It’s true, they, the democrats, can’t define what a “woman” is, yet they are all up in arms regarding a “woman’s” right to choose.
Who exactly are they talking about?
Who are these “women” that have a right to choose?
Alia E. Dastagir, for USA Today, reports that, “In the 13th hour of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation hearing, Senator Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., asked the Supreme Court nominee, Ketanji Brown Jackson, “Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman’?”
“Jackson, appearing confused, responded, ‘There’s no simple answer, Senator…, I’m not a biologist.’”
And, oh, by the way, when did biology come into play, when defining gender, from the democrats’ point of view? Just sayin’.
So, again, the democrats, who can’t define exactly what a “woman” is are now the standard bearers for “women’s” rights!
How exactly does that work?
The democrats, the party of hypocrisy and ignorance, has no problem flipping and flopping as required.
Protesters at The Women’s March ‘Rally For Abortion Justice’ in Washington, on Oct. 2, 2021.
The media doesn’t seem too eager to point out this hypocrisy either.
If Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who is pegged to replace Judge Stephen Breyer when he retires, was on The Supreme Court right now, how could she possibly determine a ruling regarding Roe v. Wade, if she can’t even define what a “woman” is…, even though she would be considered a “woman” herself, by those of us who feel we could define what a “woman” is.
The democrats are attempting to destroy women’s sports in our country, while at the same time degrading a woman’s role as a mother, yet they want to appear to be the party of “women’s” rights?
Where were these people chanting “my body my choice,” when thousands of nurses across the country were being fired for refusing to be forced to get vaccinated by Joe Biden and the CDC’s mandates?
And where are these people demanding all of these nurses be reinstated after the courts ruled that these vaccination mandates were beyond the scope of the CDC to mandate?
As usual, the democrats (Satan’s minions) are flat-out lying and misrepresenting the facts surrounding The Supreme Court’s apparent, upcoming, overturning of Roe v. Wade.
The Court’s ruling would not, in effect, ban abortions.
The Court’s ruling would simply send the abortion question back to the states, for the people of those states to decide, on a state by state basis, how they want to treat the abortion question.
Are the democrats really that afraid to let people have the ability to express their own beliefs and desires by way of a vote?
Apparently, the answer to that question is “yes.”
The democrats are always more than happy to dictate, rather than let the people speak via the democratic process.
“Red America” and “Blue America” are quickly becoming two very different countries, which are not going to be compatible with each other in the very near future.
Then what?
If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment. I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!
Late Friday night, The United States Supreme Court elected to not even hear the Texas election lawsuit.
Even though the lawsuit was backed by The President, 18 states, and over 100 members of Congress, The United States Supreme Court felt this would be a waste of their time to even hear the arguments is the case.
I was personally shocked by their decision which, I believe, will go down in history as one of he most shameful decisions ever rendered by a United States Supreme Court.
CBS News reports that, “In a tweet overnight, Mr. [President] Trump said, ‘The Supreme Court really let us down. No Wisdom, No Courage!’ after the court’s 7-2 ruling rejected a push from Texas to block electors in four battleground states from voting in the Electoral College.”
For the record…,
The seven justices who rejected the case are:
John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States,
Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice,
Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice,
Elena Kagan, Associate Justice,
Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice,
Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice,
Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice.
The two justices who felt the case was worth hearing are:
Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice,
Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice.
None of the three Justices appointed by President Trump: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, nor Amy Coney Barrett, opted to defend The President.
I’m sure the liberal justices would have acted the same way if this had been a challenge supporting former President Obama.
NOT!
“The decision effectively ends The President’s five-week effort to legally challenge President-elect Joe Biden’s victory.”
“In rejecting the lawsuit, the court wrote that ‘Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.’”
So, The Supreme Court of The United States is saying that Texas, and all of the other states that joined in the lawsuit, somehow has no interest if other states don’t follow Constitutional law, allow their election to be compromised by cheating, and thus allow an illegitimate winner to be installed as President of the United States?
Really?
“The four states — Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Wisconsin — all went to Mr. Biden.”
“The lawsuit filed Monday by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton asked the court to invalidate the four key states’ votes, but judges across the country have repeatedly tossed out those claims due to a lack of evidence.”
“Lack of evidence?!”
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence, if any of these courts would care to look at it.
“Over 100 House Republicans filed a brief in support of Paxton’s suit claiming the election was riddled with allegations of fraud and irregularities.”
“Mr. [President] Trump had been counting on a Supreme Court victory. Three of the seven justices who rejected the case were Justices Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Barrett — all his own appointees.”
Yes…, and shame on all of you.
Gorsuch
Kavanaugh
Barrett
“Earlier in the week, the president struck an optimistic tone at a White House Hanukkah party.”
“In a video posted to Twitter, he said: ‘I understand a lot of congressmen and women have joined in, a lot of people are joining in because they can’t allow this to happen.’”
‘“You can’t have a country where somebody loses an election and becomes president,’ Mr. Trump continued.”
The Supreme Court obviously doesn’t feel there is a problem with that.
“Paxton released a statement calling the court’s decision ‘unfortunate,’ asserting he ‘will continue to tirelessly defend the integrity and security of our elections and hold accountable those who shirk established election law for their own convenience.’”
“Unfortunate” is the very, very, very least that can be said to describe this turn of events.
“The President’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani joined ‘Hannity’ on Fox News Friday evening, and said the Supreme Court’s decision was wrong.”
‘“The Supreme Court has made a terrible, terrible mistake in not getting this resolved in a fair, in a decent and in an equitable way,’ Giuliani said. ‘Because it’s gonna leave a real black mark with regard to this election throughout our entire history.’”
Well said, Rudy, and I absolutely agree.
Additionally, according to National Public Radio (NPR), “The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday night rejected an eleventh hour challenge to Joe Biden’s election as president.”
“The court’s action came in a one-page order, which said the complaint was denied ‘for lack of standing.’”
“Texas, supported by President Trump, tried to sue Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin and Michigan, claiming fraud, without evidence.”
Again, since when aren’t signed affidavits evidence?
“But in order for a state to bring a case in court, especially the Supreme Court, a state must show it has been injured. In essence, the court said Texas could not show that it was injured by the way other states conducted their elections.”
I believe Texas demonstrated quite clearly how it believed it had been injured.
According to the Morris Bart, LLC Law firm website, regarding “standing to sue,” “When a party files a lawsuit there are many things he or she must prove besides just the facts of the case. One of these legal concepts is known in Latin as ‘locus standi,’ in other words, ‘standing to sue.’ Here is the essential breakdown of this principle and how it might affect your legal rights.”
“What does it mean to have ‘standing’ in court? In layman’s terms, legal standing to sue is about who has the right to bring an action in court, not about the issues or facts of the actual case. Under Article III of the Constitution, courts can only hear actual ‘cases’ or ‘controversies,’ so standing law helps enforce this requirement by requiring that the party filing sue suffer an injury caused by the other party that can actually be addressed by the court.”
“It’s important to note that because standing law is established by the US Constitution, these requirements only apply to federal court lawsuits. For state standing requirements, you would look to state law.”
“What are the three elements of standing to sue?”
“In the legal world, ‘element’ is another word for a factor that the party must prove as part of a broader legal concept. In terms of standing, a party must prove three elements.”
“INJURY IN FACT means that a person has suffered an actual injury. This can be a physical injury or economic loss, the two most common types of injuries. However, this element can also include harm that is caused to conservation, aesthetic, or recreational interests as well. Importantly, in most cases, the injury must already have occurred, rather than being something hypothetical that might happen in the future.”
“CAUSATION means that the injury to the plaintiff was caused by the person or party that is being sued. In other words, the party bringing the lawsuit needs to show that “but for” the defendant’s action or inaction, they would not have been injured. If the plaintiff cannot prove a connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury, they will not be able to prove that they have standing to bring the lawsuit.”
“Finally, REDRESSABILITY means that the court will actually be capable of doing something to correct or make up for the plaintiff’s injury. This can mean ordering the defendant to undo what it has done, or if that isn’t possible, imposing penalties or fines that would have a deterrent effect. It’s important to remember that the court’s jurisdiction does not extend outside of the United States, and courts can only order parties to take certain actions, so there is a limit on whether a court’s order can “redress” the injury the plaintiff has suffered.”
“When interpreting these standards, courts have also added other rules, often called ‘prudential standing,’ to help them consistently apply standing law. These rules include limits on when taxpayers can sue for grievances that affect the general public, and the requirement that the injury be within the ‘zone of interest’ a statute is intended to cover, among many others.”
“Why do courts require standing for a lawsuit to proceed? At the most basic level, courts require standing because the Constitution requires them to enforce the law. However, there are many policy reasons that courts require legal standing. Because of the requirement that federal courts only hear actual ‘cases or controversies,’ these requirements prevent courts from litigating abstract political questions that have public significance, but have not actually yet harmed anyone. This means that courts can use their time and efforts only on those cases where they can have an actual impact.”
This is why we get jokes like:
What do you call a busload of lawyers driving over a cliff?
A good start.
In my opinion, these justices were just looking for an excuse to not get involved.
When over 75 million voters feel like they’ve been “injured,” I’d say that is something worth addressing.
Our country was looking to them to help pull us out of the fire, and they just turned their backs on law-abiding American citizens, and our country in general.
Thanks for nothing Supreme Court.
If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment. I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!
Senator UpChuck Schumer from the Peoples’ Republic of New York.
They should sell hats with “PRNY” on them!
Yeah! This sales could help support all of the criminals released back into the community without bail…, not to mention their future innocent victims.
Anyway…, I digress.
Senator Charles (Chuck) Schumer shot his mouth off the other day, while speaking out in front of the Supreme Court building.
So what is all of the fuss about?
Mr.EricksonRules is going to pull all of the pertinent information together for you and give you the proper perception of Senator Schumer’s words, as well as of the responses of others.
It all started with what democrat Senator Chuck Schumer said while speaking at an abortion rights rally outside of the Supreme Court on March 4, 2020.
Here are the exact words Schumer said:
“Now we stand here today because behind me, inside the walls of this Court, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments, as you know, for the first major abortion rights cases since Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch came to the bench.”
“From Louisiana, to Missouri, to Texas, Republican legislatures are waging war on women, all women. And they’re taking away fundamental rights. I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
Well, that definitely sounds like a threat to me.
Since Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh are appointed for life and don’t have to be re-elected, how exactly will they “pay the price,” Mr. Schumer?
And what do you think they are going to be “hit” with?
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Schumer’s remarks were, “astonishing, reckless and completely irresponsible.”
President Trump tweeted, “There can be few things worse in a civilized, law abiding nation, than a United States Senator openly, and for all to see and hear, threatening the Supreme Court or its Justices. This is what Chuck Schumer just did. He must pay a severe price for this! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 5, 2020”
According to Ian Millhiser for the VOX website, Schumer’s words, “received a rare public rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts.”
“Roberts, for his part, interpreted this statement as a direct threat against Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, and it’s easy to see why. ‘Justices know that criticism comes with the territory,’ the chief justice said in his statement rebuking Schumer. ‘But threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous.’”
I think everyone should complete agree with Chief Justice Roberts words.
And excuse Mr. Millhiser, why would the Chief Justice interpret Schumer’s words any other way but as a “direct threat against Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh?”
Senator Schumer specifically called them out.
Any other interpretation is completely disingenuous and propagandistic spin.
The next day, after being reprimanded in The Senate by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer said, “I should not have used the words I used yesterday. They did not come out the way I intended to.”
Hmmm…, that’s funny, because you’ve been at this talking thing for quite a few years now…, in fact, it’s your job! I’m pretty sure you said exactly what you intended to say.
“He says that his intention was to convey that ‘there would be political consequences—political consequences, for President Trump and Senate Republicans—if the Supreme Court, with newly confirmed Justices, stripped away a woman’s right to choose.’”
Hmmm…, again that’s funny, because you didn’t say anything about “political consequences,” President Trump or Senate republicans, Mr. Schumer.
Are we to believe that you were that confused and unable to say what you really meant for some unknown reason?
Ian Millhiser also attempts to reason that, “There also isn’t any law prohibiting United States senators from making vaguely menacing statements about Supreme Court justices.”
Oh, but I think there is, Mr. Ian Millhiser…, and I wouldn’t necessarily classify his statements as “vague” either.
Why do I feel that if President Trump would have said these things you wouldn’t have classified his remarks as “vague?”
Just sayin’.
Anyway…, back to the law I think was violated here.
“Threatening government officials of the United States IS a felony under federal law. Threatening the President of the United States is a felony under 18 U.S.C. § 871, punishable by up to 5 years of imprisonment, that is investigated by the United States Secret Service. Threatening other officials is a Class C or D felony, usually carrying maximum penalties of 5 or 10 years under 18 U.S.C. § 875, 18 U.S.C. § 876 and other statutes. When a threat is made against a judge, it can also be considered obstruction of justice.”
Schumer continued with his “apology” in The Senate by saying, “Of course, I did not intend to suggest anything other than political and public opinion consequences for the Supreme Court, and it is a gross distortion to imply otherwise.”
“I’m from Brooklyn,” Schumer then explained. “We speak in strong language. I shouldn’t have used the words I did, but in no way was I making a threat. I never, never, would do such a thing. And Leader McConnell knows that. And Republicans, manufacturing outrage over these comments know that too.”
Chucky, Chucky…, where should I begin?
First of all, you “of course” are not given credit for anything.
Second of all, you yourself are the one attempting the “gross distortion here,” not anyone else.
Next you somehow are attempting to blame what you said and how you speak on being from Brooklyn?
Really?
What?!
Then you say people from Brooklyn speak in “strong language?”
Again…, what?!
People from Brooklyn speak in “strong language” compared to who?
In your estimation, Mr. Schumer, are there any people who talk in stronger language who would be excused from saying ever dumber things than you?
Just wondering.
Inquiring minds want to know.
I believe, for now, that covers UpChuck Schumer’s threatening Supreme Court comments.
Lastly I’d like to talk about various politicians and various media outlets attempting to justify Schumer’s comments based on comments President Trump has made about The Supreme Court.
OK…, so what has President Trump said?
Amanda Holpuch of The Guardian reports that, “While ‘elections have consequences’ – a reference to his [President Trump’s] two Supreme Court appointments since winning the White House, both reliable conservatives – ‘I only ask for fairness, especially when it comes to decisions made by the United States Supreme Court!’”
“At a press conference in India, [President Trump] Trump repeated his complaint.”
‘“I just don’t know how they [Justices Ginsberg and Sotomayor] cannot recuse themselves from anything having to do with Trump or Trump-related,’ he said. ‘The right thing to do is that.’”
‘“What Justice Sotomayor said … was really highly inappropriate and everybody agrees to that. Virtually everybody. I’ve seen papers on it, people cannot believe that she said it.’”
President Trump expressing his opinion and concern about certain Justices, based on prior inflammatory remarks, and their ability to judge fairly and without bias, is completely different from Senator Schumer’s threatening remarks.
These politicians and media outlets attempting to equate President Trump’s remarks to Senator Schumer’s remarks, somehow, are acting completely irresponsible and fraudulent.
I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!
If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article. From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the white “FOLLOW” button at the bottom of that page, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.
Mr. Erickson Rules! 