Have nothing to do with the [evil] things that people do, things that belong to the darkness. Instead, bring them out to the light... [For] when all things are brought out into the light, then their true nature is clearly revealed...

-Ephesians 5:11-13

Tag Archives: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Supreme Court Again Refuses to Settle Second Amendment Issue

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, June 27, 2017:  

English: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justic...

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the oldest member on the court.

By refusing to consider Peruta v. San Diego on appeal on Monday, the Supreme Court once again sidestepped an opportunity to clarify the Second Amendment issue of carrying a firearm outside the home. That issue has remained open since the court’s decisions in Heller and McDonald, dating back to 2008 and 2010, respectively. Those cases didn’t clarify whether the right guaranteed in the Second Amendment extends to public places, and anti-gun states such as California have rushed in with state laws that virtually prohibit the exercise of rights guaranteed by that amendment.

That was the problem faced by Edward Peruta back in 2009.

Keep Reading…

Trump Has Great Opportunity to Influence U.S. Jurisprudence

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, February 15, 2017:

English: The United States Supreme Court, the ...

The United States Supreme Court, the highest court in the United States, in 2010.

In his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention after becoming the Republican nominee for president, then-candidate Donald Trump reiterated the importance of the replacement of deceased Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia, stating, “The replacement of our beloved Justice Scalia will be a person of similar views, principles and judicial philosophies. Very important. This will be one of the most important issues decided by this election.”

Following Trump’s election victory in November, liberals voiced shock and consternation, especially in light of the Republican Party maintaining its majority in the branch of the legislature tasked with confirming Scalia’s replacement — the Senate. Nina Totenberg of National Public Radio declared that

Keep Reading…

Trump Expands List of Potential Nominees to Supreme Court

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, September 26, 2016:  

English: The United States Supreme Court, the ...

The United States Supreme Court in 2010.

In what could turn out to be a shrewd political move, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump expanded his list of potential Supreme Court nominees on Friday. The timing, just before the first debate on Monday night, couldn’t be better. It sets the tone and part of the conversation of that debate and puts his opponent, Democrat contender Hillary Clinton, on the defensive: She has yet to provide voters with her official list of nominees for the high court.

In addition to the 11 nominees announced back in May by the Trump campaign are the following:

Keep Reading…

GOP Platform: Repeal the “Johnson Amendment” Inhibiting Pastors’ Free Speech

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, July 25, 2016:  

English: North Church steeple in Portsmouth, N...

The week before he was to give his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland last Thursday, Donald Trump phoned the president of Liberty University to tell him that the GOP’s platform called for repeal of the “Johnson Amendment.” Said Jerry Falwell, Jr.:

Keep Reading…

Three Liberal Justices Dissent in Supreme Court Fourth Amendment Ruling

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Wednesday, June 22, 2016: 

English: The United States Supreme Court, the ...

The United States Supreme Court, the highest court in the United States, in 2010.

Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented inUtah v. Strieff, a decision that was announced by the court on Monday. On the surface the decision appeared to allow an unconstitutional expansion of police powers.

In a case dating back to 2006, a narcotics detective in Salt Lake City was watching a suspected drug house. He noticed a man leaving the house and the detective stopped him, demanding to know what he was doing in the house. In the process he demanded his identification, which he forwarded to his dispatcher to run through the police database. When he learned that the man had an outstanding warrant for a traffic violation, the detective, Douglas Fackrell, arrested Edward Strieff, searched him, and found various drug-related paraphernalia.

Strieff moved to suppress the damning evidence, claiming

Keep Reading…

Getting Inside a Liberal Judge’s head

This article was published by the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Wednesday, October 21, 2015:  

Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for...

Vladimir Lenin’s famous quote, “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted,” seems to apply to Jose Cabranes, a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. His parents were both school teachers, he attended public high school and then studied history at Columbia College. After that he got a law degree from Yale and then returned some years later to serve as Yale’s first general counsel at the invitation of Yale’s president, Kingman Brewster.

He served as a consultant to Secretary of State Cyrus Vance for two years. He joined the ultimate insider’s club, the Council on Foreign Relations, and was appointed by President Jimmy Carter to the President’s Commission on Mental Health. He just missed being nominated to the Supreme Court by President Bill Clinton who instead nominated far-left Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

In other words, Cabranes had no choice but to adopt the worldview that government is a good thing, and more of it is better. When it comes to the Second Amendment to the Constitution, Cabranes considers it a minor impediment to doing whatever it takes to keep the public safe.

Take, for example, his ruling on Monday

Keep Reading…

Two Unanimous Supreme Court Decisions Grant Immunity to Police, Secret Service

Police Tape

Following the announcements on Monday of the Supreme Court’s unanimous decisions in two “qualified immunity” cases, John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, expressed dismay:

Not a day goes by without reports of police officers overstepping the bounds of the Constitution and brutalizing, terrorizing and killing the citizenry. Indeed, the list of incidents in which unaccountable police abuse their power, betray their oath of office and leave taxpayers bruised, broken and/or killed grows longer and more tragic by the day to such an extent that Americans are now eight times more likely to die in a police confrontation than they are to be killed by a terrorist.

This lawlessness on the part of government officials, an unmistakable characteristic of a police state, is made possible in large part by the courts, which increasingly defer to law enforcement and prioritize security over civil liberties. In so doing, the government gives itself free rein to abuse the law, immune from reproach, and we are all the worse off for it.

A closer look at the two cases to which Whitehead refers, however, reveals

Keep Reading…

Warrantless Searches Expanded Under Latest Supreme Court Ruling

This article was first published at the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Friday, February 28, 2014:

On the surface, the Supreme Court’s ruling on Tuesday in Fernandez v. California seems pretty innocuous. Only when the details are examined does it become clear that the Fourth Amendment has been

Keep Reading…

Supreme Court Expands Police Power at the Expense of the Fourth Amendment

On Tuesday the Supreme Court ruled in Fernandez v. California that when a resident who objects to the search of his residence is removed through a lawful arrest, the remaining resident may give police consent to search without first demanding a warrant.

The back story is much more complicated than that official summary, and

Keep Reading…

White House Shifts Legal Gears as ObamaCare Heads to Supreme Court

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe ...

The pressure of the continuing countdown to Monday, March 26, when the Supreme Court takes on the challenge to ObamaCare, has forced legal advisors to the White House to change their strategy in hopes of successfully rebuffing it and preserving the Obama administration’s key legislative victory signed into law in March, 2010.

It’s all about the mandate and whether it can be sustained by claiming justification for it under a generous reading of the Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) in the Constitution. Without that mandate, the administration claims that the rest of the law would necessarily fail due to its excessive costs. The Congressional Budget Office just reported that those costs would be double what the Obama administration touted in its cram-down of the law two years ago. And another CBO study said that, if implemented, millions of citizens—between 3 million and 20 million—would actually lose their present coverage, while public polls continue to show declining support for the whole idea of the federal government’s virtual takeover of the country’s health delivery system.

An ABC News/Washington Post poll taken in January showed that most of those polled think that ObamaCare, if implemented, will cost jobs, hurt the economy, and cost more than projected. Last week’s poll from the same source showed that two-thirds of those polled “say the U.S. Supreme Court should throw out either the individual mandate…or the law in its entirety.” According to the pollsters, “[T]he law has never earned majority support in ABC/Post polls—and this update…finds a strong sense its critics are dominating the debate. Seventy percent of Americans report hearing mainly negative things about the law…”

Another measure of the intensity surrounding the pending Supreme Court hearings (a record six hours are scheduled over three days next week) is the number of “amicus” or “friend of the court” briefs that have been submitted by parties who are interested in influencing the outcome of a lawsuit but who are not parties to it. Reuters reported that 136 briefs have been filed with the court (a stack about two feet high), a third more than

Keep Reading…

Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and the 4th Amendment

Stylized arrest.

Image via Wikipedia

When the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear oral arguments on a Fourth Amendment case decided by the Kentucky Supreme Court (Kentucky v. King), alarm bells went off. Under the Fourth Amendment, as readers are no doubt aware, “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

But what if police pick the wrong house, pound on the door loudly, announce that “This is the police!” and then, smelling pot, break down the door without a warrant and arrest the homeowner for violating local drug laws?

Keep Reading…

Many of the articles on Light from the Right first appeared on either The New American or the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor.