Supreme Court Reconsiders Case About Trump

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to consider whether or not to hear a lawsuit that seeks to remove President Joe Biden from the White House and reinstate former President Donald Trump to office.

The Brunson v. Adams lawsuit claims that lawmakers violated their oaths of office by allegedly failing to investigate a foreign intervention in the 2020 presidential race which allegedly rigged the election against Trump.

The case is based on the claim that the defendants—who include Congress members, Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and former Vice President Mike Pence—voted to certify the 2020 presidential election after receiving a valid request from 154 members of Congress to investigate unfounded claims of electoral fraud in six states.

The Supreme Court declined to consider the lawsuit on January 9, but the plaintiff, Raland Brunson, filed an appeal on January 23. Now, the court has to reconsider whether or not to hear the case, according to an update on the SCOTUS' website that read that the lawsuit was "distributed for conference" on Friday.  READ MORE...

Marriage Equality in the USA

From gathering supporters in small towns across the country to rallying in front of the Supreme Court of the United States, we gave our all to ensure every person, regardless of whom they love, is recognized equally under the law.

A Growing Call for Equality
Efforts to legalize same-sex marriage began to pop up across the country in the 1990s, and with it challenges on the state and national levels. Civil unions for same-sex couples existed in many states but created a separate but equal standard. At the federal level, couples were denied access to more than 1,100 federal rights and responsibilities associated with the institution, as well as those denied by their given state. The Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law in 1996 and defined marriage by the federal government as between a man and woman, thereby allowing states to deny marriage equality.

New Century & New Beginnings
As the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas struck down sodomy laws in 2003, another victory was celebrated as Massachussetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage via a court ruling. On the federal level, however, efforts continued to prevent equality from becoming a reality. President Bush announced his opposition to same-sex marriage while the House introduced a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between a man and a woman.

Rising Support Signals Hope
States from coast to coast began striking down past bans and enshrining marriage equality in new laws. California famously achieved marriage equality in 2008, only to have it dismantled again by the introduction and passage of Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that updated the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman, that same year. The amendment later was disputed in lower level courts before making its way to the Supreme Court.  READ MORE

Biden's Student Loan Forgiveness Program

A group of Wisconsin taxpayers on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to block the Biden administration’s student loan forgiveness program while an appeal plays out in a lower court.

The emergency request, filed to Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who handles emergency matters arising from Wisconsin, comes shortly after the administration began accepting applications for the program.

The challengers, the Brown County Taxpayers Association, urged the court to rule that the president’s nationwide debt cancellation plan illegally encroaches on Congress’ exclusive spending power.

“The assault on our separation of powers — and upon the principle that the spending power is vested solely in Congress — is extraordinary, and perhaps unprecedented,” they wrote in court papers. “We are witnessing a gargantuan increase in the national debt accomplished by a complete disregard for limitations on the constitutional spending authority.”

President Biden announced in August that his administration planned to forgive $10,000 in student loan debt for those making under $125,000 annually and $20,000 for recipients of Pell grants, which assists students from lower-income families.  READ MORE...

The Nation's Highest Court

WASHINGTON – Even as the fallout continues over its controversial abortion ruling in June, the Supreme Court is gearing up for a new term in which its conservative majority will wade into questions about race, LGBTQ rights and federal elections.

The nation's highest court has agreed to hear 27 arguments so far – roughly half its expected caseload for the term that will likely end in June 2023.

This guide will be updated throughout the nine-month term.

Affirmative action
Background: Perhaps the most closely watched cases at the Supreme Court this term involve race-conscious admissions policies at Harvard College and the University of North Carolina. Those schools consider race as one of many factors in deciding whether to accept prospective students, a policy that is consistent with current Supreme Court precedent. But an anti-affirmative action group has argued the policies discriminate against Asian American and white candidates in violation of federal law and the Constitution.  READ MORE...

Life After Roe V Wade

Here in my state of Texas, there is appropriate pro-life satisfaction as we hear of a 60% reduction in abortions since last year's passage of the heartbeat law, which curtails the procedure once fetal cardiac activity is detected.

This was precisely the plan. With the window for terminating pregnancies narrowed to roughly six weeks, the measure has the effect of limiting abortion availability while stopping short of an outright ban that would run counter to the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court precedent.

The probable extinction of Roe later this Supreme Court term has energized some states to expand protections for the unborn. But as we wait for the Court to hand down a decisive ruling, those states should not kid themselves. Two things are sure to happen in any state that constrains abortion—fewer abortions within that state, and more women gassing up the car and heading to clinics in a neighboring state.

The monthly abortion total in Texas dropped from about 5,400 last August to about 2,200 last September. Does anyone believe that 3,200 women simply decided to choose life? Nothing would please me more, but evidence points to another outcome: Abortion providers in various nearby states are seeing an influx of Texas visitors.

Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri all report a surge in Texas abortion clients, as women unable to exercise that option at home simply pursue it in more lenient environments. A Guttmacher Institute study found some Texas women seeking abortion clinics in 12 states that do not even border Texas. Many women in the Lone Star State may well have chosen adoption, or to raise their babies after all, but no one should underestimate the energies at least some women will expend to pursue a goal of abortion.  READ MORE...

Resign or Face Impeachment

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday called on Justice Clarence Thomas to resign or face impeachment for what she depicted as a pattern of ethical breaches.

“Clarence Thomas should resign,” she wrote on Twitter. “If not, his failure to disclose income from right-wing organizations, recuse himself from matters involving his wife, and his vote to block the Jan 6th commission from key information must be investigated and could serve as grounds for impeachment.”

Ocasio-Cortez is just the latest in a series of Democratic lawmakers and legal experts to intensify ethical scrutiny of Thomas in the wake of explosive reports last week that exposed his wife’s aggressive efforts to help overturn former President Trump’s electoral defeat.

Those revelations raised fresh questions about the justice’s refusal to step aside from related cases before the Supreme Court, including at least 10 rulings concerning the 2020 presidential election, without any indication of him recusing.

The ruling that has drawn the sharpest criticism came in January, when Thomas was the only justice who dissented in an 8-1 ruling that cleared the way for House investigators probing the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection to obtain Trump-era White House records.  READ MORE...

Supreme Court Rules

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday advised a lower court to reconsider earlier decisions that blocked an estimated $3.6 billion from being used for construction of the U.S.-Mexico border wall championed by former President Donald Trump.

After taking office in January, President Joe Biden has sought to halt funding for the border wall construction that was pushed by his predecessor. The Biden administration had argued that the Supreme Court did not need to weigh in on the border wall funding case because the project was closed down by the new administration.

But the Court's Monday ruling called for a reassessment of the case, given the new circumstances under which the project is being considered and with a different administration in the White House.

The Supreme Court returned the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit "with instructions to direct the District Court to vacate its judgments," the Supreme Court wrote in its Monday order.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled against the Biden administration in a case dealing with funding for former President Donald Trump's border wall. Above, construction at the wall with Mexico in Sasabe, Arizona, on January 12.       MICAH GAREN/GETTY IMAGES

"The District Court should consider what further proceedings are necessary and appropriate in light of the changed circumstances in this case," the Supreme Court added. The Court did not provide an explanation for its decision beyond mentioning the change in circumstances under which the case has been considered.

Key to the arguments surrounding the future of the border wall's construction is the funding sources Trump's administration directed to support it. Billions in military funding were allocated to the project during Trump's time in office, with the wall's 400th mile celebrated by the former president just days before he left the White House.

In his order pausing wall construction, which he issued the day of his inauguration, Biden mentioned questions that have been raised about the legality of the wall's funding.  READ MORE...

Perhaps Decades or More...

The Republican controlled SENATE will confirm the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court and the court will begin to lean in the direction of a strict interpretation of the US Constitution regarding how our Founding Fathers intended it to be rather than interpreting the US Constitution based upon the changes among the people to reflect a more progressive nature...

What's wrong with having a progressive nature?

Nothing...  other than it could be just temporary...  today, we may think that the LGBTQ community needs to be protected and in decades from now we may think otherwise...  why change the Constitution just because our feels towards LGBTQ's has changed.

It is possible that if the 2020 election or some future election gives the Democrats a President and a simple majority in the House and in the Senate, the size of the Supreme Court could be changed...  in this increased...  and then those vacancies could be filled with Liberal Justices which would then possibly favor a re-writing of the US Constitution to reflect a more progressive country.

How would a senior citizen be impacted by a Liberal or a Conservative Supreme Court?

To my knowledge, the only issues for Senior Citizens might be the FIRST and SECOND Amendments which could curtail freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to own a firearm...

Of course, it is highly unlikely that this will happened...   and right now, most of the key decisions to be made by the Supreme Court deal with:

• abortion
• late term abortion
• LGBTQ rights
• discrimination
• taxation
• states rights

Most, if not all of these issues, have very little impact on senior citizens...

In fact, most of the cases that travel through the court system and reach the Supreme Court are reflective of 1 or only a few people...  and have nothing to do with the whole of society...  like reading a person his rights after being arrested...

Personally, none of this really concerns me nor should it concern you unless you think your rights have been violated or you believe that someone has violated your rights...  but, even if that were true, what frigging difference does it make...

Say a person gets kicked off of a social media forum because the person broke the rules

That person can start a blog

Now, let's assume that person violates the blog rules and the blog is taken down

That person can write a book

Now, let's assume that that person cannot get their book published

That person can self publish or that person can just forget about it

DEMOCRATS AND CHRISTIANITY

ACCORDING TO THE PEW RESEARCH CENTER...

Religious beliefs among Democrats:

• 69%        Buddhist
• 44%        Catholic
• 28%        Evangelical
• 61%        Hindu
• 80%        Black Protestants
• 18%        Jehovah's Witness
• 64%        Jewish
• 40%        Mainline Protestant
• 19%        Mormon
• 62%        Muslim
• 44%        Orthodox Christian
• 54%        Unaffiliated

TO REVIEW CHART FOR YOUSELF, CLICK HERE...

Why am I posting this data?

Because,

our new Supreme Court Justice Nominee, Amy Barrett, is a CATHOLIC with 7 children, 2 of which are adopted, 1 has Down Syndrome...

AND,

I am worried that our DEMOCRATIC SENATORS will treat her worse than they treated Bret Kavanaugh, if that is even possible...

YOU DECIDE FOR YOURSELF...  SEE BELOW...

Alex Seitz-Wald (NBC) on September 26, 2020 wrote:
WASHINGTON — Democrats quickly coalesced around opposition to President Donald Trump’s nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court on Saturday, painting the nominee as a threat to policies that Democrats favor.

One Democratic senator — Connecticut's Richard Blumenthal, who is a member of the Judiciary Committee — said he would not meet with Barrett, as is customary for members of the committee, in protest of Trump’s decision to rush ahead with the nomination so close to an election.

“I refuse to treat this process as legitimate and will not meet with Judge Barrett,” Blumenthal said in a statement.

Recent Supreme Court nominations have become increasingly partisan, and the decision by Republican leaders to press ahead with replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg only weeks before a presidential election is likely to make the process more contentious.


Meredith Deliso (ABC) on September 26, 2020 wrote:
Republican and Democratic leaders reacted largely along party lines to President Donald Trump's nomination on Saturday of a conservative federal judge to fill the seat left by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Overwhelmingly, Republicans called Amy Coney Barrett a well-qualified candidate and pushed for a confirmation in the upcoming weeks. Democrats continued to criticize the timing, with some outright saying they wouldn't meet with the nominee...

Former Vice President Joe Biden, however, criticized Trump for moving ahead with the nomination so close to Election Day.

"The Senate should not act on this vacancy until after the American people select their next president and the next Congress," he said in a statement.

His running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., said that the next president must select the next justice.

"With the next Supreme Court Justice set to determine the fate of protections for those with preexisting health conditions, and reproductive health options, I will continue to fight on behalf of the people and strongly oppose the president's nomination," Harris said in a statement.

Gregory Krieg (CNN) on September 26, 2020 wrote:
(CNN)Democrats on Saturday night launched their case against federal Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee, saying support for her confirmation was equivalent to a vote to end the Affordable Care Act.

In a rush of statements following Barrett's Rose Garden introduction, top Democrats put the fate of the law -- and its popular protections for patients with pre-existing conditions -- front and center. They also made frequent reference to the coronavirus pandemic, and the chaos that could arise from stripping health insurance options from millions of Americans in its midst.

From the Democratic presidential ticket on down, criticism of Barrett repeatedly circled back to what has been a political winner for the party: health care -- and the backlash to Republican efforts to dismantle the ACA, former President Barack Obama's signature policy achievement.

"President Trump has been trying to throw out the Affordable Care Act for four years. Republicans have been trying to end it for a decade. Twice, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law as constitutional," Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, Obama's vice president, said in a statement. "But even now, in the midst of a global health pandemic, the Trump Administration is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the entire law, including its protections for people with pre-existing conditions."