BREAKING TONIGHT – The Supreme Court has announced [LINK HERE and LINK HERE] it will hold a special hearing next month to consider challenges to the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate for large employers and a separate coronavirus vaccine mandate for health-care workers.
Both vaccine mandates have been partially blocked from going into effect by lower courts after challenges from states, business and religious coalitions.
Justices Alito and Kavanaugh both received requests, both affirmed acceptance, and then both cases were consolidated by THE COURT. The court will hear oral arguments for one hour on Friday January 7, 2022, just before the court begins regularly scheduled oral arguments. [SCOTUS Order Link]
When New York’s original vaccine mandate for healthcare workers was announced, it included an exemption for religious reasons. However, when the administration changed hands, Governor Hochul removed the religious exemption. A lawsuit was filed. A federal appeals court loss brought the plaintiffs to the Supreme Court requesting an injunction.
Today, the request from the 20 plaintiffs was rejected by the Supreme Court as referred by Justice Sotomayor who covers the New York region. Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas dissented and would have provide the injunctive relief. However, Chief Justice John Roberts, Amy Coney-Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh sided with the liberal wing and denied the request. [Full pdf Decision Here]
Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch wrote in their 14-page dissent that Governor Hochul’s record in the case “practically exudes suspicion of those who hold unpopular religious beliefs,” adding, “That alone is sufficient to render the mandate unconstitutional as applied to these applicants.”
Unfortunately, the alignment of Justices Roberts, Barrett and Kavanaugh with the left wing of the court makes future constitutional appeals around the vaccine mandate look increasingly tenuous. Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Barrett have been big disappointments.
The U.S. Supreme Court has again overturned the national eviction moratorium imposed by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). In a 6-3 ruling [pdf HERE] the court has rejected arguments that the CDC is permitted to arbitrarily enforce an eviction moratorium. The high court notes such a government mandate would have to come from the U.S. Congress, not an unelected bureaucratic agency.
This is the second time the eviction moratorium has reached the Supreme Court this year. In June, the court allowed the prior version of the moratorium to remain in place through July. However, on August 3rd the CDC arbitrarily renewed it for two months. This time the court halts it. “It strains credulity to believe that this statute grants the CDC the sweeping authority that it asserts.”
From the majority ruling: “It is indisputable that the public has a strong interest in combating the spread of the COVID–19 Delta variant. But our system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends. Cf. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 582, 585–586 (1952) (concluding that even the Government’s belief that its action “was necessary to avert a national catastrophe” could not overcome a lack of congressional authorization). It is up to Congress, not the CDC, to decide whether the public interest merits further action here.” (link)
This evening the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Texas in a lawsuit against the federal government. [View pdf Here] The outcome is a ruling requiring the Biden administration to reinstitute the “remain in Mexico” policy put into place during the Trump administration. The policy requires asylum seekers to remain in Mexico while they await hearings in the United States.
The ruling was 6-3 with Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer dissenting from the majority opinion. The ruling is a significant victory for Missouri and Texas, the two states who sued over Biden’s repeal of the policy and won a favorable ruling earlier this month requiring the Biden administration to return to the Trump-era policy.
A group of Indiana University students asked the lower courts for help as the university was requiring COVID vaccinations as a condition of returning to school. The federal district court in Indiana and 7th Circuit court refused to block the vaccination mandate while the students sued the school. That lead to the students requesting emergency relief from the United States Supreme Court.
This track became the first test of COVID-19 vaccination requirements to reach the Supreme Court. Justice Amy Coney Barrett handles the region; however, she has rejected the student’s request and will not pass it along to the full court. [CASE Details Here]
During the question and answer session following his remarks yesterday, Joe Biden said something out loud the media are desperately trying to hide.
In this video segment listen carefully to what he says. As the Supreme Court and lower courts have determined, the CDC has no legal authority to block the rights of property owners from rental income from their tenants. This is a basic issue in the Constitution about private property rights and the limits of federal government to intervene.
However, think about Joe Biden taking an oath of office “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” and contrast that oath against these public statements. In his remarks Biden readily admits that all constitutional scholars have advised the White House that a regulatory eviction moratorium will *NOT* pass constitutional scrutiny. He openly admits that….
….Then, in the very next sentence, after admitting any effort to initiate or extend a federal eviction moratorium violates the U.S. Constitution, he says he is intentionally directing federal agencies to trigger unconstitutional legal action in an effort to “buy time” and create a de-facto unlawful eviction moratorium.
In essence:… ‘I know this is unconstitutional; and I know we will lose the constitutional legal argument; but we will do this anyway, because ideology’. WATCH:
.
Put aside the sympathetic elements for a moment; and think BIG PICTURE. Think beyond the issue at hand with evictions. If the installed occupant of the White House can intentionally, and with willful and open intent, violate the United States Constitution; while admitting publicly he is violating the United States Constitution; then what makes you think they will stop at the issue of ‘evictions’.
Either we have a Constitution, or we do not.
Tell me how the willful violation of the Constitution -that is outlined in these public remarks- is not an impeachable offense?
A major win for voting integrity laws in the Supreme Court today will enhance the ability of all state legislatures, and further define the parameters and hurdles for lower court activists before they can rule against the rights of states to secure their elections.
The 6-3 ruling (Bryer, Sotomayor, Kagan in dissent) stems from a challenge to the 2016 Arizona election reform that banned ballot harvesting (with some exceptions) and nullified any ballot cast in the wrong precinct. Democrats and political activists argued the Arizona rules were targeted to restrict minority votes; however, the majority of the court dispatched that argument and went a step further to define how lower courts should approach claims of ‘disparate impact’.
Front row, left to right: Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer, and Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Back row, left to right: Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice Elena Kagan, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, and Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the decision [pdf available HERE] and strongly defended the ability of states to put voting rules in place that eliminates voter fraud. Alito concluded the ruling of the majority by stating courts should look at the reason why states want to impose a particular voting rule. Wanting to prevent voter fraud is, Alito made clear, a “strong and entirely legitimate state interest.”
The result is a complete win for the State of Arizona [Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee] and a strong boost for all state legislatures who are currently in the process of creating legislation to combat the voting fraud created by excessive use of mail-in ballots, ultimately the strategy purposefully behind the creation of COVID-19.
Philadelphia city leadership had previously changed policies forbidding foster-care referrals to faith-based worship groups. The far-left Philadelphia government officials had expressed their ‘woke’ advocacy by blocking Catholic Social Services (CSS), an organization associated with the Archdiocese of Philadelphia and foster parents from providing services due to their outlook on traditional marriage.
Two foster parents and CSS sued the city for discrimination alleging the policy violated their first amendment right to their religious belief. Two lower courts ruled against Catholic Social Services, reflecting just how politicized the local and state judiciary has become. However, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with CSS and the parents in a 9-0 ruling [full pdf here], affirming that Philadelphia was factually discriminating against the group based on their religious beliefs.
However, as noted by SCOTUS Blog – […] “the decision fell short of the broad endorsement of religious freedom that the challengers had sought. While the justices unanimously agreed with CSS and the foster parents that the city’s action was unconstitutional, a six-justice majority left intact the Supreme Court’s 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which held that government actions do not violate the Constitution’s free exercise clause as long as they are neutral and apply to everyone.”
Merrick Garland was not selected for U.S. Attorney General because JoeBama wanted him as AG. Factually Garland is not radical enough for the Obama crew to give an enthusiastic elevation. [Nope, that’s why they installed Lisa Monaco as Deputy AG to keep tabs on Garland and focus him on the bigger objectives.] The real reason why they selected Garland was this:
(Via Reuters) Democrats overcame Republican opposition on Monday as the U.S. Senate voted to confirm federal judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, seen as a possible future Supreme Court nominee for President Joe Biden, to an influential appellate court.
The Democratic-controlled Senate voted 53-44 to approve Jackson’s nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. All those in opposition were Republicans, with three voting with Democrats to approve the nomination.
Biden nominated Jackson, a Washington-based U.S. district judge, to the D.C. Circuit to replace Attorney General Merrick Garland on the bench. That appellate court has served as a springboard to the Supreme Court in the past, including for current Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh. (read more)
The vote was 53-47 [link here] Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Lindsey Graham voted with Democrats to support KBJ to the circuit court. This Deep State manuever was transparently predictable. {Go Deep} This was the real reason why Biden elevated Merrick Garland to AG, to get him out of the way for Ketanji Brown Jackson to work her way to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. Obama would then have another tool for total control.
As we predicted in March, “this is how they roll”… With Obama’s crew you always have to watch the other hand; the third and fourth moves.
