compares the state Department of Motor Vehicles’ list of self-identified noncitizens to its list of registered voters. As a result, individuals without citizenship were flagged and informed that their voter registration would be canceled unless they could prove their citizenship within 14 days. 

However, the DOJ argued that the removals were conducted “too close” to the November 5th election and claimed it violated the NVRA’s quiet period provision, a decision backed by a U.S. judge in Alexandria, who ordered Virginia last week to halt its removals and to reinstate the registrations of all 1,600 removed individuals. 

Additionally, Justice Department officials also noted concerns in the lawsuit regarding “possible” eligible voters who may have been “incorrectly removed” from the rolls without adequate notice or with enough time to correct the mistake. 

Virginia Attorney General Jason S. Miyares objected to the lawsuit on behalf of the state. He argued that the NVRA does not extend to “self-identified noncitizens” in the state. He also argued that even if the NVRA does apply, the state still has an “individualized process” of removing voters that is conducted by the Department of Motor Vehicles and directly by local registration offices. 

Further, on Monday, attorneys general from all 26 Republican-led states joined Virginia in filing an amicus brief with the Supreme Court, backing its assertion that the removal program was conducted on an “individualized” basis, and further, that the Justice Department’s reading of the protections granted under NVRA is overly broad and does not apply to noncitizens. 

Attorneys urged the court to grant Virginia’s emergency motion and “restore the status quo,” noting that doing so “would comply with the law and enable Virginia to ensure that noncitizens do not vote in the upcoming election.”

“This Court should reject Respondents’ effort to change the rules in the middle of the game and restore the status quo ante,” they wrote. “The Constitution leaves decisions about voter qualifications up to the people of Virginia. The people of Virginia have decided that noncitizens are not permitted to vote.”

Stay informed! Receive breaking news blasts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts

Democrat Donor ARRESTED for Threatening Lives of SCOTUS Justices

An Alaskan man who is a registered Democrat and has donated to ActBlue was just charged after allegedly harassing and threatening SIX Supreme Court justices. However, the media is mystified and making sure to disclose that it is UNCLEAR which Justices were facing the harassment. With the current ideological makeup of the Court being 6-3, is it really a difficult puzzle to figure out which Justices may have been targeted?...

President Biden’s Swan Song: Attack SCOTUS ~ VIDEO

Ammoland Inc.Posted on by

By Mark Oliva

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2024/08/president-bidens-swan-song-attack-scotus-video; republished below in full, for informational, educational, & research purposes:

President Joe Biden doesn’t plan on quietly exiting the political arena. He’s taking one last shot – albeit a wild swing – at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Call it a dog whistle to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party that’s been targeting the U.S. Supreme Court for a wide-variety of issues, a get-out-the-vote ploy to boost Vice President Kamala Harris in her bid for The White House as she replaces him on the party ticket or just sour grapes over a series of decisions – including those on gun control – that President Biden despises. Any and all could be true. What’s clear is President Biden’s play to remake the Supreme Court in his image would give gun control supporters an opportunity to wipe out recent rulings by the Supreme Court, including on the Second Amendment and restraining the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) regulatory overreach.

Parting Shot

President Biden announced his plan for the U.S. Supreme Court that would upset the balance of power between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches of the U.S. Government. He proposes to do away with lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court that keep the justices above the political fray and instead, proposes term limits of 18 years, essentially guaranteeing sitting presidents that will follow him into the Oval Office for at least two appointments during a presidential administration.

“Term limits would help ensure that the Court’s membership changes with some regularity; make timing for Court nominations more predictable and less arbitrary; and reduce the chance that any single Presidency imposes undue influence for generations to come,” The White House press office published in a Fact Sheet of President Biden’s proposed Court overhaul. “President Biden supports a system in which the President would appoint a Justice every two years to spend eighteen years in active service on the Supreme Court.”

It would also render the Supreme Court an extension of the politics of the day. That’s not what the Founding Fathers envisioned. Founders wisely wanted a judiciary that was above the political fray. The White House argued that the United States is the “only major constitutional democracy that gives lifetime seats to its high court Justices.”

Smarter than the Founders?

That’s because the U.S. Supreme Court is a uniquely American idea. It is “distinctly American in concept and function,” said Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, the 11th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. It underscores what Alexander Hamilton and James Madison wrote about the Court’s role in the Federalist Papers. Hamilton argued that the Supreme Court ensured the will of the people, expressed through the U.S. Constitution, would be untethered to the will of the legislature, which can sway back and forth. Madison argued that the Court would protect the Constitution from politics and political bargaining, instead residing with the “reasoned judgement of independent judges.”

President Biden, though, thinks he’s got a better idea than the Founding Fathers. He’d rather tether the Supreme Court to political wills, an extension of the Executive Branch’s notions instead of being moored by the U.S. Constitution.

Just four years ago, when President Biden was campaigning for election, he told CBS’s 60 Minutes, “The last thing we need to do is turn the Supreme Court into just a political football – whoever has the most votes gets whatever they want." Presidents come and go. Supreme Court justices stay for generations.”

Former Attorney General Warns

Still, former U.S. Attorney General William Barr is warning that President Biden’s proposals are dangerous.

“In truth, ‘court reform’ is nothing more than a desperate attack to subvert the legitimacy of the Supreme Court because it contains a majority of justices committed to the Constitution and originalism,” he wrote in a Fox News op-ed. “If this coup succeeds, the rule of law will be over as the judiciary will become little more than a political tool of whomever holds power.”

Former AG Barr added, “Congress has no business interfering with the actions of the judiciary."  It is the separation of powers into three district branches of government that makes our nation strong. To protect religious freedom and all of our cherished liberties, judges must be able to make decisions without fear of partisan retribution from the executive or legislative branches.  Biden and Harris’ ‘court reform’ would destroy that.”

Antigun Congress Complicit

This isn’t the first time President Biden’s talked about tinkering with the Court. President Biden issued an Executive Order in 2021 forming the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States. The commission’s final report was submitted in December 2021 that explored expanding the court and introducing term limits.

President Biden wasn’t alone in his agenda to style the court in his image. Capitol Hill politicians have demanded the Supreme Court reflect on their political agenda or face their wrath. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) infamously threatened Supreme Court justices while the Court was considering an abortion case in 2020.

“I want to tell you, Gorsuch… I want to tell you Kavanaugh…, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price,” Sen. Schumer said. “You won’t know what will hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

That’s not the only time, though, that political zealotry has overtaken the longstanding norms regarding elected representatives’ respect for the independence of the judiciary. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) took direct aim at the Supreme Court, particularly on matters of gun rights and gun control, when he wrote in an amicus brief arguing against NYSRPA v. City of New York, “Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.’ Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal.” The irony of Sen. Whitehouse’s threat is stunning.

Vice President Rides Shotgun

President Biden has already picked up other supporters with his court reform agenda and it’s not surprising why. For obvious reasons Vice President Kamala Harris publicly supported term limits that would automatically replace justices that haven’t decided firearm-related cases the way the Biden-Harris administration team would like. That was a departure from nearly four years ago when then-Sen. Harris refused to answer a question about packing the Supreme Court. But now that the Court has ruled several times in the past few years against the wishes of gun control activists – including President Biden, Vice President Harris and those staffing The White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention – the very justices this “reform” package targets are the pro-Second Amendment justices that could be the first to go. That’s because they’re the senior-most, longest tenured justices on the bench; including Justice Clarence Thomas (32 years), Chief Justice Roberts (18 years) and Justice Alito (18 years)—all of whom have voted in favor of protecting Second Amendment rights.

“Are you and Joe Biden going to pack the Court if Judge Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed?” then Vice President Mike Pence asked then-Sen. Harris, explaining that Supreme Court vacancies have been filled 29 times during election years. “But your party is openly advocating adding seats to the Supreme Court, which has had nine seats for 150 years if you don’t get your way. This is a classic case of if you can’t win by the rules, you’re going to change the rules.

That’s what appears to be happening now. Founders anticipate that this, too, may come to pass. That’s why they raised the high bar for any such changes if political players didn’t like how the Supreme Court was deciding cases before them. To change the lifetime appointments would require a Constitutional Amendment. Refer to Article V of the U.S. Constitution. President Biden’s proposals would require two-thirds approval from both the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate, and then must be ratified by three-fourths of the states. For those who want the numbers, that’s 290 yea votes in the House, 66 yea votes in the Senate and 38 states to agree that President Biden’s idea to subjugate the U.S. Supreme Court to political agendas is a good idea.

“But for now at least, Democrats are just dreaming (or messaging),” wrote Politico’s Eli Okun. “Either Supreme Court change would require some congressional Republicans to sign on, and a constitutional amendment on immunity would have to go through state legislatures, too.”

This could simply be dismissed as political pandering to gain votes in a competitive election cycle. However, it’s telling that President Biden, who claims his political opponent is a “threat to democracy,” is willing to burn down the very institutions that guarantee the survival of rule of law and the Republic itself.

About The National Shooting Sports Foundation

NSSF is the trade association for the firearm industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of thousands of manufacturers, distributors, firearm retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations, and publishers nationwide. For more information, visit nssf.org

National Shooting Sports Foundation

Joe Biden: My plan to reform the Supreme Court and ensure no president is above the law~Mitch McConnell Eviscerates Biden For ‘Full Scale Attack’ On Supreme Court

During remarks on the Senate floor, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) criticized President Biden for his proposed reforms to the Supreme Court.

Biden’s Most DISTURBING Move Yet! Dems Want to DISMANTLE the Supreme Court!

Joe Biden: My plan to reform the Supreme Court and ensure no president is above the law

‘EXTREME’: President Biden unveils plan for radical Supreme Court changes (25:29 minutes)

The Unbelievable Supreme Court Ruling That Allows Police to Seize Your Car for Over a Year

In a shocking 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court dealt a devastating blow to property rights, ruling that police are not required to hold prompt hearings when seizing cars and other assets, even from innocent owners. The case, involving two Alabama women whose cars were taken in drug-related incidents, highlights the glaring injustices within the civil forfeiture system. Despite the property belonging to individuals not accused of any wrongdoing, the owners were forced to wait over a year for the return of their vehicles. The ruling leaves countless Americans vulnerable to abuse, as law enforcement agencies can now seize and hold property indefinitely without any initial judicial oversight. In a scathing dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned of the potential for abuse, as police departments often have a financial incentive to retain seized assets. The decision has sparked outrage among civil liberties advocates, who argue that it undermines due process and property rights enshrined in the Constitution. As the practice of civil forfeiture continues to grow, the need for legal reform and increased protections for innocent property owners has never been more urgent. The Supreme Court ruling serves as a wake-up call for all Americans concerned about the erosion of their fundamental rights.

IN FOCUS: AZ Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Almost All Abortions with Seth Gruber

Tonight IN FOCUS... A CIA contractor brags they can lock anyone up and chop Alex Jones off at the knees to shut him up - who's next? Establishment actors have been issued new scripts on artificial intelligence in an effort to manufacture consent from the masses for their ultimate enslavement. Plus, the Arizona Supreme Court upholds a ban on almost all abortions in the state. Dr. Naomi Wolf joins us to discuss one of her latest theories survival of the weirdest.

Arizona Supreme Court Upholds 1864 Abortion Law Banning Nearly All Abortions

Arizona Supreme Court Upholds 1864 Abortion Law Banning Nearly All Abortions

Abortion rights protesters chant during a Pro Choice rally at the Tucson Federal Courthouse in Tucson, Arizona on Monday, July 4, 2022. (Photo by SANDY HUFFAKER / AFP) (Photo by SANDY HUFFAKER/AFP via Getty Images)
Abortion rights protesters chant during a Pro Choice rally at the Tucson Federal Courthouse in Tucson, Arizona, on Monday, July 4, 2022. (Photo by SANDY HUFFAKER / AFP) (Photo by SANDY HUFFAKER/AFP via Getty Images)

OAN’s Chloe Hauxwell
12:10 PM – Tuesday, April 9, 2024

SEE: https://www.oann.com/newsroom/arizona-suoreme-court-upholds-1864-abortion-law-banning-nearly-all-abortions/; republished below in full, unedited, for informational, educational, & research purposes:

The Arizona Supreme Court has voted to uphold a ban on almost all abortions in the state.

On Tuesday, the court ruled that in all cases, except where the life of the mother is at risk, abortions are illegal.

The crux of the argument was the law from 1846. The 160-year-old near abortion ban pre-dates Arizona’s statehood.

The 1864 law, which was codified again in 1901 and 1913, makes performing or inducing an abortion a felony.

The ruling will not be enforceable for 14-days.

The state’s attorney general released a statement after the ruling. Kris Mayes (D-Ariz.) stated that while she’s attorney general no doctor or woman would be prosecuted.

“The decision made by the Arizona Supreme Court today is unconscionable and an affront to freedom,” Mayes said in her statement. “Make no mistake, by effectively striking down a law passed this century and replacing it with one from 160 years ago, the Court has risked the health and lives of Arizonans. The Arizona Court of Appeals decision, which the Supreme Court has struck down today, was well reasoned and aligned with how courts harmonize different legislation.”

“Today’s decision to reimpose a law from a time when Arizona wasn’t a state, the Civil War was raging, and women couldn’t even vote will go down in history as a stain on our state,” she continued. “This is far from the end of the debate on reproductive freedom, and I look forward to the people of Arizona having their say in the matter. And let me be completely clear, as long as I am Attorney General, no woman or doctor will be prosecuted under this draconian law in this state.”

The opinion comes as the ballot measure is set to be voted on this November. It could allow abortions up to 24-weeks of pregnancy.

Stay informed! Receive breaking news blasts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts

U.S. Supreme Court Gives Hamas-Linked CAIR a 9-0 Thumbs-Up

By

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2024/03/u-s-supreme-court-gives-hamas-linked-cair-a-9-0-thumbs-up; republished below in full, unedited, for informational, educational, & research purposes:

The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) files many lawsuits, but wins comparatively few. So when it does receive a favorable decision, its operatives crow about it loudly. In the latest example, CAIR is calling a 9-0 Supreme Court ruling in its favor a “historic milestone for American Muslims.”

However, a simple reading of the Supreme Court’s decision in Federal Bureau of Investigation et al. v. Fikre, or of any of the many media reports on that decision, shows that CAIR is overstating the victory.

See, for example, “Supreme Court Says ‘No Fly List’ Suit Can Proceed Against FBI, for Now”, by Jimmy Hoover, Law.com, March 19, 2024. In essence, the court ruled:

Yonas Fikre, a U.S. citizen from Sudan, can—for now—pursue his claim that the FBI violated his constitutional right to due process when it placed him on the list roughly eight years ago. He says the placement left him stranded abroad for four years and led to his torture in the United Arab Emirates.

The government had tried to have Mr. Fikre’s case dismissed as moot, since the FBI had already removed Fikre from the No-Fly list, and as a result, there was no more damage to him. However, the Supreme Court did not accept this reasoning. From FBI vs Fikre:

In May 2016, the government notified Mr. Fikre that he had been removed from the No Fly List and sought dismissal of his suit in district court, arguing that its administrative action had rendered the case moot.”

Mootness is defined in Maniar v. Mayorkas, Civil Action 19-3826 (EGS), 36 (D.D.C. Mar. 30, 2023), as

[a] change in factual circumstances[,] . . . such as when the plaintiff receives the relief sought.

Additionally,

the party urging mootness bears a heavy burden.

However, in the current case, according to FBI vs. Fikre:

The government has failed to demonstrate that this case is moot.

Were the rule more forgiving, a defendant [FBI] might suspend its challenged conduct after being sued, win dismissal, and later pick up where it left off; it might even repeat “this cycle” as necessary until it achieves all of its allegedly “unlawful ends.” Already, 568 U. S., at 91. A live case or controversy cannot be so easily disguised, and a federal court’s constitutional authority cannot be so readily manipulated. To show that a case is truly moot, a defendant must prove “‘no reasonable expectation’” remains that it will “return to [its] old ways.”

The government failed to meet its burden because the declaration did not disclose the conduct that landed Mr. Fikre on the No Fly List and did not ensure that he would not be placed back on the list for engaging in similar or similar conduct in the future.

Again, the court’s ruling means Fikre’s suit against the FBI can continue. But as Justice Gorsuch said in the court’s decision:

The case comes in a preliminary position, framed only by uncontested factual allegations and a terse declaration. As the case unfolds, the complaint’s allegations will be tested rather than taken as true, and different facts may emerge that may call for a different conclusion.

CAIR’s very well-established pattern of overstating the results of court decisions in its favor really should be more widely discussed.

  • When Judge Anthony Trenga ruled in CAIR’s favor, saying that the terror watch list was unconstitutional, CAIR hailed this as the greatest legal decision in the history of the country. Indeed, CAIR’s victory was widely reported in the mainstream media. However, when the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded Judge Trenga’s decision, sending the case back with instructions to rule properly, there was little word from CAIR on that.
  • More recently, CAIR was very proud of a favorable ruling in the case A & R Engineering and Testing, Incorporated vs. John Scott, Attorney General of Texas. But CAIR minimized the fact that the judge’s ruling applied to just this one case, and only to the plaintiff, Rasmy Hassouna.
  • In the article “Why a Texas Court Ruling on Israel Boycott Was No Victory for CAIR” by Erielle Davidson, which appeared in The Algemeiner on February 4, 2022, there is this statement: “But CAIR is patently wrong in its legal analysis, rendering the recent victory lap is nothing short of bizarre." While the opinion does deem a fraction of the language in the Texas law unconstitutional, the opinion itself explicitly asserts that most of the language in the Texas statute — including the central element prohibiting economic boycotts of Israel — is constitutional.”

CAIR is, among other things, a public relations firm with itself as its biggest client. As a result, any event which is favorable to the organization and its goals is exaggerated out of all proportion, while incidents that do not fit a favorable narrative are whitewashed, hushed up, or simply ignored completely.

Although the FBI is certainly no friend of Jihad Watch, and the terror watch list may be a necessary evil, it does have value. Already, DHS has stopped at least 160 people on the watch list from entering the U.S.’s porous border. Additionally, Project Veritas has reported that many of the Afghan refugees on the terror watch list are roaming free in the U.S.

As Justice Gorsuch wrote in the court’s decision:

The government does not generally disclose the full reasoning for why people are placed on the list, and the Justice Department expressed concerns that allowing cases such as Fikre’s to move forward would needlessly force the government to reveal its sometimes-classified explanations.

Of course, the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations appears to have absolutely no regard for the national security of the United States of America.

1 2 3 … 9