THECOCONUTWHISPERER. General News from a Pro-Israel and Conservative viewpoint
Source: https://therightscoop.com/breaking-supreme-court-just-ruled-the-end-of-roe-v-wade/
The Supreme Court has just ruled an END to the tyranny of Roe v Wade in the now famous Dobbs case.
This comes after the court’s draft opinion was leaked earlier this year, drawing protests from pro-baby-murder activists at the homes of several justices and even an assassination attempt against Justice Kavanaugh.
Here’s the ruling in which both Roe and Casey are overruled!
Here’s the full decision:
The Supreme Court just ruled that the ridiculous concealed-carry requirements imposed by the state of New York, which resulted in the denial of concealed-carry licenses to gun owners for self defense outside the home, violates the 2nd Amendment.
The vote was 6-3 and the opinion of the court was written by Justice Thomas.
In short, “The court holds that New York’s “proper-cause” requirement to obtain a concealed-carry license violates the Constitution by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.”
The dissenters were the activists on the court, of course: Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
You can read the full opinion here.
UPDATE: Here’s a few quotes from the opinion via Amy Howe at Scotusblog:
The New York “proper cause” requirement violates the Constitution, Thomas explains, because it only allows public-carry licenses when an applicant shows a special need for self-defense.
The court rejects the “two-part” approach used by the courts of appeals in Second Amendment cases. “In keeping with Heller,” Thomas writes, “we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.”
The government will have to show, Thomas says, that a gun regulation “is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
This test, Thomas adds, “accords with how we protect other constitutional rights.”
The Thomas opinion indicates that it is “settled” that places like polling places and courthouses “were ‘sensitive places’ where arms carrying could be prohibited consistent with the Second Amendment.” And courts can analogize to similar sensitive places, he adds.
On the other hand, Thomas adds, “expanding the category of ‘sensitive places’ simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the category of ‘sensitive places” far too broadly.”
In this case, Thomas explains, nothing in the Second Amendment distinguishes between home and public “with respect to the right to keep and bear arms.”
“None of the historical limitations on the right to bear arms approach New York’s proper-cause requirement because none operated to prevent law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from carrying arms in public for that purpose.”
This is a great ruling for the people of New York, who will now be able to concealed-carry firearms to protect themselves in a state where lawlessness abounds.
The nation is waiting to see if the Supreme Court will clamp down on Biden’s executive overreach.
The U.S. Supreme Court took up objections to Joe Biden’s COVID vaccine mandate on Friday and it quickly became apparent that, much like the nation at large, the justices were clearly divided in their assessment of Biden’s authority to enact such sweeping action. For nearly four hours, the justices questioned the state and those objecting to the mandate.
Chief Justice John Roberts noted, “This is something the federal government has never done before.” Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested that government officials appeared to have overstepped their authority. “Congress has had a year to act on the question of vaccine mandates,” Gorsuch said. “It appears that the federal government is going agency by agency as a workaround.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett said that the mandate was too broad in its application. Justice Samuel Alito noted that the rule is “fundamentally different from anything OSHA has done before” because it “affects employees all the time,” not just at work.
Yet it was also clear that the legality and constitutionality of Biden’s mandate was not the primary concern for the left wing of the Court, which preferred to focus on how scary COVID is. Justice Sonia Sotomayor erroneously claimed, “We have hospitals that are almost at full capacity with people severely ill on ventilators.” The reality is that even during this Omicron surge, hospitalizations are 50% below 2021’s peak number. Sotomayor further falsely asserted, “We have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition and many on ventilators.” The truth? Since the beginning of the pandemic, there have been a total of 80,200 children 17 and under hospitalized with COVID — the term with being an important modifier, as CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky noted in correcting Sotomayor. The justice’s false claim was so grossly misinformed that even The Washington Post “fact-checker” gave her its worst rating of four Pinocchios.
Sotomayor wasn’t alone in peddling COVID misinformation. Justice Elena Kagan insisted that the mandate is necessary to make sure people are “not transmitting the disease.” Vaccinated people can, in fact, catch and transmit COVID.
But the biggest doozy of wildly inaccurate pandemic hyperbole may have come from Justice Stephen Breyer, who claimed that there were “750 million new COVID cases yesterday or close to that.” Seeing as the entire population of the U.S. is roughly 330 million, America must have just reached herd immunity — twice over.
It is egregious misinformation and downright misstated nonsense like this that underscores why the panic surrounding COVID has allowed even normally sensible people to behave like frightened lemmings.
Worse than this misinformation, though, was the left-wing justices’ disregard for constitutional separation of powers. Sotomayor wondered, “I’m not sure I understand the distinction why the states would have the power” to impose such a mandate “but the federal government wouldn’t.” Perhaps she’s never heard of the 10th Amendment.
The question of the legality of Biden’s vaccine mandate was answered by the president himself and his administration months before they decided to go against their own understanding of the constitutional limits to executive power. As political pundit Liz Wheeler astutely observes: “It doesn’t matter whether the vaxx is a wise choice (or not). Or whether it’s effective (or not). Or how deadly Covid is (or not). The ONLY thing SCOTUS should be answering is whether OSHA has authority to issue an ETS requiring private employers to force employees to get vaxxed.”
The Biden administration has argued that it has the authority to wield the Occupational Health and Safety Administration as a bludgeon for the vaccine mandate, though, as Roberts observed, that’s an unprecedented use of the agency’s emergency standards rule. Only 10 times in 50 years has OSHA engaged such powers and always in accordance with workplace toxins. In other words, the actions were always temporary and narrow in scope, not some rule directly impacting the health and livelihoods of 80 million working Americans. Now, OSHA is treating workers like workplace toxins.
Scientifically, the inconvenient fact for mandate proponents is the reality that the pandemic is no longer an emergency. While the coronavirus vaccines have proven effective at reducing the severity of illness, they do not make individuals immune from catching or spreading the virus. Moreover, a wide range of treatment options have been developed and implemented since the beginning of the pandemic. The notion that the vaccine is the only thing that can tackle the novel virus is demonstrably false. Furthermore, what of the very real and scientific reality of natural immunity? The mandate fails to take into account the science that natural immunity does exist and may, especially regarding the Omicron variant, offer better protection than the novel mRNA vaccines.
Of greatest concern to the Court should be protecting individual Liberty against the instinct of those in power to abuse their authority and to defend that abuse by claiming to be acting to “save lives.” If it really were lives these governmental authorities were interested in saving, they’d think less highly of their own preferences and be encouraging as many medical options to the American public as possible. Diversity of thought, ideas, and opinions is what will guide the country to better dealing with a rare pandemic, not a narrow-minded, top-down, one-size-fits-all “solution” that has already proven wholly inadequate at stopping the virus.
The Court could issue an initial ruling any day now, though a fuller ruling would likely come later.
https://patriotpost.us/articles/85408-scotus-balks-at-biden-vax-mandate-2022-01-10
According to Justice Sotomayor, child killers feel pain, but children don’t.
Daniel Greenfield
When the Supreme Court took on its latest abortion case, Justice Sonia Sotomayor denied that babies in the womb feel pain.
“There are spontaneous acts by dead-brained people. So I don’t think that a response by a fetus necessarily proves that there’s a sensation of pain or that there’s consciousness,” the 'Wise Latina' coldly argued.
Sotomayor’s denial that a baby feels pain was in sharp contrast to her passionate conviction that murderers who kill children experience pain as they recieve the death penalty.
A few years ago, when Billy Ray Irick's case came before the Supreme Court, Sotomayor was his biggest fan. Irick had beaten, raped, and murdered a 7-year-old girl, but Sotomayor furiously fought for him.
"If the law permits this execution to go forward in spite of the horrific final minutes that Irick may well experience, then we have stopped being a civilized nation and accepted barbarism," she ranted.
What is barbarism anyway? Is it murdering a child in the womb or putting down a child killer?
Much of the political and moral capital of the Democrats has been dedicated to arguing that murdering children is a form of liberation, but that executing murderers is barbarism.
The beginning and end of life remain a mystery. We cannot truly know what a baby feels in the womb or what a dying man experiences in the last moments of existence. There are anecdotal stories, scientific speculation and received religious wisdom, but in the end we cannot know.
All we can do is believe, identify, and empathize. And these qualities define our souls.
Sotomayor is, despite her position, no intellectual or legal scholar. Misstating “brain dead” as “dead brained” is a little too on the nose considering her borderline illiteracy and ignorance.
Often described as a “bully”, Sotomayor’s legal philosophy, such as it is, is defined by emotive berating and ad hominem attacks. Like most postmodern leftists, her arguments are usually reducible to accepting or rejecting someone’s pain based on their degree of oppression.
In her defense of affirmative action, Sotomayor argued that the trauma of racial alienation was so crippling that equal rights had to be overturned in favor of racial privileges for some.
"Race matters because of the slights, the snickers, the silent judgments that reinforce that most crippling of thoughts: 'I do not belong here'", she whined, invoking her own emotional pain.
As usual, Sotomayor was speaking about herself. Even after her nomination, she complained that she felt like she didn’t belong on the Court. Years later, borrowing the same false accusations of racism and discrimination that had powered her career, she would complain about her place on the Court, "Will I ever quite feel that I have their same background, their same understanding of the world that I operate on? Not really.”
That sense of alienation, as emotionally compelling to Sotomayor as it is to a goth teen at Hot Topic, may be detached from the reality that makes her one of the most powerful women in the country, but it feels real. In the postmodern verbiage of the Safe Space Left, it’s “her truth”.
Sotomayor’s truth, like that of many lefties, leads her to closely identify with the suffering of a monster who raped and murdered a 7-year-old girl, while refusing to identify with the pain of a baby in the womb. Parenthood may make Justice Amy Coney Barrett more likely than Sotomayor, who has no children, to be moved by the pain of a child. And perhaps Sotomayor can more convincingly imagine herself terminating the life of a child than bringing him to term.
But justice should be driven by the law, not feelings. Whether or not a person has rights should not be a matter of being able to empathize with their humanity in order to protect their existence.
And yet leftist moral politics insists on exactly this sort of zero sum game of victimhood.
“Conservatives want you to think that a fetus – a fetus who is pre-viability, which means it cannot exist outside of its mother, it cannot live outside of, of the womb, has the same – should have the same legal rights as full-grown black people in this country," The Nation's Elie Mystal ranted to Joy Reid on MSNBC.
Mystal and Reid could not exist on their own outside the nurturing womb of affirmative action, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t have the right to exist.
Even though abortion disproportionately affects black babies, Mystal argues that there’s something racist in caring about the lives of babies. The zero sum game of intersectionality is all about dictating whose rights come first and to what degree. Much like affirmative action, intersectionality has reduced civil rights to a competition not for equality, but for priority.
When leftists reject the universality of the Constitution’s rights, it’s because like Mystal, the justice correspondent for a radical magazine, they don’t believe in universal rights. They demand power for their own group and for those “allies” they can empathize with.
Empathy to them, as to Sotomayor, equates to alienation, to the discord between the inner and the outer selves, the sense of external judgement and internal ego that equates to guilt.
That’s why leftists so easily relate to the criminals, the guiltiest of them all, and are unable to relate to babies, the most innocent of them all. In a morality that is based on overturning power, the worst become the best and the best become the worst. If guilt, as criminal justice reformers and the 1619 Project contend, is really innocence of oppression, then innocence must be guilt.
And babies, who just want to live, are the guiltiest, most racist, and oppressive of them all.
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life," Sonia Sotomayor had infamously argued.
Now we see what Sotomayor’s better conclusions look like. And they’re absolutely horrifying.
The “richness” of experience, somehow accessible to Sotomayor, but not to anyone of any other gender, ethnicity, or race (especially white men) hasn’t led her to justice, but to injustice.
In defending the case of a contract killer facing the death penalty, Sotomayor falsely claimed that lethal injection “may turn out to be our most cruel experiment yet”. In the Irick child murderer case, she raved that, "the State of Tennessee is on the verge of inflicting several minutes of torturous pain on an inmate in its custody.”
She speculated that the child rapist and killer may experience “sensations of suffocation and of burning that ‘may well be the chemical equivalent of being burned at the stake.’”
Sotomayor is consumed with the moments of pain that she imagines killers will experience.
During abortion, a suction tube pulls the baby apart or he is dismembered piece by piece with the skull finally crushed, and the parts sold off for medical experiments. What “sensations” does that produce in a baby who, according to pro-abortion activists, can be killed right up to birth?
Sotomayor, who can speak about the pain of alienation or the suffering of a child killer, has no interest in envisioning the suffering of a baby being torn apart piece by piece. Against scientific findings, she insists that there’s no evidence that babies can really feel pain. At least nothing as intense as the pain caused by the alienation of feeling like she doesn’t belong on the Court.
The Supreme Court, Sotomayor, threatened would not “survive the stench” of overturning Roe v. Wade. And yet it has survived the stench of Sotomayor’s presence. It has survived the stench of her advocacy for murderers while condemning babies to the cruelest possible forms of killing.
Executing a child killer, she has argued, would mean “we have stopped being a civilized nation and accepted barbarism”. What does it mean that we spend decades wrangling over the life of a child killer while dismissing the annual mass murder of babies as the price of social justice?
At the heart of this debate, as with so many others, is the question of what barbarism and civilization really mean. Sotomayor has laid out her definition. It should not be dismissed lightly since it is a pagan idea that some among the ancient Greeks would have argued even better.
If we do not assert our own moral civilizational vision, we will continue to descend into a barbaric leftist society that insists it is civilized because it kills babies and spares killers.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/12/whose-pain-matters-babies-or-child-murderers-daniel-greenfield/
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the Senate will vote on President Trump’s nominee to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died on Friday.
“President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate,” McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said in a lengthy statement praising Ginsburg as “thoroughly dedicated to the legal profession.”
McConnell referred back to his decision to punt on a nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in the final year of President Barack Obama’s second term.
“Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year,” McConnell said.
Republicans control 53 votes and need 51 to confirm a nominee. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, said earlier in the day on Friday that she’ll oppose a new nominee until the next president is sworn into office.
Trump announced a list of potential nominees on Sept. 9, but it remains unclear when he will nominate someone to the high court.
