Biden’s unconstitutional eviction moratorium

Here comes the dictatorship. When the president openly ignores the rulings of the highest court in the land then he no longer cares about our laws.

Tucker: It’s hard to overstate what a momentous change this is.

Speechless. The CDC no less gives us the final blow.


It doesn’t get any worse in the swamp than this.

Thanks Whatfinger News for the link.. for all the news push the button.

Supreme Court Rejects Kansas Effort to Revive Voter Registration Law


The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from Kansas that sought to revive a law requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote.

There were no dissents. There were no comments.

This won’t effect just Kansas. Pennsylvania requires a birth certificate when one applies for Driver’s license and at the same time one has the option to register to vote. Bet that is the next to go.

If we had high hopes on the Trump Supremes leading us out of the wilderness, think again:


The Supreme Court on Monday turned down a request to salvage a Kansas law that required residents to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote, despite pleas from Kansas lawyers and almost 20 red states.

Kansas’s red-state allies used the case to mount a broader attack on a legal test that in their view gives judges too much power in election-security disputes. Former Kansas secretary of state Kris Kobach (R.) championed the law and personally defended it in court against an ACLU lawsuit.

The Secure and Fair Elections (SAFE) Act required Kansans to produce documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote. U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson struck the SAFE Act down in 2018. Robinson said it conflicted with a federal law that requires state officials to use “the minimum amount of information necessary” to determine voter eligibility. She also found the SAFE Act unconstitutional, saying the burden it placed on voters outweighed the state’s interest in protecting elections.

A coalition of 18 red states seized on Robinson’s second finding to push for a bigger change in election law. Relying on two Supreme Court cases from the 1980s and 1990s, federal courts usually compare benefits against burdens when reviewing voting rules. In a legal brief to the justices, the red states argued that approach isn’t objective and leads to inconsistent results. They urged the Court to hear the Kansas case and use it to jettison the balancing test for election laws.

More at  Free Beacon


Other than that all is well in the swamp.

Justice Alito inflames the Progressives with his fiery speech


Twitter was aflame last night. A whole lot of Progressives got their knickers in a knot over the speech given by Justice Alito at the Federalist Society. Usually the speeches are not taped, but because of Covid we have the opportunity to be able to view it.

I have a short clip, a transcript as well as the full video of his speech. Take heart fellow patriots. If not now, sometime over the weekend do check out the full speech to warm the cockles of your hearts.

“This speech is like I woke up from a vampire dream,” University of Baltimore law professor and former federal prosecutor Kim Wehle wrote. “Unscrupulously biased, political, and even angry. I can’t imagine why Alito did this publicly. Totally inappropriate and damaging to the Supreme Court.”

Without saying the words “court-packing,” Alito warns about Democratic efforts to “bully” the court with threats to “restructure” it. Tells a story about a foreign judge threatened with death if he didn’t rule for the government, Stern, Salon’s legal writer writes.

As the speech wrapped up Stern observes, “Alito is done. That was easily the most political speech I’ve ever seen delivered by a Supreme Court justice. Wow. Same-sex marriage, guns, abortion, contraception, persecution of the Federalist Society … he really squeezed it all in there. Yikes.”

Alito also gave a regular lament from legal conservatives, complaining that law schools are hostile to those with right-of-center political views and others whose beliefs go against the majority viewpoint.

“Unfortunately, tolerance for opposing views is now in short supply in many law schools and in the broader academic community,” the justice said. “When I speak with recent law school graduates, what I hear over and over is that they face harassment and retaliation if they say anything that departs from the law school orthodoxy.”

Alito didn’t hold back on other controversial subjects, even suggesting that the pressure Christians face surrounding their religious beliefs is akin to the strictures the U.S. placed on Germany and Japan after World War II.

“The pandemic has resulted in previously unimaginable restrictions on individual liberty,” Alito said, insisting that such an observation was transparently true. “The Covid crisis has served as a sort of constitutional stress test and in doing so it has highlighted disturbing trends that were already in evidence before the pandemic struck.”

“One of the great challenges for the Supreme Court going forward will be to protect freedom of speech. Although that freedom is falling out of favor in some circles, we need to do whatever we can to prevent it from becoming a second-tier constitutional right,” he said.

From Reason:

Usually, Justice Alito prohibits his remarks to be recorded, so Zoom has some perks.  He talks about COVID and religious liberty, the freedom of speech, the Second Amendment, and “bullying” of the Supreme Court by U.S. Senators. I ran the video through the Otter transcription service.

For the transcript go to Otter transcription

Associate Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito criticizes the left in speech given at the Federalist Society. Religious liberty and COVID-19 restrictions were some of the issues.

A short clip:



Here is the full speech.

Address by Justice Samuel Alito



The swamp is not a bit happy.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg and her lack of respect for our constitution

For those interested in a postscript to one of the most dangerous times of our Republic, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the Obama administration were prepared to sell out America to world government. Her view of our constitution should be a warning of what the coming election could bring us. More Supremes of her persuasion, and a government that has lost its respect for our constitution. From an earlier post:

Recall Justice Ginsburg has fired the latest salvo in the ongoing debate about the Court’s use of foreign and international law sources in constitutional adjudication.   On Friday, she gave a speech to the International Academy of Comparative Law at American University, entitled “A decent respect to the Opinions of [Human]kind”: The Value of a Comparative Perspective in Constitutional Adjudication.  Not surprisingly given her earlier opinions, Justice Ginsburg comes out strongly in favor of the Court’s use of foreign and international law materials to interpret U.S. law, including the Constitution.

She begins with an historical defense:

From the birth of the United States as a nation, foreign and international law influenced legal reasoning and judicial decision making.  Founding fathers, most notably, Alexander Hamilton and John Adams, were familiar with leading international law treatises, the law merchant, and English constitutional law.  And they used that learning as advocates in legal contests . . . . The law of nations, Chief Justice Marshall famously said in 1815, is part of the law of our land.  Decisions of the courts of other countries, Marshall explained, show how the law of nations is understood elsewhere, and will be considered in determining the rule which is to prevail here.  Those decisions, he clarified, while not binding authority for U. S. courts, merit respectful attention for their potential persuasive value.

After quoting from Paquete Habana, Ginsburg turns her attention to the hostility to both foreign and international law on display in the U.S. Senate during Elena Kagan’s recent confirmation hearings (e.g., including the Senator who indicated he was “troubled” that Kagan “believes we can turn to foreign law to get good ideas”).  She contrasts these exchanges with The Federalist’s use of the law of nations and both positive and negative examples from abroad to defend the Constitution.

In terms of her own views, Justice Ginsberg did not mince words:

On judicial review for constitutionality, my own view is simply this:  If U.S. experience and decisions may be instructive to systems that have more recently instituted or invigorated judicial review for constitutionality, so too can we learn from others now engaged in measuring ordinary laws and executive actions against fundamental instruments of government and charters securing basic rights. . . . The U.S. judicial system will be the poorer, I have urged, if we do not both share our experience with, and learn from, legal systems with values and a commitment to democracy similar to our own.

And the rest of the speech continues in a similar vein, with Justice Ginsberg raising and then contesting the views of foreign/international law opponents (including Justice Scalia, Judge Richard Posner, and Professors Eric Posner and Adrian Vermeule) while citing a series of “examples” of recent cases where the Court reached a decision with the aid of foreign and international law sources (e.g., Atkins v. Virginia, Lawrence v. Texas, Boumediene v. Bush, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and, of course, Roper v. Simmons).

The most interesting part of the speech was Justice Ginsburg’s list of other sources besides foreign and international law that are appropriate for constitutional adjudication:

Judges in the United States, after all, are free to consult all manner of commentary — Restatements, Treatises, what law professors or even law students write copiously in law reviews, and, in the internet age, any number of legal blogs.  If we can consult those sources, why not the analysis of a question similar to the one we confront contained, for example, in an opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Constitutional Court of South Africa, the German Constitutional Court, or the European Court of Human Rights?

Read more

For more see an earlier post as well:

Washington Examiner:

Justice Department attorneys are advancing an argument at the Supreme Court that could allow the government to invoke international treaties as a legal basis for policies such as gun control that conflict with the U.S. Constitution, according to Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.

“If the administration is right, the treaty power could become a backdoor way for the federal government to do everything from abolishing the death penalty nationwide, to outlawing homeschooling, to dramatically curtailing the states’ rights to regulate abortion,” she told the Washington Examiner.

Their argument is that a law implementing an international treaty signed by the U.S. allows the federal government to prosecute a criminal case that would normally be handled by state or local authorities.

That is a dangerous argument, according to Cruz.

“The Constitution created a limited federal government with only specific enumerated powers,” Cruz told the Washington Examiner prior to giving a speech on the issue today at the Heritage Foundation.

“The Supreme Court should not interpret the treaty power in a manner that undermines this bedrock protection of individual liberty,” Cruz said.

In his speech, Cruz said the Justice Department is arguing “an absurd proposition” that “could be used as a backdoor way to undermine” Second Amendment rights, among other things.

Keep reading…

From an earlier post done in October, 2013

Ted Cruz: DOJ argues that International Treaties can trump Constitution

Other than that all is well in the swamp.

Supreme Court ruling coming up could cause election chaos


The United States Supreme Court will hear arguments soon in Colorado’s “faithless electors” case, after the state in October appealed a federal court ruling that said that presidential electors could back whichever candidate they choose no matter the popular vote of a state.

Is an Electoral College elector required to vote who their State voter’s elect? An interesting Supreme Court case coming up that will test the meddle of our Supremes. The main issue here is that some states are trying to force electors to vote based on totals outside their states. That is what the states must be blocked from doing.

In 2016 we had wayward electors and a Colorado appeals court ruled in their favor. Twenty-two States support the Colorado ruling. Thus the Supremes now will decide the fate of our Republic.


What states can do, is decide if they are winner-take-all states, split vote states, or perhaps even vote by district states. Take Maine in 2016 and why Trump decided at the last moment he would try and snag a delegate or two.

Maine is one of only two states (Nebraska is the other) that doesn’t divvy out its electoral college votes on a winner-take-all basis.

Maine and Nebraska have adapted a different approach. Using the ‘congressional district method’, these states allocate two electoral votes to the state popular vote winner, and then one electoral vote to the popular vote winner in each Congressional district (2 in Maine, 3 in Nebraska). This creates multiple popular vote contests in these states, which could lead to a split electoral vote.

Most states are winner-take-all, and in that case an elector can be fined for not voting they way the most voters in the state want. If a state wants to be able to split their votes, they can do that too, and the electors are free to vote based on the result in their district. But in all these cases the electors are voting based on the will of those within their state. That is the purpose of elections, to represent the will of the people in each state.

There will be “chaos” in the 2020 presidential election if the Supreme Court decides that states cannot require Electoral College electors to vote for the candidate their voters select, warns an analysis by two legal scholars.

“The timing could not be worse,” wrote Paul M. Smith and Adav Noti, both of the non-profit Campaign Legal Center, which filed a brief in support of states in two cases.

In the two cases – Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado Department of State v. Baca – a designated Electoral College elector chose not to vote for the candidate that earned the most popular votes in the state. The electors were replaced and were sued.

According to the Constitution, voters in presidential elections actually choose a preferred slate of electors rather than a candidate.

And they would be targeted by people with nefarious goals, warned Smith and Noti.

“Here’s the scary part: Of the four most important federal anti-corruption laws, not one covers presidential electors,” they wrote. “Electors can accept unlimited amounts of money in connection with their official duties. And they don’t even need to tell anyone.”

Historically, the writers acknowledge, “most electors have been faithful to their states’ voters, even when not legally required to do so.”

Colorado appealed a lower-court ruling that favored elector Michael Baca. The court concluded the state’s presidential electors are not required to follow state rules and vote for the presidential candidate who received the most votes in the state.

“One of the purposes of the Electoral College is to prevent a demagogue from taking office,” Baca said, referring to one of Alexander Hamilton’s contributions to the Federalist Papers. “And that’s what I tried to do.”

Twenty-two other states have expressed support for Colorado’s ruling.

The Associated Press reported there were 10 faithless electors in 2016, with four in Washington state, a Democratic elector in Hawaii and two Republican electors in Texas. Democratic electors who said they would not vote for Clinton were replaced in Maine and Minnesota.


The Framers left the door open for various election frauds by allowing States to determine various iterations of how an election for national offices can be carried out. This one could be a doozy.

Other than this, all is doing well in the swamp.


The Pincer movement against the Supreme Court


What a coincidence that just a few weeks ago Supreme court Sotomayor attacked her fellow judges who are conservatives. Now the latest with the unthinkable. Chuck Schumer goes on a rampage.

But then again, I don’t believe in this kind of a coincidence.

All of our institutions are under attack, it would only seem reasonable that making sure there is a lack of respect for the Supremes would be the next blow to our institutions.

After all they want the lack of respect for the rule of law and those who enforce it.

Threats. Violence. Taking away rights. Rejecting God. This is the left. This is socialism. And this is what you are choosing if you vote for the left whether you think so individually or not.


Imagine any US Senator threatening a Supreme Court Justice? Same unhinged Schumer who said Intel officials ‘have 6 ways from Sunday at getting back at you’! Every time you think Dems can’t go lower, a new day dawns & they sink even lower!


But then again it has to be endless attacks.



Other than that all is well in the swamp.

Supreme Gorsuch sides with the left in latest ruling, Ginsburg sides with Consevatives


Supreme Gorsuch sides with the left in a decision handed down yesterday. This after his decision a week or so ago Supreme Gorsuch sides with Liberals again on Indian hunting case

Not to worry, the case went 5-4 saved by the bell no less than by Ginsburg.

Just to put the icing on the cake, let us not forget back in February our star

John Roberts Joins Liberals in Blocking Louisiana Abortion Law

I wouldn’t get too excited that Roe v. Wade will be overturned anytime soon.

Neil Gorsuch


The best part is that moribund Ginsburg sided with the Conservatives on Monday in this latest case. Who knows, in the end we may be more than happy to prop her up after our conservative “Stars” sell us out once more.



The Supreme Court on Monday found that a criminal defendant can be sentenced for violating his supervised release, even if the release expires while he is incarcerated ahead of facing new charges.

The justices, divided in the 5-4 decision, ruled against Jason Mont’s argument that a district court shouldn’t be able to charge him for violating his release because the term had expired at the time of the new sentencing.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sided with conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh in the majority. Justice Neil Gorsuch joined liberal Justices Sonia SotomayorStephen Breyer and Elena Kagan in opposing the decision.

Supreme Gorsuch sides with Liberals again on Indian hunting case


Another disappointing ruling by our changed latest Supreme Gorsuch. One can only imagine where this will lead in other Indian cases if the USA is bound to treaties written centuries ago. Better yet, apparently the issue had been ruled on before. So much for “settled Law.” Even better, wait until we have to give back much of the Southwest to Mexico.


The four dissenting justices said the majority was ignoring a clear precedent — a similar case in 1895 involving the same treaty language and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes.


Wyoming can’t abrogate an 1868 treaty with the Crow Tribe just because it was signed before Wyoming officially became a state, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a case breathing new life into American Indian-U.S. relations.

The ruling contradicts a century-old high court precedent and could guarantee American Indians’ hunting rights on some federal lands.

“Indian Portraits” by miracc is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

The case was brought by Clayvin Herrera, a member of the Crow Tribe, whom Wyoming charged with offseason hunting in 2014 after state officials discovered him and other tribe members hunting bull elk on the Big Horn National Forest, discarding the bodies and taking the heads for trophies.

Mr. Herrera argued he was permitted to hunt on the land, citing the treaty that guaranteed American Indians “the right to hunt on unoccupied lands of the United States so long as game may be found thereon.”

Crow leaders signed the treaty in 1868, handing over roughly 30 million acres to settlers while retaining about 8 million acres.

Lower courts agreed, but the justices, in a 5-4 ruling, sided with Mr. Herrera on Monday, saying the treaty is good law. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, President Trump’s replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia, sided with the court’s four Democratic appointed justices.

Read more


Thanks WhatFingerNews for the coverage! A great site for all the news.

John Roberts Joins Liberals in Blocking Louisiana Abortion Law


Mark Levin tweets:  John Roberts is a disgrace. Another in a long line of lawyers who deceived the Republican presidents who appointed them.

Chief Justice Roberts votes w/ four liberal justices to apply a 2016 precedent from which he had dissented.

Add Jeff Sessions. Gone but not forgotten. His Justice Department refused to prosecute the sale by Planned Parenthood of aborted baby parts. Congressional criminal referrals from Committees last I read have still not been acted upon by the DOJ. Yet his department went after the sale of illegal Eagle Parts. Here is what is said about the Eagles:

In the illegal eagle trafficking cases, U.S. Attorney Seiler accused the defendants of a lack of reverence for the eagles – a national symbol.

‘‘There was no cultural sensitivity,” he said. “There was no spirituality.’’


WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court stopped Louisiana from enforcing new regulations on abortion clinics in a test of the conservative court’s views on abortion rights.

The justices said by a 5-4 vote late Thursday that they will not allow the state to put into effect a law that requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s four liberals in putting a hold on the law, pending a full review of the case.

President Donald Trump’s two Supreme Court appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, were among the four conservative members of the court who would have allowed the law to take effect.

Kavanaugh wrote a dissenting opinion in which he said the court’s action was premature because the state had made clear it would allow abortion providers an additional 45 days to obtain admitting privileges before it started enforcing the law.

More at the  Washington Times

From Bunkerville July, 2017 –

DOJ indicts 15 in ‘Chop Shop’ for eagles, fails to charge against sale of baby parts

In this grisly story, we learn that the DOJ apparently is more concerned about the sale of illegal bird body parts than parts of aborted babies even thought they are ten times more valuable:

The Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) has yet to respond to letters from the chairs of congressional committees that made criminal referrals regarding allegations that Planned Parenthood and its partners in the biomedical procurement industry profited from the sale of the body parts of aborted babies.


In a stunning contrast, however, the DOJ has indicted 15 individuals for illegally trafficking the body parts of eagles and other migratory birds.

In April, following a two-year undercover operation known as Project Dakota Flyer, the U.S. Attorney’s office in South Dakota announced the indictments of 15 individuals for illegally trafficking eagle body parts.

The indictments in the eagle body parts trafficking cases are based on “the sale and purchase of wildlife with a market value in excess of $350,” while the CMP videos and the congressional committees showed StemExpress to be selling the body parts of aborted babies from Planned Parenthood for prices in excess of $500.

In one exhibit, the House Select Panel’s investigation highlighted the fees paid for the baby body parts by the procurement businesses to the abortion clinics, and then the fees charged by the procurement businesses to their customers for those same parts.

“The records subpoenaed by Congress show Planned Parenthood making ten times more money off of baby body parts than the amounts that got the eagle traffickers indicted, and companies like StemExpress sell aborted baby body parts from Planned Parenthood at prices far higher than the eagle body parts traffickers are charged with,” Daleiden explains to Breitbart News.

In the illegal eagle trafficking cases, U.S. Attorney Seiler accused the defendants of a lack of reverence for the eagles – a national symbol.

‘‘There was no cultural sensitivity,” he said. “There was no spirituality.’

From Bunkerville:

DOJ indicts 15 in ‘Chop Chop’ for eagles, fails to charge against sale of baby parts


Supreme Court’s Decision To Duck a Foie Gras Case – End of Food Freedom?


First they came for our toilets. Then our shower heads. Then our lightbulbs. Now they implement a foie gras ban. There really isn’t any limit to how much our newly minted legislators and generation Z’s now want to get their hands on our food supply. Oblivious to the cost of of their demands. Apparently the Supremes have little taste for the case as well.

foie gras definition is – the fatted liver of an animal and especially of a goose usually served as a pâté.

Setting aside the debate regarding the method used to develop the fatted liver, when and where will it stop in regulating raising livestock? Free range chickens only? Pork, Beef. How about farm raised fish?




The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday it would not (yet) hear an appeal in a case challenging California’s unconstitutional and much-reviled foie gras ban. The case will now head back to U.S. District Court.

The Supreme Court’s decision is a temporary setback for foie gras producers, chefs, and others fighting the law. They’ve vowed to continue their efforts.

Michael Tenenbaum, who represents the plaintiffs in the case, told me this week that he and his clients look forward to proceeding with the case and that they’re confident they will prevail.Meanwhile, though, restaurants and others in California that serve foie gras could face fines of $1,000 for any violation of the law.


Culinary leaders—from California chefs to French foie gras producers—are aghast.

Those interested in learning more may do so by reading the April column on the amicus brief, the brief itself, and other earlier columns on foie gras over the years.)

“We noted in our brief that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison opposed bans on various types of foods and liquors as ‘lunacy’ and ‘despotic,'” says Manny Klausner, a former editor of Reason, a Reason Foundation co-founder and board member, and attorney who joined me on the Reason/Cato amicus brief. “The Supreme Court’s denial of cert. is a sad occasion for those who support Free Minds and Free Markets.”

In the amicus brief and elsewhere—including this O.C. Register op-ed last year—It was argued that the implications and reverberations of the foie gras case extend well beyond foie gras and could ensnare almost any conceivable animal product, including beef, pork, and chicken.

The concerns expressed then are even more apparent today given that the Supreme Court—also this week—rejected challenges to two separate animal-rights laws in Massachusetts and California that, just like the foie gras ban, serve as unconstitutional impediments to interstate commerce in animal products. (The laws, while different from one another, restrict the ability of farmers to cage egg-laying hens and other livestock.)

Interfering with interstate commerce is exactly what these laws intend and what they do. Consider that a poll (much touted among animal-rights groups) last year found nearly half of respondents want to ban slaughterhouses and so-called “factory farming.” A full one-third of Americans, the poll claims, want to ban all livestock farming. Period. A ban on livestock farming would mean that nearly all animal-derived foods—from prime rib to pork chops, bacon, and chicken McNuggets—would disappear for good.

But there’s more. With the foie gras ban and the Massachusetts and California animal-rights laws allowed to stand—for now, at least—there is little doubt that other U.S. states where livestock farming and exports of animal products play a leading economic role will find creative ways to retaliate against California and Massachusetts. Animal rights supports might not like these laws so much.

Lawmakers in a state impacted by California’s animal-rights laws, say, might pass a law that says all eggs sold in their state may come only from caged hens. (Any old justification would do, but let’s go with the food-safety argument that they’re more hygienic than eggs from free-roaming chickens.) Such a law would effectively spell the end of California egg exports to that state. More at Reason


%d bloggers like this: