SCOTUS Declares War on Man and Woman

Back in June, the United States Supreme Court declared war on Man and Woman, on male and female.

The Wall Street Journal published the following editorial, and rightly so they are slamming the perverse outcome of this Bostock v. Clayton County decision.

Rewriting the Title VII Statute of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not just judicial activism, or judicial tyranny, it's a full-on declaration of war against male and female, man and woman, God's beautiful design for all that He has for us.

The Abolition of Man and Woman

If each of us is defined by a ‘gender identity’ related only arbitrarily to sex, we are all transgender now.

This is wrong. This is outrageous. The notion, the fact, the reality of male and female cannot be willed away simply because six bad lawyers in black dresses say so.

A commonplace assumption of American liberalism, that courts merely preside over contests of rights, conceals the judiciary’s limitless power to decide questions of truth without thinking deeply or even honestly about them. Bostock v. Clayton County is a case in point. 

The judiciary does not have this power. They were never supposed to have this power ... ever. The American system of checks and balances merely recognizes the United States Supreme Court as a final trier of fact. The power to determine the constitutionality of legislation rests with members of Congress as well as members of the Executive Branch. Thomas Jefferson asserted his prerogative not to spend money if it was appropriated for Congress through unconstitutional means or for unconstitutional purposes.

The judiciary should not wield such extensive powers to normalize abortion, for example, or to redefine marriage beyond its natural and divine distinctions of one man and one woman.

The ruling holds that sexual orientation and “identity” are included in the definition of “sex” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch claims it is a narrow ruling about sex discrimination in employment, leaving concerns like locker rooms and religious liberty for future litigation. Underneath this false modesty lies a much more fundamental decision with vast implications.

This was indeed a "false modesty" decision. There is no such thing as a "narrow ruling" with the United States Supreme Court. The fundamental rewriting of a statute by expanding the meaning of words within a statute is just plain outrageous. The judiciary has no right, has no business rewriting legislation. It's time for civil disobedience to this abuse of power. It's time for MassResistance.

The court has intervened in a bitterly contested question—a question of philosophy before it is a question of law—and codified a radical new conception of human nature with a dubious ideological history. It has inscribed into law the abolition of man and woman.

Yes, indeed. This cannot be understated. That is exactly, exactly, exactly what the Supreme Court has done with the Bostock decision. We have no duty to submit to this perverse ruling in any way, shape, or form. None.

The argument of the case, repeated throughout its 30 pages, is that adverse employment decisions based on “gender identity” are necessarily a form of “sex discrimination.” Why? Because it is impossible to make these decisions without treating “similarly situated” individuals differently based on their sexes. If a male employee who “identifies” as a woman were in fact a woman instead of a man, he would not have suffered adverse treatment. Hence, the majority confidently asserts, “she” is necessarily the victim of discrimination based on sex.

This would be laughable were its implications not so humanly disastrous. 

What we have here is a classic case of justices twisting the law to fit the lie of outcomes that they want to create. Nothing more. Words mean things, unless the powers that be want the words to mean something else.

Crucial to observe are the argument’s presuppositions. Justice Gorsuch thinks that a man who “identifies” as a woman is similarly situated to a woman who “identifies” as a woman. The unstated premise is that the relationship between our embodiment as male and female and our personal subjectivity (as expressed in “identity”) is essentially arbitrary, and that they therefore lack any organic or natural unity. 

This profound analysis needed to be presented in court right away. I wonder if the defendants who were defending their right not to allow a mentally ill individual to work in their firm or location brought up this argument in some fashion.

These assumptions further imply that a man who “identifies” as a woman might really be a woman, that to be a woman is a mental state, that we really are Cartesian “ghosts in the machine.” Without such assumptions, Justice Gorsuch could not claim that such a man and woman are similarly situated.

Justice Gorsuch is a massive disappointment, and so is Chief Justice John Roberts. I agree with US Senator Josh Hawley's new assertion, in which any future Justice must commit to overturning bad SCOTUS decisions like Roe v. Wade, but also Obergefell v. Hodges and Bostock v. Clayton County.

These are metaphysical judgments. Yet Justice Gorsuch fails to recognize that the crux of his argument relies on and effectively codifies them. The question of sex discrimination in employment is relatively unimportant compared with the momentous imposition by law of these highly questionable philosophical propositions with their implications for society.

These arrogant judges live far above and far away from the consequences of their perverse decisions. Shame on them. Shame on all of them. It's time to force these justices to live under the consequences of their perverse decisions.

It is impossible to redefine human nature for only one person. When a fourth-grade girl is required to affirm in thought, word and deed that a boy in her class is now a girl, this does not simply affirm the classmate’s right to self-expression. It calls into question the meaning of “boy” and “girl” as such, thereby also calling into question both her own “identity” and that of everyone in her life, from her mother and father to her brothers and sisters, and all of her friends and relatives. As well it should. 

This probing analysis is essential. Once again, this LGBT agenda is exposed, forced to recognize the fact that the behaviors, the ideas, the ideologies, and their outcomes, are not private matters. They are very public issues with severe public consequences.

If each of us is defined by a “gender identity” only arbitrarily related to our male and female bodies, now relegated to a meaningless biological substrate, then there is no longer any such thing as man or woman. We are all transgender now, even if sex and “gender identity” accidentally coincide in an overwhelming majority of instances.

Exactly. The court lied. The court pushed a fraud. The court now falsely asserts that man and woman, male and female mean nothing. They are essential verities, not mere tricks of the mind. This is absolute madness what the Supreme Court has unleashed. It's time for Americans of every varying degree of conscience to say "enough"!

The example shows the ruling’s totalitarian character. It requires everyone to live for all public and practical purposes as if what they know to be true in their pre-ideological experience of reality—the knowledge we imbibe with our mother’s milk—were officially false, a “stereotype.” Even worse, it requires everyone to live as if what they know to be false were officially true. 

Telling the truth has now become a revolutionary act. We are in 1984 territory. It's time for us to stand up and resurrect the truth of human nature without equivocation and apology.

Ironically, what is now “true” is nothing but stereotypes, that bundle of mannerisms, dress, makeup and hairstyles by which one imagines what it feels like to be a woman or a man. Worse still, it prefers them, especially when they are at odds with one’s actual sex. The war on pronouns, an assault upon the language by which we recognize a world in common, follows of necessity. What we are dealing with is nothing less than a war on reality itself. And everyone has just been pressed into service.

Being a woman is now reduced to fulfilling a set of stereotypes that is attached to what "womanhood" is. The facts cannot be understated: being a woman, being a man or essential verities, unchanging realities which cannot be changed, shifted, or pushed away simply because a bunch of bad lawyers in black dresses decide to redefine terms.

Period. And by the way, only women can have periods. Period.

There is no totalitarianism so total as that which claims authority over the meaning of nature. Increasingly the courts are assuming this authority, though they typically exercise it in part unconsciously, even ignorantly, and in part dishonestly and subversively, all under the pretense of “neutrally” mediating between interests, rights, powers and authorities. Or in this case, simply parsing “plain English.” But this is bosh, and no one believes it.

The moment that five bad lawyers in black dresses redefined marriage to mean something beyond one man and one woman, we were in trouble. The moment that the Supreme Court decided that it was OK to abort a baby before its birth at any time, the court took on a role which it had never received, nor deserved.

The burdens on free speech, free exercise and, perhaps most fundamentally, free thought, are obvious. But the burden on the basic unity of human society is even weightier. The court has abolished the fundamental fact on which every civilization depends, indeed on which the human species depends.

The court cannot abolish something as true, as fundamental as male and female. They have unleashed legal and political anarchy, granted, but they cannot remove what is true. They cannot abolish which God has created.

As C.S. Lewis wrote in “The Abolition of Man,” we will now need the “beneficent obstinacy of real children for preserving the human race in such sanity as it still possesses.” We can only hope that such children will come along to point out the naked truth to our new emperors.

Messrs. Crawford and Hanby are professors at the John Paul II Institute. Margaret Harper McCarthy is a co-author of this article.

Final Reflection

The Supreme Court of the United States has once again proven itself to be the enemy of the Republic of the United States. The citizens of this country must take on this abuse, and we must resolve that we will not comply with this conformist tyranny.

Male and female He created them. This determination to redefine male and female is nothing more than a perverse attack on God and His righteous rule and authority in the land. There is no excuse for such hatred, for such anti-biological bigotry. We cannot sit back and allow bad lawyers in black dresses to redefine marriage, manhood, womanhood, and parental authority.

MassResistance: Kavanaugh Circus vs. Kagan’s Kid-Glove Treatment in 2010

The Brett Kavanaugh circus vs. Elena Kagan’s kid-glove treatment in 2010

Republicans refused to fight when a true radical was elevated to the Supreme Court

October 9, 2018

Lunatic rent-a-mob shows up outside Sen. Jeff Flake's Senate offices spewing invective and hate over the Kavanaugh nomination. [Photo: New York Daily News].

In the Senate proceedings on US Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, many Americans watched the most gruesome political circus of their lifetimes. The Democrat Senators were irrational in their vicious attacks on him. The piercing screams and bizarre, hysterical behavior of their radical allies who swarmed the Senate chambers, adjacent areas, and outside Senators’ homes was far beyond even the legendary Bork spectacle.

Inside the Senate chambers, hysterical Democrat protesters screamed during the proceedings.

But Kavanaugh’s actual views on issues are middle-of-the-road and even slightly liberal (e.g., that Roe v Wade is “settled law”) [LINK]. There has been concern over his links to the “deep state” and the Vince Foster cover-up during the Clinton years, but for whatever reasons that doesn’t seem to trouble most Republicans.

The GOP pulled up their boots and held off the attacks on Kavanaugh (and the rule of law). While this was courageous and “principled,” we’re not expecting anything stouthearted when the next contest arises.

Compare the Republican stand for Kavanaugh to what happened in 2010. That was the year Barack Obama nominated Elena Kagan, then Solicitor General and formerly Harvard Law School Dean, to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Kagan was a true leftist radical. She had a well-known history of pro-LGBT radicalism while Dean of Harvard Law School. While in the Clinton administration, she encouraged the President to support late-term abortions. She had no experience to recommend her to such a high position in the courts. However, she would be sure to push for “LGBT rights.” But the Republicans put up no discernable fight.

When the time came, the Republicans didn’t have the nerve (or the interest) in seriously rocking the boat, and they barely mentioned any of this.

On May 10, 2010, Obama announced the Kagan nomination to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. On June 28, a team led by MassResistance researcher Amy Contrada published a report documenting Kagan’s extensive LGBT activism, titled: How Elena Kagan helped "queer" Harvard Law School. Will she now help "queer" the US Supreme Court's decisions? The answer, as we’ve seen since, is “yes.” We (and others) sent copies to every Senator, and as many members of their staffs, etc., as we could. People also telephoned to follow up.

Among the facts in the MassResistance report:

• Kagan accelerated and legitimized the GLBT “rights” concept and law studies at Harvard Law School and in the larger community. 
• Kagan recruited former ACLU lawyer (and former ACT-UP activist) William Rubenstein, an expert on "queer" legal issues to teach at Harvard Law School. His topics have included "polygamy, S&M, the sexuality of minors."
• Kagan promoted and facilitated the “transgender” legal agenda during her tenure at Harvard. In 2007, HLS offered a Transgender Law course by “out lesbian” Professor Janet Halley and Dean Spade, a transsexual activist attorney. 
• Kagan encouraged Harvard students to get involved in homosexual activist legal work in the guise of “public interest law.” To get “clinical” legal experience, the Harvard Law School established the LGBT Law Clinic. 
• Kagan engaged in ongoing radical advocacy opposing “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” and demanding an end to the ban on homosexuals serving in the military. 
• Even after Kagan and Harvard lost their legal campaign to ban military recruiters and Harvard Law School was forced to let them back on campus, she encouraged ongoing student protests against them — deputizing the radical Lambda (LGBT) group to come up with ideas of how to harass the recruiters legally. 
• Kagan attended functions of radical LGBT groups at Harvard University, absorbing and apparently agreeing with their goals. Within a month of meeting with a Harvard Law School LGBT student group, she was agreeing with their demand to ban military recruiters on campus. She moderated a panel on GLBT law at the Harvard Gay and Lesbian Caucus's 25th anniversary celebration in 2008.
• Thanks in part to engagement by Kagan (and other administrators), Harvard became so committed to radical transsexual activism that by 2010 its health insurance policy partially covered “sex-change” breast “treatments” for transsexuals (either men taking hormones to develop breasts, or women having their healthy breasts removed to become the “men” they believe they are).
• Elena Kagan was an active member of the Diversity Task Force of the ultra-leftist Boston Bar Association during the time of its activism in support of "gay marriage" and advocacy for "transgender rights."

This history should have been a big red flag for GOP Senators who cared about how the US Supreme Court would re-define American law and culture. All of it had “activist judge” warnings written all over it.

But besides a few comments here and there, Republicans (and the mainstream pro-family movement in Washington, DC) refused to make an issue over her past activism and clear bias.

The Kagan “vetting” was very peaceful and orderly. Although at that time the filibuster was allowed for Supreme Court nominations, GOP minority whip Jon Kyl said, "The filibuster should be relegated to extreme circumstances, and I don't think Elena Kagan represents that." Yeah, right.

The Senate vote on August 5 was 63-37. Five Republicans -- Richard Lugar (R-IN), Susan Collins (R-ME), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Judd Gregg (R-NH), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) -- voted to approve Kagan. One Democrat (Ben Nelson, D-NE) voted “No.”

Our warnings have proven correct. Kagan has been an activist, ultra-leftist Supreme Court Justice. In 2013, she joined the leftists on the Court in several pro-“gay marriage” rulings. Then, after personally officiating at a “gay” wedding, she refused to recuse herself from the Obergefell case and joined the chorus to rule that “gay marriage” is enshrined in the US Constitution.

Our far-left activist Supreme Court Justices: Elena Kagan (left), Sonia Sotomayor (center), and Ruth Bader Ginsburg at one of Nancy Pelosi's "progressive" political events in 2015.

And now, Justice Kagan is pontificating -- that with Kavanaugh joining the Court, the legitimacy of the Supreme Court will be at risk! That horse left the barn a long time ago.

During the Kavanaugh vote this woman became so unhinged that she started clawing at the doors of the chamber to get in.

     

Please help us continue to do our uncompromising work!

Donate to MassResistance

Your support will make the difference!

Kavanaugh CONFIRMED! (Photos)

From Borked to "Kavanaugh-ed": The SCOTUS Nomination Circus

Three decades ago, President Ronald Reagan nominated a pre-eminent legal mind and unabashed constitutionalist Robert C. Bork. A Yale Law School professor with impeccable credentials, including a seat on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, Bork faced an unprecedented buzzsaw of contention and condemnation not just from Democrats, but the press and Hollywood.

US Senator Ted Kennedy read a smear-filled speech against Bork’s confirmation, infamously referred to as “Robert Bork’s America.” Ironically, Kennedy’s tirade against Bork referenced policy decisions implemented by Democratic politicians, including forced segregation, the retraction of civil rights, and police abuses against citizens. Reagan’s Republican Party didn’t handle the media and political onslaught, and Bork’s confirmation failed and not just along party lines. The stark failure of a pre-eminent jurist to receive a seat on the Supreme Court demonstrated that Republican measures to appoint conservative, constitutional originalists to the United States Supreme Court would face not just a double-standard on extreme vetting, but an unprecedented assault on their character and their personal lives.

Thirty years later, with President Donald Trump in office, it looks as if Republicans have learned their lesson. Donald Trump overcame the steep media harassment which sought to derail his election in 2016. In fact, the more the media attacked the President, the better his chances grew, it seemed. Part of his winning campaign included the list of conservative jurists whom he would consider for nomination to the United States Supreme Court. Trump knew how to take on the media then, and he put the screws to the media with this list. He shored up support with worried evangelicals, plus he established trustworthy credentials with other conservatives worried about his commitment to Republican principles.

His first Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, passed through unsightly lines of questioning from Democratic US Senators. Their unjust determination to stonewall a well-qualified jurist fell apart when the Republican majority nuked the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, simply following the pattern set by former Senate Majority leader Harry Reid in 2013 with appellate nominees. Gorsuch was one constitutionalist replacing another constitutional originalist.

For all intents and purposes, Democrats overplayed their hand. They should not have blocked this nomination, but allowed it to go through and save their political capital for other nominees. This partisan folly has hurt their cause in more ways than they will ever know.

 Now we have Brett Kavanaugh, a United States DC Court of Appeals jurist with a long, stories, respected, pedigree. His well-written political opinions sparked little interest from the Democratic minority. They focused on his private life, then they went after his political associations. From the outset, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer announced that he and his caucus would do everything in their power to stop Kavanaugh.

The nomination process is now excessively politicized. The Democrats have destroyed any credibility on this matter. This Democratic attempt to derail President Trump's duly established role as chief executive, and the US Senate's role of "Advise and Consent" has turned into a search-and-destroy circus. Will there be any hope of ending this perverse disregard for the rule of law?

Perhaps. Justice Kavanaugh has displayed an impress judicial temperament. He has demonstrated through solid political research and writing his skill at analyzing law and responding to federal court cases. He has shown proven integrity as a private citizen and public figure. His family contains a long legal pedigree. No matter what the Democrats tried to do, they could not dispute his qualifications.

Now they have resorted to pursuing spurious allegations of sexual misconduct in order to derail this nominee. It is nothing short of disgusting. Christine Ford brings forth these purported sexual assault charges from decades ago, when she and Brett were in high school.  The charges have gone from harrowing to laughable. One accuser stated that Kavanaugh was involved in gang rape. The attorney in charge of another matter, Michael Avenatti, represented washed-up porn slut Stormy Daniels. Those attacks against Trump went nowhere. Avenatti wants in on the corrupt anti-Kavanaugh action, too? Unbelievable.

With the Kavanaugh nomination, a different kind of political maelstrom is emerging. In the past, Supreme Court nominees were "borked", that is slandered heinously by the ideological opposites in hopes of scuttling a terrible nomination. In those days, with Reagan at the helm of divided government. Robert Bork was slammed inexorably because of his consistent constitutionalism, and thus his inevitably conservative views. The Roe v. Wade precedent faced possible overturning with Bork.

That fate awaits that poorly decided decision once again should Kavanaugh become the next Supreme Court justice. His 307 written opinions outline a clearly pro-America, sovereign guidance on a number of issues, including life. Precedents have been respected and rejected in differing number

Borking Kavanaugh didn’t work, in that the Democratic US Senator minority could not attack his political or judicial philosophy with any seriousness this time. The Republican Party conference, or at least the phalanx of conservatives fighting for this latest nomination, now understand the stakes and the depraved lengths to which the Democratic Party will go to shut down future nominees.

This nominee has been “Kavanaugh-ed”, in that the ideological opposition on the US Senate has resorted to every personal, private slander and allegation of impropriety to stop his nomination or scuttle his confirmation. This process was played out to a less extent during Judge Douglas Ginsburg’s nomination hearings. Reagan nominated Ginsburg after Bork, but he withdrew because he “inhaled”. Let’s not forget the “high-tech lynching” that Clarence Thomas endured.

These irreverent, heinous, salacious attacks have hit such a height, however, that they deserve their own moniker. Because of their outlandish nature, however, they will backfire spectacularly. This perverse lawlessness has turned off moderate Democratic voters while engaging Republicans to get out there and vote. Dianne Feinstein may have saved her seat, but she cost her party any chance of winning the House or the US Senate.  Perhaps in the near future, Supreme Court nominees should look forward to being “Kavanaugh-ed”. It almost certainly guarantees the confirmation going forward.

Kavanaugh Coming Through

Kavanaugh Almighty!, by Carol Houghton

We don’t know about you, but we are definitely excited for the upcoming days when Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh singlehandedly overturns Roe v. Wade, causes more global warming to happen and places a fully-automatic machine gun in the hands of every middle schooler.

Quick question: If one Supreme Court Justice has as much magical power as the left ascribes to Brett Kavanaugh, why hasn’t Ruth Bader Ginsburg incinerated all of us Deplorables already?

The Senate confirmation hearings for Judge Kavanaugh were a sight to behold this week. Deranged lunatics were screeching, howling and bursting into tears in the Senate Judiciary Committee at the inevitability of Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Those insane people shrieked almost continually and at times, it felt like the hearings were going to have to be canceled just for safety’s sake.

Oh, and some civilian protesters showed up, too.

The mainstream media was sure to let us know that there were women on the balcony overlooking the chambers who were dressed in Handmaid’s Tale costumes. Look at all of those ordinary, concerned female citizens turning out to stand up for Roe v. Wade! Why, they’re a veritable plethora of everyday Americans, declared the MSM.

Except… later on in the day, conservative outlets identified them as members of the DC-area Antifa fugly squad. Trust us, those brand-new scarlet and white costumes are the cleanest clothes those “ladies” have had on since November 8, 2016.

Plus, we didn’t know that handmaids are allowed to use cell phones. Paging the Patriarchy Police!

Within the Senate chambers, it was an absolute zoo. The Democrats were howling and screeching like a pack of… oops, we almost said, “monkeys,” but thanks to the media’s coverage of the Florida primaries, we know that monkey is now the new N-word. Let’s just say the Democrat protesters were out of control.

Don’t think, however, that it wasn’t planned that way. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) gave the Democrat Senators and the civilian protesters their marching orders in a conference call last week. The whole charade was carefully orchestrated, right down to a George Soros-funded leftwing organization paying the protesters from a bag of cash, right outside the Senate building.

Three doctors who were waiting in line, in hopes of getting inside to watch some of the proceedings, saw a dude with a bag of cash handing out money to people. They thought that was weird, so they snapped a photo of the money-man. Sure enough, the woman he was handing cash to was later ejected from the hearing for howling like a… can we say “banshee?” Is the word “banshee” still okay? Can we get a ruling on that?

Twitter sleuths quickly identified the money man as Vinay Krishnan, a consultant for the Center for Popular Democracy. The Center for Popular Democracy is, in turn, one of the anti-Trump groups that billionaire socialist George Soros dumped massive amounts of cash into earlier this year to resist Trump.

The Center for Popular Democracy is almost completely funded by Soros. Thus, the protests that you saw on TV at the Kavanaugh hearings were brought you by George Soros. Thanks, George.

Here’s a fun fact that Mitch McConnell could take advantage of to ensure that such a circus never happens in the US Senate again. You can’t get into a Senate hearing unless you have a pass. You don’t get a pass unless a Senator’s office gives you one.

In other words, every single one of those insane, screaming, howling lunatics (you thought we were going to say banshees again, didn’t you?) was given a pass by a Democrat Senator.

Mitch McConnell could simply change the Senate rules to fix this once and for all. If you have a guest in the Senate chambers that has to be ejected for too much crazy, your office gets no more passes. Period. Problem solved.

And you know it just wouldn’t be an anti-Trump media spectacle without a loony tunes conspiracy theory about white supremacy. Boy, did the Democrats deliver on that promise! One of Judge Kavanaugh’s advisors was seated directly behind him, and she was… OMG, she was flashing a white supremacy hand signal to the cameras for like, totally an hour!

Of course, that conspiracy theory fell apart when it was revealed that the perceived KKK lady was Zina Bash, a Jewish-Mexican staffer of Kavanaugh’s.

Our favorite part of the hearing, however, had to be when Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) had his moment in the shining sun, pulling a campaign stunt to indicate that he’s running against Trump in 2020. “This is my Spartacus moment!” Booker thundered to the cameras.

Oh, boy. Anytime a Democrat tells you how courageous they’re being, get ready to be informed of something banal that doesn’t even vaguely resemble courage to a normal person.

Remember, the Democrats thought that FBI stooge Peter Strzok deserved a Purple Heart for testifying before the House Judiciary Committee – which is part of the regular duties of senior FBI officials. “He’s doing his job! It’s just like being shot by the Taliban!”

Courage to a Democrat usually means making it halfway through a meeting before sending out a fundraising email about how brave they’re being.

Okay, Spartacus Booker! Dazzle us with your courage! We’re ready to swoon!

The Democrats are doing quite a job
obstructing the Kavanuagh Nomination

Booker declared that he was breaking the Senate rules to release classified Kavanaugh documents that Trump doesn’t want the public to see. And even though SPARTACUS BOOKER could lose his US Senate seat for misconduct by BREAKING THE RULES IN REBELLIOUS FASHION, JUST LIKE HEROES FROM DAYS OF YORE (!), he was willing to make that sacrifice for America. That’s how brave SPARTACUS BOOKER is!

Except the documents had already been declassified before the hearing started. It was a nice speech, though, Spartacus. ‘A’ for effort.

And as for the “classified” info that Trump didn’t want the public to know about, it was an email exchange between Kavanaugh and someone else in the Bush White House. Kavanaugh said in the emails that he didn’t want to rely on racial profiling of Arabs in the days after 9/11. Hey, no wonder Trump didn’t want the public to see it!

So, in the end, Spartacus Booker’s big rebellion revealed to the world that Brett Kavanaugh is opposed to racial profiling. You’d think the Democrats would have wanted to hide that.

This was a watershed moment though, because up until we saw the documents, we were unable to learn any of Kavanaugh’s positions on any legal issues. That’s because Kamala Harris and Dianne Feinstein had been interrupting him for two straight days.

As for Kavanaugh’s real worth as a US Supreme Court Justice, if he’s even 10 percent as conservative as the Democrats and the media assure us he is, it’ll be an improvement over Anthony Kennedy.

Here Comes Justice
Kavanaugh

So Much Winning: Gorsuch Just Like Scalia (Even the LA Times Said So)

The Los Angeles Times is just the West Coast version of the liberal New York Times.

They want to print the news that fits ... their narrative.

Yet even then, they can't help but recognize that his appointment of Neil Gorsuch was not only a big win, but that he is in every way just like Justice Scalia.

Scalia and his successor Gorsuch (Credit: Daily Signal)

Isn't this incredible!

Check out what I found in the Wednesday, June 28th edition of the LA Times:

You know the liberal media is in a tailspin when they have to acknowledge that their most hated target, President Donald Trump, is fulfilling his promises to the American People.

Specifically, the above commentary points out that most justices are not easy to pinpoint when it comes to their governing and judicial ruling style.

All of that has been pushed aside over the past two months. Commentators not realize that Gorsuch is in every way like Scalia. He is issuing conservative, constitutionalist opinions, based on a clear, erudite understanding of the rule of law.

For example, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court let stand a decision which would allow states to record same-sex parents on the birth certificates of children.

What?!

Who dissented in the opinion? Alito, Thomas ... and Gorsuch!

He is a clear, distinguished, constitutionalist voice on the United States Supreme Court, and he is not afraid to dissent with the minority view if needed. He also issued concurring opinions on the travel ban, as he though that the whole executive order should have been upheld.

So much winning! SO MUCH WINNING!

Luis Gutiérrez Weeps Over SCOTUS Strike Down of DACA/DAPA

I got more great news today in my email box.

Amnesty traitor Luis Gutierrez whined  about the tragic limbo for the millions of illegal aliens in our country.

Please enjoy!

We got terrible news:

The four conservative Supreme Court Justices just delivered a gut-wrenching blow to President Obama’s executive order protecting immigrant families.

Actually, the split decision protects all legal families, whether immigrant or natural born,

An immigrant resides in this country legally. What is so hard about this basic concept?!

Donald Trump and the anti-immigrant faction of the GOP are celebrating a decision that will tear parents from their children.

The ugly bigotry rears its ugly head once again. The Republican Party is not anti-immigrant. Many people within the party and conservative leaders across the country are immigrants are come from recent immigrant families.

Right now, we need your grassroots enthusiasm more than ever before. Please sign our petition to stand with immigrant families:

LOL!

I’ve met with hundreds of DREAMers and I’ve heard their heartbreaking stories.

Excuse me?! Americans are DREAMERS too! Poor Luis!

These are American kids -- American families -- who came here to build a better life, only to be forced to live in the shadows.

No, they are not American, because they are not here legally.

These people are a part of our society. They are our neighbors, our peers, and our friends; they go to our schools, shop in our businesses, and pray in our houses of worship.

This is not my problem, this is not anyone's problem. The fact is that these individuals are in the country illegally, and the rule of law matters.

But every day they live in fear of being torn away from their families and from the only true home that many of them have ever known.

I am tired of hearing about the plight of illegals. At least four members of SCOTUS recognize that the rule of law matters, and 

I refuse to live in a country where a person is criminalized for trying to build a better life for their family. That’s just not what America represents.

You know what?! I am tired of people who think that breaking into this country is not a crime!

We’re better than this. Now is the time to stand up and demand action. We can no longer be silent.

Final Reflection

Luis Gutierrez is a shameful cockroach,

He refuses to distinguish between immigrants and illegal aliens. Law matters, and people who come t to this country are looking for ... the rule of law!

Gutierrez does not care about the rule of law.  He does not care about ... anyone if he does not care about the rule of law.

I am so happy that Gutierrez is so sad!

As long as we keep fighting, in can only get better for this country!