Tag: Supreme Court

Men Competing in Women’s Sports Ultimately Headed to the Supreme Court

In a recent podcast with Turning Point USA co-founder Charlie Kirk, California Governor Gavin Newsom stated that it is “deeply unfair” for boys to compete against girls in athletic contests.

The governor’s “unfair” admission appears to have been a momentary opinion, since he soon changed direction regarding female athletes in his state.

President Donald Trump had made the subject of prohibiting biological male athletes from competing in women’s sports a key issue in the 2024 election campaign. President Trump recently suggested that he may cut federal funding to California if the state continued to allow biological male athletes to compete against females.

Gov. Newsom was informed that California’s policies are in violation of Title IX, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any federally-funded educational program.

In February 2025, the Department of Education began an investigation into the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF), which oversees sports at more than 1500 high schools. These are schools at which the policy of allowing male transgender students to compete against females has continued.

In May 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) began an investigation into whether California was violating the civil rights of female students in connection with the implementation of the same policies.

U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon outlined a list of demands for California, which must be met if the state wishes to continue to receive federal funding. Sec. McMahon noted that California must fulfill a list of actions or risk the loss of education funding.

The Department of Education’s investigation indicated that the California Department of Education (CDE) and the CIF are in violation of Title IX, the federal civil rights law that forbids sex-based discrimination in education. This is because the state’s policies allow males who identify as females to participate in women’s sports.

Should the State of California decide not to comply with Title IX and fail to prohibit participation by biological males, it will lose federal funding.

The administration has proposed a resolution agreement that would require California to change its policies. The Golden State has 10 days to accept the proposed resolution agreement. If it does not, the Department of Education will refer the matter to the DOJ for further proceedings.

Under the resolution agreement, California must:

– Alter its guidance that allows participation in sports based on gender identity.

– Issue written apologies to each female athlete who took second place to a biological male athlete.

– Restore misappropriated sports records, titles, and awards to the female athletes who would otherwise have attained them.

– Adopt binary biology-based definitions for the terms “male” and “female.”

– Conduct an annual certification ensuring compliance with Title IX.

In analyzing this issue from a legal perspective, it is difficult to see how the U.S. Supreme Court could not be the final arbiter in this matter.

Several states have already passed laws restricting participation, based on sex assigned at birth. Other states are facing legal challenges that assert discrimination.

As legal battles have ensued, courts have reached differing conclusions when reviewing challenges surrounding the placement of restrictions on transgender athletes’ participation in school sports. Legal challenges have invoked both Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Some federal courts have rendered rulings that base discrimination on gender identity. Other courts have ruled that the restriction of teams based on biological sex does not violate legal protections.

Courts have also been divided in rulings that concern the application of the Equal Protection Clause with regard to laws and policies that involve gender identity in differing contexts.

President Trump’s Executive Order 14201, which seeks to ban biological males from female sports across all educational levels, brings an additional layer to the legal complexity.

In my legal opinion, the issue of biological male athletes competing in women’s sports necessitates a High Court decision, because of the need for a thorough analysis and ultimately a clear definitive ruling.

The direct involvement of the Supreme Court, regarding the manner in which Title IX and other anti-discrimination laws are applied to transgender athletes, is essential, due to the conflicting legal interpretations of multiple federal courts as well as the societal ramifications that will inevitably flow from the High Court’s decision.

Impeachment Is the Remedy for Judges Who Usurp Authority

In a recent blatantly illegal ruling, an Obama-appointed federal judge interfered with the legitimate powers of the president.

In his ruling, District Court Judge James Boasberg ordered the Trump administration not to deport a group of Venezuelan nationals who pose a danger to our country.

In an apparent attempt to thwart President Donald Trump’s agenda, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking judicial intervention in halting the removal of terrorist gang members from the United States.

Within a few hours of the filing, Judge Boasberg issued a ruling complying with the left’s request. He granted a restraining order that sought to prevent the administration’s implementation of the president’s proclamation for a time period of 14 days.

In a further overreach, the judge ordered an aircraft that was en route to deport the illegal immigrants to return back to the U.S.

“Any plane containing these folks that is going to take off or is in the air needs to be returned to the United States however that is accomplished,” Judge Boasberg wrote.

Attorney General Pam Bondi stated that the judge’s order “disregards well-established authority regarding President Trump’s power, and it puts the public and law enforcement at risk.”

In an emergency filing, the Trump administration appealed the order with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals so that Judge Boasberg’s order would be placed on hold.

The appeal noted that if the order were allowed to stand “district courts would have license to enjoin virtually any urgent national-security action just upon receipt of a complaint.”

Interestingly, the president hadn’t yet signed a proclamation on the matter at the time the lawsuit was filed by the ACLU and other left-wing groups.

The Trump administration was correct to point out the fact that halting a presidential act before it has been announced would neutralize the executive branch.

The Venezuelan nationals in question happen to be members of Tren de Aragua (TdA), an international gang that has officially been declared by the Trump administration to be a terrorist organization.

The gang became part of a national news story following last year’s armed takeover by TdA of apartment complexes in Aurora, Colorado. It continues to victimize numerous other cities across the country.

TdA is linked to a narco-terrorism enterprise based in Venezuela and sponsored by the Nicolás Maduro regime. Members continually exhibit unspeakably brutal behavior and are additionally involved in the facilitation of human trafficking, drug peddling, kidnapping, extortion, and other heinous activities.

In order to protect the public from the Venezuelan gang, President Trump has done what other presidents before him have also done. He has invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.

Within his capacity as chief executive of the nation, President Trump possesses the explicit power, designated in Article II of the Constitution, to identify threats to the country and act accordingly to protect the American people.

In the proclamation, President Trump asserted that the regime of Venezuelan President Maduro “is a hybrid criminal state that is perpetrating an invasion of and predatory incursion into the United States, and which poses a substantial danger to the United States.”

Judge Boasberg has ordered members of the TdA gang to be brought back into our country. It is important to note this is the same judge who was in charge of the FISA Court, when that court was used to illegally spy on President Trump.

Judge Boasberg’s March 15 order was issued after Venezuelan gang members were already in transport via plane to the country of El Salvador.

“Today, the first 238 members of the Venezuelan criminal organization, Tren de Aragua, arrived in our country,” El Salvador President Nayib Bukele posted on X.

He added, “They were immediately transferred to CECOT, the Terrorism Confinement Center, for a period of one year (renewable).”

In response to Judge Boasberg’s order, President Bukele posted the following: “Oopsie… Too late.”

Congress is the branch that has within its power the ability to impeach federal judges who abuse their authority. It has done so in the past.

To this end, Rep. Brandon Gill, R-TX, indicated in a post on X that he will be filing the necessary paperwork to impeach Judge Boasberg.

Elon Musk reposted the tweet and wrote that the impeachment is “necessary.”

In my legal opinion, if ever there were a case in which a judge was deserving of impeachment, this is it.

Unfortunately, activist judges have increasingly been intruding upon executive authority.

Judge Boasberg’s ruling is one of the most egregious examples of the violation of the fundamental constitutional principle of separation of powers — that crucial system of checks and balances between the three branches of the federal government.

Judge Boasberg, you’ve earned it. And for the good of the country, hopefully you will soon own it.

Upcoming Supreme Court Cases May Help Restore Free Speech on Social Media

The Supreme Court recently announced that it is going to hear two major cases relating to the right of free expression.

Both cases will examine the constitutionality of state laws that were created to prohibit tech companies from discriminating against social media platform users who are ideologically conservative.

At the heart of the cases is Big Tech’s pattern of targeting and eliminating select content.

The passage by state legislators in 2021 of the laws in question came in response to censorship of user-generated content, which was taking place on social media sites.

The Texas and Florida legislatures were acting on behalf of their constituents in using their lawmaking capabilities to try and restore freedom of expression to the portion of the digital world that was being impacted by selective censorship.

It is regrettable, to say the least, that the redacting of factual information, political ideology, faith expression, and the like, which frequently runs contrary to today’s progressive and/or radical narratives, is routine business for a majority of Big Tech companies.

The Texas and Florida legislators engaged in the appropriate processes in an effort to address the censorship problem.

Texas law H.B. 20 bars social media platforms with at least 50 million active users from blocking, removing, or demonetizing content based on a respective user’s point of view. Similar to phone companies, the law re-classifies social media platforms as “common carriers.”

Florida law S.B. 7072 forbids large social media platforms from censoring or banning political candidates and what the law refers to as a “journalistic enterprise.” The Florida bill also mandates that social media companies publish standards for the removal of content as well as for exercising consistency in the application of such standards.

Technology industry groups NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association have challenged each of the state laws. Members of the groups include TikTok, X, formerly called Twitter, and the owners of Facebook and Google.

The Biden administration joined with the technology groups, arguing that social media platforms’ rights include those of censoring the content of customers.

Two appeals courts have given conflicting rulings over the two state laws. One of the appellate courts upheld the Texas law, but another struck down the Florida statute. In both cases, implementation of the state laws during appeals has been temporarily halted by federal courts.

In May of 2022, the Supreme Court (by a 5-4 ruling) kept the Texas law on hold during the process of litigation.

Justice Samuel Alito was part of a dissenting opinion, which said that the law should be left in place and that the issues were so novel and significant that the Supreme Court would have to consider them at some point. The justice wrote, “Social media platforms have transformed the way people communicate with each other and obtain news.”

Justice Alito added, “At issue is a groundbreaking Texas law that addresses the power of dominant social media corporations to shape public discussion of the important issues of the day.”

The justice also expressed skepticism toward the argument that social media companies have editorial discretion protected by the First Amendment, such as the kind that newspapers and other traditional publishers enjoy.

The aforementioned tech trade groups, along with the Biden administration, are contending that the Constitution protects the social media platforms’ elimination of so-called disinformation.

Tech companies claim that taking away their unfettered right to censor will mean that their platforms will be filled with the vague categories they are claiming pose a danger, e.g. bullying, extremism, and hate speech.

However, the High Court will look closely at the carve-outs that state legislators placed in the laws to permit platforms to perform legitimate functions. These exceptions allow categories of content, such as pornography and foreign government speech, to be removed by the tech companies.

The above mentioned cases, which will be heard in the new nine-month term that recently began, will ultimately answer a single question of utmost importance: Do states have the ability to put a halt to speech discrimination by tech companies?

Social media platforms have become essential communication components of everyday life.

They allow us to connect and interact with individuals, organizations, educational institutions, governmental bodies, health agencies, etc.

Pray that the Supreme Court decides in favor of a free internet so free speech can live.

Hollywood in Major Uproar over Roe v. Wade Reversal

Following the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 24, 2022, to return to the states the power to determine the legality of abortion, Americans now find themselves in a post-Roe v. Wade world.

What’s it like? In a word, awesome. But not for everyone.

Folks are still in disagreement with one another, perhaps more intensely than ever before.

We can’t even seem to come to terms with the premise that – there is no constitutional right to abortion but there is a fundamental right to life. So demonstrably obvious and yet so seemingly elusive.

Alongside the tragedy of abortion itself is the fact that we have fallen woefully short in bridging this divide.

Hollywood isn’t helping.

Celebrities of the pro-choice persuasion are using over-the-top language while simultaneously attempting to virtue-signal to the max. It’s occurring largely through social media.

Here’s a small sampling.

– Barbara Streisand tossed a mean tweet at the Supreme Court, re-labeling the revered judicial institution as the “American Taliban.”

– Aisha Tyler called the Roe v. Wade ruling a “terrible tragedy” and seemingly took a page from fellow past-and-present leftists in designating it as “a dark day in American history.”

– Halle Berry let it be known in writing that she was “outraged” and used the vulgar version of animal excrement to express her opinion on the Supreme Court decision.

– Alyssa Milano posted that the ruling would have “deadly consequences” and would be “hardest on people of color.”

– Patricia Arquette called the High Court decision an “absolute disaster.”

– Elizabeth Banks characterized the ruling as “devastating news.”

– Taylor Swift shared that she is “absolutely terrified.”

The melodrama wasn’t confined to Hollywood stars. Entertainment industry labor and trade organizations raged against the ruling as well.

– SAG-AFTRA, the union that represents actors, announcers, broadcast journalists, and other media professionals, called the Roe v. Wade reversal “archaic and dangerous.” Issuing a statement, the union suggested that the Supreme Court’s ruling allows states to enact “draconian restrictions” on health care and that it will “destroy lives.”

Like other Hollywood organizations and companies, the union is providing money for employees to travel to the nearest location where they can obtain termination of pregnancy services, if they reside in states that have restrictions.

– The Directors Guild of America (DGA) “strongly condemned” the High Court’s ruling, calling it a “travesty.” In a statement, the DGA president opined that the ruling is putting “women’s lives at risk.”

The DGA also approved a new policy that provides financial assistance to DGA members who need to travel out of state in order to obtain abortion-related procedures.

– The Producers Guild of America, a nonprofit trade organization, issued a statement that characterized the Supreme Court decision as “deeply dangerous” and suggested that it would cause “untold harm.”

– Actors’ Equity Association, which represents actors and stage managers in live theater, called the ruling “a catastrophic step backwards for human rights.”

– The Board of Directors of the Writers Guild of America (WGA) West and the Council of the WGA East said in a joint statement that the decision will lead to “injury, death and the denial of basic human rights.”

– The American Guild of Musical Artists, which represents singers, dancers and staging staff in opera, ballet and concert dance, released a statement indicating that the “system is broken” and went so far as to urge that “the legitimacy of the Supreme Court must be reevaluated.”

– IATSE, the union that represents behind-the-scenes film and television workers, called the Supreme Court’s ruling “one of the worst contractions of freedoms in modern U.S. history.”

The fact of the matter is six jurists, who comprised the majority in the ruling, courageously upheld the law, despite the intimidation tactics of the left in protesting in front of justices’ homes and even the apparent assassination attempt against Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

The coercive efforts began with the strategic leak of Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion in May 2022. The stalwart six stood firm, and the Supreme Court as an institution gained strength.

On a positive note, there are still a sizable number of prominent and influential Hollywood stars, who have fought the good fight in defense of our babies and their right to live.

Included in this brave bunch are Patricia Heaton, Kelsey Grammer, Mel Gibson, James Caviezel, Chuck Norris, Celine Dion, Jack Nicholson, Martin Sheen, Kirk Cameron, Candace Cameron Bure, Kanye West, and Justin Bieber.

In the initial Roe v. Wade ruling, Justice Byron White wrote in his dissent that the decision was an “exercise of raw judicial power.”

It was.

The majority in that fateful case actually created out of whole cloth a constitutional right to abortion that didn’t exist in American common law and wasn’t present anywhere in the text of the Constitution.

When the raging of the left is long forgotten, the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which has now thankfully resulted in the reversal of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, will be recognized as the High Court ruling that rectified one of the most egregious injustices in our nation’s history.

There is a time for every purpose under heaven.

Now, after almost fifty years have passed, a time for healing has begun.

The Targeting of Supreme Court Justices

The United States Supreme Court has just suffered an unprecedented attack on its fundamental integrity. A draft opinion, penned by Justice Samuel Alito and relating to the Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health case, has been made public.

An investigation is currently underway to try and determine the individual or individuals who are responsible for the leaking of the document, which was intended to be held in confidentiality, as it historically has always been, until an official ruling has been reached.

What has taken place is so egregious that words seem to be an inadequate means of conveying the gravity involved. The breach of the High Court’s deliberations is unparalleled. So, too, will likely be the ramifications of the leak as well as the aftermath of violent protests that are being fomented.

The High Court’s ultimate ruling in the case, which is still presently unknown, is expected to be finalized shortly and will likely be released at the end of the Court’s term.

The past few days have seen even more vitriolic speech and vile behavior piled on top of the dung heap. A group called Ruth Sent Us published six Supreme Court justices’ home addresses, accompanied by a map that outlined the locations of personal residences.

The group scheduled protests in the form of a “walk-by” outside homes of Justices Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Chief Justice John Roberts. Protestors have already staged demonstrations in front of the homes of Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh.

Ruth Sent Us is named for the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who actually took the position that Roe vs. Wade was ill-reasoned law.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki initially failed to condemn the targeting of Supreme Court justices and their families and homes. When asked specifically for the White House’s reaction to the release of justices’ addresses for the purposes of supposed protest events, Psaki failed to denounce the tactic and went as far as making statements to minimize the ploy.

When the press secretary finally made reference to the Oval Office, she said, “I think the president’s view is there’s a lot of passion, a lot of fear, a lot of sadness from many, many people across the country about what they saw in that document.”

The fact of the matter is interference with the administration of justice in the manner in which it has recently been occurring is illegal.

Federal statute 18 U.S.C. 1507 states that whoever has the intent of “interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice,” or “influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer” and “pickets or parades…in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer,” may be fined and/or may receive a prison sentence of up to one year.

Pro-abortion protests have already gotten violent. Protestors in front of the federal courthouse in Los Angeles, California recently clashed with the police, and at least one officer was injured.

A fire at a pro-life organization’s office in Madison, Wisconsin, is being investigated as an arson case. Found inside the building was an un-ignited Molotov cocktail.

For people of the Roman Catholic Christian faith, things have become more deeply disturbing. Ruth Sent Us has called for the desecration of the most sacred doctrine and personhood of the Catholic Church itself – the physical presence of Jesus Christ in the form of the transubstantiated Eucharist.

Over the weekend protestors descended upon the iconic Basilica of St. Patrick’s Old Cathedral in New York City. As reported by Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review, pro-abortion activists proceeded to block the front doors of the church, where Catholic believers had gathered together to celebrate Mass.

As they have for the past fourteen years, some of the attendees at the conclusion of the Mass make their way toward a Planned Parenthood clinic, where they engage in a separate sacred practice involving prayers recited with the use of Rosary sacramentals. On this day, however, police officers advised against the visit to the clinic for their own safety and protection. Despite the warning, a number of the devoted pro-lifers managed to keep the vigil.

Parishioners at Boulder, Colorado’s Sacred Heart of Mary Church arrived at morning Mass only to find that the church windows had been smashed, and the front entry doors had been spray-painted with the words “MY BODY, MY CHOICE.”

Ruth Sent Us states on its website that it is targeting “six extremist Catholics” who voted against Roe vs. Wade.

The organization spurred on disruptions of Catholic Church services with a posting of a video that depicts its own group members interfering with a Catholic Mass, while dressed in costumes worn on a fictional streaming series.

What the group is calling for is, in fact, criminal behavior.

Federal law, 18 U.S. Code § 247 states that anyone who “intentionally obstructs, by force or threat of force…any person in the enjoyment of that person’s free exercise of religious beliefs” at a place devoted to religious worship, has committed a federal crime.

CatholicVote, a Catholic advocacy group, issued a statement demanding that elected Catholic leaders publicly condemn the group’s supposed protest methods and has asked Attorney General Merrick Garland to enforce the law and protect churches from threats.

Brian Burch, president of CatholicVote, called the group’s plans “religious bigotry of the worst kind.”

In what many are saying is too little, too late, following the past turbulent weekend Psaki released a statement via Twitter that read as follows:

“@POTUS strongly believes in the Constitutional right to protest. But that should never include violence, threats, or vandalism. Judges perform an incredibly important function in our society, and they must be able to do their jobs without concern for their personal safety.”

The administration has yet to explicitly and directly address the attempts to influence the deliberative process, the doxxing of Supreme Court Justices, the targeting of houses of worship, the interference with the free exercise of religion, and the efforts to intimidate those with opposing viewpoints through the use of fear tactics.

All are an egregious affront to the Constitution.

And one more affirmation that liberty itself is in freefall.

Nineteen States Take the EPA to the Supreme Court

A recent appeals court ruling granted the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority to control energy consumption across the country.

As a result, nineteen states are now attempting to limit the EPA’s authority via court action.

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey is representing his own state as well as leading a group of attorneys general from the states of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming, and the governor of Mississippi has also signed on.

The 19-state coalition is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse an appeals court ruling that gave the EPA the unprecedented authority.

Morrisey contends that if the ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit were left in place, the EPA would have “virtually unlimited authority to regulate wide swaths of everyday life with rules that would devastate coal mining, increase energy costs and eliminate countless jobs.” (https://wvrecord.com/stories/593830432-morrisey-leads-19-state-petition-urging-supreme-court-to-limit-epa-authority)

More specifically, the documents filed by the coalition of states assert that the lower court misinterpreted Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, granting to the EPA the ability to exercise overly broad powers to radically transform the nation’s energy grid and force states to fundamentally alter their energy sources.

The transformation would be accomplished without any legislative input from Congress, allowing the federal agency to alter virtually any and all sectors of the economy, including factories, power plants, small businesses, and residential housing, with coal mining and natural gas production being placed in jeopardy.

The coalition argues that if the High Court were to delay a review, this would likely lead to even more significant and irreparable damage while simultaneously forcing states to invest time and resources into uncertain enterprises.

Back in 2015, Morrisey had filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration over a policy that sought to severely cut carbon emissions, alleging that the implementation of such a policy exceeded the EPA’s mandate.

Morrisey’s legal actions resulted in the Supreme Court issuing a stay, which prevented the policy from being rolled out. However, the D.C. Circuit Court vacated the ruling, thus opening the door for the incoming administration to implement even wider-reaching carbon reduction policies.

The petition of Morrisey and the other attorneys general alleges that the appeals court ignored the rationale for the Supreme Court stay.

The new petition comes as the current administration has announced the most excessive climate initiatives in history, with an intended goal of cutting U.S. carbon emissions in half by the year 2030 and ultimately reaching zero carbon emissions by 2035.

Morrisey spoke against the White House target goals, arguing that the change would have a negative economic impact that would be detrimental to our nation’s international energy standing and calling the emissions cut “a self-inflicted wound to our economy and our national security.” (https://ago.wv.gov/Documents/Statement%20of%20West%20Virginia%20Patrick%20Morrisey%20on%20President%20Biden’s%20Climate%20Plan.pdf)

Critics of the administration’s aggressive carbon reduction plans point out that China and other major polluters will continue to increase their emissions, which will presumably undercut any carbon reductions by the U.S., while at the same time increasing electricity and energy costs for all Americans.

Critics also voice concerns for the segments of our country that rely on fossil fuels and related industries, asserting that these areas would be disproportionately affected by such severe reductions.

If West Virginia’s top law enforcement official and the attorneys general from the coalition of states are successful in convincing the Supreme Court to accept the case, our nation’s people will witness the biggest legal battle involving climate change policy that has occurred in over a decade.

This is the kind of court proceeding that will potentially expose the judicial philosophy of each of the justices on the Supreme Court.

It will also likely define the judicial branch itself and, in the end, determine whether our nation takes the road not traveled.

Chief Justice Roberts’s Rogue Ruling Pattern

Supreme Court

As the final arbiter on the rule of law, The Supreme Court has always been a part of presidential campaigns to some extent. But this time around the issue has been catapulted to front and center.

For the last eight years one individual has played a pivotal role in some of the most significant societal-altering decisions that have come down from the High Court. That lone figure is Chief Justice John Roberts.

The past term is one in which Justice Roberts seems to have shed any trace of conservative jurisprudence. But for a while now he has regularly sided with leftists members of the High Court. Evidently, Vice President Mike Pence felt the need to speak out on the subject.

“Look, we have great respect for the institution of the Supreme Court of the United States,” the vice president recently told David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network. He then had the guts to say something out loud that a whole lot of people had been feeling.

“… Chief Justice John Roberts has been a disappointment to conservatives — whether it be the Obamacare decision, or whether it be a spate of recent decisions all the way through Calvary Chapel,” Vice President Pence said.

With the Supreme Court firmly on the electoral radar, it seems as though it is 2016 all over again. But now it appears as if there’s even more at stake for the country.

In June of 2020, President Donald Trump pledged to unveil a new list of potential justices ahead of November’s general election.

“He did that [an unveiling] in 2016. He kept his word,” Vice President Pence said of President Trump’s list. “He’s going to do that in the fall of 2020, and in the next four years, he’ll keep his word and appoint more principled conservatives to our courts.”

It goes without saying that the vice president’s criticism of the chief justice is completely warranted. All anyone has to do is look at the series of appalling rulings that have piled up at the feet of Justice Roberts. Over and over again he has chosen to side with left-leaning Democrat appointees to the High Court.

Curiously, Justice Roberts’s rogue tendencies began to surface in 2012. He facilitated the High Court’s upholding of Obamacare when, as the swing vote and writer for the majority, he penned an opinion using a contorted rationale that was almost totally devoid of legal reasoning.

He framed the clearly unconstitutional individual mandate as a “tax” even though the Obama administration had never even argued that the mandate was a tax.

In 2019 Justice Roberts voted with the far-left justices to reject a restriction on the overly powerful federal bureaucracy. This enabled federal agencies to continue to interpret their own regulations.

In another case, for no apparent legal reason Justice Roberts again joined with liberal justices, this time to invalidate a 2020 census citizenship question.

In the most recent term, Justice Roberts appears to have put the pedal to the metal in his judicial activism. He voted with left-leaning justices in adding the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s workforce protections.

The chief justice also went renegade when he struck down President Trump’s executive order that canceled a previous Obama administration executive order that was illegal. This ended up allowing the program called the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) to continue.

Justice Roberts also joined the leftist justices in preventing the citizens of Louisiana from implementing a duly passed law that would have required physicians performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. He claimed that he really didn’t want to vote with the liberals on this one. His excuse, in effect, was that precedent made him do it.

Four years ago Justice Roberts dissented from the majority ruling in a case that had similar facts. In his current concurring opinion, he writes, “I joined the dissent in Whole Woman’s Health and continue to believe that the case was wrongly decided.”

In a case that may come to haunt Justice Roberts in the future, he joined with the far-left justices in rejecting a Nevada church’s request to block the state’s COVID cap on church attendees. The disregard that was on display with respect to the Constitution was obvious to legal scholars as well as everyday folks.

Justice Neil Gorsuch was able to refute the legal gymnastics of the majority with a single paragraph dissent.

“…the First Amendment prohibits such obvious discrimination against the exercise of religion. The world we inhabit today, with a pandemic upon us, poses unusual challenges. But there is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel,” Justice Gorsuch wrote.

Reacting to the decision, Texas Senator Ted Cruz tweeted, “John Roberts has abandoned his oath. But, on the upside, maybe Nevada churches should set up craps tables? Then they could open?”

Many court watchers have speculated about what could be motivating Justice Roberts to move so far leftward.

The truth is it doesn’t really matter.

With the track record that he has laid down, it is clear that he is willing to play the role of unelected legislator for cases that have a huge impact on society, cases involving the power of the administrative state, the right to life, and the right of free religious expression.

As the vice president stated, these shameful extrajudicial decisions “are a reminder of just how important this [November 2020] election is for the future of the Supreme Court.”

This is especially true since Justice Roberts can’t be voted out of office. The only practical way his now-established rogue ruling pattern can be offset is to elect a president who will appoint justices that revere the Constitution and adhere to it.

That would be President Donald J.Trump.