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.