At the core of the issue is the administration executive order that requires states to send their voter rolls to the U.S. Postal Service for mail service for mail-in ballots.  The USPS would then cross-check with DHS and Social Security records to ensure each of the names and addresses were eligible to vote before mailing them a ballot.

Obviously, the blue states -Democrat States- are refusing to comply with the USPS rule, the reason is simple.  A significant number of the blue state registered voters are not eligible voters (illegal aliens etc.)  If the states allowed cross-checking of their voter rolls the American people would see just how many illegal voters are registered; this would significantly reshape the U.S. election.  The scale of the issue is up for debate.

That said, the anxiety forms the baseline of opposition where blue states are suing in every court possible to stop the postal service requirement. The Trump executive order also directs the Postal Service to block delivery of mail-in ballots entirely from states that refuse to share voter lists with the federal government.

Today the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 [RULING HERE] that lifted one of the lower court injunctions that was filed as a lawsuit in Massachusetts. The court ruled that Boston-based Judge Indira Talwani (Obama appointee) engaged in “a string of speculations to find this suit justiciable.”

[SOURCE]

The three DEI justices (Brown-Jackson, Kagan, Sotomayor) all dissented from the majority opinion, because of course they did.

WASHINGTON – […] More than 20 blue states sued to block Trump’s order, saying it threatens to upend their planning for the midterms in November and intrudes on their authority to administer elections.

(more…)

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has stayed (removed) the lower court injunction blocking the White House from proceeding with Ballroom construction.  The White House can now continue building the ballroom and national security complex.

[SOURCE]

{Background Story Here}

(more…)

The White House has filed a petition with the Supreme Court asking for an immediate administrative stay of the DC District Court injunction blocking construction of the Ballroom and Military complex [SEE FILING HERE].

The baseline argument is very solid on several grounds, including standing. A single complaint from a woman who walks by the White House once per month and holds the opinion of the complex as an eyesore is not standing to block the construction. Additionally, several agencies of the Executive Branch stand in support of the construction on presidential security, safety and national security grounds.

[SOURCE]

The structure extends five stories deep into the ground, and is built with hardened concrete, steel, and rebar; protective missile-resistant columns, roofs, and beams; drone proof ceilings and roofs; and bullet, ballistic, and blast-proof glass. … The Project includes bomb shelters, state-of-the-art hospital and medical facilities, protective partitioning between all areas of the building, top secret military structures and equipment, military-grade venting, a single integrated air conditioning and heating system, sniper nests, and a drone port on top, elevated by the structure of the ballroom, to protect the White House and surrounding region from aerial attacks — “one of the nation’s largest emerging threats.”

President Trump has shared additional attachments to the filing, via Truth Social:

Secretary of State Marco Rubio: “In my work with heads of state and foreign ministers, I am frequently hosted in reception facilities that are visually impressive and reflective of the wealth and beauty of the nations I am visiting. In the United States, by contrast, we currently lack the ability to hold large events of a similar magnitude on White House grounds for those same heads of state and foreign dignitaries.

(more…)

Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan appeared on Capitol Hill to request a ten percent increase in Supreme Court budget spending.  The intent is to hire additional security to protect themselves from the outcome of their rulings.

Justice Barrett talked about the harrowing threats to herself and her family as the Court wants to bolster security.  The overall appearance before congress is slightly ironic considering the increase in threats is a direct consequence of court rulings that have opened borders, blocked deportation, stalled law enforcement, granted illegal aliens rights to citizenship and generally undermined our nation’s domestic tranquility.

Sorry, but my opinion on the matter has adjusted to new information.  The Supreme Court should have to live in the reality of the world they judicially create. No additional public security should be afforded.  They have a security detail that supersedes any security level a taxpaying American citizen might be afforded.

No expanded security details should be afforded to government employees, just to avoid the consequences of their ideology.

Mrs Barrett and her family can carry self-defense firearms, wear protective vests and worry about their security in the parking lot of the local supermarket just like we do.  Not to be obtuse, but the Constitution equally applies.

(more…)

What is proposed below is regulatory, lawful and entirely intended to create hardships and burdens.  Thus, a new era in State Department visa requirements respond to newly established guidelines by the Supreme Court.

As a pragmatic and patriotic American I respectfully suggest and recommend the U.S. State Department immediately institute the “Roberts Requirement” following similar visa entry protocols previously used for COVID-19 tests prior to U.S. admittance.

The Roberts Requirement: Each female visa applicant must present a valid negative pregnancy test taken no longer than 10 days prior to travel to the United States.

The certified document, negative pregnancy test, together with all related visa approvals must be presented to Customs and Border Patrol at each port of entry. Failure disqualifies the traveler.

This is the same protocol as COVID-19, only using pregnancy status as the disqualifying health issue. It is a lawful regulation, born from a new standard established by the Supreme Court, that does not need congressional approval.

(more…)

Like many of you I am profoundly angered by the Supreme Court decision that fractures our nation and conveys citizenship to the children of illegal aliens born in the United States.  [PDF HERE] In fact, I was so angered to my core, I went for a long walk before doing any further commenting on the matter.

U.S. Citizenship is now determined by how good at violating our nation’s borders, by conniving, by scheming and by deception to create a qualified child where no adult qualification exists.  This is the most detrimental decision by the Supreme Court in generations and will profoundly impact our nation.

There is no longer an apple, it’s all worms.

Today, the Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship – the guarantee of citizenship status to everyone born in the United States.

In a decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, five supreme court justices agreed with the challengers saying Trump’s order cannot be reconciled with the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which confers citizenship on anyone “born … in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

(6-3) Writing for the majority, Roberts emphasized that the “children born of parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States” “satisfy both elements of the Citizenship Clause.” “Under the Constitution,” he concluded, “they are citizens at birth.”

Roberts was joined in the majority by Justice SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, BARRETT, JACKSON and KAVANAUGH.

Justice THOMAS filed a dissenting opinion with GORSUCH and ALITO.

(more…)

During an oval office event to highlight President Trump signing three executive orders informing all agencies of government that federal officials will not be enforcing any rule that blocks citizens from repairing or modifying their own vehicles, President Trump took questions from the media on today’s Supreme Court rulings.  WATCH (prompted):

.

(more…)

Now the good news. As noted by Justice Thomas, this decision when contrast against the Lisa Cook decision does not find alignment.

By a vote of 6-3, the justices struck down a federal law that bars the president from firing members of the Federal Trade Commission except in cases of “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” [PDF Ruling Here] That law, a majority of the justices ruled, violates the constitutional separation of powers between the three branches of government.

This lengthy 108-page decision supports the Unitary Theory of government in that the President can remove any agency head within the Executive Branch through plenary power, and the Legislative Branch and Judicial Branch cannot interfere.  This is a major win for President Trump and beyond.

(6-3) Chief Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ALITO, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH and BARRETT joined, and in which THOMAS joined as to all but Part III–B. [GORSUCH filed a concurring opinion.] Justice SOTOMAYOR filed a dissenting opinion, in which KAGAN and JACKSON joined.

SCOTUS Blog – […] “Monday’s decision was a major victory for proponents of the “unitary executive” theory – the idea that the president should have complete control over the executive branch. Under this theory, the president should be able to fire any member of the executive branch, and laws – like the one that the court struck down – that restrict his ability to do so violate the separation of powers. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts contended that “the President must have the assistance of officers he can trust. Although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the President would prefer to work, neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work. Subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people.” (more)

(more…)

At issue in Trump v Cook is not whether Lisa Cook can appeal her removal, but rather where her position rests while the appeal is underway.  Does she work for the govt? Or is she technically removed from govt, pending appeal?

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Lisa Cook remaining in her position as a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors whom President Donald Trump had attempted to fire. By a vote of 5-4 [PDF HERE] [the court says Cook can continue to remain in her job while her challenge to Trump’s removal moves forward.

Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, and SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, KAVANAUGH and JACKSON concurred.

Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. ALITO filed a dissenting opinion, in which GORSUCH joined, and BARRETT also filed a dissenting opinion.

This is a rather goofball decision when you consider the previous issues with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the high court prior ruling that President Trump can remove the head of the agency.

Additionally, if Lisa Cook does not work for the President of the United States, meaning if she doesn’t work for the Executive Branch, then who exactly is she working for?  She doesn’t work for the legislative branch, and she doesn’t work for the judicial branch. Therefore, a de facto mysterious 4th branch of government is created.

(more…)

The Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 in favor of Mississippi -vs- RNC that state legislature can decide how long after election day that qualified election ballots cast may be received.  [PDF HERE] Essentially, federal election day is election day, but ballots can be received after election day for the length of time determined by state law.

Justice Barrett delivered the majority opinion, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson.

Justice Alito dissented along with Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

The Hight Court outlined that congress could change the ability of the states by changing the statutory language of the federal election law to require ballots be received by election day.  As long as federal law does not outline the deadline for ballot reception, states can extend that process at their legislative discretion.  THIS IS A HOT MESS FUBAR!

[5-4 Ruling Here]

“The federal election-day statutes do not prevent Mississippi from counting absentee ballots postmarked by election day but received up to five days thereafter; nothing in the federal election-day statutes requires ballots to be received by election day.”

(more…)