After a legal debate about standing in the case of Biden v Nebraska, the Supreme Court took up the issue of whether the President could unilaterally forgive student debt without an act of Congress.  In a 6-3 ruling {pdf here}, the court determined the executive authority of the Dept of Education did not permit such action.

Joe Biden campaigned in 2020 on a promise to eliminate student debt unilaterally, without congressional approval.  The court opinion released today affirms that Congress must be involved in their role as decision-makers of federal spending.  Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion.

[SCOTUS BLOG] – […] When the Biden administration announced the program in August 2022, student-loan repayments had already been on hold for over two years. Betsy DeVos, who served as the secretary of education during the Trump administration, suspended both repayments and the accrual of interest on federal student loans at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. She relied on the HEROES Act, a law passed in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks that gives the secretary of education the power to respond to a national emergency by “waiv[ing] or modify[ing] any statutory or regulatory provision” governing the student-loan programs so that borrowers are not worse off financially because of the emergency.

(more…)

In a landmark court ruling released today, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively ended the use of affirmative action in college admissions. {237-page ruling here}

By a vote of 6-3 (UNC) and 6-2 (Harvard) the court ruled the admissions programs used by the University of North Carolina and Harvard College violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause barring racial discrimination by government entities.

Chief Justice John Roberts writing the opinion of the majority said that for too long universities have “concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a woman of notoriously activist disposition defined by her self-image and race, sat out the Harvard case because she had been a member of an advisory governing board who constructed the rules the Supreme Court now determined were unlawful.

Amy Howe – […] Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that college admissions programs can consider race merely to allow an applicant to explain how their race influenced their character in a way that would have a concrete effect on the university. But a student “must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual — not on the basis of race,” Roberts wrote. The majority effectively, though not explicitly, overruled its 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, in which the court upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s consideration of race “as one factor among many, in an effort to assemble a student body that is diverse in ways broader than race.”

(more…)

If you ever wanted to know how influential billionaire donors and the professional grift is amid the pro-life movement, this is a case study in the insanity of it.

President Donald John Trump was the most pro-life President in U.S. history.  President Trump outlined the platform policy of returning the issue of abortion to the states, and constructed all political endeavors to deliver on that pledge.  President Trump was the first president to speak at the March for Life events in Washington DC and hold pro-life supporting events at the White House.

Additionally, President Trump appointed three conservative pro-life judges to the Supreme Court, with the intention of overturning the Roe -v- Wade decision and returning the issue of abortion to the states.  This was and is the conservative position, and the goal of the pro-life movement as it was articulated.   In 2022, in the Dobbs decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of overturning Roe -v- Wade and the abortion issue was successfully return to the states as promised.

Since entering politics, the position of candidate Trump and then President Trump has never changed.  It is the same federalist position he holds today as outlined by the Washington Post:

[…] “President Donald J. Trump believes that the Supreme Court, led by the three Justices which he supported, got it right when they ruled this is an issue that should be decided at the State level,” Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung said in a statement. “Republicans have been trying to get this done for 50 years, but were unable to do so. President Trump, who is considered the most pro-life President in history, got it done. He will continue these policies when reelected to the White House. Like President Reagan before him, President Trump supports exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.” (more)

However, Lila Rose, President and Founder of the Live Action network, is now deriding President Trump because he does not support reinstituting federal control over the issue of abortion and campaigning on a non-federalist platform of a nationwide abortion ban.

(more…)

Yeah sure.  The Supreme Court of the United States asserts today that after a nine-month investigation [SEE HERE] they just cannot find the person who leaked the draft of Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. 

The draft opinion on the abortion issue was leaked to Politico from inside the court in May 2022 in what the court calls “one of the worst breaches of trust in its history.”   However, despite their efforts to get to the bottom of the leak and find the leaker, they cannot find out who it was.

The court then delivers a two-page memo explaining the situation, and a 23-page report from former Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff.

(more…)

The Democrat effort to obtain President Trump’s tax records has been an ongoing battle for several years [background here].  The democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee have been using Lawfare in order to present a false legislative justification for them, in an ongoing effort to find something -anything- to use against President Trump.

The Supreme Court already decided on case in President Trump’s favor [Trump v Mazars] in a separation of powers issue; however, the witch hunt continued.  In a separate case today, and with Chief Judge Roberts trying to extricate the judicial branch from the ongoing battle, Judge Roberts granted a stay until after the 2022 election.

Essentially, the Chief Judge appears to see the partisan nature of the demand, and in an effort to keep the Supreme Court out of the battle, he has put the outcome of the 2022 midterm election as the fulcrum for this next round of battle between President Trump and the Democrats in the House.  If the Republicans win the majority, the issue should seemingly disappear.

The motive behind the decision seems clear. From the position of Roberts, it would appear this approach is the better distancing procedure.

WASHINGTON DC – Chief Justice John Roberts on Tuesday temporarily blocked a House committee from obtaining several years of former President Donald Trump’s tax returns.

(more…)

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of the U.S. Dept of Justice, National Security Division, and blocked the lower court order instructing the Special Master to review the DOJ claimed, “classified documents.” [pdf Ruling Here]

Essentially the order of the appellate court is based on the DOJ calling the material “classified” and “vital to national security”, and the court’s determination they have no authority to question the decision of the executive branch when it comes to matters of national security.

The court (judicial branch) openly states they defer to the DOJ (executive branch) as to any/all claims of harm to national security that may be caused by a review of documents the DOJ-NSD determine, on their own authority, to be identified as classified (sensitive, secret or top-secret).

Therefore, if the DOJ states sharing the “classified documents” with a special master may harm national security, the court must accept that position without challenge.

(more…)

This week Neil Oliver talks about the new Utopia we are being instructed to accept.  A world in which there are no rights, only permissions.

Everything including the modification of diets and the eating of bugs and fake meat; to the type of carbon footprint home we are permitted, to the energy we may use or the acceptable car we must drive; permissions, assuming of course, our social media profile and accompanying score is in line with regulatory inspection.

Nope.  Not happening.  There are more of us than them.  We will not eat the bugs.  WATCH: 

[Transcript] – What’s being done to us, or tried on us at least, isn’t working … and it isn’t working and won’t work because what we’re being pushed to accept as the new world makes no sense. The supposed utopia we’re being promised – or, rather, having rammed down our throats – is one in which there is no universal truth, no absolute and trusted truth, but only personal truth that trumps all else.

There are to be no facts like those observed by biologists, just as a for instance, and only feelings based on personal preferences that change from day to day. It will be a world in which we might have no inalienable rights, rights we are born with – just permissions granted one by one by the state … and then only if we do as we are told and do without cars and warm homes and eat our bugs and fake meat and take our medicine on demand. It is a world in which 2+2 might equal 5 if some faceless, unelected bureaucrat says it does – and if any of us says no, 2+2 always and only equals 4, then our bank accounts won’t give us any money until we accept our arithmetical and moral error.

(more…)

New York Governor Kathy Hochul called a special session of the state legislature after the Supreme Court knocked down their firearm restrictions.  The new law, which passed both chambers of democrat-controlled government, takes effect Sept 1st and is unlikely to hold up once challenged in court.  The new law is stunningly over the top.

Keep in mind, when writing the majority decision Justice Clarence Thomas concluded there was no historical requirement that law-abiding citizens show the kind of special need for self-defense required by the New York law to carry a gun in public. Indeed, as Thomas wrote, there is “no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need.”

The latest effort from the New York assembly is outlined in an Associated Press report which includes:

(Via AP) […] Among other things, the state’s new rules will require people applying for a handgun license to turn over a list of their social media accounts so officials could verify their “character and conduct.”

Applicants will have to show they have “the essential character, temperament and judgment necessary to be entrusted with a weapon and to use it only in a manner that does not endanger oneself and others.”  As part of that assessment, applicants have to turn over a list of social media accounts they’ve maintained in the past three years.

[…]  The bill approved by lawmakers doesn’t specify whether applicants will be required to provide licensing officers with access to private social media accounts not visible to the general public.

(more…)

In exactly 22 seconds during a late-night television appearance, Democrat Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez showcased her lack of understanding how the United States government works.  Ms. AOC literally gets the construct of our government reversed.

According to AOC it is “the responsibility of the president and congress to put the Supreme Court in check.”

Exactly the opposite is true.

It is the literal role and responsibility of the Supreme Court to check the constitutional validity of the legislative and executive branch.   The supreme court exists, almost exclusively, to keep the president and congress in check.  WATCH:

.

Ms. AOC could not be more wrong if she tried.  However, this is a great example of how basic civics are unknown to some of the people in congress.   Quite remarkable.

(more…)

ABC News Martha Raddatz confronts South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem about state abortion rules, limits and restrictions in the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe and returning the legal decision surrounding abortion to the states.

Ms Raddatz is a pro-death advocate who decries any possibility that an unborn child, including an unborn female child, has a right to live.  Ms. Noem handled the combative interrogation with political aplomb.  WATCH: 

(more…)