Tag Archives: SCOTUS

Five ways America will change if Democrats pack the Supreme Court with leftists

Major pro-abortion group endorses Joe Biden for President
Major pro-abortion group endorses Joe Biden for President

I have met many young people who are voting Democrat because it makes them feel good about themselves, and look good to others. They don’t really understand what the issues are. They can’t name any Trump or Biden policies. They just know that the TV told them that Orange Man Bad, and that’s good enough for them. But let’s see what will happen in November if Joe Biden wins the presidency.

This article from The Federalist explains:

Should the Democrats choose to expand the court by at least four members to provide for a 7-6 majority assuming Judge Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed, it is important for Americans to understand how this drastic maneuver will change their lives and their country.

And here’s the list:

  • 1. Gun Rights
  • 2. Free Speech
  • 3. Abortion
  • 4. Religious Liberty
  • 5. Election Laws

I wanted to drill deeper on these two:

3. Abortion

There are a whole host of issues surrounding abortion that a new progressive majority would impact, from parental notification laws, to limits on how late in pregnancy abortion could be performed, to a state’s ability to regulate the abortion industry. The progressive reading of Roe v. Wade is almost limitless in its scope and perhaps the only question mark would regard the ability to kill babies even after they are outside of the mother. Beyond that, it is very likely that almost any state restrictions would be shot down.

4. Religious Liberty

Several religious liberty cases such as Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor have been closely decided of late. It is safe to assume these decisions would be reversed. Practicing Christians and members of other faiths would face far greater restriction in living their faith in their public life. Our understanding of how we may practice our religions would undergo a major change, abandoning the American tradition of public faith, and limiting religious expression to the church and the home.

If you look at Biden and Harris records on religious liberty, you’ll understand that their goal is to eliminate Bible-believing Christianity from the public sphere. 

According to this The Federalist article, Kamala Harris opposed a judicial nominee for being Catholic:

In 2019, Harris suggested that Brian Buescher, a nominee for a district court seat, was unfit for service because of his membership in the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal organization. As part of his Senate confirmation, she asked Buescher whether he knew that the Knights “opposed a woman’s right to choose” and “opposed marriage equality.”

Of course, the Catholic Church, like many other religious groups, opposes same-sex marriage and abortion. To treat membership in a Catholic organization as potentially disqualifying, precisely because that organization upholds Catholic beliefs, amounts to a religious test for public office.

If Catholics are faithful to Christian teaching, especially on abortion and sexuality, Harris believes they have no place in our politics. “Russia was able to influence our election,” she wrote in 2019, “because they figured out that racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, and transphobia are America’s Achilles heel. These issues aren’t only civil rights — they’re also a matter of national security. We have to deal with that.”

With these words, Harris lumped believing Catholics in with antisemites. If you believe marriage is between a man and woman, if you think boys should not be allowed to compete in girls’ sports, Harris thinks you might be a tool of our nation’s enemies.

Catholics should take Harris at her word. She has a history of bringing criminal charges against her political enemies. As attorney general of California, she prosecuted David Daleiden, a young Catholic investigative journalist who had exposed certain dark practices of Planned Parenthood, such as the selling of baby body parts. As part of the prosecution, Harris raided Daleiden’s home, an unnecessary act designed to punish and intimidate. Daleiden said he relied on “the church, the faith of the church, the ancient ritual of the church” during his ordeal.

Also:

Harris enjoys a 100 percent approval rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America, and received more than $80,000 in donations from abortion providers. Little wonder, then, that she spent her time as attorney general of California launching spurious prosecutions against pro-life activists.

Harris isn’t the only one who hates religious people, the man at the top of the Democrat ticket does too.

The Federalist explains:

During her brief career in the Senate, Harris co-sponsored the absurdly named “Equality Act,” which would force all hospitals and all physicians to perform sex-changes and cross-sex hormone injections. She followed this up by introducing the even more absurdly named “Do No Harm Act,” which would strip legal protections for conscientious objectors to these practices.

Biden has fallen into line. His website now vows to make enacting the Equality Act a “top legislative priority” for the first 100 days of his administration

The double-whammy of the “Equality Act” combined with the “Do No Harm Act” would not only destroy religious protections for hospitals but religious protections for faithful Catholic organizations and individuals across the board. Catholic business-owners could see their businesses shut down for refusing to facilitate same-sex weddings or having separate facilities for biological males and biological females.

Schools would be forced to do the same, including allowing biological boys who identify as transgender to change in the girls’ locker rooms, use the girls’ bathrooms, and, in sports, compete on teams alongside girls. Similar laws in five different states have already forced Catholic Charities’s adoption and foster services to close their doors.

It will be a real shame if people vote for Biden/Harris thinking that they will be able to take the Bible seriously in their public lives. That will all end soon after they are elected.

What the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett communicates to secular left feminists

Amy Coney Barrett, her husband and her 7 children
Amy Coney Barrett, her husband and her 7 children in the Oval Office

Here’s an article from The Federalist by my favorite Federalist writer, Joy Pullmann, where she lists 9 feminist lies that were smashed by the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett:

  • Women Need Abortion to Succeed
  • Children Make You Unhappy
  • Women Must Repress Their Fertility to Succeed
  • Religious People and Conservatives Are Anti-Sex
  • Women Don’t Need Men
  • Christianity Oppresses Women
  • Conservatives Hate Women
  • Women Should Prioritize Career Over Family
  • Women Are Oppressed

The article is excellent. I will just focus on the one part that I thought was the most interesting:

Marriage is the epitome of the cooperation of the sexes, yet the left treats it as unnecessary at best and harmful at worst. The Black Lives Matter organization, for example, which has been supported by millions in donations and thousands of endorsements from CEOs and Democrat politicians, in its policy platform openly attacked “heteronormative” “nuclear families.”

Gloria Steinem, the apostle of feminism, popularized the phrase “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Leftism and feminism pit the sexes against each other, while conservatism and Christianity recognize that the sexes are interdependent. This recognition brings humankind joy instead of hatred.

Fathers are crucial to the happiness and well-being of every child, a need that only intensifies with the addition of each child. Barrett’s husband Jesse is a full partner in their marriage with his own significant career. Barrett recognized her husband’s major contributions to their family and her happiness in her nomination acceptance speech Saturday night.

I couldn’t manage this very full life without the unwavering support of my husband Jesse. At the start of our marriage, I imagined that we would run our household as partners. As it has turned out, Jesse does far more than his share of the work. To my chagrin, I learned at dinner recently that my children consider him to be the better cook. For 21 years, Jesse has asked me every single morning what he can do for me that day. And though I almost always say ‘Nothing,’ he still finds ways to take things off my plate. And that’s not because he has a lot of free time—he has a busy law practice. It’s because he has a superb and generous husband, and I am very fortunate.

Given her description, I think it’s accurate to guess Barrett and her husband’s interdependence is a source of strength and joy to them both, as well as to their children and community. They have undoubtedly achieved much more together than they could have separately, as many highly successful women will also tell you of their marriages. Our husbands are our sometimes-secret weapon.

Feminists don’t like any of Joy’s 9 points, though.

Feminism is what a woman believes after she has smashed herself up by having sex with bad boys. Bad boy failures makes her think that all men are unreliable. She likes abortion because it allows her to chase the bad boys she is attracted to. When she learns how bad boys are unreliable, she intentionally delays marriage to focus on her career and pay off all her student loans. But, if a woman avoids bad boys, and instead chooses a good husband who supports her, she can have 5 kids and adopt 2 more and not have all that bitterness. With a good husband, and a network of supportive relatives, she can even get on the Supreme Court.

I prefer that young women study for a STEM degree, and try to avoid student loans with community college, scholarships, living at home, summer jobs, etc. I recommend they work until their first child arrives. After that, they should stay home with the children, at least for the first 3 years of each child’s life. And obviously, having more children leads to a bigger legacy than fewer children. I’m also a strong supporter of homeschooling. I don’t have much confidence in Christian schools, private schools and especially public schools.

However, in the special case of women like Amy Coney Barrett, who can make a huge difference in the world for the good of conservatives and Christians, then it may be possible, with an excellent husband and many willing relatives, to have a safety net for the children that allows her to do something that will protect us all from the secular left. This is not the ordinary case, of course. This is 1% of the 1% of the 1%. There is no doubt that her children will suffer from her decision to have a career. But if she makes a Supreme Court decision that protects the unborn, or safeguards self-defense rights, or preserves religious liberty, it will be worth it. I don’t think this is the ordinary case. I don’t support mothers of young children having ordinary careers just to make money, because usually the young children have to be placed with strangers.

My goal for my wife was that she be a stay at home wife and mother, at least while we have any children under 3, and preferably under 5. I wouldn’t have liked to have a wife who served on the Supreme Court. I wouldn’t want to share my wife with co-workers, because of the way I was raised. But I can understand why it is a good thing for me (and for conservatives and Christians) that she is the nominee.

Who will Trump nominate for SCOTUS, and can he get it done by election day?

It's going to be Ted Cruz, because that's who we want
It’s going to be Ted Cruz, because that’s who Republican voters want

So, there’s a vacancy on the Supreme Court, and since we don’t have a wuss in the Oval office, we’re going to get a nominee and a vote on that nominee in the Senate. The process of nominating someone to the Supreme Court requires the president to nominate, and the Senate to advise and consent. The Republicans control both the White House and the Senate, and there is time to get it done.

The Federalist explains that short-time nominations have happened before:

Three Supreme Court Justices, including Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who passed away on Friday due to complications of metastatic pancreatic cancer, were confirmed by the Senate within 45 days of their formal nomination date.

According to Senate records, Justices Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, and Sandra Day O’Connor were all confirmed in a short period of time. Stevens’s confirmation in 1975 took 19 days, O’Connor’s confirmation in 1981 took 33 days, and Ginsburg’s confirmation in 1993 took 42 days.

[…]Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced Trump’s nomination would receive a vote on the floor, adding the Senate will keep their promise to “support [Trump’s] agenda “particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary.”

“President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate,” he stated.

I love this news story, because if there is anything that can get the conservative base out, it’s a conservative Supreme Court nominee. We care about judges, and now everyone is going to be reminded why we elected Trump in the first place. It’s hard to get a perfect nominee through the Senate when we have a few moderate senators who won’t support a social conservative. We need 50 votes for a real social conservative, and we don’t have that. There are at least 3 moderates: Lisa Murkowski, and Susan Collins, and Mitt Romney. Murkowski and Collins have already come out and said they don’t want to vote on a judge until after the election. Still, we might be able to get someone right of center in there who would give us most of what we want, and get him or her through with a few votes from moderate Democrats.

Now watch this 2 minute video:

Here’s a summary for those who can’t watch:

Trump brought up Cruz in the context of speaking about Cruz’s last Senate victory. “I helped a lot too. I was with Ted all the way, and I think Ted appreciated it. Even said I’m putting Ted Cruz as one of the people for the Supreme Court,” Trump said. He continued:

You know why I did it, because I wanted to make sure I had somebody on the list of about 45 unbelievable people, the smartest, the best, the absolute crème de la crème, the best minds in the country, conservative, they believe in the Constitution. Little things like that. But I said I have to add somebody that we’re going to make sure we could get approved. The only one I could think of was Ted, because  He’s going to get 50 Republican votes and 50 Democratic votes. They’ll do anything to get him out of the Senate. But I joke when I say that to Ted, and I say that all the time, Ted’s only one I know that will get 100 votes in the Senate.

Trump added of Cruz: “He’s a great guy; he’s a brilliant guy.”

I think it would be a smart move for Trump to drive turnout by having a fight over someone the base really wants – like Ted Cruz. Not only is Ted Cruz brilliant and conservative, but his replacement in the Senate would be picked by Greg Abbott, the conservative governor of Texas.

Ted Cruz is Hispanic, and that is a very useful thing to put in the news 45 days out from an election. It reminds Hispanic voters that Hispanics can be conservative, and fit into the Republican party. We need to counter the narrative that the Democrats spread about racism from the right. It’s ironic, because people like Ted Cruz and Thomas Sowell are our best conservatives.

Three cheers for the Janus SCOTUS decision and right-to-work laws in 27 states

Political contributions from unions are overwhelmingly given to Democrats and leftists
Contributions from unions are mostly given to Democrats and leftists

Some people think of unions as a force for good. Perhaps they were in the past, but a little reading of economics shows how they actually produce very bad results for workers. In addition to that, unions are actively trying to influence the outcome of elections in 2020, using the money collected from their members. Fortunately, there have been two great developments recently that limit their power.

Here’s a recent story from Just the News:

Leaders of several public and private sector unions are threatening to organize walkouts this fall for teachers, truck drivers and service workers in an effort to protest police killings.

“The status quo — of police killing Black people, of armed white nationalists killing demonstrators, of millions sick and increasingly desperate — is clearly unjust, and it cannot continue,” said a statement issued over the weekend by various arms of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the Service Employees International Union, and National Education Association.

[…]The union leaders also called for defunding police departments and universal health care.

You can see their progressive convictions coming out in how they distribute the money they collect from their members.

The Washington Examiner reports:

Organized labor has given more than $1.3 billion to Democratic Party organizations and liberal nonprofit and activist groups since 2010, while 1 percent went to conservative groups or causes, according to a survey of federal data.

The giving is starkly different from the beliefs of most rank-and-file union members, many of whom lean Republican.

Having said all of that, there were two pieces of good news about labor unions that I think we should celebrate during Labor Day.

First of all, there was a very good decision to allow teachers to opt out of having to pay union dues in all 50 states. Second, a large number of states have enacted right-to-work laws, which allow employees in union-dominated jobs to be able to work without being forced to join a union.

This article explains both:

While every public sector employee across the country now enjoys right to work protections under the First Amendment as a result of the 2018 National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision, private sector workers in the 23 states that have yet to pass a right to work law can lose their job for refusing to tender dues or fees to a union.

Right to work protects each worker’s freedom of choice, but the advantages of right to work hardly stop there. Enshrining workplace freedom also brings significant economic benefits to the 27 states that have passed right to work laws.

Between 2009 and 2019, right to work states saw the total number of people employed grow by 16.9%. That’s nearly double the 9.6% gain in non-right to work states, according to an analysis of federal government statistics compiled by the National Institute for Labor Relations Research, or NILRR.

The study also found that, after adjusting for the cost of living, the mean after-tax household income in right to work states was about $4,300 higher than for households in forced-unionism states in 2018, the most recent year for which household income data is available.

The connection between right to work laws and better economic performance is not a surprise. Business experts consistently rank the presence of right to work laws as one of the most important factors companies consider when deciding where to expand or relocate their plants and facilities, where they will create new jobs and new opportunities.

Take the manufacturing sector, for example. The NILRR analysis revealed that employment in the manufacturing sector increased by 10% in right to work states from 2009 to 2019, over three times the 2.9% gain forced-unionism states saw over that same period.

Right to work laws clearly make economic sense, but protecting employee freedom has always been their central feature.

I really liked the Janus decision and right-to-work laws, because I don’t think that conservative workers should be forced to join a union in order to earn a living. The unions should not get access to worker money for free – unions should have to earn their worker’s money by providing value. And the worker should decide whether there is value there, or not.

You can see a full breakdown of union contributions by political affiliation for 2019-2020 here at Open Secrets.

Both of Trump’s Supreme Court picks declare Louisiana pro-life law Constitutional

I'm Scheming Unborn Baby, and I don't approve this decision
I’m Scheming Unborn Baby, and I don’t approve this decision

This post is just a round-up of some interesting points about the disappointing SCOTUS decision from Monday.

Life News reported:

Though pro-lifers mourned another loss at the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday in the fight to protect unborn babies and mothers, many found hope in the fact that both of President Donald Trump’s nominees rejected the majority opinion.

Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh dissented in June Medical Services v. Russo. The case involved a Louisiana law that requires abortionists to have hospital admitting privileges so that they can treat patients with potentially life-threatening complications.

On Monday, the four liberal justices and Chief Justice John Roberts decided that the law imposes an “undue burden” on women’s right to abortion. Roberts’ ruling was a huge disappointment for pro-life advocates. Many believed Roberts, a nominee of Republican President George W. Bush, would at least agree to uphold the modest abortion regulation for the sake of women’s health and safety, but he did not.

But pro-life leaders were happy with how Trump’s two choices ruled in the matter.

“We are pleased that the two Justices appointed by President Trump voted to protect women and to uphold the Louisiana pro-life law,” said James Bopp, general counsel for National Right to Life.

Gorsuch wrote a strong, critical dissent of the majority opinion, slamming the justices for ignoring “an array of rules” that keep the judiciary branch in check.

The rules make “sure that we are in the business of saying what the law is, not what we wish it to be,” Gorsuch wrote in his dissent. “Today’s decision doesn’t just overlook one of these rules. It overlooks one after another.”

At length, he listed Louisiana’s concerns for women’s health, including dozens of health and safety violations at abortion facilities, botched abortions, and new evidence suggesting abortion facilities may not have reported the rape of a young girl to authorities.

“At least one Louisiana abortion provider’s loss of admitting privileges following a patient’s death alerted the state licensing board to questions about his competence, and ultimately resulted in restrictions on his practice,” he wrote.

Gorsuch said Louisiana lawmakers had good reasons to pass the admitting privileges law. He said they heard testimony from women and emergency room physicians about abortion practitioners’ record of abandoning their patients.

My favorite justice Clarence Thomas added:

In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, “Today a majority of the Court perpetuates its ill-founded abortion jurisprudence by enjoining a perfectly legitimate state law and doing so without jurisdiction.”

“Our abortion precedents are grievously wrong and should be overruled,” he added, saying that the high court has “neither jurisdiction nor constitutional authority to declare Louisiana’s duly enacted law unconstitutional.”

Thomas’ dissent makes it clear that the abortion activists who brought the lawsuit didn’t even have standing to bring it, since petitioners who file lawsuits are supposed to bring such suits on their own behalf concerning their own abrogated rights or grievances, not on behalf of others.

Thomas made that problem clear: “As is often the case with legal challenges to abortion regulations, this suit was brought by abortionists and abortion clinics. Their sole claim before this Court is that Louisiana’s law violates the purported substantive due process right of a woman to abort her unborn child. But they concede that this right does not belong to them, and they seek to vindicate no private rights of their own. Under a proper understanding of Article III, these plaintiffs lack standing to invoke our jurisdiction.”

Both of Obama’s picks (Kagan and Sotomayor) voted in favor of the abortion clinics, saying that states cannot legislate common sense safety rules for abortion providers.

And here was Trump’s reaction, reported by Life News:

On behalf of President Donald Trump, the White House issued a statement slamming the ruling and saying it “devalued the lives of unborn children.”

“In an unfortunate ruling today, the Supreme Court devalued both the health of mothers and the lives of unborn children by gutting Louisiana’s policy that required all abortion procedures be performed by individuals with admitting privileges at a nearby hospital,” the White House said. “States have legitimate interests in regulating any medical procedure—including abortions—to protect patient safety. Instead of valuing fundamental democratic principles, unelected Justices have intruded on the sovereign prerogatives of State governments by imposing their own policy preference in favor of abortion to override legitimate abortion safety regulations.”

The two oldest judges on the Supreme Court (Ruth Bader-Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer) are almost certain to be replaced in the next federal election. It will be interesting to see what pro-lifers do in order to get Trump re-elected. So far, his picks have been solid on the abortion issue. But not everyone who claims to be pro-life is practical about getting pro-life outcomes. A lot of pro-lifers are cynical and conspiracy-minded, so that they find ways to think themselves righteous without getting involved and being effective.

Make sure you have a plan to replace Bader-Ginsburg and Breyer by getting Trump re-elected in November 2020.