Category: Courts

Of course, this is a ruling by a 3 judge panel that will undoubtely be heard by a en banc panel that, as is usual by the 9th Circus Court, be overturned. the we see what happens if and when it’s appealed to SCOTUS

Court: California’s under-21 gun sales ban unconstitutional

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A U.S. appeals court ruled Wednesday that California’s ban on the sale of semiautomatic weapons to adults under 21 is unconstitutional.

In a 2-1 ruling, a panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Wednesday the law violates the Second Amendment right to bear arms and a San Diego judge should have blocked what it called “an almost total ban on semiautomatic centerfire rifles” for young adults. “America would not exist without the heroism of the young adults who fought and died in our revolutionary army,” Judge Ryan Nelson wrote. “Today we reaffirm that our Constitution still protects the right that enabled their sacrifice: the right of young adults to keep and bear arms.”

The Firearms Policy Coalition, which brought the case, said the ruling makes it optimistic age-based gun bans will be overturned in other courts.

Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the decision is a clear sign of how courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court which has a major gun case before it, are expanding gun rights.

Continue reading “”

North Carolina court orders sheriff to end concealed carry delays

Ever since the start of the COVID pandemic in early 2020, we’ve seen a number of jurisdictions across the country drag their feet when it comes to the issuing of concealed carry licenses. The delays have primarily been blamed on staffing levels, as well as COVID protocols that limited office hours or in-person applications, but that doesn’t make them any more acceptable. If you live in a state that requires you to obtain a permission slip before you can exercise your right to bear arms, there’s no excuse in the world that’s going to make up for your Second Amendment rights being put on hold for months on end thanks to bureaucratic delays.

Last August, the Mecklenburg County Sheriff’s Office was still processing permits from March of 2021. In a statement to WCNC Charlotte, the sheriff’s office said it would not comment on pending legal matters but that the permits backlog was caught up in March.

If that’s the case then McFadden should have no problem complying with the judge’s order. As Grassroots NC noted after the judge’s order was released, however, the group has been receiving complaints about delays in the processing for several years now, and Mecklenburg County isn’t the only jurisdiction where this is taking place.

“In violation of North Carolina law, Sheriff Garry McFadden has been dragging his feet in processing North Carolina pistol purchase permits and concealed handgun permits, often taking up to a year to issue permits and preventing lawful North Carolinians from buying and carrying handguns for defense of themselves and their families.

“We believe this order sends a clear message to sheriffs in Guilford, Mecklenburg and Wake counties, among others, that obstructing lawful citizens from exercising the right to keep and bear arms will no longer be tolerated. To ensure compliance by a sheriff who has so far dragged his feet, Grass Roots North Carolina advises anyone whose fingerprints are not taken with five business days of completing a concealed handgun application to contact us immediately.

You can read the judge’s order for yourself here, which is fairly brief. It’s also quite explicit about the responsibilities of the sheriff’s office. McFadden and his staff are enjoined, for instance, from taking longer than 14 days to grant or deny all pistol purchase permit applications (a relic of Jim Crow law still on the books in North Carolina); waiting longer than 45 days to approve or deny concealed carry license applications; and failing to request mental health records within 10 days of receiving the application.

The sheriff’s office has also been told it must stop “denying, delaying, or otherwise failing to provide fingerprinting services” for concealed carry applicants, which the judge says must be offered to all applicants within five business days of receiving the rest of their application.

Hopefully this will resolve the issues that residents in and around Charlotte have been dealing with for more than two years now, and if Grassroots NC is right, then this should be a wake-up call for the other sheriffs across North Carolina who may have believed that a pandemic absolved them of their duties under the law to process these applications in a timely manner.

Beyond that, however, this case is yet more proof that we the people shouldn’t have to obtain a state-issued permission slip before exercising a constitutionally-protected right in the first place. Why should our rights be put on hold because our county sheriff is having staffing issues? That’s one thing you never have to worry about with Constitutional Carry, because there’s no need for the state to give its stamp of approval on your decision to bear arms. As long as  you can legally own that gun you can lawfully carry it, and the Bill of Rights is all the government paperwork you need.

Cutting to the Chase: SCOTUS Flap Alarms Libs About Gun Rights Case

It took less than a week for someone in the media to acknowledge the political left has more on its collective mind than abortion in the wake of Monday evening’s bombshell report by Politico about the draft Supreme Court opinion apparently overturning Roe v. Wade, and it was spelled out Thursday morning by CNN’s Ariane de Vogue.

In a story headlined “Roe leak may impact how Supreme Court decides gun rights, climate and immigration cases this spring,” de Vogue—CNN’s Supreme Court reporter—notes, “The court hasn’t issued an opinion in a major Second Amendment case in more than a decade, but it has an opportunity before it now.”

That case, for which a decision is expected late next month, could declare unconstitutional a New York gun law “that places restrictions on carrying a concealed gun outside the home.”

Gun control proponents are extremely alarmed by this possibility; more accurately a “likelihood” if one listens to some in the gun community.

“As the justices debate the issue in secret,” de Vogue observes, “they will decide whether to issue a broad decision holding that the right to keep and bear arms extends to the right to carry a handgun outside the home, or whether to focus more narrowly on a handful of laws that give licensing officials a large degree of discretion in deciding who gets a permit.”

The alarm is best illustrated by an editorial in the New York Post headlined, “Pray the Supreme Court doesn’t leave NY defenseless to control flood of weapons on streets.”

The case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, and Second Amendment activists are hopeful the high court majority slaps down the “good cause” requirement imposed by New York politicians more than 100 years ago to prevent private citizens from exercising their constitutionally enumerated right to bear arms.

“The last thing New York needs,” the New York Post editorial laments, “is for every Tom, Dick and Harriet on the street to be carrying.”

As it currently stands, there are a lot of people carrying guns on New York streets—illegally, under existing law—and the Post overlooks the obvious: Many, if not most of them are part of the criminal element, while the rest have decided to chance an arrest simply because they’ve decided to be responsible for their own safety, regardless the restriction.

Reaction to Politico’s earth-shaking report from the media has bordered on hysteria in some cases, and in others, it might be considered hysterical, in a humorous way.

As reported by Fox News, MSNBC political analyst Juanita Toliver declared, “I can’t shake the fact that Justice Sotomayor let us know that this was the direction the court was headed when they ruled to allow SBA to go into effect. When she said the justices were essentially digging their heads in the sand, they were ignoring decades and decade of precedent…And honestly, at this point, I think we’re all right to question the legitimacy of the court for doing that, for ignoring decades of precedent.”

Would there be the same concern regarding the Dred Scott ruling?

If the Court does come down hard on New York, similar laws in seven other states would be almost certainly nullified, advancing the cause of full Second Amendment restoration in the process.

Chief Justice John Roberts may have put the debate over gun rights into its proper perspective when, during questioning (recalled in the Post editorial), he wondered, “You don’t have to say, when you’re looking for a permit to speak on a street corner or whatever, that, you know, your speech is particularly important. So why do you have to show — in this case, convince somebody — that you’re entitled to exercise your Second Amendment right?”

Rights are rights, not government-regulated privileges, say Second Amendment advocates. Rights spelled out specifically in the Bill of Rights, and protected (not invented) by the Constitution, are special. All rights are equal; one is no less important than the other. They should not be subject to popularity contests or political machinations.

The country will see how far the Roberts Court chooses to take that philosophy in about eight weeks.

Why would you expect any of them to be less than despicable?

BLUF:
Jen Psaki and the White House silence on this is shameful. It’s abhorrent. But Jen doesn’t care if the protests are violent or ‘fiery but mostly peaceful’. She’s stepping down, so it’s Margarita time for her before she starts her new gig at MSNBC!

Psaki’s Shameful Refusal To Condemn Protests At Justices Homes.

The WH is covering itself with glory these days. At issue is the Jen Psaki’s shameful refusal to condemn protests at the homes of Supreme Court justices.

As Deanna wrote yesterday, a group of protestors has specifically targeted the homes of the Supreme Court justices who are listed on the DRAFT of the potential Dobbs vs Mississippi ruling.

It’s been fascinating to watch and see how many on all sides of the aisle insist that Roe v Wade is settled law legalizing abortion on the federal level. When it isn’t. Furthermore, there is no federal law in place!

So, the shameful insistence by politicians and media that women will die because of a possible ruling is solely to stoke the flames of those on the fringe. Elizabeth, Not an Indian, Warren nearly blew blood vessels with her screeching diatribe the other day. It was awesomely cringy.

Meanwhile, supposedly, with Chuck Schumer in the lead, there’s a chance for federal legislation otherwise women’s choice will disappear completely.

The impending ruling could significantly change the midterm campaign conversation that currently favors Republicans. The big issue up to this point has been rising consumer prices, including for gasoline and groceries. Despite significant gains in employment during Joe Biden’s presidency, inflation has become a key issue for voters unhappy with his presidency. The fight over abortion rights likely won’t surpass economic concerns but it will move quickly up the charts now that there is a direct threat to reproductive freedom. GOP candidates who want to talk about inflation will be forced to explain their hostility to privacy, which will not be easy to do for a party that espouses personal freedom.

The emergence of the abortion rights fight could also cure the case of apathy that now afflicts the Democratic base.

First, the supposed employment gains won’t move the needle as inflation is at a 40 year high and is slated to continue rising.

Secondly, as we keep reiterating, this draft advocates to move abortion law BACK to where it belongs, the state level. Women want to keep their “reproductive freedom” intact? Work with your state legislature to get it done. Or just continue to whine about the lack of plans on the federal level.

While Democrat after Democrat has cried out over the possibility a conservative Supreme Court could eviscerate abortion rights, strategists say little is being offered in terms of a clear way to fight back.

Some also say the party wasn’t ready for something that was clearly coming down the pike.

“Why are we so behind the curve on this? Where is the plan? We knew this was coming in theory since Coney Barrett joined the court, and in practice since December,” said Democratic strategist Christy Setzer.

“I don’t want to hear empty rhetoric about how ‘we won’t go back,’ I want to hear that there is a legislative or federal plan to change things,” she added.

Going back to the previous quote. The hard left Democrats want action by Congress to have the right to abortion from conception to birth federalized. So much so that they will make hateful statements on social media and happily protest when and where they can without regard to the consequences. Which, in Virginia is a crime. 

When faced with questions about the planned protests, the WH shameful refusal to disavow those protests gives encouragement to the hard left.

Jen Psaki, by her statements, is definitely a fan of these protests.

 

 

She didn’t outright condemn these planned protests. Which is an implicit ‘silence is consent’ action here. Furthermore, Jen went on to claim all of this is a distraction.

 

 

Please pay attention to the draft, ignore that it was leaked, and by all means, conduct your protest in any manner you wish! Psaki, the WH, and Biden won’t say a word!

 

 

We are supposed to believe that the group sending protestors to the homes of SCOTUS justices will be peaceful and they’ll only be wandering the streets kind of near their homes. Except that putting a GPS pin in place DOES give the addresses! Yet Biden tells us that MAGA folks are the extremists??

Jen Psaki and the White House silence on this is shameful. It’s abhorrent. But Jen doesn’t care if the protests are violent or ‘fiery but mostly peaceful. She’s stepping down, so it’s Margarita time for her before she starts her new gig at MSNBC!

Protests at Supreme Court Justice’s Homes are Crimes

If you’ve never been to Goochland, Virginia, you’re missing out.In Goochland, there is a large residential facility with free medical care, free college courses, and wellness programs for visitors including ” thinking for a change.”
You might just win a free trip if you follow through on the threat to “protest at Supreme Court Justice’s homes.” The Virginia Correctional Facility for Woman in Goochland awaits anyone who acts out their rage and shows up out of control at a Supreme Court Justice’s residence in response to the unethical and unprecedented leak of a draft opinion in the Dobbs abortion case.

The people of Virginia have decided that it is a crime to protest at a Virginian’s home.

Virginia Code Section 18.2-418 states:

It is hereby declared that the protection and preservation of the home is the keystone of democratic government; that the public health and welfare and the good order of the community require that members of the community enjoy in their homes a feeling of well-being, tranquility, and privacy, and when absent from their homes carry with them the sense of security inherent in the assurance that they may return to the enjoyment of their homes

In other words, civil society benefits by keeping homes about family, friends, peace and not clowns in Handmaid costumes.  If you show up and protest a Supreme Court Justice near their home, you are committing a crime in Virginia.

And most of the Justices with any sense live in Virginia.  More:

that the practice of picketing before or about residences and dwelling places causes emotional disturbance and distress to the occupants; that such practice has as its object the harassing of such occupants; and without resort to such practice, full opportunity exists, and under the terms and provisions of this article will continue to exist, for the exercise of freedom of speech and other constitutional rights

Police can arrest protesters at Supreme Court Justices homes in Virginia.  Virginia Code 18.2-419:

Any person who shall engage in picketing before or about the residence or dwelling place of any individual, or who shall assemble with another person or persons in a manner which disrupts or threatens to disrupt any individual’s right to tranquility in his home, shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor. Each day on which a violation of this section occurs shall constitute a separate offense.

Last, Virginia courts are given the power to stop all protests at a Virginian’s home.  Better yet, courts have the power to award punitive damages against any protester who violates this Virginia law. Again, Section 419:

Notwithstanding the penalties herein provided, any court of general equity jurisdiction may enjoin conduct, or threatened conduct, proscribed by this article, and may in any such proceeding award damages, including punitive damages, against the persons found guilty of actions made unlawful by this section.

The left is blowing through the firewalls of decency.  They have promised protests at Catholic Churches this weekend. They have vandalized other churches. They have behaved like other monsters throughout history who despise democratic institutions. There is no doubt more unhinged behavior to come. At least in the Commonwealth of Virginia, consequences can follow.

“Great preservation of those democratic norms.”

 

18 US Code § 115

(a)

(1)Whoever—

(A)

assaults, kidnaps, or murders, or attempts or conspires to kidnap or murder, or threatens to assault, kidnap or murder a member of the immediate family of a United States official, a United States judge, a Federal law enforcement officer, or an official whose killing would be a crime under section 1114 of this title; or

(B)

threatens to assault, kidnap, or murder, a United States official, a United States judge, a Federal law enforcement officer, or an official whose killing would be a crime under such section,
with intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere with such official, judge, or law enforcement officer while engaged in the performance of official duties, or with intent to retaliate against such official, judge, or law enforcement officer on account of the performance of official duties, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

Continue reading “”

Live By The Court, Die By The Court

Well, this SCOTUS leak about Roe v. Wade has really livened things up. I think we might even have a new Current Thing on our hands, and will now be moving on from Ukraine, which of course became the Current Thing right after … well, I can’t quite recall … but it was very important.

It remains to be seen, of course, what the Court will do. If the Nine have in fact already decided the case, and were just fussing with drafts of the majority opinion, it seems unlikely that they’ll change their minds just because the leaked ruling happened to start a civil war, which it might well do. (With John Roberts in charge, however, you never know.)

As a detached observer, I have to ask: If the two most important things in the moral universe are Democracy and abortion law, why is it a catastrophe when the Court decides that abortion law should be determined democratically? All that the Court has said in the leaked opinion is, in effect, this:

“You folks seem to care a very great deal about the sovereignty of the people. Very well, then — if you really are fit to rule yourselves, here is a vexatiously difficult question upon which the Constitution is silent, and which, therefore, must be decided by the sovereign power of the nation. (That’s you, the People, in case you haven’t been following along, you knuckleheads!) We were wrong to take this sovereign power away from you back in ’73, and so now we’re giving it back to you.

Happy Democracy! Mind how you go.”

The response to all this, however, from the ironically named Democrats, has been to explode with anger that such an important issue might actually have to be worked out in a democratic fashion, by things like debating and voting. And perhaps that’s reasonable, because we don’t do any of that very well at all anymore; it seems that we are actually rather farther along in the great cycle of Polybius than the people running things would care to admit.

So, here we are, America: you’ve been doing a lot of yelling about “MUH DEMOCRACY” lately, and now it looks like you’re about to be served up a heaping helping of it. If you don’t really want it after all, that’s, fine — but in that case I think we’d be glad if you would please shut the hell up about it.

These elite lawyers are supposed to be sooooo smart. From what I’ve seen, they’re no more smarter, intelligent, or possess any more common sense than the average man on the street.

John Roberts’ Cowardice On Obamacare Is Why The Left Thinks It Can Bully and Extort SCOTUS.

In a matter of hours, Washington D.C. and the political world have erupted in chaos. On Monday evening, Politico published a report of an alleged leaked draft of a majority U.S. Supreme Court decision that would strike down Roe v. Wade, the 1973 court case that federally legalized abortion in the United States.

Writing for the majority in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Justice Samuel Alito’s alleged draft opinion describes the irrationality of the 1973 ruling, reportedly stating that “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start.”

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” writes Alito. “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

According to the bombshell report, the leak came from a “person familiar with the court’s deliberations,” with the source also claiming that “four of the other Republican-appointed justices – Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – had voted with Alito in the conference held among the justices after hearing oral arguments in December, and that line-up remains unchanged as of this week.”

Although the identity of the leaker currently remains unclear, this person’s intended goal is fairly obvious. In disseminating the alleged Dobbs opinion before its scheduled release, the leaker is seeking to generate a firestorm of vitriol from left-wing activists directed at the court’s Republican-appointed justices, in the hopes that some will switch their position before the final opinion is released.

While such tactics are despicable and completely destroy the long-held and respected inner workings of the high court, it’s not surprising given that previous public pressure campaigns have worked in swaying justices in other highly political cases, with Chief Justice John Roberts being the most notable.

In the 2012 NFIB v. Sebelius decision on Obamacare, for instance, Roberts joined the leftists on the court to uphold the Affordable Care Act (ACA), with the chief justice ruling that the federal government has the power to force citizens to purchase health insurance under its power to tax.

“The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part. The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause,” Roberts wrote. “In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.”

The faulty legal reasoning was not Roberts’ original position on the matter. According to “The Chief,” a book written by longtime SCOTUS reporter Joan Biskupic, Roberts initially had sided with his conservative colleagues in striking down Obamacare, “on the grounds that it went beyond Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce.”

Fears over potential public blowback for such a decision, however, prompted Roberts to operate as a politician, with Biskupic noting how “he felt ‘torn between his heart and his head’” over striking down the ACA.

“After trying unsuccessfully to find a middle way with [Justice Anthony] Kennedy, who was ‘unusually firm’ and even ‘put off’ by the courtship, Roberts turned to the Court’s two moderate liberals, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan,” a review of the book published in The Atlantic reads. “The threesome negotiated a compromise decision that upheld the ACA’s individual mandate under Congress’s taxing power, while striking down the Medicaid expansion.”

The book seemingly confirms reporting from CBS News’ Jan Crawford, who in her 2012 story of Roberts’ Obamacare flip-flop noted how the chief justice “pays attention to media coverage” and “is sensitive to how the court is perceived by the public.”

While Roberts may have thought his last-minute switch to save Obamacare was a bid to maintain peace in politics, it actually did the exact opposite. Roberts’ spinelessness in the 2012 ACA decision was not only unconstitutional garbage, but it also revealed to the neo-Marxist left that the court can be influenced in high-profile cases if there’s enough public outcry waiting in the wings.

With the leak of the purported Dobbs opinion now public, Roberts’ actions have placed a target on the backs of his conservative colleagues, with threats of violence and harassment from leftists on the way. Whether he wants to believe it or not, his decision to play politician has jeopardized the independence of the court for years to come.

Second Amended Complaint Filed In NY Suit

Yesterday, the NY Attorney General filed a second amended complaint, which shifts the focus of her case and makes some new allegations. We’ve only had time to skim it (it’s over 170 pages long). It no longer seeks to dissolve NRA as a corporation. Hurrah! It does set out some new legal theories under the NY law governing trust relationships, which will be bad news for the individual defendants (LaPierre, Frazer, Powell and Phillips), since that allows suit for double damages for misappropriation of assets. It also asks, as a penalty, that they be required to reimburse NRA for all their salaries while they were misappropriating, plus interest. It also asks the appointment of two persons to oversee NRA, one to oversee the finances and another to oversee compliance with laws.

Major notes while skimming (page numbers to start each off):

Continue reading “”

The Irrational, Misguided Discourse Surrounding Supreme Court Controversies Such as Roe v. Wade.

*****

The Court, like the U.S. Constitution, was designed to be a limit on the excesses of democracy. Roe denied, not upheld, the rights of citizens to decide democratically………..

It was bizarre to watch liberals accuse the Court of acting undemocratically as they denounced the ability of ‘five unelected aristocrats’ — in the words of Vox’s Ian Millhiser — to decide the question of abortion rights.

Who do they think decided Roe in the first place?

Indeed, Millhiser’s argument here — unelected Supreme Court Justices have no business mucking around in abortion rights — is supremely ironic given that it was unelected judges who issued Roe back in 1973, in the process striking down numerous democratically elected laws.

Sen. Markey Is A Dangerous Insurrectionist — Says The Supreme Court Was ‘Stolen’!

The left’s freakout over a leaked draft of a Supreme Court opinion overturning Roe v. Wade is hardly surprising. It has a collective breakdown whenever it loses on an issue, even a trivial one. But what did surprise us was the radical, downright insurrectionist talk spewed by at least one Democrat.

The unprecedented leak of a draft of a Supreme Court opinion – apparently in hopes that it would somehow change the outcome – was a sign of the left’s unbalanced mental state. As soon as the leak hit the internet, protests erupted, calls for packing the court and ending the filibuster re-emerged, and the hyperbole gushed forth.

Case in point is the statement from the two Democratic congressional leaders. “The Supreme Court is poised to inflict the greatest restriction of rights in the past 50 years – not just on women but on all Americans,” they screeched, adding that overturning Roe would be “an abomination, one of the worst and most damaging decisions in modern history.”

What really caught our eye, however, was what Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey said:

“A stolen, illegitimate, and far-right Supreme Court majority appears set to destroy the right to abortion, an essential right which protects the health, safety, and freedom of millions of Americans. There is no other recourse. We must expand the court.”

Read those words carefully. Stolen. Illegitimate. What does Markey mean?

The current conservative majority on the court was the result of three appointments by duly elected President Donald Trump. Those appointments were each conducted by the book. The candidates were highly qualified. They were vetted by the Senate, which carried out its duty to advise and consent.

It was the left that deployed extreme, and arguably illegitimate, measures to block each of these nominees. Democrats tried to filibuster one, engaged in a despicable display of character assassination against another, and smeared the third.

So how, in Markey’s opinion, has the Court been “stolen” or can be called “illegitimate”?

Markey can only mean that Trump never should have been president. That his presidency was also stolen and illegitimate.

Whoa! That’s insurrectionist talk there!

If Markey were conservative, there’d be rending of garments, wailing and gnashing of teeth. He’s undermining democracy! He’s destroying people’s faith and trust in our institutions!! He’s inciting violence!!!

Markey would be made to answer for this abhorrent language, and his colleagues forced to say whether they condone it. And he’d be impeached if anyone took him at his word and in any way tried to stop the justices from issuing their decision.

None of that will happen, of course, because Markey is a liberal and liberals can say anything they want.

Just to be clear, we don’t think Markey is an insurrectionist who should be canceled. But what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

In the meantime, let’s consider the context of the left’s meltdown.

If Roe were overturned, abortion would not automatically be illegal across the nation. Instead, residents of 50 states would once again be free – as they were before Roe – to debate this issue and decide what laws and regulations they want regarding the killing of unborn babies. Some states, California, for one, have already pledged to remove any restrictions on abortion if Roe is overturned. Others will enact limits, stricter health and safety regulations, etc. Some might ban it entirely.

Guess what. That’s how it’s supposed to work.

As the draft opinion published by Politico states: “The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.”

In other words, overturning Roe will restore citizens’ rights, not strip them away. That’s what people like Markey find “illegitimate.”

BLUF:
This is not 1858. We are not on the precipice of a civil war. But it is not too soon to recognize this crisis for what it is, to admit that we cannot endure with half the country allowing the murder of the unborn and half outlawing it.Eventually, we will become all one thing or all the other.

Observation O’ The Day
Whenever the left feels they have lost control of an institution, they try to destroy it.

The Constitutional Crisis That Roe v. Wade Set In Motion Is Now Upon Us

The leak of a draft majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood — and with it our 50-year regime of legalized murder of the unborn — has rightly captured the nation’s attention. It is without question the most important news story in the country, and, if the draft decision stands, the most important political development in a generation.

But it is also more than these things. Whether the draft opinion stands or falls, this is a great moment of moral clarity for the nation — and a time of great peril. Now we see, as we rarely have over the past five decades, the severity of what Roe inaugurated in 1973 and Casey sustained in 1992.

By snatching the question of abortion from the American people and their elected representatives, and doing so with such shoddy jurisprudence that it has since distorted many other areas of constitutional law, Roe divided the nation and sowed the seeds of a constitutional crisis. The contours of that crisis are now coming into view.

What’s clear already is that the left is willing to destroy every institution of American civic life to preserve their abortion regime. The day after the leak, the president of the United States, a man who once pushed for a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe but has since surrendered to the demands of his party’s ascendent left wing, took the extraordinary step of weighing in on an undecided Supreme Court case. (While he was at it, he spouted exactly the kind of nonsense we have come to expect from him.)

He wasn’t alone. Nearly every leading Democrat made a statement about the case Tuesday. Some, like Sen. Elizabeth Warren in her breathless indignation, managed to be both pathetic and malevolent.

The upshot is that it seems Democrats, no less than their courtesans in the media, are prepared to use every available tool at their disposal to intimidate the Supreme Court and bend it to their will. It is not too much to say, as my colleague Mollie Hemingway did yesterday, that both the leak of the opinion and the ensuing reaction on the left amount to yet another insurrection attempt. This time the target is not the Donald Trump White House but the Supreme Court.

We know already that President Biden and the Democrats are willing to pack the court if they conclude they have lost control over it. They admitted as much during the 2020 election. “Packing the court” is just a euphemism for destroying it, as it would then become just another political branch of the federal government. This should not surprise us. Whenever the left feels they have lost control of an institution, they try to destroy it.

In addition to the Democrats’ political warfare, we’re seeing another powerful and familiar tool of the left emerge: the violent mob. As if on cue, a chorus arose Monday night and Tuesday morning among pro-abortion activists on Twitter that if Roe is overturned, they would “burn it all down.”

Such incendiary language might have once been considered figurative or rhetorical, but after the Black Lives Matter riots of 2020, we know they really mean it. When the decision comes down, if Roe is overturned, expect riots and worse. In the near-term, expect threats on the lives of the justices who vote with the majority.

Continue reading “”

Politico reports SCOTUS has voted to strike down Roe v. Wade according to leaked draft opinion by Justice Alito.

The Dobbs Supreme Court Leak

It’s shocking. Not that the Supreme Court would overturn Roe, but that someone would presumably leak a draft opinion (we don’t know if it is the current one) to change the ruling. Chief Justice John Roberts reverences the integrity of the Court. That a decision was leaked is abhorrent — and one so critical to who we are as a nation! Someone was trying to undermine constitutional law by leaking it.

The Court has been wrong for nearly 50 years about abortion. Some cheap stunt should not change matters.

As a friend texted me tonight:

Pray that the Chief is maddened by the leak, investigates, but also stays true to this opinion.

There’s such a lack of confidence in institutions, and this leak will only serve to make matters worse. This is a bullying move. The Court should not succumb to bullies. It should investigate and make clear what a violation of confidence this was. This was an attempt to manipulate the Court and should be universally condemned.

I pray the result is to simply soften the blow in public opinion. The New York Times editorialized the weekend before Dobbs was argued spinning an overthrow of Roe as a win for the pro-abortion side — saying it would be an opportunity to make clear that the people want unlimited abortion. Polls consistently tell us they don’t. States such as New York will continue the evil and then some, but human rights will prevail elsewhere.

This is an awful time to be a Supreme Court justice. Pray for them all.

Also: Thank God for Justice Alito!

 

SCOTUS unanimously rules Boston violated group’s rights by refusing to fly Christian flag
SCOTUS said Boston violated the Camp’s free speech rights

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a program of the city of Boston that allows outside groups to fly flags at city hall must permit the flying of flag with a cross that a camp referred to as a “Christian flag.”

The question before the court was whether flying the flag as part of a government program was considered government speech if the flag belonged to a private organization, in this case, Camp Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that it is not.

“We conclude that, on balance, Boston did not make the raising and flying of private groups’ flags a form of government speech,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the court’s opinion, stating that as a result the city improperly violated Camp Constitution’s free speech rights.

Continue reading “”

San Jose hit with second lawsuit over new gun control laws

The mandatory tax and insurance liability requirements San Jose is imposing on legal gun owners won’t take effect until August of this year, but the lawsuits seeking to overturn the new ordinances are already starting to pile up. The Firearms Policy Coalition launched a legal challenge against the ordinances on Tuesday of this week, becoming the second gun rights organization to try to overturn the new laws before they’re enforced.

San Jose’s gun owner insurance requirement is a “demonstrable attack” on Americans’ right to keep and bear arms, said FPC vice president of programs Adam Kraut.

“Governments cannot run roughshod over the constitutional rights of their people simply because they do not care for the rights they choose to exercise,” Kraut said.
FPC’s lawsuit seeks a judgment declaring the ordinance unconstitutional to prevent the city from enforcing it.
FPC attorneys asserted that the ordinance will not improve public safety, nor reduce gun violence.

“It will only burden those who already follow all firearm laws. Even city officials admit that, ‘of course, criminals won’t obey insurance or fee mandates,’” the lawsuit states.

“It is unfathomable to think that the elected officials of San Jose believed such an ordinance would survive a constitutional challenge, particularly when they admit that criminals will not obey the mandates contained within, leaving only the peaceable people of San Jose to be burdened by the ineptness of its government,” Kraut said.

The lawsuit, known as Glass v. San Jose, argues that not only do the insurance mandate and fee violate the Second Amendment rights of city residents, they infringe on their First Amendment rights as well.

The Ordinance directs the City Manager to designate a nonprofit organization that will spend firearm owners’ money on “programs and initiatives” to “mitigate” the supposed “risk” of the “possession of firearms.”

The fee provision thus forces firearm owners to associate with an organization of the City’s choosing and subsidize expressive activities of the organization’s choosing, in violation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Janus v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees.

Mayor Sam Liccardo may not see a problem with forcing gun owners to pay a fee to a third-party group that will be pushing anti-gun talking points, but hopefully the courts will keep SCOTUS precedent in mind as they consider the constitutionality of the city’s new ordinances.

As for the insurance mandate, FPC argues in its filing that it, along with the annual fee on gun owners, is a clear infringement on our right to keep and bear arms.

Neither provision is based in any “historical tradition” of firearm regulation. Heller, 554 U.S. at 626–28. City officials have themselves touted the Ordinance as the first of its kind. See Ex. A at 3. As such, the Ordinance is categorically invalid under Heller.

Even if the Ordinance were instead subject to means-ends scrutiny, it still violates the Second Amendment. The fee and insurance provisions directly and substantially burden the core Second Amendment right to possess firearms for self-defense and other lawful purposes.

The Ordinance should therefore be subjected to strict scrutiny. In any event, it is at least subject to heightened scrutiny under the standard currently operative in the Ninth Circuit. See, e.g., United States v. Chovan, 735 F.3d 1127, 1137 (9th Cir. 2013). And the Ordinance fails any level of heightened scrutiny.

Neither the fee nor the insurance provision is tailored, narrowly or otherwise, to the City’s apparent goal of reducing gun violence and its associated costs. As seen above, none of the evidence before the City, and incorporated in the Ordinance’s recitals and findings, suggested that Ordinance would have that effect.

FPC points out that the provisions of the ordinance apply only to legal gun owners, and despite the claims of city officials that the funds raised by the annual “fee” on gun ownership will go directly to fund anti-violence initiatives, the 2A org argues that the funds won’t be used to  “defray any of the municipal costs” of gun-involved crime in the city. Instead the ordinance “singles out already law-abiding citizens to pay for anticipated services that they do not need, that are largely unrelated to safe firearm ownership, and that are thus unlikely to reduce such costs..”

The fee and insurance provisions thus fail to serve their purported purpose. This failure confirms what City officials have already implied: that the Ordinance’s actual purpose is to reduce firearm ownership by increasing deterrent costs, creating a pretext for confiscating firearms and outsourcing firearm regulation to private insurers, apparently in the hope that they will regulate firearm owners in ways that the City is unwilling or constitutionally unable to do itself.

That’s exactly right. San Jose’s ordinances aren’t designed to make life a little harder on violent criminals. The provisions target legal gun owners with pretty severe consequences, including the seizure of lawfully-owned firearms, if they don’t cough up cash to the city (or the third party organization that will collect the fees) and insurance companies for the “privilege” of exercising their Second Amendment rights.

It’s akin to a Second Amendment poll tax, and even in California, I’d like to believe this will be a bridge too far for the legal system to condone. But since this is California we’re talking about, it could be a long and winding road to the Supreme Court before San Jose’s anti-Second Amendment ordinance is finally stripped from the local law books.

Missouri Supreme Court lets Jackson County, St. Louis challenge controversial gun law

The Missouri Supreme Court sent a case involving the Second Amendment Preservation Act back to a lower court on Tuesday. The ruling lets St. Louis and Jackson County argue that the law, which prevents police in Missouri from cooperating with federal officials to enforce gun regulations, is unconstitutional.

In a 6-1 decision, Missouri’s highest court sent a case about the Second Amendment Preservation Act back to Cole County Circuit Court. That’s where St. Louis and Jackson County previously tried to persuade a judge to block the law without success.

SAPA prevents Missouri police from cooperating with federal officials who attempt to enforce gun laws or regulations that are seen as an infringement on the Second Amendment right to bear arms. It allows anyone who believes their rights have been violated to sue police departments for up to $50,000.

SAPA has been widely criticized by law enforcement throughout the state who say the law complicates police work.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms said in a brief the law has caused 12 Missouri law enforcement agencies to end their partnerships with the bureau. The brief also stated the Missouri State Highway Patrol stopped participating in some federal investigations after the law was enacted. The Justice Department has also sharply criticized the law.

During oral arguments in February, Missouri Solicitor General D. John Sauer said the court didn’t need to hear the case yet because St. Louis and Jackson County did not argue the constitutionality of SAPA in the Cole County Court case.

The Missouri Supreme Court ruled that St. Louis and Jackson County can argue whether SAPA is legal, but must first have that argument in front of a Cole County judge before the state’s high court will consider the issue.

In a statement Tuesday, St. Louis City, Jackson County and St. Louis County lauded the court’s decision, calling the law, which passed as House Bill 85, “dangerous” and “blatantly unconstitutional.”

“Municipalities and law enforcement groups across Missouri are coming together to challenge HB 85, which takes away critical tools we need to protect communities from gun violence,” the statement read.

Judge Zel Fischer dissented, writing he would affirm the circuit court’s judgment to throw out the case and argued the challengers can challenge the law through other pending lawsuits.

How an unknown high school football coach landed in the center of a Supreme Court religious liberty case

BREMERTON, Wash. — Former Bremerton High School assistant football coach Joseph Kennedy says he never wanted to become a symbol of the religious right, or to have his name mentioned by political figures including Sen. Ted Cruz and former President Donald Trump.

All he wanted, he says, was to connect with young people by coaching football, and to connect with God by saying a brief midfield prayer after each game.

“I’d take a knee and thank God for what the guys just did and the opportunity to be a coach,” Kennedy told ESPN, adding: “I wanted to hang out with my players and develop these young men.”

Yet the 52-year-old finds himself out of coaching and in the midst of a raging legal battle ignited when he insisted on taking a knee at midfield to pray after games, often with students. Bremerton public school officials removed him from his job in 2015 after he refused to stop his on-field prayers, which they said violated the Constitution’s prohibition against government endorsement of religion.

“The coach is a mixture of fear and awe. And you want in with the coach. You want playing time. You don’t want the bench,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which is representing the school board. She added: “It is a slippery slope to religion being used to discriminate and exclude.”

Kennedy sued, and over the past seven years his case has wound its way from this blue-collar, military town across the Puget Sound from Seattle to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case thrust Kennedy, a former Marine who only reluctantly signed on to help coach a mediocre high school football team, into what legal analysts see as potentially one of the most consequential cases in recent years testing the separation of church and state.

The question before the Supreme Court is whether Kennedy’s on-field prayers are protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty, or whether they violate the First Amendment by promoting his religion. The justices are scheduled to hear oral arguments Monday and issue an opinion by late June.

Continue reading “”

Arizona Judge Dismisses Lawsuits Aimed at Disqualifying Reps. Gosar, Biggs

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours)

An Arizona judge has tossed lawsuits that attempted to disqualify Reps. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) and Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) from holding office.

The suits, which also took aim at state Rep. Mark Finchem, a Republican, failed because the U.S. Constitution does not provide for private action to enforce Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, Superior Court Judge Christopher Coury ruled.

The section, known as the Disqualification Clause, says that no person shall hold a federal office if they “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the government.

Two groups linked to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a self-described socialist, filed the complaints, claiming that Gosar, Biggs, and Finchem violated the clause because they “helped facilitate” the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol.

But the clause clearly states that Congress is the body that has the power to enforce the section, a determination also outlined in one of the few cases that deal with it, Coury said.

“Congress has not created a civil private right of action to allow a citizen to enforce the Disqualification Clause by having a person declared to be ‘not qualified’ to hold public office,” the judge ruled.

Continue reading “”

Anti-Gunners Are Trying to Decide Just How Bad the Ruling in NYSRPA v. Bruen Will Be

You wouldn’t think that you could write an article about the potential outcomes of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen without talking to at least one person on the plaintiffs’ side of the case, but the hacks at Fast Company managed to do just that.

Even if the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, it’s hard to predict how broad its decision may be. A narrow ruling could involve striking down the “proper cause” requirement for a permit. New York would struggle to restrict guns in public, and may have to start issuing concealed carry permits. The ruling may also extend to the remaining nine may-issue states, including California, Maryland, and Massachusetts, at a time when gun violence is rising across the U.S. Still, this is the best-case scenario.
 
If the ruling is more expansive, it could ditch the entire public-safety framework that lower courts have been using to uphold carry restrictions. It could provide a whole new basis for future decisions—on all kinds of gun regulation lawsuits currently in limbo, and supported by the gun lobby, relating to assault weapons bans, large-magazine bans, and the minimum age for the sale of handguns. They could fundamentally redefine the Second Amendment and change America’s gun laws.

“That could be a really devastating decision that could have wide-ranging—and I think, not currently fathomable—impacts,” [Giffords Law Center deputy chief counsel David] Pucino says. “Because, it potentially could mean that every gun law on the books is called into question.”

Arizona Judge Throws Out Lawsuit to Erase Gosar, Biggs, And Finchem From Ballot

An Arizona judge dismissed a lawsuit Friday that sought to bar three Republicans from appearing on the November ballot because they took part in the rally at the White House Ellipse on Jan. 6, 2021, before the Capitol riot.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Christopher Coury determined the plaintiffs did not have the grounds to sue in the case as they requested but refrained from ruling on the merits of their allegations.

“Congress has not created a civil private right of action to allow a citizen to enforce the Disqualification Clause by having a person declared to be ‘not qualified’ to hold public office,” Coury wrote. “This ruling neither validates nor disproves Plaintiffs’ allegations against the Candidates. The Court expressly is not reaching the merits of the factual allegations in this case.”

The lawsuit was brought forth by lawyers from a voting rights group who contended Rep. Paul Gosar, Rep. Andy Biggs, and state Rep. Mark Finchem should be prohibited from running because they violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The provision bars elected officials in Congress from engaging in an insurrection or rebellion.

Neither of the three individuals is known to have participated in the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol, but the lawsuit claimed they advocated to overthrow the United States government and cited their presence or involvement in the preceding rally as evidence.

Similar lawsuits have targeted key Republican figures such as Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who gave testimony Friday in a case aimed at taking her off the ballot for similar reasons. Some activists in North Carolina have tried to get Rep. Madison Cawthorn booted from the ballot as well, but a judge tossed out a major case in that venture last month.

Gosar noted the case against Greene when he took a victory lap on Twitter following Coury’s dismissal. Both Gosar and Biggs are running for reelection in the House during the midterm elections. Finchem is running to become Arizona’s secretary of state.

In his ruling, Coury included a footnote that emphasized that Gosar and fellow defendants could be subject to future legal scrutiny for their involvement in the events of Jan. 6.

“To be clear, it is a mistake to conclude that the Court is opining that the Candidates’ involvement in the events of January 6, 2021, never can be subject to any judicial review. This decision should not be misconstrued in this way,” he wrote. “Irrespective of this decision, there ultimately will be a different trial for each Candidate: one decided by Arizona voters who will have the final voice about whether each Candidate should, or should not, serve in elective office.”