Is The SCOTUS On The Verge Of A Revolution?

Loading

by MARK WAUCK

Never say never—the current makeup of the Court has shown an appetite for originalist makeovers. It wasn’t long ago that few thought the SCOTUS would ever overturn Roe v. Wade, or issue a sweeping 2A ruling. Or … take on the Administrative State. In several recent rulings the Court has shown a will to clip the wings of the Admin State, to empower the lower courts to slap down runaway federal agencies and to demand that Congress return to the thankless job of legislating and taking responsibility for the laws they pass.

Yesterday at the Court there were oral arguments on two cases that could finally lead to the scrapping of the Chevron deference doctrine. “Chevron deference” has been in effect since 1984 and is the absolute cornerstone of the Administrative State’s ability to run roughshod over the citizenry. It was one of the lowlights of Antonin Scalia’s judicial career. The Roberts Court, now with a solid sorta conservative majority, has been on a path to high noon for the Admin State. In each previous case, featuring agencies like the EPA, the Court has shown itself almost eager to restrict those agencies and to empower parties who challenge their regulations. But, until now, none of those cases directly involved “Chevron deference”—self imposed judicial deference for the supposed “expertise” of federal agencies. This is now. The cases that were argued yesterday were explicitly all about Chevron deference. Commentators on both the Left and Right came away from the oral arguments believing that Chevron may be on life support, and that the plug could be pulled come June.

This morning Margot Cleveland reviewed these cases and the concept of Chevron deference at The Federalist:

7 Takeaways From Arguments In The SCOTUS Case That Could Slay The Administrative State

Wednesday’s arguments were all about whether the Supreme Court should do away with the unworkable Chevron deference.

Cleveland goes through the details of the whole concept of Chevron deference, far more so than I did, above. That’s fine—follow the link if you’re an insomniac What interested me was Cleveland’s cautious evaluation of the prospects for overturning Chevron, which comes in the seventh and final section of the article. Part of that caution undoubtedly comes from the fact—and no legal analyst doubts this—that a decision that overturns Chevron would be a true revolution in how America is ruled. So, this is how Cleveland evaluates the “conservative” lineup on the Court:

From oral argument, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh seem definite votes for reversing Chevron deference. Thomas, given his past writings, seems a likely vote for reversal. In one exchange, Justice Samuel Alito seemed to mirror much of Kavanaugh’s thinking, namely that the courts already interpret statutes in other areas, and can do so here too, without needing to defer to agencies.

Both Justices Roberts and Barrett were more coy in their questioning, creating uncertainty about their positions. Conversely Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson all favored the Chevron framework.

Bottom line: There is no sure-fire forecast of the outcome. …

By all accounts Kavanaugh led the charge against Chevron during the oral arguments. That was no surprise at all. Opposition to the Admin State has been a fundamental and strongly expressed feature of Kavanaugh’s thinking for as long as anyone can remember. The same goes for Gorsuch, and I would maintain that there is every reason to believe that Thomas and Alito and are on the same page as Justice Brett and Gorsuch. Justice Brett has also, in the past, shown a tendency to side with Roberts, so his charge against Chevron is, to me, and indicator that he was not simply going out on a limb—that he may have Roberts on his side. On the other hand, this interesting article from a month ago features Kavanaugh taking an opposite side to Roberts in the leadup to the Dobbs case (although also seeking an accommodation among the justices). I recommend the article for its insight into how the Court works:

Amy Coney Barrett reportedly opposed hearing case that overturned Roe v. Wade

Now, on the other hand there’s an article at Red State that summarizes views on the justices stand regarding Chevron deference—those views were expressed at Slate, so, lefty views. The RS title expresses the views of the Slate author:

Today’s Supreme Court Argument Hints That It Will Drive a Stake Through the Heart of Federal Rulemaking

The Slate author has no doubt of where Kavanaugh and Gorsuch come down on Chevron deference. He also states—and I believe he’s correct—that Thomas and Alito are “on the record” in opposition to Chevron. My belief is that Roberts is a probable, based on the past Admin law cases, as is Justice Amy. The Slate author, who is rabidly pro Admin State, rates them thusly:

… Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett played it straight at first, asking real questions that hinted at an understanding of the mess that’ll flow from Chevron’s demise. But by the end of arguments, both were hounding Prelogar with telltale complaints about the ostensibly arbitrary and power-drunk executive branch crushing the rule of law. …

Here’s the bottom line: Without Chevron deference, it’ll be open season on each and every regulation, …

The description of Justice Amy’s line of questioning is telling. Rule of law and due process are central themes for her legal thinking, and they crop up in this article that assesses her pre-SCOTUS views:

Read more

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
83 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This case will determine whether or not President Trump will be able to dismantle the administrative state upon returning to the WH in January 2025.
The non-delegation doctrine has been abused for decades by Congress and the result is a fourth branch of government the Framers never intended.

Also, yesterday the NYSE retracted its request to the SEC to approve natural asset companies.

https://www.digital.cpac.org/post/the-troubling-rise-of-natural-asset-companies

Also, yesterday the NYSE retracted its request to the SEC to approve natural asset companies.
Excellent, word got out on that just another WEF wet dream.

Trump, trying to have it both ways:

In the case of K&D LLC v. Trump Old Post Office, LLC, 951 F. 3d 503, President Trump successfully argued that the U.S. President qualifies as an Officer of the United States, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). The court’s agreed, stating this statute permitted President Trump, in his capacity as an “officer… of the United States”, to remove the state suit relating to duties of his office to federal court.

Some “expert”on your TV takes a court case on unfair competition and tries to make it apply to the US Constitution, thats straw grabbing at its finest.
Yes Trump has unfair competition advantage against Biden cause Biden has the mental capacity of a fly.

Last edited 1 month ago by kitt

Trump could not have removed the suit in question to federal court under the federal officer removal statue unless he were, in fact, an officer of the United States.

…Cork Wine Bar, a restaurant on the edge of the District of Columbia’s U Street corridor, competes with President Donald Trump’s eponymous Pennsylvania Avenue hotel. Cork brought suit in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia alleging violations of the District’s common law of unfair competition. President Trump removed the suit to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). The district court denied Cork’s motion to remand the case, then dismissed its complaint for failure to state a claim…

Yet, no matter how you torture the language, Trump (or anyone) has to be CONVICTED of insurrection to be guilty of insurrection. That doesn’t happen when some random, butthurt leftist believes it to be so.

Oh, any you’ll need an insurrection. You don’t have one.

Cork never proved his case any famed person can open a business, Football players do it all the time, that gives them no unfair advantage. The post office rehab was just superior to his dump.
His claim did not meet even the narrow state standards.

Last edited 1 month ago by kitt

That they “never proved their case” isn’t relevant. The point is that the court specifically upheld the suit’s removal to federal jurisdiction under the federal officer removal statute. That wouldn’t have been possible if Trump wasn’t an officer of the United States.

The only thing “relevant” is that there never was an insurrection under Trump so it is absolutely impossible for Trump to be guilty of being involved in an insurrection.

The so called “insurrection” by the left will go down in the annals in American military history as an unsuccessful unarmed insurrection.

If you want to have that as a point the Case in GA and the defamation should be swept into Federal court, or dismissed on no standing. Do you want it both ways?

Trump is no longer a federal officer. He can no longer claim immunity from state prosecution on that basis. Nor does he have immunity from federal prosecution. In the eyes of the law, he’s just a regular citizen like you or I.

He’s not claiming immunity for anything he did since he left office, moron.

Presidents are not above the law. They are legally accountable for criminal acts committed while in office. Were that not the case, Biden could order Trump shot without concern about subsequent prosecution. Crazy as that sounds, total immunity would open the door on such outcomes. Total immunity would turn presidents into untouchable dictators. Total presidential immunity would end the republic and the rule of constitutional law.

Last edited 1 month ago by Greg

Presidents are not above the law. They are legally accountable for criminal acts committed while in office.

And Robin Ware/Robert L. Peters/JRB Ware/Pedo Peter/idiot Biden will be.

Correct. The Constitutional process is to impeach and then convict in the Senate. Upon removal, former presidents can be criminally charged. Constitutional scholars have long held that acquittal in the Senate prohibits post presidency criminal proceedings.

The Constitutional process is to impeach and then convict in the Senate. Upon removal, former presidents can be criminally charged.

Where does it say that in the Constitution?

Perhaps your diversion from the topic indicates your inability to comment substantively.

Overturning Chevron will allow for the disassembly of the fourth branch of government. The framers never intended for the Congress to abdicate its Article One responsibilities by delegating regulatory authority to several bureaucracies.

In addition, the NYSE pulling their ask for the Natural Assets Companies is a yuge win for the American People

Perhaps these two topics are too complicated for your limited understanding.

Last edited 1 month ago by TrumpWon

The framers lived in a pre-industrial agriculturally-oriented nation of 4 million. The extent andcomplexity of 21st Century technology didn’t exist. The economy was largely dependant on indentured servitude and slave labor. Wars were fought with single-shot weapons and swords. Social Security wasn’t an issue because most people were dead by 40.

Last edited 1 month ago by Greg

Perhaps your diversion from the topic indicates your inability to comment substantively.

Or, in other words, TrumpWon spouted another “fact” that he’s entirely unable to verify.

Again.

So… you deny there is any impeachment process?

Ah, yes: the appeal to extremes. The logical fallacy of choice for Bill and twelve-year-olds from time immemorial.

I’m saying that the Constitution says nothing about the whole “impeachment and removal must happen before a president can be indicted for crimes” bullshit. Prove me wrong, if you can.

I’m looking forward to seeing how you people get along without the entity you call “the administrative state.” You’ll be fucked.

Its called self governing, you may need a bottle and diaper change the school board telling you how to screw up the kids. We just want to live our lives without the fear of some obscure regulation taking money out of our pockets, at every turn. Paying taxes for departments duplicated at both federal and state level.

Most of us manage it already. Only those who await leftist propaganda to know what to “think” are at risk, which will only enhance the strength of the remaining gene pool.

If they keep this up we will have to plead to the Federal office of Burnt Out Lightbulbs, involve an engineer 2 electricians 3 permitting offices and several inspections.
Sweetie put in our electrical Panel at camp, the neighbor stopped by several times to look at it and ask questions, he is putting up a large storage building, He couldnt buy the meter pedestal anymore had to have an electrician get it for him, this guy worked as a millwright for 30 years.
All we needed to do 6 years ago, we got everything at the hardware store, have an inspector sent by the electric co-op come take a look at our setup before they would run the main in. Inspector was a nice man, came as scheduled on time.

No Social Security or Medicare? If the federal government goes, that goes too. You can send and receive mail by carrier pigeon. Possibly pay in silver and gold when your money becomes worthless. You can get your weather forecasts by looking at wooly worms. You can learn what totally open borders are really like. You can join your local mounted militia, unless you’re too old to be of any use to whatever bully boy commands it. Forget ever flying anywhere. Forget safe food and drugs. Forget environmental protection. Forget any sort of disaster assistance. Forget regulation of predatory business practices. Forget any meaningful defence from foreign aggression. You will have permanently broken what you can never fix. You’ll understand how much you’ve always taken for granted, and have nobody to blame but yourself.

Most of us manage it already. Only those who await leftist propaganda to know what to “think” are at risk, which will only enhance the strength of the remaining gene pool.

Last edited 1 month ago by Greg

Yo hypebole Boy, its regulations, with the force of law where no law was passed. Lobbyists pressing for these regulations to force out competition and do it yourself. We can barter or exchange services when the dollar crashes.
With diversity hires its already dangerous to fly. When has the forecast been accurate? Our food supply is full of toxic chemicals. Name 1 state that doesnt have a department for enviromental Protection, the feds did a great job in Oho and this https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gold-king-mine-spill-colorado-rivers-epa-claims/

How ids FEMA doing in Maui?
We have an invasion at the Border
Hyperbole hypocrite

Last edited 1 month ago by kitt

12/05/23 – Donald Trump Reveals Plans for Social Security

Former President Donald Trump rejected assertions that he’ll have to make changes to Social Security if he wins in 2024 because America is sitting on a pot of gold.

Social Security’s future has been called into question for years given the significant costs associated with the program. The fund has been dipping into reserves when the revenue it collects falls short of the amount it pays out and it’s projected to dry up in 2033 if no action is taken.

Politicians are unlikely to let the fund run out given the program’s popularity, but Social Security’s insolvency problem has 2024 candidates flirting with the “third rail of American politics.”

During Tuesday’s town hall with Fox News‘ Sean Hannity, Trump criticized Governor Ron DeSantis and former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley for their plans for Social Security reform.

“You don’t have to touch Social Security,” Trump said. “We have money laying in the ground far greater than anything we can do by hurting senior citizens with their Social Security.”


Money laying in the ground?

Trump’s plan to help save Social Security involves tapping America’s oil supply in a similar way that Saudi Arabia does. “It will take care of everything,” Trump said.

Saudi Arabia is the largest exporter of petroleum and made over $202 billion in oil exports in 2021, according to the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Oil revenue helped start Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF), which is being used to invest in companies and industries outside of oil in the hopes of diversifying the economy.

“We have more oil and gas than they do,” Trump said. “We can be rich again.”

The U.S. Energy Information Agency reported that the U.S. is the largest producer of oil and in 2021, the U.S. exceeded Saudi Arabia’s oil production by about 10 million more barrels per day.


How does that work? Private companies pump the ground dry and then voluntarily shower the resultant money down from airplanes? The government takes direct control of it, and transfers the money to Social Security? Not to mention the fact that excessive supply to the point of a global oil and gas glut crashes value. We saw that only a few years ago, when global prices dropped so low that oil couldn’t be pumped at a profit.

At the start of the town hall, Trump told Hannity he will open up oil drilling in the United States on day one of his presidency if he wins in 2024.

Trump isn’t the only candidate talking about Social Security. At the Republican presidential primary debate on November 8, Haley advocated for raising the retirement age for younger people, including her own children. She would keep payments in place for people nearing retirement age and said payments need to better reflect life expectancy.


Her candidacy is probably doomed for speaking truth rather than pitching pie-in-the-sky “solutions”. She cannot release limitless money from the ground to make everybody rich, or end wars within 24 hours of taking office with a phone call. Neither can Donald Trump. The difference is that Trump lies about it, and many people believe anything he says without question.

On Tuesday, Trump criticized DeSantis and Haley for wanting to “play around” with Social Security and DeSantis for shifting his position on changing the retirement age.

Newsweek reached out to DeSantis via email for comment but did not receive a response prior to publication.

In 2013, DeSantis voted for a failed Republican resolution that would have raised the age to qualify for Medicare and Social Security to 70. In July, he told Fox News he was open to changing Social Security for people who were in their 30s or 40s. However, in November’s debate, DeSantis said raising the age made little sense given that life expectancy in the United States is declining.

Last edited 1 month ago by Greg

Still not worried, I would say there are reforms that need to be made, should Prisoners with their every need met by the state get any SS?, how about multi millionaires do they need a catch net for old age? A flat tax would fix the problem of multi billions in profits and 0 in taxes like Democrat donor owner of Amazon. How about a life time limit to welfare collection?
Your knee jerk reaction to fear porn on SS shows you are Programmed mind control, a pathetic sheep following the herd.

Last edited 1 month ago by kitt

Trump has revealed detailed plans about ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Tens of millions of undocumented aliens will be magically rounded up and deported—no details. Social Security will be saved by pumping money out of the ground. Deficits and debt will magically vanish with no need to raise taxes as we pour more than ever into national defence. Wars will be ended in 24 hours with magic words spoken into a telephone.

Sorry. This just isn’t real.

Tens of millions of undocumented aliens will be magically rounded up and deported—no details.

Operation Wetback; penalizing employers who knowingly hire illegals (already a violation of federal law) is a great start.

Deportation is crucial. Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: Those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave. The top priorities for detention and removal, of course, are criminal aliens. But for the system to be credible, people actually have to be deported at the end of the process.

Social Security will be saved by pumping money out of the ground.

Why not?

Deficits and debt will magically vanish with no need to raise taxes as we pour more than ever into national defence.

How many federal agencies, out of the hundreds that exist, do you think could be defunded and shut down? No more agency, no more requirement for funding. Take in more than you pay out and you can reduce debt pretty quickly. End foreign aid like the useless $$ we continue to send to Ukraine.

Wars will be ended in 24 hours with magic words spoken into a telephone.

Cut Zelenskyy’s funding and watch him agree to the Minsk II agreement like he agreed to before he was elected. Within 24 hours, Zelenskyy will be sitting at the negotiating table with Russia.

You have to understand, leftists always visualize failure. It’s all they’re used to.

How does that work? Private companies pump the ground dry and then voluntarily shower the resultant money down from airplanes?

Stupidity much? How many times have you been told we have hundreds of years of fossil fuels known reserves? It’s call capitalism and it has benefitted the world more than every other type of economy. One thing is for absolute certain: just continuing to run up the debt by several trillion every year and hope no one notices, as the Democrats do, is not a viable plan.

Yeah, unimaginable wealth at the top will somehow trickle down to the people in the corporate slave quarters… I’ve heard the song and seen the dance for decades.

I know that I am personally enriched by every new megayacht that a billionaire buys.

Workers build and maintain the yachts. They don’t just appear. Jobs. You know what a job is?

So, you don’t think people should pay taxes because the tax revenue doesn’t do anything. Good enough.

It appears gullible greg is triggered.

It appears you believe Trump can fly by flapping his arms and govern by flapping his lips, while you simultaneously ignore every red flag and flashing warning light. HIS OWN FORMER ADMINISTRATION PEOPLE have been trying to flag you down, but you’re still headed for the rocks, full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes.

Last edited 1 month ago by Greg

It appears you have been triggered.

I’m afraid somebody is going to be.

Did you just learn that word or something?

We can barter or exchange services when the dollar crashes.

As is done in so many other modern industrialized democracies…

We are not a democracy, teacher.
You have no skills anyone would barter for, WTSHTF you gonna die.

This is evidence of why the educational system in this country is deficient. As Benjamin Franklin said when ask what the Constitutional Convention had given the People, “A Republic, if you can keep it ”

That is what learned in school pre 1970.

And to the Republic for which it Stands one nation under GOD, with liberty and Justice for ALL.

Last edited 1 month ago by kitt

And for the Republic for which it Stands

You can’t even get the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance correct.

I already corrected it.
You are still gonna die.

Last edited 1 month ago by kitt

You are still gonna die.

Aren’t we all?

Failing to prepare is preparing to fail.
A couple of bullets might buy fresh venison.
OTC pain killers who knows , more bullets?
comment image

Last edited 1 month ago by kitt

None of the world’s industrialized democracies, which comprise a wide array of governmental forms, is a pure democracy, yet people keep using the term “industrialized democracies” because they understand that it’s a handy shorthand for “governmental system in which the people have some degree of say over how things are run.”

Either you people know that and you keep playing semantic games to no worthwhile end—in other words, just being assholes for the sheer joy of it—or you don’t know that, and your ignorance has plumbed new depths.

Last edited 1 month ago by Michael

Without its democratic component, there is no republic.

Without Democrats, there’d be no threat to democracy, the Constitution or our nation.

Fear pornography

He has his Mommy look under his bed everynight for Trump.
We dont have to look outside this country for aggression against the USA
comment image

Last edited 1 month ago by kitt

Who knows more about exploiting human misery than the Clinton’s?

Yes it is, however, since Epsteins island is no longer available for bill, he likes them young, I wonder if he isn’t dipping the old trouser snake into some little girls.

There was someone to step into Jeffeys shoes, he was not the only one.

I wonder if he isn’t dipping the old trouser snake into some little girls.

This is called “telling on yourself.”

So, your view is all or nothing? Either the government controls our every motion or it doesn’t exist at all? How about the government perform the function it is designed to do; defend the borders, protect the citizens and promote the economy?

Why don’t you save that fear mongering shit for your fellow cowardly leftists? I’m too smart to fall for it.

Well, you guys never talk about “trimming back” the administrative state; it’s always about “dismantling” the administrative state.

When a house becomes condemned you dont reoccupy it you build new
comment image

Last edited 1 month ago by kitt

Right. So “all” it is, then. You and Bill need to get your stories straight.

Oh no I and Bill dont have a lockstep like Democrat sheeple, the horror!

Dismantling the state that involves itself into every aspect of private life. The administrative state is unelected and unaccountable.

I’m looking forward to seeing how you people get along without the entity you call “the administrative state.” You’ll be fucked.

And I’m looking forward to the day you actually know what the fuck you are talking about.

*Yawn*

*Yawn*

That sums up your intellect precisely.

Oh, man! I’ve been burned!!

You cant wait on Mikey to know WTF he is talking about, are you immortal?
Just laugh at him, like I do.

01/19/24 – It isn’t ‘anti-democratic’ to bar Trump from office. It’s needed to protect democracy

Over the decades, several US supreme court justices have warned that the US constitution is not a suicide pact – in other words, that the constitution shouldn’t be interpreted in ways that jeopardize the survival of our nation and our democracy.

Right now, however, I worry that the supreme court’s rightwing supermajority, in its anticipated rush to prohibit states from kicking Donald Trump off the ballot, will turn the constitution into a suicide pact. By letting an insurrectionist like Trump remain on the ballot – a man who spurned centuries of constitutional tradition by refusing to peacefully turn over the reins of power to the man who defeated him – the supreme court would be putting out a welcome mat to a candidate who has made no secret of his plans to trample all over the constitution and trash our democratic traditions.

Many legal experts worry that the rightwing justices will focus on the wrong issue when the high court takes up the historic Colorado case about whether a state can kick Trump off the ballot – a case in which the court might also decide whether Trump should be disqualified from the ballot in all 50 states.

When the court considers that case, the six conservative justices might focus on their concerns about infuriating rightwing voters, their political soulmates, if they rule that the constitution requires that Trump be disqualified as an insurrectionist. The justices will also no doubt worry that they’ll be seen as taking a high-handed, anti-democratic step if they deny voters the opportunity to vote for Trump, the likely Republican presidential nominee.

But the justices’ job is not to worry about angering the Maga crowd. Their job is to focus on enforcing the text of the constitution and, along with it, preserving our democracy. An insurrectionist candidate who stands a good chance of winning the presidency in November could drive a stake through the heart of America’s democracy…

Socialist fascist totalitarian police state is not my idea of “democracy”. The left is destroying “democracy” (which they don’t even respect, anyway) along with our republic. Trump is defending it.

I have seen ZERO indications that I’m living in one. I’ve seen PLENTY of indications that Trump supporters are living in a propaganda-induced alternative realilty, accepting more paranoid conspiracy theories than I can keep track of. The common denominator seems to be gullibility. They’ll believe anything that feeds their fears, and any politicaly quackery that offers magical solutions. Social media pours gasoline onto the fire.

Socialist fascist totalitarian police state is not my idea of “democracy”.

Last edited 1 month ago by Greg

They’ll believe anything that feeds their fears, and any politicaly quackery that offers magical solutions.

You mean like wearing a paper mask, standing 6 feet away from someone else and washing everything brought home from the grocery store will kill the Kung Flu? Or how about taking the jab for a non-vaccine vaccine will prevent people from catching it/transferring it/prevent re-infection? All things you bought into hook, line and sinker.

Oh, and how about you demanding that the Steele Dossier was REAL?

Forget how you believed those who refused to be jabbed should be punished? I don’t, and I’m sure Curt could find those posts of yours.

I love the magical solutions quip….
“‘President Trump would need a magic wand to get to 4% GDP,'” stated President Obama,” Trump tweeted. “I guess I have a magic wand, 4.2%, and we will do MUCH better than this! 

You never accepted that surgical masks, social distancing, and hand washing are all totally obvious public health measures that effectively reduce the overall rate of transmission during a pandemic. You never will, no matter how many times the common-sense reasons that they’re effective are explained to you. Congratulations. Fact and logic are not the master of you.

Where is your proof that those measures reduced transmission.

A regime that censors free speech, promotes propaganda, infringes personal rights, imprisons political foes and employs political violence is a fascist socialist totalitarian police state. The Democrats employ all of that.

Obviously the most desirable outcome from the USSC with respect to Chevron is that the court would overturn the case.
It is not however the only key to pick the lock. There are other avenues available to an administration to reduce and/or eliminate elements of the administrative state.

As an institution, America’s so-called U.S. “Supreme” Court has made a lot of bad decisions and has a lot of BLOOD on its hands.

For example, the MURDER of over 50 MILLION babies; the abomination of homosexual “marriage”; the establishment of the porn industry as “free speech”; the legitimacy of the abominable LBGT movement.

The list goes on and on.

These kind of rulings must be rejected by Triune God fearing civil magistrates and State governors. Otherwise, on Judgment Day, they are going to be cast into the Lake of Fire forever, along with the rest of the Marxist trash on America’s so-called “Supreme” Court.

(I firmly believe that the souls of all those little murdered babies will be there at Christ’s Judgment Throne, as He rules against these killers — the “doctors”, “nurses”, and “mothers” — right before He sends them down into Hellfire forever.