Republicans In Congress Look To Stop ‘Judicial Coup D’Etat’
Bills would check district courts from issuing nationwide injunctions like those issued against President Trump's executive orders.Bills would check district courts from issuing nationwide injunctions like those issued against President Trump's executive orders.If The Supreme Court Is Going To Ignore The Constitution, Trump Should Ignore The Supreme Court
Lower courts don’t have authority to usurp the executive branch through restraining orders and injunctions, no matter what the SCOTUS says.Ousted From Power By Voters, Dems Turn To Activist Judges To Defy Trump
Lower federal court judges have no constitutional authority to govern by injunction and undermine the executive branch.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.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.Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com
Lib Heads EXPLODE When Justice Sotomayor Says What Clarence Thomas Is Actually Like