SCOTUS Gives Trump a 'W' on Scrapping Parole for 500K Migrants, Sotomayor and Jackson Aren’t Thrilled

The Supreme Court just tossed President Donald Trump a huge win in his border crackdown saga. On Friday, the justices put a hold on a lower court’s attempt to stop the President from deporting roughly 500,000 migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. This is a short-term victory for Trump as he doubles down on his immigration hardline in round two of his presidency.

The White House was ready to rumble. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt didn’t mince words on Tuesday, saying, “The White House will ‘fight this in a court of law’” after a judge tried to block Trump’s move to end a parole program for folks from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. 

What’s at stake here? Glad you asked.

The court’s order temporarily halts a ruling that stopped Trump from yanking Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for these migrants. TPS is like a legal shield that lets people live and work in the U.S. if their home countries are a hot mess, such as  disasters, wars, or other “extraordinary and temporary conditions.” 

Trump’s team wants to rip that shield away, and for now, the Supreme Court’s got their back.

The decision, like most of the court’s emergency orders, came without a signature or explanation. Classic Supreme Court move to simply drop the ruling and let everyone else figure out why.

But leftist Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson had plenty to say, and it wasn’t pretty. In a fiery dissent, they tore into the court’s call. Jackson, who doesn't know what a woman is, didn’t hold back, saying the court “plainly botched” its assessment and ignored the “devastating consequences of allowing the government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens [aka illegal aliens] while their legal claims are pending.” 

She went on: “While it is apparent that the government seeks a stay to enable it to inflict maximum pre-decision damage, court-ordered stays exist to minimize, not maximize, harm to litigating parties.” 

The TPS program’s been a lifeline for migrants, especially illegal ones. It is to be renewed every 18 months like clockwork, most recently under former alleged President Joe Biden, before he wandered out of office. 

Illegal migrant flipping off police

But Trump’s crew, led by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, came in hot this February, trying to pull the plug on protections for a chunk of Venezuelan nationals. Their reasoning? It’s not in the “national interest.” Noem’s been out here signing executive orders alongside Trump, who’s clearly not slowing down, and this scares the crap out of Democrats.

U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer wasn’t playing with his toes either. He told the justices earlier this month to let the administration do its thing, accusing U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of overstepping. “The district court’s reasoning is untenable,” Sauer argued, saying the TPS program involves “particularly discretionary, sensitive, and foreign-policy-laden judgments of the Executive Branch regarding immigration policy.” 

In other words, back off, judge—Trump’s got this.

This isn’t the first time the Supreme Court’s given Trump a green light lately. Earlier this month, they okayed his plan to revoke protected status for 350,000 Venezuelan illegal alien migrants, clearing the path for deportations. 

So, what’s next? The White House is gearing up for a legal brawl, and with Sotomayor and Brown-Jackson, throwing punches in dissent, this fight’s far from over. 

If you enjoy my blog, feel free to toss a virtual coffee my way on Buy Me a Coffee – it’s like a high-five with caffeine, and coffee keeps me focused. No pressure, it's your call.

Tweet

SCOTUS backs Trump's removal of Biden's appointees from federal boards

The Supreme Court just handed President Trump a. big win, backing his move to remove two Democratic appointees, Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Cathy Harris from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), from their federal perches. 

This Thursday ruling is a big deal, settling a heated fight over how much power a president has to fire agency officials who don’t jive with his agenda.

The drama kicked off when Chief Justice John Roberts hit the pause button on reinstating Wilcox and Harris, both Biden picks who got the axe from Trump earlier this year. Both cried foul, calling their terminations “unlawful” in lawsuits filed in D.C. federal court, but the Supreme Court’s decision suggests Trump’s got the upper hand—for now.

That said, the court dropped a hint it might not be so quick to let Trump replace Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, who’s been in Trump’s crosshairs for not slashing interest rates fast enough. (Good luck firing a guy who controls the money printer, right?)

At the heart of this mess is a 90-year-old Supreme Court ruling called Humphrey’s Executor, which said presidents can’t just fire independent board members without a good reason. The question before the justices: Can Wilcox and Harris, both Biden appointees, keep their jobs while the courts wrestle with whether to chuck Humphrey’s into the legal dustbin?

The court’s three liberal justices—Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—weren’t having it. Kagan came out swinging in her dissent: “Not since the 1950s (or even before) has a President, without a legitimate reason, tried to remove an officer from a classic independent agency.” She didn’t stop there, accusing her colleagues of itching to give Trump “the most unitary, meaning also the most subservient, administration since Herbert Hoover (and maybe ever).” 

That’s Kagan saying that the majority’s playing favorites, and it’s not subtle.

Trump’s legal team, meanwhile, was all about keeping Wilcox and Harris out of their jobs while the case grinds through the lower courts. They even pushed for the Supreme Court to skip the usual appeals process and fast-track the whole thing with a rare “certiorari before judgment” move, because letting Wilcox and Harris back in would, in their words, “entrust” the president’s powers “for the months or years that it could take the courts to resolve this litigation.” That, they argued, “would manifestly cause irreparable harm to the President and to the separation of powers.” 

In other words, if Trump can’t control his own executive branch, it’s chaos, and he’d have to spend months undoing whatever these two do in the meantime.

Rewind to earlier this month when the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 7–4 to put Wilcox and Harris back on their boards, leaning on Humphrey’s Executor and another oldie, Wiener v. United States. Those rulings say the president’s power to fire members of independent agencies like the NLRB and MSPB isn’t absolute. The D.C. Circuit wasn’t buying Trump’s argument for an administrative stay to keep the removals in place, pointing out that the Supreme Court has never overturned these precedents. “The Supreme Court has repeatedly told the courts of appeals to follow extant Supreme Court precedent unless and until that Court itself changes it or overturns it,” the judges wrote. 

Fair point, but it didn’t last long.

Trump’s team ran straight to the Supreme Court, which slapped an emergency stay on the reinstatement, keeping Wilcox and Harris sidelined. In their own filings, Wilcox and Harris’s lawyers begged the court to let them back in until the appeals process plays out. They warned against rushing things, with Harris’s team telling the justices, “Rushing such important matters risks making mistakes and destabilizing other areas of the law.” Wilcox’s camp doubled down, arguing that yanking her from the NLRB’s three-member panel could “bring an immediate and indefinite halt to the NLRB’s critical work of adjudicating labor-relations disputes.” 

Their point is that kicking her out doesn’t just tweak policy, it grinds the agency to a halt, which they say screws over Congress’s mandate.

This isn’t the only case poking at the president’s firing powers. Hampton Dellinger, a Biden appointee to the Office of Special Counsel, also sued after getting fired on Feb. 7. He argued he could only be fired for job performance issues, which Trump’s team didn’t bother citing in their dismissal email. Dellinger dropped his suit after the D.C. Circuit sided with Trump in an unsigned order, but the broader fight’s far from over.

And the Justice Department is not hiding its cards. Back in February, they told Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) they’re gunning to overturn Humphrey’s Executor altogether. If that happens, it’s a whole new ballgame for how much control a president has over the so-called “independent” agencies. 

Buckle up—this one’s got legs.

If you enjoy my blog, feel free to toss a virtual coffee my way on Buy Me a Coffee – it’s like a high-five with caffeine, and coffee keeps me focused. No pressure, it's your call.

Tweet

Winsome Sears says Ketanji Jackson is a diversity hire

Virginia Lt. Governor Winsome Sears, said Thursday that Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Jackson is a diversity hire when discussing Jackson's dissent to the SCOTUS affirmative action decision. And Sears is correct, because it was Biden who bragged that he would nominate a black woman to sit on the Supreme Court, so that white, brown and any other race need not apply. But it's ironic that Jackson admitted in her hearing that she didn't know what a woman is because she is not a biologist.

The Court ruled against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina's affirmative action policies that favored black students over non-black students, especially Asians. This will, of course, have an enormous effect on the admissions process at other universities across the country. 

Lt. Governor Sears appeared on Fox News where host Martha MacCallum asked her how she would respond to Justice Jackson and the other dissenting justices who claimed the court's decision was a step back for equality.

“Well, what you have is a justice who was chosen because she’s black and because she’s a woman,” Sears said. “That’s what we’re understanding now, what a woman is.”

Sears added that the state of education in the country is in a crisis level.

“While we’re playing these stupid games, I’m saying that education and the lack of it in America is risen to a national crisis. China is not playing these stupid games. China is interested in total world domination, and so is Russia and the rest of them. That’s what we have to be concerned about. Our children are not learning.”

Sears said that about 60% of entering college students require remedial academic courses in their first year at a cost of $1 billion a year, according to the left leaning Center for American Progress.

“I’m pulling for school choice. School choice now. Our children are in need,” Sears said.

“The slaves did not die in the fields so we could be saying in this century that we are victims,” Sears said later in the Fox segment. “They would say to us, ‘Is that what we died for? No. We died for you to have an opportunity. Take it. You have that.’ We have had a black president.”

The case landed in the Supreme Court after Students for Fair Admission sued the two aforementioned schools, saying they unfairly use race to factor into their admissions process. They pointed to the high test scores of Asian Americans and white applicants who were rejected merely because of their race.

The Supreme Court ruled that the race-based admissions programs at Harvard violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the University of North Carolina violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The court voted 6 -3 in the University of North Carolina case and 6 -2 in the Harvard case. Jackson, a Harvard graduate and former Harvard board member recused herself from that case.

“Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the opinion for the majority.

“Nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise. But, despite the dissent’s assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today,” the court’s opinion stated.

Justices Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor both penned dissents because they apparently think they're working for Slate.

Tweet

SCOTUS Justices release joint statement about leftist extremism

All nine Supreme Court justices issued a joint statement last week opposing Senate Democrats' trying to impose new ethics oversight measures to control their decision-making process. This attempt comes after the leftists tried to stir up ire and controversy aimed at the three conservative justices whose decisions they despise, just like they do with the U.S. Constitution. 

Some Democrats have described the U.S. Constitution as an outdated, irrelevant document because that outdated document allows them the free speech in which to make that almost seditious claim.

So last week, all nine justices, including non-biologist Ketanji Brown-Jackson, released a statement opposing the fascistic efforts to impose their power move over the judiciary and the nation's highest court.

The justices' statement also contained a letter from Chief Justice, John Roberts, to Senate Judicial Committee Chair Dick Durbin (D-IL) stating that he will not be attending a hearing requested by Senate Democrats.

“Testimony by the Chief Justice of the United States before the Senate Judiciary Committee is extremely rare, as one would anticipate in light of the separation of powers concerns along with the importance of maintaining judicial independence,” Roberts stated, refusing to bend a knee for the left.

The justices explained that they wrote the statement to "offer further clarification to the bar as well as the public regarding the way the Justices handle certain recurring problems and is also to put to rest a few common misconceptions." 

Those misconceptions primarily arise from the left who hate the idea of separation of powers as clearly elucidated in the U.S. Constitution in which the three branches of government, executive, legislative and judiciary, are kept separate. Each branch is given certain powers which checks and balances the other branches. In the left's latest move on the Supreme Court, they would like to have control over them with a final say on their rulings. 

The fact that leftists were able to protest with impunity in front of the homes of conservative justices in order to pressure and scare them when a ruling on Roe v. Wade was being considered, showed their hand even before this latest move. The letter highlighted those previous threats, which reached their peak last year when a leftist attempted to murder three conservative justices.

“A word on security is required. Judges at all levels experience increased threats to their personal safety,” the letter stated. “These threats are amplified in the case of Supreme Court members due to the higher profile of the issues they address. Recent events demonstrate that such threats are not just hypothetical. The Supreme Court Police, United States Marshals, state and local law enforcement, and other agencies are in charge of security. Matters discussed here, including travel, lodging, and disclosure, may at times be subject to security recommendations.”

So good for the justices, even the ones who cannot tell us what is a woman. At least when it comes to their own power, they're willing to take a stand to remain separated from the executive and legislative branches of government.

Tweet

Justice Brown Jackson lone dissenter on vacating abortion ruling

She doesn't know what a woman is because she isn't a biologist, and evidently doesn't know what good parenting is because she is a flaming progressive. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson [I will only use her first name once] wrote the only SCOTUS dissent after the U.S. Supreme Court vacated a federal court decision Monday that upheld a minor's right to go to court to get an abortion without her parents' consent.

The high court overturned the lower court ruling that said a state court clerk could be sued for denying a pregnant teen's request permission to get an abortion without her parents' consent. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit with instructions to dismiss the case as moot [i.e., subject to debate]. 

In her parent-neutralizing dissent, Jackson criticized the court's application of Munsingwear vacatur, a legal doctrine that addresses what should happen to a court decision when the appealed case becomes moot while it is pending review by a higher court. 

The doctrine states that such decisions should be vacated, with an important exception for cases where the party adversely affected by the vacated decision was not responsible for rendering the case moot.

Pro-Abortion Justice Jackson, who has already been born

"I am concerned that contemporary practice related to so called ‘Munsingwear vacaturs’ has drifted away from the doctrine's foundational moorings," Jackson wrote in her dissent. She is also concerned that parents have parental rights and generally know what's best for their child.

This case stemmed from a lawsuit in Missouri alleging that court clerk Michelle Chapman violated a 17-year-old pregnant teenager's rights by keeping her parents out of the affair. Missouri law requires a pregnant minor to obtain permission from her parents to have an abortion. In certain circumstances, the law allows a minor to get court permission to bypass parental consent but Chapman may have thought the teenager's parents may have known that an abortion would adversely affect their child in the future, or maybe her parents thought that all life is sacred.

When the teenager, referred to as Jane Doe, went to court in 2018 seeking permission to get an abortion, Chapman told her the court would have to notify her parents about the hearing. Doe instead traveled to Illinois, where she obtained court permission and later had her baby killed.

Chapman claimed immunity from the suit, but both a federal district court in Missouri and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit rejected her claim. However, the Supreme Court vacated the 8th Circuit's decision, agreeing with Chapman that the ruling should have been thrown out because the case was made moot by the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and ended the constitutional right to an abortion.

In her dissent, Jackson argued that Munsingwear vacatur should only be extended to "extraordinary" or "exceptional" cases. She wrote that this case became moot when Chapman and the teenager agreed to have their original case in Missouri district court dismissed, asserting that "Chapman contributed to the mootness of this case insofar as she stipulated to its dismissal."

As such, Jackson said it was not unfair to deprive Chapman of her right to appeal. 

"Indeed, Chapman's only argument in support of vacatur is that the Eighth Circuit's opinion was wrongly decided. But mere disagreement with the decision that one seeks to have vacated cannot suffice to warrant equitable relief under Munsingwear," Jackson wrote.

"In my view, it is crucial that we hold the line and limit the availability of Munsingwear vacatur to truly exceptional cases," she insisted, calling Chapman's case, "far-from-exceptional."

"To do otherwise risks considerable damage to first principles of appellate review," she said.

Yes, lawful law, words, legal terms and all that, but a teenager, whose brain is not yet fully developed, should have to discuss this life-altering procedure with her parents.

Tweet

Convicted child rapist arrested for assault after Ketanji Jackson's light sentence

Supreme Court nominee and obvious leftist who sides with the perpetrators and not the victims, Ketanji Jackson, handed out a light sentence to a child rapist for violating probation . The perpetrator allegedly struck again during the time when prosecutors wanted him locked up. 

Biden's nominee handled sex offender Leo Weekes' case like she did all the others that came into her courtroom: with significantly lighter sentences than what is prescribed by federal law. The Weekes case emerged in a pile of court filings and transcripts sent tot he Senate Judiciary Committee Friday and the voting for her approval was a stalemate 11-11.

Jackson's practice of giving the lightest possible sentences to child pornography cases was pointed out by Republicans at her hearings. Nevertheless, three RINOs [Romney, Collins and Murkowski] said they will vote to appoint her to SCOTUS.

She has never had to actually face any of the victims or their families of sexual assault crimes; perhaps this explains her extreme leniency with the offenders. 

* * *

Sex. Now that I have your attention: for more hard-hitting content, and a few soft-hitting ones too, subscribe to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against John Kerry's global warming, the heebie-jeebies and the dreaded omicron.

* * *

In the Weekes case, that didn't involve child pornography--it's a rape case, and still Jackson showed inexplicable leniency and the scumbag went out and committed another crime.

But this is all a moot point because she is going to get the appointment anyway. Democrats only care about the "D" she represents, not the people she should be representing.

Tweet

CNN's Jeffrey Toobin defends child porn offenders while showing his hands

Jeffrey Toobin smiling for some reason

Having Jeffrey Toobin talk about child porn is like having a meth head discuss the benefits of pharmaceuticals. In any case, the disgraced legal analyst for the Comedy News Network (CNN) defended Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's lenient sentencing of child porn offenders in her Senate confirmation hearings.

Toobin now speaks on camera in the style of Nancy "Dancing Hands" Pelosi, gesturing with his hands to show that he isn't "petting the cat," so to speak. As you may have heard, he has a reputation for masturbating in mid-conversation.

Last Tuesday, during the hearings, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) asked Judge Jackson about her extremely lenient sentencing record of child porn and sex offenders.

Toobin Appeared on CNN’s "At This Hour with Kate Bolduan." He agreed with Jackson's reasoning that today's child porn sentences have yet to be adapted for a "post-internet" society. In other words, since it's easier for scumbags to get child porn online, they shouldn't have to face tough sentencing. 

How does that make sense to the children being abused?

"I remember, when I was an assistant U.S. Attorney back in the ’90s is that when those sentencing guidelines were written for those cases, that this was a time when the people who committed these crimes would order individual photos and get them usually through email, and then they would be sentenced based on the number of photos they possessed. This was all pre-internet," Toobin explained. "So once the internet came in and people got access to hundreds and then thousands of photos, the sentencing guidelines would reflect hundreds and then thousands of photos. Federal judges have been struggling with the issue of how do you create a fair system that was designed pre-internet, yet you have to sentence people post-internet."

"It wasn’t like she was letting these people go, but they were somewhat less than the guidelines because the guidelines had not been adapted for the internet era," Toobin said, implying that a 3-month sentence as opposed to a 10-year sentence was sufficient because the scumbag got the porn easier than his predecessors. 

What does that have to do with the act of promoting child pornography and sexual abuse?

* * *

Sex. Now that I have your attention: for more hard-hitting content, and a few soft-hitting ones too, subscribe to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against John Kerry's global warming, the heebie-jeebies and the dreaded omicron.

* * *

Toobin attacked Hawley for even asking the question saying that the reason he asked the question of Jackson's light sentencing was to appeal to the QAnon audience. "This is about appealing to the QAnon audience. This cult that is a big presence is Republican Party politics now where Senator Hawley is trying to ingratiate himself and run for president with their support."

Yeah, and Russian collusion.

Tweet