Free Republic

Today’s order from the Supreme Court is a major victory for the Trump Administration. By allowing the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) to remain in effect, the Court has prevented dangerous chaos at the southern border, avoided a significant escalation in public health threats, and mitigated damage to foreign relations. MPP, which faithfully implements section 235(b)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, has been crucial to our success working with Mexico to control rampant illegal migration, smuggling, and cartel-driven human trafficking, all of which present wide-ranging risks to both our countries and to the migrants themselves. Open borders do not serve...

  SACRAMENTO – California Attorney General Xavier Becerra today filed a multistate amicus brief in two consolidated cases urging the U.S. Supreme Court to retain a previously established multi-factor test designed to safeguard the rights of workers and religious organizations. The test has been used since 2012 to determine which employees fall under the so-called “ministerial exception” and are therefore not protected by state and federal anti-discrimination laws. The defendants in each case have asked the court to broadly expand the exception, which could risk the unnecessary elimination of workplace protections for employees of religious organizations across the country.“Our nation’s...

The Supreme Court has handed President Trump a victory, albeit a temporary one, by allowing the administration to enforce the “remain in Mexico” policy.Via The Hill:The justices will allow the “Remain in Mexico” policy to continue while the administration appeals a lower court ruling which deemed the program illegal and ordered a suspension that was scheduled to take effect tomorrow.Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the only justice to publicly dissent from the decision to allow the policy to continue.Known officially as Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), the policy aims to curb entry into the U.S. by asylum-seekers, many of whom are Central...

The Supreme Court issued an Order this morning, at the URL above, staying enforcement of a trial court order that had barred the Trump Administration from enforcing its policy requiring those applying for asylum having come from Mexico to remain in Mexico until the application is ruled on. The policy is being challenged in court,and the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to review the trial court order barring enforcement. The Supreme Court says today that Trump can continue to enforce the policy while the legal challenge continues. One is tempted to read the tea leaves and see this...

A group of black pastors has started a petition to urge Congress to censure Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., over his remarks about two Supreme Court justices last week. Schumer has been under fire from Republicans and some Democrats for comments aimed at conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh during a pro-choice rally that many perceived to be threats. "Those remarks, made during a rally at the Supreme Court on a pending case, were clearly intended to influence the decision on that case," a petition from the Coalition of African American Pastors addressed to Senate Majority Leader Mitch...

Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor will recuse herself from a case regarding the electoral college according to a new report from Wapo. A letter explains her rationale as she is friends with one of the parties. Last month, reacting to a Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s claim that the GOP appointed Justices are being biased in his favor, President Trump called for both Sotomayor and Ginsburg to have to recuse themselves from “Trump related” matters. “Sotomayor accuses GOP appointed Justices of being biased in favor of Trump.” @IngrahamAngle @FoxNews This is a terrible thing to say. Trying to “shame” some into...

In a 5-4 decision, a divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled that foreigners who are in America illegally can be prosecuted for the crime of identity theft. While the ruling seems like a no brainer, the court was divided because the case involved the Immigration Control and Reform Act, which says any information provided on an I-9 work form can’t be used by law enforcement in any way — and that includes as evidence in a criminal case. “The Immigration Control and Reform Act (IRCA) makes it a federal crime to lie on the I-9 work authorization form, while limiting how...

Pro-life law upheld in Kentucky, challenge denied by Supreme Court AddThis Sharing Buttons Share to FacebookShare to TwitterShare to PrintShare to EmailShare to More Issues@Hand AFA initiatives, Christian activism, news briefs March 2020 – The U.S. Supreme Court has denied an appeal to a pro-life law in Kentucky. Called the Ultrasound Informed Consent Act, HB2 was passed into law in 2017 and mandates that an ultrasound be performed before an abortion is administered. The law stipulates the ultrasound must be described to the woman, who is also given the opportunity to hear and see her child in the womb. The...

The 14th Amendment requires states to guarantee "the equal protection of the laws." Unfortunately ultraconservative Supreme Court justices such as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg don’t believe states should be allowed to protect women from unsafely operated abortion clinics. Supreme Court justices are considering Louisiana's Unsafe Abortion Protection Act, which requires that abortionists in the state have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the facility. Yes, I said "ultraconservative". I know people such as Ginsburg like to call themselves "liberals", but their attitude to abortion regulations is closer to "ultraconservative" than to "liberal". During the last century "liberals"...

President Trump hinted Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer could face consequences for his controversial remarks on two conservative Supreme Court justices.... "I want to tell you Gorsuch. I want to tell you Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions," the New York Democrat said. Cryin’ Chuck Schumer said, “You will pay the price for this. You won’t know what HIT YOU.” That is far beyond simple rhetoric. That is a physical threat, or at least a threat that you better vote...

Unfortunately, we’ve become a nation where apology is a sign of weakness, a piece of meat to a hungry pack. We’re a people hopelessly addicted to outrage and pearl clutching. And those who don’t scream loudly enough or clutch their pearls hard enough must worry about the Thought Police. We’ve become like North Koreans at a state funeral, terrified to be the first to stop wailing. In our angry public world of politics and media, the gravity sucks us down into the demon-infested Twitterverse, a universe of darkness and tribal screams. President Donald Trump drew condemnation when he asked Associate...

Saul Alinsky may have written his Rules for Radicals to give leftists an advantage in the battle for America’s soul, but that doesn’t mean that the rules aren’t tactically wise. On Friday, Gun Owners of America (“GOA”) decided to put into play several of those rules when it asked to have Sen. Chuck Schumer “red-flagged” as a potentially dangerous person. GOA’s request focuses on the fact that, on Wednesday, while speaking to protesters at a Planned Parenthood rally outside of the Supreme Court, Schumer sent a direct message to Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh: I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I...

The Justice Department petitioned the Supreme Court on Friday to preserve the key program that solved last year’s border surge, after a lower court ruled it was illegal. Known formally as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), and more commonly called “Remain in Mexico,” the policy allows the U.S. to push migrants who entered from Mexico back across the border to wait for their immigration court dates. About 60,000 migrants had been subjected to MPP. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling last week that MPP was illegal, but stayed the order. On Wednesday, the court gave the...

Ruth Bader Ginsburg dismantled a controversial Louisiana abortion bill during an hour of arguments at the US Supreme Court this week, systematically striking down components of the law she previously opposed during a preliminary vote. The 86-year-old Supreme Court justice seemed to aggressively push back against demands from lawyers representing the Trump administration and state of Louisiana to approve the legislation during Wednesday’s arguments. “If the woman has a problem, it will be her local hospital that she will need to go to for the care, not something 30 miles from the clinic, which does not have a necessary relationship...

When Democratic leader Sen. Chuck Schumer threatened two sitting Supreme Court justices this week, some reporters and other Democratic politicians attempted to downplay his unprecedented attack by falsely claiming he was echoing what Justice Brett Kavanaugh had said during his contentious confirmation hearing. Only the completely ignorant or willfully duplicitous person could make such a comparison.[snip] "I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.">

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s verbal threats against two Supreme Court justices aren’t surprising, in light of three years of “resistance” hostility to Trump judicial picks. What is remarkable is that Democratic leaders continue to take such a losing approach to an issue that will be central to the 2020 election. Mr. Schumer did hit a new low Wednesday, when he stood outside the Supreme Court and rallied a mob of abortion-rights activists by vowing that Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch would “pay the price” for releasing “the whirlwind.” “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward...

The Supreme Court this morning held oral arguments on a key pro-life law that saves babies from abortion and protects women from dangerous abortions that could jeopardize their lives and health. The 2014 Louisiana law at the center of the case requires abortion providers to have hospital admitting privileges to treat patients with emergency complications. If allowed to take effect, it could close shoddy abortion facilities that are not prepared to help patients suffering from emergency complications. But abortion activists suing in June Medical Services v. Russo (previously v. Gee) claim the law is an “undue burden” on access to...

Senator Chuck Schumer’s threats against Justices Gorsuch and Kavanagh are not only outrageous and dangerous. They could well be a precursor of what we can expect should the Supreme Court advance the pro-life cause. There will be rage. There will be intimidation. There will be threats. And there will be violence. The same people who were scratching and pounding the Supreme Court doors during the Kavanaugh hearings will not sit quietly should Roe v. Wade be overturned.The same people who violently attack peaceful pro-life protesters will turn all the more violent should pro-life legislation be passed.In terms of physical attacks...

"If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices," argued Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78. If we ever needed a pristine example of why justices are bestowed lifetime appointments and shielded from the vagaries of the electorate and the intimidation tactics of unethical politicians, Chuck Schumer has now provided us with one. While speaking to pro-abortion protesters in front of the Supreme Court today, the Senate minority leader threatened -- there's no other way...

This term, as the Supreme Court wades into the troubled waters of perhaps the most controversial of social issues, abortion, a look back at recent history may provide guidance and a warning to leave policy to the policymaking branches of government. Before the Supreme Court of the United States’ ruling in Obergefell v Hodges attempted to summarily end the cultural debate on the issue of same sex marriage, eleven states had already redefined marriage to include same sex couples. The remaining 39 states’ resistance ranged from voter-rejected propositions to include same sex relationships in their state's marriage law(s) to state constitutional...