WASHINGTON (Breitbart)– Leftist activists are directing protestors to confront conservative Supreme Court Justices at their homes in Maryland and Virginia.
Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch are all targets by an organization called, “Ruth Sent Us.” The organization has published the justices’ supposed home addresses online for the radical protestors to locate.
Ruth seems to be a reference to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was a ardent defender of the right to abortion. But this group’s use of her name is ironic, because Ginsburg was very collegial with her conservatives colleagues, including her best friend, Justice Antonin Scalia, and because Ginsburg criticized Roe as a bad decision, despite agreeing with its conclusion.
“Our 6-3 extremist Supreme Court routinely issues rulings that hurt women, racial minorities, LGBTQ+ and immigrant rights,” the group’s website states. “We must rise up to force accountability using a diversity of tactics.”
The website also asked protestors to “rise up May 8-15 and beyond… At the homes of the six extremist justices, three in Virginia and three in Maryland.” The site says the main protest is scheduled for May 11.
It is not the first time radical-left organizations have mobilized to intimidate political opponents at their homes. In September, protestors under the banner of ShutDownDC picketed outside Kavanaugh’s home to express angst against pro-life laws. In January, the same organization was also responsible for the protests outside Sen. Josh Hawley’s (R-MO) home in Virginia.
“Tonight while I was in Missouri, Antifa scumbags came to our place in DC and threatened my wife and newborn daughter, who can’t travel,” Hawley said at the time. “They screamed threats, vandalized, and tried to pound open our door. Let me be clear: My family & I will not be intimidated by leftwing violence.”
The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board on Tuesday admitted the left’s radical protestors may turn violent against the justices in the coming days. “We hate to say this, but some abortion fanatic could decide to commit an act of violence to stop a 5-4 ruling. It’s an awful thought, but we live in fanatical times,” the board penned.
The potential violence follows a Monday Supreme Court leak that revealed Roe v. Wade may be overturned. “Our guess is that the leak is likely to backfire at the Court,” the Journal continued.
“A Justice who switched his or her vote now would be open to ridicule for wilting under pressure,” the Journal added. “It would also invite more leaks in the future by showing they get results. A pattern of pre-emptive leaks of draft opinions would destroy the Court.”
Breitbart’s Wendell Husebo contributed to the contents of this report.
WASHINGTON– In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has voted to strike down Roe v. Wade according to an initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito circulated inside the court and obtained by POLITICO.
Read the full 98-page initial draft majority opinion below.
WASHINGTON (The Hill) — The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to take up a dispute over a Mississippi law that bans virtually all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, potentially setting the 6-3 conservative majority court on a collision course with the landmark 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade.
The move was announced in an unsigned order, with the justices indicating the dispute would be limited to the major issue of the constitutionality of pre-viability restrictions on elective abortions.
The case was brought on appeal by Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch (R) after a federal appeals court sided with challengers to the state’s restriction.
The Supreme Court has undergone a dramatic conservative shift since last year when Mississippi first asked the justices to take up its appeal.
Last term, a bare 5-4 majority voted to block a Louisiana abortion limit, with Chief Justice John Roberts casting the deciding vote alongside Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the court’s three other more liberal justices.
But the late Ginsburg, a liberal stalwart, has since been replaced by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, cementing a 6-3 conservative court and throwing the future of longstanding abortion protections into question.
At least four justices must agree to hear a case for an appeal to be granted.
Abortion rights advocates expressed concern over Monday’s development.
“Alarm bells are ringing loudly about the threat to reproductive rights,” Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement. “The Supreme Court just agreed to review an abortion ban that unquestionably violates nearly 50 years of Supreme Court precedent and is a test case to overturn Roe v. Wade.”
The Mississippi law is among hundreds of abortion restrictions that have been introduced recently in state legislatures across the country. In 2021 alone, more than 500 abortion restrictions, including nearly 150 abortion bans, were introduced in 46 states, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Of those, just over 60 measures have been enacted.
The anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List) hailed the Supreme Court’s move on Monday as a chance to give states more latitude.
“This is a landmark opportunity for the Supreme Court to recognize the right of states to protect unborn children from the horrors of painful late-term abortions,” SBA List president Marjorie Dannenfelser said in a statement.
Mississippi’s appeal comes after losing two rounds in the lower courts. In 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit held that the state’s restriction placed an unconstitutional burden on a woman’s right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy before viability.
“In an unbroken line dating to Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s abortion cases have established (and affirmed, and re-affirmed) a woman’s right to choose an abortion before viability,” reads the opinion of a three-judge panel. “States may regulate abortion procedures prior to viability so long as they do not impose an undue burden on the woman’s right, but they may not ban abortions.”
The Hill’s John Kruzel contributed to the contents of this report.
WASHINGTON (The Federalist) —
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas offered a roadmap to eliminating rampant social media censorship from online monopolies on Monday.
In a ruling for writ of certiorari on the case of President Joe Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, Thomas concurred in an opinion to send the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit with instructions to dismiss as moot, now that Biden is in the White House. The case, launched in August, questions whether the First Amendment strips government officials of their ability to block third-party accounts on Twitter if the personal account is used to conduct official business. The lower court ruled Trump violated the First Amendment when blocking users on the platform, which served as a public forum.
“I write separately to note that this petition highlights the principal legal difficulty that surrounds digital platforms,” Thomas wrote, “namely, that applying old doctrines to new digital platforms is rarely straightforward.”
Thomas went on to outline a blueprint for breaking up protections that enable corporate tech monopolies to engage in widespread censorship frequently in one direction. The conservative justice’s argument rests primarily on the monopoly power Big Tech conglomerates possess in Silicon Valley, where unilateral control of the public forum means no real public forum at all.
“It seems rather odd to say that something is a government forum when a private company has unrestricted authority to do away with it,” Thomas wrote. “The disparity between Twitter’s control and Mr. Trump’s control is stark, to say the least.”
In January, Twitter kicked then-President Trump from the platform altogether.
“Today’s digital platforms provide avenues for historically unprecedented amounts of speech, including speech by government actors,” Thomas emphasized. “Also unprecedented, however, is the concentrated control of so much speech in the hands of a few private parties. We will soon have no choice but to address how our legal doctrines apply to highly concentrated, privately owned information infrastructure such as digital platforms.”
Aside from Twitter, Thomas highlighted the dominant influence of Google and Amazon. Google, Thomas noted, serves as the “gatekeeper” between users and speech with power over 90 percent of internet searches.
“It can suppress content by deindexing or downlisting a search result or by steering users away from certain content by manually altering autocomplete results,” Thomas wrote. Amazon, meanwhile, as the distributor of a majority of e-books and half of all physical books, “can impose cataclysmic consequences on authors by, among other things, blocking a listing.”
Earlier this year, Amazon deplatformed conservative scholar Ryan T. Anderson and his book “When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment,” a book critical of the left’s efforts to mainstream transgenderism to a radical degree.
Now, when users search Anderson’s book title into Amazon, it’s not his book that shows up. Instead, it’s a work titled “Let Harry Become Sally: Responding to the Anti-Transgender Moment.”
Thomas himself has fallen victim to Amazon’s censorship. In February, during Black History Month, the company removed a documentary about the only black justice currently serving on the Supreme Court from its streaming service.
The PBS title, “Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words,” appeared ripped from the platform while Amazon still promoted other titles under the category of Black History Month, such as “All In: The Fight For Democracy,” with Stacey Abrams, and two movies on Anita Hill, Thomas’s accuser of sexual misconduct who attempted to derail his confirmation.
“It changes nothing that these platforms are not the sole means for distributing speech or information,” Thomas wrote. “But in assessing whether a company exercises substantial market power, what matters is whether the alternatives are comparable. For many of today’s digital platforms, nothing is.”
–The Federalist’s Tristan Thomas contributed to the contents of this report.
WASHINGTON (Newsmax) — States’ certifications and projections “don’t mean anything” when it comes to who won the Nov. 3 presidential election, because the only thing that really matters is the Electoral College, Jenna Ellis, who is part of the Trump campaign’s legal team, said Monday while discussing the push for state legislatures to appoint electors to determine the race.
“Until the Electoral College actually votes on Dec. 14, we don’t have a president-elect,” Ellis told Fox Business’ Maria Bartiromo, explaining that the team is working “two parallel tracks to keep up the fight for President Donald Trump’s reelection.”
“First is the litigation strategy, where we’re challenging the fraud and the widespread fraud in court,” she said. “That’s where we are currently in Pennsylvania. We also have a parallel track with state legislatures.”
State lawmakers, she said, can take back their power and appoint electors to determine the race’s winner.
“In Pennsylvania, we have two pieces pending and primed for the Supreme Court,” said Ellis. “Now we have another case in the 3rd Circuit ready to go to the Supreme Court. We have 10 days from that ruling to appeal it.”
State legislatures, she added, are “vested under the Constitution with election integrity and the ability to select the manner of their electors to move forward. We are taking this very seriously.”
Allowing lawmakers to pick the electors was “built in as a safeguard” so the people’s vote is not disenfranchised when there is “corruption and fraud” in the election, she insisted.
“The reason for that is to make sure that people’s voice is heard and the correct outcome ultimately happens through the Electoral College,” said Ellis. “President Trump is right. There was widespread fraud, in at least 6 states … the state legislatures must take back their selection of delegates and move forward to choosing the delegates that are preferred by the people we know President Trump won in a landslide.”
Newsmax’s Sandy Fitzgerald contributed to the contents of this report.
WASHINGTON (The Hill) — President Trump plans to announce his nominee to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court on Friday or Saturday, he said in an interview on “Fox & Friends” Monday morning.
“I think it’ll be on Friday or Saturday,” Trump said when asked when he would announce his decision, adding that he wanted to “pay respect” to Ginsburg, who died Friday due to complications from pancreatic cancer, by waiting until after her funeral services.
Trump also said that he had narrowed his list down to five potential nominees. Trump has already committed to choosing a woman to replace Ginsburg on the Supreme Court.
Judges Amy Coney Barrett, Barbara Lagoa and Allison Jones Rushing are among the individuals Trump is weighing as potential nominees. Barrett and Lagoa are said to be top contenders for the role.
Trump on Monday did not specifically name the individuals whom he is considering to replace Ginsburg, but he described them all as “highly qualified” and “very smart.” At one point, he also appeared to reference Rushing, saying that one of the potential nominees is 38 years old — Rushing’s age.
“It could be any one of them — they’ll all be great,” Trump told the Fox News hosts.
Trump also said during the phone interview that he would prefer a nomination vote be taken before Election Day on Nov. 3, saying that there would be “plenty of time” for his choice to move through the process.
“I think it should go very quickly. We have a lot of time,” Trump said. “Especially if the people we’re talking about, most of them are young and they’ve gone through the process pretty recently.”
Details surrounding services for Ginsburg solidified later Monday. A Supreme Court spokesperson said that the late justice will lie in repose on Wednesday and Thursday at the top of the court’s steps, following a private ceremony inside the corridor. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) also announced that Ginsburg will lie in state at the Capitol’s National Statuary Hall on Friday.
A funeral service and burial at Arlington National Cemetery is expected sometime later in the week.
Should Trump follow through in announcing his nominee on Friday or Saturday, the news would come just days before the first presidential debate between the incumbent president and Democratic nominee Joe Biden.
Barrett, 48, is a former clerk for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Trump nominated her to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in 2017. Lagoa, a 52-year-old Cuban American judge and Florida native, was nominated by Trump to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit at the end of 2019. Both women were confirmed in bipartisan votes by the Senate.
Rushing was nominated by Trump to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in 2018 and was confirmed in a party-line vote the following year.
The Supreme Court confirmed Ginsburg’s death Friday evening, a development that immediately injected uncertainty into the presidential election, which is less than two months away, and ignited debate about whether and how swiftly Republicans should move to fill the empty seat on the high court.
Most Republicans have thus far united behind Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in saying that Trump’s nominee should get a vote on the Senate floor. However, Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) have said that they oppose moving forward with a vote before Election Day.
McConnell refused to hold a vote for then-President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, to replace Scalia in 2016 because it was during an election year. McConnell argues that the circumstances in 2020 are different, because the same party controls the White House and Senate.
The Hill‘s Morgan Chalfant contributed to the contents of this report.