SCOTUS judges in conclave

Scraped from Patriot Post.

SCOTUS unanimously backs deportation of failed asylum-seekers

Douglas Humberto Urias-Orellana, his wife Sayra Iliana Gamez-Mejia, and their minor child are citizens of El Salvadoran who entered the US of A "without authorization" -- read: illegally -- in 2021, then claimed asylum.

An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied their applications and ordered their removal -- read: deportation -- determining that they had neither demonstrated past "persecution" nor established a "well-founded fear" of future "persecution" as required under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

After unsuccessfully challenging their removal order with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), the Latinx sought review in federal court. The Court of Appeals affirmed the BIA’s ruling, holding that "substantial evidence" supported the agency's determination that there was not a reasonable fear of persecution, and the family should therefore be deported.

But Sr Urias-Orellana did not give up so easily. Funded by American taxpayers, he and his wife and child appealed all the way to the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). Much to his chagrin -- and the surprise of the supporters of open borders -- SCOTUS, in a decision released yesterday, unanimously affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Ironically, the 9-0 decisiion was written by the court's most left-wing judge, Biden appointee Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. It will be now used to handcuff liberal judges who want to help the growing number of migrants who lose their asylum pleas at the Justice Department.

The unanimous in Urias–Orellana v. Bondi is a win for the Trump administration. It means that millions of migrants will face even tougher pressure to leave the United States, especially after they are arrested by ICE. 

It will be a big help to those charged with stemming the flood of illegal immigrants as they try to boost the number of self-deportations and ICE deportations. In December, 38% of the migrants detained by ICE chose to go home rather than file lawsuits to stay in the United States. Walt hopes those that are still here are paying attention!

The wrong way to do it

I'll tell you who's not listening. In a story headlined, "Failed asylum seeker families to be offered up to £40k to leave UK", the BBC reports that families of failed asylum seekers will be offered up to £40,000 to leave the Disunited Kingdom under a trial scheme announced today.

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood [What part of Ireland do you think she's from? Ed.] said the leftist Labour government would seek to forcibly remove failed asylum seekers if they do not accept "incentive payments" of up to £10,000 per person, capped at four per family, within seven days. 

The scheme is expected to target about 150 families living in taxpayer-funded accommodation, and the Home Office estimates it could save £20 million if successful. However, the Conservatives and Reform UK said the payments would incentivise people to come to the UK illegally.

President Trump reacts to SCOTUS tariff decision

VIDEO: "way out of her league": Victor Davis Hanson on KBJ

Are we really to believe that black (or Black, if you like) people are "disabled"? Really? That's what SCOTUS Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson says in her argument for redistricting (read: gerrymandering) that will creatge more black majority districts, so there'll be more POCs in Congress, yada yada yada, Black Power, yada yada yada. Is she serious? 

On today’s episode of "Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words", Victor and Jack discuss how a recent Supreme Court oral argument reminds us just how “out of her depth” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson truly is.

But that's not all. If you're still making up your mind about watching, you really should, if only to hear about the true "brilliance" behind Sen. John Fetterman’s PR strategy. But wait (as Vice Offer used to say), there's more. You'll also hear why the Left now trying to "cancel" Taylor Swift, because she wants to have a baby. What's wrong with that? Mr Hanson explains.

The key point of today's discussion, IMHO, comes almost at the end, around the 65 minure mark. Mr Hanson argues that the sick society we live in now is a classic example of "civilizational regression". Keep that phrase in mind. The question before us is: can civilizational regression be stopped? The likely answer is cringe-worthy.

VIDEO: SCOTUS rules Trump DOES have (limited) immunity!

The United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of former President Donald Trump on Monday, holding in Trump v United States, a 6-3 decision, that presidents are covered by limited immunity from criminal prosecutions for actions taken while in office. Here's the report from Fox News.

This momentous decision has the Dems and their liberal fellow-travellers tearing their hair out. Well, not Rob Reiner, of course. Big win for the Donald. Four months until Liberation Day.

"Major blow to democracy"

Click here to read the article. Thanks to Agent 3 for passing this along.

9-0

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled today that Colorado cannot disqualify former President Donald Trump from appearing on the 2024 ballot. The ruling was unanimous, including all three liberal justices. 

SCOTUS said only Congress can disqualify a candidate from the ballot using the Fourteenth Amendment's "Insurrection Clause". 

Their ruling overturned December's 4-3 opinion of the Colorado Supreme Court that the provision prohibits President Donald Trump from appearing on the ballot for the presidency in 2024. 

As well, today's ruling partially reversed a prior ruling in November that President Trump is not an officer of the United States as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment and that the Amendment therefore cannot be used to disqualify him from appearing on the Colorado primary ballot. 

The court wrote: 

Proposed by Congress in 1866 and ratified by the States in 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment expanded federal power at the expense of state autonomy and thus fundamentally altered the balance of state and federal power struck by the Constitution. […] 

Section 3 works by imposing on certain individuals a preventive and severe penalty—disqualification from holding a wide array of offices—rather than by granting rights to all. It is therefore necessary, as Chief Justice Chase concluded and the Colorado Supreme Court itself recognized, to ‘ascertain what particular individuals are embraced’ by the provision. […] 

Chase went on to explain that to accomplish this ascertainment and ensure effective results, proceedings, evidence, decisions, and enforcements of decisions, more or less formal, are indispensable. […] 

The Constitution empowers Congress to prescribe how those determinations should be made. The relevant provision is Section 5, which enables Congress, subject of course to judicial review, to pass “appropriate legislation” to “enforce” the Fourteenth Amendment. […] 

The court went on to note that Congress did so by passing the Enforcement Act of 1870. 

This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency. […] 

Granting the States that authority would invert the Fourteenth Amendment’s rebalancing of federal and state power. […] 

Nor have the respondents identified any tradition of state enforcement of Section 3 against federal officeholders or candidates in the years following ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such a lack of historical precedent is generally a telling indication of a severe constitutional problem with the asserted power. […] 

The patchwork that would likely result from state enforcement would sever the direct link that the Framers found so critical between the National Government and the people of the United States as a whole. […] 

The liberal justices referred to above -- Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson -- filed a separate opinion concurring in the judgment that no state can disqualify a federal candidate from the ballot.

And that, my dear liberal friends, is that. Your effort to get the courts steal the 2024 election for you has failed. That's all ye know and all ye need to know.

I'll return on the Day After Super Tuesday.

ANOTHER great day for America! SCOTUS rules freedom of speech trumps LGBTetc "rights"

Today is a great day for America! This morning, the Supreme Court released its judgment in the case of Lori Smith, an Evangelical Christian web designer in Colorado who refused to create websites to celebrate same-sex weddings, contrary to her religious beliefs. The basis for the ruling is that to force her to affirm the queer lifestyle would violate her rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution.

The case, 300 Creative LLC v. Elenis et al., was decided by 6-3 majority, with all of the Court's male, Republican appointees siding with the website designer. All three of the female Democratic appointees dissented.

Ms Smith wanted to expand her web design business, 303 Creative,  to create wedding websites to express "God's design for marriage as a union between one man and one woman." She also wanted to post a message on her website saying same-sex marriage is "a story about marriage that contradicts God’s true story of marriage." 

For some reason (!) Ms Smith feared that message would run afoul of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law, so she filed for a declaratory judgment. She lost in the lower and federal appeals courts, but then appealed to SCOTUS, which held that "The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees."

The majority opinion was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, who issued the 2014 Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores decision as an appellate judge, and often writes for the court in religious liberty cases.

The dissent was written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who, as Walt told you yesterday, admits to being an affirmative action appointee.

The case picks up the argument over the First Amendment and same-sex "marriage" where SCOTUS left off in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a 2018 decision in which the Court sided with a Christian baker who did not want to prepare a cake for a same-sex "wedding". As that decision was largely on procedural grounds, the Court did not decide the question of whether the baker could be compelled to join in the celebration of "gay marriage".

The issue in 300 Creative is slightly different, because it involves the actual expression of words. Ms Smith said she would have been happy to work for same-sex couples, but not to create messages that conflicted with her own Christian faith.

Justice Gorsuch reviewed the history of the Court’s jurisprudence on freedom of expression and association. He then gave reasons for the Court's ruling, summarized here. [Citations of previous cases are omitted. Click here to read the full text of the ruling.]

[T]he First Amendment protects an individual’s right to speak his mind regardless of whether the government considers his speech sensible and well intentioned or deeply “misguided,” … and likely to cause “anguish” or “incalculable grief.” … Equally, the First Amendment protects acts of expressive association. …

Generally, too, the government may not compel a person to speak its own preferred messages. …Nor does it matter whether the government seeks to compel a person to speak its message when he would prefer to remain silent or to force an individual to include other ideas with his own speech that he would prefer not to include. … All that offends the First Amendment just the same. … 

Consider what a contrary approach would mean. Under Colorado's logic, the government may compel anyone who speaks for pay on a given topic to accept all commissions on that same topic — no matter the underlying message — if the topic somehow implicates a customer’s statutorily protected trait.

Taken seriously, that principle would allow the government to force all manner of artists, speechwriters, and others whose services involve speech to speak what they do not believe on pain of penalty. The government could require "an unwilling Muslim movie director to make a film with a Zionist message," or "an atheist muralist to accept a commission celebrating Evangelical zeal," so long as they would make films or murals for other members of the public with different messages. … Equally, the government could force a male website designer married to another man to design websites for an organization that advocates against same-sex marriage. … 

Of course, abiding the Constitution’s commitment to the freedom of speech means all of us will encounter ideas we consider "unattractive," … "misguided, or even hurtful." …. But tolerance, not coercion, is our Nation’s answer. The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. 

While laws against discrimination in places of public accommodation were important, Justice Gorsuch wrote, they did not violate fundamental civil liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights. 

Hooray for the judge, and long live free speech! Try to make me write pro-queer propaganda for WWW! I dare ya. I double-dare ya!

VIDEO: Thomas Sowell told the truth about affirmative action in college admissions... 33 years ago!

As Walt told you in "SCOTUS bans racial discrimination in college admissions", today was a great day for America! President Trump said so and Walt agrees, not just because The Donald said it, but because the decision corrects an injustice that has been perpetuated in the name of "social justice" (more recently "DEI" -- "diversity, equity and inclusion") for decades.

Thomas Sowell, an American economist, author, and social commentator, and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, recognized and talked about the unintended negative consequences of affirmative action 23 years ago.

This video is clipped from a C-SPAN Booknotes interview on 10 June 1990. Dr Sowell, while discussing his book Preferential Policies: An International Perspective, explained how affirmative action and campus ideologues create a vicious cycle of black student failure and resentment by both blacks and whites. Give a listen.

 

A brief history of the affirmative action debate.

Affirmative action has its pros and cons. [Some say affirmative action is itself a "con". Ed.] The issue has been hotly debated since the 1970s, when colleges and universities on the east and west coast, in a paroxysm of white liberal guilt, started to give priority to applicants for admission whose SAT scores were lower than others because the tests were Eurocentric, racist, yada yada yada.

Thet issue had been canvassed by the Supreme Court for half a century (!), and until now SCOTUS has geneally upheld affirmative action (read: reverse discrimination), with some limits. Racial quotas that reserve a certain number of seats for minority students have been deemed unconstitutional, but the court has said colleges can consider race as long as it's one of many factors in the decision. 

Prospective students' race can be used as a "plus factor" to give them an edge, said the court, can't be the defining factor. Schools must be able to show they consider race in a "narrowly tailored" way, because there is no "race-neutral" approach that would meet the same "compelling interest" in increasing student diversity.

That language comes from Grutter v. Bollinger, a 2003 Supreme Court decision which upheld admissions policies at the University of Michigan's law school. SCOTUS last examined affirmative action in 2016 -- 26 years after the publication of Dr Sowell's book -- when it upheld the admissions process at the University of Texas in a suit filed by a white Texan who was denied admission to the university

The lawsuits which were decided today were brought by Students for Fair Admissions, a Virginia-based group that says race should play no part in the admission process. The group argued that Harvard and the University of North Carolina intentionally discriminate against Asian-American applicants.

Examining six years of data at Harvard, the group found that-Asian American applicants had the strongest academics but were admitted at the lowest rates compared to students of other races. It also found that Harvard's admissions officers gave Asian Americans lower scores on a subjective "personal" rating designed to measure attributes such as likeability and kindness... as if these things were indicators of intelligence or the likelihood of academic success!

In 2019, a federal judge upheld Harvard's admissions practices, saying they were "not perfect" but not unconstituional. The judge said race-conscious practices always penalize groups that don’t get an advantage, but are justified "by the compelling interest in diversity" on college campuses. An appeals court upheld the ruling in 2020. 

Students for Fair Admission brought similar claims against UNC, saying its process disadvantages white and Asian-American students. A federal judge sided with the university last year. In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the group asked the Supreme Court to review both cases, and also to overturn Grutter v. Bollinger, saying it was impossible to construct a "narrowly tailored" approach which would not offend the equal rights provisions of the Constitution. 

The Supreme Court of the United States agreed at last! It's a great day for America!

SCOTUS bans racial discrimination in college admissions

Two former US presidents disagreed strongly on today's ruling by the Supreme Court striking down affirmative action in college admissons, declaring race cannot be a factor and forcing institutions of higher education to look for new ways to achieve diverse student bodies. President Donald Trump wrote on his social media network that the decision is "a great day for America. People with extraordinary ability and everything else necessary for success, including future greatness for our country, are finally being rewarded." 

His predecessor, President Barack Hussein Obama, wrote "Affirmative action was never a complete answer in the drive towards a more just society. But for generations of students who had been systematically excluded from most of America’s key institutions -- it gave us the chance to show we more than deserved a seat at the table." A little problem with the structure of that last sentence doesn't prove that the Prez was himself a beneficiary of reverse discrimination.

The SCOTUS decision to which the presidents referred His predecessor  overturned admissions policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, the nation’s oldest private and public colleges. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said that for too long universities have "concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice." 

In his concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas, who had long called for an end to affirmative action (and who happens to be black), said that the decision "sees the universities' admissions policies for what they are: rudderless, race-based preferences designed to ensure a particular racial mix in their entering classes."

Both Justice Thomas and Justice Sonia Sotomayor -- a Latina -- acknowledged that affirmative action played a role in their admissions to college and law school. They took the unusual step of reading a summary of their opinions aloud in the courtroom. In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sotomayor said the decision "rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress." 

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court's poster child for affirmative action, called the decision "truly a tragedy for us all." She took no took no part in the case against Harvard because she had been a member of an advisory governing board. In the UNC case, she wrote, "With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat. But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life."

The vote was 6-3 in the North Carolina case and 6-2 in the Harvard case. The third dissenter in the Harvard case was Justice (((Elena Kagan))). All six men on the Supreme Court joined in the majority decisions. 

Further reading: "Democrats Devastated As Supreme Court Bans Racism", from the Bablyon Bee (of course!), 29/6/23.

VIDEO coming later today: Thomas Sowell on the unintended consequences of affirmative action. 

VIDEO: Justice Alito disses wokesters, warns religious liberty in danger

The second annual Notre Dame Religious Liberty Summit, a project of  Notre Dame Law School's Religious Liberty Initiative, wrapped up in Rome a week ago. One of the featured speakers was Samuel Alito, an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. It was Justice Alito who wrote the majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade.

In international legal circles, it has long been considered impudent and incompetent for jurists to comment on the decisions of courts of other countries. Following the release of the Dobbs decision, several foreign politicians and celebrities took it upon themselves to decry it. They included Boris Johnson, Emmanuel Macron, Justin Trudeau, and the Duchess of Sussex's husband Harry.

Justice Alito got a lot of laughs mocking them, saying he "had the honour this term of writing I think the only Supreme Court decision in the history of that institution that has been lambasted by a whole string of foreign leaders who felt perfectly fine commenting on American law."

But, he said, "I’m not going to talk about cases from other countries. All I'm going to say is that, ultimately if we're going to win the battle to protect religious freedom in an increasingly secular society we will need more than positive law." That was the focus of his speech, which you can watch here.

 

The key point of Justice Alito's speech was his warning that religious liberty is "under attack in many places, because it is dangerous to those who want to hold complete power." The threats to religious liberty in many countries of Asia, Africa and the Middle East is obvious, but, the jurist said, in the USA, Europe and other economically advanced countries, the challenge is the increasing turning away from religion.

"Polls show," he explained, "a significant increase in the percentage of the population that rejects religion or thinks it's just not all that important, and this has a very important impact on religious liberty, because it is hard to convince people that religious liberty is worth defending, if they don’t think that religion is a good thing that deserves protection."

Reflecting on Justice Alito's speech, we would do well to remember what President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said in a State of the Union address just eleven months before Pearl Harbor. In what is now known as his Four Freedoms speech, he proposed four fundamental freedoms that people "everywhere in the world" ought to enjoy:

Freedom of speech * Freedom of worship

Freedom from want * Freedom from fear

Those freedoms, or the first two at any rate, are no less under attack today than they were in 1941. The liberal elites tell us that we should sacrifice freedom of speech and freedom of worship for reasons of equity, diversity, and inclusion, so as to achieve freedom from want and freedom from fear. 

Make no mistake! What the "wokesters" wish to impose on us is not a world free from want and fear, but a new world order of the tyranny of the secular state, which is the antithesis of the "free world" for which millions died and are dying today.

Thank God!

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States Supreme Court finally issued its ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, upholding Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban, overturning Roe v. Wade, and delivering the pro-life cause its most transformative victory since Roe unleashed nationwide abortion-on-demand nearly half a century ago. 

Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the draft mischievously leaked by the pro-abortion lobby in early May, delivered the opinion of the Court, with Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett joining. 

The ruling declares Roe "egregiously wrong from the start." Wrote Justice Alito, "It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives."

This is indeed a great victory for the pro-life movement. It is also a victory for states rights, and for President Trump and all the others who fought for the return of laws made in according with the Constitution -- the fundamental law of the land -- not according to the whims of judges choosing the political correctness (read: popularity) over justice.

More than that, the Dobbs decision comes as an answer to prayer. In the 49 years since Roe v. Wade, thousands of petitions have been signed, and billions -- literally billions -- of Rosaries and other prayers have been sent to Heaven, to protect innocent unborn babies from those who would wish to kill them.

Thanks be to God, and to the Blessed Mother of God, for hearing and answering our prayers. Te Deum laudamus!

 

Pro-abort protesters descend on Justice Alito's home

The demonstrators...were a useless mob of ignorant, chicken-shit ego junkies whose only accomplishment was to embarrass the whole tradition of public protest. They were hopelessly disorganized, they had no real purpose in being there, and about half of them were so wasted on grass, wine, and downers that they couldn't say for sure [where they were].

Dr Hunter S. Thompson was writing (in Fear and Loating on the Campaign Trail `72) about leftist loonies massing in the streets of Miami Beach at the 1972 Reublican convention, not the mini-mob who gathered a couple of nights ago outside Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's house in Alexandria VA.

About 200 equally loony, but better-organized pro-abortion activists marched down the street, some using megaphones to lead the crowd in chants of  "You don't care if people die," and "My body, my choice," which sounded a bit off, since some of those yelling appeared to be men. (They could have been trans-gendered persons; you never know these days.)

This was part of a wave of public protests against a possible overturning of Roe v. Wade, the nearly 50-year-old ruling that imposed abortion on demand on all 50 states, as suggested by a leak of Justice Alito's draft of the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. 

Shouting out for "justice", the crowd threatened, "If we don't get it, burn it down!" and "When abortion rights are under attack, what do we do? Rise up, fight back!" The mostly peaceful protest was led by the anti-establishment group "ShutDownDC", which accused Justice Alito of wanting to "take away our rights. But our rights are fundamentally ours. We’re showing up to tell him in person."

After having demanded that SCOTUS "keep abortion safe and legal," the protesters assembled in front of Justice Alito's house to deliver prepared speeches. One speaker claimed that "forcing people to carry unwanted pregnancies will cause unnecessary death and lifelong injury, both physical and mental." Whose "unnecessary death" he was referring to wasn't made clear, but probably wasn't the innocent baby still in his mother's womb.

It wasn't only Justice Alito who was targeted. Earlier last week, the pro-abortion group Ruth Sent Us doxed the five conservative members of the Supreme Court, posting their streets on online and calling for protests. Over the weekend, protesters demonstrated outside of the private residences of Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts. Perhaps they hadn't heard that Chief Justice Roberts disagrees with the majority, and is writing the minority opinion.

Meanwhile, there is still no news of the investigation into the source of the leak of Justice Alito's draft opinion. Last week, former Attorney General Bill Barr said that the Roberts may need to appoint a special counsel to identify the culprit(s), who, he said, could be charged with obstruction of justice. 

"I think the Chief would have had the option, and perhaps he still will, to appoint a special counsel," said Mr Barr. "Not in the classical criminal sense, but the court can appoint a counsel and he could bring in a former US attorney or someone with a criminal law background. And I’m sure he would get the support he needed from the FBI or any other law enforcement agency."

Walt is available to take charge of the investigation for a nominal fee. It shouldn't take too much sleuthing, since the names of the two leading suspects are already known.

Unrest grows, at home and abroad

Walt has been quiet for the last couple of days, waiting for other shoes to drop in the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and the Excited States of America. Here's the recap. 

The presidential election in the Philippines turned out as Walt predicted. (Lifetime pct .992) Bongbong, aka Ferdinand Marcos Jr., son of the late Philippines dictator of the same name, is riding on a tsunami of votes. 

He has 30 million so far, more than double the total of his rival, the current Vice-President, Maria Leonra "Leni" Robredo. 

36 years after protesters drove his dad out of office, Bongbong will become Pinas' latest "strongman president". Ms Robredo, predicts that his election will sanctify and perpetuate the abuses of his father.

Against all such criticism, in Marcos strongholds in Bisayas (the nicest part of PI, IMHO), the historic family name holds an almost messianic appeal over impressionable and celebrity-struck people who don't know or don't believe the tales of corruption and dictatorship that marked his father's 21-year rule.

In the province of Leyte, ancestral home of his 92-year-old mother Imelda of the 1000 Shoes, the junior Marcos is seen as a man of the people, even though he's lived a life of wealth and privilege few Pinoys can imagine. Such is the power of political family names, like "Kennedy" and "Clinton" and [Next item please. Ed.]    

In another poor country which seems to be sliding from third-world status to fourth-world, Sri Lanka, mostly peaceful protests against leftist misrule have turned violent.

Walt has lost touch with his agents in Colombo and Kandy [Are you there? Send word! Ed.] but understands that a curfew is now in force across the country after mobs burned down homes belonging to the ruling Rajapaksa family and their cronies (such as government minister Sananth Nishantha, whose blazing house is shown below) amid mounting anger at the economic crisis. 

Last night's violence capped a day of unrest that saw Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa quit, but this failed to bring calm. Crowds besieged his residence, from which he was evacuated in a pre-dawn operation amid tear gas and warning shots. 

Protests are continuing despite the curfew. Seven people have died and over 200 have been injured so far this week. The island-wide curfew has been extended until Wednesday morning as authorities seek to quell the violence.

Back in the USA, although Antifa and other woke, pro-abortion terrorists have mounted "mostly peaceful protests" in such leftist strongholds as Seattle and Portland OR, their efforts to fire up the citizenry [No more puns please. Ed.] haven't held a candle [Watch it! Ed.] to those of the righteously angry demonstrators in Sri Lanka. 

Public opinion polls measuring the reaction to the leaked draft of the SCOTUS decision in the Hobbs case, suggest that the majority of Americans won't support attempts by Democrats and other liberals and leftists to codify "women's reproductive health rights", i.e. the right to kill babies if having them is inconvenient.

Meanwhile, Walt awaits news -- any news at all -- about the Marshal of the Supreme Court's supposed efforts to find and prosecute the source of the leak. Let me name names once again. Reports all over the Net identify Justice Sonia Maria Sotomayor and/or her clerk, Amit Jane, as the source of the leak. Has the Marshal interviewed either of them? We should be told!

Further reading: "The Real Threat is the Violent Left-wing", by Jeff Crouere, Townhall, 9/5/22. 

What's happening with the SCOTUS Dobbs case leak?

"Be vewy vewy quiet. We're hunting leakers!... But we don't want to embarrass a Democwat appointee."

I'm pretty sure that's what the Hon. John Roberts, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, has told the Marshal of the Court. Because nothing but the sound of crickets has been heard from the latter since the beginning of the investigation into the leak of Justice Samuel Alito's draft of the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the ruling which seems set to overturn Roe v. Wade.

As Walt told you early yesterday, the source of the leak has been traced (according to social media) to the office of Justice Sonia Maria Sotomayor, the affirmative action appointee put on the shelf [bench, shurely. Ed.] by the Prez. (You didn't think President Brandon got the idea of appointing a woman of colour all by himself, did you?)  

If Justice Sotomayor didn't give the draft to the lickspittle press in person, she carelessly left it on her desk where her very woke clerk, Amit Jain, could see it and act accordingly. That's the story circulating in the Swamp, and far beyond.

And yet, and yet... as far as Ed. can see, not a word of this has been published in any of the major media, including Breitbart News. Isn't that strange?  You'd think BN (or Fox at least) would publish the aforementioned names, just to get a reaction.

Consider this story, told by Hunter S. Thompson, Doctor of Gonzo Journalism, in Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail `72. 

Legend has it that in one of his early election campaigns, Lyndon Baines Johnson was facing stiff opposition from a prominent Texan farmer.  He asked his aides what kind dirt would stick to his opponent, and was told the man was as scandal-free as any Texan politician could be.

"He's been happily married for 30 years, doesn't mess around with other women, doesn't smoke, doesn't drink, doesn't gamble. There's nothing bad we can say about him!"

"Tell ya what," LBJ supposedly replied. "Start a rumor that he's been known to have carnal knowledge with his sows."

"What?!", shot back one of his helpers. "You want to call the guy a pig-fucker?! Nobody's gonna believe that!"

"I know," replied Mr Johnson. "But let's make the sonovabitch deny it!"

Walt wonders if the Marshal of the Supreme Court, or an investigative reporter for WaPo, or anyone else, has asked Justic Sotomayor (or her aide) if there's any truth to the very strong rumor. Let's hear them deny it!

Further reading: "Alito 5 Must Stay the Course", by Patrick J. Buchanan, LewRockwell.com, 7/5/22.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization: Who sprung the leak?

Two days ago, in "Roe v. Wade to be overturned? What happens then?", Walt told you about the virtually unprecedent leak of a draft opinion in Case No. 19-1392 in the Supreme Court of the United States, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. If confirmed, the opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, would overrule Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision which made abortion on demand legal in the USA.

Chief Justice John Roberts said that the court's marshal has been directed to launch an investigation into the source of the leak. Walt suggested that Justice KBJ, the latest appointee to SCOTUS, be interviewed. It now appears that the leak was known as early as February, so the focus is now on an earlier diversity hire.

Justice Sonia Maria Sotomayor is an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. She was nominated by the Prez [Surprised? Ed.] and has been sitting on the SCOTUS bench since August of 2009. 

She is the third woman, first Latina and first Woman of Colour to hold the position. She is known to get her hair on fire about such liberal issues as abortion, the Dempanic, etc.

For example, Justice Sotomayor claimed in Jauary over 100,000 children are in "serious condition" with the Wuhan flu. Even WaPo was constrained to point out that while omicron does seem to affect children more than other variants of the coronavirus, the judge's figure was wrong by a factor of about 20. 

Imagine Justice Sotomayor's chagrin on learning that SCOTUS was set to take away women's "reproductive health rights" (read: rights to kill their unborn babies). According to the leaked draft, she and two other judges -- Stephen Breyer and (((Elena Kagan))) -- oppose the ruling.

Could Justice Sotomayor be the source of the leak? The ultimate source, perhaps, but not even an AAA (Affirmative Action Appointee) would risk impeachment from a cushy job which is hers for life. She would be careful to preserve deniability, and set someone else up to take the fall.

Step forward Amit Jain, Justice Sotomayor's clerk. According to a story in International Business Times, Mr Jain has been identified "on social media" as the prime leaker. He was born, raised and educated in India.  

Amit Jain was born and raised in India, and according to IBT was educated there. But according to another source, his LinkedIn account says he holds a B.A. in Political Science from Brown and a J.D. from Yale. 

While at Yale law school, Mr Jain made headlines by blasting the university for its support of the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh. He was quoted in a 2017 Politico piece by (((Josh Gerstein))), the reporter who, along with Alexander Ward, wrote the article in which the leaked draft was published.

Whereas Justice Sotomayor could be impeached, if it could be proven that she instigated or conspired in the leak, Mr Jain (if it was his doing) can merely be fired, and perhaps fined or jailed for violating his oath of confidentiality. While still at law school, he was a member of the Worker and Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic, the Juvenile Justice Clinic, and the Housing Clinic, so on form he should have no trouble finding another job, perhaps as a political/legal advisor to the Democratic Party.

UPDATED: Roe v. Wade to be overturned? What happens then?

Pierre Poilievre, front-run in the Conservative Party of Canada's third leadership election in six years, should be glad to be alive. As Walt told you in "The problem with Poilievre" (WWW 30/4/22), his mother was a 16-year-old, unwed, Irish-Canadian Catholic. Although Canada had allowed abortions (with restrictions and mandatory counselling first) since 1969, abortion on demand wasn't permissible until the Supreme Court of Canada decided R. v. Morgenthaler in 1988. Mr Poilievre was born in 1979.

I mention this because Breitbart News reports this morning that what purports to be a draft of an opinion in Case No. 19-1392 in the Supreme Court of the United States, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The opinion, possibly written by Justice Samuel Alioto, would overrule Roe v. Wade, which made abortion on demand legal in the USA.

If the document is genuine, leaking it would be an act of betrayal by one of the 45 people with access to such material, all of them sworn to reveal not a word of any discussions or opinions until an opinion has been signed by at least five justices. The leak of this draft would be one of the greatest scandals to ever hit America's highest court 

A key part of the possible draft reads: "It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives." It makes the case that where the Constitution is silent, the American people govern themselves through elections and elected leaders, not federal judges. 

It quotes the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who said, "The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.That is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand."

BN moots the possibility that draft opinion (if it is genuine) is an attempt to intimidate one or more justices to reverse their vote, or to ignite a liberal brushfire to pack the Supreme Court before Democrats lose control of Congress in November's mid-term elections.

The usual Democratic suspects, who all seem to have received copies of the leaked document overnight, issued statements of outrage, disgust, yada yada yada just before sunrise. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck "Charles" Schumer said SCOTUS seemed "poised to inflict the greatest restriction of rights in the past 50 years – not just on women but on all Americans."

Hellery Clinton, former secretary of state, former first lady, and former (and future?) contender for the presidensity, called the opinion "outrageous". (Apparently the adjective "unacceptable", meaning contrary to the liberal orthodoxy, has not been we widely adopted by the Democrats as by the Liberals of Canuckistan.)

Another Dumbocrat, New York Governor Kathy Hochul, said the draft opinion was a "disgraceful attack" on "women's right to choose", and said abortion would "always be safe and accessible" in the Empire State.

Ms Hochul was probably thinking about a recent report from the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion policy and research NGO, on the probable effects of the overthrow of Roe v. Wade. They estimated that the 26 states coloured in red(ish), mostly in the South and Midwest, would ban abortion, and people in those states would need to travel, in some cases for days, to reach a clinic in a state with liberal abortion laws, coloured in blue(ish).

There should be a boom, then, in abortion tourism, and Ms Hochul expects New York to benefit. Visit the Empire State Building and the Statue of Liberty and have an unwelcome appendage removed at the same time.

Ms Hochul has probably not thought about [or, being American, is unaware of... Ed.] the competition from clinics on the north side of the World's Longest Undefended (and how!) Border. In Vancouver and Toronto, which have huge south Asian communities, sex-selective abortion -- killing unwanted girl babies -- is not just legal but a going concern. How terrible for the USA if the draft opinion is confirmed. More business lost to those crazy-but-progressive Canucks! 

Further reading: "After Chanting Outside SCOTUS All Night, Crowd Of Worshippers Still Can't Get Moloch To Answer Them", Babylon Bee, 3/5/22. Is it satire or not? You be the judge. [Geddit? Ed.]

UPDATE ADDED @ 1330: Further reading: "Supreme Court confirms leaked opinion on Roe v. Wade is 'authentic' but not a 'final position'", LifeSite News, 3/5/22. "Pro-lifers will have to wait a bit longer to find out if Roe v. Wade has really been overturned." If you don't want to wait, sign the petition at the bottom of the LifeSite page.

It is said that SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts has ordered the Marshal of the Court to investigate how the virtually unprecedented leak occurred. Walt's suggestion: Ask the most recent appointee to the bench what she knows!

EXCLUSIVE: Kamala Harris speaks her mind

There has been a lot of talk, in the last few weeks, of moves by Democratic Party insiders to push Kamala Harris out of the Vice-Presidency, to make room for a woman who would be a suitable replacement for President Brandon for the 2024 election, or sooner, if his "retirement" can be conveniently and decently arranged.

Some of the rats in Ms Harris' office have already jumped ship. It was announced last week that Symone Sanders, the Veep's chief spokesthingy, would soon depart. Peter Velz, her director of press operations, and Vince Evans, the deputy director of the Office of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs [Seriously? That's his title? Ed.] are also said to be looking for the exit door.

What was originally inside-the-Beltway chatter about the competence of the first Indo-Jamaican-American Vice-President has spilled into view, threatening to chip away at Democratic morale. It is rumoured that Ms Harris would refuse to analyze briefing materials set forth by employees, but then scold them if she appeared unprepared. 

One senior staffer allegedly told WaPo, "It's clear that you're not working with somebody who is willing to do the prep and the work. With Kamala you have to put up with a constant amount of soul-destroying criticism and also her own lack of confidence. So you're constantly sort of propping up a bully and it's not really clear why." 

As is well known, Walt is a champion of fairness and justice for all. Audi alteram partem! That's my motto! [It means: My other car's an Audi. Ed.] So, as a public service, I persuaded Ms Harris to sit down for a little heart-to-heart. Here's her side of the story.

Sometimes I wonder why I'm in this rat race. It's not for the money, believe me. My husband is the money-maker in the family. You start in politics because you've got ideas. You want to try them out, to help people. 

At first, you're gratified by the response you get. If you win, you're deliriously happy. Then the honeymoon is over. After that, it's "gimme, gimme, gimme." Nobody's really interested in you or your program, especially if you're a woman, especially a woman of colour, especially a woman of two colours!

When I was campaigning for the Democratic nomination, I finally realized that the game wasn't worth it. I grew to hate all those people who lined up to meet me in city after city. It was all a fake. Fake enthusiasm drummed up by the back-room men. 

 The women in this country are full of shit. If they liked me as much as they claimed, why didn't they all vote for me? Anyone with an ounce of brains could see I was a hell of a lot smarter than Biden -- he has Alzheimer's, for God's sake -- and that Jew Sanders or that fag Buttigeig. I mean really! 

They were all liars and hypocrites. It was all lip service to the women's movement until the chips were down, and then all the women just peed in their pants and left me flat.

I think most women are afraid to have a woman a heartbeat away from the presidency, let alone in the Oval Office. They think I would crack up in a crisis and cry. Or that I have cranky moods when I have my period. As far as I'm concerned, most women are small-minded, petty, insensitive and stupid, especially the "Squad" and those bitches on "The View". They are all shits, not worth a dime. All of them.

I'm going to jump ship just as soon as my appointment to the Supreme Court comes through. (As President of the Senate, I can vote for my own confirmation, you know!) Then let them appoint Mrs Bill Clinton or, God help us, the lovely Michelle. See what happens then!

Things that sold out in 2020

 Couldn't resist this last shot....

Walt, Poor Len Canayen [and Ed.! Ed.] wish all our readers

a Happy(er) New Year 2021.

Back to SCOTUS! Sidney Powell launches voter fraud challenge

Some folks just won't give up... and a good thing too! The Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear the Texas challenge to the results of the rigged 2020 election, effectively ruling against the argument that states could not change the voting rules by executive order or judicial fiat. So much for Pennsylvania.

That brings us back to the question of whether Sleepy Joe Biden will be made 46th President of the Excited States of America as the result of massive, massive voter fraud in (at least) Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, Nevada and... wait for it... [Why wait? Ed.]... Georgia.

That's what Sidney Powell has been alleging for weeks now, and she has said for nearly as long that she has proof. She calls it the Kraken*. Ms Powell's Kraken contains details of the forensic audit done in Michigan that proves systemic voter fraud occurred through the Dominion Voting System tabulation. It also has proof of at least 200,000 fraudulent votes cast nationwide. 

But wait (as Vince Offer used to say), there's more! The Kraken contains official Georgia elections records that prove the Dominion Voting Systems program's "inability to repeatably duplicate creditable election results." In other words, official Georgia election canvassers could not rely on Dominion Voting Systems software to count the vote because it couldn't repeat the same vote totals twice. Here's part of Ms Powell's 42-page submission to SCOTUS. 

15. The Interim Report shows multiple grave problems with the accuracy and vulnerability to hacking and evidence destruction of the Dominion Voting Systems (“Dominion”) machines used in Antrim County, Michigan. The report is relevant to each of the Related Cases because each of the states in question uses Dominion equipment. The Interim Report vindicates the lengthy opinion and order of Judge Amy Totenberg in Curling v. Raffensperger, 2020 WL 5994029 (N.D. Ga. 10/11/20), which found “extreme” and unacceptable security risks in the Dominion system. Compelling evidence and expert analyses show convincingly that the results of the Dominion system cannot be trusted and should not have been certified.

16. The findings in the Interim Report are consistent with the expert testimony provided by Mr. Ramsland regarding Dominion’s vote manipulation in the Petitioners’ November 25, 2020 complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (the “District Court”) (R 450; 2438), and with his testimony in the Related Cases. Mr. Ramsland concluded in the Georgia case that, for the State of Georgia, “at least 96,000 mail-in ballots were fraudulently cast,” and “136,098 ballots were illegally counted as result of improper manipulation of the Dominion software,” id., each of which is several times larger than former VicePresident [sic] Biden’s margin of victory in Georgia (10,457 votes). Similar anomalies exist in the Related Cases. Among other things, the Complaints in the trial courts and the Petitions to this Court in each of the Related Cases all seek prospective injunctive relief requiring a similar forensic audit of Dominion voting machines.

17. The Coffee County, Georgia Board of Registration and Elections refused to certify the machine recount election returns on their Dominion systems “given its inability to repeatably duplicate creditable election results.”6 The results of the machine recount report were internally inconsistent and could not be reconciled and were inconsistent with both the election night count and the hand audit.7 The Coffee County BRE analysis confirms the findings of the Interim Report, cited above, that ballots going to adjudication can be changed on a wholesale basis by the operator with no oversight, controls or accountability, an extremely serious vulnerability.

Any scientist will tell you that the results of any test or experiment must be replicable to be credible. The same applies... or should apply... to the counting of votes in the most important presidential election since the Civil War. Let's hear SCOTUS disagree with that one!

Trivial footnote from Ed.: The kraken is a legendary sea monster of gigantic size and cephalopod-like appearance in Scandinavian folklore. According to the Norse sagas, the kraken dwells off the coasts of Norway and Greenland and terrorizes nearby sailors by its sheer size and fearsome appearance. "Kraken" also happens to be the name of the new Seattle franchise in the National Hockey League. And that explains the image. Got it?