• https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-allows-texas-enforce-immigration-law-rcna142971
    The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that it will allow Texas to enforce for now a contentious new law that gives local police the power to arrest illegals.
    The conservative-majority court, with three liberal justices dissenting, rejected an emergency request by the Biden administration, which said states have no authority to legislate on immigration, an issue the federal government has sole authority over. That means the Texas law can go into effect while litigation continues in lower courts. It could still be blocked at a later date.
    "The court gives a green light to a law that will upend the longstanding federal-state balance of power and sow chaos," liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissenting opinion. Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson also objected to the decision.
    The majority did not explain its reasoning, but one of the conservative justices, Amy Coney Barrett, wrote separately to note that an appeals court has yet to weigh in on the issue.
    "If a decision does not issue soon, the applicants may return to this court," she wrote. Her opinion was joined by fellow conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-allows-texas-enforce-immigration-law-rcna142971 The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that it will allow Texas to enforce for now a contentious new law that gives local police the power to arrest illegals. The conservative-majority court, with three liberal justices dissenting, rejected an emergency request by the Biden administration, which said states have no authority to legislate on immigration, an issue the federal government has sole authority over. That means the Texas law can go into effect while litigation continues in lower courts. It could still be blocked at a later date. "The court gives a green light to a law that will upend the longstanding federal-state balance of power and sow chaos," liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissenting opinion. Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson also objected to the decision. The majority did not explain its reasoning, but one of the conservative justices, Amy Coney Barrett, wrote separately to note that an appeals court has yet to weigh in on the issue. "If a decision does not issue soon, the applicants may return to this court," she wrote. Her opinion was joined by fellow conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority.
    WWW.NBCNEWS.COM
    Supreme Court allows Texas to enforce immigration law
    The Biden administration sued to block the law, saying it tramples on the federal government’s exclusive authority to oversee immigration issues.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 543 Views
  • https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/03/biden-threatens-supreme-court-justices-their-faces-state/
    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/03/biden-threatens-supreme-court-justices-their-faces-state/
    WWW.THEGATEWAYPUNDIT.COM
    Biden Threatens Supreme Court Justices to Their Faces in State of the Union Address (Video) | The Gateway Pundit | by Kristinn Taylor
    Joe Biden, amped up on “carbs” according to the White House, threatened Supreme Court justices seated a few feet away in the House chamber during the State of the Union address Thursday night.
    1 Comments 0 Shares 193 Views
  • Did Biden just threaten the Supreme Court Justices at the State of the Union ?
    Did Biden just threaten the Supreme Court Justices at the State of the Union ?
    Angry
    2
    3 Comments 0 Shares 204 Views 4
  • Seems like FB, IG, and the other Mainstream social media sites are facing scrutiny from some of the Constitutional Justices on the Supreme Court. Good.
    Seems like FB, IG, and the other Mainstream social media sites are facing scrutiny from some of the Constitutional Justices on the Supreme Court. Good.
    WWW.THEEPOCHTIMES.COM
    Social Media Giants Face Fresh Scrutiny From Conservative Justices
    Several suggested that a conflict exists between the companies’ First Amendment claims to free speech and their protection from liability under Section 230.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 391 Views
  • "Two conservative members of the court - Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett - joined the three liberal justices in the majority, with conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh dissenting."

    More like two RINOs.
    "Two conservative members of the court - Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett - joined the three liberal justices in the majority, with conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh dissenting." More like two RINOs.
    WWW.REUTERS.COM
    US Supreme Court lets Border Patrol remove Texas razor-wire fencing - for now
    The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to temporarily let U.S. Border Patrol agents cut or remove razor-wire fencing that Texas officials placed along part of the Republican-governed state's border with Mexico to deter illegal border crossings.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 590 Views
  • Conservative justices Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts sided with the Biden Administration to destroy our country by stopping Texas from stopping the Illegals from crossing our border.....
    Conservative justices Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts sided with the Biden Administration to destroy our country by stopping Texas from stopping the Illegals from crossing our border.....
    Angry
    2
    0 Comments 1 Shares 306 Views
  • Conservative justices Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts sided with the Biden Administration to destroy our country by stopping Texas from stopping the Illegals from crossing our border.....
    Conservative justices Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts sided with the Biden Administration to destroy our country by stopping Texas from stopping the Illegals from crossing our border.....
    Angry
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 259 Views
  • Op-ed:
    Pulling Out Their Bag Of Tricks
    By: Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / Right Side Patriots / Right Side Patriots Radio
    https://thepatriotfactor.blogspot.com/2024/01/op-ed-pulling-out-their-bag-of-tricks.html
    …what have we as a nation become thanks to the Democrats version of “democracy?” We've become a nation where reckless spending and one-sided political injustices rendered dictates the entirety of the public discourse…a discourse made worse in that it’s coupled with the misnomer regarding the conceptual yet faux reality that everything and everyone must be equal on all levels…
    Op-ed: Pulling Out Their Bag Of Tricks By: Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / Right Side Patriots / Right Side Patriots Radio https://thepatriotfactor.blogspot.com/2024/01/op-ed-pulling-out-their-bag-of-tricks.html …what have we as a nation become thanks to the Democrats version of “democracy?” We've become a nation where reckless spending and one-sided political injustices rendered dictates the entirety of the public discourse…a discourse made worse in that it’s coupled with the misnomer regarding the conceptual yet faux reality that everything and everyone must be equal on all levels…
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1176 Views
  • [PREMIERING JAN 6, 8:30PM ET] The Real Story of January 6 Part 2: The Long Road Home | Documentary
    https://www.theepochtimes.com/epochtv/therealstoryofjan6part2-5548012?est=DMobNtjxMMCl%2Blnd1MQl8WpuO6k3lRYZ2E2p9eejWyNLdt0S%2F594k%2FI0uKozBg%3D%3D
    Jan-06-2024
    With the FBI calling its J6 investigations “bigger than 9/11,” Jan. 6, 2021 has marked a turning point in American history.
    In the three years since Jan 6, a historic criminal investigation into the incident has played out in a dramatic fashion across the country. As of now, J6 prosecutions have reached beyond the 1,000-case milestone, while the DOJ warned of more to come.
    In “The Real Story of Jan. 6 Part 2: The Long Road Home,” Epoch Times journalist Joseph Hanneman reveals shocking evidence of how the wide-ranging prosecutions of Jan. 6 defendants have been handled with injustice.
    While “The Real Story of Jan. 6 Part 1” tells the real story of what happened that day, Part 2 will take an objective look at what has happened ever since—and the fine line between justice and political vengeance.
    With legal expertise, personal stories of J6 defendants, Capitol security footage, and first-hand testimonies of FBI whistleblowers, this documentary delves into the truth of J6 criminal investigations, and how they have changed American life. The skepticism of opaque government processes has never been more intense than it is now regarding Jan 6 defendants, whose lives have never been the same.
    How are they being treated in court, in jail, and in the public eye?
    Are the sweeping prosecutions a justified cause? What does it mean to our constitutional rights and the future of this country?
    What do the exclusive Capitol security tapes reveal about the full picture of January 6?
    After three years of investigation by The Epoch Times, we’ve peeled back the countless layers of Jan. 6 to expose injustices and champion stories.
    [PREMIERING JAN 6, 8:30PM ET] The Real Story of January 6 Part 2: The Long Road Home | Documentary https://www.theepochtimes.com/epochtv/therealstoryofjan6part2-5548012?est=DMobNtjxMMCl%2Blnd1MQl8WpuO6k3lRYZ2E2p9eejWyNLdt0S%2F594k%2FI0uKozBg%3D%3D Jan-06-2024 With the FBI calling its J6 investigations “bigger than 9/11,” Jan. 6, 2021 has marked a turning point in American history. In the three years since Jan 6, a historic criminal investigation into the incident has played out in a dramatic fashion across the country. As of now, J6 prosecutions have reached beyond the 1,000-case milestone, while the DOJ warned of more to come. In “The Real Story of Jan. 6 Part 2: The Long Road Home,” Epoch Times journalist Joseph Hanneman reveals shocking evidence of how the wide-ranging prosecutions of Jan. 6 defendants have been handled with injustice. While “The Real Story of Jan. 6 Part 1” tells the real story of what happened that day, Part 2 will take an objective look at what has happened ever since—and the fine line between justice and political vengeance. With legal expertise, personal stories of J6 defendants, Capitol security footage, and first-hand testimonies of FBI whistleblowers, this documentary delves into the truth of J6 criminal investigations, and how they have changed American life. The skepticism of opaque government processes has never been more intense than it is now regarding Jan 6 defendants, whose lives have never been the same. How are they being treated in court, in jail, and in the public eye? Are the sweeping prosecutions a justified cause? What does it mean to our constitutional rights and the future of this country? What do the exclusive Capitol security tapes reveal about the full picture of January 6? After three years of investigation by The Epoch Times, we’ve peeled back the countless layers of Jan. 6 to expose injustices and champion stories.
    WWW.THEEPOCHTIMES.COM
    The Real Story of January 6 Part 2: The Long Road Home | NEW Documentary
    The film reveals the untold stories of the Jan. 6 defendants whose liberties were infringed upon and the truth of how they’ve been treated ever since.
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares 4328 Views
  • Supreme Court Rejects Smith’s Request For Justices To Hear Trump Immunity Dispute
    https://conservativebrief.com/supreme-court-jack-smith-79700/

    On Wednesday, attorneys for former Attorney General Ed Meese and two of the top constitutional scholars in the country filed a brief arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court must reject Smith’s petition against Trump because his appointment as special counsel is unconstitutional.

    Their amicus brief contends that Smith’s representation of the United States in his petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court is invalid due to his lack of authority. This is because Congress has not established the position he holds, and his appointment is in violation of the Constitution’s “Appointments Clause.”

    The filing alleges that U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland made an improper appointment of Smith to a non-existent office, for which Garland lacks the necessary authority, Breitbart noted.

    Meese, Steven Calabresi, the co-chairman of the Federalist Society, and Gary Lawson, a renowned constitutional law professor, contend that Congress alone has the authority to create federal positions like the one Smith is currently holding, and Congress has not used this power.

    Although the Constitution establishes the positions of President and Vice President, Congress possesses exclusive authority to establish additional positions, as the Constitution stipulates that such positions must be “established by law.”
    Supreme Court Rejects Smith’s Request For Justices To Hear Trump Immunity Dispute https://conservativebrief.com/supreme-court-jack-smith-79700/ On Wednesday, attorneys for former Attorney General Ed Meese and two of the top constitutional scholars in the country filed a brief arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court must reject Smith’s petition against Trump because his appointment as special counsel is unconstitutional. Their amicus brief contends that Smith’s representation of the United States in his petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court is invalid due to his lack of authority. This is because Congress has not established the position he holds, and his appointment is in violation of the Constitution’s “Appointments Clause.” The filing alleges that U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland made an improper appointment of Smith to a non-existent office, for which Garland lacks the necessary authority, Breitbart noted. Meese, Steven Calabresi, the co-chairman of the Federalist Society, and Gary Lawson, a renowned constitutional law professor, contend that Congress alone has the authority to create federal positions like the one Smith is currently holding, and Congress has not used this power. Although the Constitution establishes the positions of President and Vice President, Congress possesses exclusive authority to establish additional positions, as the Constitution stipulates that such positions must be “established by law.”
    0 Comments 0 Shares 3452 Views
More Results