Why The Court’s Murthy Ruling Is Probably The Worst Free Speech Decision In History
SCOTUS put Americans affected by censorship in an unenviable position, reversing the burden of proof and denying any effective remedy.SCOTUS put Americans affected by censorship in an unenviable position, reversing the burden of proof and denying any effective remedy.Washington Post Writers Admit There’s Nothing To Alito Flag Story But Partisan Journalism
A Post reporter said he was unaware the upside-down U.S. flag was associated with the so-called "Stop the Steal" movement.Democrats' media allies once again think they've nailed Justice Alito on something damning
Undaunted by weeks of duds, exponents of the public-private campaign to neutralize Justice Samuel Alito on the U.S. Supreme Court believe they've finally got their hands on a bombshell: an audio recording wherein Alito can be heard both expressing a hope for healing in the face of political polarization and acknowledging that in the culture war underway, one side might ultimately prevail.
This time around, the sensational headlines were made not by Obama hagiographer Jodi Kantor at the New York Times but rather by leftist blogger Lauren Windsor, a self-described "advocacy journalist" on the team at Robert Creamer's Democrat-aligned Democracy Partners who helped the Lincoln Project stage a fake white supremacist rally in 2021 to smear then-candidate Glenn Youngkin ahead of the Virginia gubernatorial election.
Pretending to be a religious conservative at the Supreme Court Historical Society's annual dinner on June 3, Windsor approached and surreptitiously recorded brief conversations with Justice Alito and his wife, Martha-Ann Alito.
As with the various flag stories pushed by the Times and other liberal publications, Windsor's apparent aim — and that of Rolling Stone, the libelous publication first provided the audio recordings, which are now on X — is to paint Alito as ideologically compromised and incapable of dealing with 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.
The trouble for Windsor and other Democratic-aligned public-private campaigners is, once again, that notwithstanding their framing and manufactured hoopla, the recording is relatively benign. In fact, it undermines the public-private campaigner's previous narrative and reveals Justice Alito has no aspirations of weaponizing the high court, even against criminal leakers.
Windsor, taping Alito without his consent — legal in D.C., which is a one-party consent state — suggested at the outset that her imaginary husband implored her to "tell Justice Alito that he is a fighter and we appreciate him and he has all the grit."
After blowing more smoke, Windsor raised the matter of political polarization and how to repair it.
"Considering everything that's been going on in the past year, you know, as a Catholic and as someone who, like, really cherishes my faith, I just don't know. I don't know that we can negotiate with the left in the way that needs to happen for the polarization to end," said Windsor. "I think that it's a matter of like, winning."
Justice Alito said, "I think you're probably right. On one side or the other, one side or the other is going to win. I don't know."
"I mean, there can be a way of working a way of living together peacefully," continued the justice. "But it's difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can't be compromised. They really can't be compromised. It's not like you're going to split the difference."
In response to Justice's Alito's observation regarding the incommensurability between contemporary liberal and rightist worldviews, Windsor stated, "It's just, I think that the solution really is like winning the moral argument. Like, people in this country who believe in God have got to keep fighting for that, to return our country to a place of godliness."
Justice Alito responded, "I agree with you. I agree with you."
'It's easy to blame the media, but I do blame them because they do nothing but criticize us and so they have really eroded trust in the court.'
Upon the justice's supposedly controversial affirmation that the country should aspire toward spiritual purity and virtue, the remainder of the first audio clip concluded with Windsor bloviating.
In a second recording, apparently taken last year, Windsor again asked Justice Alito about how to remedy political polarization in America, to which he responded, "I wish I knew. I don't know. It's easy to blame the media, but I do blame them because they do nothing but criticize us and so they have really eroded trust in the court."
"I don't know, I really don't know," continued Justice Alito. "American citizens in general need to work on this, to try to heal this polarization because it's very dangerous. I do believe it's very dangerous."
When Windsor began to beat around the bush about possible judicial activism, Justice Alito said, "I don't think it's something we can do. ... We have a very defined role and we need to do what we're supposed to do. But this is a bigger problem. This is way above us."
Later in the secretly recorded 2023 conversation, Windsor asked whether the radical who leaked a draft of the Dobbs decision would ever be "ferreted out." Justice Alito dispassionately reminded Windsor that such work is neither the business of the high court nor within its authority.
"We're not a law enforcement agency, you know," said Justice Alito. "So, law enforcement agencies can issue subpoenas and get search warrants and all that sort of thing, but we can’t do that. So, you know, our [U.S.] marshall, she did as much as she could do. But it was limited."
While in both secretly recorded conversations, Justice Alito said nothing compromising, Rolling Stone suggested, "Alito's comments add to the controversy surround the conservative justice."
Liberal publications, likely cognizant they were serving up another nothing-burger, leaned on Windsor's surreptitious recording of a conversation with Martha-Ann Alito at the same June 3 event last week — even though they ultimately reveal Justice Alito works to maintain neutrality as well as the perception of neutrality while respecting his wife's autonomy.
Windsor expressed sympathy for the ordeal the liberal media had put Mrs. Alito through, to which the justice's wife said, "It's okay! It's okay! ... It's okay because if they come back to me, I'll get them. I'm gonna be liberated, and I'm gonna get them."
Mrs. Alito clarified that by this, she means that she may seek to hold the liberal media accountable for perceived defamation.
Windsor asked about the manufactured scandal over the inverted flag at her house and Appeal to Heaven flag at her beach house. Mrs. Alito made clear that contrary to the presumption of "femi-Nazis," she is an agential woman whom Justice Alito "never controls," thereby bolstering Justice Alito's previous statements following the New York Times' false flag reports.
Later in the conversation, Windsor noted, "They're persecuting you and you're like a convenient stand-in for anybody who's religious."
"Look at me. Look at me. I'm German, from Germany. My heritage is German. You come after me, I'm gonna give it back to you," said Mrs. Alito. "And there will be a way, it doesn't have to be now, but there will be a way, they will know. Don't worry about it. God — you read the Bible — Psalm 27 is my psalm. Mine. Psalm. 'The Lord is my God and my rock. Of whom shall I be afraid?' Nobody."
When the question about polarization came up, Mrs. Alito allegedly said leftists "feel ... they don't think," then noted, "I want a Sacred Heart of Jesus flag because I have to look across the lagoon at the pride flag for the next month. ... And [Justice Alito] is like, 'Oh, please don't put up a flag.' I said, 'I won't do it because I'm deferring to you. But when you are free of this nonsense, I'm putting it up and I'm gonna send them a message every day. Maybe every week, I'll be changing the flags."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
New York Times’ hit piece on Justice Alito fails; only reveals NYT needs a history lesson
When Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s wife flew an upside-down American flag over their home, the New York Times was not happy.
Now, the New York Times is upset with the justice again — this time because he flew an "Appeal to Heaven" pine tree flag outside his New Jersey beach home. The Times is claiming this is a popular symbol among January 6 “insurrectionists.”
While the New York Times clearly has no idea what they’re talking about, they’re in luck. Because Glenn Beck does know what he’s talking about, and he’s here to give them a much needed history lesson.
“That was the symbol of New England since the 16th century. Why? Because New England had big pine trees. Why was that important? Because they could build ships and build them for England or whoever and ship giant masts, which were hard to find because nobody had the giant pine trees that New England had,” Glenn explains.
The flag is also symbolic of “the Great Peacemaker,” who was with the Iroquois Indians. The peacemaker had convinced warring nations to bury their weapons under a pine tree.
“So, it is also the symbol of the tree of peace,” Glenn says. “It was also on the coinage produced by the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and it became the symbol of the colonial iron resistance as well as a multi-tribal support for independence now,” he adds.
The phrase “Appeal to Heaven” is also an expression of the right to revolution, which Glenn jokes comes from the “outrageous killer John Locke.”
“Let me just boil this down,” he explains. “This flag is first a sign of the pine tree as trade, okay? It is also a sign of peace among the Indians. It is then added to that ‘the appeal to heaven’ comes from John Locke and what he wrote in 1690. It was a refute of the theory of the divine right of kings.”
Glenn has his own interpretation of the flag, and it’s not a symbol of insurrection.
“I always interpreted that flag as an appeal to heaven for common sense and for help. Please Lord, help us, and it would go right along with an upside-down flag,” he explains, adding, “We’re in distress. Can we please look to God and beg for his mercy and guidance. How unbelievably controversial is that.”
Want more from Glenn Beck?
To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
EXPLOSIVE new details in Hunter Biden case; could he be a CIA asset?
Damning new details in Hunter Biden’s case have emerged, one of which Sara Gonzales calls “very explosive.”
According to whistleblower Gary Shapley, the CIA blocked federal investigators from interviewing Hunter Biden’s "sugar brother" Hollywood lawyer Kevin Morris during the five-year tax probe into Hunter’s tax crimes.
The House Oversight Committee and Judiciary Committee chairman were informed by the whistleblower that the intelligence agency stopped IRS and Justice Department investigators from interviewing Morris in August 2021.
The whistleblower also claimed that two DOJ officials were “summoned to discuss Kevin Morris” to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, for their investigation into Hunter Biden.
“They were provided a classified briefing in relation to Morris, and, as a result, we could no longer pursue him as a witness,” Gonzales reads. “What it said,” she adds, shocked.
Apparently, it was unclear how the CIA became aware that Morris was a potential witness and why agents were not told about the meeting in advance or invited to participate in it — which is a “deviation of normal investigative processes.”
“You know what else is a deviation of normal investigative processes? For the CIA to be involved in a domestic tax fraud investigation,” Gonzales says. “I don’t think the CIA is supposed to be involved in these sorts of domestic matters.”
“So, why in the hell is the CIA breaking the law seemingly to intervene in a domestic investigation? Who is the CIA asset? It’s got to be one of them, right? It’s got to be either Hunter Biden or his buddy Kevin Morris,” she says, adding, “It’s making more sense as to why Hunter was involved in so many foreign companies, why he was involved in Burisma, why he was involved in CEFC.”
“So, I think America needs to know: Is Joe Biden’s son a CIA asset?”
Want more from Sara Gonzales?
To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Justice Alito highlights continued 'danger' of Supreme Court's same-sex 'marriage' ruling for religious Americans
For nearly a decade, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has seen his concerns over the possible fallout of the court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges manifest in various ways, both in the public and private spheres.
In a statement Tuesday, the conservative justice renewed his criticism, stressing that the controversial 2015 decision continues to threaten and adversely impact religious Americans — particularly those who remain steadfast in their conviction that marriage is reserved for one man and one woman.
What's the background?
Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee outlasted much of the nation in maintaining that marriage was a union between one man and one woman. Plaintiffs in the four states filed lawsuits, which ultimately culminated in Obergefell v. Hodges, heard by the Supreme Court in 2015.
Liberal justices determined in their 5-4 ruling that the right to marry is guaranteed to non-straight couples by the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Alito joined Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in stressing that there was no textual basis in the Constitution or corresponding history for precluding states from developing their own definitions of marriage. The conservative justices also indicated that the majority changed the focus from what the four states were constitutionally required to do to what they supposedly should do.
Extra to indicating that the court's liberal majority adopted a "distinctively postmodern" understanding of liberty and accepted an eudaemonistic concept of marriage — one divorced from any traditional understanding — Alito stressed that the decision "usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter their traditional understanding of marriage."
"It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy," wrote Alito.
"In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women," continued the conservative justice. "The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent."
Alito underscored that "those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools."
Foreseen consequences
The Supreme Court declined Tuesday to hear the case Missouri Department of Corrections v. Jean Finney, concerning whether the Fourteenth Amendment protects jurors from being dismissed on the basis of stereotypes about religious views and whether, again in the context of jury selection, the amendment protects "both religious status and religious belief, religious status only, or neither," reported SCOTUSblog.
Finney, a lesbian employee of the Missouri Department of Corrections, alleged that after starting a non-straight relationship with a co-worker's former spouse, the co-worker made life and work difficult for her. She sued the MDOC, alleging it was responsible for her co-worker's actions.
The New York Times noted that during jury selection, Finney's lawyer grilled potential jurors about whether they attended a "conservative Christian church," particularly one that was not all in on the LGBT agenda. The lawyer proceeded to strike off two jurors on the basis of their responses, prompting concerns about religious discrimination.
Ultimately, the jury — purged of religious Americans with orthodox views — sided with Finney. The MDOC appealed, and the case then got kicked up to the Supreme Court's attention at the request of the Office of the Missouri Attorney General.
Justice Alito's renewed concern
Justice Alito wrote Tuesday that while he reluctantly agreed the court "should not grant certiorari in this case, which is complicated by a state-law procedural issue[,] ... I am concerned that the lower court's reasoning may spread and may be a foretaste of things to come."
The conservative justice noted that "the court below reasoned that a person who still holds traditional religious views on questions of sexual morality is presumptively unfit to serve on a jury in a case involving a party who is a lesbian."
"That holding exemplifies the danger that I anticipated in Obergefell v. Hodges," continued Alito, "namely, that Americans who do not hide their adherence to traditional religious beliefs about homosexual conduct will be 'labeled as bigots and treated as such' by the government."
Alito cast doubt on whether the Missouri Court of Appeals, which affirmed the religious jurors' dismissals, respected their "fundamental rights," including the right to the free exercise of religion and the right to the equal protection of laws.
"When a court, a quintessential state actor, finds that a person is ineligible to serve on a jury because of his or her religious beliefs, that decision implicates fundamental rights," wrote Alito, adding that state actions that single out the religious for disfavored treatment must survive the most rigorous scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause.
Alito suggested that unless the jurors were somehow incapable of deciding the case "based on the law and the evidence," which the lower courts and Finney's lawyer apparently failed to demonstrate, he would "see no basis for dismissing a juror for cause base on religious beliefs."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
freebeacon.com
www.theblaze.com
Justice Alito Takes a MUCH-Deserved Victory Lap for Roe Overturn | Ep 543