SCOTUS judges in conclave

Scraped from Patriot Post.

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.

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!

Wisdom for today from legal decisions of the Dirty Thirties

Americans and Canadians are going through hard times. The slowdown of business and other activity caused by the Wuhan flu pandemic sent our economies into a tailspin, from which we have not yet recovered, no matter what President Brandon and Prime Minister McBlackface tell you. Not only have we not recovered, but we are teetering on the brink of recession. 

More people are working than was the case two years ago, but more people are not working, too. Some folks, having discovered that our liberal governments will pay them not to work, have simply dropped out of the work force. Thus the same liberal governments are now telling us we need to import hundreds of thousands of third-world migrants to meet "staffing challenges".

Bidenflation has pushed prices up to the point where a lot "working poor" can barely afford to drive to work. The federal governments of both countries desperately need more revenue to cover the deficits they incur by shovelling money out to the special interest groups they rely on to keep them in power. But they are afraid to raise taxes, so the liberal cry today is "Make the rich pay their share...and more!"

And there is civil unrest, notably in Canada where Mr Socks invoked the Emergencies Act (aka Police State Act, aka Son of War Measures Act) to quash last winter's Freedom Convoy by, among other draconian measures, freezing dissenters' bank accounts without notice! That'll teach them to cling to their "unacceptable views"!

The United States went through a similar bad patch during the Great Recession of the 1930s. The Presidents of those days were mile aheads of both Demented Joe and the Emperor of Canuckistan in arrogating to their governments unprecedented powers of taxation and repression of dissent. 

Walt wonders if M Trudeau's handlers studied President Herbert Hoover's response to the 1932 march on Washington of the Bonus Army -- 1000s of war veterans demanding the bonuses which they had been promised at the end of WWI, which had never been paid. This is how it went down.

On 28 July 1932, Attorney General William D. Mitchell ordered the "Bonus Expeditionary Force" removed from all government property. Washington police met with resistance, shot at the protestors. Two veterans were wounded and later died. President Herbert Hoover then ordered the U.S. Army to clear the marchers' campsite. Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur commanded a contingent of infantry and cavalry, supported by six tanks. The Bonus Army marchers with their wives and children were driven out, and their shelters and belongings burned.

Such heavy-handed tactics became the norm under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who used whatever means he could to force Americans -- particularly rich Americans and their businesses, large and small -- to submit to his New Deal. Those who dissented had the G-men sicced on them. After all, Roosevelt declaimed, this is an emergency!

One business which FDR's Treasury Dept. tried to coerce was a firm owned by three Jewish brothers who butchered chickens. They balked at Roosevelt's National Industrial Recovery Act, which allowed the President to regulate certain industries by distributing authority to develop codes of conduct among business groups and boards in those industries -- i.e.to control private businesses. The Schecters fought the feds all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled in their favour. (A.L.A. Schecter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935)) 

In an opinion authored by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, the unanimous Court exercised a check on the Legislative and Executive branches of government, declaring the Act and actions of the President an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority. 

SCOTUS ruled that the President cannot be allowed to have unbridled control to make whatever laws he believes to be necessary to achieve a certain goal. Justice Hughes wrote: "Extraordinary conditions may call for extraordinary remedies. But the argument necessarily stops short of an attempt to justify action which lies outside the sphere of constitutional authority. Extraordinary conditions do not create or enlarge constitutional powers." 

Here's another piece of wisdom from a famous judge, which may give some comfort to President Trump as he fights to avoid a too-public audit of his tax returns. In Helvering v. Gregory, 293 U.S. 465 (1935).69 F.2d 809 (2d Cir. 1934), Judge Billings Learned Hand, of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, ruled that: "Anyone may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands.... To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant."

The emphasis is mine. For some 65 years, beginning with the Court of Chief Justice Earl Warren too long (1953-1969), the Supreme Court was dominated by judicial activists intent on rewriting the laws of the USA, including the Constitution itself, to bring about "social justice" and equality of result, as opposed to the equality of opportunity which was the aim of the founding fathers. That is still the mindset of the Supreme Court of Canada.

However, the times they are a-changin'. Ordinary people, real people on both sides of the World's Longest Open Border are waking up to the fact that the liberal democratic state of Roosevelt-Johnson-Clinton-Biden and King-Pearson-Trudeau (Senior and Junior) is not their friend, but their enemy. Walt says: be like the Schecter brothers -- fight back! You can fight and beat city hall!

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!

 

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.

KBJ makes history! First non-biologist named to SCOTUS!

OK, I admit to "adapting" the headline from the one created by the very talented writers at the Babylon Bee. Their excellent post continues: The U.S. Senate has voted to confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson to the highest court in the land, making her the first Supreme Court Justice to be confirmed without a degree in biology. 

"No, Ketanji Brown Jackson has no idea what a woman is, but that's understandable as she's not a biologist," said Romney. "I think she'll be fine, as the 8 biologists currently on the court will be able to get her up to speed. The important thing here is that she's black. And a woman." 

Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) was one of three RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) who voted to confirm the most important diversity hire since Kamela Harris. 

To Mitt's left is Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) and to his farther left (geddit?) is Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). File this picture in your memory for reference when you next get to vote. They supported a judicial activist who think the United States Constitution is either mutable or does not apply in all cases.

The silver lining in the dark cloud (geddit?) is that the other cisgender "woman" of colour (albeit a lighter shade) whose name was mooted for the position on the highest court in the land*, Kamela Harris, remains in her position, which (they say) is Vice-President to Dementia Joe Brandon.

That's OK though. America has been advanced by feckless Democratic men towards the goal of being fully feminized, diversified, inclusified... and totally emasculated.

* Footnote: The Supreme Court of the United States is not, in fact, the highest court in America. Its elevation above sea level is only 95 feet. You can look it up.

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?

SCOTUS lets Trump... and America... down

Let it not be said that Walt ignores or tries to cover up bad news. 

The Supreme Court dismissed a prominent legal challenge Friday to the 2020 election results filed Monday by the State of Texas. "The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution," said SCOTUS. "Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections." 

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a case directly to the Supreme Court, challenging the election results from Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin. The suit argued that the four states illegally made changes to the voting rules through the courts instead of through state legislatures, violating the Electors Clause.

It also argues the differences in voting rules in different counties violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause and cites claims of voting irregularities in the states. Seventeen states joined the lawsuit as well as over 120 House Republicans.

Justice Samuel Alito issued a statement with the dismissal that was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, arguing that the Supreme Court should take up the case. "In my view," he wrote, "we do not have the discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction," saying that he would grant the motion to file the bill of complaint. 

But Justice Alito signalled he would not have granted the state of Texas the ability to halt the election certification as the challenge requested. "I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue." 

It seemed to me that a good argument could be made that the court had a duty to consider inconsistencies between the voting rules in different states. If one state, like Texas, has strict rules, and another, like Pennsylvania, has loosey-goosey that allow anyone to vote, early or late (and often too!), doesn't that diminish the value of a Texan's vote? Where's the equal protection promised by the Constitution if you can vote once by mail and once in person, and I can only vote once? 

President Trump described the Texas case, on Wednesday, as "The big one" and repeatedly urged the Supreme Court justices to have the "wisdom" and the "courage" take up the case. He must be mightily disappointed -- and angry too -- that SCOTUS refused to do so. Me too.

VIDEOS: Still-President Trump & 17 states join TX appeal to SCOTUS

Still-President Donald J. Trump asked the United State Supreme Court today to allow him to join a suit brought by the Great State of Texas seeking to overturn the tainted results of the 2020 election by throwing out the voting results in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wiscons.

In a separate brief, lawyers for 17 (count `em - 17!!!) states led by Missouri’s Republican Attorney General Eric Schmitt also urged the nine justices to hear the case. 

As I said yesterday, this is important, because this case is not about voter fraud -- not to say that there hasn't been any! -- but about the constitutionality of decisions taken in Pennsylvania, Georgia and other states to allow mail-in ballots and/or extend the time in which ballots could be received. That's the issue that could well upset the Democrats' cart of poisoned apples! 

And what does the anti-Trump lamestream media have to say? Check out this screen grab from Ed.'s search on Google.

Listen carefully to the American controlled media tonight. That sound you hear is liberals' whistling past the graveyard! Well might they worry. Check out this analysis by Roman Balmakov of The Epoch Times, posted to YouTube yesterday.

 

And here's an update, posted just an hour ago. Watch it now before YouTube takes it down, for the reason that posts alleging "voter fraud" or anything like that are no longer to be permitted! Only "authoritative news sources" will be permitted to talk about the election. The rest of us, including Mr Balmakov, are to be silenced.

 

YouTube and the rest of the controlled media should bear in mind an old adage: Just because you have silenced someone doesn't mean that you have converted him! But they're going to try to keep you from reading and hearing the truth. Follow Walt and follow the links in our posts. As Roman says, stay informed and stay free!

VIDEO: Judge Amy Coney Barrett, in conversation, 2019

Earlier today, Still-President Trump nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States. Judge Barrett, a staunch conservative, and a constructionist rather than an activist, was a former clerk to the late Justice Antonin Scalia. She said she was "truly humbled" by the nomination and quickly aligned herself with Justice Scalia's conservative approach to the law, saying his "judicial philosophy is mine, too." 

 Trending on YouTube right now is "Evening with Judge Amy Coney Barrett, hosted by the Notre Dame Club of Washington DC on 19 February 2019. Jon Heintz (J.D. 2014) introduced Judge Barrett to the audience, and Megan Wold (J.D. 2011) interviewed the judge in a wide-ranging conversation about her family and professional life. 

Is this the Wicked Witch of the West the Dumbocrats are so exercised about? Listen and judge for yourself!

 

Senate confirms Kavanaugh, another win for POTUS!

By a 50-48 margin, the United States Senate has voted to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh as an associate justice of the Supreme Court.



Further comment will follow, but you know already know what I'm going to say... right?

Worth watching: "How the left lost the Kavanaugh fight", Tucker Carlson on Fox News, 5/10/18. "Activists no longer try to convince anyone of anything. They just scream and bully."

Anti-Trumpers' hair all ablaze over Kavanaugh nomination

President Donald Trump (still loving the sound of it!) went one prime-time TV last night to announce his nominatin of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to fill the vacancy on the United States Supreme Court. Judge Kavanaugh has impeccable credentials, having clerked for outgoing Supreme Anthony Kennedy and served as White House Staff Secretary during the Presidency of George W. Bush. He also played a lead role in drafting the Starr Report, which urged the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.

Predictably, the POTUS' signature was barely dry on the nomination when the (((controlled media))) and liberal bloviators began their campaign against Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation. Mere seconds after the conclusion of the presidential address to the nation, weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth were heard throughout the land. Typical was a statement released by the far-left PAC Democracy for America, which called Judge Kavanaugh a "reactionary ideologue" whose confirmation would "directly lead to the deaths of countless women with the dismantling of abortion rights."

Elsewhere, an organization (?) styling itself "the Women's March" said ominously: "Trump’s announcement today is a death sentence for thousands of women in the United States. Stripping a woman’s ability to make decisions about her own body is state violence. We cannot let this stand. We will raise our voices and take to the streets." In an embarrassing blunder, though, the Women's March statement began: "In response to Donald Trump's nomination of XX to the Supreme Court" -- indicating that the group didn't expect to have to change its pre-written press release, no matter who was nominated.

Last night the Canadian Broadcorping Castration devoted nearly ten minutes of The National (its nightly newscast) to a panel (including a woman and a black man, of course) who "analyzed" the effect on Canada of the nomination of an "arch-conservative" to the American Supreme Court. And this morning the Clinton News Network weighed in with a piece headed "Red state Democrats can easily oppose Beltway Brett Kavanaugh".

And so it begins. The anti-Trump, anti-Kavanaugh ads have already been produced, and time and space booked, paid for by (((you know who))). Expect a down-and-dirty campaign against the President's nominee. But don't expect confirmation to fail! First Neil Gorsuch, now Brett Kavanaugh. A dramatic and long-lasting rightward shift on the Supreme Court -- that's what is beginning!

Further reading: "Hollywood Resistance Freaks over Kavanaugh Nomination: ‘Will Cement the First American Dictatorship’", by Jerome Hudson, Breitbart News, 10/7/18.

Hyuge victory for POTUS: SCOTUS upholds "Muslim ban"... AGAIN

The anti-Trump coalition of snowflakes, SJWs, eco-wienies, lawyers, gliberal activists and Democratic politicians didn't give up easily. When President Trump kept his election promise in January of 2017 by issuing an executive order banning travel from certain Muslim-majority countries, they followed the grand old American traditions of (a) yapping on The View, (b) demonstrating and (c) suing. See "Trump keeps his promises; panic ensues", WWW 29/1/17.

At first they enjoyed some success with (c), as various judges -- Democratic appointees all -- signalled their virtue by striking down the order on whatever grounds they could think of. Injunctions followed, requiring the administration to stop being Islamophobic and open the doors to nationals of such peaceful and stable shitholes as Iran, Syria, Libya and Somalia. Imagine the anti-Trumpers' consternation, then, when in December the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the injunctions and ruled that the principal case, Hawaii v. Trump, should be heard on its merits. See "Winning bigly: SCOTUS upholds POTUS travel ban", WWW 5/12/17.

In an unusual burst of energy and speed, SCOTUS proceeded immediately to hear argument in that case, and today handed down its verdict, ruling in favour of President Trump in a 5-4 decision. The Supremes said that permanent entry restrictions on citizens of various terror-prone (read: Islamic) nations (read: shitholes) codified in Presidential Proclamation 9645 are fully consistent with the Immigration and Nationality Act as well as the Establishment Clause of the Constitution of the United States.

Citing an earlier case, Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said that the admission and exclusion of foreign nationals is a "fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government's political departments largely immune from judicial control", and that the President has extraordinarily broad discretion under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) to exclude aliens when he believes it is in the nation’s best interest so to do.

As for the argument that Presidential Proclamation 9645 is racist, Islamophobic, yada yada, and therefore contrary to the equal rights provisions of the Constitution and other equal rights legislation, SCOTUS ruled that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution permits POTUS' policy, because the Proclamation gives a "religion-neutral" explanation -- the policy is intended to better secure America's border and therefore the American people -- which, on its face, is legitimate. If you come from Iran, it doesn't matter if you're a Muslim or a Christian or a Zoroastrian (look it up). You're out!

The sounds you hear on The View and in places like Dearborn MI and Burbank CA (see "Where's Mohammed?" map below) are weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth over an indisputable (literally) Trump victory, plus the frying of brains trying to think up ways of smuggling more followers of the Prophet -- all of them peace-loving, of course -- into the US of A. The Supreme Court has ruled, but the Islamic jihad against America is far from over.

Are we making any progress?

Just reread The B.S. Factor, by Arthur Herzog (Simon & Schuster, 1973). The subtitle of the book is "The Theory and Technique of Faking It in America". It's about "thought pollution" -- the fakery and hypocrisy that pervades American communications. In the conclusion, Mr. Herzog calls for a new breed of "radical skeptics" who, he hopes, will clear away the bullshit that is now engulfing the USA.

Writing in 1973 -- not long after the "flower power" revolution -- the author poses an excellent question: did the social upheaval of the hippy-dippy `60s result in any real progress towards making America a better society? Here's a quote.

Among the things a asociety might want to conceal from itself -- because the realization might be too painful, or imply a need for changes that the society did not want to, or was afraid to make -- would be the failure to achieve its own stated goals. Progress, for instance.

Americans work, and work hard, but do they in any fundamental sense progress? And in a time-frame small enough so that progress is clearly focused? How do we measure progress? Greater personal security? Shorter work week? Better education? Improved medical protection? Higher culture? More happiness? In none of these ways does there seem to be progress commensurate with the enormous effort Americans have been putting out.

In a footnote to the quoted passage, Mr. Herzog says: "For a chronicle of our 'progress', see William O. Douglas, Points of Rebellion (Random House, 1970). The remarkable (or perhaps unremarkable aspect of Douglas' depressing findings is that the conditions he reports are so persistent. In other words, years have passed and nothing has been done about them."

Walt hastens to add the the William O. Douglas whose book Mr. Herzog recommends is the same William O. Douglas who was appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1939. He survived two attempts at impeachment before retiring in 1975, having served the longest term in the history of the court.

In 1975 Time magazine called Justice Douglas "the most doctrinaire and committed civil libertarian ever to sit on the court". He appeared to have little regard for judicial consistency or stare decisis when deciding cases. And what were the fruits of the liberal judicial activism for which he became so well known? Was any progress made? Errr, no.