All errors should be reported to

Monday, June 29, 2020

Supreme Court approves back-alley abortions

In 1972, Nixon said Democrats were the party of Acid, Amnesty, and Abortion. Americans overwhelmingly voted for him. He won the popular vote by 22 points and became the first to carry 49 of the 50 states.

Less than 3 months later, the Supreme Court flipped the nation the bird and declared abortion a right.

The argument was legislative, not judicial.

7 justices -- all men --said they were allowing this to stop back-alley abortions.

That was a lie. There were not a million back-alley abortions each year in America.

And today, John Roberts and 4 other justices legalized back-alley abortions saying states cannot require abortionists to be doctors with hospital privileges.

CNN reported, "Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the liberal justices on the Supreme Court on Monday to block a controversial Louisiana abortion law that critics said would have closed nearly every clinic in the state.

"The 5-4 ruling is a win for supporters of abortion rights who argued that the law was not medically necessary and amounted to a veiled attempt to restrict abortion. The law barred doctors from performing the procedure unless they had admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

"The majority opinion was penned by Justice Stephen Breyer, who wrote that the majority 'consequently hold that the Louisiana statute is unconstitutional.'

"Breyer added later: 'The evidence also shows that opposition to abortion played a significant role in some hospitals' decisions to deny admitting privileges.'

"The ruling continues a trend of Roberts siding with liberals in major cases. He previously has upheld the program allowing undocumented immigrants who came into the US as children to remain and sided with opinion that extended anti-discrimination protections to LGBTQ workers."

Roberts has gone over to the communist side where the Constitution means whatever strikes their fancy on any particular day.

He is the turd in the conservative punch bowl -- Bush 43's gift to his liberal masters.

The editor of the op-ed page in the New York Post was not amused.
I dismiss the argument that Obama and the other forces of evil are blackmailing Roberts.


Roberts was disingenuous all along. He is why you should never trust a justice confirmed by half or more of the Democrats.

Roe v. Wade was a sham. As is Roberts.


  1. What ever we need to do to get a super majority in the senate by 2022 MUST be done so we can impeach supreme injustice of the court Roberts.

    1. Easy, just ensure you and all of your friends, associates, etc. vote for Donald Trump. Yes he is human and has issues like we all do but he is the Best Hope that we have to restore the U.S. to the Republic form of government. Not a democracy which is what the Marxists are trying to continue. Look up the differences between them.

  2. Don I applaud you for forming your own opinions. But I also have as a Free Man have the right to disagree. The article seems to have been well researched and documented as to the reason Roberts is where he is and why he acts as he does. The CIA coined the term Conspiracy Theory as a way to deflect questioning of their Deep State |Actions.

    1. Don's almost always correct in his reasoning, but I too don't think he's made his case here.

      Once upon a time, Roberts made decisions in line with the Constitution & previous law; now he's not doing that anymore. It's hard for me to believe he was always on the dark side, and hid it successfully for many years; I find it a lot more persuasive that he has his um, organs in a vise, which was tightened until he did what Obama & the anti-American Left want him to do.

      If this blackmail material about his adopted children can be proven, then he should be impeached. I have no desire to hurt his children, but his unlawful & unconstitutional decisions hurt many thousands of children- and kill many more. He's helping destroy our country!

      So for the sake of our Republic, he should be impeached; but we have evildoers, wimps & RINOs in Congress, not men/women of stature and honor, so I very much doubt that will be done.

      Alas for our country!

  3. Roberts wants to be sure the Demos like him if Gropin' Joe wins.

    Unfortunately, the odds are slim and at least 2, maybe 3, Lefties will probably not survive the next 4 years, so he'll be irrelevant anyway.

  4. He is a MAJOR disappointment. We can only hope that next term PDJT can replace two liberal justices and perhaps Clarence Thomas retires so a much younger conservative can take his place. Then, Roberts will be marginalized.

  5. Just in. Reddit just shut down the largest Pro Donald Trump subdivision. Visit the new site that took over.


  6. Ann Coulter was right. (As she so often is.) She was virtually alone on the Right in 2005 in raising the alarm about Roberts. Compare that with useless Hugh Hewitt, who finds it necessary to remind us constantly that he once shared an office with Roberts and therefore, Roberts is a "good guy." SMH.....

  7. Supreme Court refuses to block federal executions of inmates in July and August. Let them begin and consider it a good start for things to come. Treason is a Federal Offense and punishable by Death!

    1. When is the last time you head the words, "vagrancy" and "reform school?" I fear "treason" and "sedition" are headed for the same memory hole.
      - Gary B

    2. There is always the 2nd option.

  8. Just in time delivery.

  9. What about Justice Roberts cricket's on the corrupt FISA judges, not even questioning the FBI spy warrants on Trump campaign? The list is endless on this likely corrupt judge.

  10. So a regulation on providers creates an undue burden on citizens seeking to exercise their constitutional rights. OK, let's apply that logic to gun shops, too.

  11. It is time now or in the foreseeable future for this President, or Congress to defy a U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Hopefully, it will be President Trump; or a reasonable future President to finally to undo some of Marbury v. Madison. The justice system would not have its stature harmed any more than it already has by legislating from the bench... ZB

  12. If you read the constitution with any sort of attention to detail, you might notice that there is no phrase like

    “ … and after a president signs a bill into law, or the congress overrides a president’s veto, the supreme court may, by majority vote, veto the bill, in whole or in part, if a case concerning the bill is brought before it, without either the president or congress being able to override the veto.”

    There’s a good reason for this, of course — it would obviously give the supreme court way too much power, establishing the republic as an oligarchy of judges. Yet this is how “judicial review”, a doctrine elaborated by the supreme court over the last several centuries, works in practice.

    Now the constitution as written does allow the supreme court to rule any way it pleases on the cases that come before it, with no way to appeal its ruling. So if they want to find every person or group indicted under some law innocent — all the time — they can. However, without the doctrine of judicial review to erase that law from the books, prosecutors could still use that disliked law to indict, and lower courts could still use that disliked law to convict. Those violating the law would still be punished by having to pay lawyers and spend lots of time in court (until their case reached the supreme court of course). And the supreme court would have to spend more and more of its time acquitting those indicted under that disliked law.

    How did those who wrote the constitution think this sort of impasse would be resolved? Well, congress has the power to impeach and remove as many supreme court justices as it takes to get the court to see things its way, and the voters have the power to elect legislators who will be sure to remove those judges — or elect a congress and president who will change the law. Voters could elect a president who pledges to stop wasting the government’s time indicting people under the law — but they could also elect a president who insists on continuing the indictments. The voters, not the supreme court, would have the final say on what happens. In my opinion that would be the constitutional way. Judicial review is BS — worse than that, and ironically enough, it’s also (wait for it) unconstitutional.

  13. Rule by court is called a kirtarchy. The King is not sovereign. The People are not sovereign. Only judges are sovereign who's proclamations cannot be appealed.

    J in StL