The Supreme Court Bars Cuomo’s Pandemic Limits On Houses of Worship

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a surprising blow to pandemic restrictions on house of worship in a late night order barring the enforcement of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s Oct. 6 “Cluster Initiative” limiting attendance at religious services.  Five justices (including newly installed Justice Amy Coney Barrett) blocked the limits while allowing the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to hear the merits in the case. Notably, Chief Justice John Roberts voted with the liberal justices but only because he felt that the order was not needed since the plaintiffs were not currently subject to the most severe limits.

Five conservative justices – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Barrett – sided with the religious groups  while Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented. Notably, this is the first major ruling where Barrett’s addition to the Court was determinative as the swing vote. If Ruth Bader Ginsburg was still on the Court, this would have gone 5-4 in favor of New York.

The initiative created color-coded limits on mass gatherings and business operations with houses of worship in designated red zones limited to 25% of their capacity or 10 people, whichever is fewer. The area around a “red” zone is designated an “orange” zone with limited of 25 people and the area around that zone is designed “yellow” with limits up to 50% of a building’s maximum capacity.

The diocese filed with the Supreme Court on Nov. 12 and synagogues followed suit on Nov. 16. Notably, however, Cuomo then maintained that these parties were in the yellow zones and thus not hit by the harsher limits.

That fact clearly persuaded Roberts who saw no reason for the Court to intervene before the Second Circuit ruled on the merits. He wrote that “Numerical capacity limits of 10 and 25 people, depending on the applicable zone, do seem unduly restrictive. It is not necessary, however, for us to rule on that serious and difficult question at this time.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh pushed back and noted that there is “no good reason” not to act now since these houses of worship could return to the more restrictive zones and, if they did not, the court’s rulings “will impose no harm on the State and have no effect on the State’s response to COVID–19.”

The most interesting observations came from the short concurrence of Justice Neil Gorsuch who noted that “[e]ven if the Constitution has taken a holiday during this pandemic, it cannot become a sabbatical.” The analysis at points dripped with sarcasm at Cuomo’s priorities:

“At the same time, the Governor has chosen to impose no capacity restrictions on certain businesses he considers “essential.” And it turns out the businesses the Governor considers essential include hardware stores, acupuncturists, and liquor stores. Bicycle repair shops, certain signage companies, accountants, lawyers, and insurance agents are all essential too. So, at least according to the Governor, it may be unsafe to go to church, but it is always fine to pick up another bottle of wine, shop for a new bike, or spend the afternoon exploring your distal points and meridians. Who knew public health would so perfectly align with secular convenience?”

He then added:

“It is time — past time — to make plain that, while the pandemic poses many grave challenges, there is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues, and mosques.”

One portion of Roberts’ dissenting opinion seemed to me particularly noteworthy. He seemed to take Gorsuch to task for his rhetoric and the suggestion that his liberal colleagues were tossing aside religious freedom:

“As noted, the challenged restrictions raise serious concerns under the Constitution, and I agree with JUSTICE KAVANAUGH that they are distinguishable from those we considered in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 590 U. S. ___ (2020), and Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, 591 U. S. ___ (2020). See ante, at 1, 3–4 (concurring opinion). I take a different approach than the other dissenting Justices in this respect. To be clear, I do not regard my dissenting colleagues as “cutting the Constitution loose during a pandemic,” yielding to “a particular judicial impulse to stay out of the way in times of crisis,” or “shelter[ing] in place when the Constitution is under attack.” Ante, at 3, 5–6 (opinion of GORSUCH, J.). They simply view the matter differently after careful study and analysis reflecting their best efforts to fulfill their responsibility under the Constitution.”

Justice Sotomayor also seemed to push back on the framing:

“Free religious exercise is one of our most treasured and jealously guarded constitutional rights. States may not discriminate against religious institutions, even when faced with a crisis as deadly as this one. But those principles are not at stake today.”

The order is obviously encouraging news for those challenging these pandemic orders that they could have a 5 or even 6 justice majority on such limitations. This case could make it back to the Court after the Second Circuit ruling, though much could change on these pandemic orders in the coming weeks to moot the case.


387 thoughts on “The Supreme Court Bars Cuomo’s Pandemic Limits On Houses of Worship”

  1. Covid-Barrrett came thorough exactly as predicted, and proved that she is the blindly religious zealot and radical conservative people feared she would be. It’s not necessary right at this point in time for Catholics or any other religious group to physically gather together to worship, and limiting indoor crowd size for the purpose of preventing the spread of a highly contagious disease is not encumbering the free exercise of religion because the restriction is not limited to houses of worship. This was an injunction to stop the applicability of an emergency order issued for the pubic good, and the order was flexible–based on current risk due to the extent of spread of this virus. As far as I know, virtually every archdiocese has dispensed with the requirement of in-person attendance at Mass–haven’t checked on NY, but if it also has dispensed with the requirement, what is the purpose for this ruling? Where I live, the dispensation has no end-point right now. Catholics aren’t even required to watch Mass online or on television, but it is available. The reason is that it is simply not reasonable to require people to risk getting or spreading a disease that could prove fatal to others, especially considering that some carriers are asymptomatic, and those who eventually become symptomatic have no symptoms for the first two or more days. The long-term effects of contracting COVID are unknown right now, but appear to include heart and brain damage.

    But, she was looking for the chance to prove our worst fears, and she did it. Look out LGBTQ citizens, same-sex couples, civil rights advocates, those opposed to police brutality, and abortion rights advocates. Covid-Barrett is coming for you. She’s going to shove her “I know what’s better for you than you do, and you have to live by my superior rules” mentality down your throat.

    1. “She’s going to shove her “I know what’s better for you than you do, and you have to live by my superior rules” mentality down your throat.”

      Sounds like you are describing every liberal progressive activist on the court.

      1. Asking someone to worship privately, via the internet, via television, or otherwise maintaining a safe distance from others, temporarily, in order to save lives, especially when the church has dispensed with mandatory Mass attendance, is not unreasonable. In fact, insisting on holding super-spreader events is not just unreasonable, it is un-patriotic, selfish, and the antithesis of what religions stand for, which is care and concern for one’s neighbors. If every COVID carrier was obviously symptomatic, that would be different. Even in Jesus’s day, (way before then, actually) lepers had their own colonies, and were required to avoid contact with others. Hanson’s Disease isn’t even as contagious as COVID. Read Leviticus about the rules for avoiding the spreading of infection, not just between people, but of fungi and mold in the home, on clothing and leather goods. But, then Covid-Barrett is a fanatic, as reasonable people feared she would be. There is no justification for this ruling, which is based on her absolute rejection of science in favor of dogma and radical conservatism. She is very bad news, indeed.

        1. It is important to use words correctly.

          You are not “asking” – you are demanding.

          That is radically different

        2. Study establishes that the factors associated with C19 mortality are latitude, IV Index, Life expectancy, and economics.

          “Stringency of the measures settled to fight pandemia, including lockdown, did not appear to be linked with death rate.”

          You may not use force against others “for the greater good” – if you can not accomplish “the greater good”

          You still do not grasp you are on the wrong side of actual science.

          Lots of us are increasingly tired of being called “anti-science” by idiots who think Math is racist, and 2 + 2 = 5.

          Grow up – learn some math – it will help you to grasp statistics.

        3. Left wing nuts have a great deal of difficulty grasping that life is just not fair.

          That bad things happen and there is nothing that can be done about it.

          That government is not magical and can not repeal the laws of nature.

          Your comment rants about all kinds of behavioral changes you demand from people to fight C19 – and you dare to accuse those who refuse to follow your demands of being unpatriotic or uncaring.

          Yet, you are demanding behavioral changes in others – and imposing that demand by force – when there is no data to support the efficacy of those demands.

          I have stated repeatedly – the OVBIOUS fact that C19 impacts accross the globe are driven by demographics and latitude.

          The study I linked found No correlation to public policies or stringency. Put simply – government has little or no power to alter the impact of C19 on a population.

          Actual factors that did strongly correlate with C19 – were things like:
          Humidity, Temperature, UV incidence, age of the population, overall health of the population, life expectancy, standard of living.

          C19 deaths are highest the higher the standard of living and the higher the life expectancy.

          Correlation is not causation – though these correlations are extremely strong.

          But an absolute lack of correlation is DAMNING to claims that government policies had any impact.

          Life is not fair and C19 just pissed all over us, and there is not anything governments have been able to do that was effective.
          However all your vaunted policies have had devastating unintended consequences. Put simply – it is not those who refuse to follow your edicts who are doing harm – killing people – it is YOU. You are increasing suicides, cancer deaths, heart disease deaths, child abuse, spousal abuse, alcoholism, drug use, ….

          Grow up and get over it.

  2. Here is the unanimous, 21-page opinion by the Third Circuit rejecting the Trump campaign’s appeal in the Pennsylvania case, written by (Trump appointee) Judge Bibas:

    “Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations
    and then proof. We have neither here.
    The Trump Presidential Campaign asserts that Pennsylvania’s 2020 election was unfair.
    But as lawyer Rudolph Giuliani stressed, the Campaign “doesn’t plead fraud. . . . [T]his is
    not a fraud case.” Mot. to Dismiss Hr’g Tr. 118:19–20, 137:18. Instead, it objects that
    Pennsylvania’s Secretary of State and some counties restricted poll watchers and let voters
    fix technical defects in their mail-in ballots. It offers nothing more.
    This case is not about whether those claims are true. Rather, the Campaign appeals on
    a very narrow ground: whether the District Court abused its discretion in not letting the
    Campaign amend its complaint a second time. It did not.
    Most of the claims in the Second Amended Complaint boil down to issues of state law.
    But Pennsylvania law is willing to overlook many technical defects. It favors counting
    votes as long as there is no fraud. Indeed, the Campaign has already litigated and lost many
    of these issues in state courts.
    The Campaign tries to repackage these state-law claims as unconstitutional discrimination. Yet its allegations are vague and conclusory. It never alleges that anyone treated the
    Trump campaign or Trump votes worse than it treated the Biden campaign or Biden votes.
    And federal law does not require poll watchers or specify how they may observe. It also
    says nothing about curing technical state-law errors in ballots. Each of these defects is fatal, and the proposed Second Amended Complaint does not fix them. So the District Court
    properly denied leave to amend again.
    Nor does the Campaign deserve an injunction to undo Pennsylvania’s certification of
    its votes. The Campaign’s claims have no merit. The number of ballots it specifically challenges is far smaller than the roughly 81,000-vote margin of victory. And it never claims
    fraud or that any votes were cast by illegal voters. Plus, tossing out millions of mail-in
    ballots would be drastic and unprecedented, disenfranchising a huge swath of the electorate
    and upsetting all down-ballot races too. That remedy would be grossly disproportionate to
    the procedural challenges raised. So we deny the motion for an injunction pending appeal. ”

    1. Trump’s lawyer, Jenna Ellis, says via Twitter:
      “.@RudyGiuliani and me on Third Circuit’s opinion:
      “The activist judicial machinery in Pennsylvania continues to cover up the allegations of massive fraud.
      “We are very thankful to have had the opportunity to present proof and the facts to the PA state legislature.
      “On to SCOTUS!”

      The ruling was unanimous and was written by a Trump appointee, and the other judges were also Republican appointees. I guess any judge who doesn’t agree with them is an “activist.” Trump’s team can appeal to SCOTUS, but SCOTUS doesn’t have to grant cert. I’ll be extremely surprised if they do grant cert, especially since Judge Brann ruled that the Trump Campaign doesn’t have standing, and they didn’t contest that in their 3rd Circuit appeal. Even if SCOTUS granted cert and then ruled in Trump’s favor, that would just send the case back down to the district court for Trump to amend their initial suit and try again.

      I think this is primarily a public show for their base.

      1. Calling your own appointees “activist judicial machinery” and the GOP Georgia Sec of State and “enemy of the people”, as Trump did yesterday if for fools or the kind of suckers who trust no one EXCEPT Trump and his immediate defenders. That is a cult, not a political group or alignment. Get on the wrong side of this infantile lying and they’ll be “enemies of the people” too. Ask Jeff Session, General Kelly, etc about his loyalty.

        1. Yup. Frankly, it would serve the GOP right if the Trump team’s chicanery depresses the Republican turnout in the Jan. run-off elections.

          Re: Ellis’s comment, I forgot to note that the 3rd Circuit opinion said “as lawyer Rudolph Giuliani stressed, the Campaign ‘doesn’t plead fraud. . . . [T]his is not a fraud case.’” But there Ellis is, trying to feed the base with “allegations of massive fraud.” January 20th can’t come soon enough.

          1. Indeed, and I posted the opinion part of the ruling above, which includes that and other damning information.

            1. We have been through this all already.

              PA failed to follow its own laws. Massive fail, fraud, end of story.

              The failure of courts to take that seriously abandon’s the last check against lawlessness.

              Why are you afraid of an election conducted according to the rules.

              We addressed this with the 2016 electoral college victory – if you do not like the rules – amend the constitution and change them.

              If the Wolf administration and the PA supreme court did not like the PA election laws – they were obligated to work with the legislature and change them. All alternatives are not judicial activism – they are lawlessness – fraud.

          2. You can wish for whatever you want. But I would guess that republican voters will be boiling mad in GA in January.

            Regardless, GA has a very interesting means to resolve close elections – except for president.
            One we should all consider.

            Rather than recounts, and bandying about fraud allegations, no dealing with fights over handing char or trying to divine the intent of voters in ambiguous ballots. – if the winner of an election in GA does not win an absolute majority of the vote there is a runoff

            We get to see what happens in GA in a bit over a month, but if Democrats could not win in November outspending republicans 2:1 why do you expect that will change in January ?

        2. National security alert:

          “Trump declares Twitter national security threat after #DiaperDon trends following meltdown at miniature table”

          1. “Each day, a brave resistance agent would replace his desk with a slightly smaller one.”


            “Donald Trump

            ‘Mini desk. Tiny hands. Small soul’: Trump mocked for giving speech at little table

            #DiaperDon trends on Twitter after outgoing president’s furniture steals limelight”


        3. I am still trying to sort out Georgia. GA Publicly promised a concurrent recount, audit and re-canvas.

          As best as I can tell they did not really do any of this, and certainly not properly – and still they found plenty of problems.

          Regardless, publicly saying one thing and then doing something different is extremely troubling.

      2. We are very thankful to have had the opportunity to present proof and the facts to the PA state legislature.”

        The PA Legislature seems about ready to act to take over the process of certification (of the ballots) and deal with other problems along with taking their claims to the Supreme Court. It’s early, but things are moving fast right now and one should keep their eyes on a vote in the PA legislature soon.

        Commit, you always seem to try to excuse the corrupt actions of Democrats. Republicans have been too laid back in the face of a very aggressive Democrat Party. Has the Legislature in PA, that formerly permitted the governor and other officials to run wild in the state gotten cojones? I think we will know in a short while.

        1. I’ll bet money that won’t happen. How about a gentlemen’s bet? If it does I’ll be here to say I was wrong , you were right and I’m not worthy to bask in the glow of your superior intellect. If you are wrong, the reverse – you on?

          1. I agree that a reversal by the PA legislature is unlikely.

            It is extremely hard to do the right thing AFTER THE FACT.

            This will also pose a problem for SCOTUS. The oportunity to fix this was in October when SCOTUS should have unambiguously ordered PA to follow its own election laws.

        2. I do not expect that enough of the PA legislature will develop Cajones.

          Ultimately I do not expect SCOTUS to have Cajones.

          One of the problems with roberts punting when the PA case came before SCOTUS in october, is that it is HARDER to step up and reverse a fraudulent election to it is to order an honest one in the first place.

      3. I don’t pretend to know what the legal team has in mind with this suit. Giuliani has not been remarkably successful so far, but a legal campaign on this scale will seldom win every battle. I doubt they ever expected a resolution below the Supreme Court.

        In any event, I am not sure that this problem isn’t too big to be left to the courts. The courts are not the best, or even the proper, constitutional body to deal with a national security issue arising because of direct foreign intervention in a national election. Do we sit by and let Google and China pick our presidents?

        On another note, with the Democrats being taken over by the radical left, I am not sure the Republican party is up to the task of acting faithfully in the interests of their assumed constituents. Like Fox News they can speak reassuringly at one time and then, like Fox News, they act like Fox News run by the idiot sons and their leftist wives.

        1. Unfortunately the problem MUST be resolved by the courts – or civil war.

          When government refuses to follow its own laws – you can not fix the problem by passing more laws.

          Legitimate government requires that government must follow its own laws.

          1. I have said before that the president likely has powers to address a major fraud on our electoral process committed with the help of a foreign power. It is an issue of the utmost national security. Do you imagine that China would let us trick them into putting a demented old man at the head of government?

            The courts have been pretending to be executive agents in government but this one may be too big for any of them.

            However, any win makes it easier.

            1. I disagree here.

              There is no difference between the president claiming broad unilateral powers as a result of claimed national security emergencies than Governors claiming broad powers from Covid.

              Both are wrong, and using national security is potentially far more dangerous.

              With specific respect to foriegn powers and our elections – so long as foreign powers actions are aimed at persuasion – I do not care.

              We do not get to supress the free speech of foreign governments, or foreign people in the US during our elections.

              If you have evidence that the Chinese or any other power committed voter fraud, hacked voting machines, altered voter registration databased, printed and distributed forged mailin ballots – that would be an act of war.

              Conversely if they funded Biden – that is something for voters to weigh.

              The courts have been wrapping themselves in not merely executive, but also legislative powers.

    2. JF – When a state fails to follow its own laws – this discussion is over.

      I have no interest in words like “fair” – I do not care if Trump calls the election unfair or some judge claims it was somehow fair.

      I do care whether the law was followed – it was not.

      When our laws are bad(but constitutional), I can still trust that if government follows them, that it will also follow the new law if I can get the law changed. When government fails to follow the law – we are lawless, we have abandon the rule of law. Government has disowned the entire purpose of its existance.

      Most of these cases are trivial – the court must order the states to follow their own laws. If they are unable to – then the election is invalid.

      Everyone is disenfranchised when the government fails to follow its own election laws.

  3. Amistad Project sues to invalidate Michigan election results
    The group is claiming ‘officials brazenly violated election laws’ for partisan gain

    The Thomas More Society’s Amistad Project has filed a lawsuit asking Michigan’s Supreme Court to physically secure “all evidence of irregularities in the 2020 election and declare the election results invalid on the basis of unlawful conduct by state and local officials.”

    The group is alleging that election fraud was so rampant and widespread across the state of Michigan as to deprive the people of the state their right to a free and fair election. …

    Continued at:

  4. DoD Cyber Warfare Team Busted The Fraud In Pennsylvania

    The idiots added too many ballots files electronically and illegally to the system that it would have been physically impossible to add that many ballots in the alloted time that they did. The investigators have the exact amount of ballots per a minute that can be scanned. The fraudsters got sloppy and dumped them all at once into the system. WATCH ENTIRE VIDEO, ESPECIALLY NEAR THE END

    1. Why would anyone watch a video from Populist Press?

      If they have a valid legal case, they should file in court and see if a judge agrees.

      1. Some people wish to be intelligently informed and hear what experts actually have to say. The pumpkins will listen and believe all the information coming from a 25 year from WP who has no expertise in anything. Time to listen to and evaluate what others have to say. I don’t expect that from your type.

        The fact is that the evidence on the videos is compelling and far more accurate than anything you have provided.

        1. Yep, it’s compelling when he says “I am not a statistician. I’m a combat officer and didn’t do well in math” and compelling that they’re not testifying under oath.

    1. “…as an expert in this, I think it’s impossible to verify the validity of about 100,000 to 120,000 votes.”

      “…the notion of a recount in a forensically destructive process doesn’t work very well.”

      “…what I saw there was a chain of custody in all cases that was broken.”

      “I personally observed USB cards being uploaded to voting machines by the voting machines warehouse supervisor on multiple occasions.”

      ” I brought it to the attention of the Deputy Sheriff…and I brought it to the attention of the Clerk of Elections…I objected and I said this person was not being observed, he’s not part of the process, that I can see,

      and he’s walking in with baggies, which we have pictures of, and he was sticking these USBs into the machines. I personally witnessed, that happened over 24 times.”

      – Data Scientist Testimony

  5. Twitter Censors Sidney Powell Voter Fraud Lawsuit

    November 26, 2020 12:20 PM
    Twitter won’t let you read a legal document. Amazing.

    — Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) November 26, 2020

    Goodbye Drudge. Hello Popular Press.

    1. The link itself initially had a problem. It loaded to print automatically. Don’t complain about Twitter rejecting something like that.

      1. That doesn’t explain why it may not have been posted. If we go to the above tweet, one notices that there is a warning on that tweet added by twitter. That confirms twitter is actively engaging in politics which was not intended in the law protecting them from suits.

        1. It does explain. You can read the Twitter warning right there in Posobiec’s tweet. It’s not a new policy. They stopped posting the warning after she fixed the link. There are no warnings on her link now.

          1. The warning was on the referral link. Twitter initially stops postings when they get a bit stale. It seems you are trying to say they are not acting in a political fashion.

            That gets us back to the discussion of why people when given such important information only comment on the typo’s.

            Copying from S. Meyer:

            “Typos are admissions of previous stupidity. If the posters prior criticism of Powell’s complaints were stupid, why would any of those posters now be able to post something intelligent about what Powell provided? They are stuck with initial stupid comments that can now only be covered up with more stupid comments. They have no other choice unless or until they are willing to open their eyes and admit the truth.”

  6. We live in an upside down world where the MSM hides information or makes it difficult to find.

    “Mattis didn’t disclose ties to China-boosting firm in column slamming Trump’s ‘America First’ policy
    Mattis denounced Trump’s foreign policy in a column written with three coauthors.

    In an online column denouncing President Trump’s “America First” policy that includes measures regarding Beijing, ex-Defense Secretary James Mattis did not disclose his affiliation with an organization that fosters international business deals with communist China.” JTN

    1. The disturbing issues regarding Mattis is that Trump hired him in the first place.

      Mattis is entitled to his own views on foreign policy. He has fairly eloquently argued his since leaving the Trump administration.

      But it is self evident that he also sabotaged Trump’s as Sec. Def. – that is immoral, and unethical, and probably illegal.

      And that is my BIG problem with Mattis. Not his anti-Trump editorials.

      As to substance – however eloquent Mattis’s prefered policy is – we have followed it for decades and it failed.
      We have followed Trump’s for 4 years and the outcome has been amazing.

      Should Biden prevail in the election one of the losses suffered by the american people is a foreign policy that puts THEIR interests first.
      One that also works – for the US and the world.

      We do not need screeds by Mattis and others – we can look at the foreign policy of the Obushington era, and that of Trump and decide.

      What is really bizzare is that Trump’s foreign policy IS what democrats claimed they supported for decades.

  7. A pleasant Thanksgiving Treat to the world presented by the NYT:

    Iran’s Top Nuclear Scientist Killed in Attack, State Media Say
    The scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, was seen as the force behind Iran’s nuclear weapons program. News reports in Iran say he died in a hospital after being attacked in a vehicle.

        1. Probably. Allan just posted an anonymous reply to Commit. He’s also posting as S. Meyer, and for a couple of days, he posted as 1984.

  8. This article does a decent job of summarizing, in lay terms, the election fraud complaint just filed in Georgia.

    “(a) the complaint actually identifies and summarizes the specific witness statements, and (b) it details the specific acts of fraud and how they violate state and federal law, as well as the Constitution.” (

    The mainstream media are attempting to bury this complaint, and the one Powell filed in Michigan, under a cloud of silence. I encourage you to spread wide and far the news of those two fraud complaints.

    First, the election fraud deniers screamed: “There is no evidence!” (Even though it was right under their noses.) And now that a mountain of evidence (coupled with the relevant laws) has been provided in two lengthy legal complaints, the fraud deniers are screaming: “But the typos!”

    I do not think that evidence or investigating election fraud is what motivates the deniers.

    1. “I do not think that evidence or investigating election fraud is what motivates the deniers.”

      Sam, what motivates the deniers is an interesting question. What motivates a random shooter or an individual that destroys and burns down his own neighborhood? When one gets down to it, are the motivations of the two that much different? Emotions like anger can close the mind down causing the simplest lies or the simplest murder.

      What has the Democrat Party, MSM, Hollywood and academia done? They have heightened the level of anger and worked to decriminalize criminal anger when it is expressed.

    2. The American Thinker article was posted earlier. It was excellent and something everyone should read and post again and again on this blog encouraging people to read it. Snippets would be helpful to stir interest.

      Typos are admissions of previous stupidity. If the posters prior criticism of Powell’s complaints were stupid, why would any of those posters now be able to post something intelligent about what Powell provided? They are stuck with initial stupid comments that can now only be covered up with more stupid comments. They have no other choice unless or until they are willing to open their eyes and admit the truth.

    3. As I just pointed out to you in another column, I don’t think the GA suit has been filed. I cannot find a Docket Number for it. The MI suit has been filed, Docket Number 2:20-cv-13134. The complaint is on her website, but I don’t see a link to the exhibits on her website (if I missed it, please link to them). If the GA suit really has been filed, please provide a link to the filed suit, not the one on her website.

      “now that a mountain of evidence (coupled with the relevant laws) has been provided in two lengthy legal complaints, the fraud deniers are screaming: “But the typos!”

      Except that there doesn’t seem to be a mountain of evidence of fraud, only a mountain of allegations.

      And as I said in my earlier comment about the MI suit:

      You dismiss the typos as “deflection,” but really, it’s astoundingly unprofessional and a sign of incompetence to fail to run a spell-check and grammar-check on a document you’re submitting to the court. Do you think that judges look kindly on that?

      FWIW, some of her typos aren’t spelling errors. For example, in the MI suit (here:, she refers to “Exh. 101, ‘Ramsland Affidavit,’” when Exhibit 101 isn’t an affidavit from Ramsland and when she refers elsewhere to “Exh. 101, William M. Briggs, Ph.D. ‘An Analysis Regarding Absentee Ballots Across Several States’” and so should know that one of these labels is wrong. How on earth does she fail to check the consistency of the exhibit labelling? Do you think judges look kindly on a lawyer directing them to the wrong exhibit / who cannot keep her own exhibits straight?

      Here’s a long thread discussing many of the legal, factual, and proofreading problems with the MI suit:

      1. CTHD, Legal teams generally have a lot more time to produce this type of claim and frequently a lot more resources. Based on the threats made by the left and the propensity of left wing lawyers to break their silence and disclose secret things, my guess is that the Powell team is short on manpower.

        I’ll accept the typos and look at what the claims say. When you accused Flynn and stated he was guilty you did so based on issues no more significant than a typo. Today you are repeating prior actions covering up poor arguments with poorer ones.

      2. Brad Heath, earlier today: “Update: Looks like the Georgia case *was* filed, but it’s still assigned to a misc docket where things there go until they get assigned their own docket number. Every federal court has to be weird in its own way.”

        It’s now been assigned a docket number: 1:20-cv-04809

        Here’s a link to the docket:

      3. CTDHD – I have no idea what evidence is presented in these assorted filings – though I would note from previous discussions that Affadavits are EVIDENCE – not merely allegations.

        They MAY not be proof beyond a reasonable doubt – though that is only the standard for a criminal conviction.

        But I do not need to read any of these briefs – even the left wing nut MSM has openly admitted the most egregious forms of fraud – often celebrating it.

        It is election fraud to violate the election laws.

        It is fraud – even if bless by the State Supreme court.

        It is fraud – because when government violates the laws that it makes – we can no longer trust government – we are essentially in a lawless totalitarian state.

        What is the difference between ignoring the election laws, and ignoring the laws against murder, or any other laws.

        We already know that large scale fraud took place – that has been openly admitted – though the left uses word games to pretend that failure to follow the law is acceptable conduct for government – or anyone, but especially government.

        What we do not know and may never know is the actual impact of that fraud. But no matter what voters – not Trump not Biden were cheated out of an honest election by those in their own governments.

  9. Michael Flynn was pardoned. This is an article that let’s the truth out. The FBI thought Flynn innocent and closed the case.

    “In an extraordinary interview with prosecutors this fall, the FBI agent who led the Flynn case, William Barnett, admitted there was never evidence of wrongdoing by the retired general or Russian collusion by Trump, but the probe was kept open by Special Counsel Robert Mueller because his team was obsessed with punishing the president.”

    White House involvement: “the FBI briefed President Obama and Vice Preident Joe Biden on Jan. 5, 2017 on the state of the Flynn case. The president gave an instruction for the FBI to put its best people on continuing the probe while Biden suggested considering using the Logan Act to prosecute Flynn, the memos suggest.”

    No deception.
    The Logan Act was BS
    FBI deception

    All and more at:

    1. We have some on this blog that have argued the Flynn case calling him guilty and changing their arguments as more proof came out. They were wrong then and they are wrong on almost everything said today. The worst purveyors of the mistruths were Committed to Needless Destruction and Joe Friday formerly Jan F., Anon and a whole host of other identities.

      Couldn’t believe them then and can’t believe them now.

  10. In Michigan lawsuit, Sidney Powell alleges poll workers altered large numbers of ballots

    Among other misconduct, she alleged Michigan election officials were:

    “Fraudulently adding ‘tens of thousands’ of new ballots and/or new voters to QVF in two separate batches on November 4, 2020, all or nearly all of which were votes for Joe Biden;
    “Forging voter information and fraudulently adding new voters to the QVF Voters, in particular, e.g., when a voter’s name could not be found, the election worker assigned the ballot to a random name already in the QVF to a person who had not voted;”
    “Changing dates on absentee ballots received after 8:00 PM Election Day deadline to indicate that such ballots were received before the deadline;
    “Changing Votes for Trump and other Republican candidates. __JTN

  11. Went in dumb, come out dumb too. Hustling round DC in their alligator shoes. They’re not keeping the Covid down.

  12. Freedoms just another word for something dumb to choose. Nuthin, nuthin if it ain’t free!
    Holy Grail and Captain Cook have something left for you. Pray and kneel and do the squeel. Dumb is dumb and so is the Court of Nine. Soon to be 19.

  13. I belong to a religious congregation called The House of Covid. There is a group of 19 of us who are going to DC on Monday to visit the Supreme Court. They will have to let us in the audience and listen to us cough.

  14. “They simply view the matter differently after careful study and analysis reflecting their best efforts to fulfill their responsibility under the Constitution.”
    -Roberts, J
    Indeed, they do but there’re motives aren’t as sanguine as described. Fascinating to see what a jewel Gorsuch is, what a sniveling, petty snake Roberts is and how the other Leftist justices have become lockstep totalitarians. Put away the Constitution indeed. Trumps greatest gift to democracy just might be ACB.

    1. Mespo– “Trumps greatest gift to democracy just might be ACB”.
      Almost. If he wins this fraud battle it will be another Yorktown. Lose and we will never have an election we can trust again. We will have lost our Yorktown.

      Trump said this may be the biggest thing he has ever done. It is the biggest thing, and he has only a handful of people he can trust in the fight.

      Speaking of, where are Wray, Durham and Barr? The DOJ was taken over by Portland so quietly we hardly noticed.

    2. Roberts is a “…sniveling, petty snake.”

      Hear, hear!

      Roberts might also be considered a usurpative, partial, subjective and corrupt tyrant; the furthest thing from a jurist; a Justice worthy of swift justice.

        1. Thanks for reading.

          Roberts falsely posited that Obamacare, aka the ACA, was constitutional as a tax.

          Roberts is a fraud, a usurper and a criminal of fundamental law.

          If America were a society of laws, Roberts would have been impeached, convicted and penalized for corruption.

          If America were China, Roberts would have been executed for corruption of the most fundamental sort.

          Obamacare is not constitutional as a compulsory, mandatory purchase of a commercial product or as a tax.

          Obamacare is not constitutional in any mode or on any grounds.

          Please cite the Constitution wherein Congress has any power to tax for individual welfare, specific welfare, charity or redistribution of wealth.

          In fact, Congress has the severely limited power to tax merely for “…general* Welfare…” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for and form of individual welfare, specific welfare, charity or

          redistribution of wealth.

          Please cite the Constitution wherein Congress has any power to tax to provide healthcare for, not “all” as in general, but merely a few indigent individuals.

          * General – ALL, THE WHOLE

          general [ jen-er-uhl ] adjective

          of or relating to all persons or things belonging to a group or category: a general meeting of the employees.


          gen·​er·​al | \ ˈjen-rəl adjective

          Definition of general

          1 : involving, applicable to, or affecting the whole

  15. “Free religious exercise is one of our most treasured and jealously guarded constitutional rights. States may not discriminate against religious institutions, even when faced with a crisis as deadly as this one. But those principles are not at stake today.”-Sotomayor

    Plain English Translation: “We leftists jurists must do what we can to destroy the First Amendment, but we must remain hypocritical and pretend that we don’t want to destroy it.”

  16. Biden spoke of Palms in the Bible. One would think he knew how to pronounce Psalms by now. He truly does seem like China’s choice for our president.

    1. Message for the minority of registered American voters who lawfully voted for Biden:
      “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” Matthew 7:15

    2. Imagine the facepsalm devout Catholic Joe Biden did when he realized he called it a palm written by a palmist?

Leave a Reply