Biden to nominate Brown Jackson to SCOTUS

Photo: Tom Williams/Pool/AFP
Ketani Brown Jackson

When our alleged President Joe Biden was a US senator, on two occasions he opposed and filibustered the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In a cool move by Republican Sen. Josh Hawley, he tweeted that Biden should "make amends" and nominate her for the soon to be open SCOTUS slot. See, Judge Brown is a Black woman and Biden prevented her from moving ahead in her career.

Instead of Judge Brown, our alleged president has reportedly selected a different woman of color for the position, leaving out a pool of 93 percent of the remainder of American possibilities for the sake of being openly racist while pretending to be woke, which itself is a form of racism. His nomination is reported to be Ketani Brown Jackson. She would replace Justice Stephen Breyer, who was selected to the Supreme Court in the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky et al, era.

The Compromised News Network reported the story on Friday morning, citing a reliable [LOL] source, "a source who has been notified about the decision.” The source wished to remain anonymous as he or she did not want to be associated with the network and its scandals.

“Biden has reached a decision on his first nominee to the Supreme Court, people familiar with the selection said Thursday, with his historic selection of the first Black woman to serve on the nation’s highest court set to be revealed as soon as Friday,” CNN first reported on Thursday to the seven viewers at La Guardia Airport who were not, at the time, on their phones.

Biden had allegedly interviewed three women all by himself as potential nominees to be his Supreme Court justice pick, with the White House previously indicating that he would share his decision by Monday. 

He initially made it known that he is only considering a Black woman for the highest court in the land, but did not specify whether or not she had more intersectional victimhood status. His picks were J. Michelle Childs of South Carolina and California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger in addition to Brown Jackson.

Biden reportedly based his final decision for the nomination on Brown Jackson's name because it has the word "Brown" in it.

* * *

For more hard-hitting content, 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 global warming, the heebie-jeebies and COVID-19.

* * *

This week, some Democrats have shown support of Biden allegedly picking Brown Jackson. Ben Crump, a famed race-hustling attorney involved in the George Floyd case, also wrote an op-ed calling on President Joe Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court . . . or else.

A number of Brown Jackson's rulings had been overturned by higher courts, by the way.

The mumbling announcement should come on Friday after "I Love Lucy."

Tweet

SCOTUS rules against Newsom's attack on religious observance during COVID

In a split decision Friday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of banning restrictions on in-home religious gatherings. This overturns a lower court ruling that went along with Gov. Gavin Newsom's limiting of gatherings of religious observers from different homes.

So while the left continues to attempt destroying the Bill of Rights, SCOTUS upheld them . . . for now.

The unsigned ruling was 5 - 4 with Chief Justice RINO Justice John Roberts dissenting but did not sign the dissent statement because not only is he a horrible justice, he is also a coward.

Thus usual suspects going after the U.S. Constitution were Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer.

The decision spelled out that religious gatherings cannot be limited unless the government can prove they pose a greater danger than secular activities such as shopping, movie attendance, a BLM riot, or lesbian dance theory classes that remain open.

"Otherwise, precautions that suffice for other activities suffice for religious exercise too," the majority opinion said, adding that California "treats some comparable secular activities more favorably than at-home religious exercise, permitting hair salons, retail stores, personal care services, movie theaters, private suites at sporting events and concerts and indoor dining at restaurants to bring together more than three households at a time."

It's really a no-brainer but the left is trying to end the practice of mainstream religion and replace it with far-left political thought.

The majority opinion added that the state can’t "assume the worst when people go to worship but assume the best when people go to work," in a quote from a previous ruling.

Justice Elena Kagan, the godless leftist who ruled against easing restrictions along with Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and the useless, cowardly John Roberts, wrote in a dissenting opinion that the state has complied with the First Amendment because it also restricts secular at-home gatherings to three households.

California "has adopted a blanket restriction on at-home gatherings of all kinds, religious and secular alike," she wrote in the dissent joined by leftists Sotomayor and Breyer, with total disregard of one's right to worship.

"The law does not require that the State equally treat apples and watermelons," Kagan wrote, trying to avoid the oranges cliche. She said that in-home gatherings shouldn’t be compared to businesses, thus making the claim that a church is merely a business and not a house of worship.

The lawsuit had been brought by residents in Santa Clara County who hold in-home religious meetings and claimed the restrictions infringed on their constitutional rights, according to the former newspaper The New York Times.

A federal judge ruled against the suit, which was upheld by the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, before being overturned by the Supreme Court.

Please consider subscribing 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 ad you click on, you help in the fight against the China virus.

Tweet

BREAKING: SCOTUS rules in favor of Christian baker

The Supreme Court ruled Monday in favor of Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

In a 7 - 2 decision, SCOTUS set aside a previous Colorado court ruling against the baker, but did not decide the broader issue as to whether a business can refuse to serve gays and lesbians. Nor does it deal with whether a transgender man who marries a transgender woman can be refused service.

The opinion was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, often the swing vote in tight cases. [Kennedy tends to swing both ways judicially.]

The narrow ruling focused only on what the court described as anti-religious bias on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it ruled against the baker.

"The Commission's hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment's guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion," Kennedy wrote.

The two justices who dissented were Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayer, both who have souls as black as the nether regions of George Soros.

The court said the broader issue "must await further elaboration."

"The reason and motive for the baker's refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions. The Court's precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws. Still, the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach," Kennedy wrote.

It all began in July 2012 when Charlie Craig and David Mullins of Denver visited Masterpiece Cakeshop to buy a custom-made wedding cake for their homosexual wedding. Phillips, a religious Christian, refused their service, not because they were gay, (he never refused to serve gays or lesbians in the past) but because his religion does not condone same-sex marriage.

The state civil rights commission sanctioned Phillips after the gay men, rather than going elsewhere for their cake, filed a formal complaint.

Mullins described their case as symbolizing "the rights of gay people to receive equal service in business . . . about basic access to public life."

The case also symbolized the 'rights of gay people override the rights of religious beliefs.' And that the LGBTQ community can force someone to provide a service that goes against their moral beliefs.

The Trump administration supported Phillips, who was represented in court by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian nonprofit organization. But Phillips lost all his legal appeals, bringing the case to the Supreme Court's decision Monday.

In all the time this has been going on, Phillips lost his business and had to let employees go.

Phillips was clear as to why he refused to bake the cake: "It's not about turning away these customers, it's about doing a cake for an event--a religious sacred event--that conflicts with my conscience," he said last year.

The court specifically examined whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law which compelled the baker to crate commercial "expression" violated his constitutionally protected Christian beliefs regarding marriage.

Upon hearing the arguments in December, Justice Kennedy was bothered by certain comments by a commission member. Kennedy said that the commissioner seemed "neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips' religious beliefs."

Probably due to the fact that the court's decision today was so narrow, liberal justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joined with the conservative justices while Sotomayor and Ginsberg refused.


Tweet