Tag: scotus

REVEALED: Chief Justice John Roberts Caught in Elitist Club of Judges and Lawyers That Includes James Boasberg, Beryl Howell, Amit Mehta and Ketanji Brown Jackson

Investigative journalist Bad Kitty Unleashed reported on Thursday that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is involved in an invite-only club for elite judges in Washington, DC.

The elitist club America Inns of Court also includes the radical America-hating judges James Boasberg, Beryl Howell, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Amit Mehta—all hard-left judges and Trump-haters.

John Roberts has been Chief Justice of the Supreme Court since September 2005.

The Supreme Court Chief Justice is holding meetings with far-left district judges who are running a judicial coup on the current President of the United States!

Just think, two days ago, on Tuesday, Chief Justice Roberts released a statement attacking President Donald Trump for calling on these same crooked District judges to be impeached!

And now we have evidence that John Roberts was in an elitist group with these same judges!

Here is what Roberts said to the US President, who is under siege by the judicial branch.

“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

Keep reading

Gangsters, Terrorists, And Deep State Judicial Tyranny

The primary purpose of the federal judiciary is to make sure that anything the federal government does is almost never, ever, ruled to be unconstitutional. This is Hamilton’s constitutional regime. A believer in unlimited government, Alexander Hamilton’s constitutional belief was that the constitution can and should be used as a rubber stamp on unlimited government — as long as the government is run by “well behaved” politicians like himself, he insisted. His political nemesis, Thomas Jefferson, took the opposite view that the government needed to be “bound by the chains of the Constitution.”

Andrew Napolitano pointed out in his book, The Constitution in Exile, that the federal government’s “supreme” court did not rule a single federal law to be unconstitutional from 1935 to 1997. The eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Jeffersonians warned that if the day ever arrived that the federal government, through its judiciary, would be the sole arbiter of constitutionality Americans would then live under a tyranny. That judicial tyranny was cemented into place in April of 1865 with the destruction of the rights of nullification and secession and the evisceration of the Tenth Amendment – the real purposes of the “Civil War.” 

The latest example of our bullying and tyrannical federal judiciary is Chief Justice John Roberts’ nasty rebuke of President Trump’s recommendation of impeaching a federal judge who issued one of those Stalinist-sounding federal judicial “decrees” saying that the president has no authority to deport illegal aliens who have committed such felonies as rape and murder, as he did with over 200 members of a notorious El Salvadoran criminal gang. 

Americans – and American presidents – were not always bullied by black-robed totalitarians. They once understood that there are three branches of the federal government, not just the judicial branch, and that federal judges are not black-robed deities. President Andrew Jackson, who President Trump apparently reveres, is a good example of such a president. After Chief Justice John Marshall “ruled” in 1819 (McCulloch v. Maryland) that the Second Bank of the United States (BUS), a precursor of the Fed, was constitutional despite not being one of the delegate powers in Article 1, Section 8, and despite its being voted down during the constitutional convention, Jackson voiced his disagreement by vetoing the recharter of the BUS in 1832. 

Keep reading

Supreme Court Lined Up to Consider Case That Could Kill ‘One of the Most Reviled Decisions in Recent Decades’

An often-criticized precedent from the Supreme Court 20 years ago that gives local governments permission to literally confiscate a landowner’s property and give it to someone else who may have more political influence could be overturned through a new case pending before the justices.

It is the Institute for Justice that has been fighting on behalf of Bryan Bowers, a New York landowner whose property was “seized” by a local government agency.

It was then given to his competitors.

The precedent that soon could be doomed is the Kelo decision from 2005 in which the court redefined “public use.”

That’s the standard that courts must use to determine whether governments can take over private property without the owner’s consent, and it often is associated with the construction of roads and bridges and such.

In Kelo, a single-vote on the court claimed that creating jobs or increasing tax revenue was just that “public use.”

Dissenters, including a left-leaning Justice Sandra Day O’Connor warned that now the government “has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more.”

The IJ described the Kelo precedent as “one of the most reviled decisions in recent decades.”

Keep reading

WAYNE ROOT: Back in 2015, I Wrote, “Is Supreme Court Justice John Roberts Being Blackmailed?” This Question is as Valid Today as a Decade Ago.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Way back in 2015, I asked in one of my nationally-syndicated columns, if Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts was being blackmailed?

I laid out the case. It seemed obvious to me that he was either being blackmailed, or bribed, or he was a fraud from day one- a Deep State, liberal plant disguised as a “conservative” put in place to vote the wrong way on key issues.

Because Justice Roberts always votes against us, against the obvious conservative decision, for most, if not all, of the important, life-or-death decisions that change this country’s direction.

Look at the record.

Roberts voted to protect and save the Obamacare disaster and scam- TWICE. That destroyed the entire healthcare system of the United States.

Roberts voted against asking about citizenship in the census; he voted against Texas being allowed to secure its own border with razor wire; he voted against Texas having standing to challenge the 2020 election; he just voted against the Trump administration’s attempt to withhold pay from USAID contractors- which of course, protects the Deep State’s fraud, waste, looting and abuse of taxpayers.

And now just a day ago, Roberts publicly rebuked and rejected President Trump’s desire to see an out-of-control federal judge impeached for trying to stop the deportation of illegal alien gangbangers who have committed the worst crimes in our country.

Roberts tried to intimidate Trump and fool the nation. The Supreme Court has nothing to do with the impeachment of a judge. Only Congress can decide that.

Again, I ask, “Who’s side is Roberts on?” Because he sure isn’t on the side of conservative patriots.

Again, I ask, “Is Justice John Roberts being blackmailed?”

Here is my column from 2015. Compare it to what’s happening today. Nothing has changed in a decade.

Keep reading

Radical ‘Free Palestine’ Extremist Targets Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s Sister with Bomb Threat

A deranged “Free Palestine” extremist attempted to terrorize the family of DEI U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett by threatening her sister with a mailbox bomb.

According to WYFF, citing the Charleston Police Department, authorities responded around 9:30 a.m. Monday after receiving an alarming bomb threat directed at Amanda Coney Williams.

The threat, sent via email to an employee of the Charleston County Sheriff’s Office late Sunday night, detailed an alleged homemade explosive device that was supposedly placed in Williams’ mailbox.

The email read:

“Using a 1×8-inch threaded galvanized pipe, end caps, a kitchen timer, some wires, metal clips and homemade black powder, I’ve constructed a pipe bomb which I recently placed in Amy Coney Barrett’s sister’s mailbox at her home in Charleston, SC.

The device’s detonation will be triggered as soon as the mailbox is next opened. Free Palestine!”

Keep reading

Mel Gibson Controversy Highlights a Bigger Scandal: Many Americans Lose Their Gun Rights for No Good Reason

Elizabeth Oyer, a former public defender who was appointed as the Justice Department’s pardon attorney in April 2022, says she was fired last Friday because she refused to sign off on a recommendation to restore Mel Gibson’s gun rights. The movie star and director, who supported Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election and was recently designated as one of the administration’s three “ambassadors” to Hollywood along with Jon Voight and Sylvester Stallone, lost the right to own firearms because of a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction.

Oyer presents the episode as a conflict between public safety and political favoritism, and The New York Times framed the story the same way. But the incident also illustrates how difficult it is for people who have lost their Second Amendment rights as a result of criminal convictions—a category that includes the president himself—to regain those rights, even when there are no grounds to think they pose a threat to public safety.

In March 2011, Gibson pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor battery charge involving his girlfriend, and Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Stephanie Sautner sentenced him to 36 months of probation. Although Gibson’s deal with prosecutors allowed him to avoid jail time, his plea triggered an ancillary penalty under 18 USC 922(g)(9), which makes it a felony for anyone who “has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” to receive or possess a firearm. Another provision of the same law, Section 922(g)(1), sweeps more broadly, imposing the same lifelong disability on anyone who has been convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year of incarceration, no matter how long ago it was committed and whether or not it involved violence.

As Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted in an opinion she wrote as an appeals court judge, the constitutionality of the latter prohibition is doubtful. Barrett dissented from a 2019 decision in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit upheld the application of Section 922(g)(1) to a manufacturer of therapeutic shoes and footwear inserts who had pleaded guilty to mail fraud. History “demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns,” she wrote. “But that power extends only to people who are dangerous.”

The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen added heft to that argument by clarifying that gun control laws must be “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” when they impinge on conduct covered by the “plain text” of the Second Amendment. In 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled that Section 922(g)(1) failed that test as applied to Bryan Range, a Pennsylvania man who had pleaded guilty to food stamp fraud, a state misdemeanor that was notionally punishable by up to five years in prison. Based on similar reasoning, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit last year overturned the Section 992(g)(1) conviction of Steven Duarte, a California man who had lost his gun rights because of a nonviolent criminal record.

Without such judicial intervention, “prohibited persons” like Range and Duarte have little recourse. Under 18 USC 925(c), they theoretically can ask the attorney general to restore their Second Amendment rights. The attorney general has the discretion to do that based on a determination that “the circumstances regarding the disability, and the applicant’s record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest.” But that responsibility has been delegated to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), which Congress has barred from considering such applications.

“Although federal law provides a means for the relief of firearms disabilities,” the agency explains, “ATF’s annual appropriation since October 1992 has prohibited the expending of any funds to investigate or act upon applications for relief from federal firearms disabilities submitted by individuals. As long as this provision is included in current ATF appropriations, ATF cannot act upon applications for relief from federal firearms disabilities submitted by individuals.”

If the ATF cannot act on such applications, can people with disqualifying criminal records seek relief in federal court? No, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in the 2002 case United States v. Bean.

Keep reading

Appeals Court Says Trump Can’t End Birthright Citizenship — Battle Likely Heading to Supreme Court

The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that President Donald Trump cannot end birthright citizenship with his executive order, likely setting up a battle about the issue in the Supreme Court.

The Justice Department had filed an emergency request for the court to lift a Seattle judge’s freeze on the policy, but the appeals court denied it on Wednesday.

CNN reports:

The 9th Circuit panel – made up of a Trump appointee, a Jimmy Carter appointee and a George W. Bush appointee – said that a closer review of the case will move forward in its court, with arguments slated for June.

The case before the San Francisco-based appeals court is one of several major legal challenges to the policy and the first to get the weigh-in by an appellate panel.

In filings, the Justice Department said that the birthright citizenship executive order was “an integral part of President Trump’s broader effort to repair the United States’ immigration system and to address the ongoing crisis at the southern border.”

The court said the decision was made because the appeal was not likely to succeed on the dispute’s merits.

The lawsuit against the order was brought by four state’s Democratic attorneys general.

Keep reading

Texan Allegedly Bullied By School Over His Skin Color, Trump Support Asks Supreme Court To Take His Case

Inside the Texas Capitol, on the back wall of the Senate chamber hangs a hard-to-miss oil canvas smattered with carefully painted soldiers wielding swords and cannons. The colorful battle scene depicts a pivotal moment in the Texas Revolution when approximately 900 Texas soldiers managed to defeat a much larger group of soldiers from the Mexican army at the Battle of San Jacinto in just 18 minutes.

One of the most famous Henry McArdle illustrations in the frame shows General Sam Houston, whose horse was just shot out from beneath him, being beckoned by an “unnamed and unarmed aid” offering him a new mount. The mystery man is claimed by eighth-generation Texan Brooks Warden, who, nearly 200 years after seven of his ancestors fought in the battle of San Jacinto, faces a very different and very important battle of his own.

Twenty-one-year-old Warden is a plaintiff in a years-long lawsuit alleging students and school administrators in the Austin Independent School District in Texas violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through repeated racial harassment.

“Starting when I was 12 up until the end of high school, I was attacked physically and emotionally because of my race. Being a white Christian, conservative male, I was beaten. They threatened to kill me and verbally abused me daily,” Warden told The Federalist.

Until now, Warden was unnamed due to his status as a minor when the lawsuit was filed. Now that he’s surpassed his teenage years and there is a new development in his case — a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court — Warden is ready to speak about the intense bullying siege he faced from faculty and peers alike.

“I know what I believe, and I won’t be swayed. I’ve taken punches to the face for defending the U.S. Constitution,” he said. “I was never scared to speak my mind. I was terrified to walk down the halls, though.”

Keep reading

Watch Elizabeth Warren Contradict Elizabeth Warren About the Importance of Court Rulings Depending on What’s at Stake

There is an old saying that if it weren’t for double standards, liberals wouldn’t have any standards at all. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts is the living embodiment of that statement.

In recent years, Warren and many other Democrats have waged an almost daily war on the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court. Now that they want to stop everything that Trump is trying to do, they are relying on courts to do it and saying that anyone who would undermine the legitimacy of those courts is a threat to democracy.

Watch the side-by-side video of Elizabeth Warren below. The first half is from last year, the second half is from this month.

Keep reading

Chuck Schumer Might Legally Reap the ‘Whirlwind’ for His Threats Against Supreme Court Justices

In March 2020, crusty Sen. Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat, stood on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court Building at a pro-abortion rally and threatened the lives of two Supreme Court justices if they dared change abortion law in the U.S. 

“You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price,” Schumer thundered before the pro-abortion crowd, in what appeared in retrospect to be an insurrection-y comment against part of the government. But it got worse. 

Schumer name-checked two justices who had recently been appointed to the bench by Donald Trump. 

“I want to tell you, Gorsuch! I want to tell you, Kavanaugh!” Schumer screeched. Upping the ante of his rhetoric before the angry crowd—on the steps of the Supreme Court Building—he blustered, “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” 

States were challenging Roe v. Wade, the existing federal abortion law, and the cases were making their way to the Supreme Court. Schumer issued the threat as a way to extort his and his supporters’ preordained decision. And everyone got the message. Loudly. Clearly. Would Schumer get away with this obvious threat over the Supreme Court giving America the “wrong” answer on abortion? 

Keep reading