ActBlue donor arrested for allegedly threatening to torture and slaughter 6 Supreme Court justices



An ActBlue donor shot President Donald Trump on July 13. Another ActBlue donor allegedly attempted to assassinate him on Sunday.

It turns out the Alaska man who was arrested Wednesday for allegedly threatening to torture and slaughter six U.S. Supreme Court justices and some of their family members was also an ActBlue donor with over 80 contributions to the Democratic fundraising outfit to his name.

The Department of Justice announced Thursday that Panos Anastasiou, 76, has been charged with nine counts of making threats against a federal judge and 13 counts of making threats in interstate commerce.

The DOJ refrained from indicating which six justices on the high court — which has a 6-3 conservative majority — were targeted.

"We allege that the defendant made repeated, heinous threats to murder and torture Supreme Court Justices and their families to retaliate against them for decisions he disagreed with," Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement. "Our justice system depends on the ability of judges to make their decisions based on the law, and not on fear."

According to the indictment filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, Anastasiou sent over 465 messages to the Supreme Court through a public website between March 10, 2023, and July 16.

These messages allegedly "contained violent, racist, and homophobic rhetoric coupled with threats of assassination by torture, hanging, and firearms, and encouraged others to participate in the acts of violence."

Six justices on the court certainly angered a great many radicals with their June 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

The indictment noted that some of the threats were intended to intimidate the six unnamed justices and retaliate against them for actions they had taken in their official capacity as federal justices.

Anastasiou allegedly threatened to hang a specific justice from an oak tree, to lynch another, and to kill a third by "putting a bullet in his ... head." He is also accused of threatening to behead, strangle, and/or drown all six, as well as gun down their family members.

Although it's unclear what six justices may have done to draw the ire of the Democratic donor, six justices on the court certainly angered a great many radicals with their June 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

Numerous pro-abortion extremists engaged in hate crimes and terror attacks after the ruling, targeting pro-life pregnancy centers, churches, and individuals.

After a draft of the Dobbs opinion was leaked, Nicholas John Roske of California — who goes on trial next year — was apparently caught near Justice Brett Kavanaugh's house with a gun and a knife and charged with attempted murder.

Roske allegedly claimed he was going to give his life a purpose by killing the justice, reported the Washington Post.

During part of the period that Anastasiou was allegedly making the threats, Democrats in Washington, D.C., were actively attacking those conservative Supreme Court justices who appeared unwilling to give them their desired results in cases related to the 2020 election and the Jan. 6 protests as well as regarding the question of former President Donald Trump's immunity in U.S. v. Donald Trump.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren said in June, "[Justice Samuel] Alito is an extremist who is out of touch with mainstream America. His rising power on the Supreme Court is a threat to our democracy," reported The Hill.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) tweeted, "Alito answered like a movement activist. Movement activists have their role but it's not on the Supreme Court."

Blaze News previously reported that on the basis of a misleading New York Times story, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) accused Justice Samuel Alito in May of "sympathizing with right-wing violent insurrectionists."

House Democratic Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) was among the Democrats happy to demonize Alito.

Clark — whose adult son was arrested and charged in January 2023 with assault and battery on a Boston police officer — said in May 23 statement, "Justice Alito has displayed flags at his homes that support insurrection against our government, promote religious nationalism, and attack free and fair elections."

"This is not just another example of extremism that has overtaken conservatism. This is a threat to the rule of law and a serious breach of ethics, integrity, and Justice Alito's oath of office," continued Clark.

This would not be the first time in recent memory that heated Democratic rhetoric resonated with an extremist.

Blaze News previously highlighted that the suspected would-be Trump assassin arrested Sunday directly quoted Democratic rhetoric. Prior to his arrest, Ryan Routh posted about how "DEMOCRACY is on the ballot" this election. This is one of Kamala Harris' go-to lines.

If convicted, then Anastasiou faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison for each of the nine counts of threatening the justices and a maximum penalty of five years in prison for each of the latter 13 counts.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Supreme Court Rulings TRIGGER Liberals | New SCOTUS Decisions Explained

Supreme Court Rulings TRIGGER Liberals | New SCOTUS Decisions Explained

Jeffrey Toobin exposes himself to criticism after calling Justice Thomas a 'disgrace'



Jeffrey Toobin, a former CNN analyst who continues to make appearances on the liberal network, lashed out at U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Tuesday for daring to question the Biden Department of Justice's uneven application of the law.

By calling the highly esteemed constitutionalist a "disgrace," Toobin exposed himself once again to criticism over his less than sterling public record.

The case

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in Fischer v. United States, which concerns the application of a federal obstruction statute against Jan. 6 protesters.

The controversial law in question, Section 1512(c)(2), makes it a felony to obstruct or impede an official proceeding and carries a maximum penalty of 20 years. The law has been weaponized by the Biden Department of Justice for use against more than 350 Jan. 6 protesters.

CBS News highlighted that the felony charge is among those former President Donald Trump faces in the case brought in Washington, D.C., by special counsel Jack Smith in 2023.

America's Future and the Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund noted in their amicus brief on the behalf of the petitioners that the DOJ has "indicted hundreds, including [former police officer Joseph W. Fischer], for a crime that carries a sentence twice what Congress provided for insurrections," on the basis of a "strained reading" of an obscure provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and a "fabricated January 6 narrative."

"Allowing this strained reading to stand can be expected to lead to further weaponization of the Justice Department," said the brief.

Oral arguments

During oral arguments Tuesday, Jeffrey Green, who represented Fischer, noted that the law was created with the intention of addressing acts that impact the "integrity or availability of evidence," not acts that serve as inconveniences without affecting evidence, reported The Hill.

Conservative justices appeared interested in the selective and potential expansive application of the law, which the DOJ conceded serves as a "classic catchall."

Justice Neil Gorsuch asked, "Would a sit-in that disrupts a trial or access to a federal courthouse qualify? Would a heckler in today's audience qualify or at the State of the Union Address? Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify? And for 20 years in federal prison?"

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, arguing on behalf of the government, suggested the statute would apply in cases of "meaningful interference" and that "minor disruption[s]," determined by partisan prosecutors, would be safe.

Gorsuch responded with a thinly veiled intimation that New York Democratic Rep. Jamaal Bowman's fire alarm pull and Portland radicals' sit-in would qualify as federal felonies.

Prelogar insinuated that perceived interference or obstruction regarded by partisan prosecutors as "mostly peaceful protests" are exempt.

Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch nukes Joe Biden's DOJ over January 6th sentences:\n\nGorsuch lists multiple cases of folks who "obstructed a Congressional proceeding" without receiving a 20 year sentence.\n\n1. Sit-ins at a trial (Kavanaugh protests)\n2. Pulling a fire alarm (Rep.\u2026
— (@)

Justice Thomas also risked the ire of statists and other champions of government overreach, highlighting the DOJ's uneven application of the law.

"There have been many violent protests that have interfered with proceedings," said Justice Thomas. "Has the government applied this provision to other protests in the past, and has this been the government's position throughout the lifespan of this statute?"

Prelogar refrained from answering the question directly, prompting Thomas to ask again, "Have you enforced it in that manner?"

"I can't give you an example of enforcing it in a situation where people have violently stormed a building in order to prevent an official proceeding, a specified one," answered the solicitor general.

A stone thrown from a glass house

Prickled by Justice Thomas putting questions of substance to the state, Toobin denounced the Supreme Court justice online.

The frequent CNN guest, who once had a job at the network, wrote in an X post, "In oral argument today, Justice Thomas is minimizing the severity of the 1/6 insurrection at the Capitol. Perhaps that's because his wife was part of the conspiracy. What a disgrace that he's sitting on this case."

Toobin quickly learned he was not the only critic on the platform.

Megyn Kelly responded, "Hi Toobin - fyi you waived your right to use the term 'disgraced' about other lawyers when you took your dick out of your pants and jerked off in front of your colleagues."

Hi Toobin - fyi you waived your right to use the term \u201cdisgraced\u201d about other lawyers when you took your dick out of your pants and jerked off in front of your collleagues
— (@)

Mike Davis of the Article III Project, among the many who clearly appreciated Kelly's response, said, "Has anyone reported this murder yet?"

Sean Davis, CEO of the Federalist, similarly noted, "It always amuses me when a man who got caught beating his meat on a Zoom call thinks he's in a position to call other people disgraceful."

Toobin worked as a writer at the New Yorker and CNN's chief legal analyst until he exposed himself to colleagues on an October 2020 zoom call. People familiar with the matter told CNN that in a disgraceful display, Toobin began masturbating during the call.

Toobin acknowledged the incident occurred and claimed, "I thought no one on the Zoom call could see me. I thought I had muted the Zoom video."

CNN, which initially sidelined the flasher, apparently waited until August 2022 to confirm Toobin's departure from the network.

While various critics referenced Toobin's 2020 incidents, others went for deeper cuts, referencing his sordid extramarital affair.

The New York Post reported that the father of two had an affair with his former CNN colleague's daughter, 14 years his junior. After getting her pregnant, Toobin allegedly offered Casey Greenfield "money if she'd have an abortion."

Toobin reportedly denied paternity of the baby but was later confirmed by tests to be the father, prompting Greenfield to take Toobin to court over custody and financial support issues.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Could SEC v. Jarkesy Be The SCOTUS Case That Brings Down The Administrative State?

Does the SEC have the constitutional authority to regulate and target small business owners, up to the tune of a half-a-million-dollar fine?

ProPublica’s Smearing Of Conservative Justices Is Part Of The Left’s Ploy To Destroy The Court

ProPublica's 'reporter' and 'ethics officials' are all funded by the same left-wing organizations with an agenda to radically reshape the court.
SCOTUS End-of-Term SPECIAL! With Jeremy Dys and Stu Burguiere | The News & Why It Matters | 7/1/22

SCOTUS End-of-Term SPECIAL! With Jeremy Dys and Stu Burguiere | The News & Why It Matters | 7/1/22

Pro-abortion protesters pledge 'summer of rage' during nationwide Saturday protests



Thousands of pro-abortion advocates rallied across the country on Saturday to express their anger over the U.S. Supreme Court’s potential repeal of Roe v. Wade.

The demonstrations come in response to the leak of a draft majority opinion, which has since been authenticated by Chief Justice John Roberts, indicating that the Supreme Court is prepared to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Reuters reported that the mass demonstration’s organizers are saying these gatherings mark the start of a potential “summer of rage” if the Supreme Court moves forward with repealing Roe.

The “Bans Off Our Bodies” gatherings were planned by Planned Parenthood, Women’s March, and other pro-abortion organizations. The groups organized more than 400 protests for Saturday.

If Roe is repealed, several states are expected to implement additional restrictions on abortion while others are expected to vastly expand abortion access. A repeal of Roe would not result in a federal ban on abortion. It would, however, allow each state to establish its own legislative approach to the matter.

On Saturday, there were large gatherings in New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and more. There were also accompanying counterprotests led by pro-life groups.

At the protests in Washington, D.C., protestors gathered around the Washington Monument at the National Mall where they waved placards with messages condemning the Supreme Court and expressing solidarity with the pro-abortion movement.

In downtown Brooklyn, thousands of pro-abortion advocates crossed the Brooklyn Bridge into Manhattan.

Elizabeth Holtzman, an 80-year-old attendee of the protest who represented New York in Congress from 1973 to 1981, said that the leaked majority opinion “treats women as objects, as less than full human beings.”

In Los Angeles, outside of Los Angeles City Hall, Malcolm DeCesare, a 34-year-old intensive care unit nurse, said that making abortion illegal could put the lives of women who seek alternatives at risk.

At a pro-abortion protest in Atlanta, Georgia, more than 400 people assembled in a small park in front of the state’s capitol while a much smaller group of counter protestors peacefully demonstrated on a nearby sidewalk.

One 23-year-old counter protestor held a sign that read “Stop Child Sacrifice.”

This counter protestor said, “Jesus had just a small group, but his message was more powerful. I’m hoping to plant some seeds in their hearts to change minds.”

Despite the sizable protests, recent polling suggests that overturning Roe stands to benefit Republicans in the upcoming 2022 midterm elections.

Amazon will reimburse employees $4,000 if they cross state lines to get an abortion



Amazon is committing to financing the abortions of its employees.

On Monday, the second-largest private employer in the U.S. told its staff that it will pay up to $4,000 annually in travel expenses for “non-life-threatening medical treatments including abortions.”

Reuters reported that Amazon’s decision to subsidize its employees' abortions places the online mega-retailer on a growing list of large corporations with similar policies on the books. Citigroup Inc. and Yelp Inc. both announced that they would subsidize the abortion process for their employees in response to Republican-backed state laws limiting abortion access.

In a similar vein, the popular ride-sharing companies Uber and Lyft previously vowed to cover the legal fees for drivers in Texas who encounter legal difficulties for driving women to abortion clinics, Fortune reported.

The company’s new benefit will have retroactive coverage and is available to both its U.S. employees and their covered dependents who are enrolled in either the Premera or Aetna health plans. The reimbursement benefits are available to employees at all levels of the company. Warehouse workers and executives alike can be reimbursed for expenses incurred in their pursuit of an abortion.

However, in order to qualify for the reimbursement, the individuals seeking to receive an abortion must travel more than 100 miles.

Amazon announced that it would start financing abortions the same day that it stopped offering U.S.-based employees paid time off when they get diagnosed with COVID-19.

On Monday, a draft decision indicating that the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to overturnRoe v. Wade was leaked to the media.

The draft is of the court’s majority opinion and is written by Associate Justice Samuel Alito. It is believed that the opinion had already circulated inside the court prior to it being leaked.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Alito wrote.

“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division,” Alito continued.

The draft decision is related to an outstanding challenge against a piece of pro-life legislation out of Mississippi.

“The inescapable conclusion is that a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions,” Alito concludes. “On the contrary, an unbroken tradition of prohibiting abortion on pain of criminal punishment persisted from the earliest days of common law until 1973.”

Justice Gorsuch torches Virginia city in church tax case dissent, says its actions 'have no place in a free country'



Conservative Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch torched the city of Fredericksburg, Virginia, in a blistering dissent on Tuesday after city leaders probed into a church's internal affairs in order to deny a tax exemption for a ministry couple's home.

"The First Amendment does not permit bureaucrats or judges to subject religious views to verification," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in a dissent following the court's refusal to hear the case. "About this, the Court has spoken plainly and consistently for many years."

At issue in the case was a tax-exemption claim on a home made by the New Life in Christ Church in Fredericksburg. The church had just hired a married couple to serve as college ministers in their congregation and had purchased a home for the couple to live in, expecting the purchase to qualify as a "ministerial house" under state law.

But to the church's surprise, the city denied their claim. Moreover, in denying the claim, the city argued that the church misunderstood its own religious doctrine. After having delved into the religious order of the church, the city concluded that based on the Book of Church Order of the Presbyterian Church in America, college ministers do not qualify as "ministers" and so the church wasn't entitled to a tax credit on the home.

In response, the church explained that the city was wrong in its interpretation of the church's faith and tradition. It argued that nothing in its rules or the Book of Church Order “prohibits a particular church from hiring ministers to serve as messengers and teachers of the faith" neither do they nullify a church's "broad authority to govern its own affairs."

But the city was unpersuaded by the church's arguments and maintained its denial of the property tax credit, concluding the city has the right to "make a determination of relevant facts, based on the evidence, when adjudicating a church's application for Virginia's tax exemption."

Gorsuch was enraged. He argued that "bureaucratic efforts to 'subject' religious beliefs to 'verification' have no place in a free country."

"Even now, before this Court, the City continues to insist that a church’s religious rules are 'subject to verification' by government officials," the justice said in his dissent. "I would grant the petition and summarily reverse."

"The framers of our Constitution were acutely aware how governments in Europe had sought to control and manipulate religious practices and churches," he wrote. "They resolved that America would be different. In this country, we would not subscribe to the 'arrogant pretension' that secular officials may serve as 'competent Judge[s] of Religious truth.'"

Horowitz: All 3 Trump-appointed justices have helped destroy female sports



Remember those promises to win back the Supreme Court and overturn bad decisions that have stood for decades, like Roe v. Wade? Well, it turns out that, after having gotten three Supreme Court picks, the phony conservative legal establishment that advised Trump failed to even get judges who wouldn't add new odious precedents. Now we are all paying the price for it – so much so that red states can't even keep boys out of girls' sports.

Last Wednesday, Southern District of West Virginia Judge Joseph R. Goodwin ruled that the state's recently passed law barring men in female sports is unconstitutional. At a time when judges, including those appointed by Trump, are refusing to acknowledge a long-standing recognized right to bodily autonomy, Goodwin wrote that there is a right under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause to access the other gender's sports. He also ruled, based on Gorsuch's opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, that the law violates Title IX, a federal education law that prevents sex-based discrimination, which was created in 1972, long before anyone thought about gender dysphoria.

I don't think conservatives realized last year just how devastating the Bostock decision was or the extent of its long-term consequences. The radical opinion basically applied the word "sex" in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to transgenderism. At the time, Gorsuch promised that this was just a limited ruling to one statute and would not create a constitutional right for transgenderism, but as Alito warned in his dissent, once you misconstrue the word "sex" as understood in 1964, it would easily be applied as discrimination to other laws, such as Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Well, as I noted last month, Gorsuch had his chance to limit the impact of his decision by overturning the Fourth Circuit in Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board, which applied sex discrimination in the context of separate public bathrooms in a Virginia school. Yet not only did Gorsuch decline to take up the appeal from the school, the other two Trump appointees – Barrett and Kavanaugh – also allowed this radical opinion to stand. Only Justices Thomas and Alito would have granted certiorari. This means that if we are to subscribe to judicial supremacism, all the laws protecting female sports or barring chemical castration of minors are dead in the water. Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, and Montana have enacted similar laws that are now all on the judicial chopping block.

Yes, Judge Goodwin in West Virginia is a Democrat appointee, but it's clear that the other lower court judges will feel that this is now Supreme Court precedent. Goodwin used the Grimm decision that was implicitly blessed by seven of the nine justices as the basis of his preliminary injunction against the West Virginia law.

It's quite evident that Gorsuch's Bostock opinion, supplemented by the high court's tacit blessing of Grimm, has become the Roe v. Wade of human sexuality. Any law regulating the use of chemical castration for minors will now face the same fate at the courts. Earlier this month in Tennessee, a federal judge placed a temporary injunction on a state law requiring businesses that choose to allow men in female bathrooms (or vice versa) to post signs notifying patrons.

Yes, GOP judges have now codified transgenderism as a civil right against all state recognition of human sexes the way God meant them to be. The ramifications are unlimited and will have bearings on adoptions, Catholic hospitals, and any female private spaces in schools and colleges.

Ironically, this ruling came a week after an Indiana federal judge opined that states have robust "police powers" to force someone to get an experimental vaccine with known side effects and little benefit for those attending public universities. Judge Leichty ruled that there is no Fourteenth Amendment right to bodily autonomy. So, people can be excluded from a public university altogether unless they take an affirmative action against their bodies, yet a state cannot exclude a boy from the girls' sports team in that same college. Just 10 years ago, none of us could have written a satire about the judicial system to capture the degree of intellectual twisting we are experiencing today.

Unless Republicans begin fighting back against the premise of judicial supremacism, there is no hope of ever distinguishing a red state from a blue state in policies. It's time for states to say "no." If a judge can't even provide a shield to protect people from proactive COVID fascism policies taken against one's body, then they most certainly can't serve as a sword to force states to offer affirmative accommodations they don't believe in. The days of waiting to appoint "better judges" are over.