Supreme Update

Let us start with the most important case of all: Trump v. CASA, Inc. For the first time in about 200 years the United States Supreme Court decided that the sweeping universal injunctions issued by United States District Courts are unconstitutional because they exceed the authority granted them under the Constitution by the United States Congress. It was a gigantic win for the Trump administration . . . Again.

The case consolidated three District Court cases. The Court heard argument on all of them earlier this term. What is interesting is all of the universal injunctions were issued by judges appointed by Democrat presidents and the three justices who dissented in the opinion are all radical liberals. The only logical conclusion is that lefties have a total disregard for the Constitution and the Rule of law.

The lefty judges also have a total disregard for democracy. They overlooked the fact that the laws being enforced were enacted by a democratically elected Congress and signed into law by a democratically elected President. The President is only doing his constitutionally mandated duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

Justice Barrett wrote the opinion for the majority. She reasoned that universal injunctions were not part of the equitable authority in English courts and therefore they are not part of the equitable authority granted federal courts under the judiciary act of 1789 (which only grants Federal Courts the equitable powers available at that time).

She destroyed every argument raised by the appellees in each case. She explained that denying relief to people who are not parties to the action does not change the “complete relief” to which a party to the action is entitled. She also pointed out that the historical “bills of peace” available to judges at the time the Constitution was ratified did not apply to non-parties who are not also parties of the group that sought relief.

Justice Barrett even went so far in her teaching as to explain to the Commies the difference between universal injunctions and nationwide injunctions. She explained that sometimes a nationwide injunction is proper because a party in the case operates on a nationwide basis. She hinted that it was a typical liberal trick to try to change the definition of a word so that it would support their ideology. Nevertheless, the result of the decision is it brings to an end the use of injunctions to affect parties that are not part of the case. It is a win for justice.

The commies wrote two dissenting opinions. Justice Sotomayor did the best she could but without any substantive law to boost her argument, her opinion amounted to nothing more than, “I know I am but what are you”?

Justice Jackson wrote the other dissenting opinion. I checked all 119 languages I could find and it still made no sense in any of them.

One of the most important conclusions made by Justice Barrett was the threshold conclusion that the President is most likely to succeed on the merits. That is important because one of the cases concerned “birthright citizenship.” The Trump Administration has taken the position that birthright citizenship does not apply to children born to women (yes, only women can give birth) who are not US citizens. The decision indicates that six of the Supreme Court justices agree with President Trump.

The one pregnant woman who was a part of that case is allowed to stay in the United States until her child is born but there is a very good chance the Supreme Court will approve of the deportation of both her and her infant child when that case is over.

Also, I don’t think we should expect the Department of Homeland Security to let any other pregnant foreigners enter the country over the next three years.

——

Kennedy v. Brainwood Management, Inc., also was a victory for the Trump Administration. That case concerned the power of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to fire 16 volunteer members of a task force that was supposed to be advisory. Each member was to serve a 4-year term. In the Obama’s quest to increase the power of the federal government, however, the Affordable Care Act made the task force’s recommendations mandatory as to what preventative care must be covered under company health insurance plans. Yes, this new power resulted in considerable unexplained increases in wealth for all members of the task force.

When Robert Kennedy became Secretary of that department, he concluded that they were all corrupt as hell and fired all 16. The replacements had something new to this task force: they knew something about health and science.

The Supreme Court concluded that the members of the task force are inferior officers and therefore they could be fired by the Secretary.

Interestingly, the three justices who dissented were all conservative: Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch. Justice Thomas wrote their opinion. He pointed out that there is a long history of litigation between these parties, including previous cases concerning the constitutionality of the appointment of the members of the task force. Previous litigation resulted in an injunction against the Secretary (in the Harris-Biden administration) to prevent enforcement of the recommendations. His conclusion was that this case should have been sent back to the lower courts for some factual determinations.

That is never going to happen. What is most likely going to happen? The recommendations made by Kennedy‘s pics will be challenged in court and five or six years from now they will be determined to have been unconstitutional because Congress did not approve his appointees.

It seems to me that the best approach would be to send his appointees to the Senate now so that there cannot be any litigation about their constitutionality later.

Silly me, applying logic to something governmental.

—-

In Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, the Supreme Court upheld Texas’s requirement that pornographic websites require proof that the viewer is over the age of 18 before allowing access to their website. This is a great victory for people who don’t want their children to grow up to become sexual perverts. I took interest in the case because Florida passed a similar law that went into effect this year.

Although the Court found that proof of age was a good means for Texas too protect its minors, I have a feeling that this law is going to have a greater reduction in the number of adults who view pornographic websites. Many minors can figure out a way to come up with a fake ID, a picture of which will be perfectly acceptable to a website being operated out of Kamchatka. Most adults, however, do not feel comfortable providing a picture of their drivers license to somebody operating a website on the other side of the world, whose real purposes of operating the the website are mining data and extortion.

I think I’ll run an experiment in a couple of weeks to see if any of these websites are still up and running . . . Solely for investigative journalism purposes.

——

Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic was another win for morality. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic (PP) and its puppet brought a class action suit under 42 USC 1983, because South Carolina denied Medicaid claims for services performed by PP. The supremes held that PP and all individuals lacked standing to sue South Carolina under a provision that provides the Secretary of Health and Human Services the right to withhold funding, section 1983 notwithstanding. As a result, states can cut off the free-money pipeline to abortion clinics without having to fight those clinics and their patients in court.

It gives me a certain feeling when entities that hate the USA and our Judeo-Christian values are cut off from the government money that has allowed them to exist against the will of the majority of people. What is that feeling again? Oh yeah, euphoria!

——

In yet another win for morality, in Mahmoud, et al v. Taylor, et al, the Supreme Court sided with parents when the Montgomery County (Maryland) Board of Education decided to mandate that all children participate in pro-“LGBTQ+” instruction in kindergarten through fifth grade. According to the Court, “The individual parents come from diverse religious backgrounds and hold sincere views on sexuality and gender which they wish to pass on to their children.” In other words, the parents are human.

The Court did not describe what kind of creature wants to impose transsexual hedonism on kindergartners. They probably did not do so because Kagan, Jackson, and Sotomayor dissented in favor of destroying America’s innocent youth.

The Court found that the parents were so likely to succeed on the merits that they were entitled to a preliminary injunction putting the Maryland monsters in their place immediately. Thank God.

——

Another interesting case was Riley v. Bondi. Pierre Riley was an illegal alien since he overstayed his visa in 1996. He was arrested and convicted in 2008 of serious drug distribution and firearm crimes. The Bush Administration ordered that he be deported. Within days, the Obama was Inaugurated. His administration ignored the order. In the first Trump Administration, they moved to have Riley removed, but he appealed. His appeal was untimely but the Harris-Biden administration did not object to the untimeliness of his appeal.

The Supreme Court held that Attorney General Bondi was bound by the incompetence of the Harris-Biden administration and the inaction of the Obama administration. For the rest of us, that means a convicted drug dealer who has been operating illegally in this country for almost 30 years gets to stay in the USA for at least another couple of years. If he can make it to the next Democrat-party administration he probably can stay forever.

Apparently, the only thing we can do to ensure his departure is make sure that we never have another Democrat-party-controlled administration in our lifetime.

——

In other news, Florida‘s over-population problems got worse this week. If you wonder what city has more Jews than any other city on the planet, it is not Tel Aviv. It also is not Jerusalem; neither of those cities even land in the top five. You may think it’s Miami Beach or possibly Boca Raton But you would still be wrong. The city with more Jews than any other city in the world is New York, New York.

Nevertheless, that city’s Democratic Party primary election resulted in them nominating for city mayor an open communist who thinks all Jews need to be put to death. Now, some of the greatest residents of New York City are in need of a new home.

Florida is full, so I beg them not to come here. Please, please go to Israel. Tel Aviv and Jerusalem are small cities by American standards. You can have a great life there without drinking the last drop of freshwater left in the Sunshine State. Thank you.

——