Home· Settings· Breaking · FrontPage · Extended · Editorial · Activism · News

Prayer  PrayerRequest  SCOTUS  ProLife  BangList  Aliens  HomosexualAgenda  GlobalWarming  Corruption  Taxes  Congress  Fraud  MediaBias  GovtAbuse  Tyranny  Obama  Biden  Elections  POLLS  Debates  TRUMP  TalkRadio  FreeperBookClub  HTMLSandbox  FReeperEd  FReepathon  CopyrightList  Copyright/DMCA Notice 

Monthly Donors · Dollar-a-Day Donors · 300 Club Donors

Click the Donate button to donate by credit card to FR:

or by or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Free Republic 4th Qtr 2024 Fundraising Target: $81,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $23,401
28%  
Woo hoo!! And we're now over 28%!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Keyword: scotus4malta

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Is the Supreme Court gaslighting us?

    07/01/2021 4:25:01 AM PDT · by MtnClimber · 31 replies
    American Thinker ^ | 1 Jul, 2021 | John Green
    George Washington University Law School Professor Jonathon Turley has posited that recent unanimous Supreme Court rulings may be the court sending a message to politicians. Facing threats to pack the Supreme Court and calls for Justice Stephen Breyer to resign, Turley believes the court is making a rare show of unity. Apparently, the logic is that if they show that they’re not ideological (I know, don’t laugh), the Democrats will understand that packing the court won’t make any difference. They’re trying to validate Chief Justice John Robert’s claim that there are no “Obama judges” or “Trump judges.” There’s just one...
  • SCOTUS Set To Rule If States Can Protect The Integrity Of Their Votes: Efforts of state legislatures to enact new voting protections are in jeopardy if SCOTUS fails to overturn the latest 9th Circuit decision.

    03/24/2021 8:06:24 AM PDT · by SeekAndFind · 34 replies
    The Federalist ^ | 03/24/2021 | Michael J. O’Neill
    Do federal law and the U.S. Constitution prohibit states from enacting commonsense voting requirements designed to protect the integrity of the electoral process, apply to everyone, and impose no significant burden? The Supreme Court tackled this question several weeks ago when it heard oral arguments in a case entitled Brnovich v. Democrat National Committee. Democrats are challenging the legality of two measures used by Arizona to ensure a free and fair electoral process. The first, known as the “out of precinct policy” requires individuals who vote in-person to cast their respective ballots in their designated election location. The second policy...
  • Supreme Court to hear major test of voting rights law

    03/01/2021 4:08:51 AM PST · by Oldeconomybuyer · 9 replies
    NBC News / Comcast ^ | March 1, 2021 | By Pete Williams
    WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court takes up a court fight Tuesday over voting rights in the battleground state of Arizona, and the outcome may affect how the nation's courts resolve clashes over election laws in dozens of other states. The case also will be a test of one of the most important civil rights laws — the Voting Rights Act, which the Supreme Court significantly scaled back in 2013. Two Arizona laws are at issue in the virtual oral arguments before the justices. One requires election officials to reject ballots cast in the wrong precincts. The other concerns voting by...
  • SOROS: Justice John Roberts will Deliver a Surprise.

    01/02/2021 3:43:00 PM PST · by AnthonySoprano · 66 replies
    Populist Press ^ | Populist Press
    ‘ Soros: Chief Justice John Roberts to deliver a Surprise!