US Supreme Court makes just rulings for Trump & pro-lifers

We are living in a time in the West where people who wish to back lawbreakers are attempting to use the law and courts against people who are trying to do what is lawful and godly. One of their weapons is to flood the legal system with a flurry of frivolous legal actions with the hopes of bankrupting and/or bullying people into doing what they wish using methods that the late socialist atheist Saul Alinsky would be proud of.

Fortunately for Americans, the US Supreme Court put a stop to two attempts by socialists to gain legal ground in the US. Leftists wanted to indirectly fight for open borders by suing the Trump administration’s travel ban on people from certain nations using their typical hot-button, virtue-signaling name-calling, falsely accusing the President and his supporters of being “racist” and “Islamophobic.” Thank God, the US Supreme Court was having none of it and held to what federal law clearly states.

In the Supreme Court’s majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts noted the following:

john roberts‘DHS collected and evaluated data regarding all foreign governments. §1(d). It identified 16 countries as having deficient information-sharing practices and presenting national security concerns, and another 31 countries as “at
risk” of similarly failing to meet the baseline. §1(e). The State Department then undertook diplomatic efforts over a 50-day period to encourage all foreign governments to improve their practices. §1(f). As a result of that effort, numerous countries provided DHS with travel document
exemplars and agreed to share information on known or suspected terrorists…

‘By its plain language, [8 USC] §1182(f) grants the President
broad discretion to suspend the entry of aliens into the
United States. The President lawfully exercised that
discretion based on his findings—following a worldwide,
multi-agency review—that entry of the covered aliens
would be detrimental to the national interest. And plaintiffs’
attempts to identify a conflict with other provisions
in the INA, and their appeal to the statute’s purposes and
legislative history, fail to overcome the clear statutory
language.’ (TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.
v. HAWAII ET AL.)

Truth be told, the leftists who brought this lawsuit failed to recognize the “clear statutory language” because they couldn’t care less about the law. They want their leftist, socialist, godless, fascist, globalist agenda even if they have to stomp on the Constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens to get what they want, which brings me to the next Supreme Court decision.

The leftists running California made a law (the FACT Act) that commanded pro-lifers running pregnancy centers in the state to give counseling on abortion despite the fact abortion violated their sincerely held beliefs they are guaranteed to hold under the First Amendment. But, as I stated above, radical liberals really don’t care about Constitutional rights. They absolutely hate the Constitution. Nevertheless, pro-lifers fought back and took their lawsuit against the California law to the top court. The very idea of forcing someone to say and promote ideas they don’t believe is something straight out of the socialists’ playbooks, whether the playbook is Marx’s Communist Manifesto or Hitler’s Mein Kampf. They’re straight from the pit of hell, in my opinion–fruit from the same poisonous tree.

clarence thomasJustice Clarence Thomas delivered the majority opinion of the Court, handing the pro-lifers a First Amendment victory. Justice Thomas noted:

‘… this Court has not recognized “professional speech” as a separate category of speech. Speech is not unprotected merely because it is uttered by “professionals.” This Court has “been reluctant to mark off new categories of speech for diminished constitutional protection.” Denver Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U. S. 727, 804 (1996)

‘In sum, neither California nor the Ninth Circuit has
identified a persuasive reason for treating professional
speech as a unique category that is exempt from ordinary
First Amendment principles…

‘California has offered no justification that the [government-posted]
notice plausibly furthers. It targets speakers, not speech, and
imposes an unduly burdensome disclosure requirement that will chill
their protected speech. Taking all these circumstances
together, we conclude that the unlicensed notice is unjustified
and unduly burdensome under Zauderer.’ (NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
FAMILY AND LIFE ADVOCATES, DBA NIFLA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. XAVIER
BECERRA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.)

These are huge wins for American conservatives and Christians. They hold true to the principles God established from the time of the Old Testament when he stated through Moses:

Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour. Leviticus 19:15

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: