Two more points of prayer on the Supreme Court Dobbs case

Amy Coney Barrett is right about safe haven laws

The Washington Examiner discusses how Amy Coney Barrett has it right regarding the effect of safe haven laws on abortion.

Regardless of what the pro-choice side says, Amy Coney Barrett is correct: No one is forcing a woman to raise a child once he or she is born.

Last week, the Supreme Court justice inquired about safe haven laws during oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The case involves a 2018 Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks, except to protect the life of the mother.

During oral arguments on Wednesday, Barrett mentioned safe haven laws when talking about Roe v. Wade. She said, “Insofar as you and many of your amici focus on the ways in which forced parenting, forced motherhood, would hinder women’s access to the workplace and to equal opportunities, it’s also focused on the consequences of parenting and the obligations of motherhood that flow from pregnancy. Why don’t the safe haven laws take care of that problem? It seems to me that it focuses the burden much more narrowly.”

Safe haven laws offer an easy way for a mother to drop off an unharmed, unwanted newborn baby with no questions asked and without any legal obligation to the child. Depending on the state , a mother may have 72 hours after giving birth or up to 90 days to do so.

States, municipalities, and safe haven locations, including police stations and fire departments, need to do a better job of promoting where safe haven sites are in their respective communities with additional signage. However, Barrett is correct that this is a serious alternative to abortion — and one that doesn’t kill a child.

Safe haven laws exist to prevent unwanted children from being killed. They were implemented in all 50 states as a direct response to infanticide. In Massachusetts, for example, someone gave birth at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and the baby was found dead in a trash can. So the Democratic-dominated Legislature worked with then-Gov. Mitt Romney to enact a safe haven law.

Safe haven laws weren’t in place at the time of the Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey rulings. This vital alternative to abortion came about in the late 1990s and early 2000s. As Texas governor, George W. Bush signed the first one into law in 1999. Therefore, it is something for Supreme Court justices to keep in mind when ruling on this case. It’s something that they didn’t have to consider when deciding those older cases.

(Read where the science takes us regarding the start of life at the Washington Examiner)

The “Baby Moses Law” (signed by then-Governor G. W. Bush) has a story behind it

Oddly, many people do not associate the story of Moses with the “Baby Moses Law.” Although the story of Moses’ beginning (where a baby that would have died is saved when his mother courageously puts the child in a place to be adopted anonymously) fits the situation presented by this law, our society has drifted from its Biblical moorings so much that it no longer recognizes the core stories.

Possibly, this might be part of the reason for the need for the law.

Nonetheless, we need to pray that this law continue to protect children and that the current trend in adoption (especially in Christian families) either continue or accelerate.

…

The Supreme Court isn’t a medical board or legislature — it shouldn’t make abortion law

The New York Post allows Rich Lowry to observe that the Supreme Court was not created as a legislature (therefore, it should not create any law from whole cloth). Likewise, it is not a medical board (therefore, it has no place in sanctioning medical procedures).

At times, you might have been forgiven for thinking that oral arguments over the Dobbs case were being held before the Health and Human Services Committee of the Pennsylvania state Senate or some other legislative body.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, involving Mississippi’s ban on abortion after 15 weeks, is, of course, the most consequential abortion case to reach the Supreme Court in decades. The arguments, as you would expect, featured plenty of intricate legal discussion. 

They also delved at length into questions of policymaking that aren’t rightly in the ambit of the Supreme Court — and that the court never should have taken on in Roe and Casey, the abortion cases that are on the verge of collapse owing to their manifest constitutional shabbiness.

Indeed, the discussion was relatively light on what is the supposed source of a constitutional right to abortion. The advocates opposed to the Mississippi law located it somewhere in the 14th Amendment, even though, as Justice Samuel Alito pointed out, no one at the time of the amendment’s passage believed it guaranteed a sweeping right to abortion.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor even said at one point that the Supreme Court comes up with decisions all the time that aren’t directly grounded in the Constitution.

In Roe and Casey, the court made the mistake of thinking that it should be the arbiter of a fraught social and moral issue and essentially crafted an abortion policy for the entire nation without any democratic input. Because pro-choicers like the outcome, they have become invested in the notion that Supreme Court precedent, even bad precedent, should stay on the books forevermore. 

One of the more jaw-dropping moments of the arguments was when Alito nearly cornered Biden administration Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar into maintaining that it would have been a mistake for the Supreme Court to overturn its hideous pro-segregation decision in Plessy v. Ferguson too soon.

The conservative justices and the abortion-rights advocates went back and forth on where the court should draw the line on allowing restrictions on abortion. Prelogar and Julie Rickelman, a lawyer representing the Mississippi abortion clinic in the case, insisted that it should be at fetal viability, around 23 or 24 weeks of pregnancy. 

According to Rickelman, the line of viability is “objectively verifiable and doesn’t delve into philosophical questions about when life begins.” This is in doubt, though. Some premature babies have survived after being born at 21 weeks, and many abortion-rights advocates deny that unborn babies have any moral standing at any point in a pregnancy.

Sotomayor said that believing an unborn baby has a right to be protected under law is a religious view. If so, why does the Supreme Court get to impose its “religious view” that the state can protect a fetus after 24 weeks but not before? She and her colleagues sit on the highest court in the land, not the Sanhedrin.

(Read more at the New York Post)

Maybe this COVID pandemic is a God-send, since it may get people to think about getting the court out of enforcing health

Maybe people will see the hypocrisy of shouting “my body, my choice” when it comes to killing a baby, but ignoring another person’s shout of “my body, my choice” when it comes to a jab to their own body.

Maybe people will see how the court has manufactured Roe from whole cloth now that both unelected and not-soon-to-face-election Democrats (and some RINOs, like Cheney) run roughshod over liberties in the name of a largely-manufactured crisis of COVID.

So, we need to pray for the opening of our own eyes to the predicament within our nation, our ability to communicate in a convincing and winsome way (but not childish), and the direction of our nation from here.

…

 

Issues of prayer for the Dobbs case

Do Justices Breyer and Sotomayor not know who makes law?

Reason points out how the Dobbs case (that is in front of the Supreme Court) may change a number of the instances where law was created by the Supreme Court (emphasis via bold green text is mine).

During arguments in Dobbs, I kept thinking about Who Decides?, Judge Sutton’s new book. Justices Breyer and Sotomayor would benefit from a read. Both of these justices often profess profound respect for the democratic process–even though that respect usually manifests itself by the courts intervening in the democratic process. Fittingly, in Dobbs, they forgot that the least dangerous branch is also the least democratic branch.

One sentence from Justice Breyer sums up his misplaced understanding of the separation of powers:

JUSTICE BREYER: And they say Roe is special. What’s special about it? They say it’s rare. They call it a watershed. Why? Because the country is divided? Because feelings run high? And yet the country, for better or for worse, decided to resolve their differences by this Court laying down a constitutional principle, in this case, women’s choice. That’s what makes it rare.

Justice Breyer seems to genuinely believe that the Country resolved the debate about abortion by letting the Court lay down a constitutional principle in Roe and Casey. Really? I must have missed that national plebiscite.

No. Roe and Casey usurped this issue from the American people. Mississippi, Texas, and other states obviously disagree with this rule. And the notion that Roe and Casey “resolved” any differences is false. I can do no better than quote from Justice Scalia’s dissent in Casey:

The Court’s description of the place of Roe in the social history of the United States is unrecognizable. Not only did Roe not, as the Court suggests, resolve the deeply divisive issue of abortion; it did more than anything else to nourish it, by elevating it to the national level where it is infinitely more difficult to resolve.

Scalia’s words have aged well over the past three decades.

Justice Sotomayor expressed a similarly misplaced understanding of the Court’s role. Her colloquy with SG Stewart is difficult to follow because of the cross-talk and interruptions. But here is the gist.

Justice Sotomayor asked about the consequences of overruling Roe. Would some states challenge cases like Loving, Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell? Stewart couldn’t deny that possibility. He acknowledged that “we’ll always have a diversity of views.” Of course, in any polity, diversity of views is to be expected. Justice Sotomayor interrupted, and thought she had a gotcha moment. “That’s the point,” she said. In other words, the fact that people will disagree is a reason for the Court to maintain Roe and Casey. The benighted Justices know better than the simple people.

(Read more at Reason)

We need to pray that, between now and next June, the Constitutionalists prevail

We need for the contract within the Constitution to move out of the “living and breathing” document category. No other contract that I know of changes with the whims of society. Instead, everything calls out for stability (in contrast to what the modern, changing Supreme Court has ruled).

Therefore, to the God who:

• “Is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8 NASB), we should pray for a degree of consistency in this government
• Reveals His order through His creation (Romans 1:20), we should pray that we return to a natural order.

Recently, Supreme Court decisions have not been interpretations of the law, but inventions of the Court (such as when the Court invented a right to abortion from a Constitutional right to privacy or when the Court invented a right to homosexual marriage). Therefore, the American jurisprudence and lawmaking systems have fallen out of their original balance. We need to return to the original, democratic balance where elected officials make laws — not unelected jurists in black robes who have life-long terms.

At the same time, we need to return to the original model where the laws are judged in light of the Constitution by jurists who do not fear the threats of court-packing politicians.

…

“Follow the science:” Pro-lifers slam Justice Sotomayor after she compared unborn babies to braindead people

The Daily Caller points out how pro-life protesters have called on Justice Sotomayor to think logically (something not usually required of liberals).

Pro-life activists criticized Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s Wednesday comments that fetal pain before 24 weeks was a “fringe” idea.

“Modern research is revealing that unborn babies do feel pain at an early stage, and we see that science in action regularly during fetal surgery, in which doctors apply analgesia in utero to prevent the suffering of the unborn child,” Dr. David Prentice, Charlotte Lozier Institute vice president of research and an expert on stem cell research, said in a Dec. 1 press release.

“Respectfully, we suggest that Justice Sotomayor follow the science, which has not stood still since Roe was decided in 1973,” Prentice stated.

The Court heard oral arguments Wednesday morning in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, a case that directly challenges Roe’s prohibition on abortion bans in the first six months of pregnancy. The Court is expected to release a decision on whether to uphold Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban and possibly overturn Roe in late June.

“Justice Sotomayor’s calloused disregard for the preborn is matched with stunning disinformation as she denies the fact that babies in their mothers womb can feel pain,” Live Action president Lila Rose told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “These preborn children can feel pain, and at 15 weeks, do feel immense pain as they are dismembered alive, in a D & E abortion, in which an abortionist uses forceps with metal teeth to tears them into pieces, limb from torso, and crush their heads.”

Mississippi Attorney General Scott Stewart challenged Roe’s standard of viability: that the state does not have an interest in protecting the life of a child until 24 weeks (six months) into pregnancy. Stewart argued that babies’ ability to feel pain before viability should play a role in determining whether the state should protect their lives.

“I don’t see how that really adds anything to the discussion, that a small fringe of doctors believe that pain could be experienced before a cortex is formed,”  Sotomayor said while interrupting Stewart repeatedly.

In response to Stewart’s assertion that babies recoil from surgical instruments at as young as 15 weeks, Sotomayor argued that braindead people, who are considered officially dead in most states, can still sometimes respond to stimuli such as being touched on the feet.

“I don’t think that a response by a fetus necessarily proves there’s a sensation of pain or that there’s consciousness,” she said.

Fetal pain is possible at as early as 12 weeks, according to Dr. Stuart Derbyshire, a prominent neurologist who was a leading voice against the possibility of pre-viability fetal pain before changing his position in light of scientific advancements.

Attorneys for the Jackson abortion clinic cited Derbyshire’s earlier research in their amicus brief and did not include his more recent publication in the BMJ’s Journal of Medical Ethics, which argues that fetal pain is possible before the cortex is fully developed, possibly as early as 12 weeks.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

There are so many holes in Sotomayor’s argument, they are hard to categorize

While there may be other issues with Sotomayor’s argument, we have at least these:

• Her comparison of the painful reaction of a living fetus to the stimulus of a corpse ignores the fact that a corpse was once living. It ignores systems built into our complex bodies by a complex God.
• Her comparison of the reaction of a corpse may also show our ignorance of the complete process of death. That is, while Christians may cite 1 Corinthians 5:8 (to be absent from the body is to be home with the Lord) when thinking of death, Jews of the time of Lazarus thought the soul to remain with the body for four three days (John 11:1-44). (Thanks for the reminder, Ed, as to why Jesus waited four days. It was to go past the three days the Jews thought the spirit would remain around the body.)
• Her comparison may also point toward a bit of ignorance (possibly willful) of the process of life. Still, how should that surprise us? If one wants to ignore the flicker of life at the end, why wouldn’t we expect that same person to ignore the flicker of life at the beginning?
• Her ignorance of fetal pain research seems possibly to be purposeful in that acknowledging the advances in fetal pain prevention would argue against her obvious pro-abortion bias.

Therefore, we need to pray for balance within the Court.

…

 

Non- and semi-political forces working against the Biden agenda

Supreme Court defies the Biden regime by accepting immigration and EPA cases

The Epoch Times reports on how the Supreme Court (perhaps tired of the Biden regime thumbing its nose at their decisions) has defied the wishes of the ultra-leftist Bidenistas.

The Supreme Court decided Oct. 29 to hear two cases that the Biden administration did not want the court to hear—one, aimed at reviving a rule that screens out potentially government-dependent immigrants, and another that could roll back the reach of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The court decisions came as migrants continue to stream illegally across the increasingly porous southern border and the Biden administration develops a strategy for dealing with the scientifically contentious phenomenon of manmade global warming. The decisions also came as the court prepares to hear high-profile cases in coming days dealing with a Texas law strictly regulating abortions and a New York law that strictly regulates gun use.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear Arizona v. San Francisco, court file 20-1775, which concerns the so-called public charge rule.

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a Republican, was pleased the high court will hear the case.

“When other federal officials won’t defend the law, I will,” Brnovich said in a statement. “The Public Charge Rule is a commonsense policy based on a real inconvenient truth. Overrunning our welfare programs right now would be like pulling back the last safety net for Americans who need it most.”

In the case, the Republican attorneys general of Arizona and 12 other states asked the high court to be allowed to defend in court a Trump-era rule designed to screen out would-be immigrants unable to support themselves. Enforcing the immigrant self-sufficiency rule could save states billions of dollars each year.

A federal appeals court struck down the public charge rule and the Biden administration refused to defend it in court. Separately, President Joe Biden also rescinded the rule. Among the respondents in the case are the U.S. government and the states of California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New Jersey.

Arizona and the 12 other states accused the governments on the other side of colluding to prevent this important case from being heard by the nation’s highest court.

“Without any prior warning, the existing parties sprung an unprecedented, coordinated, and multi-court gambit,” Arizona and other states said in their petition (pdf).

“Through it, they attempted to execute simultaneous, strategic surrenders in all pending appeals involving the Rule. That included the Second Circuit appeal that this Court had already agreed to hear, as well as the pending petitions for writs of certiorari in this case and the Seventh Circuit case.”

Over vehement opposition, the Trump administration breathed new life into the rule, which had fallen into disuse. Although critics say the extensively litigated pro-taxpayer rule is xenophobic and discriminates against poor aliens, the public-charge principle, the idea that immigrants should have to prove they can survive without becoming wards of the government, has been part of the American experience for centuries.

The Supreme Court also decided to hear West Virginia v. EPA, court file 20-1530, which it consolidated with three other appeals.

Energy-producing states and coal companies accuse the EPA of a power grab, claiming it exceeded its authority to limit carbon emissions, which environmentalists allege contribute to climate change. A ruling last year by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit gave back to the EPA some of the authority the Trump administration took away from it.

(Read more at The Epoch Times)

Mind you, it seems that the Biden regime thinks that they can ignore the Supreme Court

When it comes to abortion, the Biden regime wants to stand on a decades-old decision made when several justices were not in the court. However, when it comes to the Stay in Mexico policy and the eviction ban (aka the personal property rights of all landlords), the Biden regime wants to play dictator.

…

Biden campaigns against his own illegal alien policy and says it won’t happen

ABC News reports how even Joe Biden has taken a stand against his own agenda.

President Joe Biden on Wednesday denied reports that his administration was planning to pay migrant family members separated by the Trump administration up to $450,000 per person.

“That’s not going to happen,” Biden said in response to a question about the plans at a press conference Wednesday.

The cash settlements, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, could have totaled up to $1 million per family, the paper said. ABC News confirmed last week that some officials had considered payments but reported that the exact dollar amounts had not yet been determined and could change.

The ACLU responded to Biden’s comments with a statement saying the president would be “abandoning a core campaign promise” if he doesn’t make good on the payments.

“President Biden may not have been fully briefed about the actions of his very own Justice Department as it carefully deliberated and considered the crimes committed against thousands of families separated from their children as an intentional governmental policy,” ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero said in a statement. “But if he follows through on what he said, the president is abandoning a core campaign promise to do justice for the thousands of separated families.”

As a candidate, Biden described the separation of migrant families under the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance policy” as “criminal.”

The Biden administration has identified nearly 4,000 children who were separated from their families, according to the latest report from the Interagency Task Force on the Reunification of Families. The task force has reunified 50 families, with 50 more in the process of being reunified. About 2,100 more were reunified under court orders with the help of nongovernmental organizations.

(Read all the liberal tripe you can stand at ABC News)

Maybe Dementia Joe just didn’t comprehend what he was reading on the teleprompter during campaigning or in his alternative Oval Office

It could be that we have given Dementia Joe a little too much credit when it comes to comprehending the policies he purportedly has created and supports. Additionally, since he has gone from being a centrist (during his 50+ years as a senator) to a socialist of the model of Stalin (at least over the last 10 months), we might expect that old Joe might nostalgically point back to his old persona when his new persona turns out to be unpopular.

Conversely, maybe the words that Joe Biden spewed out during the campaign and the regime let leak during the past month were only for effect. Like the whispered words where Joe tried to push his trillion dollar “infrastructure” bill while trying to convince us in the voting populace that it would cost nothing, maybe these were just empty words signifying nothing.

Zero.

Zero.

Zero.

…

In support of the Durham investigation, federal authorities arrest the Russian analyst who contributed to the Steele dossier

Townhall comments on the arrest of the primary researcher (Igor Danchenko) behind the Steele dossier.

Federal authorities on Thursday arrested Igor Danchenko, a Russian analyst who contributed to the discredited, anti-Trump Steele dossier. 

According to The New York Times, Danchenko was “the primary researcher” of the dossier, which compiled unfounded rumors about the 45^th president in an effort to show he was “compromised by and conspiring with Russian intelligence officials” to help bring Hillary Clinton down. The document was then used by the FBI to illegally spy on the Trump campaign in 2016.

[M]ost of the important claims in the dossier — which was written by Mr. Danchenko’s employer, Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent — have not been proven, and some have been refuted. F.B.I. agents interviewed Mr. Danchenko in 2017 when they were seeking to run down the claims in the dossier. […]

A 2019 investigation by the Justice Department’s inspector general sharply criticized the F.B.I. for continuing to cite material from the dossier after the bureau interviewed Mr. Danchenko without alerting judges that some of what he said had cast doubt on the contents of the dossier.

The inspector general report also said that a decade earlier, when Mr. Danchenko worked for the Brookings Institution, a prominent Washington think-tank, he had been the subject of a counterintelligence investigation into whether he was a Russian agent.

In an interview with The New York Times in 2020, Mr. Danchenko defended the integrity of his work, saying he had been tasked to gather “raw intelligence” and was simply passing it on to Mr. Steele. Mr. Danchenko — who made his name as a Russia analyst by exposing indications that the dissertation of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia contained plagiarized material — also denied being a Russian agent.

“I’ve never been a Russian agent,” Mr. Danchenko said. “It is ridiculous to suggest that. This, I think, it’s slander.”

Mr. Steele’s efforts were part of opposition research that Democrats were indirectly funding by the time the 2016 general election took shape. Mr. Steele’s business intelligence firm was a subcontractor to another research firm, Fusion GPS, which in turn had been hired by the Perkins Coie law firm, which was working for the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Mr. Danchenko said he did not know who Mr. Steele’s client was at the time and considered himself a nonpartisan analyst and researcher. (NYT)

The false statements to the FBI likely relate to (at a minimum) --

Telling FBI he didn't have any prior contacts w/ Russian intel.

[pics related] pic.twitter.com/uilMUeAcFu

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) November 4, 2021

(Read more at Townhall)

This case may not yet directly involve Biden or his people; however, it does involve the Democrats and the press that cover for Biden

While this may not yet currently be tied directly to Biden, it will effect his supporters. It will change how independents see the Democrat party. It may tie up portions of the press that otherwise would be free to run interference for Dementia Joe. 

Still, if significant plagiarizing was involved, then maybe Dementia Joe had a hand in the affair (since he has significant experience in the field of plagiarizing).

…

Cartoons or sketches of the new Democrat reality — who knows?

Ain’t that special?

Ban climate control conferences

Charlie Brown’s Virginia shocker

Democrats argue to vote Republican

Democrats argue to vote Republican, part 2

Leftist SUV

Real climate crisis

Virginia’s new flag

Virginia’s new flag, part 2

 

From the border, Biden mocks the Supreme Court, illegals pile up, a Democrat Mayor calls for help, and Haitians are released

Supreme Court mandates return to Remain in Mexico policy. Biden regime ignores the court

The Washington Examiner reports on the Supreme Court’s decision to return to the Remain in Mexico policy; however, Biden has ignored the court again (after his mocking them by ignoring their ruling on his rent moratorium).

Former President Donald Trump’s “remain in Mexico” immigration policy will be reinstated after the Supreme Court refused a Biden administration request Tuesday night to block a lower court ruling requiring the restrictions be put back in place.

The Justice Department sought to have the court stay a recent decision by a federal judge in Texas that ordered the Biden administration to “enforce and implement” the policy, known as the Migrant Protection Protocols, until it could be lawfully suspended.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee, ruled on Aug. 13 the administration violated federal procedural law when it first suspended the border policy in January and when it fully rescinded the policy on June 1. The rescission, Kacsmaryk determined, was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, which governs the administration of federal regulations.

The Justice Department asked the high court to block Kacsmaryk’s order, saying it would “severely disrupt” the administration’s operations at the border and that it threatened “to create a diplomatic and humanitarian crisis.”

The Supreme Court determined the government would not likely succeed on appeal on the merits of its claim that the administration’s rescission of the policy complied with the law.

“The applicants have failed to show a likelihood of success on the claim that the memorandum rescinding the Migrant Protection Protocols was not arbitrary and capricious,” the court said in its order.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan granted the Justice Department’s stay application.

The Homeland Security Department said it plans to continue with its appeal of Kacsmaryk’s reinstatement order — the Supreme Court ruled narrowly on whether to pause the order as the government seeks a victory on the merits of its rescission of MPP — but will “comply with the order in good faith.”

“Alongside interagency partners, DHS has begun to engage with the Government of Mexico in diplomatic discussions surrounding the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP),” the agency said in a statement.

The original complaint was filed on April 13 by Texas and Missouri, which claimed financial injury due to the rescission of the policy. The policy was first implemented in January 2019 and directed immigration authorities to return certain migrants to Mexico as they awaited their removal proceedings.

Missouri claimed the end of the policy forced it to direct more state resources to initiatives, including its Human Trafficking Task Force, stressed by the influx of migrants from the southern border.

Kacsmaryk said the Biden administration “failed to consider the main benefits of [the Migrant Protection Protocols]” and to adequately consider how states would be affected by the release of thousands of migrants into their jurisdictions.

(Read of the record number of crossings and response by Mayorkas at the Washington Examiner)

I don’t know whether Joe has decided to further ignore the border in order to distract us from his Afghanistan disaster or whether this is just full-scale invasion

In the end, nothing about the Biden border policy helps America for these reasons:

• It opens us up to more fentanyl when we are already experiencing an opioid epidemic.
• It allows more diseases (many of which we once had eliminated within our borders) back into our states (not to mention new variants of the ever-hyped COVID-19).
• It provides a pipeline for illegal guns to run both north and south of the border
• It strengthens the hand of human traffickers (especially those who sex traffic children and women).
• It opens our population to terrorists 

…

Texas Rep. Pfluger visits Del Rio migrant camp as numbers spike, warns ‘worst is yet to come’

Fox News points out the conditions observed by Representative Pfluger at Del Rio as the Haitian invasion began.

Rep. August Pfluger, R-Texas, on Saturday spoke to Fox News as he visited the site of the migrant surge in Del Rio, Texas, saying that the number of predominantly Haitian migrants camping there in squalid conditions is approaching 15,000 — and warning the situation could get much worse.

“Speaking to Border Patrol agents, the worst is yet to come, they’re worried about what is behind here, they’re worried about co-ordination with Mexico,” he told Fox News from Del Rio.

Officials have described an “out of control” situation as they scramble to cope with a flood of migrants that has spiked from 4,000 on Wednesday to now what Pfluger said was 14,878 as of Saturday afternoon. Fox News images have shown migrants streaming across the border by their hundreds for days.

“It’s worse than you could imagine,” Pfluger said, whose office also provided images of the chaos to Fox News.

The migrants have set up a de facto camp under the bridge to shelter from the 100 degree heat as their numbers swell and they wait to be processed by Border Patrol. Officials have rushed toilets, water, medical supplies and other humanitarian aid to try and help.

(Read accounts of attempted border shutdowns and staffing arrangements at Fox News) 

The more I think of this situation, all of this seems to be going as planned by the White House

The more I think about this invasion, this seems to fit into the plans of the socialists who run things in the White House. They want to “fundamentally change America” by importing as many socialists as possible. It does not matter that they will bankrupt the nation. They will get these little socialists on handout programs as soon as possible and, thereby, have a new class of devoted Democrat voters.

…

Democrat Del Rio Mayor calls for help from Biden and Harris

The Epoch Times reports the words of Democrat Mayor Mayor Bruno Lozano as he called on members of his own party for help.

Democratic Del Rio Mayor Bruno Lozano has called out President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris for failing to make an appearance at his town as it battles with an overwhelming illegal immigrant crisis that has left Border Patrol agents struggling to process thousands of people.

More than 15,000 illegal immigrants, including Haitian, Cuban, and Venezuelan nationals, have illegally entered the United States in recent days and taken shelter underneath the border bridge connecting Del Rio, a Texas town of about 35,000 people, to Ciudad Acuña, Mexico.

While numerous official figures and congressmen, including Rep. August Pfluger (R-Texas) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), have visited the town, shared images, and urged the Biden administration to take action, both Biden and Harris have been noticeably absent.

Del Rio now: US on the left, Mexico on the right.
Constant stream back and forth as the illegal immigrants get supplies in Mexico.

Law enforcement preparing against a rush for the border fence as the aliens find out they might be deported. pic.twitter.com/TgxK5Sdrv1

— Charlotte Cuthbertson (@charlottecuthbo) September 18, 2021

On Sept.18, as Pfluger warned that the situation has “reached boiling point,” Harris made an appearance at Howard University where she led a coin toss at the university’s football event.

(Read more at the Epoch Times about the Democrat non-response)

This should be the message to working-class Democrats in America: “You have been abandoned for the illegal alien socialists.”

As has become evident by the acts of the Democrats at the border, working class Democrats have now been abandoned by the party in favor of illegal alien socialists.  Although an imperceptibly small minority of illegal aliens are being sent back, the majority that the Biden CBP encounter are being spread across America.

Del Rio Mayor Bruno Lozano (D) desperately trying to get the president's attention on the accelerating crisis at the Del Rio bridge pic.twitter.com/MjzUxbkM7E

— Peter J. Hasson (@peterjhasson) September 17, 2021

Democrat mayor of Del Rio slams Biden, Harris over absence at border: 'Where are you?' https://t.co/hJjYsLFXW7

— Dinesh D'Souza (@DineshDSouza) September 20, 2021

Will be live on @TuckerCarlson from the border in a bit to discuss the deteriorating situation at the international bridge in Del Rio, where 4,000+ migrants are waiting to be picked up by overwhelmed Border Patrol. Del Rio Mayor says intel is 20,000 more migrants are en route. pic.twitter.com/DlWDecTETO

— Bill Melugin (@BillFOXLA) September 16, 2021

…

The Biden regime continues with unequal application of the law

As illustrated by the tweet below, Biden has chosen to continue with an unequal application of the law even when dealing with illegal aliens.

NEW: U.S. Border Patrol Chief Raul Ortiz says there are currently 12,600 migrants under the bridge in Del Rio. Told me single adult men will be expelled via Title 42, but most family units will be processed and released into US w/ NTA (notice to appear). @FoxNews pic.twitter.com/JhaS3YB4pX

— Bill Melugin (@BillFOXLA) September 19, 2021

Texas law enforcement takes action over migrant crisis in Del Rio

The Blaze reports that Texas Rangers have started picking up the slack where the federal agents under Joe Biden have slacked off.

Texas law enforcement took action late Saturday over the growing migrant crisis unfolding in Del Rio, Texas, a small town situated on the southern United States border with Mexico.

What are the details?

Gov. Greg Abbott said Saturday the Texas Department of Public Safety and Texas National Guard were working together to secure the area of the border where thousands of Haitian migrants have poured into the U.S. in recent days.

“The Texas Department of Public Safety is in full force along the border around the Del Rio area. They have built a barricade with their squad cars and State Troopers,” Abbott said. “The National Guard is working with them to secure the border.”

The Texas DPS shared images on social media showing a massive fleet of vehicles parked on the banks of the Rio Grande river.

“Our #bordercrisis goes beyond the RGV and South TX communities — the smuggling of drugs, people, and weapons reaches far and wide, and it affects all of us. I will continue to work tirelessly to secure our border and protect the people of Texas." — @GregAbbott_TX pic.twitter.com/2kMkse29l2

— Texas DPS (@TxDPS) September 18, 2021

(Read how Texas forces plan to act at The Blaze)

At least Abbott is trying to do what Biden will not do.

Because Biden has abandoned the border, Governor Abbott has been forced to use Texas resources to stem the flow of illegal aliens into Texas.

…

In contradiction to Biden claims, the majority of Haitians are released into America

The Associated Press report that (of the 16,000 Haitians amassed at Del Rio) many are being released into America.

Many Haitian migrants camped in a small Texas border town are being released in the United States, two U.S. officials said, undercutting the Biden administration’s public statements that the thousands in the camp faced immediate expulsion.

Haitians have been freed on a “very, very large scale” in recent days, according to one U.S. official who put the figure in the thousands. The official, who has direct knowledge of operations, was not authorized to discuss the matter Tuesday and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Many have been released with notices to appear at an immigration office within 60 days, an outcome that requires less processing time from Border Patrol agents than ordering an appearance in immigration court and points to the speed at which authorities are moving, the official said.

The Homeland Security Department has been busing Haitians from Del Rio to El Paso, Laredo and the Rio Grande Valley along the Texas border, and this week added flights to Tucson, Arizona, the official said. They are processed by the Border Patrol at those locations.

A second U.S. official, also with direct knowledge and speaking on the condition of anonymity, said large numbers of Haitians were being processed under immigration laws and not being placed on expulsion flights to Haiti that started Sunday. The official couldn’t be more specific about how many.

U.S. authorities scrambled in recent days for buses to Tucson but resorted to flights when they couldn’t find enough transportation contractors, both officials said. Coast Guard planes took Haitians from Del Rio to El Paso.

The releases in the U.S. were occurring despite the signaling of a massive effort to expel Haitians on flights to Haiti under pandemic-related authority that denies migrants an opportunity to seek asylum. A third U.S. official not authorized to discuss operations said there were seven daily flights to Haiti planned starting Wednesday.

Accounts of wide-scale releases — some observed at the Del Rio bus station by Associated Press journalists — are at odds with statements a day earlier by Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, who traveled to Del Rio to promise swift action.

“If you come to the United States illegally, you will be returned, your journey will not succeed, and you will be endangering your life and your family’s life,” he said at a Monday news conference.

The releases come amid a quick effort to empty the camp under a bridge that, according to some estimates, held more than 14,000 people over the weekend in a town of 35,000 people. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, during a visit Tuesday to Del Rio, said the county’s top official told him the most recent tally at the camp was about 8,600 migrants.

The criteria for deciding who is flown to Haiti and who is released in the U.S. was unclear, but two U.S. officials said single adults were the priority for expulsion flights.

The Homeland Security Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment late Tuesday night.

(Read more at the Associated Press)

For those Haitians who got into America, some revolted

As reported by Kingsville CBS affiliate KIII, Haitians in CBP custody attempted escape and take-over of a CPB bus.

New images have come to light of Monday’s incident just south of Kingsville, Texas, involving some Haitian migrants and the Department of Homeland Security.

The group of migrants were being transported by bus to Brownsville when there was a revolt. The Kleberg County Sheriff’s Office said the migrants fought with agents, forced the bus to stop, and then escaped. Footage of the incident was brought to Governor Greg Abbott’s attention during a news conference Tuesday.

“We saw something yesterday that we knew was going to happen,” said Brandon Judd, President of the National Border Patrol Council.

Judd was in Del Rio at the news conference with Governor Abbott spotlighting the Haitian migrant crisis there.

“If you are targeting Texas to come to, we are going to show up in force and shut down the border,” Abbott said.

“When those people who were in buses south of Kingsville, Texas, when they found out they were going to be sent back to Haiti, they took the bus over and they fled,” Judd said.

Kleberg County Sheriff Richard Kirkpatrick was one of a number of lawmen who showed up to the scene to help out the ICE agents.

“These illegal migrants assaulted the federal agents on the bus and somehow they managed to escape custody for a brief moment in time, and agents then had to chase them down again and get into another scuffle on the side of the road with these individuals to try and detain them,” Kirkpatrick said.

The desperation seen in the Haitian migrants trying to cross the border is partly due to a recent earthquake that destroyed or damaged nearly 130,000 homes. Haiti’s president was also assassinated earlier this year. The U.S. State Department issued a travel advisory telling Americans not to visit Haiti because of the civil unrest, crime and COVID-19.

Eddie Canales, a South Texas immigrant rights activist, said those Haitians acted in desperation because they are fearful of returning to their country. He believes the Haitian migrants at our state’s border should be welcomed into the country and not deported back to Haiti.

“There needs to be immediate humanitarian parole given to the Haitians in this country or you know, temporary protected status, or as refugees,” Canales said. “Figure out what’s going on. Did any actions take place in Haiti to keep people from leaving in terms of relief after the earthquake? I doubt it very much.”

(Read more at KIII)

The statement “There needs to be immediate humanitarian parole given” provides all the proof we need that this situation is insane. The inmates have taken over the asylum.

…

 

The cowardly lion (Supreme Court) in Joe Biden’s America

Supreme Court refuses to hear Trump’s last remaining election challenge

The Epoch Times exposes the cowardice of the purported Supreme Court over hearing the last election challenge from President Trump.

The Supreme Court dismissed former President Donald Trump’s final remaining challenge to the 2020 presidential election results this morning, a lawsuit challenging the results in the state of Wisconsin.

Also on March 8, the high court declined to hear an emergency petition for mandamus brought by pro-Trump lawyer L. Lin Wood who on Dec. 30, 2020, asked the court to block the Jan. 5, 2021 runoff elections for Georgia’s two U.S. Senate seats. The races were won by Democrats who unseated two incumbent Republicans, handing control of that chamber to Democrats as President Joe Biden began his term of office.

The court, as is its custom when refusing to hear petitions, did not explain its actions March 8. No justices indicated they were dissenting from the dismissal orders.

In the case at hand, Trump v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, court file 20-883, Trump argued the commission violated the U.S. Constitution when it established rules for mail-in voting inconsistent with state law.

The commission and local election officials “implemented unauthorized, illegal absentee voting drop boxes, compelled illegal corrections to absentee ballot witness certificates by poll workers, and encouraged widespread voter misuse of ‘indefinitely confined’ status to avoid voter ID laws, all in disregard of the Legislature’s explicit command to ‘carefully regulate’ the absentee voting process,” Trump’s petition stated.

In the petition, Trump challenged the rules under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which states that “Each State shall appoint [electors for president and vice president] in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.”

The dismissal came after the Supreme Court threw out a series of legal challenges on Feb. 22 to voting processes and results in several states left over from the recent presidential election cycle, as The Epoch Times previously reported.

(Read more at The Epoch Times)

The more disappointing cases to me were the cases that could not be heard elsewhere

The Supreme Court refusal to hear the lawsuit by Texas against the states that allowed their election law to be changed in an unconstitutional manner should not stand. Likewise, the refusal to hear the Pennsylvania case should be grounds for impeachment of Roberts and Coney Barrett. This has transformed from the Supreme Court to the Democrat court in a matter of months.

…

Supreme Court dismisses Lin Wood election lawsuit without comment

The Epoch Times discusses the dismissal of the Lin Wood election lawsuit.

The Supreme Court on Monday morning dismissed a Nov. 3 election-related case filed by defamation lawyer Lin Wood.

The high court did not issue a comment as it denied Wood’s case (pdf), saying, “The petitions of writs of mandamus are denied.” Wood filed several third-party cases to challenge the results of last year’s election.

Wood had asked the Supreme Court justices to block the Jan. 5 Senate runoff elections in Georgia. Democrats won both Senate seats, giving them a slim majority in the Senate.

A separate lawsuit that was filed in November by Wood was rejected by the Supreme Court in February. That lawsuit alleged that there were numerous problems with how the election was conducted, including signature matching on absentee ballots.

Wood, a high-profile defamation lawyer, has not issued a comment on his Telegram page after the Supreme Court’s decision but said on March 7 that he believes “Georgia is the most corrupt state in our country.”

Wood, 68, said last month that Georgia’s State Bar is attempting to discipline him—which Wood described as a politically motivated act of revenge: “In short, the GA State Bar is trying to crush me to silence me and prevent me from practicing law.”

The Supreme Court on Monday, separately, dismissed former President Donald Trump’s final case that challenged the results of the Nov. 3 presidential election in Wisconsin.

(Read more at The Epoch Times)

I can understand deciding against a case after hearing arguments. However, I don’t understand never having hearings

The “Supreme Court” has not heard one election-related case for the 2020 scandal. They have not looked at anything on observers being locked out of ballot-counting rooms. They have not seen demonstrations of voting machines. Nothing.

…

Supreme Court rejects Sidney Powell’s lawsuits challenging election results in Wisconsin and Arizona

The Epoch Times expounds on the dismissal of the Sidney Powell lawsuit on election results.

The Supreme Court on March 1 formally rejected two of Sidney Powell’s lawsuits that challenged the results of the Nov. 3 election.

The Supreme Court didn’t offer any comment about dismissing the lawsuits. One lawsuit was filed in Wisconsin and the other in Arizona.

“The petitions for writs of mandamus are denied,” the court stated.

One of Powell’s mandamus petitions stated: “A submission directly to this Court seeking an extraordinary writ of mandamus is unusual, but it has its foundation. While such relief is rare, this Court will grant it ‘where a question of public importance is involved, or where the question is of such a nature that it is peculiarly appropriate that such action by this Court should be taken.’”

The Epoch Times has reached out to Powell for comment. She didn’t appear to have posted a comment about Supreme Court’s decision on her Telegram page on March 1.

A day before President Joe Biden’s inauguration on Jan. 20, Powell withdrew another lawsuit in the Supreme Court challenging Georgia’s election results.

Powell also announced that she launched a super PAC dedicated to freedom of speech, constitutional rights, and “the sacred right of free and fair elections.”

Powell in late January said she created the Restore the Republic Super PAC, which is an independent expenditure-only political action committee that may receive unlimited contributions and may engage in unlimited political spending on initiatives, provided it doesn’t coordinate directly with campaigns or candidates.

“The American people deserve a voice that exposes and rejects the self-interest of political parties, the control of tech giants, and the lies of the fake news,” she said.

(Read more at The Epoch Times)

We do deserve to see the workings of the swamp

With the Supreme Court denying all election-related cases, we have been denied the airing of these matters.

…

The bastardization of law in Joe Biden’s America

The Supreme Court allows a banana republic state prosecutor to search for crimes

Clarion News reported that the Supreme Court allowed the release of Trump tax returns for a crime-searching spree.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled that it will not stop a grand jury from obtaining former President Donald Trump’s tax returns and other financial records as part of a criminal investigation.

The justices rebuffed Trump’s request to put an Oct. 7 lower court ruling on hold that directs the former commander-in-chief’s accounting company Mazars USA to comply with a subpoena to turn over the taxes and documents to a grand jury that was convened by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, a Democrat.

The New York grand jury will be able to obtain the records and look at them in secret, meaning that the records will not become public any time soon, although the possibility of leaks to legacy news media cannot be ruled out.

The court issued a single-sentence ruling on Monday (pdf): “The application for a stay presented to Justice Breyer and referred to the Court is denied.” The justices did not provide an explanation.

In July, the top court ruled that the president and any other citizen is not “categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding.” They suggested Trump could challenge Vance’s subpoena on other grounds.

Last year, Trump’s lawyers said that the attempt to review his taxes was done in bad faith and was excessive. The Supreme Court also tossed the former president’s claim of “absolute immunity.”

Trump’s attorneys had also told the Supreme Court that he will suffer “irreparable harm” if the materials are turned over to the grand jury.

“Even if the disclosure of his papers is limited to prosecutors and grand jurors, the status quo can never be restored once confidentiality is destroyed,” his lawyers stated in court papers in October.

“Interim relief is also warranted given the irreparable harm the President will suffer without a stay. Even if the disclosure of his papers is limited to prosecutors and grand jurors, the status quo can never be restored once confidentiality is destroyed,” they wrote in their 46-page appeal.

But Vance previously said the delay has hampered his investigation.

The former commander-in-chief “has had multiple opportunities for review of his constitutional and state law claims, and at this juncture he provides no grounds for further delay,” Vance said around the same time. “His request for extraordinary relief should be denied, and the grand jury permitted to do its work.”

Vance’s subpoenas span from January 2011 until August 2019, relating to the Trump Organization’s employment of his former attorney, Michael Cohen.

(Read more at Clarion News)

This is nothing but a prosecutor in invention of a crime

Like the cases refused by the John “Coward” Roberts Supreme Court, this is nothing but an issue of the Supreme Court caving in to the threat of Democrats. It is Gorsuch and Kavanaugh kowtowing to the screaming rant of Chuckie Schumer. It is Roberts bowing to the riots of Antifa. It is the whole lot of the formerly “conservative” lot that bends over and grabs their ankles to prove that Democrats do not have to pack the court to get all their agenda.

The good news is that there is a judge that will weigh their actions.

Woe to those who enact unjust statutes
And to those who constantly record harmful decisions, (Isaiah 10:1 NASB)

…

Justice Thomas blisters the Supreme Court for rejecting the election-related cases

NewsMax pointed out the retort Justice Thomas gave the rest of the Supreme Court for rejecting the 2020 election fraud cases.

After the Supreme Court turned away two Republican appeals over Pennsylvania’s mail-in ballot deadline changes, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas issued a blistering dissent against the decision to reject the case.

“One wonders what this Court waits for,” Justice Thomas wrote. “We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections.

“The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling.”

Three conservative Justices Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch sought to hear the cases, while Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the liberal justices in turning then away. Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not take part on cases that preceded her swearing in.

“By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence,” Justice Thomas’ dissent concluded. “Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more from us.

“I respectfully dissent.”

The rebuff leaves intact a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that allowed three extra days for ballots to arrive in November because of the pandemic and anticipated mail delays. Republicans said the ruling usurped the power of the state legislature in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Republicans filed the appeals in October before the election. The Supreme Court declined to intervene before the Nov. 3 election, eventually won by Democrat Joe Biden, but three conservative justices indicated at the time they thought the state court had overstepped.

The court’s three liberal justices – Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan – have backed the power of both state and federal judges to ease voting restrictions, particularly during the pandemic.

(Read more at NewsMax)

CNN and MSN show their bias

CNN and MSN could not let go of their biases to report the facts when they pushed headlines like “Justice Clarence Thomas reveals some sympathy for Trump’s baseless fraud claims” (CNN; emphasis mine) and “Clarence Thomas promotes Trump’s voter fraud lies in alarming dissent” (MSN; again, emphasis mine).

Rather than reporting the truth on the Clarence Thomas dissent, these hacks and rags tried to perpetuate their own lies by manipulating the headline-only readers.

…

Do we have a republic? Are we indivisible?

John Roberts purportedly shouts at the other justices over the Texas case

The Epoch Times chronicles the back-and-forth accusations and denials surrounding a purported event where John Roberts shouted at other justices regarding their need to deny the case due to possible riots.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Supreme Court disputed a report that claimed Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts shouted at the eight other justices in a room in the high court, urging them not to take up the Texas election lawsuit against four other key states.

As guidance, the court “has been conducting its conferences remotely by phone since March when the building closed due to the pandemic,” a Supreme Court spokesperson told The Epoch Times via email on Friday in response to a question about the claim.

The statement contradicts what a GOP Texas elector, Matt Patrick, said earlier this week, claiming that an anonymous person said that “the Justices went into a closed room” to determine whether to take the Texas lawsuit that was eventually dismissed. Then, according to the elector, “When the Texas case was brought up he said he heard screaming through the walls as Justice Roberts and the other liberal Justices were insisting … afraid of what would happen if they did the right thing.”

The claim also appeared on Hal Turner’s website, sourcing an alleged “clerk for one of the [Supreme Court] justices.” It is unclear where Patrick obtained his information.

“The Justices met in a closed and sealed room, as is standard,” Turner’s website said, citing the alleged Supreme Court whistleblower. “Usually it is very calm, however today we could hear screaming all the way down the hall. They met in person, because they didn’t trust telephonic meeting as secure. Chief Justice Roberts was screaming, ‘Are you going to be responsible for the rioting if we hear this case?’”

(Read more at the Epoch Times)

Do the words of the Pledge of Allegiance still apply?

Since obviously no court exists where one state can openly debate and resolve differences with other states, do we have the United States? Even if the high court used the excuse of violence in the streets  to avoid hearing the Texas case, it seems only to show a continued slide from this nation’s sterling origins.

So I ask then — do the central documents of our republic really mean anything? For that matter, does the commonly-recited pledge mean anything, if you take it phrase-by-phrase:

1. “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America”
   (Do we have this symbol to unite us, or have we allowed the liberals to name this flag a banner of hate and a point of division?)
2. “and to the Republic for which it stands”
   (Do we have a republic when fraudulent elections — changing laws in unConstitutional ways, ignoring laws, ignoring testimony before legislators, and not listening in courts — become accepted by the media class and leftist political class?)
3. “one nation”
   (Are we one nation or have the Democrats balkanized us to only accepting our own flavor of communitariamism — one bowing to BLM, another scraping to La Raza, and yet another kneeling to Antifa.)
4. “under God, ”
   (Are we under God, considering how the anti-religious left has insisted on chiseling every reference to the Bible or God from public monuments and senators have made public reference to God a disqualifying hurdle.
5. “indivisible, ”
   (Really? This one died during that administration where someone said “The Cambridge police acted stupidly.” That was followed closely by the statement made during the riots preceding his re-election and then the Ferguson and Baltimore riots in 2014. Then don’t get me going on the unequal treatment “deplorables” and our leader have gotten over the past four years with Democrats in the press and in politics.)
6. “with liberty “
   (How can we figure that liberals who want to put Trump followers in re-education camps might be dedicated to liberty?)
7. “and justice”
   (How can we think that people who would make plans to persecute their political rivals might support justice? Additionally, what about this past election?)
8. “for all.”
   (Unlike conservatives — who are accused of Nazism — liberals practice the violence, political oppression, and reprisals associated with the Nazi movement.)

In case these important tweets get buried or deleted

TEXAS ELECTORAL COLLEGE:

"The Justices went into a closed room...When Texas case was brought up he said he heard screaming through the walls as Justice Roberts and the other liberal Justices were insisting...afraid of what would happen if they did right thing...Moral cowardice" pic.twitter.com/JhnPN59wkP

— Howard Mortman (@HowardMortman) December 14, 2020

(Unverified) Report: SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts Folded on Texas Election Fraud Case Due to Fear of ANTIFA Pushback 🔍Big League Politics #Election2020 https://t.co/cwqNLVht46

— CyberChick (@warriors_mom) December 18, 2020

Developments in the Texas Supreme Court case

McEnany argues Supreme Court ‘hid behind procedure’ in rejecting Texas election lawsuit

Fox News reports that White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany argued that the wimps in the Supreme Court “hid behind procedure.”

The Supreme Court justices who rejected Texas’ bid to overturn the election results in four key states “hid behind procedure” instead of reviewing the “facts of the case” that “still stand,” White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany told “Hannity” Friday.

“There is no way to say it other than they dodged,” McEnany told host Sean Hannity.

“They dodged, they hid behind procedure and they refused to use their authority to enforce the Constitution,” she continued. “You know, we’ve gone state by state, Sean, outlining the egregious equal protection violations, the due process claims that were entirely ignored.”

The press secretary noted that “none of the judges” on the Supreme Court “gave a view on the facts of the case” addind that the matter “was dismissed on standing.”

“None of those justices gave a view on the facts of the case, which is that there were 174,384 ballots in Michigan not tied to a registration number. That is in the case, it is still a fact at this moment,” McEnany said.

“The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution,” read the court’s order. “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.”

The order does not foreclose any other pending or future election appeals at the Supreme Court, but time is running out. The states meet next week on Dec. 14 for the Electoral College exercise. And on Jan. 6 there will be a joint session of the House and Senate to count the electoral votes and certify President-elect Joe Biden as the winner.

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas said they would have heard the case — without granting other relief, like issuing an injunction on electoral proceedings. They added that they expressed “no view on any other issue.”

(Read more at Fox News)

To quote Rep. Mo Brooks, “In the United States Congress, we control who the President of the United States is. The courts do not.”

Let’s just commit to supporting those who support us. If the House and Senate likewise cave, then never vote for an incumbent again.

…

Supreme Court orders reply to Texas AG Ken Paxton’s election lawsuit by 3pm Thursday

The CBS affiliate in Dallas reports that the Supreme Court has ordered Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia to reply to a lawsuit filed by Texas.

The United States Supreme Court on Tuesday evening, December 8 ordered Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia to reply to a lawsuit filed this week by Attorney General of Texas Ken Paxton.

That lawsuit asked the Supreme Court to order state legislatures in Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia and Pennsylvania to displace “tainted” election results in those States and choose their own slate of electors.

The Supreme Court posted online Tuesday evening: “Response to the motion for leave to file a bill of complaint and to the motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order or, alternatively, for stay and administrative stay requested, due Thursday, December 10, by 3 pm.”

“It’s not unusual,” SMU Constitutional Law Professor Dale Carpenter told CBS 11 late Tuesday evening. “I don’t think it indicates anything very important… I think the court will act quickly on Thursday.”

Paxton sued battleground states on behalf of the State of Texas saying the states made unconstitutional changes to their laws before the 2020 election.

He said those states tainted the integrity of the vote in Texas and all states.

Here is his full statement on the matter:

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton today filed a lawsuit against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in the United States Supreme Court. The four states exploited the COVID-19 pandemic to justify ignoring federal and state election laws and unlawfully enacting last-minute changes, thus skewing the results of the 2020 General Election. The battleground states flooded their people with unlawful ballot applications and ballots while ignoring statutory requirements as to how they were received, evaluated and counted.

“Trust in the integrity of our election processes is sacrosanct and binds our citizenry and the States in this Union together. Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin destroyed that trust and compromised the security and integrity of the 2020 election. The states violated statutes enacted by their duly elected legislatures, thereby violating the Constitution. By ignoring both state and federal law, these states have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but of Texas and every other state that held lawful elections,” said Attorney General Paxton. “Their failure to abide by the rule of law casts a dark shadow of doubt over the outcome of the entire election. We now ask that the Supreme Court step in to correct this egregious error.”

Elections for federal office must comport with federal constitutional standards. For presidential elections, each state must appoint its electors to the electoral college in a manner that complies with the Constitution. The Electors Clause requirement that only state legislatures may set the rules governing the appointment of electors and elections and cannot be delegated to local officials. The majority of the rushed decisions, made by local officials, were not approved by the state legislatures, thereby circumventing the Constitution.

“Ken Paxton is asking that Republican state legislatures in four states be allowed to displace the will of the voters in those States and choose their own slate of electors, presumably to hand the election to Donald Trump in January,” Carpenter told CBS 11 earlier on Tuesday. “The Supreme Court is not going to allow that to happen.”

Paxton’s announcement sparked immediate response on social media, with many weighing in on the validity of the suit.

University of Texas School of Law professor Steve Vladeck tweeted: “It looks like we have a new leader in the ‘craziest lawsuit filed to purportedly challenge the election’ category.  The State of Texas is suing Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin *directly* in #SCOTUS. (Spoiler Alert: The Court is *never* going to hear this one.)”

It looks like we have a new leader in the “craziest lawsuit filed to purportedly challenge the election” category:

The State of Texas is suing Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin *directly* in #SCOTUS.

(Spoiler alert: The Court is *never* going to hear this one.) pic.twitter.com/2L4GmdCB6I

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) December 8, 2020

(Read more at CBS)

This would have been a chance for conservative justices to even the tables with their former tormenters

Many of us remember how Joe Biden lead the charge to accuse Clarence Thomas of putting a pubic hair on a Diet Coke can that was supposedly put in the presence of Anita Hill (who accused Thomas of sexual discrimination, but followed him from one appointment to another).

Quite a few more would remember how Kamala Harris lead the accusations against Brett Kavanaugh although Blasey-Ford could not find a corroborating witness.

…

The four liberal state Attorneys General from Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia try to get Texas to ignore the rights of voting Texans

The New York Times tries to inject liberal-tainted righteous indignation into Texas’ defense of its voting citizens.

Pennsylvania A.G.

In blistering language denouncing Republican efforts to subvert the election, the attorneys general for Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to reject a lawsuit that seeks to overturn the victories in those states by President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr., calling the audacious effort an affront to democracy and the rule of law.

The lawsuit, filed by the Republican attorney general of Texas and backed by his G.O.P. colleagues in 17 other states and 106 Republican members of Congress, represents the most coordinated, politicized attempt to overturn the will of the voters in recent American history. President Trump has asked to intervene in the lawsuit as well in hopes that the Supreme Court will hand him a second term he decisively lost.

The suit is the latest in a spectacularly unsuccessful legal effort by Mr. Trump and his allies to overturn the results, with cases so lacking in evidence that judges at all levels have mocked or condemned them as without merit. Legal experts have derided this latest suit as well, which makes the audacious claim, at odds with ordinary principles of federalism, that the Supreme Court should investigate and override the election systems of four states at the behest of a fifth.

The responses by the four states — represented by three Democratic attorneys general and, in Georgia, a Republican one — comprehensively critiqued Texas’s unusual request to have the Supreme Court act as a kind of trial court in examining supposed election irregularities with the goal of throwing out millions of votes.

“The court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated,” a brief for Pennsylvania said.

“Let us be clear,” the brief continued. “Texas invites this court to overthrow the votes of the American people and choose the next president of the United States. That Faustian invitation must be firmly rejected.”

(Read more tripe at the New York Times)

No, those who cheated in the ballot counting centers disenfranchised voters

Those who cheated in the ballot counting centers would have disenfranchised voters who voted legally. Additionally, the judges and state executives who changed law to suit the cheaters likewise disenfranchised legal voters — this lawsuit by Texas only restores the correct application of the Constitution.

If this lawsuit had been given a chance to end, the final decision would have been up to the Supreme Court (you know, the all-knowing entity that created abortion on demand out of whole cloth in 1973). Maybe it is better if these kritarchs didn’t gather any more power.

…

Eighteen states join Texas Supreme Court lawsuit to overturn Joe Biden’s “victory”

LifeNews reports that 18 states have joined the Texas lawsuit against Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia.

Some 18 states have joined Texas in its bid to have the Supreme Court overturn Joe Biden’s election “victory” by throwing out the voting results from Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

In a brief filed on Wednesday, lawyers for the states led by Missouri’s Republican Attorney General Eric Schmitt urged the nation’s highest court to take a look at serious allegations of election fraud.

In addition to Texas, the 18 states joining the lawsuit are: Alabama, Arizona Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and West Virginia.

BREAKING: Arizona has joined the Texas lawsuit. That makes 18 states asking the Supreme Court to rule on election fraud. https://t.co/gtjZoZ27ar pic.twitter.com/PN5rBBRvY4

— LifeNews.com (@LifeNewsHQ) December 9, 2020

After the suit, President Donald Trump, as the presidential candidate, moved to intervene in the Texas v. Pennsylvania, et. al. action at the United States Supreme Court. The President intervened because his rights as a candidate are affected by the Defendant States’ failure to follow and enforce state election laws during the 2020 election.

“I’m honored that the President asked me to represent him in this matter. I think his intervention in this case strengthens an already very strong original action by the state of Texas,’ said attorney John Eastman.

Trump attorney Jenna Ellis added: “President Trump is fully committed to ensuring election integrity and fulfilling his oath to defend and protect the United States Constitution against state officials’ misconduct and violations of law that irredeemably compromised this election. We look forward to the Supreme Court resolving these important issues of election integrity that ultimately affect all Americans, and providing a remedy to the corruption that occurred.”

Texas has filed a lawsuit agaisnt four battleground states saying their loose election rules disenfranchises voters in the Lone Star State because they are fraught with fraud. Texas took the lawsuit directly to the Supreme Court saying those states violated the Elector’s Clause.

“The 2020 election suffered from significant and unconstitutional irregularities,” the case says.

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey issued a statement Wednesday about why he joined the lawsuit.

“Many Americans and West Virginians have seen their confidence in the electoral system undermined as they watch one report after another outlining the many, many problems with the 2020 elections. That must change,” he said.

“Today, I am announcing my support of Texas’ request before the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the many irregular, highly problematic and unconstitutional actions that have occurred in the states during the 2020 elections. We are joining a brief with a number of my colleagues, which will be filed at the U.S. Supreme Court this afternoon,” he added. “America and West Virginia deserve to get to the bottom of these really troubling issues. I urge the U.S. Supreme Court to carefully consider Texas’ and the states’ requests.”

Gov. Jim Justice said he supports the lawsuit.

(Read more at LifeNews)

You see, it’s not just the voters in four states that are the real subject here

This would have been the start of equal application of the law.

…

Three Trump court wins during the week before Thanksgiving and some foreshadowing of a Trump win

Since the main stream press does not report on these, here are the multiple wins which I found in alternative media.

A judge halts Pennsylvania from taking further steps in certifying its election results

Townhall discusses in a 25 November 2020 article how a judge’s decision slows the progress of Pennsylvania toward being certified for Biden.

Does this mean the certification of PA’s results has been reversed? No.

Well, I shouldn’t say that; that’s what Democrats say.

🚨 PA judge stops certification of election results. pic.twitter.com/FwlVbV9L6g

— Marina Medvin 🇺🇸 (@MarinaMedvin) November 25, 2020

It’s a separate legal challenge filed by state Republicans. It’s unlikely to reverse the course of what has transpired in the Keystone State this election. Joe Biden was certified the winner. You’re never going to convince me that the election results for 2020 were legitimate, given the scores of voter fraud allegations, but the material that could have been used as evidence has been destroyed. And the bar to toss ballots is higher than Everest, so I doubt this will lead to major changes, but never say never around the holidays. As of now, further steps to verify PA’s election results have been halted by a judge. A hearing is slated for Friday (via Fox News):

A Pennsylvania state court issued an injunction Wednesday blocking any potential further certification of election results in the state, pending a hearing to be held Friday.

The order from Judge Patricia McCullough comes in the case brought by Pennsylvania voters including Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., in which they allege that a state law allowing for no-excuse absentee voting violated the Pennsylvania constitution, which outlines specific cases where absentee voting is allowed.

[T]o the extent that there remains any further action to perfect the certification of the results of the 2020 General Election … for the office of President and Vice President of the United States of America, Respondents are preliminarily enjoined from doing so, pending an evidentiary hearing[,]’” McCullough wrote.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro quickly responded on Twitter, pointing out that this does not have much impact since the results of the presidential election have already been certified and electors chosen.

[…]

As for any other races in November’s elections that may not have been certified, state officials are barred from certifying the results of any election that has not already been certified.

The Trump legal team is still fighting the certification of PA’s results, but this is certainly a Black Friday development. We’ll keep you updated.

Actually, all of the steps for Pennsylvania certification may not yet be complete, & we just got a favorable order in The Commonwealth Court.
Buckle up. https://t.co/GXzL1AJZKK

— Sean Parnell (@SeanParnellUSA) November 25, 2020

Guess what is happening to the official election narrative today with the PA hearings?

It's crackin'

— Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays) November 25, 2020

(Read more at Townhall)

There are hundreds of witnesses to this fraud; therefore, the chances of the delay going long seem high

As noted in numerous comments at Bunkerville, The Conservative Treehouse, and elsewhere, only a few things outnumber the hundreds of documented cases of voter fraud. If any or a sampling of these affidavits become translated into courtroom testimony that must be heard before things progress toward the Supreme Court, then there might be some delay.

Still, one of the things that might outnumber the media-mentioned, documented cases of voter fraud might be the instances where apologists in the main stream media try to
explain away or discount the media-mentioned, documented cases of voter fraud.

Additionally, the number of groups who try to claim victimhood (based on illegal votes not being counted) might outnumber the media-mentioned, documented cases of voter fraud.

…

Trump win in Nevada

Townhall covers the legal team win in Nevada in a 25 November 2020 article.

For the most part, it’s been something of a disaster for the Trump legal team, but I will say they are scrappy and are not giving up. Yet, time is a resource that is in very short supply. Rush Limbaugh and Fox News’ Tucker Carlson have called out the Trump legal effort for hosting press conferences promising bombshell evidence that has yet to be revealed. We’re still waiting, but the Trump team did score a big legal win in Nevada, where a judge granted a motion allowing the campaign to present its evidence regarding voter fraud. Paul Bedard of the Washington Examiner says it could set the precedent for other state challenges:

In its first court victory, a Nevada judge has agreed to let the Trump campaign present its evidence that fraud and illegalities plagued the state’s election, enough to reverse Joe Biden’s win and set an example for other state challenges.

According to Trump officials, the judge set a Dec. 3 hearing date and is allowing 15 depositions. What’s more, the campaign plans to present its evidence that could result in the rejection of tens of thousands of mail-in ballots in Democratic Clark County where Biden ballots outnumbered Trump ballots by 91,000 in unofficial results.

[…]

Oddly, there has been a virtual news blackout of the Trump court victory. However, there were major headlines on the state Supreme Court’s certification of Biden’s victory Tuesday.

In its court filing from Nov. 17, the Trump team made several allegations of voter fraud, including votes by nonresidents and the dead.

[…]

But its biggest claim was that the signatures on hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots were not verified by human officials, as required by law.

What’s more, they found that officials used a machine to verify signatures, apparently against the rules, and even those machines were plagued with problems.

BIG news in Nevada: a Judge has allowed NV Republicans to present findings of widespread voter fraud in a Dec. 3rd hearing. Americans will now hear evidence from those who saw firsthand what happened—a critical step for transparency and remedying illegal ballots. Stay tuned.

— Mark Meadows (@MarkMeadows) November 25, 2020

(Read more at Townhall)

Odd that (among all the times that the press has been treating Biden as if he is already President) the press cannot mention the wins in Nevada and Pennsylvania

If either the Pennsylvania case (or the related affidavits of fraud) or the Nevada case had an effect on the outcome of the election, the consumers of the product of that main stream press might feel mislead.

…

Pennsylvania judge opines State’s mail-in ballot procedures likely illegal

NewsMax reports in a 28 November 2020 article on the Pennsylvania judge’s opinion.

A Pennsylvania judge who Nov. 25 blocked the state from going forward with additional steps that might be required to certify the state’s presidential vote said in a written opinion that changes to the Pennsylvania’s mail-in balloting procedures were likely illegal.

The order is delayed while the Pennsylvania Supreme Court considers the case, filed by Pennsylvania Republicans, on an expedited basis. Friday night’s opinion simply provides the judge’s reasoning for ordering a temporary delay.

It is unclear exactly what further steps in the process can be delayed, but the plaintiffs suggested there were several, including the assembly of electors. The Electoral College vote to certify the Nov. 3 election results does not take place until Dec. 14.

A federal appeals court Friday had rejected President Donald Trump’s attempt to revive a lawsuit in which his campaign was seeking to undo Pennsylvania’s certification Joe Biden’s victory in the state.

A three-judge panel resoundingly dismissed the campaign’s goal of striking out tens of thousands of ballots, saying there were no claims of fraud in the lawsuit, or proof.

The decision potentially tees the case up for the U.S. Supreme Court, and the president has openly mused the 6-3 conservative majority could deliver the election to him. But most legal experts doubt the high court will take up a case which will not change the race. Biden would still win the presidency without Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes, and Georgia, Michigan and Nevada have also certified results in his favor.

“Voters, not lawyers, choose the president,” the federal appeals court in Philadelphia said.
“Ballots, not briefs, decide elections. The ballots here are governed by Pennsylvania election law. No federal law requires poll watchers or specifies where they must live or how close they may stand when votes are counted. Nor does federal law govern whether to count ballots with minor state-law defects or let voters cure those defects.”

In its ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit took apart the Trump campaign’s legal arguments, as it refused to force the lower-court judge who dismissed the case to allow the campaign to file a revised complaint.

(Read more at NewsMax)

As noted with the previous articles in this post, why won’t the main stream media mention things that might benefit the Trump case?

Why won’t they mention the hundreds of affidavits? Why won’t they mention the expert testimony? Why won’t they mention the real voters who have been disenfranchised by Democrat operatives who cheated?

…

Foreshadowing of a Trump win

A case of following the Constitution is painted as helping President Trump

As reported by Bloomberg, one set of liberals think that the Supreme Court has laid out a path to help President Trump in a contested race.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservatives started carving a path that could let President Donald Trump win a contested election, issuing a far-reaching set of opinions just as Amy Coney Barrett was getting Senate confirmation to provide what could be a crucial additional vote.

In a 5-3 decision released minutes before the Senate vote Monday night, the court rejected Democratic calls to reinstate a six-day extension for the receipt of mail ballots in Wisconsin, a hotly contested state that is experiencing a surge of Covid-19 cases. The Supreme Court as a whole gave no explanation for the decision.

The outcome was bad enough for Democrats, but an opinion by Trump-appointed Justice Brett Kavanaugh bordered on catastrophic. Kavanaugh suggested sympathy for Trump’s unsubstantiated contentions that votes received after Election Day would be tainted by fraud, warning that “charges of a rigged election could explode” if late-arriving ballots change the perceived outcome.

Most states “want to avoid the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election,” Kavanaugh wrote. “And those states also want to be able to definitively announce the results of the election on election night, or as soon as possible thereafter.”

(Read more of Bloomberg on MSN)

How is following the rules construed as a plot to (unfairly) support one side?

How is equal application of the law a plot?

Admittedly, Democrats should know a plot in regard to the Supreme Court. It seems that Senator Harris was accusing then-Judge Kavanaugh of actions untoward for a potential justice. It also seems that Senator Biden led the push to accuse then-Judge Thomas of placing a pubic hair on a Diet Coke can. Additionally, while the confirmation of Justice Coney-Barrett held nothing near the animosity generated in the cases of Thomas or Kavanaugh, Democrats did not make friends with her.

…

A case of not counting illegal votes is painted as disenfranchising Blacks

As reported by the Detroit NBC affiliate, another set of liberals think that by not counting illegal votes, Trump disenfranchises Black voters.

Three Detroit voters have joined a local organization in suing President Trump and his campaign over their effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

The Michigan Welfare Rights Organization, along with three Detroit residents, filed a lawsuit against the Trump campaign Friday, arguing that the campaign is seeking to disenfranchise Black voters in their attempt to block the certification of Michigan votes — especially those from Wayne County.

“Having lost the vote in Michigan and other states that are necessary for a majority of the electoral college, President Trump and the Donald J. Trump For President, Inc. Campaign are engaged in a campaign to overturn the results of the election by blocking certification of the results, on the (legally incorrect) theory that blocking certification would allow state legislatures to override the will of the voters and choose the Trump Campaign’s slate of electors,” the complaint reads.

The lawsuit, filed on the plaintiffs’ behalf by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, claims that President Trump and his campaign are in violation of section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which states: “No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for urging or aiding any person to vote or attempt to vote.”

(Read more at Click on Detroit)

How can the NAACP tell that the illegal votes were Black?

If we are going to start ignoring the legal and counting the illegal, let’s start by applying that standard to anything legally filed by a liberal group.

It seems that Obama’s IRS was allowed to get away with discriminating against the Tea Party groups on a whim. So, until we can get everything set right, let’s turn it around on them.

…

A series of tweets that pull out the best of the ACB hearings today

While we don’t have the circus of the Kavanaugh hearings, we do have some sterling moments

Because I feel that I have spent too much time on some of the negatives pulled out of the ether by Democrats, I have compiled a mostly positive set of Twitter videos encapsulating the ACB hearings today.

Lindsey Graham just asked ACB how it feels to be nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Her answer was incredible and I hope everyone takes a minute to watch and listen. pic.twitter.com/gpckQNobWG

— Caleb Hull (@CalebJHull) October 13, 2020

.@JohnCornyn highlights Judge Barrett’s impressive knowledge of the law https://t.co/z4JI4NWjoq pic.twitter.com/iAyJMrQu8W

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) October 13, 2020

ACB's response to Dick Durbin about George Floyd was pretty powerful. pic.twitter.com/WFJ2mv2WOC

— Jerry Dunleavy 🇺🇸 (@JerryDunleavy) October 13, 2020

Sen. @tedcruz: "At the heart of this is a decision many Democrats have made to abandon democracy." pic.twitter.com/9wz5DWgoNX

— The Hill (@thehill) October 13, 2020