Supreme Court


(RepublicanWire) – In a viral video, a member of the U.S. Army is upset with the Supreme Court’s ruling on Dobbs. The soldier claims the decision would relegate women to “second class” status. She goes so far as to question her commitment to fighting for the Constitution over the issue.

“How am I supposed to swear to support and defend the Constitution and a country that treats its women like second-class citizens? How am I supposed to do that? How am I supposed to do that? With pride? How am I supposed to do that with love and honor?”

She continues, insisting that the country she swore to defend does not care about her because it has threatened the ability to terminate one’s pregnancy.

She said, “How am I supposed to wake up every day and put on a freaking uniform that says United States army when the United States doesn’t even give a rat’s a** about me? It gives more of a rat’s a** about the guns they’re allowed to buy that kill the children that I’m forced to give birth to.”

The service member goes on to suggest that the court’s ruling and those who agree with it are not supporting the troops. “They probably were not thinking about this consequence, but it is one, and it affects the very people that those lawmakers hold to a higher standard because they support the troops,” she says. “Do you really, though? You really support the troops? Even though this is going to greatly lessen the retention of women in the ranks of this military? You support the troops even though you are going to ruin some women’s careers? I’m deployed right now, and I’m a medic, so I know how this works.”

The soldier discusses how sexual assault is an issue in the U.S. military and how difficult it can be for a female service member to obtain an ultrasound or carry a pregnancy. She ends the video by stating she will still serve her country because she “signed that contract” but that she will continue to speak out because “this is not an attack on reproductive right, it is an attack on women in this country.”

She is not the only one to bring up the military in relation to the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Others have argued this could add to the problem of sexual assault in the Armed Forces.

What is interesting about this particular video is her contention that she is not sure she can proudly serve her country because allowing states to create their own policies on abortion somehow makes her a “second-class citizen.” Apparently, she does not know her history, or else she would feel rather foolish making such a claim when black Americans fought and died for the United States in multiple wars despite actually being second-class citizens.

But the notion that placing restrictions on the ability of a woman to kill her baby means America is no longer a country worth serving is the type of thinking that is prevalent on the far left and yet another way to demean the country. No doubt this soldier will gain an outpouring of plaudits and sympathy from her comrades. But the fact remains that the U.S. is worth fighting for–even if more babies will be saved.

(RepublicanWire.org) – On Wednesday morning, news broke that a California man was arrested for attempting to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh at his home. The man was intercepted before he was able to break into the justice’s house. He was carrying a gun, pepper spray, and burglary tools. There’s also no ambiguity about what his intentions were–given he admitted he was there to kill Kavanaugh.

The man was also reportedly motivated by the leaked draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, which brings us to the obvious question: Did Democrats incite this attempted attack?

Let’s recall that Democrat, Chuck Schumer, used violent rhetoric in response to the possibility of Roe being overturned.

When you tell people that the justices are fascists looking to take away your “right” to kill a baby, while insisting that they must be stopped, is it any surprise some people might take that to the extreme? That’s what appears to have happened here, and Ted Cruz along with others let Democrats have it over their inciteful rhetoric.

if this were a liberal justice, it’d be used as an indictment of the entire right, with sweeping generalizations and demands from every GOP politician alive to condemn what happened.

The simple fact of the matter is that Democrats never want to play by their own rules. They want to be able to assert that using the word “fight” is violent incitement when it’s Trump saying it, but when it’s Warren saying it, it’s just her showing passion. When a Republican uses any kind of physical imagery in a political speech, that’s incitement, but when Schumer does it, it’s just an expression.

As an exercise in frustration, just try to imagine what the response would be if Cruz had said to Sonia Sotomayer that she would “reap the whirlwind” so hard that “you won’t know what hit you.” We’d be having congressional hearings over it. But again, the rules don’t apply to Democrats.

In fact, another group of protesters have gathered outside his house.

For the court to be intimated at this point would destroy it as an institution. That can’t be allowed to happen. Cruz is also spot-on. Democrats own the heated environment they’ve created, and it’s up to them to take the temperature down. If you keep telling people they are going to “lose their democracy” every time the left doesn’t get its way, bad things are bound to happen.

(RepublicanWire.org) – Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) on Wednesday said he will not rubber-stamp President Joe Biden’s Supreme Court nominee to replace Justice Stephen Breyer.

“I take my Constitutional responsibility to advise and consent on a nominee to the Supreme Court very seriously,” Manchin said. “I look forward to meeting with and evaluating the qualifications of President Biden’s nominee to fill this Supreme Court vacancy.”

Manchin’s statement follows White House press secretary Jen Psaki’s confirmation Biden intends to nominate a black woman to the court.

In 2020, Biden foreshadowed he would do so. “I’m looking forward to making sure there’s a black woman on the Supreme Court, to make sure we, in fact, get every representation,” he said.

The appointment of a black woman would potentially make it troublesome for establishment Senate Republicans to block Biden’s nominee in an election year. Democrats hold a 50/50 split tie-breaking vote in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

Biden’s nominee will need to appease all 50 Democrat Senators, including Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ).

Both Manchin and Sinema have proven a willingness to oppose Biden’s radical “Build Back Better” agenda. Manchin’s home state of West Virginia voted for Donald Trump in 2020 by nearly 40 points.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on Wednesday announced he would confirm Biden’s nominee promptly but deliberately.

The Senate’s Judiciary Committee, chaired by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), will conduct Senate hearings in the coming weeks.

(RepublicanWire.org) – President Joe Biden faced backlash on Thursday after he announced that he would replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer with someone in-part based on their race and their sex.

“The person I nominate to replace Justice Breyer will be someone with extraordinary qualifications. Character, experience, and integrity,” Biden wrote on Twitter. “And they will be the first Black woman nominated to the United States Supreme Court.”

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki confirmed this week that Biden had “reiterated his commitment to nominating a black woman to the Supreme Court and certainly stands by that.”

Notable responses included:

  • Ben Shapiro, The Daily Wire: “Joe Biden will nominate a black woman for the Supreme Court because he said he would select someone based on race and sex, and then we will be told that noting that this is definitionally affirmative action and race discrimination is itself racist.” He added, “Also, there’s a reason Democrats never miss with their SCOTUS picks: they overtly choose wild Leftists. That’s the only real qualification. They wouldn’t care whether Biden nominated an HLS grad who clerked for Breyer or Cardi B, so long as that person voted reliably Left.”
  • Joel Pollak, Breitbart News: “Will this justice recuse herself from affirmative action cases?”
  • Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch: “Breaking: @Potus officially commits to racial and sex discrimination in Supreme Court pick. The Senate cannot abide in this.”
  • Dan McLaughlin, National Review: “Can’t even say ‘she’ when describing a woman.”
  • Noah Pollak: “Announcing you are excluding all but one race and sex from consideration for a job opening is completely illegal and unconstitutional in every other context.”
  • John Daniel Davidson, The Federalist: “This is racist and sexist and every person in America knows it.”
  • Caleb Hull, digital strategist: “He’s already using ‘they’ pronouns to describe the person… What a disaster this is about to be.”
  • Oren Cass, American Compass: “Great things about grammar is that it enforces logic. The incoherence of progressive identity politics is captured perfectly in this use of ‘they’ rather than ‘she’ as singular pronoun in a tweet specifically committed to insisting that the person in question will be a woman.”
  • Hillel Neuer, attorney: “I bet you a million dollars that the extraordinary first Black woman who gets appointed to the Supreme Court will want to be called she, and so I don’t know why the president made a point of calling her they.”
  • Abigail Shrier, journalist: “While millions of black women have character, intelligence, and integrity, there are only approximately *4 judges* that have anything close to the experience necessary to be a SCOTUS judge. That’s a tiny pool for Biden to restrict his search to.”
  • Barrington Martin II, political commentator: “Reminder… you considered the new voting laws enacted by Republican led state legislatures were ‘Jim Crow 2.0.’ Now you’re planning to appoint a new SCOTUS justice on the mere basis of race and gender. This is the true Jim Crow 2.0. State sponsored prejudice in job appointment.”
  • Ian Miles Cheong, journalist: “Sad to see you excluding Hispanic, Asian, Indian, Native American, White and Pacific Islanders for the role.”

(RepublicanWire.org) – Amidst all of the news surrounding the retirement of United States Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, President Joe Biden made sure that his White House Press Secretary, Jen Psaki, delivered a threat to Republicans.

You can watch the video below.

The message he wanted to be emphasized? Don’t play games with whoever he names as his nominee to the Supreme Court.

According to Psaki:

“We should be clear about some of the games that we’re already seeing indications of out there. We have not mentioned a single name. We have not put out a list. The president made it very clear he has not made a selection. If anyone is saying they plan to characterize whoever he nominates after thorough consideration with both parties as radical, before they know literally anything about who she is, they just obliterated their own credibility. So, our intention is to not play games. The president’s intention is to consult with members of both parties. And, his intention is to nominate a qualified candidate after completing a rigorous process who’s worthy of the excellence and decency of Breyer’s legacy.”

(RepublicanWire.org) – Woke university admission policies that discriminate against white and Asian candidates could soon be ruled illegal, after the Supreme Court said it’s going to look at them again.

On January 24, the Supreme Court announced it’s going to revisit the question of whether universities may take an applicant’s race into account during their admissions process. The court has looked at this issue before, in 2003 and 2016. Both times it ruled schools could consider race when selecting applicants, if the goal was to increase racial diversity in the student body.

However, this “affirmative action” program has faced multiple challenges. The current case, led by Students for Fair Admissions (SFA), says race-based selection violates federal law and the Constitution. It’s also unpopular, with a large majority of Americans opposing it. SFA president Edward Blum indicated the college admissions bar cannot be lowered for some races and ethnic groups and raised for others.

Lower courts have ruled against the SFA challenge, citing the earlier Supreme Court decisions as precedent. Now, however, the balance of the Court has changed. In 2003 and 2016 it had a slim Liberal majority; now it leans strongly conservative. There’s a good chance the current Court will support the challenge and exclude race as a selection factor – and many conservatives and moderates would applaud the decision.

(RepublicanWire.org) – In the first of what could be a string of similar announcements, General Electric (GE) has gone public with its decision to suspend its COVID vaccine and testing rules following yesterday’s decision by the United States Supreme Court that, at least temporarily, halted the Biden administration’s vaccination and testing mandate it had imposed on companies with more than 100 employees.

According to CNBC:

“General Electric on Friday has suspended its Covid vaccine and testing requirement after the Supreme Court blocked the Biden administration’s mandate, a company spokesperson told CNBC.

“GE, which had 174,000 employees at the end of 2020, has encouraged its employees to get vaccinated, the spokesperson said.

“The Supreme Court’s conservative majority, in a 6-3 ruling, called the administration’s requirements a ‘blunt instrument’ that ‘draws no distinctions based on industry or risk of exposure to Covid-19.’” [emphasis added]


“President Joe Biden, in a statement after the court’s decision, called on companies to voluntarily implement the vaccine and testing rules.” [emphasis added]

Clearly, General Electric is not following Biden’s call to voluntarily force employees to comply with a vaccine and testing regime.

The question now is how many other companies with 100 employees or more will follow GE’s lead and stop their implementation of vaccine and testing protocols.

(RepublicanWire.org) – Just moments ago, the Supreme Court ordered expedited oral argument on the Biden Administration’s vaccine mandate cases to be held on January 7th.

In an unusual move, the Supreme Court set an expedited oral argument on the emergency stay requests in the Biden Administration’s vaccine mandate cases – both the employer mandate challenged by numerous petitioners, including by the ACLJ on behalf of our client The Heritage Foundation, and the health worker mandate.

The ACLJ filed an emergency stay request with the Supreme Court on Saturday night in an effort to block the Biden Administration’s mandate that private employers of 100 or more employees be required to force their workers to obtain and prove that they have received the COVID-19 vaccine. This mandate not only impinges on the constitutional rights of employees but creates onerous burdens on employers, including enforcing the mandate, storing private medical information of all employees’ vaccine status, and conducting onsite weekly COVID testing. Quite simply, it is an unconstitutional federal power grab.

As we’ve explained. .. :

[T]he ACLJ is representing The Heritage Foundation in a new lawsuit challenging President Biden’s vaccine mandate for all employers with 100 or more employees, regardless of whether they work remotely. The Biden mandate also directs larger businesses to require employees to receive the COVID-19 vaccine or undergo regular testing and mask-wearing.

The mandate has been promulgated by the Biden Administration’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). After OSHA issued this mandate, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal temporarily blocked it. However, all legal challenges were then consolidated in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On Friday, Dec. 17th, the Sixth Circuit reinstated President Biden’s vaccine mandate . . . .

In response, our legal team immediately filed an Emergency Application for Stay of Agency Action Pending Judicial Review and Petition for a Writ of Certiorari Before Judgment on behalf of The Heritage Foundation to defeat this unconstitutional mandate.

Not only is this mandate unconstitutional, it could actually put more employees at risk for exposure to COVID-19 and its variants, as it requires regular testing, administered by a designated employee, requiring that person to come into close proximity with the employee who may or may not test positive. Not to mention the added financial burden it is to these employers, many of which barely survived the pandemic and enforced lockdowns that ensued during 2020.

As stated in our emergency filing:

“If upheld, the vaccine mandate will fundamentally change the relationship between employer and employee by forcing employers to compel and regulate the personal medical decisions of their employees. The vaccine mandate will also impose significant financial and other burdens on private employers and result in predictable economic chaos.”

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court ordered the Biden Administration to file a response by December 30th. With oral argument at the Supreme Court in these critical cases now set for less than two weeks away, our legal team will be working tirelessly through the end of the year to prepare for the next round of legal arguments as we urge the Supreme Court to strike down this draconian and unconstitutional mandate. We will keep you updated as this critical case progresses.

(RepublicanWire.org) – Moving as expeditiously as he could on Christmas Eve Eve, while most of the mainstream media had already headed out for a long holiday weekend, former President Donald J. Trump asked the United States Supreme Court to intervene and stop the United States House of Representatives Select Committee that is investigating what took place at the United States Capitol Complex on January 6th from obtaining records about his actions that day.

According to CNBC:

“Former President Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to block a demand for White House records from the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riot by a mob of Trump supporters.

“The request came two weeks after two lower courts rejected Trump’s argument that the records are protected by executive privilege, a legal doctrine that allows some White House communications to be kept private.

“President Joe Biden had declined to invoke privilege over the disputed documents.” [emphasis added]

In addition to the filing with the Supreme Court, Trump issued a statement, saying, in part, “The people being persecuted by the January 6th Unselect Committee should simply tell the truth, that they are angry about the RIGGED Presidential Election of 2020…”

This is a breaking news report, and we will monitor the United States Supreme Court to see if they take up the case.

By law, the court is not required to accept Trump’s petition. However, legal experts and court watchers say they’d be surprised if the court didn’t take the case.

(RepublicanWire.org) – Tell Biden’s DOJ to back off of Texans’ rights!

The court’s conservative majority rejected the abortion providers’ request because of its enforcement mechanism, which separates it from “heartbeat” laws passed in other states. The law deputizes private citizens and grants them standing to file lawsuits against violating doctors who provide abortions without exception.

The Texas law prohibits almost all abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected, at around six weeks of pregnancy. The only time that abortion is permitted is when there’s life-threatening danger to the mother or when impairment occurs “substantially” from major bodily functions during pregnancy period. In addition, private citizens can launch civil lawsuits against anyone who aids/abets these procedures.

The U.S Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has issued a decision in favor of Texas, asserting that its heartbeat abortion law can remain intact and effective despite beefed up federal opposition from Biden’s Justice Department.

“The court issued a 2–1 order siding with the state of Texas, refusing the Justice Department’s request to reinstate an earlier court ruling that had blocked enforcement of the law. The order was backed by Judges James C. Ho, who was nominated by Donald Trump, and Catharina Haynes, who was nominated by George W. Bush. Judge Carl E. Stewart, a nominee of Bill Clinton, dissented,” National Review reported, stating, “Thursday’s decision comes after the same panel last week issued a temporary decision to reinstate the law after a federal judge in Austin temporarily halted the ban.”

The Supreme Court’s refusal to block provisions of the law has set up a potentially historic win for pro-life movements by overturning two cases which have been considered landmark moments in abortion history. “The decision sets up an opportunity that will likely lead to further testing and examination into whether current laws are constitutional, as well as setting guidelines on how far states can go when regulating abortions before they take place,” according The Washington Free Beacon .