Tag: scotus

Jasmine Crockett Beclowns Herself, Plays Race Card Defending Ketanji Brown Jackson

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson flexes her “brilliance” in oral arguments. She also “had to be 10 times better than most” to succeed. So claims lame-duck Representative Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), anyway. This is even though the man who nominated Jackson to the High Court, then-President Joe Biden, made clear he chose her based on sex and skin color.

None of this might warrant mention, do note, except for the fact that it relates to deeper issues. That is, the poisonous phenomenon that is diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and the matter of what constitutes true qualifications.

Reporting on the Crockett crock, The Western Journal’s Michael Schwarz writes:

Wednesday on the social media platform X, Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas, a black woman who regularly obsesses over skin color, tried defending Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson by insisting that Jackson, a black woman appointed to SCOTUS on account of her sex and skin color, “had to be 10 times better than most” on account of her sex and skin color.

Needless to say, reasonable people cannot reconcile those two claims. A factor that aided a person’s advancement, in this case simply being a black woman, cannot also be the factor that forced said black woman to work harder and achieve more than others. It makes no sense.

Keep reading

SURPRISE: Justice Jackson Gets NUKED by Fellow Leftist Justice Kagan For Writing This Insane Dissent in Case Regarding Conversion Therapy Ban for LGBTQ Minors

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has become such an embarrassing spectacle on the Supreme Court that even her fellow leftists appear to be tiring of her.

As The Gateway Pundit reported, The US Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled 8-1 against Colorado’s conversion therapy ban for LGBTQ minors. Jackson was the lone dissenter.

The lawsuit was filed by Christian talk therapist Kaley Chiles, who argued that Colorado’s ban on her talk therapy methods violated her First Amendment rights.

In an insane 35-page dissent, Jackson essentially said that therapists like Chiles should not have the same free speech rights as other Americans.

“Professional medical speech does not intersect with the marketplace of ideas: ‘In the context of medical practice, we insist upon competence, not debate,’” she wrote. “Treatment standards exist in America.”

“It threatens to impair States’ ability to regulate the provision of medical care in any respect,” she added. “It extends the Constitution into uncharted territory in an utterly irrational fashion. And it ultimately risks grave harm to Americans’ health and well-being.”

She also attacked the Court for ‘playing with fire’, which could ‘burn Americans.’

Keep reading

Left Wing Group ‘Demand Justice’ Panicked Over Possibility That Trump Will Get to Pick Two More Supreme Court Justices

The progressive activist group ‘Demand Justice’ is already warning their fellow travelers on the left that President Trump may be able to pick two more new justices for the U.S. Supreme Court before leaving office.

If you remember the ordeal that the left put the country through when Justice Kavanaugh was being confirmed, you have an idea of what the left would do if Trump got to pick not one, but two more judges for the court. The term ‘meltdown’ doesn’t even begin to cover it.

It would be funny though, especially after all of the left’s talk about packing the court.

This is from the New York Times:

Liberal Group Warns That Trump Could Have Two More Supreme Court Picks

For now, none of the nine Supreme Court justices have announced plans to retire, and Mr. Trump has no looming opportunity to keep stocking the court with younger conservative justices.

That isn’t stopping Demand Justice from preparing a multimillion-dollar effort to oppose potential Trump Supreme Court appointees before they happen — with a warning that Mr. Trump could be replacing two justices this year…

Josh Orton, the president of Demand Justice, said the project would cost $3 million to start and $15 million more if vacancies occurred and Mr. Trump nominated a successor to the court — most likely for Clarence Thomas or Samuel A. Alito Jr., the two oldest justices. Justice Thomas is 77 years old, and Justice Alito is 76…

“If you think that Trump is willing to leave two of the three justices he thinks are most loyal on the court in their 80s past when he leaves office, you are not paying attention,” Mr. Orton said in an interview Thursday. “There is no way that Donald Trump and Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito would ever commit the fundamental miscalculation about power that we saw from Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Barack Obama and we as a movement.”

Now that it has been revealed that Justice Alito had a recent health scare, people on the left are probably even more nervous.

Keep reading

Chief Justice John Roberts Appears Set to Throw a Wrench in Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Case

Chief Justice John Roberts signaled Wednesday that he might act as a thorn in President Donald Trump’s side.

During oral arguments over Trump’s effort to end birthright citizenship, Roberts pushed back against Solicitor General John Sauer, who made the president’s argument.

Specifically, Roberts sounded skeptical that the Fourteenth Amendment, on which birthright citizenship rests, excludes children of illegal immigrants.

“Based on Chinese media reports,” Sauer said in a clip posted to the social media platform X, “there are 500 — 500 — birth-tourism companies in the People’s Republic of China, whose business is to bring people here to give birth and return to that nation.”

“Having said all that,” Roberts replied, “you do agree that that has no impact on the legal analysis before us?”

Sauer did not agree. Instead, he respectfully cited the late Justice Antonin Scalia in arguing that 19th-century Americans did not foresee such things. In other words, the people who wrote the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend it for the children of illegal immigrants.

“Well, it certainly wasn’t a problem in the 19th century,” Roberts responded.

Keep reading

YOU CAN’T MAKE THIS UP: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Claims Stealing a Wallet in Japan Makes You ‘Locally Owe Allegiance’ in Bizarre Birthright Citizenship Argument

Far-Left Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson left many Americans scratching their heads after offering a bizarre analogy involving… stealing a wallet in Japan.

During oral arguments in the landmark case tied to President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, Jackson attempted to redefine the concept of “allegiance” under the 14th Amendment, using a hypothetical crime committed abroad.

The exchange occurred during a discussion on the 14th Amendment and the definition of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States

In the warped world of the radical left, being subject to criminal prosecution is now the same thing as the “allegiance” required for birthright citizenship.

Jackson laid out a convoluted hypothetical involving a trip to Japan.

Her argument? If she steals a wallet in Tokyo and gets arrested, she is suddenly “owing allegiance” to the Japanese sovereign.

“If I steal someone’s wallet in Japan, the Japanese authorities can arrest me and prosecute me. It’s allegiance, meaning can they control you as a matter of law?” Jackson posited. “So there’s this relationship based on even though I’m a temporary traveler… I’m still locally owing allegiance in that sense.”

If the mere ability of a state to prosecute a crime constitutes “allegiance,” then the word has lost all meaning. Allegiance is a bond of loyalty to a nation; it is the commitment to defend its laws and its borders. It is not, as Jackson suggests, a “relationship” formed when a pickpocket gets caught in a Tokyo subway or here in America.

Keep reading

HUNDREDS of companies provide BIRTH TOURISM for foreign moms who want US citizen babies

During oral arguments before the Supreme Court regarding birthright citizenship, the Trump administration noted the prevalence of “birth tourism,” or the action of an expecting foreign national traveling to the United States with the intention of giving birth to their child on American soil, granting them US citizenship. 

Kayleigh McEnany said on Fox News as the Supreme Court was in session, “There are more than 500 firms in China that facilitate people coming from the Chinese Communist Party to give birth here in the United States. Obama enabled this through loopholes dating back to 2009, and what that could mean is 1 million new voters by 2030. Imagine that, Communist Party voters.”

Over the years, a number of companies across the US and its territories have catered to mothers from countries such as Russia and China. Recent reports have revealed companies operating in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, a US territory in the Pacific. 

Analysts have estimated that around 1,000 companies offer birth tourism services to US territories and the mainland. They claim that in China alone, 1.5 million American-born babies are being raised by Chinese parents who have participated in such services. 

Among such companies is the Shanghai-based GlobalBaby8, which advertises “economy” packages for expecting mothers starting at $14,000, and a “Supreme Type” package that starts at $45,000 and includes features such as a luxury villa, shopping and leisure trips, dedicated postpartum nanny service, and a one-month birthday party for the child. 

Another company, China Mifubaby Group, has offices in California and multiple Chinese cities, and caters to Korean and Japanese moms-to-be, advertising “expedited visas,” “American citizenship,” and “short direct flight distance.” 

Keep reading

Dem Rep. Susie Lee Deletes ‘I’ll Pray They F*** Him to His Face’ Post About Trump

Rep. Susie Lee (D-NV), who describes herself as “America’s #1 Most Bipartisan Member of Congress,” posted and later deleted a profanity-laced response on X to an Associated Press (AP) story about President Donald Trump’s planned attendance at Wednesday’s Supreme Court hearing on birthright citizenship.

Shortly after 1:00 a.m. ET on April 1, Lee replied to an Associated Press post that said Trump would attend Wednesday’s hearing on birthright citizenship, adding that the visit would make him the “first sitting president to attend oral arguments at the nation’s highest court.” In response, Lee wrote: “So fucking fucked up. I’ll pray they fuck him to his face. Sorry, I say fuck a lot these days.” She subsequently deleted the message.

During the 2018 campaign for Nevada’s Third Congressional District, long viewed as a battleground seat, Republican Danny Tarkanian said Lee was closely tied to then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, telling Breitbart News, “Nancy Pelosi helped recruit her to run, she’s raised her millions of dollars, she’s raised twice as much money as the incumbent race for the last election. It will probably be the most expensive congressional race in the country.”

In November 2019, Lee argued Trump had engaged in “clear obstruction” and “abuse of power” over Ukraine, telling a Las Vegas town hall that she supported an impeachment inquiry because she believed there was “ground enough for me to support further fact-finding.” Lee also said she was acting to uphold her oath to the Constitution, arguing that “democracies live or die by the integrity of their elections.”

The next month, Lee announced she would vote to impeach Trump, saying in a statement, “The facts are clear: the President abused the power of his office and blatantly obstructed Congress.” She added, “I took an oath of office to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” At the time, Breitbart News noted that Lee represented one of the congressional districts Trump had carried in 2016 before Democrats flipped it in the 2018 midterms, and that polling in her district suggested her impeachment stance could carry political risk.

Lee has also faced years of ethics scrutiny. In June 2020, she became the subject of an outside ethics complaint after pushing for a change to federal pandemic loan requirements that later benefited her husband Dan Lee’s company, Full House Resorts. Two weeks after the change, the company received $5.6 million in Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans. Lee said she had no influence over whether the loans were approved, though a spokesperson later acknowledged she had been made aware of the application and its approval.

FACT, the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, stated that Lee’s involvement with Full House Resorts created doubt about her impartiality and raised questions about whether she had acted in the public’s best interest. Days later, Joni Ernst proposed legislation requiring lawmakers, their spouses, and congressional employees to disclose PPP loans within 15 days. The proposal followed reporting that Lee was among the lawmakers or spouses of lawmakers connected to PPP benefits.

Lee again drew scrutiny in 2021 over her financial disclosures. Business Insider reported that she had failed to adequately disclose more than 200 stock trades since early 2020, valued between roughly $267,000 and $3.3 million. The trades involved companies including Planet Fitness, Wayfair, Marriott International, Carnival, Williams-Sonoma, and US Foods.

Lee’s office said the trades had been executed by a third-party money manager without her input and that she worked with a financial adviser and the House Ethics Committee to file the transactions once she became aware of them. Breitbart News reported that the late disclosures did not appear to trigger automatic penalties.

Later that year, FACT called for an investigation into Lee, contending that her repeated failures to disclose stock trades on time could amount to violations of the STOCK Act and House ethics rules. FACT Executive Director Kendra Arnold said the disclosure law must be strictly enforced to determine if members of Congress are using their positions for self-enrichment. Breitbart News also included Lee in a 2021 roundup of 11 Democrats alleged to have violated the STOCK Act.

Keep reading

“No One Knows What Will Happen Now”: Justice Jackson Warns Against Unbridled Free Speech

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is again warning of a growing threat to the nation. In her lone dissent in Chiles v. Salazar, Jackson observed that “to be completely frank, no one knows what will happen now.” The ominous tone stemmed from the fact that free speech had prevailed over state-imposed orthodoxy in a Colorado case.

Eight justices, including her two liberal colleagues, ruled that Colorado could not prevent licensed counselors from “any practice or treatment” that “attempts or purports to change” a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

The win for free speech was catastrophic for Jackson and many on the left. Allowing counselors to discuss the causes and basis for sexual orientation changes, Jackson maintained, would “open a can of worms.” It would be far better for the majority to simply silence such dissenting voices in the name of science.

The dissent in Chiles is only the latest example of the chilling jurisprudence of Justice Jackson, including a pronounced dismissal of free speech values. Consider the holding of her colleagues that Jackson finds so horrific.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that the First Amendment “reflects … a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth … any law that suppresses speech based on viewpoint represents an ‘egregious’ assault on both of those commitments.”

What a nightmare.

Instead, Jackson would have declared the ban on anything deemed “conversion therapy” to be “conduct,” not speech.

It is that easy.

You simply impose an orthodoxy and then treat any dissenters as being regulated for their conduct, not their viewpoints.

Justice Elena Kagan could not withhold her frustration with her colleague, noting that “[b]ecause the State has suppressed one side of a debate, while aiding the other, the constitutional issue is straightforward.” She added that Jackson’s view “rests on reimagining—and in that way collapsing—the well-settled distinction between viewpoint-based and other content-based speech restrictions.”

Other countries have embraced Jackson’s permissive approach to speech curtailment.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Rules 8-1 Against Colorado Law Banning So-Called ‘Conversion Therapy’

The Supreme Court overwhelmingly ruled against a Colorado “conversion therapy” law on Tuesday that bans therapists from helping minors align their “gender identity” with their biological reality. 

The High Court ruled against the law 8-1, saying it likely violates the First Amendment by allowing some viewpoints but not others. Liberal-leaning Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who has repeatedly been unable to describe what a woman is, penned the lone dissent. 

Colorado’s law was passed in 2019; more than 20 other states have laws banning “conversion therapy.” While Colorado’s law bans archaic and unethical aversion methods historically associated with conversion therapy, like electroshock therapy, it also more broadly outlaws “providing professional services for the purpose of attempting to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including attempting to change behaviors or expressions of self or to reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same gender.”

Kaley Chiles, a practicing Christian and a licensed counselor who, per court documents, “believes that people flourish when they live consistently with God’s design, including their biological sex,” sued the state over the law. She argued the law banned her from using talk therapy with clients who voluntarily come to her to help them align their sexuality or view of their identity with their biological reality, particularly with regard to minors.

Chiles contended Colorado banned consensual conversations based on the viewpoints expressed, in violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, and only allows counselors to push minors toward “gender-affirming care,” which includes social transition, sex change drugs, and surgeries — methods which are experimental, steeped in ideology, and pushed by large medical associations. Colorado argued that licensed health professionals in the state are subject to professional discipline for providing treatment to patients that falls “below the accepted standard of care.”

Keep reading

‘Refuses to enforce its own precedents’: Sotomayor torches SCOTUS for inaction on ‘significant’ buried evidence in slaying of teen pizza delivery driver

Justice Sonia Sotomayor registered a sharp dissent Monday as the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take up the case of a man sentenced to life in the 1998 slaying of a teenage pizza delivery driver in Louisiana, accusing her colleagues of refusing to “enforce its own precedents.”

Joined only by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sotomayor argued that it made little sense for the Supreme Court to effectively free James Skinner’s co-defendant from death row with a decision a decade earlier but to leave Skinner in prison for the rest of his days without parole, when both men were incarcerated for the murder of 16-year-old Eric Walber based on “similar sets of evidence, which centered on the same two eyewitness accounts.”

“Equal justice under law, the phrase engraved on the front of this Court’s building, requires that two codefendants, convicted of the same crime, who raised essentially the same constitutional claims, receive the same answer from the courts,” Sotomayor said. “Here, because the Louisiana courts refused to apply this Court’s Brady precedents, including a decision by this Court involving the very same evidence, Skinner risks spending the rest of his life in prison while [Michael] Wearry walks free,” Sotomayor said. “Because the Court refuses to enforce its own precedents, I respectfully dissent from the denial of certiorari.”

Under Brady v. Maryland, prosecutors must hand over “Brady material,” evidence that is exculpatory or tends to be favorable to the defense. The “withholding of evidence that is material to the determination of either guilt or punishment of a criminal defendant violates the defendant’s constitutional right to due process,” the Supreme Court held in 1963.

The evidence of Brady violations in the case of Michael Wearry was egregious to the point that the Supreme Court ruled his conviction and death sentence had to be set aside in 2016, and a new trial was “required.” Of particular concern was what the state hid from the defense about its star witness, a “jailhouse snitch” named Sam Scott who two years after the slaying claimed a lesser level of responsibility in Walber’s death while pointing to Wearry, Skinner, and three others.

That story not only changed, but was also wrong about basic facts. For instance, the witness claimed Walber was shot to death — but the evidence showed that on that April 1998 day, the Albany High School football player was filling in for someone who didn’t show up for work at Pizza Express and was beaten and run over by his own car, local CBS affiliate WAFB reported. Skinner was allegedly behind the wheel.

Further explaining why the Supreme Court found Scott’s account “dubious,” one of his versions of the crime said Randy Hutchinson — who had “undergone knee surgery to repair a ruptured patellar tendon” nine days earlier — ran after the pizza delivery driver.

Worse yet, Scott had made statements behind bars that he wanted to “‘make sure [Wearry] gets the needle cause he jacked over me,'” an inmate reported. Neither the defense nor the jury were aware of this evidence.

Keep reading