Train Whistle Docket: The Supreme Court Returns With Blockbuster Cases On Guns, Abortions, and Free Speech

This week, the Supreme Court will again assemble for a new term and pundits and politicians are already handicapping the cases. This term however has more drama and tension as Democrats call for packing the Court with an instant liberal majority and others attack its members in anticipation of opinions that have yet to be written. The reality is summed up in one of my favorite stories about Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes when he was on a trip to Washington. Holmes forgot his ticket but the train conductor reassured him, “Do not worry about your ticket. We all know who you are. When you get to your destination, you can find it and just mail it to us.” Holmes responded, “My dear man, the problem is not my ticket. The problem is, where am I going?”

The same question is being posed about the Court as a whole. Last term was marked more by unanimous decisions than sharply divided justices breaking along neat ideological lines. However, this term has some “matinee cases” that could deliver transformative rulings. Here are four such cases to watch.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

Perhaps the most discussed case of the term is that of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. While the media and politicians were decrying the recent Texas abortion law and misrepresenting the Court’s order in that case, the real and immediate threat to Roe v. Wade  (and Planned Parenthood v. Casey) was already sitting on the docket like a ticking bomb set for a December 1 argument.  Dobbs involves a challenge to a 2018 Mississippi law that banned most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. It notably has only one question presented: “whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.”  It is a question that should be chilling for pro-choice advocates – no exit ramps, no ambiguity. It is a direct avenue for allowing greater state legislation in the critical pre-viability period of pregnancies, or even the possibility of a direct overturning of Roe. Oral argument is Dec. 1.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen

Another potentially historic case is coming out of New York: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In 2008, the Supreme Court handed down the landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing the Second Amendment as encompassing an individual right to bear arms. Two years after Heller, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the court ruled that this right applied against the states. Since then, courts have rejected efforts to limit aspects of gun ownership from barring concealed weapons to restricting ammunition. Then, in Wrenn v. District of Columbia, the D.C. Circuit struck down a requirement that gun owners show “proper cause” for a concealed carry permit as unconstitutional. Just last week, D.C. lost another major ruling under the Second Amendment.

New York has not had a great history with the Court recently on gun control cases. New York politicians triggered a long fight over a law that many of us viewed as unconstitutional – pledging publicly to take the law limiting the transportation of guns to the Supreme Court. Once the Supreme Court accepted the case, however, the same politicians changed the law to avoid a final review of the constitutionality. The Court did not immediately dismiss the case as moot and some clearly wanted to call the bluff of the city. However, it finally let the case go, but it now has Bruen.

The case concerns restrictions under N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(2)(f)on who can receive a concealed-carry handgun license and requires a showing of “proper cause.”  Lower courts upheld the law but there are ample constitutional concerns over the vague New York standard like showing that you are “of good moral character.” The case is again a single question presented that could allow a strong pro-gun majority on the Court to reinforce and expand protections under the Second Amendment. Oral argument is scheduled for Nov. 3.

Carson v. Makin

Last year, the Court ruled 5-4 in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue that Montana could offer a scholarship program to religious schools. Now, with Carson v. Makin, the Court will deal with the flipside question in a Maine law barring the use of a student-aid program for schools that teach “sectarian” religious content. Scheduled for an argument on Dec. 8, the case could expand on the protections afforded such religious schools. It could build on the holding of Chief Justice John Roberts in Espinoza that, if states office education subsidy, “it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.”

Houston Community College System v. Wilson

Across the country, faculty and students are facing rising intolerance on college campuses for dissenting views on issues ranging from police abuse to pandemic mandates to systemic racism. Houston Community College System v. Wilson could allow the Court to reinforce First Amendment protections for speakers at a time when free speech is under fire. Faculty and students have been subjected to censoring resolutions and condemnations by universities. The case presents the question of whether the First Amendment limits a local government’s power to censure its members. In the case, a school board censured a member and took adverse actions against him after he publicly accused them of corruption.

There are other notable cases including CVS Pharmacy v. Doe (disability discrimination under the Affordable Care Act), United States v. Zubaydah (the state’s secrets privilege and the rights of a Guantanamo Bay detainee), FBI v. Fazaga (use of informants to target mosques), United States v. Tsarnaev (challenge of one of the Boston bombers to the exclusion of evidence and limits on raising media coverage with potential jurors), Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate (a challenge by Sen. Cruz to the $250,000 cap on repayments to candidates from post-election donations).

It is not clear where all of these cases will take the Court, but, like Holmes, the Court likely to make some serious tracks before this term is over.

96 thoughts on “Train Whistle Docket: The Supreme Court Returns With Blockbuster Cases On Guns, Abortions, and Free Speech”

  1. A Democrat State Legislator in PA responds with his own legislation towards “inseminators”.

    “Enforcing reproductive responsibility among men”

    The rights of cisgender men have always been paramount in our society with little focus on their
    responsibility as inseminators to change their behaviors for the good of their partners, families, and society at large.

    As we head toward climax on this heated discourse around this delicate matter, we should come together to address it with surgical precision. We must also commit to mending the social fabric being sliced up by bitter acrimony.

    In order to improve public health outcomes and release sweet justice into our households and bedrooms, we must wrap our love of individual liberty in the moral imperative of greater personal responsibility and acknowledge men’s essential role in procreation.

    Therefore, I will be introducing legislation that will require all inseminators to undergo vasectomies within 6 weeks from having their third child or 40th birthday, whichever comes first.

    Further, this legislation will allow Pennsylvanians to take civil action for unwanted pregnancies against inseminators who wrongfully conceive a child with them.

    This legislation will also empower Pennsylvanians to enforce this new law by offering a $10,000 reward for reporting to the proper authorities those scofflaws who have not complied with this statute within the allotted timeframe.

  2. Issues Pro-Lifers Avoid Addressing

    Each month, Dr. Andrea Palmer delivers about 20 babies. Palmer is an OB-GYN in Fort Worth, Texas. She recently had to tell a woman that her fetus had a condition called anencephaly, “where, essentially, the baby doesn’t have a brain.” It’s always fatal — often during the pregnancy or else soon after birth — and patients are typically given the option to terminate.

    Texas doctors like Palmer say SB 8, an unusual new state law banning most abortions, is complicating other types of medical decisions. They’re hoping for more clarity soon, as legal challenges continue, including a federal challenge from the Biden administration.

    Continuing a pregnancy after a diagnosis like anencephaly comes with additional health risks and, for some patients, additional emotional trauma, Palmer said.

    Before SB 8, Palmer would have offered to end the pregnancy by inducing labor. But the new law, which the U.S. Supreme Court allowed to take effect Sept. 1, prohibits abortions after cardiac activity is detectable, except for medical emergencies.

    Edited from today’s NPR

    One can claim they’re ‘pro-life’ while screaming “murder” at abortion providers. But furious indignation ignores the real-life implications of abortion bans.

    1. Anonymous, such debates would more accurately be termed euthanasia. Of course people should freely debate whether euthanasia of unborn children with fatal defects should be allowed, but call it what it is.

      The overwhelming number of abortions are performed on healthy fetuses.

      Abortion is an emotional, complex issue. It’s unfortunate that people usually fight instead of talk about it. We’ll never be able to tackle the really tough issues if we can’t rationally discuss them.

  3. Abortion Bans Complicate Medical Decisions While Intruding On Doctor / Patient Relationships

    Some doctors say the Texas law is also complicating medical decisions when women come in for help while experiencing a miscarriage.

    “For example, patient comes in, 17 weeks, with her water broken. That’s a nonviable pregnancy. The biggest risk to the patient is that she could become infected,” said Theresa Patton, an OB-GYN in Dallas.

    In such cases, Patton said she’d normally offer medication to expedite the miscarriage and reduce the risk of infection, which can trigger a severe condition called sepsis. But she and other doctors say it’s not clear under the law what constitutes a “medical emergency.”

    “We don’t want a patient to get sick for a pregnancy that is not going to progress, it’s not going to continue,” Patton said. “Now, am I going to be in legal trouble for offering that termination now? Do I need to wait until she’s septic and imminently in danger herself before I offer that termination? These are all of the things that we have been struggling with what we should do.”

    Dr. Jennifer Villavicencio, with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said laws like SB 8 often fail to account for the “liminal” spaces and complexities surrounding pregnancy.

    Edited From today’s NPR


    Regarding Above:

    Turley’s conservative regulars, and almost all ‘Pro-Lifers’, refuse to address situations like those described. Calling for abortion bans is vastly easier than discussing the real implications. Therefore Turley regulars will simply attack sources like NPR; pretending the situations described are somehow far-fetched or really not happening.

    1. Perhaps you would think abortion limits intruded on the doctor/patient relationship of Dr Kermit Gosnell. He did a booming business aborting third trimester, healthy unborn children. When they were born alive, he just served their spinal cord with scissors.

      Those mothers really, really wanted those kids dead. They had to go through labor, and a few extra days, to do it. But they wanted them dead, not adopted, and they found a doctor willing to do it. Too bad for the kids.

  4. Sounds like there are monumental decisions to be made at SCOTUS.

    On this note, the baby in the Roe v Wade decision has been identified, and come forward – Shelley Lynn Thornton. She will give a TV interview tomorrow, Monday.

    It’s not often you get to see the face of a person whose mother wanted her dead so badly, she sued all the way to the Supreme Court for the right to do it. I cannot imagine the crushing devastation she must have felt, learning that her mother did not love her enough to give her up for adoption, but rather was trying her hardest to kill her in the womb.

    There was nothing wrong with Ms Thornton. No fatal fetal abnormality. She was just unwanted.

    As I’ve said before, I don’t know how to make a perfectly fair abortion law. I think it should be up to the states to decide, so that the laws will reflect the views of those who live in each state, people are able to move, and most important of all, the laws can be changed whenever the people want them to. Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself held that position, and believed that leaving it to the states might have made this a far less contentious issue. Instead, this is one of those cases held up as justices legislating from the bench, fabricating Constitutional rights when this was legislators’ purview.

    Here is the face of an unwanted baby her mother wanted dead. No matter where you think abortion limits should fall, this is a reminder that these are life and death decisions on human beings who are voiceless. This is true regardless of what Ms Thornton’s position on abortion turns out to be.

    1. The Court didn’t fabricate rights. The Constitution is explicit that people have unenumerated rights, and the right to privacy is touched on in enumerated rights (e.g., 4th and 14th Amendments).

      “her mother did not love her enough to give her up for adoption”

      Her mother did give her up for adoption!

      Had it been up to me, I would rather have been aborted than born. But it wasn’t my choice to make.

      Did you listen to any of the Representatives in the House talk about their reasons for abortions?
      If not, here are some links with video of their testimony:

      Which of them would you have denied an abortion to?

      If someone needs a bone marrow transplant to save their life, they cannot force you to donate yours to them. This is safer than pregnancy. Why would we demand that a woman donate the use of her uterus and partial use of her cardiovascular system, digestive system, … for 9 months if she does not want to?

      SCOTUS currently sets the dividing line at viability. (Why) is viability the wrong dividing line?

      1. Anonymous, we feel your pain. You just made a compelling case for retroactive abortion.

        1. A few years ago there was a professor who was in favor of aborting children up to the age of 2. Aborting young children, euthanize older people. Looks like we’re all doomed.

      2. You don’t allow a railroad engineer or an airline pilot to arbitrarily terminate his passengers because they are in some fashion “inconvenient” or have met some other conjured criteria.

        The choice is not the railroad engineer’s or the airline pilot’s.

        The choice is the passenger’s.

        You don’t terminate someone because they are temporarily incapacitated or comatose at the age of 30 or 50 (victims emerge from comas all the time).

        After 24 hours of fertilization, a zygote gradually develops into a human being, if it is not deliberately prevented from doing so.

        After 24 hours of fertilization, a zygote is a viable human being.

        After 24 hours of fertilization, abortion is homicide.

        Families, races, societies, states, etc. need people born by women; babies are of the families, races, societies, states, etc., not merely the women who are their mothers.

        Without procreation, women have no material and significant raison d’etre.

      3. Anonymous, her mother did not want to give her up for adoption. She wanted her dead and buried. She sued in the Supreme Court to get an abortion. However, as the case was filed in 1970, but was not decided by the Supreme Court until 1973, Norma had already long given birth to Shelley Lynn. Adoption was not what she chose for her daughter; death was. She was not permitted to kill her healthy child in time to kill her before birth, infanticide is still illegal, she still didn’t want the baby she wanted so badly to kill, so the newborn girl was given up for adoption as the only alternative.

        Once again, quite literally, adoption was not what the birth mother, Norma, chose for Shelly Lynn.

        If you really believe that you’d rather have been aborted than been born, then you sound suicidal. That is a very serious matter, and I hope that you get all the support and help you need.

        1. Karen,

          Literally, adoption IS what she chose for her daughter rather than get an illegal abortion. She would rather have had the choice of a legal abortion, as currently exists.

          Which of the members of Congress who spoke about their own abortions would you have denied an abortion to?

          If someone needs a bone marrow transplant to save their life, they cannot force you to donate yours to them. This is safer than pregnancy. Why would we demand that a woman donate the use of her uterus and partial use of her cardiovascular system, digestive system, … for 9 months if she does not want to?

          SCOTUS currently sets the dividing line at viability. (Why) is viability the wrong dividing line?

          As for being suicidal, thanks for your concern. I have lived with this for many decades and have no intention of acting on it.

          1. Anonymous, breaking the law cannot be considered one of the options. She also “chose” not to show up at the Supreme Court with a machete, take hostages, and demand her case get escalated.

            1. “breaking the law cannot be considered one of the options.”

              Sure it can.

              Lots of women have had illegal abortions over the centuries.

              Sometimes people even purposefully engage in civil disobedience for laws they believe are wrong. MLK Jr. didn’t say to himself “breaking the law cannot be considered one of the options.” Rather, he argued “there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

              Dr. Alan Braid performed an abortion in Texas on Sept. 6 for a woman who was beyond the state’s new limit. “I fully understood that there could be legal consequences — but I wanted to make sure that Texas didn’t get away with its bid to prevent this blatantly unconstitutional law from being tested.”

              1. Anonymous,

                while prison is full of people who chose to commit crimes, it’s unfair to consider that to be a viable, pardon the pun, choice for Norma McCorvey.

                That’s like saying, he didn’t have to get a divorce. He could have just murdered his wife. He chose to get a divorce instead. Or he didn’t have to lose his house. He could have robbed a bank.

                Those aren’t valid choices to expect people to consider.

          2. Anonymous, I have lost 2 people to suicide, and a friend of mine lost a son to suicide. Forget politics and all disagreement. Please take care of yourself. You never know when a crisis may hit. Things might seem like they’re plateauing right now, but it might take a turn. I don’t know what’s wrong, and I’m in no position to offer meaningful counsel. Please make connections to the right people and the right programs. I can tell you from personal experience that suicide blows a wide hole of pain in those left behind. I’m so sorry you’ve been going through this for such a long time.

            1. Karen, I’m so sorry to hear that you’ve been through that. I have as well, which is one of the reasons I know that I won’t act on it: I would not put the people I love / who love me through that. I appreciate your concern and effort to reach out.

              1. Anonymous, would you consider picking an avatar so I can identify whatever name you choose with one person? I can never tell in these threads which Anonymous I’m talking to, and I’d sure like to know that you continue to appear on the blog.

                I’m so sorry you went through similar grief.

                Depression is a crushing burden. If you feel low, reach out through the comments. Even if I’m mid quarrel with an Anonymous, and don’t know it’s you, we’ll switch gears.

                1. Hi Karen,
                  Thanks for your concern and your offer. Please don’t worry. I’ll think about picking a name and avatar, and I’ll let you know if I do.

                  1. Please do. I don’t read all the comments, so if you pick a name and let me know, but I don’t respond, then just mention it again.

      4. Where in the Constitution is it explicit that it protects unenumerated rights? Please cite the section and language. Instead, the 10th Amended explicitly says that unenumerated rights are reserved to the States. Overturning Roe will not ban abortions. Each State will make that decision.

        1. You should reread the 9th and 10th Amendments:
          “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
          “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

          “the 10th Amended explicitly says that unenumerated rights are reserved to the States. ”

          You’ve conveniently forgotten the end of the 10th Amendment.

    2. Great comment, Karen. Unrestricted abortions only work if we disassociate ourselves from the millions of unborn children (largely black, BTW) who would otherwise grow up to be Shelley Lynn Thorntons. Regardless of how one comes out on the issue, abortion is icky. Democrats do their damndest to obscure the moral complexity, but it can’t be avoided. They are terrified that the issue could be decided by the American people through the democratic process. Absolutely terrified. And they will do anything to stop it.

    3. There was nothing wrong with Ms Thornton. No fatal fetal abnormality. She was just unwanted.

      Mother Theresa of Calcutta
      National Prayer Breakfast

      Please don’t kill the child. I want the child. Please give me the child. I am willing to accept any child who would be aborted and to give that child to a married couple who will love the child and be loved by the child. From our children’s home in Calcutta alone, we have saved over 3000 children from abortion. These children have brought such love and joy to their adopting parents and have grown up so full of love and joy.

  5. Back in the 1930’s the Nazi’s had a poster of a person who was physically and mentally challenged. At the bottom of the poster was a caption that read, this person will cost you 60,000 marks a year to take care of. Of course the Nazi’s were hinting at euthanasia. Now, we’d never do anything like that in this country. I mean this is the United States of America.

    1. Of course not. Why, America just elected the mentally challenged to the top position in government! And euthanasia? Sending CoViD-19 patients to old folks’ home couldn’t be more compassionate…

  6. I ignore whatever “Anonymous” has written. Doesn’t leave much content to these “replies”.

    1. David, glad to see you back. I pass over a lot of the anonymous comments as well, although one has caught my attention.

    1. Hampton Roads Black Caucus endorses Glenn Youngkin for governor

      Previously, the caucus endorsed Terry McAuliffe for governor in 2013 and Ralph Northam for governor in 2017.

      None of the liberal papers in Virginia are covering it (e.g. Norfolk Pilot Online, Richmond Times Dispatch). Liberal national media silent as well.
      McAwful’s campaign is mocking the Black Caucus group.

      McAuliffe campaign mocks GOP’s Youngkin, belittles Black group for endorsing him


      Shocking, eh?




      The HRBC is a grass roots organization. Established in 2012 with the purpose of increasing the representation of elected officials who advocate and support legislation directed towards enhancing the Black community. To effectively impact the Black community the HRBC supports the following initiatives:
      Our Four Pillars:

      1. Black –Owned Business Growth – HRBC members support elected officials that support Black owned business growth.

      2. Educational Advancement- HRBC members support elected officials that support every student of color receiving a quality education that prepares him or her to be a contributing member of a democracy. 3. Economic Development- HRBC members support elected officials that can assist in driving capital to Black entrepreneurs to start, maintain and grow their businesses. 4. Community Development- HRBC members support elected officials that support building and expanding community development ecosystems that increase structural capacity and leadership skills of Black community development professionals on regenerating underserved Black communities.

      The goal of the Hampton Roads Black Caucus is to raise funds to support these candidates that best represent the goals of our organization.

      Governed by a board of community and business leaders, and supported by a diverse membership base, HRBC will remain a non-partisan organization solely committed to supporting candidates who support our missions and initiatives.

      HRBC was established to help those individuals bridge the gap and gain victory at the polls.
      Individuals campaigning for state or local elected office in one of the Hampton Roads’ cities, who are supportive of the missions and initiatives of the HRBC, will have an opportunity to receive support in one or more of the following methods:

      Monetary Support
      Public Endorsement
      Engagement of our Membership Base

      This considering McAuwful is neck in neck with Youngkin.

      Gubernatorial Candidates Locked in Close Contest, UMW Survey Shows
      SEPTEMBER 22, 2021

      Former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) and Republican nominee Glenn Youngkin remain locked in a tight contest for governor of Virginia, a University of Mary Washington statewide survey shows. The poll, conducted by Research America Inc. Sept. 7-13, included 1,000 Virginia adults. Of those, 885 were registered voters and 528 were likely voters.

      University of Mary Washington: UMW / University Relations / News / Top Stories / Gubernatorial Candidates Locked in Close Contest, UMW Survey Shows

      Democrats are panicking in Virginia.

      1. Estovir: “Democrats are panicking in Virginia.”


        Good! They never liked a black person they couldn’t own. Look what they did to Larry Elder and Justice Thomas.

        1. The Republican candidate for Lt Governor is decidedly black, a female and a US Veteran. The liberal media hate her for good reason: she is articulate, educated, successful and speaks her mind. Democrats always want Blacks to serve them, be it during the US Civil War or aborting black babies disproportionately compared to any other demographic group. Democrats truly despise Blacks which is why they seek to enslave them via government leashes (welfare).

          Winsome was elected to a majority Black legislative district! No other Republican has done that in Virginia since 1865: She consequently also became the first (and still only) Black Republican woman elected to the House, the first female veteran, and the first legal immigrant woman.

          Winsome is a mother, wife and is proud to have served in the United States Marines. She was also a hard-charging Vice President of the Virginia State Board of Education and received presidential appointments to the US Census Bureau (where she co-chaired the African American Committee) and the Advisory Committee on Women Veterans to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

          In addition to her Masters degree, Winsome also built a successful business as a trained electrician and understands the importance of helping small businesses thrive. However, Winsome is most proud of her community work leading a men’s prison ministry and as director of a women’s homeless shelter for The Salvation Army.

    2. Hutu and Tutsi cycles of redistributive and retributive change. Pre and post-aparrtheid South Africa. Historically, the richest man in the world, was a black Islamic imperial slaver. That said, while bias is intrinsic, prejudice is progressive. Critical Racists’ Theory presumes diversity (i.e. color judgment), a Pro-Choice dogma that denies women and men’s dignity and agency, and reduces human life to a negotiable asset. Roe, Roe, Roe…

  7. “This is not a democracy. Everybody doesn’t get to do what they want to do. Everybody doesn’t get to do what they feel like doing.”

    – Nick Saban


    Women: My body, my choice.

    Women: Because the young human being is inside me, I am God and I alone have the power to kill it.

    Who listens to that kind of twisted, sick prevarication.

    Where’s the future in killing babies?

    Government hates abortion so it opens the border and overflows the country with the lèse majesté of outlanders.

    Women love abortion and hate babies so the new “citizens” are unassimilable foreign hyphenates.

    Men lose their minds and give women the vote – therein lies the problem – men have lost their grasp on reality and the rules of existence – their resolve and their responsibility to lead – there’s no one at the helm.

    Babies are for the benefit of the family, society, state, nation and planet.

    Babies are for the benefit of all people, not just women.

    Babies are not women’s babies; babies are mankind’s babies.

    Young human beings are an integral and imperative part of all human beings, not the chattel of psychotic, self-centered, narcissistic women.

    Nature and God charged and entrusted women with the task and duty of protecting and nurturing young human beings, or zygotes, during pregnancy, and facilitating their passage into infancy, puberty, adolescence and through adulthood, middle age and senior years for the benefit of the race and of all humanity.

    The abortion candidate, the very young human being, is not of a particular woman, he is of mankind.

    That young human being is of the male who fertilized the egg, is of the human race, is of nature, is of mankind, is of God.

    Women must come to fully grasp that they don’t exist in a vacuum and that their designated role and function is not optional but mandatory – whether they like it or not.

      1. Thank you very much for reading.

        To be perfectly candid, I don’t have an accurate total.

        And you?

        Thing is, America is devolving into a rancid cesspool because of communism’s (liberalism, progressiveism, socialism, democracy, RINOism) support of abortion and foreign invasion.

        Next the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) will mandate miscegenation and interracial marriage.

        There are now only 250 million Americans and 80 million parasitic foreign hyphenates.

        Soon enough, there will be no Americans and no America…which sounds awfully like treason, as in “…adhering to their Enemies (i.e. invaders), giving them Aid and Comfort,” Article III, Section 3, Clause 1.

          1. And entirely dull and irrelevant to the topic.

            We’ll leave it at, you have nothing to offer, with the sole exception of vacuous ad hominem.

            1. It’s not at all irrelevant to your claim that “That young human being is of the male who fertilized the egg” and your never-ending complaints that women don’t produce enough children for your liking.

      2. I might add, that was a simply brilliant riposte.

        I must atone.

        It is a rare occasion when I engage in mortal semantical combat with an unarmed opponent.

        Please accept my sincere apologies.

      1. “This is not a democracy. Everybody doesn’t get to do what they want to do. Everybody doesn’t get to do what they feel like doing.”

        – Nick Saban

        Coach Saban was wittingly or unwittingly paraphrasing the American Founders who established a restricted-vote republic, distinctly not a one man, one vote democrazy.

        “[We gave you] a [restricted-vote] republic, if you can keep it.”

        – Ben Franklin

        America is self-governance not ochlocracy – not madness.

        In the Founders’ America, few verbalized abortion, there was no redistribution or IRS, citizens must have been “…free white person(s)…,” voters must have been male, European, 21 with 50 lbs. Sterling/50 acres, and the severe limitations and restrictions on Congress were codified in fundamental law.

        Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax ONLY for “…general Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual or specific welfare, redistribution of wealth or charity. The same article provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY money, the “flow” of commerce and land and naval Forces. Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute, allowing Congress no power to claim or exercise dominion over private property, the sole exception being the full taking of property under the principle of eminent domain.

        Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while it is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure.

        The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, matriculation affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.


        “This is not a democracy. Everybody doesn’t get to do what they want to do. Everybody doesn’t get to do what they feel like doing.”

        – Nick Saban

  8. Too bad this issue isn’t on the docket. A federal judge has noticed that 1/6 defendants are being treated very differently than BLM and Antifa rioters. Even the usually dimwit mayor of DC is concerned about the federal leniency granted those whose riotous crimes have caused damage to the city.

    Anonymous sources seem to be saying that federal agents were behind some of the worst damage and most aggressive misconduct on 1/6. That needs to be investigated by an ethical law enforcement agency, maybe US Marshals.

    See, we can do the ‘anonymous sources’ trick too. The NYT doesn’t have a trademark on it, though it seems so at times.

    1. “Anonymous sources seem to be saying that federal agents were behind some of the worst damage and most aggressive misconduct on 1/6.”

      They are free to file whistleblower complaints with the Inspector General for the relevant dept.

          1. How would I know? No anonymous source wants to reveal himself. I think I will say you are my anonymous source.

            Hard to believe the NYT is allowed to get away with this crap.

      1. “They are free to file whistleblower complaints with the Inspector General for the relevant dept.”
        You should know that no inspector general has actual enforcement authority. He can’t arrest anyone; he can’t charge anyone; he can’t prosecute anyone.

        So you will have to take your whistleblower complaint somewhere else for real action.

  9. “Train Whistle Docket: The Supreme Court Returns With Blockbuster Cases On Guns, Abortions, and Free Speech”

    – Professor Turley

    “Free Speech” includes the freedom of lies, propaganda and indoctrination in the minds of communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs).

    To wit,

    “the national interest Sept. 30, 2021”

    “Durham’s Attempt to Discredit Trump’s Enemies Is Falling Apart Trump’s prosecutor omitted key evidence from his indictment.”

    By Jonathan Chait

    “When Donald Trump’s attorney general appointed John Durham to investigate what Trump insisted was a deep-state conspiracy against him, a question hovered: What exactly was Durham thinking? Durham had a respectable résumé as a prosecutor in a career that did not seem to lead straight into a role as Trump’s Roy Cohn.

    “Was he simply accepting the role out of diligence and the understanding that, if he found no crimes, he could put Trump’s absurd charges to rest? Or — unlikely but possible — would he uncover real proof of a criminal conspiracy at the FBI to undermine Trump? Or had Durham undergone the same Fox News–induced brain melt that has turned figures like Barr, Giuliani, and many others into authoritarian conspiracy theorists?

    “In the wake of Durham’s first and perhaps only indictment, we can safely rule out the first two explanations.

    “Durham’s indictment does not even allege that the FBI committed any wrongdoing. Instead, it charges that the FBI was lied to — by Michael Sussmann, a lawyer who passed on leads about Trump’s ties to Russia that the bureau was unable to verify. Durham’s indictment claims Sussmann committed perjury by denying he was working for the Clinton campaign at the time he brought his information about Trump to the FBI in 2016.”

    – The Intelligencer

  10. Be assured, the “non-political” liberals on the court, with their “non-biases” will write stinging dissents rebuking and insulting their conservative brethren when they don’t get their way…..

  11. The media refers to the Court as Scumdust, not SCOTUS.
    They all think as jurists, not political party hacks.
    Clarence gets criticized for not asking questions during oral arguments.

    1. Liberal popular criminal defense attorney Scott Greenfield delivers a withering critique of the Left on their lying about SCOTUS and their court packing scheme. Truly brutal yet fun.


      “The Crumbling Debate”

      This is a popular argument on the left, that the Supreme Court is failing society by not delivering the right decisions that progressives demand. While Lithwick contended that they don’t want to pack the court to achieve hegemony over the conservative wing, but merely to provide “balance” with one vote more than them, Brummer’s argument reflected the more foundational grievance of the Demand Justice-level perspective: the Supreme Court isn’t ruling the way we want and so they must be blown up and taken over “for the people.”

      The debate, hosted by Northwestern Law School under the cool name, Intelligence Squared, was very informative, not so much because it offered sound arguments for the resolution, which were shallow, hyperbolic and stunningly disingenuous, or against, which were largely practical and barely scratched the surface of why this change could undermine the purpose of having a judiciary at all. It was informative about how shallow political argumentation has become, how it’s designed to appeal to the most superficial and politically ignorant masses rather.

      If, as the proponents of the resolution argue, the Court was changed to manipulate its political complexion away from the conservatives and toward, if not completely owned by, progressive allegiances, would the rulings matter anymore? If we know, in advance, where the Court will come out because the majority was bought and paid for, then it’s not a court but a rubber stamp for a political ideology.

      1. “If we know, in advance, where the Court will come out because the majority was bought and paid for, then it’s not a court but a rubber stamp for a political ideology. ”

        That’s precisely the goal of the Federalist Society. All 6 conservative Justices are current or former members. The Society’s goal was to make sure that Republican Presidents did not nominate insufficiently conservatives justices. Leonard Leo, executive vice president of the Federalist Society, played a key role in the nominations of 5 of the 6 (all but Thomas), advising both GW Bush and Trump on SCOTUS picks.

        1. Not true. Conservatives want justices how will rule on The Constitution. Liberals want justices who will ignore the Constitution and rule on feelings and perceived inequities and race, etc.

            1. Child hood taunts. Pick a ruling and explain what part of the constitution they ignored to reach their decision.

  12. “a challenge by Sen. Cruz to the $250,000 cap on repayments to candidates from post-election donations”

    Why are Turley and everyone else I see commenting on this case (WSJ, NYT, etc.) getting it backwards? The challenge at the Supreme Court on this issue is by Biden — not Cruz. Cruz won at the lower court. (Or am I missing something?)

    1. You’re correct that the lower court ruled in Cruz’s favor, and SCOTUS chose to hear the case on appeal from the Biden Admin.

      But if people want to describe the case rather than the appeal, “a challenge by Sen. Cruz to the $250,000 cap on repayments to candidates from post-election donations” is a reasonable description of the case.

      For example, Amy Howe’s description at SCOTUSblog: “Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate stems from the Texas Republican’s challenge to a federal election law that imposes restrictions on when and how candidates can repay personal loans that they makes to their campaigns. Cruz loaned his 2018 Senate campaign – which at the time was part of the most expensive Senate race in history — $260,000 and then waited to repay the loan in what both sides agree was a move intended to allow a challenge to the law.”

      1. I suppose you are correct if you speak English backwards and are afraid to use your own name because of it

  13. Pro-choice activists who are hysterical about the upcoming SC ruling on abortion and who expect the court to vote along party lines, should go back and re-examine the original Roe v Wade decision — it was definitely not voted along party lines.

    1. New Initiative Explores Deep, Persistent Divides Between Biden and Trump Voters

      Majorities — often large majorities — of both Biden and Trump voters express some form of distrust for voters, elected officials, and media sources they associate with the other side. A strong majority of Trump voters see no real difference between Democrats and socialists, and a majority of Biden voters at least somewhat agree that there is no real difference between Republicans and fascists. (see Table 2 below)

      — Significant numbers of both Trump and Biden voters show a willingness to consider violating democratic tendencies and norms if needed to serve their priorities. Roughly 2 in 10 Trump and Biden voters strongly agree it would be better if a “President could take needed actions without being constrained by Congress or courts,” and roughly 4 in 10 (41%) of Biden and half (52%) of Trump voters at least somewhat agree that it’s time to split the country, favoring blue/red states seceding from the union

      Sabato’s Crystal Ball
      University of Virginia Center for Politics

  14. Jonathan: The Supreme Court no doubt has a full plate of controversial cases on its fall docket. What you fail to mention is the Court’s position on Covid vaccine mandates. In several columns you defended professors and others who objected to such mandates–the position of your employer Fox News. On Friday Justice Sotomayor denied an appeal by a group of teachers to block New York City’s Covid vaccine mandate. Last month Justice Coney Barrett denied an emergency appeal from students at Indiana University to block a similar vaccine mandate. So it appears that both liberal and conservatives agree that public health trumps the petulance of teachers and students.

    1. Wow. The level of brainwashing you exhibit is breathtaking, Dennis. It is bettered only by your delusion that the Professor actually personally even sees your comments (the mod does. The mod is not Jonathan). You aren’t talking to him here, you are speaking only to us, the other commenters. You already know what we think about your neural pathways devoted exclusively to being triggered by the word, ‘Fox’.

    2. McIntyre, I know you’re not going to believe a word of this, but it’s more a of a confessional anyway. Good luck with your confirmation bias

      A few weeks ago, I implored the readers to get vaccinated. Since that time, my views on the pandemic and vaccine have become more complex. While the vaccine is working well here, it is doing less well in England. There is a growing concern–with some body of evidence–that we risk accelerating resistant variants by over-vaccinating. Dr. Robert Malone, who did the seminal research on mRNA and probably deserves a Nobel, is very outspoken about this risk.

      Several low-vax states are emerging from the delta surge, and they did so without even going into mild restrictions. Living in one of those states, I can tell you that many people restricted themselves without being forced to. The delta surge is now fading fast in those states. The medical establishment was strained but it didn’t break. The next surge is likely to be even less harmful because viruses tend to attenuate over time.

      Further, therapies are being developed that anti-vaxxers are more likely to accept, so there are a growing number of practical alternatives to the vaccine.

      So based on all the above, it’s not at all unreasonable to argue for working toward a “natural herd immunity” at this point. Given inflation and the supply-chain problems, it’s time to discuss just riding out the virus and keeping things open. Maybe the red states moved a little fast on eliminating restrictions, but the blue states are definitely being hysterical about the pandemic. Children should not be vaccinated except in rare cases, and children should not wear masks. That’s not science, it’s propaganda.

      Why are corporations and various governments persecuting people over a vaccine? The virus will very likely attenuate. The third-world will keep breeding new strains. The vaccine is not nearly as effective as those for polio and small pox and will continue to lose effectiveness. The FDA is reluctant to endorse the booster.

      We will never wipe out covid-19 with this vaccine. We need to face the fact that natural herd immunity is the only long-term solution, so why not start now if the medical establishment can handle it with new and better therapies? That’s already happening.

      And it doesn’t even make political sense to go on a witch hunt for anti-vaxxers because many of them are Democrats and persons of color. This is Joe Biden trying to change the subject from Afghanistan by using that old-familiar, leftwing tactic of blaming scapegoats and hooligans.

      Finally, Faux-ci is a liar. He will never admit how political he is and how many times he’s been wrong. He will never admit he defied Congress and gave money for gain-of-function research to a reckless Asian dictatorship. He predicted a massive delta surge with the ball games, and that hasn’t happened at all. All that happened was a growing chorus of “F*** Joe Biden.”

      If the left wants to pursue hysteria and witch hunts as a political option, how’s that been working for ya?

      1. “Children should not be vaccinated except in rare cases, and children should not wear masks. That’s not science, it’s propaganda.”

        I meant to say, masking and vaccinating children isn’t science. It’s propaganda.

  15. The thing folks fail to grasp is that Supreme Court Justices do not vote based simply upon their political views or party affiliation.

    One of my University Classes back in the 1970’s taught by Professor Saul Brenner at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte (UNCC) was entitled “Judicial Behavior” and dealt with his research findings re voting records of Supreme Court Justices.

    He clearly proved that they do not vote a “straight line party ticket” while on the Supreme Court.

    Perhaps one could say it is a political perspective re how they see the Constitution….Living Document subject to change or Strict Constructionist that sees the Principles being subject to interpretation in the wake of technology advances.

    The simple truth is as Professor Turley points out….sometimes they all agree and issue Unamimous Decisions or even vote opposite of their alleged partisanship.

    The Constitution is a wonderful document…..thata sets forth how the Founding Fathers saw our nation’s system of government and law should be structured.

    That is the real issue… the individual Justices embrace that notion or do they seek to input their own personal views on an issue into their decisions.

    I was bothered by Justice Ginsberg public utterances but she was somewhat circumspect in what she said…..Justice Sotomayor just had her Ginsberg moment where she as Ginsberg once did….crossed the line.

    Ginsberg admitted her error and apologized….will we see Sotomayor do the same?

    1. Therein lies the problem: currently, yes, some of them absolutely do, and if the dems have their way, so too will the majority of them.

Leave a Reply