Tag Archive for: #supremecourt

Here’s How The Supreme Court’s Latest Term Reshaped America

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

The Supreme Court’s most recent term has brought on huge changes to American law, with the court delivering many wins to conservatives.

The 2022-2023 term for the Supreme Court included many high-stakes issues, including race-based admissions by colleges, individual rights of religious expression, the applicability of Native American treaties and more. The court’s conservative majority particularly hit hard on the Biden administration, striking down his student loan forgiveness plan and limiting his regulatory power with the EPA.

On Friday, in Biden v. Nebraska, the court struck down the Biden administration’s plan to grant student loan forgiveness to nearly 40 million Americans, saying that the Biden administration cannot unilaterally cancel student debt using the 2003 HEROES Act. The plan would have canceled $10,000 in student loan debt for non-Pell Grant recipients and up to $20,000 for Pell Grant recipients.

The case 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis ruled in favor of religious rights Friday, with the court finding in a 6-3 ruling that a Christian graphic designer cannot be compelled to create a website for same-sex couples that has messages that violate her religious beliefs. This case comes after the 2018 ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which provided limited protections for a bakery owner who refused to make a cake for a gay wedding.

Colleges and universities will no longer be allowed to use race as a determining factor in admissions after a ruling in two separate cases involving Students for Fair Admissions against Harvard and the University of North Carolina, blocking colleges from using affirmative action policies in both public and private universities. The decision overturned a previous case, Grutter v. Bollinger, in 2003 that held that race could be a factor in the admissions process.

Congressional districting was also considered by the court, which found in a 5-4 decision on June 8 that an Alabama congressional district map violated the Voting Rights Act as it did not give enough influence to black voters. The previous map only had one majority-black district out of seven.

A case involving Native American treaties was examined in Arizona v. Navajo Nation, where the court ruled that the federal government has no obligation to meet the Navajo Nation’s water needs under the 1968 treaty that established the reservation.

In another loss for the Biden administration, the court ruled in May that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) overstepped its regulatory authority when telling a couple they could not build on their own property due to the EPA’s ability to regulate “navigable waters.” Sackett v. EPA found that the EPA lacked the power to prevent the couple from building a home on their own land near Priest Lake, Idaho, because it contained wetlands.

The court faced heavy criticism this term, with complaints of ethics violations around paid gifts to justices. A ProPublica report called for Justice Clarence Thomas to resign after it was unveiled that he took paid-for vacations with long-time friend and billionaire Harlon Crow. Conservatives fired back, pointing out trips like those taken by Justice Stephen Breyer that were funded by a Democratic donor.

AUTHOR

WILL KESSLER

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘Expand The Court’: ‘Squad’ Democrats React To SCOTUS Striking Down Biden’s Loan Giveaway

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

‘Defund the Police’ Radical Among Names to Replace Justice Breyer

/in , , , , , , /by

And the lumbering, double-dealing, RINO reprobates will sign off on this monster.

Defund the Police’ Activist Among Names to Replace Justice Breyer

Among the Black women being discussed as President Joe Biden’s possible nominee to fill the Supreme Court seat of retiring Justice Stephen Breyer is a civil rights lawyer who has backed the ”defund the police” movement.

By: Newsmax, January 28, 2022;

Lawyer Sherrilyn Ifill, 59, was mentioned by The Associated Press and number of Democrats, progressives in particular, as a candidate. Ifill is president and director-counsel at the Legal Defense Fund of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Biden vowed during the 2020 campaign debates to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court, because it was “time” for a Black woman to have “representation.”

Rep. Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y., an avowed Black Lives Matter activist, tweeted: “.@POTUS you promised us a Black woman on the Supreme Court. Let’s see it happen.”

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, mentioned Ifill specifically among those that should be “weighed and considered” to replace Breyer, tweeting:

“On behalf of the constituents of Texas’ 18th Congressional District and Texas, I thank him for his leadership and wish him all of the best. I strongly believe that his retirement presents the perfect opportunity for President Biden to follow through on his campaign promise to appoint the first Black Woman to the Supreme Court. While there are many qualified contenders to fill the vacancy of this seat on the court, the candidacy of Ketanji Brown Jackson, Leondra Kruger, J. Michelle Childs, Wilhelmina ‘Mimi’ Wright, Eunice Lee, Candace Jackson-Akiwumi and Sherrilyn Ifill should all be weighed and considered.”

Ifill has been open in her support of the defund the police movement after George Floyd was killed by a police officer and amid 2020 election year protests, telling “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert“:

“It’s been interesting to see how this phrase ‘defund the police’ makes people very anxious and very nervous. This is our opportunity to do something that’s long overdue, which is to fundamentally re-imagine what public safety looks like in this country.

“What we have done is we have turned over armed law enforcement officers the right to enter our communities to solve a set of community conflicts that actually don’t require an armed officer. Rather than turn the entire public safety regime over to armed law-enforcement officers, we need to look at that funding, reduce that funding, and use it to support these other services.

“I think the anxiety is about the phrase and actually not anxiety about the concept. We should be looking at budgets. We should recognize that this over-reliance on police has given us a regime that we can see is not working.”

Ifill tweeted June 7, 2020, shortly after Floyd’s death sparked nationwide outrage:

“Drastically reducing police funding shld not only result in those funds going to other existing social svc agencies (b/c some may also be dysfunctional). This is a chance to re-imagine public safety w/support for new community-based measures that can be transformative.”

President Joe Biden had suggested at times during his 2020 campaign he would support redirecting police funding, but he denies ever calling for defunding the police. Just this week, White House press secretary Jen Psaki acknowledged “underfunding” of police in some cities has fueled a crime surge.

RELATED TWEET:

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there, click here. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Bipartisan Coalition Rejects Democrats’ Call to Pack Supreme Court

/in , , , , /by

A bipartisan group dominated by former state attorneys general is pushing back against proposals from congressional Democrats and progressive activists to pack the Supreme Court by adding more justices.

“We feel that court packing, adding or for that matter subtracting justices for political advantage, is wrong,” former Tennessee Attorney General Paul Summers, an independent, told The Daily Signal. “It would denigrate the rule of law [in favor of] the rule of men. It undermines the independence of the Supreme Court.”

Summers is part of the Coalition to Preserve the Independence of the Supreme Court, which calls itself “Keep Nine” for short in a reference to the nine justices on the high court.

The coalition, with 27 members, has grown to include former members of Congress and former governors.

How are socialists deluding a whole generation? Learn more now >>

The organization is promoting a 13-word constitutional amendment that says simply: “The Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of nine Justices.”

On the cusp of President Donald Trump’s nomination of another woman to fill the Supreme Court seat of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died last week, some Democrats have insisted that adding justices would be appropriate revenge for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s stated intention to hold a confirmation vote on the nominee.

Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., tweeted about the Kentucky Republican: “Mitch McConnell set the precedent. No Supreme Court vacancies filled in an election year. If he violates it, when Democrats control the Senate in the next Congress, we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., a force in House Democrats’ freshman class, also has indicated support for packing the high court.

“I believe that also we must consider, again, all of the tools available [at] our disposal, and that all of these options should be entertained and on the table,” Ocasio-Cortez told reporters Sunday.

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., reportedly told fellow Senate Democrats on Saturday that “nothing is off the table for next year” if Republicans move to fill the vacant seat on the high court.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., echoed Schumer in tweeting: “If Republicans recklessly & reprehensibly force a SCOTUS vote before the election—nothing is off the table.”

Passing a constitutional amendment to preserve the current total of nine Supreme Court justices would not be easy, Summers said, but noted that the process of amending the Constitution has been completed 27 times in the nation’s history.

“It will be hard to pass a constitutional amendment, but it will be harder on the country to denigrate a separate and equal branch of government,” said Summers, who was Tennessee’s attorney general from 1999 to 2006 and later served as a state appeals court judge. “If one party packs the court, then another party will win power and pack the court, and you could have 27 justices or more.”

A former Democratic attorney general from Virginia, Andrew Miller, contacted Summers about allying with the “Keep Nine” coalition.

“Court packing by one party would almost inevitably lead to retaliatory court packing by another party, undermining the independence of the court and potentially the rule of law itself,” Miller said in a written statement.

Exactly 231 years ago–on Sept. 24, 1789–Congress created a six-member Supreme Court. That same day, President George Washington signed the legislation and nominated the first chief justice and five associate justices. The Constitution doesn’t specify a total number, though, and it varied in the 19th century until stabilizing at nine since 1869.

A constitutional amendment to keep the court at nine justices “should be seriously considered,” said John Malcolm, director of the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

“All of this talk about court packing is dangerous and divisive,” Malcolm told The Daily Signal. “The number is not set in the Constitution, but nine has worked pretty well for a long time.”

Voters support a “Keep Nine” amendment by a 3-1 margin, according to a John Zogby Strategies poll cited by the coalition.  Democrats back the amendment by a 2-1 margin, the poll found, while self-described independents and moderates back the proposal by nearly 4-1.

Other coalition members include former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, a Republican who also served as the first U.S. homeland security secretary; former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett, a Republican who also is a former attorney general; George Jepsen, a Democrat who was Blumenthal’s successor as Connecticut’s attorney general; former New York Attorney General Robert Abrams, a Democrat; and former California Controller Steve Westly, a Democrat.

During his second term, President Franklin Roosevelt tried to add justices to the Supreme Court  and force the retirement of others when the high court ruled against certain New Deal programs. However, fellow Democrats stepped in to oppose the move.

It’s not a better idea today, Summers said.

“There was an attempt by FDR to pack the court,” Summers said. “It just divided the president’s allies and emboldened his opponents.”

COLUMN BY

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is chief national affairs correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Lucas is also the author of “Abuse of Power: Inside The Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump.” Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Help The Daily Signal Cover the New Supreme Court Nominee Fairly

He’s a Friend of Supreme Court Prospect Amy Coney Barrett. Here’s What He Has to Say.

A Note for our Readers:

Democratic Socialists say, “America should be more like socialist countries such as Sweden and Denmark.” And millions of young people believe them…

For years, “Democratic Socialists” have been growing a crop of followers that include students and young professionals. America’s future will be in their hands.

How are socialists deluding a whole generation? One of their most effective arguments is that “democratic socialism” is working in Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Norway. They claim these countries are “proof” that socialism will work for America. But they’re wrong. And it’s easy to explain why.

Our friends at The Heritage Foundation just published a new guide that provides three irrefutable facts that debunks these myths. For a limited time, they’re offering it to readers of The Daily Signal for free.

Get your free copy of “Why Democratic Socialists Can’t Legitimately Claim Sweden and Denmark as Success Stories” today and equip yourself with the facts you need to debunk these myths once and for all.

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW »

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

PODCAST: BLM — Made In China!

/in , , , , /by

GUESTS AND TOPICS:

DR. RICH SWIER

Dr. Rich Swier is a “conservative with a conscience.” Rich is a 23-year Army veteran who retired as a Lieutenant Colonel. He was awarded the Legion of Merit for his years of service. Additionally, he was awarded two Bronze Stars with “V” for Heroism in ground combat, the Presidential Unit Citation, and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry while serving with the 101st Airborne Division in Vietnam. Dr Rich now publishes the the “DrRichSwier.com Report”. A daily review of news, issues and commentary!

TOPIC: BLM — Made In China!

ROBERT CHARLES

Robert Charles is also a spokesman for AMAC, as well as former Assistant Secretary of State. He also served in the Reagan and Bush 41 White Houses, and counsel to the U.S. House National Security subcommittee for five years. Additionally, he ran a major portion of the U.S. House Oversight Committee for five years during which time he ran the joint committee in the Waco investigations. He’d be ideal for speaking to what’s next after impeachment and the congressional craziness or handicapping Bernie and the other Dems’ chances. He can also speak to how seniors will have a disproportionally large impact in the 2020 election and what that means.

TOPICS: With Crime Exploding, Democrats Become Anti-Police!

GEORGE PARRY

George Parry Contributor to The American Spectator, The Federalist, and the Philadelphia Inquirer. George is a former federal and state prosecutor. George served as: Special Attorney for the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section, U.S. Department of Justice ; Unit Chief, Investigations Division, Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office ; Special Organized Crime Prosecutor, Blair and Cambria counties (central Pennsylvania) ; Legal Analyst, KYW-TV ; George now has a private trial practice in Philadelphia.

TOPIC:The Politics of Life and Death!

©Conservative Commandos Radio. All rights reserved.

RELATED TWEET: