The Left Has A Dream. I Call it a Nightmare! Chicago, Part III

By Rich Kozlovich

As we watch the insanity going on in America's cities it's important to define how this occurred, and who's responsible.  First, let's cut to the chase.  America's major cities are crime infested sewers, and the Democrats own that completely.  So, I've now given you the answer, here's the evidence, and we're going to view the evidence one city at at time, starting with Chicago.  

Stephan Moore in his April 11th article, The left has killed our great cities, points out:

Tuesday, April 4, as the night Chicago died.That's when we learned that Second City voters narrowly elected Brandon Johnson as their next mayor. This is a city that was flattened during the reign of Mayor Lori Lightfoot, who lost in the first round of voting for Chicago mayor because she didn't finish in one of the top two spots. Lightfoot, elected in 2019 after a career as a federal prosecutor who then held several appointed positions in Chicago, shut down the city for more than a year during COVID-19. She also bankrupted small businesses, allowed rioters to burn down whole neighborhoods, presided over the worst crime wave in 50 years and let the schools go to hell............Now, the voters have selected Johnson..........The incoming mayor may turn out to be a worse mayor than Lightfoot...........The fact that Chicagoans have elected not a reformer, but a deformer, suggests that inner-city residents still don't get it -- or they don't care. Or they are all on the payroll of the city governments that are going bankrupt. Alas, our cities can't be saved if the voters in these metropolises don't want to be saved.

Well, it turns out Brandon Johnson is most likely going to be far worse than Lightfoot.  Last week rioting broke out, vehicles were burned, people were beaten, and had their lives threatened, and the police did nothing, and made it clear as long as Johnson was mayor, that was the way it was going to be.  The police are sworn to protect, but the left sent a message long ago, if they do what needs to be done, they're going to be prosecuted and possibly sent to prison.  In Seattle they've been told they have to offer a "sincere apology" for enforcing the law.  They're left with crossroads decisions daily; "to be or to do".  Guess which one they've chosen?  

Mayor Johnson's response to all this?  

In no way do I condone the destructive activity we saw in the Loop and lakefront this weekend.  It is unacceptable and has no place in our city.

Okay, that makes sense, and it sounds like responsible thinking, but is it reality, or just nice sounding talking points?   Then he goes on to demonstrate what he really thinks by babbling irrationally saying:

However, it is not constructive to demonize youth who have otherwise been starved of opportunities in their own communities.  Our communities must work together to create spaces for youth to gather safely and responsible, under adult guidance and supervision, to ensure that every part of our city remains welcome for both residents and visitors.  This is one aspect of my comprehensive approach to improve public safety and make Chicago livable for everyone.

He continued to blather this same nonsense, "In on-camera comments that Julio covered yesterday, the incoming mayor doubled down" saying:

Demonizing children is wrong.....they're children, and children sometimes make silly decisions...."

• Starved of opportunities?  Really?  What opportunities have been denied them and if so, who's responsible?  Democrat mayors have run Chicago for as long as I've been alive and longer (1931 the last Republican mayor left office) and Democrats have ruled Illinois for decades, so who is responsible for this alleged starvation of opportunities? 
  
• Silly decisions?  Really?  Choosing to commit violent crimes are "silly decisions"?  These aren't children, they're violent criminals and thugs, I don't care what their chronological age may be.  They are what they do.   Law enforcement in Chicago is expecting a lot more "silly" decisions as the weather warms, and yes it is right to demonize those who riot and commit crimes of property destruction, violent harm to others, and theft.
• Because of leftist insanity these aren't criminals, "they're misunderstood victims of an impoverished society", and people on the left, just like Mayor Johnson, are responsible for promoting this "entitlement" mentality, and are even pushing to legalize their criminal behavior.  

Here was another "silly decision" by a "mob" of thugs who violently beat a helpless woman in Chicago.  The video of this has been taken down, I wonder why?   Here's another piece about Johnson's "children", hundreds of them, making "silly decisions" as Violence Erupts in Chicago as Hundreds of Thugs Destroy Parts of the City:

 ..........smashing car windows.......at least one person in a car was attacked. Shots were fired near the corner of Madison and Michigan, and FOX 32 Chicago decided that it was unsafe to keep our news crew on the scene. A woman whose car was smashed by people jumping on the windshield said her husband was beaten as he sat in the driver’s seat.............Video posted on social media shows people standing on top of a CTA bus and dancing. The CTA said that some service through the downtown area was disrupted on Saturday night because of police activity........... a 14-year-old was shot.............

There are consequences for all this.  Migration, closed businesses, and a dropping tax base.  This is the starvation of opportunities Johnson blathers about, and his party is to blame.   Corporate America is leaving, even after so many of them grovelled in the sewer with Antifa, BLM, and totally embraced this insane Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Marxist economic suicide pact.  

As Silvio Canto, Jr. points out in his shoplifting article, with just the right amount of snarc:

Who knew that uncontrolled shoplifting and allowing criminals to run out of stores with jewelry and whiskey bottles would eventually translate into stores closing their doors for good?  Where did we hear that before? Of course, it's more than closing stores to shoppers.  A retail store hires people and pays taxes.  In many locations, it may be the only drugstore around. There are broad consequences to shoplifting.  As stores close in our cities, local governments will lose the tax base that pays for a lot of social services.  The bottom line is that the community will lose.  Are you listening, Democrats?

No, they're not because leftist ideology means you never have to apologize or change, it's always someone else's fault.  Well, Walmart has had it and is closing stores all over the country, including 4 Chicago Stores, because they've lost tens of millions of dollars, and the Democrats are outraged.

How dare they put their profits over the need of these Marxists have for their tax dollars?  Dollars they need to fulfill leftist demands and redistribute that money in order to keep being elected, in order to ultimately put them out of business.  Imagine that!

Well, Walmart isn't the only one seeing this insanity for what it is, as Dan Mitchell points out in his January 2022 piece, Chicago’s Downward Spiral:

The Chicago area saw an exodus of corporate headquarters in 2022, including investment firm Citadel, which moved to Miami along with its billionaire founder, Ken Griffin; Caterpillar, which relocated from north suburban Deerfield to Irving, Texas; and aerospace giant Boeing, which moved to Arlington, Virginia, after more than 20 years in the West Loop. The most recent high-profile departure was announced in November, when Lake Forest-based auto parts manufacturer Tenneco said it was shifting its headquarters to Michigan. …vacancy rates in the central business district rose to 19.6%, while the Chicago metro ticked up to 21.8%… Meanwhile, Citadel principals and employees generated billions of dollars in tax revenue for the city and state over the past decade, according to the firm, money that has also headed south.And why are businesses escaping?

The economic mismanagement of Chicago, and the entire state of Illinois, is getting worse, and this was before Johnson was elected.  The real hidden economic viper in the fruit basket?  Pensions!

Pension costs will consume more than $2.3 billion of the city’s budget, or 21.4 percent of its own source revenue, excluding state and federal grants. That’s more than a $967 million increase in pension spending since Lightfoot became mayor and $461 million more than last year alone.............To make matters worse, Chicago still has major problems with corruption.

• The Left Has A Dream. I Call it a Nightmare, Part I
• The Left Has A Dream. I Call it a Nightmare! California, Part II

The Left Has A Dream. I Call it a Nightmare! California, Part II

By Rich Kozlovich

The one time the crown jewels of American civilization was reflected in her cities, Chicago, New York, and at one time Cleveland, Ohio was considered one of the must see cities in America for tourists.  Portland, Seattle, San Francisco were the jewels of the West Coast, all very progressive cites that claimed to be the harbingers of the future, since as progressives, they had all the answers for how life should be lived. 

And now?  How about a good dose of reality? 

In San Francisco there are homeless living everywhere, doing drugs, crapping and urinating wherever it pleases them, leaving trash in their wake, and crime is out of control.  Ron Wright's article,  Governor Gavin Newsom, These California Law Enforcement Leaders are Calling You Out Ron Wright saying:

The District Attorneys of Tulare County and Riverside County, Tim Ward and Mike Hestrin, respectively, and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and Riverside City PD Chief Larry Gonzalez, held a joint press conference on April 12, 2023 (See Video).  These DAs are not radical Left Soros-supported prosecutors.  Instead, they are at wit's end regarding the unintended consequences of Assembly Bill 109, the California Public Safety Realignment Act, for serial low-level felony offenders..........Chief Gonzalez said, “There was a time when theft, specifically repeated theft, was met with a consequence …. These days, they have been legislated away and our community is suffering….”   Sheriff Bianco added.  “They [legislators] don’t care what we think, they care what voters think….  Until we can get the voters fed up and the voters start calling them, it is not going to change.”..........

So, what happened to their grand idea of defunding the police and replacing them with social workers?  Apparently that doesn't work, since it turns out the Mayor of L.A. is calling for 1,000 new cops, who I have no doubt will be trained in how not to enforce the law because that's racist.  Citing racial bias, San Francisco will end mug shots release, because mug shots can potentially "undermine he presumption of innocence and help perpetuate stereotypes".  What it does is obfuscate the fact blacks are committing these crimes way all out of proportion to their population in the U.S.  

To show just how convoluted the thinking of these Democrat mayors truly is, Andrea Widburg, who lives in California I might add, posted this article, A shocking video of a baby born on a San Francisco street highlights the city’s collapse, which is a heartbreaking, saying:

Apparently, San Francisco mayor London Breed has been feeling downright smug about the fact that Cash App founder Bob Lee did not die at the hands of a random homeless person but, instead, was allegedly murdered by someone he knew. That would be a decent boast if San Francisco were an otherwise clean and well-run city…but it’s not. It’s still a decayed basket case, as is vividly illustrated by a widely circulated video showing a homeless woman and her baby moments after she gave birth on the street.............Mayor Breed was pleased with the case’s outcome, which she claims proves that the city is in great shape and that it’s the perceptions about the city that are wrong. Her claim would surprise a lot of the city’s residents.

Mayor Breed thinks the city is in great shape, imagine that.  What's that mean?  I means the dimwits in San Francisco elected a nitwit for Mayor, and is a commentary on the collective IQ of San Francisco residents, which is dropping by the day as the intelligent sane people are leaving in droves, and apparently the business community agrees.  The crime in San Francisco is in broad daylight and out of control, and  now leads the country in property crime, including smash-and-grab theft from automobiles........ and there are consequences for that. 

Whole Foods Market, and DEI company, is leaving San Francisco entirely.  

............you know things are getting bad.  The Whole Foods outlet at Eighth and Market streets in San Francisco announced it was closing this week due to deteriorating conditions in the area.  “We are closing our Trinity location only for the time being,” a Whole Foods spokesperson said in a written statement, according to the San Francisco Standard. “If we feel we can ensure the safety of our team members in the store, we will evaluate a reopening of our Trinity location.”...............

• Whole Foods shuts down its flagship store in San Francisco after just one year over city's failure to control crime......... Just days after a top tech executive was killed in a random street stabbing, and a former fire commissioner was beaten by a bum with a metal object, the wokester leftists running San Francisco can take another bow.  The huge new ritzy Whole Foods Market flagship store in San Francisco, which opened only a year ago, has announced it's closing shop, citing the city's out-of-control crime...............
• Just how gross was it at that San Francisco Whole Foods? April 12, 2023 Customers weigh in online with their experiences at the now-shuttered Whole Foods flagship store, and at other Whole Foods stores in that bum-infested city.

Now, Walgreens has closed 17 stores in San Francisco alone because of shoplifting.  Now people are going to have problems finding places to shop, and if the drug stores are gone, that really presents a problem.  This issue of unfettered criminal activity is an issue all over California as HUNDREDS of Looters Ransack Compton Convenience Store – Could Barely Squeeze into Store (VIDEO).   Hundreds mind you....hundreds!

The big solution by these leftist nitwits regarding criminal activity was to replace all those nasty police who go around arresting people with social workers. What could possibly go wrong?  Well, apparently a lot can go wrong, because San Francisco is a disaster.

San Francisco is only one of many once-beautiful cities that have gone to hell in a hand basket after years of supermajority Democratic rule and soft-on-crime policies. This largely explains the number of people fleeing the Bay area, leading to the lowest population seen there in more than a decade. But while homelessness and crime in general are making the city unlivable for many, one area where they are really being hit revolves around the ongoing fentanyl crisis. It seems like the drug is everywhere at this point and people are literally dropping dead in the streets. In response, Governor Gavin Newsom has resorted to something he previously refused to do. He’s sending in the National Guard to help shut down the flow of the deadly drug. (NY Post).........

And how could this been allowed to happen?  What exactly has California's "leaders" been focusing on?   The Bullet Train for one, a gigantic financial boondoggle that "epitomizes Golden State corruption", a corrupt plan for slavery reparations from a state that was opposed to slavery, and never had slaves, and as bad as all that is, California utilities prepare to go full socialist and drive even more wealthy and productive people out of the state, and further impoverishing those who remain. 

The Left Has A Dream. I Call it a Nightmare, Part I

By Rich Kozlovich

The left has "A dream", and their dream is humanities nightmare.  Have no doubt, unless people wake up, we will own nothing and will be happy, or else!  Private ownership will be eliminated.  The concept of personal privacy will be illegal.  Retirement investments will be confiscated.  We will accept the World Health Organization as the final arbiter as to how we're to be treated abandoning any idea of American sovereignty and will accept being digitally tracked.  

Money will be eliminated replaced by digital currencies in order to track what you buy and sell, and if what you're buying or selling violates their vision, you will not be allowed to do either.  And we will eat bugs, or worse! 

This is "the plan", and it's not just in America, it's a worldwide effort that will promote lawlessness, filth, and corruption, as Bob Barr  notes in his Apr 20, 2023 article. U.N.-Sanctioned Report Is a Blueprint for Filth, Degradation, and Lawlessness, saying:

Typical of virtually every report drafted by the United Nations and related international organizations, this one was long in the drafting, taking a full five years to compose. Also, like other U.N.-created reports, it has a ridiculously long and convoluted title:  The 8 March Principles for a Human Rights-Based Approach to Criminal Law Proscribing Conduct Associated with Sex, Reproduction, Drug Use, HIV, Homelessness and Poverty. A shorter and more accurate title would be How To Destroy Civil Society By Abandoning the Rule of Law.

He goes on to list some goals we're already seeing being implemented in American cities.  Jail should be the last resort for criminals, abortion will not be permitted to be limited to any degree, and should be termed as "pregnancy loss", in order to avoid calling it what it is: Infanticide.  Pederasty would be called a "human right".  There would be no limit on "consensual sex" irrespective of age.  Drug laws would be eliminated.  Prostitution would no longer be a crime, and "no activity undertaken by an individual out of necessity could be prohibited, including panhandling, sleeping or bathing in public, or “urinating and defecating” in public places – all examples of protected “human rights.”

 Let's face it, this is what's being promoted in some states and in America's major cities, and, there's a reason nobody is singing about going ‘Downtown’ anymore.  The mess the Democrats have created has resulted in a "ghost town" kind of environment, overrun by thugs.  Companies have left "downtown" for a number of reasons, and crime and tolerance for thuggery is one of the reasons.  Couple that with high taxes, irresponsible regulations, and corruption, and there's no reason to be there, and that especially goes for people living in the suburbs.  I always loved the playhouse district in Cleveland.  I now refuse to go. I'm old, arthritic and that makes me a target, and Cleveland isn't nearly as bad as Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland and others.

Not only are offices closing in cities, retailers are closing down due to crime in three major cities ‘all run by Democrats’.  Not only can these employers protect their employees, they can't protect their customers, and their customers know it, so, guess what?  They're not customers any longer, so they stay home in the suburbs, and dine there, shop there, and socialize there.  And the Democrats know it so, that has to be "fixed".   Death to the Suburbs! 

New York's Governor Kathy Kochul has called for a diversity, inclusion, and equity drive to destroy the suburbs eliminating local control and single family zoning laws replacing them with:

......high-rise "affordable" (read: low-income, taxpayer-subsidized) housing be constructed close to each sleepy village train station — mostly a few miles apart — on Metro North and the Long Island Railroad.  If the affected communities fail to do so "voluntarily," the state will have the power to override local zoning.  Those who fail to applaud this combined coup by warriors for social justice and real estate interests are, you guessed it, racist.

In his article, Wake up, America — we're losing our country! Bob Weir states:

I never thought I'd have to face the prospect of witnessing the decline and fall of the United States, the greatest country in the history of the world.  I've always felt grateful to have been born in this marvelous nation.  Yet, today, as I woke up and was having my morning coffee, I began to realize that things are changing quickly, and the changes are corroding us from the inside.  Regardless of how I vote, or whether I vote, it seems as if it doesn't matter, because something evil has invaded this great land, and our lives are never going to be the same.

He went on to say how shocked he is at the views of family and friends, and how hostile they are in their views, abandoning reason, ignoring facts and reality, and are so willing to accept an "assortment of freakish behaviors".   A Supreme Court justice that doesn't know what a woman is, illegal immigrants are to be given the right to vote, people who never went to college are expected to pay for the dead beats that did, criminals are to be treated with respect and the victims are to be ignored, and we really need to get this; The left isn't just willing to destroy America, it's been their goal from the late 1800's.  

In this thoughtful essay The West Declares War on Itself By J.B. Shurk who starts out with the clear and understandable observation:

For Americans who cherish self-government, free speech, and personal liberty, the reality of today's America is jolting.  

The author then goes on to ask:

• How can Hillary Clinton's campaign, Barack Obama's FBI, and an assortment of sordid Intelligence Community actors conspire to frame Donald Trump as a Russian spy in a veritable coup d'état without suffering any legal consequences?  
• How can the IRS target Americans for their political viewpoints and be rewarded with bigger budgets and more armed agents?  
• How can the FBI illegally spy on a presidential campaign, target parents concerned over the content of their children's public education, and label half of America "extremists," and not be disbanded?  
• How can the Department of (in)Justice seek to punish Americans' speech and religious faith as impermissible expressions of "hate" and deprive Americans of their Second Amendment protections without being immediately defunded as a threat to the Bill of Rights?  
• How can the State Department lecture regimes around the world about violently quelling political dissent and violating human rights when thousands of Americans who protested for fair elections have been persecuted as "insurrectionists," denied impartial justice, and imprisoned for having "incorrect" beliefs?  These are not the actions of any "free" nation and are shockingly antithetical to America's foundations in liberty.

All absolutely valid questions.  Questions he goes on to answer:

From this perspective, it seems apparent that the American government has not so quietly declared war on the American people..........When ordinary citizens lose control over institutions, those institutions gain control over the people.  Western politicians pay lip service to public ideals, while Western institutions act independently from — and often in defiance of — the public's wishes.  This is why Western domestic and foreign policies appear so schizophrenic today.  It is why Americans who adore freedom instead find increasingly insidious forms of tyranny.  And it is why Westerners who reject Soviet-style or Chinese forms of communism will be forced to stand against Western-style oppression, too.  

 

The left is destroying the American culture.  Part II will deal with the Democrat's destruction of America's cities. 

 

Clarence Thomas, Affirmative Action and the Constitution

By Rich Kozlovich

 

Over the course of my 76 years I've seen a lot of Supreme Court Justices come and go, and most of them I found seriously wanting when it came to understanding what the Constitution said and meant.  Did they really not know? No, they knew, but they needed to find a way to social engineer from the bench so they created what's called Penumbras and Emanations of the Constitution. Neither of which anyone can find in the Constitution.  

 

 "In United States constitutional law, the penumbra includes a group of rights derived, by implication, from other rights explicitly protected in the Bill of Rights. These rights have been identified through a process of "reasoning-by-interpolation", (Interpolation - the insertion of something of a different nature into something else) where specific principles are recognized from "general idea" that are explicitly expressed in other constitutional provisions......." 

 

"In Griswold, Justice William O. Douglas explained that "specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance".

 

What a bunch of gobbledygook to justify their creation of a system of judicial overreach and abuse, abetted by cowardly Congresses that never put a stop to it.  The Constitution gives the Congress the authority to determine the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary,  not the Supreme Court, and it's long past time they started doing so.  They can start by passing a 28th Amendment.  More here on that.

 

The word penumbra originally was a scientific term "created to describe the shadows that occur during eclipses." And I think the word shadows is more than appropriate when its used in relationship with the Constitution.  

 

As for "emanations", that's even more intangible, as it means either:  the act of emitting; causing to flow forth; a theological concept of the origination of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. 

 

Well, I think the last one is the one SCOTUS embraced giving them a divine mission to alter society to their liking, because I don't see penumbras and emanations as anything except an excuse for outrageous judicial abuses of the Constitution and the separation of powers.  Nothing short of inappropriate rationalizations that seem more like mysticism than jurisprudence to me.

 

It was thought Justice Scalia was the real conservative brain and Constitutional scholar of the court, and  Clearance Thomas was merely his cats paw.  I knew better.  I read his book, My Grandfather's Son: A Memoir.  I can honestly say I think Clearance Thomas is the most  illustrious Supreme Court Justice in my lifetime.  The reason why is he's so illustrious?   He adheres to the basic concept of definition.  Definition leads to clarity.  Clarity leads to understanding.  Understanding leads to good decision making.  

 

By defining the issue clearly he avoids convoluted thinking and twisted rationalizations that force more twisted rationalizations down the road.  In short, the Constitution is what is says, not what political hacks in black robes want it to say.

 

Mark Levine's book, Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America, does an excellent job outlining these excesses and twisted reasonings and the problems they cause.

In the article, Clarence Thomas: I’ve Heard Similar Arguments for Affirmative Action in Favor of Segregation, asks for a definition for diversity in college admissions, and the benefits, as Asians are being restricted in admissions at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill over Affirmative Action, only they don't call it that any longer, but that's what it is.  The answers aren't impressive, definitive or provable.

There was a reader's comment worth reviewing by an Unknown Author.

Most people don't know it but the road to discriminating against whites began 60 years ago, with President Kennedy's Affirmative Action. I am retired, but was a VP (worked my way up from the bottom) in a billion dollar mainstream Company for 30 years and was constantly told by HR that if the applicants I interviewed were "equally qualified"; hire the Black, the Woman, the Minority candidate, etc., etc.

Then shortly before I retired a dozen years ago the Company hired a Diversity "officer" at the VP level. I was shocked. It usually took people ten to fifteen years to get to that level. Now every Company has one. The Democratic mantra of DEI; Diversity (anti-white), Equity (Socialism) and Inclusion (Trans rights) has become Affirmative Action on steroids and is destroying the whole idea of achievement and advancement through merit. In fact, the whole idea of "Meritocracy" is now considered "racist" and DEI is leading to actual written policies hiring whites last and firing whites first.

Of course it's blatantly illegal and unconstitutional but nobody seems to care. Now they are talking about admissions to college or even medical school being based on race and sexual identity, not standardized test scores. Ditto for hiring Pilots, EMT's, Firefighters, etc., etc. That should work out well. The Supreme Court needs to stop this insanity or our country will become totally run by incompetent bureaucratic ideologues (picked for race, sex, sexual preference or sexual identity) like those that now populate the entire Biden administration.

It appears Clearance Thomas is finally being recognized for the brilliant jurist he is, and is being supported by justices such as Justices Alito and Kavanaugh, who like him actually believe the Constitution is the law of the land and not these mystical indefinable concepts of penumbras and emanations created by people who have no right to do so.  

Abortion: A Stain on the Nation That Can Never Be Washed Off

By Rich Kozlovich, Tags: 

On 6 Jul 2022 Katherine Hamilton published this piece, OB/GYN: New Polling Dispels Abortion Misinformation, Shows Most Americans Oppose Roe, saying:

An organization representing thousands of pro-life obstetricians and gynecologists released polling showing that most U.S. voters oppose Roe v. Wade and other radical abortion measures when properly informed. The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) held a virtual conference call on Wednesday to share new polling data, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn Roe. 

And this is followed by more data on the fact a huge number of people are stunningly uninformed/misinformed about abortion, a subject that's been fought over for 50 years in the news.  What happens and when it happens are two examples, and when informed of the facts, the numbers change.

Another thing that surprised me is how many think overturning Roe makes abortion illegal throughout the country.  It doesn't, mores the shame to a nation that's done more good for more people than any country in the history of the world.  In spite of all our historical flaws, compared to the history of the rest of the world, America is still the cowboy in the white hat. 

But the decision overturning Roe V Wade is a sound one based on the idea it's not the federal judiciary's job to legislate from the bench, which was the mentality behind Roe and many more decisions from the federal judiciary and SCOTUS.

Even in the dissent from the "we are the Constitution" wing of the court made little effort to argue abortion actually was a Constitutional right .  Their arguments were "banal, whiny and petulant'', declaring it should be allowed to stand for two reasons.  Millions of Americans agree with them and since Roe V Wade has been contaminating the nation for so many years it should be left alone. 

First, the judiciary is supposed make judgements based on the rule of law, not polls on what millions of Americans think.  That's the job of the legislature.  Secondly, we need to get rid of this idea of “stare decisis” as "the" deciding factor in any case brought before the courts, and in fact, leftist justices have overturned “stare decisis” over and over again, and have been lauded by the very leftists who claim to adore the concept. 

Let's try and get this right - "stare decisis" - is not written in stone and the only reason to openly support it as something that’s “sacred” is nothing more than a public relations scam by anyone involved in politics or law. The left only 'adores' the concept if someone supports any of the leftist decisions that overturned "stare decisis" decisions of the past. 

According to these leftist misfits any effort to overturn leftist decisions, so many of which have no Constitutional basis other than what's called the "penumbra of the Constitution", is sacrilege to the law and the Constitution.  Let's try and understand this..... just once..... please.  Stare decisis is a one way street to the left, and that means driving only on the left.  

 "It’s been my lifelong observation that liberals are a mostly conflicted, tormented group suffering from mass psychosis. They wrap themselves up in do-good, virtue-signaling knots and then attempt to rationalize positions even they know are indefensible by putting forth the most tortured, illogical explanations imaginable. Merely calling those positions “lies” doesn’t go anywhere near far enough. Liberals have mastered the art of wanting to believe in a false reality, constructing a Bizarro Universe, while at the same time, excusing themselves for committing the very same transgressions against society and nature that they accuse others of doing." - Steve Feinstein

 As Jeffrey H. Anderson says:

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization has done more to preserve the separation of powers, the rule of law, federalism, and the Constitution itself, than any decision in centuries......... 

When judges fulfill their proper role—applying the Constitution and laws as written, according to their plain and originally understood meanings—they play a crucial role in ensuring the perpetuation of republican government—of government of, by, and for the people. 

When they instead act like unelected, unchecked legislators—while disingenuously claiming that the Constitution makes them do it—they effectively replace republicanism with government by a robed minority of Ivy League elites.

Roe V Wade and Dred Scott were absolutely outrageous decisions that were efforts by the Supreme Court to impose their political views on the nation by ignoring the rule of law.  Slavery was a stain on our history that should have never happened, and abortion, the murder of sixty million of those innocent unborn babies is an even greater stain that will mar our history forever, irrespective of what the rest of the world does or thinks.  Unborn babies are not parasites nor are they the property of their mothers. 

The Constitution has been criticized as:

"a dusty old document that's old, out-dated, almost irrelevant piece of historical Americana that was written long ago for a way of life that no longer exists. Therefore, anyone who says they want our representatives in government to strictly adhere to what is written in the Constitution are often depicted as not being fully grounded in reality, but instead, want to live in an old fashioned fantasy world. The obvious implication is that there is something mentally wrong with such people".

In reality, those who shout this clabber are afraid of the Constitution because it shines a spot light on those who would impose tyranny on the nation, safeguarding the freedoms so many died for over the life of this nation, and a major effort should be made to teach what the Constitution actually says, along with the history behind the decisions made by the Founding Fathers and why.  

Fixing education in America needs to be "Job One", as its now become a

Whether of not to murder the innocent unborn is now left up to the states, and all the logical fallacies, double speak and misdirection from leftist misfits, especially those in Congress and the White House doesn't change that. 

Roe v Wade was decided by seven justices whose names will live on in infamy. 

 
William O. Douglas, shown here with his 23 year old fourth wife, he was 69, was at best odd, and most certainly a cad whose children refused to even talk to him, and he was intellectually corrupt. There were two attempts to impeach him, both failed, which given his actions and his opinions, they should have succeeded.  A clear and stunning justification for the reasoning of those Founding Fathers who didn't want to give life time appointments to the Supreme Court, the only federal court that's in the Constitution.  All others are creations of the Congress.
 
 

William J. Brennan Jr., unlike all these leftists, jurists, and members of Congress today Brennan wasn't a big fan of stare decisis, which is normal for a leftist depending on what they want preserved, but the reason why seems clear to me. It wasn't about integrity, what he wanted was to overturn decisions that didn't fit his leftist vision of the nation.  

Stare decisis is never acceptable to the left when they want to overturn the traditional values and understandings of the nation in order to promote their radical agendas.  The only time you hear leftist demand absolute adherence to is when one of their pet decisions is being questioned. He was a radical from the git go, and was the author of the Court's opinion in 1964's New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 
 

Potter Stewart was considered a centrist for most of his tenure, and as you read his opinions and positions you realize he had the same problem all these centrist jurists have.  They're clueless.  There have been two ideological camps in the Court for decades.  The leftist ideologues who want to overturn every traditional value there is, and those who believe the Constitution is what is says, and nothing more, and its not their job to legislate from the bench, referred to as Originalists.   

Then there are those centrists they jump around like ping pong balls, from one side to the other, but because of their unwillingness to have a solid ideological stand in favor of what the Constitution actually says, they become powerful as the swing vote.   

I saw him in an interview with Fred Friendly and he was adamant about one thing.  It was the Supreme Court who decides what the Constitution says, making it clear his view was the legislature was to take a back seat to 9 unelected non-representatives of the people, who often times displayed bad attitudes, twisted logic and huge egos.  

Another good reason to end lifetime appointments.  I recommend reading Mark Levin's book, Men in Black, How the Supreme Court is Destroying America

 

Thurgood Marshall was America's first black Supreme Court justice and had a very successful legal career, mostly involving racial issues and won the Brown v. Board of Education case, which was later twisted into all kinds of negative rationalizations including forced bussing.  

While he may have been a good attorney, he wasn't much of a jurist.  I remember reading at the end of his career he was pretty much out of it and mostly watched soap operas, letting his clerks do his work for him, and yet refused to retire. 

This unwillingness to retire, even when they're falling asleep on the bench, isn't an uncommon issue with these lifetime appointed justices.  I used to say the only time the nation was safe was when Congress was gridlocked and Ruth Bader Ginsburg was fast asleep on the bench.  Again, a good reason for term and age limits.

Harry Blackmun was at the time of his retirement the most liberal justice on the Court who spoke disparagingly of Clearance Thomas, while Thomas spoke well of him.  There was no left wing position we face to day he didn't favor, and I considered him one of the worst disgraces to ever sit on the Court in modern times.  In times past there were far worse but some of them were considered crazy, and they were.  Another good reason to limit their terms of office.

 

Lewis F. Powell Jr.  was for reasons I can't understand was considered a conservative justice, and at that time, he probably was, when you consider just how far left the rest were.  But he was by no means conservative in his positions and opinions.  Judge Bork, a true conservative, originalist, and nationally recognized as a real legal giant was nominated to replace him, but Joe Biden and Ten Kennedy attacked him viciously, and with the support of a corrupt media, that ended his nomination.  That's now called Borking, which we saw with Clearance Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. 

That brings us to the two justices who opposed Roe v Wade.

 

Byron White was another ping pong ball jurist, but he was clearly against Roe v Wade: 

"Along with Justice William Rehnquist, White dissented in Roe v. Wade (the dissenting decision was in the companion case, Doe v. Bolton), castigating the majority for holding that the U.S. Constitution "values the convenience, whim or caprice of the putative mother more than the life or potential life of the fetus." 

William Rehnquist was considered very conservative, and mostly he was, but I considered his reasoning on many subjects strange.  I also thought he was a bit odd, as I saw him interviewed a number of times.  He did however recognize these

Conclusion: As you read the history of these justice's positions it seems clear, at least to me, none of them had the clarity of vision that Clearance Thomas possesses.  None of them were truly conservative, nor did they truly believe the Constitution is what it says and nothing more. None of them truly believed it wasn't the Court's job to legislate from the bench, and in my opinion, all of whom were seriously flawed.   All of them represent justification for ending life time appointments for the federal judiciary.

The 25th Amendment and Kamala Harris

By Rich Kozlovich 

On June 21, 2022 Bob Unruh published a piece entitled,  Biden aides fear Kamala attacking via 25th Amendment: Dick Morris.  'The rumor I keep hearing from sources close to the White House is that Biden is getting worse' saying it's no secret that the Democrats seem sure to lose the House, and probably the Senate, and when that happens, the masks will come off and all these happy, happy, happy leftists will turn into very unhappy angry losers, reverting to the foundational moral foundation of leftists: Greed, envy, hate and violence, or at the very least the promotion of violence, blaming everyone but themselves.  Nasty finger pointers who will turn into the monsters they are and start devouring their own.  

That should be fun to watch.  Don't you think?

It's also no secret that Biden's staff is trying to blame Harris for as much as they can, if for no other reason than to prevent her invoking the 25th Amendment. 

 

It's also no secret there is a lot of tension between the President, Vice President and their staffs,  A lot of leaks and blames.  But two things are clear.  Biden is completely losing it, and needs to be replaced and Harris isn't qualified to tie someone's shoe laces, let alone lead the most important nation on Earth, which is the argument for not invoking the 25th, and  a lot of people laughingly said that's why they picked her as VP, to protect Biden.  

How's that working out folks?  Well, as an answer to that question, this piece by Victor Davis Hanson is worth reading, Why the Left Will Cut Biden Loose.

What's really laughable is White House reporters actually ask the Press Secretary if Biden is running in 2024.  Ya just gotta see the humor in that.  

Well, one of the things we don't see in these pieces is just how difficult it is to remove a President against his will with the 25th Amendment, as "Congress set a high bar to allow its use."

The Vice President has to declare the President is unfit, along with agreement from a majority of the Cabinet, or some body approved of by Congress, which then the Vice President immediately becomes the "acting President".  Why acting?  The President may disagree with their conclusion and declare he's capable of discharging the duties of President.  Then the deciding group has four days to disagree. If it does not, the President retakes his powers.  

However, if the deciding group stands by it's decision to remove him the Vice President continues as "acting" President and the final decision goes to the Congress, which requires a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress to agree he's unfit to serve.  Harris would then become the President of the United States and then she would pick who would be her Vice President with Congressional approval.   Hillary maybe?  Wow, now that's a chancy pick with all the people who've dropped dead around the Clintons.  Just a thought.  

At any rate, all that aside, the question is:  Will Democrats invoke the 25th?  I don't think they will because they're not going to have to.  If the Republicans take over it's thought by many they will impeach him, and the difference between the Clinton impeachment, the Trump impeachment, and a potential Biden impeachment is both Clinton and Biden are guilty of High Crimes and Misdemeanors.  Trump was not, and while they can declare, as one of the articles of of impeachment of the radical Republicans in 1868 was, "he talks to much", that 's not really a High Crime or a misdemeanor to rational people.  

However, it's pretty much Nancy Pelosi's view, they can impeach a President for whatever they please, since it's the House of Representatives that decides what constitutes High Crimes and Misdemeanors. 

Of course making sense, or being rational and having an actual legal standing for that decision is a separate issue, especially when lunatics are in charge of the asylum. 

Now, will the Republicans decide to impeach Biden?  I don't think they have a choice.  As bad as Harris would become as President, how much more radical, incompetent, stupid can she be than Biden?  He's surrounded himself with equally stupid, hate filled incompetent oikophobics as he, and since that's who Harris is, nothing much will change philosophically.

Like that word, oikophobic? Never saw it before in my life but I've seen it twice this week, and I think I might use it regularly.  It's Greek for "fear of one's home", and used in the context of hating your country, your people and all they stand for. Or as Benedict Beckeld calls it: 'Oikophobia': Our Western Self-Hatred.  Interesting piece, worth reading.  History is the paved pathway leading to the stepping stones to the future, but it only works when we read it, and understand it.  And Americans are failing in both.  Biden and his administration are here to destroy America, and is in collusion with leftist radicals and violent groups working toward that end. 

That's who and what the Biden administration is, and with Harris, nothing will change, except she'll end up being even more stupid, incompetent and vile with unending finger pointing and blame shifting than Biden, and have a massive turn over of staff, just as she has as Vice President. What could be better for 2024?

Let's face it, there have been a lot of serious violations of Constitutional and America law, especially involving immigration, all of which Biden and his administration are clearly guilty, and that simply can't be ignored.

Will they impeach him.  I think yes. Will the Republican leadership support that.  I think not.  Of course that depends on whether or not McCarthy and McConnell will be the leaders of there respective chambers.  I have to believe there's going to be a fight over that no matter what's being said now.   The Republican capitulation over this gun control bill, which couldn't have come into being without  McConnell's approval, and while McCarthy doesn't control the House, how much did he fight against this.  I do think this is going to stir up the issue of leadership.  

• Do Republicans Even Know What Democrats Did to Them With This Anti-Gun Bill?
• Senate Unveils Language of Gun Control Deal: Expands Background Checks, Expands Prohibited Purchasers
• John Cornyn Pledges to Sell Out America on Amnesty After Caving on Gun Control
•  The Senate compromise “gun safety” bill is here 
•  Senate Gun Bill – READ IN FULL

And now they're selling out over illegal immigration.  Both issues being excellent examples of the need for term limits for Congress.

Update: I wrote this early in the day yesterday.  By day's end this appeared: After Blowback, John Cornyn Claims He Was Joking About Immigration Deal: ‘No Secret Amnesty Bill’  He was joking about amnesty for illegal aliens?  Is he nuts?  But now he's seen the light!  It appears blowback is another word for epiphany. 

Allison Quinn posted this piece dealing with both McCarthy and Mitch McConnell who wanted that ‘Son of a B*tch’ Trump Out of Polities quoting:

“What he did is unacceptable. Nobody can defend that and nobody should defend it,” McCarthy reportedly told Republican associates on Jan. 10.....Republican leaders wanted to see then-President Trump impeached after the deadly Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol, and spoke openly behind the scenes about their hopes for him to be ousted from politics, according to a new report.

“I’ve had it with this guy,” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) is said to have told associates in the immediate aftermath of the insurrection.  That’s according to a new book, This Will Not Pass: Trump, Biden and the Battle for America’s Future, which The New York Times detailed in a report out Thursday.  Before they voted to acquit him of impeachment, McCarthy and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell reportedly blamed Trump explicitly for the violence at the Capitol..........Trump’s behavior on the day of the riot “atrocious and totally wrong” and accused him of “inciting people” to storm the Capitol, according to claims in the new book. Two days later, he went even further and vowed to urge Trump to resign, the book claims.

Trump despises McConnell, right along with all real conservatives, and most of the Republican base, and for good reason, and clearly opposes him as Republican Senate leader.  But, McCarthy had an epiphany. It turns out he saw the polls and realized Trump isn't guilty of anything after all, and he's no longer "had it with that guy".  Amazing what an epiphany can do. So, once he saw the light he went and grovelled for forgiveness before Trump in order to get Trump's endorsement for re-election.  

 

After McCarthy's epiphany Trump forgave him and blessed him and anointed him with his endorsement for re-election. Really, he did!  And he even says he likes him?  Really, that's what he said.  

 

Well, I've watched how Trump deals with things, and if I didn't know better I'd swear Trump was Serbian.  He's not going to let this go, no matter what he's saying publicly. He might be willing to "forgive" his past cravenness, but he won't forget. I'm betting Trump believes once someone stabs you in the back, they will do it again.  He endorsed him for re-election, but he never said he endorsed him as Speaker of the House. 

 

But, as the reporter in Charlie Wilson's war said at the end:  We'll see! 

People Will Always be People: Why is That So Hard to Get?

By Rich Kozlovich

On August 30, 2022 Craig Bannister posted this piece, Actor James Woods Slams CDC Speech Police: ‘You Nitwits Don’t Have Better Things to Do in the Middle of a Pandemic??!!’.  So what prompted this outburst?

The CDC asked Americans “Are you using #inclusive language” and directed them to a CDC.gov webpage titled, “Preferred Terms for Select Population Groups & Communities.”

All in the middle of the crisis they created.  It’s not surprising he called them nitwits.  Think about these silly little issues facing the nation:

• When you defund the police, crime rises.
• When you spend like crazy, inflation soars.
• When you pay people not to work, unemployment goes up.
• When you open the border, illegal immigration increases.
• When you rely on the Taliban, Afghanistan falls.

And the CDC is worried about the sensitivity of snowflakes?  Some of words the CDC wants shunned, and their CDC-approved substitutes, include:

• Replace “inmate” with “People/Persons who are incarcerated or detained,”
• Replace “Convict/Ex-Convict” with “People who were formerly incarcerated,”
• Replace “Drug-Users” with “Persons who use drugs/people who inject drugs,”
• Replace “Alcoholics” with “Persons with Alcohol use disorder,”
• Replace “Homeless people/The Homeless” with ‘Persons experiencing unstable housing/housing insecurity/persons who are not securely housed,”
• Replace “The poor/Poor people” with “People who self-reported income in the lowest income bracket (if income brackets are defined),”
• Replace “High-risk population” with “People who live/work in setting that put them at increased/higher risk of becoming infected or exposed to hazards,”
• Replace gendered pronouns (He or She) with “they or their”

And now these "nitwits" are asking the justice department to appeal the ruling from a federal judge the masking requirement by the CDC is beyond their constitutional authority. It's time to purge these agencies and eliminate a lot of them. It's either the Constitution is the law that governs the law, or it's the Fourth Branch of government not listed in the Constitution. The bureaucracy.

The Sacketts: You Cannot Have This EPA and a Constitution

By Rich Kozlovich

I've been watching this for some time and I lost sight of it in the last couple of years as I thought it was resovled a few years ago.  Wrong!  I'm now shocked the Trump administration didn't fix this, but the fact is Trump came into office without a trusted group of followers, including the Republicans, who actually worked to undermine him in support of the Deep State.  He even left former Obama people in their jobs, and I think some for his whole administration. I have to believe that will change after 2024.   At any rate, here's the story going back ten years, much of what's appearing here is from Wikipedia at the end lending more background.  

On March 9, 2012 I posted this:  

In past weeks I posted a link to a video that was uplifting. This week is going to be different. This will outrage you! Sackett v. EPA Still Awaiting SCOTUS Decision

 

 

In January 2012, the Supreme Court heard the arguments for Sackett v. EPA, the case of an Idaho couple being persecuted for trying to build a home on a small plot of property the Environmental Protection Agency deemed "protected wetlands." The case is still under review and the Sacketts are waiting for a decision, but Reason followed up with a great video breaking down the entire enviro-busybody boondoggle.

It's an ugly story of Deep State corruption, petty bureaucrats and why we need to abolish the EPA. 

You Cannot Have This EPA and a Constitution  By Terence P. Jeffrey | January 16, 2012 - ESTMark Levin says America cannot at the same time have a Constitution and an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that is doing what the EPA is doing today. Levin made the observation in an interview with CNSNews.com about his new book, “Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America.”  Modern American liberals, who are Utopias, Levin said, aim to erode the separation of powers built into the U.S. Constitution so that a “relative handful of masterminds” can tell everybody else what to do. “This erosion has been going on for about a hundred years,.......It’s at a much faster pace right now and there’s a reason for this--because you can’t have constitutionalism and utopianism"............The Supreme Court last week heard arguments in the case of Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency. The case was brought by an Idaho couple, Mike and Chantell Sackett, who were told by the EPA that they could not build a home on their own lot because the EPA said it might be a wetland—and that they could face a fine of $37,000 per day for defying the EPA’s order...........SOURCE

Sackett versus the EPA: There is more! -  Today the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, a case brought by an Idaho couple represented by our friends at the Pacific Legal Foundation. It is a great victory for landowners facing the wrath of the EPA.Wyoming Liberty Group's Steve Klein's article was a refreshing change from the dozen or so articles I read or skimmed in the liberty-media and elsewhere in the days after the SCOTUS decision was announced. I even posted a comment – in general praising Steve's work – though it has not (as of Saturday the 24th at 1800 hours MT) been screened and posted. Perhaps they thought that I was being too critical of Steve's article. To read more..... This ruling handles the surface issue but this goes far deeper than the surface issue. RK

A Victory over the Ideological and Tyrannical Thugs at the EPA - March 22, 2012 by Dan Mitchell - For another example, let’s look at a case involving the thugs at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This Reason TV video provides the background......

Sackett versus the EPA: There is more - Today the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, a case brought by an Idaho couple represented by our friends at the Pacific Legal Foundation. It is a great victory for landowners facing the wrath of the EPA. Wyoming Liberty Group's Steve Klein's article was a refreshing change from the dozen or so articles I read or skimmed in the liberty-media and elsewhere in the days after the SCOTUS decision was announced. I even posted a comment – in general praising Steve's work – though it has not (as of Saturday the 24th at 1800 hours MT) been screened and posted. Perhaps they thought that I was being too critical of Steve's article. To read more.....

 KNIGHT: Taming the EPA monster - By Robert Knight - - Friday, March 23, 2012 - Supreme Court ruling strikes a blow in ongoing battle. Slowly, inexorably, the monster is being driven back to its lair. Its days of terrorizing villagers may soon be over. I wish I were talking about the federal government, but it’s the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), better known as the Environmental Protection-or-else Agency. At one time, it was a harmless little back-alley operation that stumbled upon a secret growth formula, downed the whole vat and began wreaking havoc. You won’t find this account on the EPA’s official website, but you will find ample evidence of the monster’s ambitions to control the world, such as its quest for “environmental justice.” On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court slapped the monster right across the chops in Sackett v. EPA. An Idaho couple, Chantell and Mike Sackett, were building a home but fell victim to an EPA compliance order in 2005. Their building permit was revoked.......To Read More...

 Years after Supreme Court win, Sacketts lose fight with EPA -  Ariel Wittenberg, E&E News reporter Greenwire: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 - After winning the right to challenge EPA enforcement orders in a major 2011 Supreme Court ruling, Michael and Chantell Sackett have lost their case. A U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho judge ruled that the wetlands the couple are accused of illegally filling were indeed protected by the Clean Water Act. "The Court finds the EPA's determination was not arbitrary or capricious and is supported by the record," Reagan appointee Judge Edward Lodge wrote in a ruling on summary judgment last week. Tony Francois, an attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation representing the Sacketts, indicated his clients would appeal the case. "The Sacketts are disappointed in the ruling, but relieved that this phase of the case, involving a more than three-year wait for a decision from the court, is finally complete," Francois said in a statement. "We think there are several legal errors in the district court's decision, and will be filing an appeal." At issue was an administrative compliance order issued in 2007 against the Priest Lake, Idaho, couple for filling in wetlands on their land without a permit. ........To Read More.....

 Certiorari was granted in the case on January 24, 2022.  Owners of land taken over by feds getting day in court Supremes to review EPA decision it controls residential parcel in Idaho - "With this case, the Supreme Court confronts important issues for property rights and due process. When the government seizes control of your land, and you disagree with the justification, shouldn't you be allowed your day in court? Just as important, should EPA be a law unto itself, without meaningful accountability to the courts and the Constitution?"……..And it's not just the Sacketts' land that could be subject to such orders. The foundation arguments suggest that private property across the nation could be at risk. The legal team noted that between 1980 and 2001, the EPA issued up to 3,000 compliance orders every year across the nation. "The reality of the Sacketts' situation is that they have been unambiguously commanded by their government not to complete their home-building project, to take expensive measures to undo the improvements that they have made to their land, and to maintain their land essentially as a public park until the property is 'restored' to the satisfaction of the EPA. They have been threatened with frightening penalties if they do not immediately obey; but they have been refused the prompt hearing they should have received as a matter of right in any court," Pacific Legal argued. ..............

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Sep 22 2021	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 25, 2021)
Sep 28 2021	Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Michael Sackett, et al.
Oct 15 2021	Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 25, 2021 to November 24, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
Oct 18 2021	Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 24, 2021.
Oct 20 2021	Brief amicus curiae of Southeastern Legal Foundation filed.
Oct 25 2021	Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed.
Oct 25 2021	Brief amici curiae of State of West Virginia, et al. filed.
Oct 25 2021	Brief amicus curiae of New England Legal Foundation filed.
Oct 25 2021	Brief amici curiae of the Cato Institute, et al. filed.
Oct 25 2021	Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Home Builders filed.
Nov 24 2021	Brief of respondents U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. in opposition filed.
Nov 29 2021	Waiver of the 14-day waiting period under Rule 15.5 filed.
Nov 30 2021	Reply of petitioners Michael Sackett, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Dec 01 2021	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/7/2022.
Jan 10 2022	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/14/2022.
Jan 18 2022	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/21/2022.
Jan 24 2022	Petition GRANTED limited to the following question: Whether the Ninth Circuit set forth the proper test for determining whether wetlands are "waters of the United States" under the Clean Water Act, 33 U. S. C. §1362(7).
Jan 28 2022	Joint motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.
Feb 04 2022	Joint motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including April 11, 2022. The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including June 10, 2022.
Feb 10 2022	Blanket Consent filed by Respondents, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency may refer to either of two United States Supreme Court cases:

• Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (2012) (alternatively called Sackett I), 570 U.S. 205 (2013), a case in which the Court ruled that orders issued by the EPA under the Clean Water Act are subject to the Administrative Procedure Act. 
• Chantell Sackett, et vir v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.Docket no.10-1062Citations566 U.S. 120 (more) 132 S. Ct. 1367; 182 L. Ed. 2d 367; 2012 U.S. LEXIS 2320 ArgumentOral argumentCase historyPriorCase dismissed, 2008 WL 3286801 (D. Idaho Aug. 7, 2008); affirmed, 622 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2010); cert. granted, 564 U.S. 1052 (2011).SubsequentRemanded to District court, 677 F.3d 1000 (9th. Cir. 2012)HoldingOrders under the Clean Water Act are subject to the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires an appeals process for any ruling by a federal agency.
•  Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 566 U.S. 120 (2012), also known as Sackett I (to distinguish it from the 2023 case), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that orders issued by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Water Act are subject to the Administrative Procedure Act.^[1] The Court ruled that because the Environmental Protection Agency's orders constitute "final agency action" under the Administrative Procedure Act, federal courts may hear appeals from its orders.

Background

The plaintiffs, Mike and Chantell Sackett, purchased, approximately, a two-thirds acre parcel of land (0.62) near Priest Lake, Idaho, on which they planned to build a house. Shortly after they began clearing the lot, the Sacketts received a Compliance Order from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, asserting that the property was subject to the Clean Water Act, and that the Sacketts had illegally placed fill material into jurisdictional wetlands on their property. After trying unsuccessfully to obtain a hearing from the EPA, the Sacketts filed suit demanding an opportunity to contest the jurisdictional basis of the Compliance Order.^[2] Both the District Court^[3] and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals^[4] ruled in favor of the government, holding that the validity of the Compliance Order could be challenged only if and when EPA brings an enforcement action seeking to impose civil and criminal penalties against the Sacketts. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, limited to the following questions: "1. May petitioners seek pre-enforcement judicial review of the administrative compliance order pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. §704? 2. If not, does petitioners' inability to seek preenforcement judicial review of the administrative compliance order violate their rights under the Due Process clause?"^[5]

The Sacketts, technically consulted by wetland experts Ray and Susan Kagel of Kagel Environmental, LLC,^[6] and represented by Damien M. Schiff of the Pacific Legal Foundation, filed their opening brief on September 23, 2011.^[7] Amicus briefs in support of the petitioners were filed by the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and the National Association of Homebuilders. The opposition brief of the Solicitor General of the United States was filed on November 23, 2011.^[7] 

Opinion of the Court

In a unanimous opinion by Justice Scalia issued on March 21, 2012, the Court held that EPA's compliance orders may be challenged in a civil action brought under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The compliance orders are "final agency action" for purposes of the APA, and the Clean Water Act does not preclude judicial review under the APA.

Justices Ginsburg and Alito each filed concurring opinions. Justice Ginsburg stated in her concurrence that the ruling only permitted the Sacketts to challenge EPA's assertion of jurisdiction over their property; the Court did not resolve whether the terms and conditions of the Compliance Order itself were subject to immediate judicial review. Justice Alito recommended that Congress act to clarify issues regarding the reach of the Clean Water Act.

On May 3, 2012, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded the Sacketts' challenge to the compliance order to the district court, consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion.

Decision after Remand

The United States District Court for the District of Idaho ruled against the Sacketts, finding that the area in question was a wetland and had been filled without necessary permits.^[8]

• Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (2023) (alternatively called Sackett II), case 21-454, a case in which the Court redefined the scope of the EPA's authority to regulate the waters of the United States.  
• Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (2023) Full case name - Michael Sackett, et ux. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.Docket no.21-454ArgumentOral argumentQuestions presentedWhether the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit set forth the proper test for determining whether wetlands are "waters of the United States" under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7).Laws appliedClean Water Act 
• Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (Docket 21–454), also known as Sackett II (to distinguish it from the 2012 case), is a pending United States Supreme Court case related to the scope of the Clean Water Act.

Background

Chantell and Michael Sackett purchased a 0.63-acre vacant lot near Priest Lake, Idaho, in 2004. They began construction of their home in the spring of 2007, after attaining building permits from local authorities. Shortly after, officials from the United States Environmental Protection Agency informed the Sacketts that their lot might be subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act, as it contained "wetlands" that were "navigable waters". The EPA directed the Sacketts to halt construction until they received a permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The Sacketts received an administrative compliance order from the EPA in the fall of 2007. In 2008, they sued under the Administrative Procedure Act. The lower courts held EPA compliance orders were not subject to the APA, but the Supreme Court reversed in a 2012 decision of the same name.

In the 2006 Rapanos v. United States decision, the Supreme Court decided the scope of the Clean Water Act in a 4–1–4 opinion. Justice Anthony Kennedy's solo concurrence offered a more sweeping interpretation of the Act's jurisdiction over navigable waters; Justice Antonin Scalia's plurality offered the narrowest interpretation. The Sacketts argued to the United States District Court for the District of Idaho on remand from the Supreme Court that their land was not subject to the CWA. In 2019, the district court applied Justice Kennedy's test and held the lot was regulated by the CWA. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in August 2021, and rejected an attempt by the EPA to moot the litigation by withdrawing the compliance order.  The Sacketts filed a petition for a writ of certiorari.^[1]