Tag: scotus

Tyranny by Technicality: The Supreme Court Will Not Save Our Republic

“The Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of the people.”—Justice William O. Douglas

For years, we have been warning that the U.S. Supreme Court would not save us from the American police state.

That warning has not grown less urgent. It has simply become more complicated.

The danger today is not merely that courts will favor order and procedure over freedom. It is that by the time justice makes an appearance, it will arrive so narrowly, so procedurally and so late that the government will already have prevailed.

Consider the fight over President Trump’s massive $400 million White House ballroom.

Lower courts found serious reason to doubt Trump’s claim to unilateral authority to tear down the historic East Wing and proceed with the project without congressional approval, and they ordered above-ground construction halted.

Those orders were stayed while the administration appealed.

Construction continued.

Then the administration argued that the project had progressed so far that stopping it had become impractical.

On August 31, the U.S. Supreme Court, by a 5–4 vote, allowed the construction to continue—not because it determined that Trump had acted legally, but because the majority concluded that the preservationists challenging the project likely lacked legal standing to sue.

The Supreme Court expressly declined to decide whether the project itself was lawful.

Chief Justice John Roberts, joining the Court’s three liberal justices in dissent, warned that allowing the project to proceed was “no victory for the separation of powers.”

Therein lies the problem with justice in the age of the American police state: by the time the courts finally decide whether government officials have overstepped their constitutional authority, the deed may already be done, the right already violated and the damage already inflicted.

The building is already gone. The troops are already deployed. The surveillance system is already operating. The people are already detained. The agency is already dismantled. The data is already collected. The war is already underway.

And whatever constitutional principle eventually emerges from the litigation arrives too late to undo the damage.

At what point will “We the People” be told that we, too, lack standing to object to the destruction of our republic?

The Founders built safeguards into the constitutional system to guard against any one branch of government becoming all-powerful: If the president overreaches, Congress is supposed to stop him. If Congress fails to do its duty, the courts are supposed to intervene. If a lower court gets it wrong, the Supreme Court will set things right.

That is how the system is supposed to work.

Keep reading

Michigan Sec of State Replies To Justice Kavanaugh—Gives Laughable Response About Why It’s Not Fair For Supreme Court To Review Citizens Only Vote Petition Case

Despite the majority of citizens (including Democrats), who don’t want non-citizens on Michigan’s voter rolls, Michigan Secretary of State and Democrat candidate for governor, Jocelyn Benson, isn’t giving up the fight to keep non-citizens on the voter rolls and prevent any petition by the people, government entity, or even U.S. Supreme Court from identifying and removing them.

Michigan voters, regardless of political party, do NOT want non-citizens voting in their elections. In fact, a whopping 87% of voters evenly split between Democrats and Republicans in Michigan said in a recent Remington Group poll that they are not in favor of non-citizens voting in Michigan elections.

America’s dirtiest Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson is not about representing the people she was elected to represent, she is, and always has been, about looking out for her own special interests. Jocelyn Benson and her right hand man, Bureau of Elections Director Jonathan Brater, have done everything within their power to ensure non-citizens are not only placed on Michigan’s voter rolls, but ensuring they maintain the sole authority to identify them.

Keep reading

Clyburn Calls For Packing The Court With “Baker’s Dozen” To Flip Cases

On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) added his voice to expand the Supreme Court to a “baker’s dozen,” or thirteen members to allow Democrats to add justices who agree with him and Democratic members on how the law must be interpreted.

In the meantime, as discussed earlier, court packing is being pushed as the new litmus test for any Democratic candidates. Clyburn’s “baker’s dozen” is a telling description of an effort to bake in partisan views on a Court expanded to create an instant liberal majority. In defending this hostile takeover of the Court, Clyburn bizarrely insisted that the failure to do so might lead to a return to antebellum conditions when blacks were being given fewer rights than whites.

When asked by host Kristen Welker whether he supports the call of former Vice President Kamala Harris to pack the Court, Clyburn responded:

“Yes, I do. I think that we are in a position now that calls for some significant actions taken by the Congress and we ought to expand. Thirteen is a pretty good number. A baker’s dozen would be a good number to have on the court. And I would hope we would get people on the Court who will follow the constitutional underpinnings of this great nation of ours.”

Clyburn then made the sensational claim that, without taking over the Court, blacks could be returned to virtual slave conditions. He added:

“The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments have been interpreted different ways over the years. And we had in the Warren Court an interpretation of those amendments that I thought would be set for the future of the country. We have now a Supreme Court that has decided to reverse course and take this country back, I say, to those rulings of Justice Taney that said that no black man has any rights that a white man must respect.”

So, while recognizing that interpretations have evolved, Clyburn now demands a takeover of the Court because he disagrees with the current interpretations. It was fine when interpretations aligned with his views, but opposing viewpoints are intolerable and warrant packing the Court with reliable liberal votes. Other Democrats have demanded packing the Court to reverse immigration rulings.

The unhinged rhetoric reflects the importance of taking over the Court by Democrats who view the institution as a barrier to carrying out a radical agenda, including proposals that are considered unconstitutional. Liberal professors and pundits have identified a court takeover as essential to, as one law professor put it, guaranteeing that the Democrats never lose another national election. As former Attorney General Eric Holder and Democratic strategist James Carville have made clear, it is about power and guaranteeing its retention.

Of course, these figures know that it will take a great deal to get Americans to trash core institutions and values. Polls have long shown that a majority of citizens oppose efforts to pack the Court. FDR’s infamous court-packing plan in the 1930s has been widely panned in history, but is now being used as a model by many Democrats to achieve short-term political goals.

In order to overcome this fealty to our constitutional system, citizens must be very angry or very afraid. That is why the rage rhetoric is increasing as we approach the midterm elections. In the last election, the prediction was the imminent end of democracy. Now it is the return to slavery conditions in the United States.

One can disagree with the Court without suggesting that these justices are effective racists or want to return the nation to pre-Civil War slavery conditions. The suggestion that the Court would return this country to the Dred Scott period from before the Civil War is deeply offensive to the conservative justices, including Justice Clarence Thomas, who is African American. It is an absurd suggestion and shows contempt not just for the Court but for Black voters.

Keep reading

Justice Kavanaugh Demands Michigan Sec of State Benson Answer After 2 Democrat Canvassers Block Citizenship Petition Backed by 87% of Likely MI Voters

America’s dirtiest Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and her right hand man, Bureau of Elections Director Jonathan Brater, have done everything within their power to ensure non-citizens are not only placed on Michigan’s voter rolls, but that once they are on the voter rolls, there is no way to discover them.

Last week, on Monday, August 4, hundreds of Michigan residents packed the Michigan Board of Canvassers meeting in Lansing to defend the validity of the Americans for Citizens Only Voting petition which was turned in several months ago with an astounding 709,841 signatures, 59.1% over the threshold of the minimum to make the ballot, which was only 446,198.

ACVM did not sneak this petition in at the last minute. The petitions landed on March 4, 2026 — more than four months before the July 6 filing deadline and eight months before Election Day. The Bureau of Elections sat on those 709,841 signatures for five and a half months. Staff did not release the 1,000-signature sample until July 24. The staff report calling the petition 17 signatures short did not come out until August 17. That is 166 days after the boxes were delivered, and it left the campaign 17 days to fight challenges, chase affidavits, and get in front of the Board of State Canvassers on August 24.

By then the clock was already killing the measure. Ballots have to be locked for the November 3 election. ACVM asked the Michigan Supreme Court to move. When that court sat on the case, the group went to Justice Kavanaugh on August 31 and asked for an order by September 3 — because the Board of State Canvassers meets September 4 to finalize the ballot. Five and a half months of silence, then a two-week scramble to save a proposal that had cleared the first staff count. That is how Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and her fellow Democrat activists keep a citizenship amendment off the ballot without ever taking a vote on the merits.

The Michigan Board of Canvassers was asked to review the signatures pulled from the “random sampling” that the Board of Elections Director Jonathan Brater’s staff deemed unacceptable because, according to the staff members, the signatures on the petition didn’t match the signatures they had on file. Many audience members could be heard remarking that their signatures have changed over the years, suggesting this was a completely unfair practice. The intense scrutiny given to each signature by the amateur signature sleuths was especially difficult to watch, given that only 6 years ago, Michigan’s top election official, Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, told her clerks to ignore signature matching when accepting absentee ballots and assume the signature matched.

The attorneys working with ACVM were able to obtain 23 affidavits from the sampling of 1,000 that MI Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson’s Board of Elections “staff members” rejected, to prove that the signatures they called into question were indeed, valid signatures. The attornies provided 19 affidavits by the 10 am Saturday deadline and an additional 4 more on Saturday (the time of the delivery is unclear).

Keep reading

James Clyburn Basically Says Clarence Thomas ‘Ain’t Black’

Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) sat down with Kristen Welker on Meet the Press Sunday, and the segment on the Supreme Court went about as you’d expect from a Democrat these days. He’s on board with Kamala Harris’s push to expand the Court to 13 justices, because of course he is. I don’t care how many times Democrats swear this isn’t about seizing permanent power. Packing the bench only becomes a priority whenever they’re the ones stuck losing decisions, and something tells me Clyburn’s enthusiasm for a bigger bench is entirely dependent on which party gets to fill those seats.

But that’s not even the part of the interview that made me sit up.

Welker brought up something I had no idea about: Clyburn testified in favor of Clarence Thomas’s Supreme Court confirmation back in 1991.

Welker even played the tape.

“It’s a pleasure for me to be here today to present testimony in favor of my good friend, Clarence Thomas,” Clyburn said in the old clip. “I have known Clarence for ten years and I consider him to be a personal and professional friend, in spite of the fact that he shares a conservative Republican philosophy.”

I looked up his entire testimony, and I was floored. Clyburn praised him as “zealous in his pursuit of the facts and intellectually honest and objective.”

Most significantly, Clyburn said civil-rights officials who worked with Thomas found him “highly compassionate, sensitive, judicious” and possessed of the “intellectual honesty that is required in this field.” Despite their disagreements, Clyburn said he had “never found anything in his philosophy of a nature to deny him this Supreme Court confirmation.” He concluded that Thomas was “deeply committed to an even-handed system of justice” and possessed “the integrity, the conscientious spirit, and the basic sense of fairness” required of a Supreme Court justice.

Keep reading

DEI Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Still Playing COVID Theater, Performatively Masked Up at DC Airport

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was filmed being escorted through a DC airport this week, still performatively wearing a face mask.

The video shows the Justice walking through the terminal with security as if it were still 2020.

Her security team was not wearing masks.

No declared public health emergency has required or justified airport masking in 2026.

Keep reading

Supreme Court hands Trump a win in bid to prevent ineligible voters voting in midterm elections

The Supreme Court on Monday opened the door for President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at securing the upcoming midterm elections from ineligible voters and implementing verification standards for mail-in ballots. 

The high court halted a lower court ruling that was blocking the president’s March 31 executive order establishing a whole-of-government approach to prevent noncitizens from registering to vote or voting in federal elections. A coalition of 23 Democratic states and Washington, D.C., sued the administration in Massachusetts to block the order. 

The lower court’s ruling by District Court Judge Indira Talwani in June specifically blocked parts of the executive order directing federal prosecutors to focus on prosecuting any state and local officials who facilitate ineligible voting and instructing the U.S. Postal Service to establish verification standards for mail-in ballots, including a unique barcode. 

While the Supreme Court’s August 24 decision lifts the injunction in California v. Trump, the lawsuit brought by a coalition of 23 states and D.C., the administration still faces a separate nationwide legal barrier. 

A second, active preliminary injunction issued by Judge Talwani in August in League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump continues to block the Postal Service from implementing the changes mandated by the executive order for the upcoming election. 

So, while the Supreme Court has cleared the path for the administration to proceed with certain aspects of the order, significant legal hurdles remain regarding the Postal Service’s implementation before the November midterm elections.

The executive order directed the Department of Homeland Security to create a nationwide list of adult U.S. citizens and the USPS to obtain lists of registered voters. The USPS, an independent agency of the executive branch, would then be required to send mail-in ballots only to individuals on both of those lists.  

The Supreme Court’s conservative justices determined, however, that the District Court “lacked jurisdiction to enter the judgment” and that the stay on the executive order does harm to the government’s legitimate functions of rulemaking and executive prosecutorial discretion, according to the high court’s per curiam opinion published Monday.   

The ruling allows the Trump administration to proceed with its two-pronged effort, through the Postal Service, to ensure that no non-eligible voters cast votes in the upcoming midterms and, through the Justice Department, that those who facilitate such alleged illegal voting will be pursued by prosecutors. 

Since early absentee voting in many states is just weeks away, the Trump administration would have to move quickly to implement the order’s provisions, which could still face further legal challenges. 

As the midterms approach, President Trump has aimed to ensure that no ineligible voters cast votes. In recent months, emerging evidence shows that potentially hundreds of thousands of noncitizens are registered to vote across the country and some have voted in recent elections. 

Keep reading

Leftist Obama Judge Indira Talwani Goes Completely ROGUE – Spits in the Face of the Supreme Court and Rules Trump’s U.S. Postal Service is in “Complete Noncompliance” With Her Block on Mail-In Ballot Security Rules

Obama-appointed U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani escalated her war against President Donald Trump’s election-integrity agenda Tuesday, declaring that the U.S. Postal Service violated her nationwide injunction by completing new security regulations for federal mail-in ballots.

Just one day after the United States Supreme Court UPHELD, for now, President Trump’s executive order and the new U.S. Postal Service rules designed to secure America’s mail-in ballots, this Obama-appointed radical in Boston just ruled that Trump’s Postal Service has VIOLATED her earlier injunction.

She’s going off. Aggressively. Accusing the Trump team of “complete noncompliance.”

This is pure judicial warfare against the American people and against free and fair elections.

Talwani’s nationwide injunction (entered earlier this month in League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump) explicitly barred the USPS Defendants “from implementing, giving effect to, or enforcing Section 3 of Executive Order No. 14399… or otherwise initiating or completing rulemaking to promulgate the specific regulations outlined in Section 3(b)(i)-(v) or (d) of the EO for the November 3, 2026 or any earlier election.”

On Friday evening, August 21, the USPS completed the rulemaking process. They sent a Final Rule titled “Ballot Mail for Federal Elections” to the Office of the Federal Register, with an immediate effective date of August 21 and publication set for August 26.

The Final Rule itself nods to the injunctions and states the Postal Service “will not take actions to implement the rule specifically for the 2026 election unless and until the government obtains relief from those injunctions.”

Keep reading

Battle Over Ten Commandments Arrives At Supreme Court

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Aug. 17 to review a federal appeals court decision that upheld a Texas law requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit cleared the way in April for the Texas law to take effect.

The state law known as Senate Bill 10, or SB 10, requires that public elementary and secondary schools conspicuously display in classrooms an easily readable poster or framed copy of the Ten Commandments with no additional commentary.

The Fifth Circuit’s 9–8 ruling in Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District raised questions about freedom of religion and how the Supreme Court had ruled on these issues in the past. If the justices agree to hear the case, their potentially landmark ruling could change the legal landscape for how governments deal with religion.

The Fifth Circuit said that the law complied with the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

The Texas law “looks nothing like a historical religious establishment,” because it does not tell houses of worship what to believe, how to worship, or whom to employ, the appeals court said. It does not punish people who reject the Ten Commandments, impose taxes to support the clergy, or require churches to carry out civic functions, the court said.

“These are the kinds of things ‘establishments of religion’ did at the founding. [The Texas law] does none of them,” it said.

The Fifth Circuit also held that a 1980 precedent, Stone v. Graham, which struck down a nearly identical classroom display law, is no longer binding.

The circuit court ruling upholding the Texas statute came after a federal district court preliminarily blocked it, finding the law likely violates both the Constitution’s establishment clause, which forbids the government from favoring one religion over another, and the free exercise clause, which prohibits the government from infringing on worship and other activities. The district judge also found the displays would coerce students and interfere with parents’ rights to direct their children’s religious upbringing.

The challenge in the district court was brought by a group of Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Baha’i, Unitarian Universalist, and nonreligious families. The families argue in the petition that the Texas law violates the Constitution by forcing religion on students, and that the Fifth Circuit misinterpreted Supreme Court precedent.

Keep reading

SCOTUS rejects Trump’s petition for rehearing $5M E. Jean Carroll judgment

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has formally rejected President Donald Trump’s petition for a rehearing regarding the $5 million civil judgment in the E. Jean Carroll lawsuit. The high court rejected the petition without providing an explanation in accordance with standard court customs.

Monday’s denial leaves intact a 2023 Manhattan jury verdict that found Trump liable for the alleged mid-1990s sexual abuse and defamation of Carroll, a former magazine columnist. SCOTUS had previously declined to review the civil case in late June before Trump’s legal team filed for the rehearing.

“The American People stand with President Trump as they demand an immediate end to all of the Witch Hunts, including the Democrat-funded travesty of the Carroll Hoaxes,” said a spokesperson for Trump’s legal team in a statement to The Hill.

“President Trump will keep winning against Liberal lawfare, as he continues to focus on his mission to Make America Great Again.”

Carroll’s attorney Roberta Kaplan praised the decision, seeing it as a closure of Trump’s last avenue to have the verdict reversed.

“We are pleased that the United States Supreme Court has declined again to hear this case,” Kaplan said in a statement.

“As a result, the jury’s unanimous verdict that Donald Trump sexually assaulted and then defamed E. Jean Carroll is now final and cannot be challenged in any court,” the attorney continued.

Trump has consistently denied that he sexually abused Carroll, calling all of her allegations a “Made Up Story” that never happened.

Meanwhile, a separate $83.3 million defamation verdict against Trump remains under appeal before the Supreme Court, centering on statements made while he was in the White House.

Keep reading