Alito: Americans Will Regret Court’s Allowance Of ‘Blatantly Unconstitutional’ Censorship
‘It was blatantly unconstitutional, and the country may come to regret the Court’s failure to say so,’ Alito wrote in his dissent.‘It was blatantly unconstitutional, and the country may come to regret the Court’s failure to say so,’ Alito wrote in his dissent.Exclusive: Pennsylvania Lawmakers Appeal To Supreme Court In Case Challenging ‘Bidenbucks’
Plaintiffs want the court to weigh in on the critical question of standing: whether individual lawmakers can stand up to Biden's overreach.Whoopi Goldberg lies about Clarence Thomas and persists in ignorance when confronted with the facts
Whoopi Goldberg lied repeatedly and outrageously Wednesday morning on "The View" when she asserted that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has called for an end to interracial marriage.
Despite pushback from her co-hosts, Goldberg stubbornly insisted that Thomas "brought up" taking away the right that people have to marry someone of a different race or ethnicity in his concurring opinion for the Supreme Court's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision. She made her comments during a discussion on the Democratic message for the upcoming midterm elections after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and ended the constitutional right to abortion.
"What the Democrats seem to be running on is also protecting everyone's rights," Goldberg said. "Regardless, whoever you love or whoever you're married to, if you're married — I don't know — but they're trying to make sure that the rights you are so easily, you know, able to give away ... we're trying to hold on and say, actually you can't do that. Especially for a lot of folks who are also married interracially, which is coming up, you know bobbing its ugly head around."
Joy Behar interjected, pointing out that Thomas, a black man who is married to a white woman, "is not gonna move on that one."
"Well, let's find out. He's the one who sort of brought it up," Goldberg claimed.
"Well, he didn't bring that one up," Behar responded, but Goldberg ignorantly insisted "yes he did!"
\u201cWhoopi Goldberg falsely claims the Supreme Court is looking to abolish interracial marriages and that Justice Clarence Thomas is leading the charge.\n"Yeah, he brought that one up," she ignorantly declared. "Yes, he did! Yes, he did!"\n#ABCStandards\u201d— Nicholas Fondacaro (@Nicholas Fondacaro) 1658329762
Sunny Hostin, a lawyer, went to Thomas' concurring opinion for Dobbs to clear up what he actually said. The justice agreed with the majority's argument that Roe was wrongly decided because the text of the Constitution is silent on abortion and the right is neither "deeply rooted" in the nation's history nor an essential component of "ordered liberty." But while the majority explicitly stated, "Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion," Thomas would have gone further.
He wrote that the court should "in future cases ... reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell." The cases Thomas cited established a constitutional right to privacy that broadly protects contraception access, sodomy, and gay marriage, respectively.
Importantly, Thomas did not write that these cases were wrongly decided. He took issue with the legal principle of substantive due process, which has been used by courts to establish protections for rights that are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Thomas called this principle "an oxymoron" that "lack[s] any basis in the Constitution," and said the reasoning of the cited cases should be reconsidered using other legal principles.
Hostin did not mention Thomas' argument regarding substantive due process, but she did point out that the justice did not suggest reconsidering Loving v. Virginia, the landmark civil rights case that declared laws banning interracial marriage unconstitutional.
Nevertheless, Goldberg persisted.
"I'm telling you, when he spoke about all the things that could go, this was one of the things he brought up," she wrongly asserted.
After a cut to commercial break, Goldberg doubled down on her false claim.
\u201cComing back from a commercial break, Whoopi doubles down on her lie.\u201d— Nicholas Fondacaro (@Nicholas Fondacaro) 1658329762
"This is what Clarence said, he said is concurring opinion is 'we should reconsider all of the court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold'' ... and then he went on to name them," Goldberg said. "When you say 'all', I think you're talking about 'all' and you're not playing."
Far-left actor Ron Perlman says pro-2A Supreme Court ruling 'for whites only' — except Justice Clarence Thomas wrote majority opinion
Far-left actor Ron Perlman on Thursday tweeted that the Supreme Court's decision to overturn a New York law requiring gun owners to demonstrate "proper cause" for concealed handgun licenses is "for whites only," Fox News reported.
It isn't clear whether Perlman took into account that Justice Clarence Thomas — the only black justice on the high court — wrote the majority opinion.
"The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not 'a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees," Thomas wrote, adding that "we know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant's right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense."
Perlman deleted his tweet less than 30 minutes after posting it, Fox News said — but some folks didn't let his faux pas go.
"Why'd you delete this, @perlmutations?" one Twitter user asked the actor. "Did you figure out a Black man is responsible for the decision? It's like some of you are getting dumber in real time."
\u201cWhy\u2019d you delete this, @perlmutations? Did you figure out a Black man is responsible for the decision?\n\nIt\u2019s like some of you are getting dumber in real-time.\u201d— The\ud83d\udc30FOO (@The\ud83d\udc30FOO) 1656024390
Another user added, "A decision written by a black guy is "FoR wHiTeS OnLy"? Ok…"
\u201c@perlmutations A decision written by a black guy is "FoR wHiTeS OnLy"?\nOk...\ud83d\ude05\u201d— Ron Perlman (@Ron Perlman) 1656001643
Another Twitter user wrote "Damn bro that's crazy, but look at this racist I found that needs calling out!" Interestingly the user — @FDippity — posted the same screenshot of Perlman's tweet that @RonnieA1983 shared above, but Twitter slapped a warning label on @FDippity's screenshot:
\u201c@perlmutations Damn bro that\u2019s crazy but look at this racist I found that needs calling out!\u201d— Ron Perlman (@Ron Perlman) 1656001643
"A comfortable white liberal calling out a 'racist' SCOTUS decision written by a black man who actually suffered through the Jim Crow south," writer David Asman reacted to Perlman's antics. "Americans won’t buy any more of this crap."
Another user quipped, "Somebody introduce Ron Perlman to Judge Clarence Thomas."
"I think the real question here is, why does Ron Perlman, a rich white guy, want to deny minorities the ability to own a firearm?" another user added.
Clarence Thomas: Expanding The Administrative State Comes At The Expense Of The Constitution
'The whole point was to keep the government in this box ... the structure was the main way to protect your liberty,' Thomas said.Supreme Court supports convicted murderer's right to receive prayer and touch during execution
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Texas must allow a death row inmate to have a pastor "pray over" him and lay hands on him as he receives a lethal injection for his crimes.
The court's 8-1 decision held that Texas' objections to the request, citing potential disruption to the execution process, were insufficient to overcome the religious liberties the inmate claimed under the 2000 Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
In September, the Supreme Court granted a stay request made by Texas inmate John Ramirez, who was sentenced to death for the 2004 murder of a 46-year-old Corpus Christi convenience store clerk, Pablo Castro.
Lower courts had held that permitting Ramirez's pastor to stand near the inmate and pray silently during the execution was sufficient to accommodate Ramirez's request. But the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a broader interpretation of the government's duty to meet the religious requests of convicts.
“There is a rich history of clerical prayer at the time of a prisoner’s execution, dating back well before the founding of our Nation,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. “By passing RLUIPA, Congress determined that prisoners like Ramirez have a strong interest in avoiding substantial burdens on their religious exercise, even while confined. ... Because it is possible to accommodate Ramirez’s sincere religious beliefs without delaying or impeding his execution, we conclude that the balance of equities and the public interest favor his requested relief.”
Texas had raised concerns that permitting Ramirez's pastor to pray out loud during the execution would create an opportunity that "could be exploited to make a statement to the witnesses or officials, rather than the inmate." The state argued there was a compelling government interest in preventing those kinds of disruptions, which might traumatize the witnesses or victims. Texas also claimed that silence was necessary to ensure that the lethal injection process was carried out correctly, but the Supreme Court disagreed.
Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone voice of dissent. He argued that Ramirez was manipulating the judicial process to delay his execution and that his requests should be denied on procedural grounds.
"Ramirez's current RLUIPA suit is but the latest iteration in an 18-year pattern of evasion," Thomas wrote.
"In the end, none of Ramirez's federal habeas claims merited even a single certificate of appealability, let alone relief. Yet, through ceaseless litigation, strategic delay, and a 'last-minute' blitz on the District Court ... Ramirez parlayed his federal habeas petition into a 7-year deferral of his lawfully imposed sentence. We should interpret Ramirez's actions in the instant litigation in light of that history, recognize that his shifting in-chambers-touching claim is just another chapter in that history, and reject his most recent attempt to delay his execution."
Justice Clarence Thomas calls out SCOTUS for inconsistency on abortion and homicide for minors
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas recently called attention to the Court's apparent double standard on the maturity of minors, questioning why the court believes teenagers are not fully culpable for homicide but should have an adult's full right to abortion.
In a footnote of his concurring opinion in Jones v. Mississippi, a juvenile sentencing case, Thomas observed, "When addressing juvenile murderers, this Court has stated that 'children are different' and that courts must consider 'a child's lesser culpability.'"
"And yet, when assessing the Court-created right of an individual of the same age to seek an abortion, Members of this Court take pains to emphasize a 'young woman's right to choose,'" Thomas wrote.
"It is curious how this Court's view of the maturity of minors ebbs and flows depending on the issue," he observed.
Justice Thomas, dropping this delicious footnote today in Jones v Miss. (a juvenile sentencing case)... https://t.co/JVHT30d0hK— 𝘚𝘵𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘑. 𝘋𝘶𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘭𝘥 (@𝘚𝘵𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘑. 𝘋𝘶𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘭𝘥)1619100597.0
The Supreme Court's ruling in Jones v. Mississippi Thursday upheld a life without parole sentence for a Mississippi man, Brett Jones, who was convicted of stabbing his grandfather to death in 2004 when he was just 15 years old. Jones had challenged his sentence, arguing that recent Supreme Court opinions in Miller v. Alabama (2012) and Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016) required the judge who sentenced him to find that he was "permanently incorrigible" — incapable of rehabilitation — before sentencing him to life in prison.
In Miller v. Alabama, the court held that the Eighth Amendment's protection against "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibited mandatory minimum sentencing laws from requiring children convicted of homicide to be sentenced to life in prison without parole. In Montgomery v. Louisiana, the court held that the Miller ruling applied retroactively.
In a 6-3 decision, the court disagreed with Jones' argument, holding that a judge is only required to consider "an offender's youth and attendant characteristics" before handing down a life sentence without parole.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the majority opinion, writing the "argument that the sentencer must make a finding of permanent incorrigibility is inconsistent with the Court's precedents." He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett.
Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion in which he said he agreed with the court's decision but would have gone farther and outright overturned Montgomery v. Louisiana.
The liberal justices on the court dissented, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the minority, accused the Court of an "abrupt break" and an "abandonment" of the earlier precedents in Miller and Montgomery.
"The question is whether the state, at some point, must consider whether a juvenile offender has demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation sufficient to merit a chance at life beyond the prison in which he has grown up. For most, the answer is yes," Sotomayor wrote.
She said the Court's opinion "twists precedent," adding that "any doubts the Court may harbor about the merits of these decisions do not justify overruling them." She accused the majority of offering no justification for departing from the precedents in Miller and Montgomery.
"How low this Court's respect for stare decisis has sunk," she concluded.
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
freebeacon.com
Lib Heads EXPLODE When Justice Sotomayor Says What Clarence Thomas Is Actually Like