Connect with us

In Historic 9-0 Decision, Supreme Court Totally Shredded Democrats – YUGE!!!!

Published

on

Sometimes the Supreme Court gets it right and in a rarity, leveling a historic 9-0 decision, SCOTUS just sidestepped two major cases concerning partisan gerrymandering. This allows controversial district maps to stand and be used in this fall’s midterm elections just the way they are. That’s great news for Republicans and Democrats are incensed over it. They had their hearts set on redistricting voting districts… i.e. partisan gerrymandering. They will literally do anything to steal an election which includes gerrymandering, having the dead vote and recruiting illegal aliens and refugees to vote. Those are just a few of their favorite tricks.

You have to ask yourself if Dems are willing to illegally and unethically unseat a sitting president simply because he is a Republican and they don’t like him, how far will they go to rig an election? As far as they can possibly get away with, sometimes with the help of government agencies. They bend the rules just as far as they can and had planned to do so in the midterms as well. Their blue wave is more of a drip and now this. Things are just not looking good for leftists in the upcoming elections.

This decision is a huge one from SCOTUS. CNN reported: “The Supreme Court on Monday sidestepped two major cases concerning partisan gerrymandering, allowing controversial district maps to stand and be used in this fall’s midterm elections. The 9-0 ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts in a Wisconsin case is a blow to Democrats who argued the Republican-drawn maps prevented fair and effective representation by diluting voters’ influence and penalizing voters based on their political beliefs.”

Democrats won a challenge in a lower court, but the Supreme Court’s decision on the Wisconsin case Monday would limit who can bring such cases in the future. A second case from Maryland involved the Republicans challenging a district map drawn by Democrats. The justices said that a lower court did not act improperly in leaving the map in place. In an unsigned opinion with no dissents, the justices said that the challengers failed to reach the high bar of showing “irreparable harm” that would be necessary for a preliminary injunction to block the map. “Even if we assume — contrary to the findings of the District Court — that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims, the balance of equities and the public interest tilted against their request for a preliminary injunction,” the court said.

The court’s opinion in the Maryland case means that for now, the justices will leave having to answer whether the court can set a standard for when politicians go too far in drawing lines to benefit one party over another for another day. But it also makes it harder to bring it before the high court. This issue is sure to come before the court again, however, and it is one of the reasons it is so important that President Trump select another constitutional originalist to sit on the court when the next vacancy comes up. For instance, Kennedy was seen as the swing vote on this case. Rumor has it he will retire sometime this summer and President Trump will fill his spot. This could solidly weigh the Supreme Court in favor of conservatives for the first time in many years.

On Monday, Justice Anthony Kennedy stayed relatively silent. The last time the Supreme Court heard a major partisan gerrymandering case, in 2004, four conservative justices said the issue should be decided by the political branches, not the courts. But Kennedy was unwilling to bar all future claims of injury from partisan gerrymanders. That stance may soon be moot.

It would seem a whole raft of rulings are going against Democrats and their manipulation of voting. Judges ruled this last week that you can wear clothing with political expressions to the voting booth. That’s a win for free speech, something the left abhors. Democrats are always whining about how unfair the elections are, all the while trying to corrupt the voting process itself. For instance, trying to kill off voter ID. Lately, it hasn’t been working for them, which makes me smile.

This is nothing new for the left. They’ve been doing this for decades where they try to gerrymander districts so Democrats can win more seats even though the majority don’t want them there. When Republicans decided they had had enough and decided to turn the tables and give the Dems a bit of their own medicine, liberals had a meltdown. Unfortunately for the Dems, not all judges are liberal and even the liberal justices on the Supreme Court elected to punt this one.

It appears that Americans are going to give the left an even bigger boot in 2018 than they did in 2016. Good times. The Trump wave is still building and it looks like it’s going to crush the Democrats flat. In the meantime, expect the shrill whining from the left to intensify as they know their time is short and they will fight every inch of the way — including cheating when it comes to elections.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Trending Now on Right Wing News


Judge Orders Hillary Be Deposed For Judicial Watch-Benghazi Lawsuit

Published

on

...

* By

We are lucky to have Judicial Watch. This is the only organization that is fighting for justice. This woman shouldn’t be walking free for the crimes she’s committed. No American citizen would be able to get away with these crimes. The left truly believe they are above the law.

It would be nice to see a Clinton in Prison.

Via Breitbart:

A federal judge on Monday ordered former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to deliver a sworn deposition in response to a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch over her role in the Obama administration’s response to the 2012 terror attack on the U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya.

U.S. District Court Royce Lamberth wrote in court filings that Clinton’s written answers to questions regarding the matter in a separate case were “incomplete” and “unhelpful” and demanded more information.

“As extensive as the existing record is, it does not sufficiently explain Secretary Clinton’s state of mind when she decided it would be an acceptable practice to set up and use a private server to conduct State Department business,” wrote Lamberth. “Simply put, her responses left many more questions than answers.”

The judge added: “Even years after the FBI investigation, the slow trickle of new emails has yet to be explained.”

Judicial Watch initiated the lawsuit in 2014 to uncover whether Clinton used her private email server to communicate about the Benghazi attack to skirt the Freedom of Information Act and whether the State Department reviewed records following an FOIA request from Judicial Watch. On September 11th, Ansar al-Sharia terrorists attacked the diplomatic compound, killing U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith.

FLASHBACK August 2019 Court Grants NEW Discovery on Clinton Emails!

Via Judicial Watch:

We have won a significant victory in our pursuit of the truth about Hillary Clinton’s misuse of official email and the Deep State’s efforts to cover it up.

A federal judge granted us seven additional depositions, three interrogatories and four document requests related to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private, unauthorized email server.

Hillary Clinton and her former top aide and current lawyer Cheryl Mills were given 30 days to oppose being deposed by Judicial Watch (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)).

The court rejected Justice and State Department arguments to protect Mrs. Clinton and the agencies from additional discovery and ordered agency lawyers to respond to our questions about their knowledge of the Clinton email issue. The court granted all of our requested discovery but gave Clinton and Mills 30 days to file any opposition to the requests to question them in person under oath.

The new court-ordered discovery allows us to take testimony and gather evidence of Clinton’s handling of emails, specifically in an “after action memo” drafted by Heather Samuelson, Clinton’s senior advisor at State and White House liaison. The memo was created in December 2014 to memorialize the Clinton team’s processing of the Clinton emails. The discovery also asks when Justice and State Department attorneys learned about Clinton’s private email use; and what senior records-keeping officials at the State Department knew about Clinton’s emails and when they knew it.

DONATE NOW TO BUILD THE WALL WITH BRIAN KOLFAGE, CLICK BELOW:

Continue Reading

VA Dems Introduce Bill To Take Pensions From Sheriffs Who Opposed Gun Control

Published

on

...

* By

Maybe it’s time we start taking pensions from all elected officials. Officials who are supposed to serve us. Not us serving them. These elected officials become millionaires in office. These people continue to take from the American people.

Democrat leadership is useless and dangerous. None of them should ever be allowed to have power. This is what they do with that power. The Founders warned us this would happen.

Dear American people..stop voting these people into office.

Via Breitbart:

During CPAC, Culpepper County Sheriff Scott Jenkins told Breitbart News that Virginia Democrats are punishing sheriffs who continue to stand against gun control.

On December 7, 2019, Breitbart News reported Jenkins’ announcement that he was ready to “deputize thousands” to defend Second Amendment rights had the Virginia Democrats passed gun bans and other controls that were being pushed.

He made clear he equated his actions with calling forth the militia to defend freedom. He quoted Richard Henry Lee from 1788, saying, “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.”

Over the past weekend of CPAC, Jenkins told Breitbart News:

In early December I came out against the newly proposed legislation to restrict everything from ‘assault weapons,’ so-called ‘assault weapons,’ to ‘high capacity magazines…and said that if we’re going to take away weapons from law-abiding citizens I intend to swear in thousands of citizens as reserve deputy sheriffs so they can keep those weapons and be able to protect themselves and use them.

Jenkins said that he and other sheriffs who took a similar stand were threatened with having insurance coverage removed “from deputies and staff.” He said that sheriffs throughout the state were offered a $10,000 raise “if we would tuck tail and follow [the Democrats’] lead and stop the push-back.”

But Jenkins refused to cower, and said they responded by saying “they would take away the raises of the deputies if we didn’t stop.”

He said State Sen. Janet Howell (D) “introduced a bill for next session where she could remove the pension of sheriffs…next year for…saying that we won’t follow unconstitutional laws or that I would use my lawful powers as sheriff to swear in thousands of people as deputies.”

Virginia Sheriff Vows to ‘Deputize Thousands’ to Defend Gun Rights

Via Breitbart:

Culpeper County Sheriff Scott Jenkins says he will “deputize thousands” to defend gun rights should incoming Democrats use their legislative positions to enact more gun control in Virginia.

On December 4, 2019, Jenkins used a Facebook post to thank the Culpeper County Board of Supervisors for standing with the dozens of other counties that have declared their intention to defend the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

But his joy was mixed with somber warnings:

Every Sheriff and Commonwealth Attorney in Virginia will see the consequences if our General Assembly passes further unnecessary gun restrictions. “Red Flag” laws without due process will create enormous conflict as well.

America has more guns than citizens and murder has long been illegal. At best, the proposed gun restrictions will disarm or handicap our law-abiding in their defense and possibly cause a criminal to choose another tool for evil.

He added:

I remain very optimistic that our General Assembly will not pass the proposed bills. Obviously, if passed, there are many of us willing to challenge these laws through the courts. In addition, if necessary, I plan to properly screen and deputize thousands of our law-abiding citizens to protect their constitutional right to own firearms.”

In January, Sheriff Richard Vaughan vowed to defend the 2nd Amendment, also.

WATCH:

DONATE NOW TO BUILD THE WALL WITH BRIAN KOLFAGE, CLICK BELOW:

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Latest Articles

[ifform list="4174" submit="Subscribe"]

Send this to a friend