In Politics, There Are No Coincidences

By Rich Kozlovich

I think anyone who's ever watched one of the many crime shows that have appeared on TV have heard the hero say:  I don't believe in coincidences.  Well, we know in the real world that's not true so why do they say it?  Because more often than not in a criminal investigation it is true.  And that's because the  parameters are much more narrow than life over all.  There are fewer characters or circumstances involved, ergo, the potential for coincidental occurrences is less, and in the professional lives of those who deal with criminal activity find over and over again, there are no coincidences.  

Well, that also true in politics, especially geopolitics.  In a world with over seven billion people we find there are actually very few real power brokers, and they talk, they plan, they scheme, they organize, and they implement their schemes in order to impact humanity, and when it's done at that level, it's overwhelming good for a small, wealthy and powerful elite, but not for the overall good of humanity.  

As Charles Martel notes the in Canada Free Press:

All and everything is a continual storm of Chaotic Chaos, thundering down from every direction drowning and smothering us in a toxic sludge from which there is no escape. From Law and Order, to Economic Strength and Individual Freedom, all of it, everything we’ve known, expected, took for granted and assumed was an inherited right is daily eroded. What was once a nation resembles nothing so much as a pot of rancid garbage shoved down a cannon barrel and fired into a brick wall.  Hope is hard to see, let alone to come by...

As I've watched this attack on SCOTUS playing out I've kept a file on all this because I knew there was a much bigger story to be told than just the attack on Clarence Thomas.  But let's start with the left's outrageous attack on Justice Thomas, who I think has been the finest sitting SCOTUS jurist in my lifetime, and I'm 78.

As a side bar, for years everyone kept declaring the Thomas was Justice Scalia's follower.  Don't believe it.  I read his book, My Grandfather's Son, and then I followed his actions on the court over the years and if anyone was following anyone.  Scalia was following Thomas. 

• The Great Left-Wing Disinformation Operation Against the Supreme Court
•  Democrats Are Trying to Defund SCOTUS Security, and Josh Hawley Can't Believe It
  
• Corrupt influence: The Biden family vs. Clarence Thomas May 14, 2023 The Bidens' claim is like a Supreme Court justice soliciting money from people with a case before the Court and then claiming that there is no problem unless you can show the money changed the justice's vote.
• The Media Assault on Clarence Thomas 
• Hawley Has an Idea to 'Make Clear' to Garland 'He Needs to Do His Job and Enforce the Law' on SCOTUS Rebecca Downs
•  In defense of Justice Thomas Mark Paoletta, a self-described friend of Justice Thomas, has posted the statement immediately below in response to the latest ProPublica hit piece on the justice headlined “Clarence Thomas Had a Child in Private School. Harlan Crow Paid the Tuition.” The subhead of ProPublica’s story features a quote from Richard Painter, the University of Minnesota clown whom I have written about many times before. Paoletta’s statement is accessible via Twitter......
• Who is Planting All the Bogus Hatchet Jobs on Conservative SCOTUS Justices?
• It Turns Out Liberal Justices Are Caught Up in Their Own Ethics Concerns - Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media have been absolutely apoplectic over what they are ethics concerns involving financial disclosures with conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. While these attacks are nothing new, especially when it comes to the crusade against Justice Clarence Thomas, it's noticeably ratcheted up to become nearly a daily obsession. And it's also worth mentioning that Justice Sonia Sotomayor is herself making news......
• Why isn't it racism when the media and other Democrats seek to destroy conservatives who happen to be people of color? 
• Democrats Seek to Remove the only Black Male from the Supreme Court

Thomas is a justice to be feared by the left, and done so in the most hateful and rabid manner.  Why? Well, he actually can tell the difference between a man and a woman, believes the Constitution is what is says and not what some jurist thinks it should say, and the government works for the people not the other way around.   That sort of unwokeness just cannot be tolerated. Especially from a black man in a powerful position who just won't live on the Democrat plantation. 

 "The bitter truth is that the ‘Long March’ worked! It took time, but now we face this massive challenge of how to root it out of our federal, state, and local governments, along with our military, universities, media, school boards, etc.................Destroy the middle class, render impotent parental rights, isolate the church as a spewer of hate and intolerance, render ineffective the rule of law, demean the history and the Constitution of these United States. In concert with global elites, the media elite, and the toxic leftist bilge that is constantly oozing from their seats of power, they are doing just that."

But when you sow the wind, you can reap the whirlwind.

• AOC Is Proof That Our Higher Education Is in Total Disarray
• AOC, Under Ethics Investigation, Demands Justice Thomas Resign
  

It Turns Out Liberal Justices Are Caught Up in Their Own Ethics Concerns - Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media have been absolutely apoplectic over what they are ethics concerns involving financial disclosures with conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. While these attacks are nothing new, especially when it comes to the crusade against Justice Clarence Thomas, it's noticeably ratcheted up to become nearly a daily obsession. And it's also worth mentioning that Justice Sonia Sotomayor is herself making news......

• Supremes release unanimous 9-0 letter slamming fake Clarence Thomas 'ethics' scandal
• Is SCOTUS About to Annihilate the Administrative State? 
• Democrats Are Trying to Defund SCOTUS Security, and Josh Hawley Can't Believe It

Is it any wonder they're so aggressively attacking the Supreme Court for overturning all the vile, and totally unconstitutional SCOTUS decisions, such as Roe v. Wade, the Chevron Doctrine, WOTUS,and establishing vital Constitutional values such as Presidential Immunity, which the left is against that, at least since it applies to a Republican.  

If a Democrat is involved, then watch the worm turn because a Democrat President must be above prosecution.  Consistency, honesty, integrity, and character is a real problem for the left, but it's the Republicans who are weird!  Imagine that!

We have to recognize when the left is being scandalize for their corruption and incompetence, the media will come to their rescue and create a "scandal" for their opponents, no matter how inconsequential or even false it may be in order to refocus the public's attention, since the public's attention span is stunningly short. 

We need to always remember when it comes to the media, nothing is ever as it appears, there are no coincidences, and everything must be questioned, no matter what it involves. 

Will Sotomayor Revelations Derail the Anti-Thomas Narrative?

Liars are lauded, but hypocrites face the public's wrath.

 

By: Scott D. Cosenza, Esq. July 17, 2023 @ Liberty Nation News

 

Politicians lie so frequently that the practice is seldom newsworthy. Even staggering, in-your-face lies of epic consequence, such as “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,” rarely result in dire consequences for the individual making the bogus claims. Hypocrisy is a bit different and – in sufficient doses – can prove fatal to candidates, campaigns, and ideas. The recent revelations regarding US Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s book sales are a heaping helping and could end the progressives’ war on Clarence Thomas.

“I literally prepped the boxes and had my aides count the books before signing. I even have a spreadsheet noting how many books were signed each day.” That is Court employee and Sotomayor’s taxpayer-funded assistant Anh Le, speaking of her and her colleagues’ work schedule. There was no reporting on whether workers comp claims shot up after their pressed service as an ad-hoc book warehouse team. Imagine the headlines if Justice Thomas had a court employee mow his lawn or wash his car. Most independent bookstores carry an average of 7,000 books in inventory. Supreme Court employees moved over 11,000 books for Sotomayor and her publisher.

The ever-expanding campaign against Clarence Thomas being played out in the pages of the Fourth Estate could be rendered counter-productive unless the media is willing to sacrifice Sotomayor on a similar ethical altar.

Good for the Goose?

David Rand is a psychology professor at Yale who researched hypocrisy. “[W]e found that people viewed hypocrites as dishonest — more dishonest, in fact, than people who uttered outright falsehoods.” And “Remarkably, hypocrites were rated as less trustworthy, less likable and less morally upright than those who openly lied.” That’s a powerful force. The greater the gulf between professed virtue and revealed sin determines the degree of hypocrisy.

We learn from the AP report that Sotomayor benefits directly from book sales, and handsomely so. She came to the Court an unpublished author but received, within a year, a $3.1 million advance for her first effort. That was a memoir. Now she writes children’s books and has earned royalties for sales of at least $400,000 since 2019.

Should Sotomayor face the same level of scrutiny as Thomas? And would such scrutiny highlight the partisan hypocrisy of a media so determined to go to bat for the political left? As Noam Chomsky once noted, “For the powerful, crimes are those that others commit.”

A Surprising Take

Thomas has served on the Court for almost 32 years, over twice as long as his sister Justice. He has spoken glowingly about the collegiality of the Court since joining. In 2022 Justice Sotomayor referenced her relationship with Thomas directly. She believed the two were probably the Justices who disagreed the most in court opinions but that they “share a common understanding about people and kindness towards them.” She said:

Justice Thomas is the one Justice in the building that literally knows every employee’s name, and not only does he know their names, he remembers their family’s names and histories.

He is the first one who will go up to someone when you’re walking with him and say, ‘Is your son okay? How’s your daughter doing in college?’ He’s the first one that, when my stepfather died, sent me flowers in Florida. He is a man who cares deeply about the Court as an institution and about people.

Justice Sotomayor offered the anecdote with kind regard, which is no small matter. De-humanizing Thomas is right out of the progressive handbook. Literally. Saul Alinsky, a birthing person for the progressive movement and Hillary Clinton’s hero, wrote the widely cited Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” For Sotomayor to put Thomas’ humanity on record is no small matter.

The Risk of Hypocrisy

Is all that enough to stop the war on Thomas? When Republicans started attacking President Biden as a hypocrite, the New York Times recognized the danger and published a hit piece against the notion. An editorial board member wrote, “[H]ypocrisy provides a neat, clean, easy to grasp, nonpartisan rubric by which to pass judgment on public officials.” And, “[w]ith hypocrisy, you don’t need to get into the policy weeds or take a stand that could be considered ideologically slanted.”

Expect progressive shot-callers who spend millions on attacks to look for a better return on investment. The big box media may well be shamed into moderating its takes on future anti-Thomas revelations or risk derailing one of the most left-leaning darlings of the Supreme Court and its own already-sullied reputation in the process. Fewer news outlets will be interested in running a story on rumors Virginia and Clarence Thomas did not license their Labrador retrievers in the mid-’90s. And all the people said, “Amen!”

Read More From Scott D. Cosenza, Esq.

All opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Liberty Nation.

The Dirty Money Behind the Lynching of Clarence Thomas

By Daniel Greenfield May 24, 2023 Supreme Court @ Sultan Knish Blog

The country is witnessing the second high-profile lynching effort of Justice Clarence Thomas. Even while the media ignores the millions from foreign nationals passing through shell companies to the Biden family, it has pushed invented scandals for Thomas while demanding his resignation to make way for a radical leftist Biden court appointee.

While no one expects anything but lies and smears from the media, few are aware of how the smear campaign against Justice Thomas was organized and who is funding it.

Before it was splashed all over the media, the Clarence Thomas smears were mostly generated by ProPublica with articles such as “Clarence Thomas’ Secret Life of Luxury” then rebroadcast by the media in stories such as “ProPublica: GOP megadonor paid private school tuition for grandnephew of Justice Clarence Thomas” which keep the smear campaign going.

While the media is deeply interested in who paid for Thomas’ grandnephew’s education, it’s uninterested in where the money that funds ProPublica’s smear campaign is coming from.

ProPublica has amplified the coverage of Harlan Crow, a conservative donor who is friendly with Thomas, but is less interested in discussing some of the men who back its operations. Its leftist smear campaigns are funded by the man who helped bring down the economy with his abusive tactics, a former Enron executive and FTX crypto-fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried.

The money that brought down banks is now trying to bring down a Supreme Court Justice.

ProPublica is a leftist nonprofit set up as an “ethical watchdog” by Herbert Sandler, listed by Time Magazine, as one of the 25 people to blame for the financial crisis of 2008, and more bluntly by Saturday Night Live as, ““people who should be shot”. (In a sign of the power and influence of the Sandlers, the SNL skit was quickly censored and cannot be found on NBC.)

Flush with billions from selling off their Golden West mortgage company, which had used “misleading” ads to prey on minority borrowers, to Wachovia Bank, tanking it and helping cause the financial crisis, Herbert invested his money in social justice.

And that made him “the man who made ProPublica possible.”

ProPublica had gotten its initial funding with the money harvested by Sandler from taking down Wachovia, and, more recently, it was promised $10 million by Sam-Bankman Fried whose collapse of FTX helped bring down Silicon Valley Bank and cause the worst wave of bank failures since the Wachovia collapse. When bad men bring down banks with their financial abuses, they write a check to ProPublica while their victims lose everything.

ProPublica, which claims that its mission is to “expose abuses of power and betrayals of the public trust”, makes no mention of any of this in its profile of Sandler: its beloved founder and chairman whose corrupt greed destroyed the financial security of millions of Americans.

Instead, ProPublica claims that Golden West, which took down the economy, “was considered to be one of the best managed financial institutions in the country” and “most admired savings institution”. This is exactly the kind of “fearless journalism” that has embedded ProPublica’s privately-funded smear campaigns against Republicans in media outlets across America.

ProPublica’s shameless lies are understandable as Sandler chaired the leftist smear group until his demise and Steve Daetz, the deputy general counsel at Golden West, and president of the Sandler Foundation, serves as one of ProPublica’s directors, and the Sandler Foundation continues to fund ProPublica’s smear campaigns of Republicans.

In addition to ProPublica’s origins in the money that helped take down the economy, its leading supporters include John D. Arnold, a former Enron executive who became the youngest billionaire in the country, and the leftist smear group was recently forced to give up $1.6 million from FTX crypto-fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried that was originally part of a $10 million grant.

When taking Bankman-Fried’s millions, ProPublica President Robin Sparkman claimed that the money would be used to “hold power accountable”. The exposure of FTX did not come from ProPublica’s vaunted “investigative journalism that holds power accountable” and the leftist group dragged its feet on giving up its latest pile of dirty money until late December 2022.

No word from ProPublica on whether FTX was also “one of the best managed financial institutions in the country”. Or was $10 million not enough to buy such shameless lies?

ProPublica’s list of its “leading” supporters is uniquely tilted to wealthy men in the financial industry who may be in a position to profit from a shift in the Supreme Court. The list of backers for ProPublica’s public smear campaigns includes hedge fund, private equity and venture capital figures. And those who are closely associated with them and their financial interests.

In a word, Wall Street and the Bay Area. Unlike Sandler and Bankman-Fried, there’s no scandal or investigation attached to the majority of such funding sources, but they do raise questions.

While ProPublica draws on money from the usual lefty foundations including Carnegie, W.K. Kellogg F, John S. and James L. Knight, James M. and Cathleen D. Stone Foundation, and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation whose money can usually be found around nearly every leftist cause, it also draws on a large number of financial industry donors including S Donald Sussman, a hedge fund executive and party megadonor, Tom Unterman, a venture capital firm founder, Mark Colodny, a managing director at Warburg Pincus, a private equity firm, Bruce Golden, a venture capital firm founder, and Mitchell Lasky, a general partner at a venture capital firm.

Ronald Olson, famous as Warren Buffett and Mark Zuckerberg’s lawyer, as well as the lawyer handling Bill Gates’ divorce battle, is a ProPublica director and a major financial supporter. Olson is also a director at Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway and a partner at Munger, Tolles & Olson. The ‘Munger’ is Charlie Munger: Buffett’s partner. Olson is also a Biden donor and sat on the board of Bill Clinton’s defense fund for his Whitewater and Paula Jones scandals.

What impact would removing Justice Clarence Thomas from the Supreme Court have on the finances of Berkshire Hathaway and the potential cases of a ‘super-lawyer’ who is rated as being able to argue cases before the Supreme Court? Olson testified at Justice Clarence Thomas’ Senate hearings and, as the LA Times put it, “chaired the American Bar Assn. committee that rated Clarence Thomas barely qualified for the U. S. Supreme Court.”

Another financial mastermind backing ProPublica is Sir Michael Jonathan Moritz, a Sequoia Capital partner, and major Democrat donor who has also funded dirty operations like Pacronym, American Bridge and the Lincoln Project.

The ProPublica money that raises the most questions comes from an unlikely source: the Hollywood Foreign Press Association.

Best known for its Golden Globe awards, the HFPA is a collection of foreign reporters that cover Hollywood. The Golden Globe awards are used to fund the Hollywood Foreign Press Association’s Charitable Trust which is supposed to be a charity funding “entertainment-related charities”. It’s not clear how smearing the only black man on the Supreme Court qualifies as an “entertainment-related” charitable cause.

I ended up playing a small role in the leftist hijacking of the HFPA when a former president sent out one of my Front Page Magazine articles which discussed the connections between Hollywood and BLM, only to be promptly purged and denounced by the organization..

The ugly act of political censorship, widely covered in headlines such as “Former HFPA President Calls BLM a ‘Racist Hate Movement'” and “Former HFPA president blasted over Black Lives Matter” played into a pressure campaign by leftist groups to which the HFPA surrendered. Its funding of ProPublica, a leftist attack dog group which has nothing to do with scholarships for filmmakers or protecting the culture of film, its stated goals, may have been one of the payoffs.

But the funding from HFPA raises its own legal and ethical questions.

The HFPA’s members are not necessarily American citizens and cannot fund political campaigns. While ProPublica is a 501(c)(3) which currently can be funded by foreign donors, at least until necessary reforms prevent the infusion of foreign money into American politics are put into place, its campaigns are obviously directed at achieving Democrat political goals.

While there is currently nothing technically illegal about foreign donors funding a campaign to force a Supreme Court justice off the bench, the problems with such a move are obvious.

Despite claiming to follow ethical standards and even to impose them on others, ProPublica has failed to distinguish which of its political activities are financed by American or foreign donors.

Could foreign money be financing its lynching of Justice Clarence Thomas?

We certainly know that dirty money, the cash that brought down two waves of banks, that destroyed the livelihoods and incomes of millions of Americans, is now trying to bring down a Supreme Court justice.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation. Thank you for reading.

Liberal SCOTUS Justice Caught in Scandal That Blows up Recent Left-Wing Attacks

By Bonchie May 03, 2023

There’s one certainty in politics. If a Democrat is accusing a Republican of doing something, it is the Democrat who is inevitably actually doing it. That dynamic played out again Wednesday after a major revelation about Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor called into question all the recent left-wing attacks on Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. For the last few weeks, a coordinated assault on the court’s conservatives has taken place, with numerous press outlets releasing reports supposedly detailing corruption. 

In reality, essentially everything charged amounted to nothing legally or ethically. In the case of Thomas, he was not required to report the free travel he received from long-time friend Harlan Crow. A secondary charge that Thomas misreported income also turned out to be nothing more than a simple technical mistake involving two entities with nearly identical names.

As for Neil Gorsuch, he was accused of selling land to the executive of a law firm that had business before the Supreme Court. Once again reality got in the way of the far-left hysteria, though, after it was revealed that Gorsuch sold the property just nine days after being confirmed and that the person he sold it to had no business at all before the court at the time.

You get the idea. These attacks have been absolutely ridiculous, but that didn’t stop Senate Democrats from calling a hearing to furiously wag their fingers. Well, they are going to have to call another hearing because it’s been revealed that Sotomayor took $3.6 million from a book company that did have business before the court at the time (The Daily Wire). Liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor declined to recuse herself from multiple copyright infringement cases involving book publisher Penguin Random House despite having been paid millions by the firm for her books, making it by far her largest source of income, records show.........To Read More........

Daniel Greenfield Unleashed

By Rich Kozlovich

As you go through these pieces you can't help but see the irony of what's being said, what's taking place and the abject hypocrisy of these leftist racists, Muslim fanatics, media corruption and Democrat insanity.   It appears rioting, burning down a city and demanding cops who kill criminals be put in jail is fine, but thugs, who just happen to be black (imagine that) who kill a small child have to be given the benefit of the doubt.  And the media is silent.  Perhaps we should try and remember a 13 month old child named Antonio Santiago.  

I've always found it interesting how Asians typically vote for Democrats, and wonder what's wrong with their minds.  I'm now wondering if watching how Democrats are destroying any semblance to stability is a game changer for them? 

Muslim cohesion is a delusion. Islam is a political criminal movement masquerading as a religion.  Islam is a Medieval tribal society with sects that hate each other as much as they hate everyone else.  That's a foundation value of Islam, right along with greed, lust, envy and violence.  And the media is silent.  

The article that should strike home is this attack on who I consider the finest jurist to sit on the Supreme Court in my 77 years, Clearance Thomas.  The outright racism of white leftists and black race hustlers is outrageous, yet if you never pay attention to anything except the mainstream media propaganda, you would never be exposed to that reality.

DA Bragg Goes Into Cover-Up Mode Over House Subpoena - What happens when you investigate the investigators? As we’ve seen with Russiagate, they don’t respond well. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg asked a federal judge Tuesday to block a House Judiciary Committee subpoena that seeks information on his office’s investigation into former President Donald Trump.Bragg also asks the judge to preemptively block any further subpoenas for him or his employees from the committee helmed by Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan, in what the filing calls an “unprecedently brazen and unconstitutional attack” on the state investigation........

Dems to Hold 2024 Convention in Nation’s Voter Fraud Capital -  The Democratic National Committee has officially announced its choice of Chicago, famed as the nation’s voter fraud capital, to host its 2024 convention. Joe Biden, on whose behalf the DNC had, in true Chicago fashion, already rigged the selection of early party primary states, personally called billionaire Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker to tell him the prearranged good news.“Chicago is a great choice to host the 2024 Democratic National Convention,” Biden said in a statement. And considering Cook County’s vital role in Democrat voter fraud, it’s almost the inevitable choice..........

Asian Americans Protest Soros DA After She Calls Them Racists - A little boy was murdered, but to pro-crime DAs, the killers are the real victims. Pro-crime is pro-evil and “progressive” prosecutors keep showing us why that’s true. And advocates for victims of crime are rising up against them.

Shouting “justice for Jasper,” “do your job!” and “victims come first,” protestors sounded off on Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price on Monday over concerns about how she’s handing the emotionally charged Jasper Wu case..........Why are they reacting that way? Soros DA Pamela Price has given them every reason to...................

Price then sent a hostile email blasting Asian-American critics as ignorant of “constitutional law” and argued that the gang members are “presumed innocent”................The Soros DA not only wants to go easy on a 2-year-old’s killers, but accuses Asian-Americans upset over it of being a dangerous racist lynch mob..............

Muslim Attacks Imam Over Islam. Media Blames Islamophobia. "In our religion, you should not wear a tie.” For several days, the media kept pushing the story of an Imam who was stabbed in his mosque, tying it to someone scribbling over a name that had Allah in it at that mosque and implying that this involved Islamphobia. National stories at CNN and the New York Times failed to mention that the stabber was a fellow Muslim.................

The 30-Year Leftist Lynching of Justice Clarence Thomas - No other Supreme Court justice has faced the unrelenting 30-year leftist lynching of Clarence Thomas.Even Justice Kavanaugh, whose hoax persecution was closely modeled on Anita Hill, was largely limited to an effort to sink his nomination. Leftist rage against Thomas has been sustained for decades by his strong conservative principles and the inconvenient fact that he is a black man and the left’s illegitimate power derives from claiming that it is protecting black people from oppression… by a black justice.The latest round of leftist attacks have gone after Justice Thomas’ wife, Ginni Thomas, and Leola Thomas, his 94-year-old mother. “Reporters” have gotten busy hounding Leola over the status of her home. None of these “investigations” have turned up anything resembling a crime, but by targeting the justice’s family members, they hope to intimidate him into resigning and clearing the way for Biden to appoint a leftist to take his seat. And, barring that, perhaps to stress him into suffering health problems................

Crime Killed a Quarter of a Million Black People. And the racist pro-crime Left wants more. - Over the last decade, BLM, and assorted leftist and libertarian groups dismantled our criminal justice system. Police forces were defunded, pro-crime prosecutors refused to lock up criminals, federal and state prison systems released tens of thousands of them, and a wave of legislative decriminalization legalized everything from shoplifting, to drug dealing and mugging. The pro-crime policymaking that eliminated public safety and cost over 3,000 lives in 2020 alone was done under the guise of fighting racism. Statistics which showed that black people were more likely to be arrested, imprisoned or shot during criminal encounters with police were used to spread conspiracy theories falsely accusing the criminal justice system of systemic racism............

Dem House Minority Leader Defended Farrakhan, Antisemitic Uncle "All Western knowledge is a corruption of Egyptian, i.e. black African thought" -  Some may remember Leonard Jeffries for being the public face of academic racism and antisemitism in the 90s. His views seemed deranged then, but have long since become mainstreamed within academia and the Democrats. Jeffries headed black studies at New York’s City College and had all sorts of exciting racist views.............

San Fran State Investigates Iranian Islamic Studies Prof for Blasphemy Is this Iran or San Francisco? -Gov. Gavin Newsom keeps falsely claiming that California is the home of freedom. Not only is California the least free state in the country, but a publicly funded university is investigating an Islamic studies professor of Iranian origin for blasphemy. Is this Iran or San Francisco? Hard to spot the difference. Maziar Behrooz teaches a variety of history classes at San Francisco State University including two courses on the Islamic World. During one of these he showed a picture of a Shiite religious icon of Mohammed. A (presumably Sunni Muslim) student complained and SFSU is conducting an investigation of Behrooz............

Biden’s New Muslim Liaison to Fight ‘Institutional Islamophobia’ From attending an event featuring a World Trade Center bombing co-conspirator to the NSC. - In 2010, the Islamic Society of North America honored one of the unindicted co-conspirators of the World Trade Center bombing. Also at the ISNA convention were three members of the Obama administration: Rashad Hussain, George Selim and Mazen Basrawi. Hussain went from working as Obama’s envoy to the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to serving as Biden’s Ambassador for Religious Freedom, while George Selim joined the ADL as its VP of National Affairs. And Mazen Basrawi was brought in as the Director of Global Engagement at the National Security Council under Biden and will now also double as the White House Muslim liaison. The appointment reveals that the Biden administration sees Muslims in America as an adjunct of the foreign Muslim governments and Islamist entities whose cooperation it is trying to solicit.............

Georgia State Senator Calls Clarence Thomas ‘Uncle Tom’ During Statue Vote

Paul Bois 15 Feb 2023 A Georgia State Senator referred to Justice Clarence Thomas, the second black man to serve on the United States Supreme Court, by the racial slur “Uncle Tom” this week, presumably over his conservative leanings. The racist comment occurred on Tuesday as the Georgia State Senate voted 32-20 along party lines to create a statue on Capitol grounds dedicated to Justice Clarence Thomas, a native of the Peach State. In the leadup to the vote, Sen. Emmanuel Jones (D) likened Thomas to a slave that “sold his soul to the slave master.”...........To Read More....

My Take - This Senator is a disgrace.  First, it's clear he has no idea Uncle Tom was a hero, and secondly, Clarence Thomas has been the finest jurist sitting on the Supreme Court in my lifetime.  When he retires, the court may never recover from such a loss.

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.  

White Students Cancel Justice Clarence Thomas on Campus

Daniel Greenfield July 07, 2022 @ Sultan Knish Blog

The Atlanta Journal Constitution reported that a sign designating a building as the Clarence Thomas Center for Historic Preservation had been removed. The Savannah College of Art and Design has issued no official statement, but the paper cited a petition started by Griffin Hansen, a Bernie Sanders supporter who had once attended the school.

Hansen, a white cartoonist, who lists his pronouns and likes Pokemon, targeted the only black male justice on the court. The Boston resident who calls himself a “Gruppeteer” claimed that since "SCAD's student body is comprised of 69% women" and "an overwhelming majority of students at the school identify themselves as members of the LGBTQ+ community", naming a building after a conservative black man is "unacceptable". (He failed to mention that in a city that is majority black, only 11% of SCAD’s students are black. Most are white with pronouns.)

The white woke student proposed 5 alternative names: 4 out of 5 of whom are white.

A previous petition to rename the building where Justice Thomas had once been an altar boy had been generated by Sage Lucero, a former student and a white woman from Aspen who went on to work on ad campaigns for Oreo and Kroger.

“I don’t want any other female who has hopes and dreams to have to walk through the doors of that building. They shouldn’t have to be subjugated to that toxic feeling,” Lucero, who lists her alter ego as “Rage”, contended at the time.

A news story also quoted Sarah Boussey, a white student, who claimed that naming a building after the conservative black jurist sends the wrong message.

"Something needs to change," she complained.

Boussy has since become a designer at CNN.

Lucero later took down the petition claiming that she was the real victim of the attempt to cancel Thomas and whined, "I no longer feel safe moving forward with this." This follows a familiar pattern of woke lynch mobs claiming that they, not those whom they targeted, are the victims.

At George Washington University, Jon Kay, a junior majoring in international affairs and philosophy, started a petition claiming that Justice Thomas teaching at the university was "completely unacceptable", and accusing him of taking away "the ability for people to practice safe sex without fear of pregnancy".

Kay, who is a white man, then accused Justice Thomas, who is 74-years old, of "endangering the lives of the students on campus."

Unlike the Savannah College of Art and Design, George Washington University responded by making it clear that it had no intention of barring the only black male justice from campus.

However Kay, bragging about interviews with CNN, Politico, and Forbes, told followers that "the push is not stopping here" and boasted that "several organizations affiliated with our cause are planning events and actions to reinforce our cause."

The cause being that of driving a black man off campus.

The new set of petitions, seemingly spurred by the Dobbs decision, targeted only one of the five justices who voted with the majority and who is also the only black man on the court.

The students and former students targeting Thomas are white and woke.

And the same colleges, media outlets, and cancel culture mobs that can find racism in a grain of sand also see nothing wrong with a white woke lynch mob coming after a black man.

The racist attempt to cancel Justice Clarence Thomas is being waged by two white men and a white woman who make a point of stating their pronouns and probably have copies of Ibram X. Kendi and Ta-Nehisi Coates’ racist anti-racism tracts sitting on their bookshelves.

Racism, they think, is something Republicans do. It’s not something that they could be guilty of.

They, doubtless, dip their devices into a social justice media newsfeed that discovers racism in all sorts of statistical blips and disproportionate numbers. But in a culture where everything is racist, the one thing that isn’t racist, and never will be, is lynching a black man.

As long as he’s a conservative black man.

The lynch mobs are made up of the skinny white hipster men in ironic t-shirts and dumpy hipster women with colored hair who still watch cartoons and stuff themselves with soy. The new Klan, despite boasting 74 genders and an expanding section of the alphabet followed by a plus sign to allow for the discovery of new sexual lifestyles, is not very diverse. It’s not only white, but so culturally homogenous that its members share the same insipid tastes and free-floating rage.

But they think they don’t look anything like the Klan, although they have their own “invisible empire” that advances their careers and puts them in key positions at major corporations.

As long as they believe the right things and hate the right people.

There is a reason why the same media outlets that take great pains to list the races involved in a bad customer service exchange or police shooting (as long as the alleged perpetrator is white and the alleged victim is black) never bother to note that the petitions to cancel Thomas keep coming from white men and women. That would be politically incorrect and inconvenient.

Daniel Elder, a liberal Nashville composer, became unemployable after merely condemning the violence during the Black Lives Matter riots. None of the white woke activists who set out to lynch the only black man on the highest court of the land will suffer any consequences for it.

On the contrary, the woke KKK will reward them with plum positions for their political service.

White wokes are leading lynch mobs while claiming that a 74-year-old black man makes them feel unsafe.

This is what social justice looks like at the hands of the new woke Klan.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Tags: Racism, recent, Supreme Court

Share This:

Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest Linkedin 

About Daniel Greenfield
Daniel Greenfield is a journalist investigating Islamic terrorism and the Left. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center

Cartoon of the Day

Abortion, Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas and Stare Decisis

By Rich Kozlovich

I originally published this on July 2, 2020, but with this latest SCOTUS mess, I thought republishing this again, along with two more of my pieces on the federal judiciary, Stare Decisis is Like a Street Sign: "Drive Only On the Left!" and Stare Decisis is Like a Street Sign: "Drive Only On the Left!", Part II, might help bring things into perspective  

On July 1, 2020 Terry Jeffrey posted this piece, Clarence Thomas Versus John Roberts and Good Versus Evil, saying:

Chief Justice John Roberts essentially argued in the opinion he filed in an abortion case this week that his opinion was both right and wrong. Justice Clarence Thomas, meanwhile, offered perfect clarity in his dissenting opinion in the same case, June Medical Services v. Russo. He argued that Roberts and the four liberals with whom Roberts concurred were unreservedly wrong.

The author goes on to show the lack of consistency in Robert's thinking, and understanding of the law, and ends with this statement from Justice Clarence Thomas:

Justice Thomas rebutted Roberts with the truth. "The plurality and The Chief Justice ... conclude that Louisiana's law is unconstitutional under our precedents," Thomas wrote. "But those decisions created the right to abortion out of whole cloth, without a shred of support from the Constitution's text," said Thomas. "Our abortion precedents are grievously wrong and should be overruled," said Thomas.

Jeffery goes on to state:

Precisely. Neither God nor the Constitution created a "right" to kill an unborn child. A group of unjust justices did. John Roberts is now standing on their shoulders and blaming it on stare decisis. Chief Justice John Roberts essentially argued in the opinion he filed in an abortion case this week that his opinion was both right and wrong.

This pattern of flip flopping is common among leftist thinkers, like John Kerry who voted for it before he voted against it.  Always finding ways of perverting right from wrong.

Below are two articles I originally published some time ago.  The first one, Stare Decisis is Like a Street Sign: "Drive Only On the Left!, was on 7/15/18,  and then again on 2/21/19.  Part II was originally published on 5/14/19.  However, with all this interest in Judge Roberts failings, and comments by Judge Clearance Thomas over the Constitutionality of his decision, and commentators defending that decision as "settled law" under the concept of Stare Decisis, I felt it necessary to re-publish both here.

As a side bar: For years everyone kept declaring the Thomas was Justice Scalia's follower.  Don't believe it.  I read his book, My Grandfather's Son, and then I followed his actions on the court over the years and if anyone was following anyone.  Scalia was following Thomas.  He's one of the finest thinkers in America today.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh has been a bit of a disappointment also, but not as bad as Roberts, and I hope that will change.

 

Leftists claim Clarence Thomas not 'black,' Barrett not a 'woman'

Network show unleashes its 'vile nastiness'.

  By Bob Unruh January 28, 2022  

This probably should surprise no one, in a day when men can say they are women and be given an open door to women's swim teams, locker rooms and showers.  But the leftists aboard "The View" apparently believe Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, a black, is not a "black," and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a woman, is not a "woman."  It was in a commentary by Nicholas Fondacaro at Newsbusters, an arm of the Media Research Center, where he described the "vile nastiness of The View coven."

"They accused Thomas of being a race traitor and wasn't the correct kind of black man to replace Justice Thurgood Marshall. With Coney Barrett, they used air quotes when noting she's 'a woman' and suggested she's a traitor to women," the commentary said.

The perspective that leftists can categorize other people based on their own prejudices surfaced during the 2020 presidential election race when Joe Biden declared, "If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black."

The Trump campaign immediately reacted on Twitter: "This is disgusting."......To Read More.....

Clarence Thomas identifies the greatest danger in America

September 18, 2021 By Andrea Widburg

Talk to me for just a few minutes about my life as a lawyer and I will tell you that, without question, the worst thing about being a litigator is activist judges. It turns out that Clarence Thomas shares my concern, for he fears the power that the Supreme Court holds.

In a speech at the University of Notre Dame, the brilliant jurist told his audience that “The court was thought to be the least dangerous branch and we may have become the most dangerous,” adding, “And I think that’s problematic.” Indeed.

Article III of the Constitution of the United States establishes a “supreme Court.” It lists those matters that fall within the Court’s jurisdiction, including “all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution....” While Art III limits somewhat the nature of the cases the Supreme Court may hear, it does not impose any checks or balances on the Supreme Court’s power.

Then, in 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall extended the Court’s power, holding that Article III’s grant of authority inevitably gave the Court the power to overturn unconstitutional legislation. The result is a Supreme Court that has freely rewritten the Constitution to achieve political ends—and turned the Court itself from what should be a neutral judicial institution into one that has become the partisan center of D.C.

The problem began with the fact that, while Articles I and II, as well as the Bill of Rights, had roots in long-established British rights, some stretching back as far as 1215 and the Magna Carta, the Founders started from scratch with the Supreme Court. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 78, believed the judiciary would be the “least dangerous branch of government,” one that was “feeble” because Congress had legislative power and the people would be the forces behind amending the Constitution.

The one person who clearly saw how the federal judiciary could become tyrannical was Judge Robert Yates, aka Brutus, who tackled the Supreme Court in Anti-Federalist 78-79:

The supreme court under this constitution would be exalted above all other power in the government, and subject to no control. 

[snip]

The judges in England are under the control of the legislature, for they are bound to determine according to the laws passed under them. But the judges under this constitution will control the legislature, for the supreme court are authorised in the last resort, to determine what is the extent of the powers of the Congress. They are to give the constitution an explanation, and there is no power above them to set aside their judgment. The framers of this constitution appear to have followed that of the British, in rendering the judges independent, by granting them their offices during good behavior, without following the constitution of England, in instituting a tribunal in which their errors may be corrected; and without adverting to this, that the judicial under this system have a power which is above the legislative, and which indeed transcends any power before given to a judicial by any free government under heaven.

In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself. 

Judge Yates was prescient. Thanks to the Supreme Court’s unfettered power to write into the Constitution principles that neither the people nor their legislature support, we have unlimited abortion based on emanations of penumbras; same-sex marriage based on feelings and self-respect; and transgender rights read into the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because one Justice (Gorsuch) thought mental illness was the same as “sexuality” (and again, there is no scientific authority supporting transgenderism as a real phenomenon separate from mental illness).

Those are the biggies that have fundamentally shifted society in ways beloved of Marxists.........To Read More....

Supreme Court Justice Thomas Suggests Facebook, Twitter Could Be Regulated Like Utilities

By Jack Phillips April 5, 2021

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas appeared to signal that Big Tech firms could be regulated after Facebook and Twitter suspended President Donald Trump earlier this year.

Thomas, considered a conservative on the high court, made the point during a 12-page submission as the Supreme Court issued an order that rejected a lawsuit over Trump’s blocking of certain Twitter users from commenting on his posts before his account was taken down. The Supreme Court said the lawsuit ultimately should be dismissed as Trump isn’t in office anymore and was blocked from using Twitter, coming after the Second Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled against Trump.

“Today’s digital platforms provide avenues for historically unprecedented amounts of speech, including speech by government actors. Also unprecedented, however, is control of so much speech in the hands of a few private parties,” Thomas wrote Monday (pdf). “We will soon have no choice but to address how our legal doctrines apply to highly concentrated, privately owned information infrastructure such as digital platforms.”...........To Read More.....

Justice Thomas once again excels

July 20, 2020 By Mark J. Fitzgibbons

A recent dissenting opinion by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in a case involving congressional subpoenas for President Trump’s financial records helps illustrate why Thomas should be considered as one of, if not the best minds and writers ever on the bench.  Three congressional committees issued subpoenas to third parties for President Trump’s financial records, arguing that the subpoenas had a legislative purpose of potentially helping to shape laws. The courts below had ruled in favor of Congress and its power to issue the subpoenas.

The majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts in this case of first impression reviewed the history of subpoenas for presidents or their official papers going back to the presidencies of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

The Roberts opinion adroitly noted the important constitutional separation of powers issue involved in a congressional subpoena for a sitting president’s papers, whether they are official government records or privately owned.  The Roberts opinion also noted judicial precedent that the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I of the Constitution implies a congressional power to issue subpoenas..........

Thomas “would hold [instead] that Congress has no power to issue a legislative subpoena for private, nonofficial documents -- whether they belong to the President or not.” The genius of our Constitution is grasped so strongly and articulated so plainly by Thomas. Among the branches of government, “even the legislature must be made subject to the law,” wrote Thomas in this dissent..............To Read More.....

Abortion, Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas and Stare Decisis

By Rich Kozlovich

On July 1, 2020 Terry Jeffrey posted this piece, Clarence Thomas Versus John Roberts and Good Versus Evil, saying:

Chief Justice John Roberts essentially argued in the opinion he filed in an abortion case this week that his opinion was both right and wrong. Justice Clarence Thomas, meanwhile, offered perfect clarity in his dissenting opinion in the same case, June Medical Services v. Russo. He argued that Roberts and the four liberals with whom Roberts concurred were unreservedly wrong.

The author goes on to show the lack of consistency in Robert's thinking, and understanding of the law, and ends with this statement from Justice Clarence Thomas:

Justice Thomas rebutted Roberts with the truth. "The plurality and The Chief Justice ... conclude that Louisiana's law is unconstitutional under our precedents," Thomas wrote. "But those decisions created the right to abortion out of whole cloth, without a shred of support from the Constitution's text," said Thomas. "Our abortion precedents are grievously wrong and should be overruled," said Thomas.

Jeffery goes on to state:

Precisely. Neither God nor the Constitution created a "right" to kill an unborn child. A group of unjust justices did. John Roberts is now standing on their shoulders and blaming it on stare decisis. Chief Justice John Roberts essentially argued in the opinion he filed in an abortion case this week that his opinion was both right and wrong.

This pattern of flip flopping is common among leftist thinkers, like John Kerry who voted for it before he voted against it.  Always finding ways of perverting right from wrong.

Below are two articles I originally published some time ago.  The first one, Stare Decisis is Like a Street Sign: "Drive Only On the Left!, was on 7/15/18,  and then again on 2/21/19.  Part II was originally published on 5/14/19.  However, with all this interest in Judge Roberts failings, and comments by Judge Clearance Thomas over the Constitutionality of his decision, and commentators defending that decision as "settled law" under the concept of Stare Decisis, I felt it necessary to re-publish both here.

As a side bar: For years everyone kept declaring the Thomas was Scalia's follower.  Don't believe it.  I read his book, My Grandfather's Son, and then I followed his actions on the court over the years and if anyone was following anyone.  Scalia was following Thomas.  He's one of the finest thinkers in America today.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh has been a bit of a disappointment also, but not as bad as Roberts, and I hope that will change.

Please enjoy:

Stare Decisis is Like a Street Sign: "Drive Only On the Left!"

I just read Bastasch’s article, Brett Kavanaugh put a serious damper on EPA power grabs, which gave me more confidence in this man, at least until he ended the article saying this about overturning the Endangerment Finding. He says:

"However, Adler (a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law) said it’s unlikely the court overturn Massachusetts v. EPA because of its strong tradition of “stare decisis” — latin for “to stand by things decided.” “It’s one thing to overturn a bad constitutional decision because Congress can’t fix that,” Adler said, though he added a Kennedy-less court could narrow the application of Massachusetts v. EPA. “It’s not going to be overturned,” he said."

For a law professor to say such a thing on such an issue is clearly demonstrating his bias in my opinion, especially since the adoration to "stare decisis" is a one way street for leftists.

I’m not sure how Kavanaugh would vote on a new Endangerment Finding case, but we need to get rid of this idea of “stare decisis” as the deciding factor.

These 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.

Any effort to overturn leftist decisions that have no Constitutional basis other than what's called the "penumbra of the Constitution" is sacrilege to the law and the Constitution according to the left.

"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", where specific principles are recognized from "general idea" that are explicitly expressed in other constitutional provisions......."

An open ended concept that allows for abuse!

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.   The "penumbra" of the Constitution "implies" rights not actually written in the Constitution, and in fact the concept allows for the ability to define, redefine and even ignore the actual and simple language of the Constitution, all of which has been done by the federal judiciary at every level. All in an effort to make the Constitution a "Living Document".

The problem with that is all the "living" changes are determined by the wrong branch of government. The Constitution never gave the federal judiciary to right to "legislate" via some indefinable term that's been adopted by those whose one desire is to destroy the Constitution. The unelected Judiciary have overstepped their Constitutional bounds into the territory the Constitution assigns to the Legislature.

It's always amazing how devoted progressives, socialists, leftists and liberals are to the Constitution, when it's convenient. But in reality, this is the document they've called a dusty old document and many early Progressives like Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson considered an "impediment to human progress".  Nothing has changed!  Any concerns they express about devotion to "stare decisis" is strictly politics.

Now, that brings me back to green issues, Kavanaugh and the Supreme Court. Here’s one thing I don’t think many know and I think could be a big factor in deciding any green issue that comes before SCOTUS.

Who was Justice Neil Gorsuch’s mother?

Ann Burford Gorsuch, a one time head of the EPA during the Reagan administration who was eviscerated by the left and the green movement in and out of government, and those she called "pack journalists." I have no doubt about his view of the leftist swamp and their green misanthropic allies.

Will that have an impact on Kavanaugh?    I don't know, except I have no doubt Gorsuch has a much clearer understanding of all these green issues and the people involved than any of the rest.  And I'm confident he has the ability to explain them properly.

As for Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor? They're hopeless. They couldn't be convinced day was light or night was dark if it wasn't supportive of some kind of leftist clabber or other.  Not a one of them pass the test of unbiased open mindedness the left demands of Trump's appointments or a rational understanding of what the Constitution really says, often times creating policies that have shattered generations of Americans.

However, they support those who believe the following:

• 58% of Democrats believe in UFOs, but only 32% are proud to be American. Only 37% of Republicans believe in flying saucers, but a full 80% are proud of their country.
• Almost twice as many Democrats are willing to believe in being abducted by space aliens than in their country. Hillary Clinton had promised that if elected, she would find out the truth about the little green men and suggested that the planet had already been visited by aliens. "Maybe we could have, like, a task force to go to Area 51," she suggested.
• The chair of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, John Podesta, an obsessive UFO buff, appeared on an episode of Ancient Aliens which claimed that Hillary Clinton was defeated to suppress the truth about space aliens.
• Democrats are the party least likely to know that the earth revolves around the sun once a year. Only between 48% to 27% of the enlightened supporters of the Party of Science actually knew this.
• 45% of liberals believe in astrology.
• Three-quarters of Democrats believe that thoughts can influence the physical world.
• Over half believe in ghosts.
• Almost a third of Democrats, twice as many as Republicans, believe in “spiritual energy”. 35% of liberals compared to 18% of conservatives are believers.
• A fifth of Democrats fear the “evil eye”.
• If you can name a superstition, knocking on wood, walking under ladders or stepping on a crack, polls show that Democrats are more likely to believe in it.
• Democrats are 60% more likely to fear black cats than Republicans (so much for the anti-racist party)
• 33% more likely to fear the number 13.
• The rational and enlightened elite who want to make all our decisions are also 54% more likely to think that opening an umbrella indoors is bad luck.
• A fifth of Democrats believe it’s unlucky to walk under a ladder.
• Nearly a fifth believe in fortune telling.

But then.......to be on the left is a one way street, and being open minded to the left means being so open your brains fall out.

Stare Decisis is Like a Street Sign: "Drive Only On the Left!" Part II

The Washington Post reported that the Supreme Court’s conservatives overturn precedent. Of course this means liberals are now going to start panicking because they have to wonder which ruling will they overrule next.  The article went on to say:

"The Supreme Court’s conservative majority overturned a 41-year-old precedent Monday, prompting a pointed warning from liberal justices about “which cases the court will overrule next.”

It was a 5/4 decision overruling a 41 year precedent regarding the concept that States had sovereign immunity from other States and whether they could be hauled into court by other States. The 1979 ruling claimed “there is no constitutional right to such immunity."

The article goes on to say:

The “new conservative majority conservative majority overruled that decision, saying there was an implied right in the Constitution that means states “could not be hauled involuntarily before each other’s courts,” in the words of Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote Monday’s decision. Thomas acknowledged the departure from the legal doctrine of stare decisis, in which courts are to abide by settled law without a compelling reason to overrule the decision.”  But he said the court’s decision four decades ago in Nevada v. Hall “is contrary to our constitutional design and the understanding of sovereign immunity shared by the states that ratified the Constitution. Stare decisis does not compel continued adherence to this erroneous precedent.”

Justice Breyer claimed it was “dangerous” for the court to change the rules with just five justices in agreement. Breyer believes “Stare decisis requires us to follow Hall, not overrule it,” In short, stare decisis should hold no matter how flimsy the grounds were for the original decision, or how radical was the design of the Court at that time. Breyer worried: “Today’s decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the court will overrule next.”

Dangerous!  Really?  To whom?  There is a compelling reason for overturning these kinds of rulings and that is the continued destructive direction the federal government and the federal judiciary have taken that have consistently eroded what was clearly understood as state's rights from the founding of the Constitution.

The fact some things weren't spelled out was because some things were clearly understood by the founders, the States and society as a whole, and it never occurred to them it had to be spelled out.

Abortion became a right because the Supreme Court found a right of privacy in the "penumbra of the Constitution" that allows mothers to murder their unborn innocent children.  That never appears in the Constitution, or can anyone demonstrate how it's implied in the Constitution through the practice of time, and this is a "right" the Founders would have been aghast at.  If you read the Constitution you will find there is no section defined as the "penumbra".  We'll come back to that.

In my February 21, 2019 article, Stare Decisis is Like a Street Sign: "Drive Only On the Left!",;I stated:

These 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.

But I have to think Judge Thomas’ view has logic and history on his side when he says:

“the states’ sovereign immunity is a historically rooted principle embedded in the text and structure of the Constitution.”

Although isn’t directly addressed in the Constitution it certainly is implied. He says:

“there are many other constitutional doctrines that are not spelled out in the Constitution but are nevertheless implicit in its structure and supported by historical practice.”

Leftist judges have been overturning rulings and understandings that stood for decades.  All done without a whisper of concern about precedent, especially the precedents established by history and practice for over 150 years. They have twisted the plain language of the Constitution to create rights that were never stated in the Constitution, claiming these rights were "implied" by the "penumbra" of the Constitution.

I went on to say in my article:

"Any effort to overturn leftist decisions that have no Constitutional basis other than what's called the "penumbra of the Constitution" is sacrilege to the law and the Constitution according to the left."  

"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", where specific principles are recognized from "general idea" that are explicitly expressed in other constitutional provisions......."

"An open ended concept that allows for abuse!"

It's time for those abuses to be overturned.