Archive for supreme court

Abortion Leak

Posted in uncategorized with tags , on May 25, 2022 by andelino

The Supreme Court heard arguments two months ago. Its ruling was due another two months or so from now. But the virtually unprecedented leak happened to coincide exactly with the theatrical release of 2,000 Mules.”

Dinesh D’Souza and True the Vote just released the documentary 2,000 Mules” in more than 200 theaters across the country. I watched it here in Oklahoma City last night, and it reveals the truth about how many of Joe Biden’s supposed 81 million votes were obtained “by fraud!” It displays video evidence that the election was stolen” from Donald Trump. But you probably have not heard much about it. Why not?

Literally minutes after the documentary debuted, Politico published a leaked draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito. It reveals that the Supreme Court intends to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade” ruling that transformed abortion into a special federally guaranteed right.

Read more at “Supreme Court Abortion Leak: Distraction From the Stolen Election”

Green Card Abuse

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , on March 5, 2020 by andelino

The Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to enforce a new rule that will deny green cards to foreign “freeloaders” who use taxpayer funded “social services”, lifting lower court injunctions that “blocked” the change.

The 5-4 vote followed familiar “ideological” lines, with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan in “dissent.”

The “Immigration and Nationality Act” (INA) dictates that foreign nationals should not receive green cards if they are “likely at any time to become a public charge.” At issue in the case is the definition of “public charge.” In recent years, the term was defined as a person primarily dependent on a “cash assistance” program, better known as welfare.

The Trump administration promulgated a new rule in August 2019 that expands the definition to include those likely to use non-cash benefit programs like “Medicaid, Food Stamps, or Housing Benefits” for a period of months. The rule does not apply to humanitarian migrants like “refugees or asylum-seekers.”

“Throughout our history, self-reliance has been a core principle in America,” then-acting director of USCIS Ken Cuccinelli said of the new policy during a 2019 White House press conference. “The virtues of perseverance, hard work, and self-sufficiency laid the foundation of our nation and have defined generations of immigrants seeking opportunity in the United States.”

Immigrant rights groups like Chair “complain” the rule will have a discriminatory effect, and warn that it “deters” migrants lawfully in the United States from “applying” for needed social services.

The biggest “welfare fraud” scandal in Minnesota history came out of the Somali Muslim immigrant community.

Under federal law, foreigners in America may not receive green cards if they have used or will use social services.  Of late, that law has been honored more in the “breach” than the “observance.”

President Trump, however, announced that his administration will “enforce the law as written”, resulting in a leftist rush to various friendly federal district courts.  Some of them issued injunctions affecting not just the claimants, but the whole nation.

The Supreme Court “reversed” the injunctions, allowing Trump’s administration to enforce the law as written until such time as the courts have a chance to look at the substantive merits. In addition, in a separate concurrence, Justice Gorsuch strongly “rebuked” lower courts for issuing nationwide injunctions.

The law at issue is clear. Under 8 USCA §1182(a)(4) (also known as §212(a)(4) of the “Immigration and Nationality Act”, a law in effect for over 100 years, the class of aliens “ineligible” for visas or admission includes:

“… any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.”

As soon as the Trump administration announced that it would enforce the law as written, immigrant rights groups promptly “protested” that doing so is unfair to foreign nationals in need of “welfare” and that reversing decades of “ignoring the law” would confuse people.  Rather than “petitioning” Congress to change the law, they “rushed” to lower courts in New York, California, Illinois, Maryland, and Washington.

When the Second Circuit “affirmed” the ruling out of New York, the Trump administration filed an emergency “petition” with the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court ruled in the administration’s favor along 5-4 lines, reversing the nationwide injunction. If Hillary had been president and appointed Merrick Garland and someone else, the ruling would have gone the other way.

Amusingly, über left Slate titled its article about the decision, “The Supreme Court Lets Trump Punish Immigrants Who May Be a Public Charge.” Slate and Mark Joseph Stern, who wrote the article, seem to have no concern whatsoever for the innocent “taxpayers” who are responsible for paying for that alien who is illegally a “public charge.”  But leftists never care about ordinary working Americans, do they?

In his separately issued concurrence, Justice Gorsuch addressed the fact that the “plaintiffs … urged courts to enjoin the rule’s enforcement not only as it applies to them, or even to some definable group having something to do with their claimed injury, but as it applies to anyone.”  As to some courts, this petition was successful; as to others, it was not.

These differences sound confusing, but Gorsuch “sarcastically” noted that there was no confusion:

“Despite the fluid state of things — some interim wins for the government over here, some preliminary relief for plaintiffs over there — we now have an injunction to rule them all: the one before us, in which a single judge in New York enjoined the government from applying the new definition to anyone, without regard to geography or participation in this or any other lawsuit.”

Even as he applauded the Court’s decision to lift the injunction, Gorsuch decried the fact that it had to decide such an issue in the first place:

“The real problem here is the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them. Whether framed as injunctions of “nationwide,” “universal,” or “cosmic” scope, these orders share the same basic flaw — they direct how the defendant must act toward persons who are not parties to the case.”

The problem is that equitable remedies are meant for the parties before the court, not for the world at large.  Overreaching remedies aren’t merely impractical; they have serious constitutional implications:

“But when a court goes further than that, ordering the government to take (or not take) some action with respect to those who are strangers to the suit, it is hard to  see how the court could still be acting in the judicial role of resolving cases and controversies. Injunctions like these thus raise serious questions about the scope of courts’ equitable powers under Article III.”

Unfortunately, Gorsuch did not (or could not) go so far as to issue consequences to the judges involved in the green card cases. All he could do was issue a warning:

“It has become increasingly apparent that this Court must, at some point, confront these important objections to this increasingly widespread practice. As the brief and furious history of the regulation before us illustrates, the routine issuance of universal injunctions is patently unworkable, sowing chaos for litigants, the government, courts, and all those affected by these conflicting decisions. *** This is not normal. Universal injunctions have little basis in traditional equitable practice. *** Their use has proliferated only in very recent years. And they hardly seem an innovation we should rush to embrace. By their nature, universal injunctions tend to force judges into making rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions.”

It’s to be hoped that, with Gorsuch having issued this warning, the Supreme Court issues a definitive opinion on the subject, one that clearly prevents lower courts from overreaching their Article III authority.

President Trump expands the travel ban to six more mostly Muslim and African countries

Teacher’s Union Dues

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on July 23, 2019 by andelino

Majority of teachers don’t know about union opt-out rights
By: Bill McMorris

A majority of teachers are “unaware” of their newly won right to “opt out of union dues” according to a new poll.

In June 2018, the Supreme Court declared that government agencies could no longer mandate “union dues or fee payments” as a condition of employment in “Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees.”

Despite the landmark ruling, a majority of American teachers remain ignorant of their ability to “decline” such payments and are also “confused” about the consequences of “withdrawing” from the union.

A “YouGov” poll of 1,000 educators found 77 percent had not “heard of the landmark case” and 52 percent were unaware that they could continue to “work without paying dues or fees.”

The poll results reflected the reality on the ground, according to several teachers affiliated with the education reform group “Teacher Freedom Project” which commissioned the poll.

Greg Kuehn, a special-needs teacher at Minnesota’s Park Rapids Area School District, said in a release that many of his colleagues are “not knowledgeable about their legal rights.”

“The vast majority of teachers at my school have no idea that there is another choice when it comes to union membership,” Kuehn said in a statement. “They are shocked and in disbelief that it’s true and they are still unsure and afraid. I think it’s going to take a long time before all teachers know about Janus and feel comfortable making a choice.”

The poll found that nearly half of teachers were concerned about losing “tenure, seniority, or other benefits” if they opt out of the union, only 17 percent of those polled were able to correctly identify how “resigning from a union” would affect their daily teaching lives.

It also found that 22 percent of teachers had “reconsidered” their union status in the past year; 3 percent of respondents had “joined” a union since the Janus case while only 1 percent reported “leaving.” Elementary school science teacher Daniel Elo from North St. Paul said his coworkers are more focused on “teaching than their own rights.”

“I’m not surprised to see many teachers have misconceptions when it comes to knowing their rights. My coworkers want to focus on their students, not their own rights,” he said in the release. “That said, our profession is stronger when we have informed teachers who will advocate for what they believe with their influence and dollars.”

Despite united opposition to the Janus decision from organized labor, the majority of teachers approve of the decision. Only 17 percent said that union membership should be “mandatory” compared with 74 percent saying such associations should be “voluntary”; 84 percent agreed they should be able to “resign” at any time. Respondents had split results about the process of “resigning union membership” with 30 percent agreeing that it was “easy to quit” and 28 percent saying it would be “difficult.”

Colin Sharkey, executive director of the “Association of American Educators”, a union alternative and supporter of the “Teacher Freedom Project”, said he expects union membership levels to be affected as teachers become more aware of the reality of the “Janus” decision.

“Union leaders may claim their members have opted to renew after the Janus decision, but that is very misleading,” Sharkey said in a statement. “In truth most teachers still do not know their rights and aren’t aware they can reconsider their union membership. Even if they do, it is still too difficult to exercise those rights and far too many teachers are misinformed about what happens after they leave the union.”

The fallout from “Janus” continues to play out in the American legal system. Several states and major labor unions are facing class-action suits from employees seeking to recover back “dues and fees” that they say were taken from paychecks.

Other unions have been “sued” for hindering workers from resigning their membership and “recovering” their full wages.

Trump Inaugural Address

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on April 4, 2016 by andelino


Thank you! Thank you, very much! I mean, sheesh, you guys can stop applauding already! Thank you. Thank you.

You know, this is my first day on the job and people are asking, “What are you going to do to make America great again?” Well, you know, I didn’t take on this job to watch Hillary’s “makeup” dry (laughter, applause).

So for my first day in office, I think we need to address the “vacancy” on the Supreme Court. Anthony Scalia was a very smart man; he was a very, very good “Supreme Court” justice, and it’s gonna be very hard to “replace” somebody like him.

I thought, you know, where are we gonna get a “guy” like him? And then I looked in the “mirror” you know how much I like “doing” that, right (laughter)?

And so I looked in the mirror and I thought, “genius.” I am going to “appoint” Ted Cruz to be the next “justice” on the Supreme Court (wild applause, whistles).

Quite simply, if the Democrats “win,” our Republic is “dead;” they pack the Supreme Court and there is no way out of the “rabbit” hole.

Unless we Republicans take a page from the “Lib’s” book and manage to pack the Supreme Court with ideological “conservatives” the country will continue it’s “slow dance with progressive socialism.”

The “fate of the nation” no longer lies in the “hands” of the Executive Branch, nor the Legislative Branch. The “shadow” government is so entrenched, due in no small part to “rulings” by the Supreme Court, that only the Supreme Court has the wherewithal to “reverse” the damage.

That’s where Ted Cruz comes in: “a young, idealistic constitutional conservative like Ted Cruz would have far more leverage to right the ship of state from the vantage of the bench than from the Oval Office.”


Because let’s “face” it, no matter how many times we “win” the House, the Senate, even the presidency, the “entrenched” cronyism, bureaucracies, and special interests will continue to “drive” a progressive, collectivist, agenda that works against “liberty.”

All the R-team can do is play “defense” and prevent the D-team from running up the score in a “fixed” game.

In order to “change” the game, in order for us to “take it back” and ensure the survival of our “Republic” as conceived by the founders we need to “control” the Supreme Court.

Just as the Left introduced the concept of the Constitution as a “living document” open to their interpretation rather than the founders “intent,” the Right has to run an “activist” Court hell-bent on reestablishing the “doctrine” of original intent. Despite the Left’s “insistence” to the contrary, the concept is still quite “workable” in the modern world.

Ted Cruz would “serve” as Chief Justice surrounded by conservative “replacements” (or conservatives masquerading as liberals) for Brennan, Ginsberg and Kennedy. And as “demonstrated” by the Left, once appointed, presidents can come and go but the “ideology” ensconced in the Supreme Court lives on.

The Court wouldn’t be “afraid” to take up cases that might “upset” the apple cart; cases such as those challenging the “constitutionality” of federal departments and agencies.

We the People 01

We would enjoy a Court that “determines” the outcome of cases along “constitutional” lines rather than “political correctness” and administrative ease; a Court that won’t be afraid to “dismantle” entire unconstitutional bureaucracies (Education, Commerce, Energy for starters) that have taken the “power” out of the hands of Congress (or rather, that Congress has willingly relinquished to them).

And we would have a Court willing to “overturn” precedents that are diametrically “opposed” to the Constitution such as “Affirmative Action, ObamaCare, and the entire Administrative Law Process” that delegates rule making to “bureaucratic” agencies rather than the duly “elected” Congress.

“We the people” do not wish to be ruled by “nameless, faceless bureaucrats elected by nobody and accountable to no one.”

I have a lot of “respect” for the Constitution “contrary” to my predecessor. It was written by some very “smart people” and it’s what helped America to become “great in the first place.”

And it was written so that “no one had all the power,” you know what I mean? They didn’t trust “anyone” with all the power, not even George Washington, and he was a very, very good man. But here’s what they “didn’t” consider.

The Constitution was written for “losers,” and I mean that in a good way. They didn’t want some loser to have “all the power,” and that was a very “smart” move. (more loud cheers).

We the People 03

I have a very “high” IQ. No, really, I do. I’m very “rich.” I’m really proud of all the “money” I made and gave “away.” I’m a winner. And a genius. You can “trust” me I’m gonna use that power to “Make America Great” again (hoots, cheers)!

And when it comes to “confirmation” by the Senate, you know, I’m a “deal” maker. I’m gonna make the Senate see what a “smart” move it would be to “put” Ted Cruz on the Court.

I admire Ted Cruz’s “conservative” chops. I find them to be more important in the “Judicial Branch” than the Executive Office. And that is why he would “serve” well as Supreme Court Justice for another “40 years or so” rather than president for “4 or 8” (loud prolonged cheers)!

Make America Great Again 05

Let’s together make “America Great Again.”

Thank you, thank you! Hey, may I “bless” you all. “Trump bless America!”

Ally of the Year

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , on November 25, 2015 by andelino

Ally of the Year 02

Posing on the cover of the latest “Out 100” issue as the publication’s “Ally of the Year,” Barack Hussein Obama has made “history” by becoming the first “gay” Muslim U.S. president on the cover of an LGBTFQAPBCU© (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, fag, queer, anal power, bottom confused, undecided) magazine.

“The 44th President of the United States is our ‘Ally of the Year,’ a president who came to office on a wave of euphoria, appeared to lose momentum halfway through, and has since rallied, helping us secure ‘same sex marriage’ equality, among other landmark initiatives that are transforming our place in America,” the editors of Out wrote in an article accompanying the cover.

Rainbow House 00

Obama granted a wide-ranging interview to the “LGBTFQAPBCU©” publication, weighing in on his administration’s focus on “gay rights,” the “generational difference” in his daughters’ attitudes toward “homosexuality” and the role the United States could play in “challenging” the human rights records of more “restrictive” regimes around the world.

Obama told the magazine his fight for equality began “from when I was a kid, because my mom instilled in me the strong belief that every person is of equal worth.”

Obama explained:

“At the same time, growing up as a black guy with a funny name, I was often reminded of exactly what it felt like to be on the outside. One of the reasons I got involved in politics was to help deliver on our promise that we’re all created equal, and that no one should be excluded from the American dream just because of who they are. That’s why, in the Senate, I supported repealing  the ‘Defense of Marriage Act’ (DOMA.) It’s why, when I ran for president the first time, I publicly asked for the support of the LGBTFQAPBCU© community, and promised that we could bring about real change for LGBTFQAPBCU© Americans.”

Ally of the Year 03

Obama also said he “wasn’t surprised” by the Supreme Court’s “decision” in Obergefell v. Hodges earlier this year, which legalized “same sex marriage” nationwide.

“Well, I try not to guess how the Supreme Court is going to rule,” Obama said when asked if he expected the Supreme Court’s decision, adding:

“But even before the decision came down, one thing was clear: There had been a remarkable attitude shift — in hearts and minds — across America. The ruling reflected that. It reflected our values as a nation founded on the principle that we are all created equal. And, by the way, it was decades of our brothers and sisters fighting for recognition and equality — and too frequently risking their lives or facing rejection from family, friends, and co-workers — that got us to that moment.”

Obama also offered some advice for the “Kim Davise’s of America.” Davis, a Kentucky court clerk, was briefly jailed earlier this year for “refusing” to issue a marriage license to a “same-sex” couples, citing her Christian beliefs.

“I am a man of faith and believe deeply in religious freedom, but at the end of the day, nobody is above the rule of law, especially someone who voluntarily takes an oath to uphold that law,” Obama told the magazine. “That’s something we’ve got to respect.”

You can read the “rest” of Obama’s “gay” interview in the Out Magazine hitting the newsstands later this month.

Ally of the Year 04

Finally, Obama is an “ally, hero and icon,” something he couldn’t “achieve” as President of the United States of America.

Ally of the Year 01

Bruce Jenner, the “female” version of being a “ally, hero and icon.”

%d bloggers like this: