Tag: scotus

‘The Daily Show’ Host Charlamagne Tha God Calls Justice Clarence Thomas a Racial Slur on Television

Radio host Charlamagne Tha God referred to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas using a racial slur during an appearance on The Daily Show this week.

Charlamagne, whose real name is Lenard McKelvey, made the remark during his recurring “In My Opinion” segment while discussing comments from Sen. Chris Coons about President Donald Trump and speculation over a possible third term.

“Mr. Coons’ is actually my nickname for Clarence Thomas,” Charlamagne said.

He then argued that Trump’s comments about remaining in office should not be treated as harmless jokes.

“Nope. Jokes about abusing power don’t hit as hard when you’re actually abusing power, okay?

”It’s like breaking out a whoopee cushion after you already shit your pants in the middle of a meeting. Nobody’s in the mood to laugh, okay?” he said.

Charlamagne went on to say that even if Trump is joking, repeated rhetoric can take on a life of its own.

Keep reading

BELIEVE HER: Kamala Harris Endorses These Chilling Ideas for Democrats to “Neutralize Red-State Cheating”

Kamala Harris has revealed his week that she is all for a series of radical plans that should terrify every American.

During a Win With Black Women organizing call on Wednesday, Harris tore into the Supreme Court for gutting the Voting Rights Act and letting Southern states get rid of racial gerrymanders in redistricting.

“What they are doing is, they are backdooring racism behind politics to get to this decision and to justify them, what is happening in particular right now in all the southern states,” Harris whined. “This is obviously a time for us to fight.”

Harris later provided a solution to combat this so-called racism. Her prescription is one so chilling that it would likely bring about the end of the Republic.

Harris begins by endorsing expanding the Supreme Court to ensure a far-left majority controlled by the likes of Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Then she calls for granting statehood to Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico. This means four new Democratic senators, making it far more difficult for Republicans ever to win it back.

Finally, Harris strongly insinuates that the Electoral College must be abolished. This provides even more incentive for Democrats to manufacture enough votes to steal even more elections.

Keep reading

UCLA Medical School Accused Of Racial Discrimination In Defiance Of Supreme Court

We previously discussed a disturbing account of how medical students at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) were subjected to a bizarre class where one of the university’s “activists-in-residence” showered them with anti-Semitic postings and racist rhetoric. Now, the Justice Department has found that the university engaged in systemic racial discrimination in the admission of medical students. Given the university’s history, it is hardly surprising, but it remains unclear how the university will respond to the findings.

The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division announced that the medical school violated Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by giving preferential treatment to black and Hispanic applicants.

The investigation followed the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which barred race-based admissions.

In the DOJ’s “Findings” letter, black and Hispanic admits in some years averaged MCAT scores in the 66th to 72nd percentile, while Asian and white students averaged scores in the mid-to-high 80th percentiles.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon indicated that the Justice Department found that UCLA medical school leadership discussed how to achieve “diversity goals” and other strategies after the Supreme Court ruling.

After the historic ruling in the Harvard and North Carolina cases barring the use of racial criteria in admissions, administrators and academics admitted what they had long denied: that race was having a major role in admissions.

In anticipation of the rulings, many schools, including the California system, eliminated standardized testing. Without objective scores, there is less ability to identify the use of non-scholastic criteria for admissions. By eliminating or devaluing standardized testing, admissions offices can use the more subjective essays to achieve the same race-based results.

I wrote about how administrators were already preparing to use essays as an indirect way to achieve the same identifications and preferences in admissions.

The essay “prompts” encourage students to effectively self-identify by discussing incidents where they faced discrimination.

The shift to the essays would allow the removal of high-scoring students while elevating those with lower scores. That prediction was quickly confirmed, as top candidates were rejected based on their essays, while schools used essays to flag their backgrounds.

Faculty and administrators at UCLA and other schools remain adamant in using race-based admissions. They simply justify discrimination as equity and diversity. 

This is the same school that required medical students to sit through a raving lecture from “a formerly unhoused and incarcerated poverty scholar who prefers to keep their face covered in public.”

In her two-hour lecture, Gray-Garcia dismissed modern medicine as “white science” and told the medical students to engage in a prayer to “mama Earth.” Students were expected to pray and affirm that “Mama Earth was never meant to be bought, sold, pimped or played.”

Keep reading

Supreme Court Rejects Virginia Democrats’ Request to Intervene in Gerrymander Scheme

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) rejected a request from Virginia Democrats for the nation’s high court to intervene after the Virginia Supreme Court ruled to strike down a gerrymander scheme that would have redrawn the state’s congressional map in favor of Democrats.

In an order on Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court’s rejection had “no dissents,” NBC News reported.

Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) responded to the rejection by claiming that the Court had “joined the Supreme Court of Virginia in choosing to nullify an election.”

“The Supreme Court of the United States has now joined the Supreme Court of Virginia in choosing to nullify an election and the votes of more than three million Virginians,” Spanberger wrote in a post on X. “These Virginians made their voices heard — casting their ballots in good faith to push back against a President who said he’s ‘entitled’ to more seats in Congress before voters go to the polls.”

Keep reading

Supreme Court UNANIMOUSLY Rules Freight Brokers Can Be Sued for Negligently HIRING ILLEGAL ALIEN AND FOREIGN TRUCKERS in Major 9-0 Decision

In a unanimous 9-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court just ruled that freight brokers can be held personally liable for negligently hiring dangerous trucking companies, including those flooding our highways with illegal aliens and unqualified foreign drivers who can’t even speak English, let alone follow CDL regulations!

Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the opinion in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, confirming that federal law does NOT shield these greedy middleman brokers from state negligence lawsuits.

The case stems from a horrific 2017 crash in Illinois where trucker Shawn Montgomery lost part of his leg after being smashed by a carrier hired by freight giant C.H. Robinson.

AP reported:

The justices ruled unanimously in favor of Shawn Montgomery, whose parked vehicle was hit by a speeding truck driver on an Illinois highway in 2017. He wants to sue C.H. Robinson, the country’s largest freight broker by size, over its role in putting the driver on the road despite what he called “serious red flags.”

The decision does not mean Montgomery will necessarily win the lawsuit, which the company is contesting. But the ruling opens the door to increased liability for freight brokers, a key part of the industry.

The Trump administration and companies such as Amazon had argued that letting the suit go forward would expose logistics companies to liability under a “patchwork” of state laws.

[…]

Montgomery’s lawyers say the trucker had been cited for careless driving in another crash months earlier and that the carrier he worked for had been involved with at least three crashes in a span of about five months. Montgomery’s lawsuit said C.H. Robinson should share liability because it hired the carrier despite those problems.

Montgomery’s appeal was backed by more than two dozen states. They said a win for him would help bolster safety in an industry that moves billions of tons of goods across billions of miles every year.

Keep reading

Mockery Ensues After Disgraced Virginia Attorney General Makes This EMBARRASSING Mistake While Begging the U.S. Supreme Court to Reinstitute the Democrats’ Rigged Map

The Democrats have not been sending their best people for a long time, but at least they can avoid the errors an elementary school child makes.

Not disgraced Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones, however.

As The Gateway Pundit reported, the Virginia Supreme Court overturned the Democrat Party’s rigged gerrymandering referendum last week in a 4-3 decision, ruling the entire sleazy process to sneak it onto the ballot was unconstitutional from the start.

This was the latest devastating blow to radical Democrats’ blatant attempt to rewrite Virginia’s congressional maps mid-decade and hand themselves a super-majority in the U.S. House by turning the state from a competitive 6-5 split into a laughably unfair 10 Democrats to 1 Republican slaughter.

Virginia voters previously approved the state legislature and Governor Abigail Spanberger’s wicked power grab in a narrow vote last month.

On Monday, Jones filed an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, begging them to restitute the rigged map. But when he filed the appeal, Jones was confused about which court he should send it to.

The appeal shows that he is addressing the Supreme Court of Virginia, not the U.S. Supreme Court. The Justices should throw this out based on the stupid error alone.

Keep reading

Democrats Seem to Want a New Civil War

Democrats would have you believe that the Republicans started the first Civil War in order to preserve slavery, which is quite on-brand with their fondness for rewriting history. 

Now they are agitating for a new Civil War, again based on a long series of what amount to racial grievances, although this time the target of their hate is white people. Same basic theme, just a new set of enemies to demonize and wage war against. 

The slander that Republicans are racists has been floating around for a very long time, but over the past few months and years, the frequency and loudness have reached a new level, along with talks of “war,” “revolution,” “maximum warfare,” and outright assassination talk and attempts. 

Democrats are screaming bloody murder, in some cases literally, about the recent Supreme Court decision that mandates that the drawing of Congressional maps must be color blind. It doesn’t even matter if the new Congressmen elected might be black; what matters is that they are Democrats. 

The theory is simple: Democrats, as when they owned the slaves, own the black vote. A black Republican Senator is a House Negro in their eyes, and doesn’t count as true black representation. 

A white man in Tennessee who is a Democrat counts as black, and a black woman in Tennessee counts as white. 

Keep reading

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal in COVID ‘Misinformation’ Case, but Doctors Say They Still Won

The U.S. Supreme Court this week declined to hear a key medical free speech case involving basketball hall-of-famer John Stockton and several doctors who alleged that the Washington Medical Commission’s (WMC) COVID-19 “misinformation” policies violated their First Amendment free speech rights.

The court declined, without comment, to review Stockton v. Brown — but only after the WMC lifted the disciplinary charges it had filed against two of the doctors in the case.

Plaintiffs included Drs. Richard Eggleston and Thomas T. Siler, who were sanctioned by the WMC for their pandemic-related speech, and Dr. Daniel Moynihan, who alleged the WMC’s threats “chilled” his speech on pandemic-related topics.

Stockton, co-host of “The Ultimate Assist Podcast,” and Children’s Health Defense (CHD) were also plaintiffs. Washington Attorney General Nick Brown and WMC Executive Director Kyle S. Karinen, a lawyer, were the defendants.

In May 2024, a federal court dismissed the lawsuit, finding that the First Amendment doesn’t protect physicians’ public speech because it is part of medical conduct.

In November 2024 and again in January 2025, the Supreme Court rejected emergency requests for a stay.

In September 2025, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal but did not consider the First Amendment questions in the case. The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Rick Jaffe, who represented the plaintiffs, called the Supreme Court’s choice not to hear the case “outrageous.”

But Jaffe said the unreported part of the story is what happened the month before, when the WMC withdrew its statement of charges against Eggleston and Siler, which he called a victory.

“Withdrawal of those charges was the main practical goal of the state litigation concerning these doctors and this federal case … once the Commission rescinded the charges, that was the win,” Jaffe said.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Clears the Way For Alabama to Throw Out Current Rigged Congressional Map – Sotomayor Fumes

The US Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for Alabama to throw out its current rigged congressional map.

Alabama on Friday filed an emergency appeal at the Supreme Court asking the high court to allow it to throw out its current rigged congressional map.

Alabama’s request to toss out its racist, gerrymandered congressional map comes after the Supreme Court last month declared Louisiana’s newly-drawn Congressional map an unconstitutional gerrymander.

The case, State of Louisiana v. Phillip Callais (and the related Press Robinson v. Phillip Callais), stems from Louisiana’s woke lawmakers caving to left-wing judges and creating a second “majority-minority” congressional district.

Louisiana delayed its May 16 House primaries a couple of weeks ago after the Supreme Court’s blockbuster ruling.

Alabama petitioned the Supreme Court on Friday amid the gerrymander wars.

Conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas ordered a response by Monday evening.

The high court on Monday issued the decision in a 6-3 vote.

The three liberal justices, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, dissented.

Sotomayor fumed in her dissent.

“The Court today unceremoniously discards the District Court’s meticulously documented and supported discriminatory-intent finding and careful remedial order without any sound basis for doing so and without regard for the confusion that will surely ensue. As with all vacaturs of this kind from this Court, the District Court remains free on remand to decide for itself whether Callais has any bearing on its Fourteenth Amendment analysis or if its prior reasoning is unaffected by that decision,” Sotomayor wrote.

NBC News reported:

The Supreme Court on Monday removed an obstacle to Alabama using a new congressional map in this year’s election that would eliminate one of the state’s two majority-Black districts.

The court, over the objection of its liberal members, sent litigation over the Republican-drawn map back to the lower court, which could speed up the state’s effort to use its map.

The state has been battling civil rights plaintiffs for years over its congressional map, with a focus on whether a second majority-Black district was required to comply with the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Angry Hillary/DNC lawyer Marc Elias was stunned after the Supreme Court allowed Alabama to redraw a new congressional map.

Keep reading

Virginia Democrats Reveal a Radical Design

Virginia Democrats are doing an unwitting service to the whole country — by revealing just how hostile their party is to the most essential checks and balances.

Democrats violated the state’s constitution by pushing through a referendum to take four congressional seats away from Republicans.

But when Virginia’s supreme court threw out the illegal map, Democrats didn’t back down:

They started thinking of ways to get rid of every justice on the court, so they could pack it with new ones expressly picked to return a verdict more favorable to the party. 

If the Democrat-controlled Virginia legislature could impose a mandatory retirement age of 54 on the justices — who are all older than that — they could be removed and replaced by compliant partisans.

This wasn’t just a harebrained scheme by state Democrats; this was discussed on a call with the highest-ranking Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.

As breathtaking as this power grab might be, it’s consistent with the thrust of the national party’s thinking about doing away with troublesome constitutional checks.

Democrats have been arguing for decades to weaken or eliminate protections built into the Constitution to prevent a self-interested faction or party — even one with a short-term electoral majority behind it — from seizing total power.

Virginia today is exactly what James Madison and other framers of the Constitution were afraid of:

A faction — the Democrats — is using its success in the most recent election to try to rewrite the rules for future elections and is prepared to intimidate or destroy any institution that stands in its way, including the state’s supreme court. 

Virginia is not a solid-blue state — just a year ago, it had a full slate of Republican statewide elected officers.

Its congressional delegation is split, six Democrats to five Republicans. 

It may presently be out of reach for Republicans in presidential elections, but its legislative races and contests for statewide offices are competitive — Republicans had a majority in the House of Delegates as recently as three years ago.

Indeed, Virginia is so politically balanced that Democrats try to put a moderate face on their party by picking the likes of Abigail Spanberger, Mark Warner and Tim Kaine for governor or U.S. senator, candidates who present themselves as centrists.

Yet once Spanberger was sworn in as governor this year, with Democratic majorities in the general assembly, the push was on to throw the state constitution aside and redraw the congressional map to give Democrats 10 seats to one for the GOP, and now the justices who stopped that gerrymander face the party’s wrath.

Virginia’s constitution doesn’t seem to allow removal of sitting justices by imposing a mandatory retirement age.

Keep reading