The Open Supreme Court Seat Is A Final Test For Trump, Senate Republicans And America’s Conservatives

The sudden passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg shocked the entire country, and it has set up a battle for the ages in Washington.  Democrats are promising to fight with everything that they have got to keep that seat from being filled before the election, but in the end there isn’t that much they can do.  The Republicans control the White House and the U.S. Senate, and so they have the power to fill that seat if they wish to do so.  Unfortunately, there are already cracks in Republican solidarity.  Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins have both publicly stated that they will not support a confirmation vote before election day, and two more defections would push Republicans below the 50 votes that they need to confirm a nominee.  But for the purposes of this article, I will assume that there will be no more defections.

I believe that this open Supreme Court seat represents a critical test.  But it is not a test for the Democrats.  We already know what they believe and where they stand, and they have absolutely no intention of changing.  So there is no need for Democrats to be weighed on the scales of justice, because that case is already closed.

Instead, I believe that this is a test for President Trump, for the Republicans in the U.S. Senate and for America’s conservatives.

By now, conservatives should have complete control of the Supreme Court.  15 of the last 19 justices have been nominated by Republican presidents, and if Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat is filled by President Trump that will make it 16 out of the last 20.

Sadly, we do not have a conservative Supreme Court at this point.  In fact, the Supreme Court has been very liberal for more than 50 years.

How in the world could this possibly have happened?

Well, the truth is that Democrats and Republicans have a completely different approach to Supreme Court nominations.  When a Democratic president nominates someone to the Supreme Court, they make sure that they know exactly what they are getting and they never make any mistakes.

But Republican presidents have nominated “conservatives” that have turned out to be very liberal time after time.

Just because a Republican president nominates a judge, that does not mean that he or she is “conservative”.  We’ve got to quit believing the mainstream media when they put those labels on judges, because the mainstream media should not be trusted.

For example, just consider Neil Gorsuch.  The mainstream media told us that he was “very conservative” when Trump nominated him to the Supreme Court, but instead he has voted with the liberals repeatedly.

But we shouldn’t be surprised by the fact that he has turned out to be a liberal, because he was attending an extremely liberal church when he was nominated

And in a twist that may surprise religious conservatives who welcomed Gorsuch’s appointment, church leader Rev. Susan Springer, 58, has said she is pro-gay marriage and offers blessings to same sex couples.

The church, which trumpets its ‘inclusive’ ethos on its website, also operates a homeless outreach program that includes an LGBT center and a sexual health clinic in a pamphlet setting out the best places for those in need of help.

And Rev. Springer is so virulently anti-Trump that she attended “the anti-Trump Women’s March in Denver the day after the President’s inauguration”.

Unfortunately, the red flags were ignored and Gorsuch is now a member of the Supreme Court.

Next, let’s talk about Brett Kavanaugh.  When he was nominated, the mainstream media couldn’t stop talking about how “conservative” he was, and the left passionately opposed his nomination.

But at the time, I strongly pointed out that conservatives should be the ones opposing his nomination, and the passage of time has proven that I was right.  Kavanaugh has also repeatedly voted with the liberals on the Court, and he has proven that he is not a social conservative at all.

When he was nominated, the way that he was able to get Republican Senator Susan Collins to vote for his confirmation was by assuring her that Roe v. Wade was a settled precedent and by essentially promising her that he would not vote to overturn it if the decision was going to be a 5 to 4 decision.  You can watch Susan Collins discuss her meeting with Kavanaugh right here.

There is no universe in which such a promise would be okay, and Kavanaugh’s nomination should have been immediately withdrawn once this became known.

Instead, Kavanaugh was confirmed and now we are stuck with him.

So now President Trump has a third opportunity to nominate a member of the Supreme Court, and this is a critical test for him.

The only acceptable option is for him to nominate a judge that will publicly pledge to overturn Roe v. Wade, and none of the candidates currently being discussed has done this.

After Trump nominates a judge, the Republicans in the Senate will also face a test.

If the judge that has been nominated will publicly pledge to overturn Roe v. Wade, the Republicans in the Senate have a duty to confirm that nominee before Trump’s term ends.

But if that judge will not publicly pledge to overturn Roe v. Wade, the Republicans in the Senate have a duty to reject that nominee.

Lastly, this process will also be a test for conservatives all over America.

In the past, conservatives across the country have gotten behind “conservative” nominees even though there were all sorts of red flags and even though none of them would publicly pledge to overturn Roe v. Wade.

As a result, we have the mess on the Court that we have today.

Now the conservatives of this country face one final test.

If we overwhelmingly reject any candidate that will not publicly pledge to overturn Roe v. Wade, we will pass the test.

But if we just go along with whoever is nominated no matter what they believe like we have done before, then we will fail the test.

We have failed so many times before, and now we have one final chance.

If we get a third strike against us in less than four years, I fear that we may be all out of chances.

Already, I am seeing calls for President Trump to nominate a moderate judge because that will supposedly help his chances in November.

There is going to be so much pressure on Trump to make a choice for political reasons, and many Republicans in the Senate will also be feeling a tremendous amount of political pressure as well.

Let us hope that our leaders have the courage to make the right decisions, because this is a test that we simply cannot afford to fail.

***Michael’s new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com.***

About the Author: My name is Michael Snyder and my brand new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available on Amazon.com.  By purchasing the book you help to support the work that my wife and I are doing, and by giving it to others you help to multiply the impact that we are having on people all over the globe.  I have published thousands of articles on The Economic Collapse BlogEnd Of The American Dream and The Most Important News, and the articles that I publish on those sites are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe.  I always freely and happily allow others to republish my articles on their own websites, but I also ask that they include this “About the Author” section with each article.  In addition to my new book, I have written four others that are available on Amazon.com including The Beginning Of The EndGet Prepared Now, and Living A Life That Really Matters. (#CommissionsEarned)  The material contained in this article is for general information purposes only, and readers should consult licensed professionals before making any legal, business, financial or health decisions.  I encourage you to follow me on social media on Facebook and Twitter, and any way that you can share these articles with others is a great help.  During these very challenging times, people will need hope more than ever before, and it is our goal to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with as many people as we possibly can.

The Supreme Court Just Gave Away Half Of The State Of Oklahoma

The stunning Supreme Court decision regarding Donald Trump’s tax records is making headlines all over the globe, and this is causing a far more important Supreme Court decision to fly under the radar.  In a 5-4 decision written by Neil Gorsuch and joined by four of the other liberal justices, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that about half of the state of Oklahoma belongs to Native American tribes even though the state of Oklahoma has “maintained unquestioned jurisdiction” over that land for more than 100 years.  In other words, there are now approximately 1.8 million former Oklahoma residents that suddenly live on land that no longer belongs to Oklahoma.  And now that the Supreme Court has handed down this ruling, there will be countless other Native American tribes that will be going to court with claims of sovereignty which will need to be resolved.

Do you remember the big rally that President Trump held in Tulsa, Oklahoma not too long ago?

Well, it turns out that the state of Oklahoma no longer has sovereignty over that area.  The following comes from a CNBC article entitled “Supreme Court says eastern half of Oklahoma is Native American land”

The 5-4 decision, with an opinion authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, endorsed the claim of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation to the land, which encompasses 3 million acres in eastern Oklahoma, including most of the city of Tulsa.

I cannot even begin to describe how disastrous this decision is, and this is what we get for appointing so many radical leftists to the highest court in the land.

The issue in the case was whether or not a Native American that had been convicted of rape should have his conviction overturned because the rape occurred on land that once belonged to the Creek Nation

The case concerned an appeal from Jimcy McGirt, a Native American, who claimed his state rape conviction from 1997 should be overturned because Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction. Congress, his lawyer Ian Gershengorn said, never properly terminated the reservation.

During oral arguments in May, the justices reached back to 1907 to determine whether Congress, using imprecise language, failed to disestablish the 1866 boundaries of the reservation.

Neil Gorsuch and four of the other liberal justices were persuaded that Congress never properly disestablished the reservations in Oklahoma and so the promises that the federal government originally made to those tribes were still in force

“On the far end of the Trail of Tears was a promise,” the conservative justice wrote. “Forced to leave their ancestral lands in Georgia and Alabama, the Creek Nation received assurances that their new lands in the West would be secure forever.”

Even though Chief Justice John Roberts has sided with other liberal justices on the Court repeatedly in recent years, it was so obvious that the prior claims that Native American tribes had to these lands were extinguished that he felt compelled to side with the conservatives in this case.  In a dissent, Roberts explained why the ruling of the majority in this case is completely and utterly absurd

“A century of practice confirms that the Five Tribes’ prior domains were extinguished,” wrote Roberts. “The State has maintained unquestioned jurisdiction for more than 100 years. Tribe members make up less than 10%–15% of the population of their former domain, and until a few years ago the Creek Nation itself acknowledged that it no longer possessed the reservation the Court discovers today.”

For once, Roberts is right on the money.

The Supreme Court has turned back the clock more than 100 years, and as the government of Oklahoma has noted, this decision essentially cuts their state “in half”

The state said that if the Supreme Court accepted McGirt’s reasoning it would “cause the largest judicial abrogation of state sovereignty in American history, cleaving Oklahoma in half.”

If you live in the state, you should be aware that things are about to get a whole lot more dangerous.

According to the state’s solicitor general, this decision is likely to “require the release of more than 1,700 inmates”

The state’s solicitor general, Mithun Mansinghani, had warned in May that a ruling for Native Americans could require the release of more than 1,700 inmates. That didn’t sit well with several justices who feared a chaotic overhaul of long-decided criminal cases.

What a mess.

Of course Congress could transfer sovereignty over those areas back to the state of Oklahoma by formally disestablishing the reservations on Oklahoma land, but with Democrats in control of the House of Representatives there is zero chance of that happening at this point.

So for the foreseeable future, 1.8 million people in eastern Oklahoma are stuck in a really bizarre situation.  The state of Oklahoma no longer has jurisdiction over them, but the five Native American tribes that have now been given jurisdiction are completely unequipped to exercise sovereignty over those areas because they haven’t done it in more than 100 years.

But Neil Gorsuch is convinced that somehow everything will work out just fine

“We do not pretend to foretell the future, and we proceed well aware of the potential for cost and conflict around jurisdictional boundaries, especially ones that have gone unappreciated for so long,” Gorsuch wrote. “But it is unclear why pessimism should rule the day. With the passage of time, Oklahoma and its Tribes have proven they can work successfully together as partners.”

This is yet another example that shows that Supreme Court appointments must be handled with extreme care.

Republicans have nominated 14 of the last 18 Supreme Court justices, and yet right now there are 7 liberals on the Court and only two conservatives.

And yes, I am counting correctly.

At this point only Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito can be considered “conservative” justices, and both of them are quite elderly.

What this means is that there is very little hope of reversing the string of horrible Supreme Court decisions that we have seen over the last 50 years, and it is extremely likely that we will continue to see an endless series of bad decisions in the years ahead.

If much more care had been taken to make sure that people that had a tremendous amount of respect for the U.S. Constitution were being appointed to the Supreme Court, this could have all been avoided.

But instead we just went along with whoever was being nominated, and the results have been absolutely disastrous.

About the Author: I am a voice crying out for change in a society that generally seems content to stay asleep. My name is Michael Snyder and I am the publisher of The Economic Collapse BlogEnd Of The American Dream and The Most Important News, and the articles that I publish on those sites are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe. I have written four books that are available on Amazon.com including The Beginning Of The EndGet Prepared Now, and Living A Life That Really Matters. (#CommissionsEarned) By purchasing those books you help to support my work. I always freely and happily allow others to republish my articles on their own websites, but due to government regulations I need those that republish my articles to include this “About the Author” section with each article. In order to comply with those government regulations, I need to tell you that the controversial opinions in this article are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the websites where my work is republished. The material contained in this article is for general information purposes only, and readers should consult licensed professionals before making any legal, business, financial or health decisions. Those responding to this article by making comments are solely responsible for their viewpoints, and those viewpoints do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of Michael Snyder or the operators of the websites where my work is republished. I encourage you to follow me on social media on Facebook and Twitter, and any way that you can share these articles with others is a great help.  During these very challenging times, people will need hope more than ever before, and it is our goal to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with as many people as we possibly can.

The Conservative Effort To Reshape The Supreme Court Has Completely And Utterly Failed

It is time to admit the truth.  Throughout my entire lifetime, Republican presidential candidates have promised us that if we help get them elected they will move the Supreme Court in a more conservative direction.  But it hasn’t happened.  A Republican has been in the White House for 31 of the last 51 years, and yet the left has enjoyed a virtually uninterrupted string of historic Supreme Court victories throughout that entire stretch.  And even though a majority of the justices on the Supreme Court right now have been appointed by Republicans, the left continues to win one major victory after another.

The reason why this has happened is because Republicans have failed over and over again to nominate true conservatives to the Supreme Court.  At this point, only Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito can really be considered “conservatives”, and that means that liberal causes will continue to march forward at the Supreme Court for the foreseeable future.

Have you noticed that the liberal justices always vote the way that the left wants them to vote on key issues?

That is because the left doesn’t make mistakes when it comes to the Supreme Court.  Historically, they have always selected their nominees very, very carefully, and so they always knew exactly what they were getting.

On the other hand, conservatives have been conned into supporting Supreme Court nominees that were either “moderate” or openly liberal for decades.

It all started with Richard Nixon.  He nominated four justices to the Supreme Court, but instead of a more conservative court we ended up with Roe v. Wade.

Reagan and Bush combined to appoint five new justices to the Supreme Court, but Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter all turned out to be quite liberal.

George W. Bush gave us John Roberts, and conservatives all over the country cheered when he was confirmed.

But he has also turned out to be very liberal.  He has repeatedly voted with the liberal wing of the Court, and on Thursday he once again voted with them in the DACA case.

President Trump was quite upset that the Supreme Court overturned his decision to repeal DACA, and he immediately sent out a tweet calling for people to vote for him in November so that he can appoint “new justices”

President Trump, in the wake of Thursday’s defeat at the Supreme Court in his efforts to repeal the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, called for new justices as conservatives took aim at Chief Justice John Roberts for what they called a “pattern” of siding with the liberal wing in key decisions.

“The recent Supreme Court decisions, not only on DACA, Sanctuary Cities, Census, and others, tell you only one thing, we need NEW JUSTICES of the Supreme Court. If the Radical Left Democrats assume power, your Second Amendment, Right to Life, Secure Borders, and … Religious Liberty, among many other things, are OVER and GONE!” he tweeted.

If Trump had nominated rock solid conservatives so far, he would have a valid point.

But he did not do that.

Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh have both turned out to be major disasters.  Earlier this week, Gorsuch actually wrote the opinion for the Supreme Court decision that ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to LGBTQ employees.  And even though Kavanaugh dissented for technical reasons, he still had very high praise for the decision…

“Millions of gay and lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to achieve equal treatment in fact and law. … They have advanced powerful policy arguments and can take pride in today’s result.”

There were millions upon millions of conservative Americans that strongly supported Gorsuch and Kavanaugh as nominees, and now they realize that they got conned.

Of course this never would have happened if they had been vetted properly in the first place.

With Gorsuch, there was much to be concerned about

Neil Gorsuch’s treacherous deception was predictable, given the fact that Judge Gorsuch attended the ultra-liberal St. John’s Episcopal Church in Boulder, Colorado. His pastor, Rev. Susan Woodward Springer, is pro-LGBT, pro same-sex marriage and anti-Trump. Following the election of Donald J. Trump, she wrote that “her congregation should strive to behave as godly people who spread hope even though ‘the world is clasping its head in its hands and crying out in fear.'” That Sunday, following Trump’s victory, Neil Gorsuch was an usher in the morning service.

And I was strongly warning about Kavanaugh when he was nominated, but voices such as mine were completely drowned out by the flood of conservatives that were vigorously backing him.  They saw how much the left hated Kavanaugh, and so they assumed that he must be good.

But now we know the truth.

In any event, any future efforts to reshape the Supreme Court may come to a crashing halt if Joe Biden wins in November.  A new Fox News poll has Biden up by 12 points, and Biden is doing particular well with certain demographic groups

Biden has a 79-point advantage among black voters, a 37-point advantage among young people, a 22-point lead in the suburbs, and a 19-point lead among women. He also leads among voters over the age of 65 by 10 points.

Trump, meanwhile, leads by 41 points among evangelicals, although he carried Christians by 64 points in 2016. He leads by 9 points among rural voters, a demographic he won by 27 points in the last election.

At this point, it would take an enormous political miracle for Trump to win.

Of course we did see such a miracle in 2016, and in this political environment anything is still possible.

But even if Trump wins, would conservatives really be happy with more Supreme Court nominees like Gorsuch and Kavanaugh?

Ever since Richard Nixon first entered the White House, there has been opportunity after opportunity to move the Supreme Court in a more conservative direction, and the ball has been dropped time after time.

Collectively, it has been a colossal failure of epic proportions, and it is one of the big reasons why our nation is such a giant mess today.

About the Author: I am a voice crying out for change in a society that generally seems content to stay asleep. My name is Michael Snyder and I am the publisher of The Economic Collapse BlogEnd Of The American Dream and The Most Important News, and the articles that I publish on those sites are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe. I have written four books that are available on Amazon.com including The Beginning Of The EndGet Prepared Now, and Living A Life That Really Matters. (#CommissionsEarned) By purchasing those books you help to support my work. I always freely and happily allow others to republish my articles on their own websites, but due to government regulations I need those that republish my articles to include this “About the Author” section with each article. In order to comply with those government regulations, I need to tell you that the controversial opinions in this article are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the websites where my work is republished. The material contained in this article is for general information purposes only, and readers should consult licensed professionals before making any legal, business, financial or health decisions. Those responding to this article by making comments are solely responsible for their viewpoints, and those viewpoints do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of Michael Snyder or the operators of the websites where my work is republished. I encourage you to follow me on social media on Facebook and Twitter, and any way that you can share these articles with others is a great help.  During these very challenging times, people will need hope more than ever before, and it is our goal to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with as many people as we possibly can.

Will Trump Soon Nominate Another Supreme Court Justice?

86-year-old Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg just had another significant health scare, and many on the left are becoming deeply concerned that she may not make it to the 2020 election. Needless to say, Ginsburg is absolutely determined to keep going no matter how bad her health gets, because she definitely does not want her replacement to be nominated by President Trump. If a Democrat does win in 2020, Ginsburg might even resign shortly after that Democrat is inaugurated, because it has become a real struggle for Ginsburg to fulfill her duties. Many on the left are desperately hoping that she can hold up until a Democrat can get into the White House, because if a vacancy opens up Trump could become the very first president since Richard Nixon to nominate three members of the Supreme Court in his first term.

On Friday, Ginsburg was admitted to the hospital for a potential infection. The following comes from ABC News

Ginsburg, 86, was admitted to The Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore after experiencing chills and a fever earlier on Friday, according to a court news release. She was initially evaluated at a hospital in Washington before being transferred for further evaluation and treatment of any possible infection.

On Saturday, the news release indicated that her symptoms had abated as she was being treated with intravenous antibiotics and fluids.

Ginsburg was released on Sunday and it was reported that she was “doing well”, and so that is very good news for the left.

But this is just the latest serious health problem that Ginsburg has had to deal with. Back in August, Ginsburg underwent three weeks of radiation treatment as she battled pancreatic cancer

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has just completed three weeks of radiation treatment at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, the U.S. Supreme Court disclosed Friday.

The radiation therapy, conducted on an outpatient basis, began Aug. 5, shortly after a localized cancerous tumor was discovered on Ginsburg’s pancreas. The treatment included the insertion of a stent in Ginsburg’s bile duct, according to a statement issued by the court.

And late last year she was badly injured from a serious fall and she had “two cancerous growths” removed from one of her lungs…

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is once again on the Supreme Court’s injured list. The 85-year-old jurist has suffered several health setbacks over the past few months, including a fall that fractured three ribs in November followed by surgery to remove two cancerous growths from her lung at the end of December.

Prior to that, Ginsburg had dealt with colon cancer in 1999 and another instance of pancreatic cancer in 2009.

So she has been fighting cancer for a really long time.

In addition, she also had a stent put in her heart back in 2014. The following comes from Wikipedia

On November 26, 2014, she had a stent placed in her right coronary artery after experiencing discomfort while exercising in the Supreme Court gym with her personal trainer.[120][121]

It is amazing that she has gotten as far as she has, and many on the left are very much hoping that she has at least one more year in her.

If Trump does end up nominating another justice during his first term, it will undoubtedly result in another huge political battle in Washington.

But Trump’s first two Supreme Court nominations have turned out to be not that conservative. For example, Neil Gorsuch has voted with the liberals in a number of key decisions

For example, Justice Neil Gorsuch has joined the liberals five times in 5-4 decisions, four of them this past term alone — with Gorsuch typically writing for the majority or concurring separately without adopting the liberal reasoning.

And Brett Kavanaugh has proven to be quite a disaster for conservatives. In fact, during his first term he voted with the liberals quite frequently

But Kavanaugh has also voted with some of the liberal justices as often as he did with the far-right flank during his first term. He sided with justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, for example, the same percentage of the time that he did with President Donald Trump’s other appointee, Justice Neil Gorsuch, according to data collected by Adam Feldman, a lawyer who writes the Empirical SCOTUS blog.

There were a number of conservatives that were strongly warning about Kavanaugh when he was initially nominated, but those warnings were ultimately drowned out by the anti-Kavanaugh hysteria on the left. Many Republicans concluded that Kavanaugh must be a good choice since the left hated him so much, but so far Kavanaugh has proven to be not very conservative at all.

If President Trump gets the opportunity to nominate another justice, conservatives will need to put that nominee under much more scrutiny this time around.

Of course Trump is facing his own troubles at the moment. According to Adam Schiff, the report that “could lead to articles of impeachment” is being written right now…

After two weeks of public hearings, the House impeachment inquiry into President Trump is approaching its next stage: lawmakers are now writing a report that could lead to articles of impeachment.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., made the rounds on Sunday television programs outlining the case for impeachment without outright saying whether Trump will be the third president in United States history to be impeached.

“The evidence is already overwhelming,” Schiff said on CNN’s State of the Union. “The facts are really not contested. It’s really not contested what the president did.”

It is likely that articles of impeachment will be drafted by Congress before Christmas, and most experts fully expect the House of Representatives to impeach Trump.

If that happens, the U.S. Senate will conduct a trial, and it will take 67 votes to remove Trump from office. Unfortunately for the Democrats, it does not appear likely that they will be able to get the votes that they need.

So it looks like Trump will be sticking around, and he could even potentially win a second term.

And if that happens, Trump could possibly nominate several more justices, and that would definitely be a worst case scenario for the left.

About the Author: I am a voice crying out for change in a society that generally seems content to stay asleep. My name is Michael Snyder and I am the publisher of The Economic Collapse Blog, End Of The American Dream and The Most Important News, and the articles that I publish on those sites are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe. I have written four books that are available on Amazon.com including The Beginning Of The End, Get Prepared Now, and Living A Life That Really Matters. (#CommissionsEarned) By purchasing those books you help to support my work. I always freely and happily allow others to republish my articles on their own websites, but due to government regulations I need those that republish my articles to include this “About the Author” section with each article. In order to comply with those government regulations, I need to tell you that the controversial opinions in this article are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the websites where my work is republished. This article may contain opinions on political matters, but it is not intended to promote the candidacy of any particular political candidate. The material contained in this article is for general information purposes only, and readers should consult licensed professionals before making any legal, business, financial or health decisions. Those responding to this article by making comments are solely responsible for their viewpoints, and those viewpoints do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of Michael Snyder or the operators of the websites where my work is republished. I encourage you to follow me on social media on Facebook and Twitter, and any way that you can share these articles with others is a great help.

The Arch Of Baal Was Put Up In Washington D.C. One Day Before Brett Kavanaugh Testified To Congress

Is it just a coincidence that the “Arch of Baal” has been erected in Washington D.C. on the exact same week that Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford are testifying before Congress? The future of the U.S. Supreme Court is literally hanging in the balance, and many believe that it is quite odd that this ancient pagan symbol has been put up at this precise moment in time. According to the official website of the Institute for Digital Archaeology, the Arch of Palmyra was unveiled on the National Mall on September 26th, and it will remain there until September 29th. You can view a photograph of the arch standing directly in front of the U.S. Capitol building right here. Just one day after this arch was put up, Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford testified before Congress. Perhaps this is all just a “giant coincidence”, but things of this importance usually don’t happen by accident.

The elite deeply understand that symbols have power, and the fact that the Arch of Baal has been placed directly across from the U.S. Capitol is highly significant.

Jonathan Cahn, the author of The Paradigm, has pointed out that Baal was a god of power, fertility and child sacrifice. In this video, he makes a very strong connection between what was going on during the era of Baal worship and what is taking place in America right now. In the end, the debate over whether or not to confirm Brett Kavanaugh comes down to the issue of abortion, and this vote in the Senate is going to have tremendous implications for the future of our country…

If you are not familiar with the “Arch of Baal”, here is a brief summary from one of my previous articles

A reproduction of the infamous Arch of Palmyra will be on display in Washington D.C. from September 26th to September 30th. In ancient times, if you wanted to go to the Temple of Baal in Palmyra you had to pass through this arch, and you would also pass through this arch again on your way out. The original arch was destroyed by ISIS in 2015, but it has been reproduced, and the reproduction has been periodically displayed at important locations around the globe. It has been pointed out that an arch is a “gateway”, and many are concerned that erecting this arch may be an open invitation for the entity or entities that were originally associated with this arch.

No other ancient deity is mentioned more often than Baal in the Bible. And ultimately, the worship of Baal can be traced back all the way to ancient Babylon, which was the center of the very first “New World Order” in ancient times.

Child sacrifice was absolutely central to the worship of Baal. When it was time for another ceremony, unwanted babies would be gathered and burned alive. The following comes from an article by Matt Barber

Ritualistic Baal worship, in sum, looked a little like this: Adults would gather around the altar of Baal. Infants would then be burned alive as a sacrificial offering to the deity. Amid horrific screams and the stench of charred human flesh, congregants – men and women alike – would engage in bisexual orgies. The ritual of convenience was intended to produce economic prosperity by prompting Baal to bring rain for the fertility of “mother earth.”

The natural consequences of such behavior – pregnancy and childbirth – and the associated financial burdens of “unplanned parenthood” were easily offset. One could either choose to engage in homosexual conduct or – with child sacrifice available on demand – could simply take part in another fertility ceremony to “terminate” the unwanted child.

Modern liberalism deviates little from its ancient predecessor. While its macabre rituals have been sanitized with flowery and euphemistic terms of art, its core tenets and practices remain eerily similar.

Have things changed so much since that time?

We are far more clinical about it, but we still terminate our unwanted children.

In fact, we are killing our babies on an industrial scale.

We have murdered far more children than they ever did in the ancient Middle East, and our fate will be the same as theirs if we don’t turn things around as a society.

And now an ancient symbol of child sacrifice has been erected directly across from the U.S. Capitol at the precise moment when the future of the U.S. Supreme Court is hanging in the balance.

Is this just a coincidence?

I think not.

About the author: Michael Snyder is a nationally syndicated writer, media personality and political activist. He is publisher of The Most Important News and the author of four books including The Beginning Of The End and Living A Life That Really Matters.

The Last Days Warrior Summit is the premier online event of 2018 for Christians, Conservatives and Patriots. It is a premium-members only international event that will empower and equip you with the knowledge and tools that you need as global events begin to escalate dramatically. The speaker list includes Michael Snyder, Mike Adams, Dave Daubenmire, Ray Gano, Dr. Daniel Daves, Gary Kah, Justus Knight, Doug Krieger, Lyn Leahz, Laura Maxwell and many more. Full summit access will begin on October 25th, and if you would like to register for this unprecedented event you can do so right here.

Is The Left Going To Try To Use Brett Kavanaugh’s Old Credit Card Debts To Derail His Nomination To The Supreme Court?

In a way, I feel very sorry for Brett Kavanaugh right now. This Senate confirmation process is going to be like going to a proctologist every single day for weeks on end. Investigators are going to go over everything that he has ever done with a fine-toothed comb, and anything that is even remotely scandalous is going to brought out for the entire world to see. In fact, the Washington Post is already running with a story about Kavanaugh’s past debts. Federal employees such as Kavanaugh have financial disclosure forms that they are required to file, and although those forms do not reveal everything, they reveal enough to potentially get Kavanaugh into trouble.

It turns out that Trump’s Supreme Court nominee was once in a tremendous amount of debt. According to one report, not too long ago Kavanaugh had accumulated “up to $200,000 in debt”

Brett Kavanaugh’s financial disclosure forms that are available for review show he reported up to $200,000 in debt he piled up on three credit cards — Chase, Bank of America and USAA — and a loan by the year 2016.

The Washington Post quoted White House spokesman Raj Shah as saying that Kavanaugh built up the debt by buying Washington Nationals season tickets and also attending playoff games for himself and a “handful” of friends. Shah said some of the debts were also for home improvements, the Post reported.

In reality, the debt total may have been much lower than $200,000. On the federal disclosure form, all four of the debts fell into the “$15,000 to $50,000” category.

So ultimately the total amount of the debt could have been much closer to $60,000.

But that is still a tremendous amount of debt for “baseball tickets” and “home improvements”.

According to the Daily Mail, a season ticket to Washington Nationals games costs a maximum of about $6,000…

Season tickets to the Nationals, who play at Nationals Stadium in Washington DC, can cost up to $6,000 for all 81 home games – depending on the location of the seat.

So I think that we have some unanswered questions here. But regardless, everyone agrees that Kavanaugh loves baseball and he has some very deep connections to baseball insiders…

Kavanaugh’s love for baseball is well known. His associates both in the legal sector and beyond describe him as a blue-collar, “Bud Light kind of guy” who enjoys the ballgames, and New York Yankees general manager Brian Cashman was among the 150 high school classmates who signed a letter in support of him.

Cashman, Kavanaugh, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Arizona Cardinals team president Michael Bidwill all attended Georgetown Preparatory School in North Bethesda, Maryland, together in the mid-1980s.

Today, all of Kavanaugh’s old debts are paid off, but he is not a wealthy man either. According to Kavanaugh’s most recent financial disclosure form, he has less than $70,000 in assets.

That is not a bad thing. We don’t want the Supreme Court to be dominated by a bunch of wealthy elitists, and that is precisely what is happening at the moment

With the exception of Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy, all nine current justices on the Supreme Court have a net worth of at least $1.5million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

In the end, Kavanaugh should be evaluated on his merits, and hopefully that will ultimately be the case.

Many conservatives initially assumed that since Donald Trump nominated him and since liberals are going crazy trying to stop him that he must be a good choice.

But after taking a closer look at Kavanaugh, a lot of prominent conservatives and a lot of prominent conservative groups are expressing some concerns. For example, the following comes from a press release that was just put out by the American Family Association

AFA has opposed the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S Supreme Court for some very valid reasons. We are deeply concerned about how he might ultimately rule on issues related to abortion and religious liberty. For these reasons, we consider this nomination to represent a four-star appointment when it could have been five-star.

However, after hearing the concerns of some of our supporters, and after hearing the passionate defense of Judge Kavanaugh by many we consider to be friends in the pro-life movement, we are willing to let this process play out. We eagerly await the confirmation hearings when we hope to get clarification from Judge Kavanaugh on aspects related to our concerns.

At this time, we have no plans to fight President Trump on this nomination. He has appointed a lot of good federal judges already and we look forward to many more. We hope that our concerns prove to be unfounded.

And I certainly expressed my own reservations in a previous article entitled “Liberals Are Freaking Out About The Nomination Of Brett Kavanaugh, But It Is Conservatives That Should Be Concerned”.

To me, the most concerning thing is Kavanaugh’s stance on abortion. Even though he has had a very long legal career, and even though he has been intimately involved in Republican politics for decades, he has never publicly taken a stand against Roe v. Wade.

If he had, the left would be plastering it all over the Internet by now.

But they haven’t done that, have they?

Kavanaugh has referred to Roe v. Wade as a precedent “we must follow”, and I find that language to be extremely alarming. To me, there is absolutely no indication that Kavanaugh is inclined to overturn Roe v. Wade, but there are lots of indications that he would be a lot like his mentor Anthony Kennedy.

When Ronald Reagan nominated Kennedy in 1987, we were assured that he would be a good conservative that would stand up for conservative principles.

Instead, he turned out to be the swing vote that kept Roe v. Wade in place and he was the one that wrote the opinion in the case that legalized gay marriage in the United States.

When it comes to Supreme Court nominations, we have been fooled before, and it is absolutely imperative that we don’t get fooled again.

Brett Kavanaugh needs to tell us exactly where he stands on Roe v. Wade, and if he doesn’t give us a solid answer he does not deserve to be confirmed.

Michael Snyder is a nationally syndicated writer, media personality and political activist. He is publisher of The Most Important News and the author of four books including The Beginning Of The End and Living A Life That Really Matters.

Liberals Are Freaking Out About The Nomination Of Brett Kavanaugh, But It Is Conservatives That Should Be Concerned

The weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth has begun on the left, but the truth is that Donald Trump could have nominated someone far more conservative on Monday night. Over the next several months there will be endless protests in Washington D.C. as liberals moan and groan about “the end of our freedoms”, and Brett Kavanaugh will be relentlessly portrayed as a conservative devil by the mainstream media. And even though NBC News is insisting that Kavanaugh “would make the high court solidly conservative” if he is confirmed, the reality of the matter is that there are some pretty good reasons why conservatives should be deeply concerned about this pick. Just because a Republican president nominates someone to the Supreme Court does not mean that individual will make a good judge. For example, Ronald Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy in 1987, and he turned out to be a complete and utter disaster. If Reagan had nominated someone different, the entire modern history of the U.S. Supreme Court could have been completely different. With the Court still so divided, the stakes are incredibly high, and we must not get another Kennedy. So it is troubling that Brett Kavanaugh clerked for Kennedy and has always had nothing but good things to say about him. Anyone that would look to Justice Kennedy as any sort of a role model is definitely not fit for a seat on the highest court in the land.

Beyond his connections to Kennedy, what is troubling conservatives more than anything are some of his opinions while serving on the appellate court level.

For instance, not too long ago he ruled that an illegal immigrant “has a right to an abortion in the United States”

Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia by President George W. Bush, accepted the assumption in a dissenting opinion he filed last October in the case of Garza v. Hargan that a teenage illegal alien caught at the border and put in detention has a right to an abortion in the United States.

In that opinion he also added that “all parties to this case recognize Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey as precedents we must follow.”

Really?

Throughout his entire career, Kavanaugh has been extremely engaged in Republican politics, but he has never expressed public opposition to Roe v. Wade a single time.

So despite the outrageous claims of the left that Roe v. Wade “is about to be overturned”, the truth is that we actually have no idea how Brett Kavanaugh would rule on Roe v. Wade, and that is absolutely frightening.

In addition, back in 2011 Kavanaugh decided not to rule against Obamacare’s individual mandate

Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia by President George W. Bush, declined to rule against Obamacare’s individual mandate when it came before his court in 2011 and argued that the case could not be decided by a federal court until at least 2015 because of the Anti-Injunction Act.

All nine members of the Supreme Court—including Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas—would later join in opinions (in the Obamacare case that the Supreme Court decided in 2012) that rejected the argument Kavanaugh embraced that the Anti-Injunction Act prevented a pre-2015 ruling on the Obamacare mandate.

All of the “experts” on television keep telling us how “conservative” Kavanaugh is, but looking at his record that is hard to see.

And let us not forget his extremely close ties to the Bush family

Following a brief period in private law practice, he became Bush’s White House counsel and then staff secretary before he was nominated to be a federal judge. He met his wife while working at the White House, where she was the president’s personal secretary.

Donald Trump likes to think that he is making his mark on the Supreme Court, but the reality of the matter is that we probably would have gotten the exact same nomination if George W. Bush was still in the White House today.

I hope that he proves me wrong, but I believe that the nomination of Kavanaugh is a huge mistake. I believe that he is a moderate, especially on social issues, and I do not trust him.

But most conservatives are going to assume that Kavanaugh must be wonderful since he is “Trump’s choice”, and they are going to rally around him.

Instead, it will be the left that will try to keep Kavanaugh off the Court, and within minutes of the announcement of his nomination there were already hundreds of protesters on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court building

It didn’t take long for protests to start. Around 15 minutes after the announcement, chants had shifted to “Hey Hey, Ho Ho, Kavanaugh has got to go.” Some protesters had makeshift signs that had been updated with the nominee only minutes after his announcement.

And of course good old Bernie Sanders was on hand to whip the protesters into a frenzy

Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., told the crowd of protesters that they should be ready to challenge the nomination.

“Are you ready for a fight? Are you ready to defend Roe vs. Wade?” Sanders said. “This is a tough fight but it is a fight that we can win . . . We have the American people on our side, now we have to go state by state by state to make sure senators do what their constituents want.”

If the Democrats were smart, they would conduct some token protests to make it look good and then confirm Kavanaugh as quickly as possible.

With Trump in the White House, they simply are not going to get an activist liberal judge on to the Court. Another judge in the mold of Anthony Kennedy is about the best that they could possibly hope for, and that is very likely what they are going to get with Kavanaugh.

In the end, it is true conservatives that should be fighting this nomination, but we all know that is simply not going to happen.

Michael Snyder is a nationally syndicated writer, media personality and political activist. He is the author of four books including The Beginning Of The End and Living A Life That Really Matters.

Donald Trump’s Choice For The Supreme Court: Brett Kavanaugh

(NBC News) President Donald Trump on Monday nominated Brett Kavanaugh, a federal appeals court judge in Washington, to succeed Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court.

Trump made the announcement at the White House, where he was joined by Kavanaugh and his family. NBC News broke the story shortly before the president made his choice public.

“What matters is not a judge’s personal views but whether they can set aside those views to do what the law and the Constitution require,” Trump said in the prime-time announcement in the White House East Room. “I am pleased to say I have found, without doubt, such a person.”

As “Selection Monday” Looms, Trump’s Supreme Court Pick Is Still Reportedly “Up In The Air”

(NPR) The final hours of President Trump’s decision-making on his second Supreme Court nominee are being described as hectic and unpredictable – and the president has still not made a decision.

“It’s insane” over there, said a source close to the process. Few have had any sleep in Bedminster, N.J., as deliberations continue over the pros and cons of the potential nominees, and no one is sure which way the president is going to go, the source said.

Trump is likely to make a decision by 9 p.m. Sunday, 24 hours ahead of his official announcement time in Monday prime time, the source said.

It Is Being Reported That Trump Has Narrowed His Supreme Court Search To Just 3 Choices

Those being considered are federal appeals judges Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and Raymond Kethledge, according to multiple reports.

The announcement will come at the White House at 9 p.m. on Monday, Trump said aboard Air Force One on Thursday.

The president has met with all the contenders but he was coy when asked to give any hints as to whom he may be considering.

‘I’ll say on the record that I am interviewing some extraordinarily talented and brilliant people and I’m very, very happy with them and we will pick somebody who will be outstanding, hopefully for many years to come,’ he said. (Daily Mail)

Progressives Scramble To Block Potential Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett Because She Is A Committed Christian

There is a lot of buzz that Amy Coney Barrett is going to be President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, and that is causing many progressives to totally freak out.  The reason that they are freaking out doesn’t have anything to do with her credentials.  In fact, as you will see below, Barrett is exceptionally qualified to be on the Supreme Court.  She is sharp, intelligent and has a sterling reputation.  But the left is already throwing a massive temper tantrum even though she isn’t the nominee yet for one very simple reason.  Amy Coney Barrett is a committed Christian, and progressives are deathly afraid that her Christian values will influence her decisions on social issues.

We all know that President Trump likes to make history, and it is being reported that nominating the first conservative woman to the Supreme Court is something that “intrigues” him.  The following comes from CNN’s Jeff Zeleny

“President Trump is increasingly intrigued about selecting the first female conservative Supreme Court justice, people familiar with the search say, repeatedly telling advisers that he likes the idea of making such a historic choice in a climate where women on the other side of the political aisle are playing such a pivotal role. …’Can you imagine?’ the president said with a smile during a conversation about the prospect of selecting a woman for the pivotal spot on the court.”

Barrett is the mother of seven children, and she is still only in her mid-40s.

So if she ends up on the Supreme Court, it is conceivable that she could be there for 30 or 40 years, and that is a nightmare scenario for progressives.

For decades, the left has been using the courts as their primary weapon to advance their agenda in the culture war.  Now there is a very real possibility that control of the Supreme Court may slip firmly into conservative hands, and that prospect absolutely terrifies them.  And so the fact that Barrett is an extremely committed Christian is a non-starter for progressives even though she is immensely qualified for the job otherwise.  The following comes from the National Review

The alarm isn’t about her credentials. She’s checked every box of excellence — law review, appellate-court clerkship, Supreme Court clerkship (with Justice Scalia), elite law-firm experience, law professor at an elite law school, and now experience as a federal judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. She’s a young, brilliant woman at the apex of her profession.

You would think that progressives would love the thought of another woman on the Supreme Court.

But of course they only want a woman if that woman agrees with their agenda, and Barrett most definitely does not.

So in the end, the debate about whether or not Barrett belongs on the Supreme Court is going to come down to her faith

It turns out that she’s a faithful Christian who lives a Christian life very similar to the lives of millions upon millions of her fellow American believers.

No, really, that’s the objection.

Of course there was the infamous moment during Judge Barrett’s 2017 confirmation hearing for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals when Senator Dianne Feinstein imposed an obvious religious test on her nomination. “When you read your speeches,” Feinstein said, “the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you. And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for, for years in this country.”

For both the left and the right, the abortion issue is always front and center when it comes to the Supreme Court.

Many of us on the right dream of a day when Roe v. Wade will finally be overturned, and many on the left are extremely determined to keep that from ever happening.

Unfortunately for those of us that are pro-life, most Americans still very much embrace Roe v. Wade.  In fact, a brand new poll that was just released found that 63 percent of all Americans agree with the Roe v. Wade decision and only 31 percent disagree with it…

Voters overwhelmingly agree with the Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Monday.

More than 6 in 10 voters — 63% — agree with the landmark Supreme Court decision on abortion, while 31% disagree. There’s a surprisingly small gender divide on the issue, with women agreeing on the decision at 65% and men just four points behind.

Republican voters are the only group in which a majority disagree with the decision — by a margin of 58% to 36%.

Ultimately, these are the numbers that must change if we ever want to end abortion in America.

Because even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, that isn’t going to change that much on a practical basis.  Once Roe v. Wade is overturned, the decision on whether or not abortion is legal will go back to the states, and nearly all states would continue to keep abortion legal.

There may be a handful of red states that attempt to outlaw it, but any state legislation that gets passed would immediately be tied up in the court system for years.

But without a doubt we should be attempting to overturn Roe v. Wade, because that would be a significant step in the right direction.  Getting Amy Coney Barrett on to the Court would be a real plus, and despite everything that I have written so far, there is reason to believe that she could be confirmed.

After all, when she was nominated for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals back in 2017 she received 55 votes in the Senate

That doesn’t mean, however, that picking Coney Barrett would be without some strategic side benefits. The largest of those is the fact that she was confirmed by the Senate to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in October 2017. She received 55 votes, including from Democrats Joe Manchin (West Virginia), Joe Donnelly (Indiana) and Tim Kaine (Virginia) as well as several moderate Republicans like Shelley Moore Capito (West Virginia), Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska).

After having voted for her previously, would those same lawmakers vote against her now?

Yes, the Supreme Court is an entirely different ballgame, but without a doubt Amy Coney Barrett is qualified.

So would the U.S. Senate reject her now simply because she is a committed Christian?

If she is fortunate enough to be nominated by President Trump, we shall see how things play out…

Michael Snyder is a nationally syndicated writer, media personality and political activist. He is the author of four books including The Beginning Of The End and Living A Life That Really Matters.

Michael Moore: I’ll Surround The U.S. Capitol With “A Million People” To Stop Trump’s Supreme Court Nomination

Michael Moore on Friday said he would rally on Capitol Hill with a million others to keep lawmakers from confirming President Trump’s pick to succeed outgoing Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Appearing on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher,” the liberal filmmaker and activist said he’d participate in a wide-scale protest to prevent the Senate from approving the president’s second Supreme Court nominee, assuming Republican leadership schedules a vote before the November midterm elections when Democrats risk gaining control. (Washington Times)

U.S. Senator Susan Collins Says That She Will Not Support A Supreme Court Nominee That Has Demonstrated “Hostility” Toward Roe v. Wade

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), a key swing vote in the upcoming fight to replace Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, says she won’t support a nominee who has demonstrated “hostility” to Roe v. Wade, the historic decision legalizing abortion in the United States.

But her stance isn’t likely to help pro-abortion rights advocates sleep better at night, either — she suggested she thinks two of the court’s conservative justices wouldn’t vote to overturn the decision, an assertion that’s far from guaranteed. (Vox)

Donald Trump Plans To Announce His Pick For The Supreme Court On July 9th

President Donald Trump told reporters Friday that he will interview one or two candidates for the Supreme Court this weekend.

Trump said he has narrowed the pool of candidates to five people, including two women. He said he plans to announce his pick on July 9.

The president is considering candidates to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy who announced his retirement on Wednesday. His retirement gives Trump an opportunity to reshape the nation’s highest court as Kennedy was a crucial swing vote. (CNBC)

Justice Kennedy Retires – President Trump Expected To Nominate A Conservative To Replace Him

In a year of big political news, this might be the biggest political news so far

Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy announced Wednesday that he will retire at the end of next month, preparing the way for the most significant change in the court’s makeup in half a century.

The vacancy will allow President Donald Trump to make the Supreme Court a solidly conservative body for years, if not generations, to come — a towering legacy of his time in office.

Trump said Wednesday shortly after Kennedy’s announcement that a search for his replacement would begin immediately and he thanked the justice for his service.

President Trump says that he will nominate a replacement off of a list of 25 names that he has previously submitted to the public, and this is drawing praise from conservatives and tremendous criticism from liberals.

The next Supreme Court session begins in October, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says that he wants to have a new justice confirmed by then.

Justice Kennedy’s Retirement Has Liberals In Total Freak Out Mode

I don’t remember conservatives freaking out like this when it was time for Barack Obama to nominate new justices for the Supreme Court.

Liberals are acting like it is the end of the world that Justice Kennedy is retiring, and to their credit they are showing a lot more passion and energy than conservatives probably would be if the roles were reversed.

Here are some tweets from prominent liberals that were compiled by The Daily Caller

The U.S. Supreme Court Rules That States Can Force Online Retailers To Collect Sales Taxes Even If There Is No Physical Presence In The State

Change is in the air, and this bit of change is not going to be welcome news for online retailers…

The court, in a ruling authored by conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy, revived a 2016 South Dakota law that required larger out-of-state e-commerce companies to collect sales tax, a mandate that the online retailers fought in court.

South Dakota was backed by President Donald Trump’s administration in the case. The law could yet face legal challenges on other grounds, Kennedy noted.

The ruling is likely to lead other states to try to collect sales tax on purchases from out-of-state online businesses more aggressively. It also likely will lead to many consumers paying more at the online checkout. Forty-five of the 50 states impose sales taxes.

This will mean more revenue for state governments, but also higher costs for consumers.

For those that have been enjoying tax-free shopping online for a long time, I am afraid to tell you that the party is now ending.

Hordes of liberals are concerned about Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s health

On Tuesday evening, President Donald Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch for deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s long-empty seat. On Wednesday morning, liberals woke up, did the math and realized it was time to be concerned about Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s fiber intake. Also bone density. Also exposure to airborne viruses (Madame Justice, what is your flu shot status?), and salmonella, and slippery ice, and also: Has anyone heard how scientists are coming along with a Zika vaccine?

“I’m very interested in this.” says Jeanette Bavwidinski, a community organizer in Pennsylvania. “I’m interested in what her daily regimen is. Like, what are you all feeding RBG? Is she getting enough fresh air? Is she walking? Is she staying low-stress? What is she reading? Is she reading low-stress things?”

(Read the rest of the story here…)

What you need to know about Colorado judge Neil Gorsuch, Donald Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court

President Donald Trump plans to announce his pick for the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday night and one of the leading contenders is Judge Neil Gorsuch, a fourth-generation Coloradan and conservative jurist who has written against euthanasia and in favor of political term limits.

For several days, Gorsuch, a justice on the Denver-based 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, has stayed on the short list of nominees expected to fill the seat of Justice Antonin Scalia, who died last year. Also there: William Pryor Jr. of the 11th Circuit and Thomas Hardiman of the 3rd Circuit – though Trump could go in a different direction, too.

(Read the rest of the story here…)

Conservative Colorado judge emerges as a top contender to fill Scalia’s Supreme Court seat

Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, a highly regarded conservative jurist best known for upholding religious liberty rights in the legal battles over Obamacare, has emerged as a leading contender for President Trump’s first Supreme Court nomination.

Gorsuch, 49, was among 21 potential high court candidates circulated by Trump’s team during the campaign, but his stock has been rising lately as several admirers and supporters have been named to positions in the Trump administration.

(Read the rest of the story here…)

Trump has narrowed down his Supreme Court list to 3 nominees

The leading contenders — who all have met with Trump — are William Pryor, Neil Gorsuch and Thomas Hardiman, the person said, speaking anonymously because he was not authorized to speak publicly about internal decisions.

Pryor, 54, is an Alabama-based judge on the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Gorsuch, 49, is on the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and Hardiman, 51, sits on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pittsburgh. All three were nominated by President George W. Bush for their current posts.

(Read the rest of the story here…)

Is Donald Trump Going To Nominate Ted Cruz To Fill The Open Seat On The Supreme Court?

ted-cruz-official-photo-public-domain

Is the next U.S. Supreme Court Justice going to be Ted Cruz?  As wild as that might sound, there is buzz that it might actually happen.  We all remember the bitter words that were exchanged between Ted Cruz and Donald Trump during the Republican primaries, but since that time they have mended fences, and Cruz ultimately ended up endorsing Trump.  And Trump has shown that he is willing to work with his former rivals.  He has already chosen Ben Carson to be his Housing Secretary, for a while there it looked like Mitt Romney was the leading contender to be Secretary of State, and on Monday Carly Fiorina actually met with Trump about a potential position in his administration.  So just because Ted Cruz and Donald Trump clashed on the campaign trail does not mean that Trump would hold a grudge.

In fact, GotNews is reporting that “a deal” is in the works that would result in Cruz being nominated to the Supreme Court once Trump ascends to the presidency…

Texas Senator Ted Cruz is set to be nominated for a position on the Supreme Court by President-elect Donald J. Trump if current trends hold, a source close to the process tells GotNews.

The source told GotNews that “a deal” is being cut which would see Cruz nominated to the Supreme Court on the condition that a pro-Trump Republican could be found to replace Ted Cruz in the Senate.

It is unclear whether Cruz would be immediately nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, who died earlier this year, or if his nomination would come later. While Cruz was not on Trump’s list of potential Supreme Court picks, he undoubtedly fits the bill as a staunch conservative constitutionalist.

Of course this report has not been confirmed, and even if it is accurate we all know that Trump is prone to change his mind about these sorts of things.

So Ted Cruz should not be counting his chickens just yet, but he has not exactly been downplaying the chatter either.  When speculation about a potential Supreme Court position first came up, Cruz said that he was “humbled” to be considered…

Cruz has been floated as a possible Supreme Court appointee, chatter he said he’s “humbled” to hear. But if that doesn’t materialize, the Texas senator, who’s favored to win reelection in 2018, says he’ll devote himself to holding Trump and the Republican Congress accountable to their campaign promises.

“The American people have entrusted Republicans with control of the White House, the Senate and the House. That happens very rarely,” Cruz said late last week. “We now have a responsibility to stand up and deliver.”

More recently, Cruz sounded very much like a politician eager for a new job when asked specifically about his chances of becoming the next Supreme Court Justice…

“What I will say is that history is long and can take unexpected paths,” he said in response to an audience question about his filling the vacancy. “I think it is absolutely vital that that seat and every other seat that comes vacant on the court be filled by principled constitutionalists who will be faithful to the law and will check their own policy preferences at the door and simply honor their oath.”

“I can also tell you that I have right now the privilege of serving in the United States Senate, of representing 27 million Texans,” he said. “That is a privilege and a responsibility I take very, very seriously. And I look forward to continuing to carry out that responsibility and continuing to fight for the principles of freedom and the principles embodied in the Constitution and Bill of Rights,” he added.

And just a few weeks ago the Washington Examiner reported that a “Trump transition insider” said that Cruz would definitely accept a seat on the Supreme Court if it was offered to him…

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has informed Trump transition insiders that he would accept the nomination to take the place of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, potentially cementing the power of the court’s conservative wing for decades, according to sources.

But another source close to Cruz said that while he is eager to help the new administration, he hasn’t committed to any new position.

Cruz hinted at his openness to joining the court Friday at a legal conference.

“Ted Cruz would absolutely accept it if offered a seat on the court,” said a transition insider.

Needless to say, the nomination of Ted Cruz would be enthusiastically welcomed by tens of millions of social conservatives and evangelical Christians that voted for Trump in November.

So if Trump wanted to send them a thank you gift, there would be few things that Trump could do that would please them more.

And it would also remove a potential rival for the Republican nomination in 2020 if things don’t go so well for Trump during his first term.

But could Cruz be confirmed by the Senate?  It is no secret that many of his fellow Senators greatly dislike Cruz, but they may just confirm him to finally be rid of him.

And even his detractors agree that Cruz is highly qualified.  In fact, even CNN says that Cruz is “well qualified” to serve on the Supreme Court…

Cruz is a former clerk for Chief Justice William Rehnquist and a darling of judicial conservatives. He’s well qualified, and argued before the Court when he served as the Solicitor General of Texas. Trump might consider Cruz would kill two potential birds with one stone. He’d appoint a conservative and at the same time clear him out of the political arena.

It seems clear that Cruz wants the job, and it appears that Trump is definitely considering him.

A lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is no small thing, and if Cruz does make it on to the Supreme Court he could become a thorn in the side of the liberal agenda in this country for potentially decades to come.

About the author: Michael Snyder is the founder and publisher of The Economic Collapse Blog and The Most Important News. Michael’s controversial new book about Bible prophecy entitled “The Rapture Verdict” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com.

Barack Obama’s Short List to Replace Antonin Scalia Leaked

Barack Obama In The Oval Office

Several news outlets began reporting the list, which was likely purposely leaked by the White House to begin the public vetting process, Monday afternoon. It includes:

Sri Srinivasan, a U.S. Court of Appeals judge for the District of Columbia circuits;

Merrick Garland, chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit;

Attorney General Loretta Lynch;

Former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal, who is now a Georgetown law professor;

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson;

Solicitor General Don Verrilli; and

Former Attorney General Eric Holder.

(Read the rest of the story here…)

Antonin Scalia’s death could fundamentally shift the Supreme Court on abortion, race, climate

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

Justice Antonin Scalia’s death could change the course of history on the contentious social and legal issues pending before the Supreme Court this term, especially in closely divided cases where he was expected to serve as a lynchpin of a conservative majority.

In cases where the eight remaining justices are evenly divided, appeals court rulings would be left to stand, but no precedent would be set for future cases. The justices could also hold cases and leave stays of lower court rulings in place, while awaiting confirmation of a new justice, but it’s unclear if they would do so for nearly a year if the Senate refuses to consider any nominee while President Barack Obama is in office.

(Read the rest of the story here…)

Antonin Scalia’s Death Could Mark The End Of The U.S. Constitution

Constitution_of_the_United_States

The death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia doesn’t merely mark a tragedy for Constitutional philosophy – it may mark the death of American Constitutionalism as a whole.

Scalia’s philosophy of jurisprudence is well-known and shaped two generations of conservative thinkers: the Constitution ought to be interpreted according to its original meaning. This shouldn’t have been a groundbreaking notion given that most legislation is interpreted according to those rules, but because leftist jurists have spent a century chiseling away at the meaning of the Constitution based on their personal political beliefs, Scalia’s reinvigoration of traditional interpretive methodologies made him a historic figure. Scalia’s brilliant, passionate writing style made him author of some of the most famous dissents in Supreme Court history, and channeled the modern conservative frustration with the continuing abandonment of the Constitution.

Scalia’s jurisprudence also reminded conservatives that there is no substitute for proven Constitutional originalism. Most conservatives ignored that when they greenlit the appointment of cipher John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, a point I made when he was appointed. But Scalia provided a consistent reminder that Constitutional philosophy matters. It isn’t just a game of doing whatever you want politically. Constitutional jurisprudence is about recognizing the limits of the federal government – and recognizing the limits of the politicization of the Court itself.

(Read the rest of the story here…)

Supreme Court Rules That States Cannot Force Voters To Prove Citizenship

Voting Machine

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider letting states require evidence of citizenship when people register to vote for federal elections, rejecting an appeal from Arizona and Kansas.

The rebuff is a victory for the Obama administration and voting- and minority-rights groups that battled the two states in court. It leaves intact a decision by a U.S. agency that blocked the states from requiring proof of citizenship for voters in federal elections.

It’s the second high court defeat on the issue for Arizona. The state has a law that requires evidence of citizenship, but the Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that it couldn’t be enforced when people use a standard registration document known as the “federal form” to register to vote for Congress and the president.

(Read the rest of the story here…)

The Supreme Court Has Declared Same-Sex Marriage To Be A Constitutional Right In All 50 States

Supreme Court Building - Public Domain

The Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage across the United States Friday in a closely divided ruling that will stand as a milestone in its 226-year history.

The justices ruled 5-4 that states cannot deny gay men and lesbians the same marriage rights enjoyed for thousands of years by opposite-sex couples. Within days if not hours, the decision is expected to trigger same-sex marriages in states that still ban the practice.

“They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law,” Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his 28-page ruling. “The Constitution grants them that right.”

(Read the rest of the story here…)

Obamacare Travesty: The Supreme Court Continues To Make Stuff Up Out Of Thin Air

Supreme Court - Public Domain

Thanks to the Supreme Court’s willingness to make stuff up, Obamacare has been saved once again. In order to save Obamacare from utter disaster, Chief Justice Roberts essentially rewrote the law. If you are thinking that the Supreme Court is not supposed to do that, you would be right. But this is what our judicial system has devolved into. When I was in law school, I was horrified to discover that most judges in our country just do whatever they feel like doing. Instead of applying the law to the facts and coming to a fair and unbiased judgment, most judges in America just do whatever they want to do and then search for some law or case precedent that they can use to justify their decision. If there is no law or case precedent, some federal judges even go outside of the country to find justification for their absolutely ridiculous rulings. There have been instances where international law or international standards of morality have been cited as authority for a decision in a federal case. We have become a lawless land where the letter of the law no longer holds any real meaning, and where tyrannical judges just make stuff up out of thin air in order to advance their own personal political agendas.

This decision on Obamacare should have been quite straightforward for the court. The following is how Business Insider described the key issue in this case…

The case revolved around the interpretation of a phrase that stated that healthcare exchanges must be “established by the State” in order to receive tax credits. Scalia said that he was baffled that the majority of the justices could interpret this to mean that the federal government could give tax credits in states where exchanges weren’t established by the state.

“Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’ It is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits to state Exchanges than to use the words ‘established by the State,’” Scalia said.

That sounds pretty basic, right?

“Established by the state” should mean “established by the state”?

In his dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia scolded the court for discarding all usual rules of interpretation in order to preserve Obamacare…

“Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.”

To say that Scalia was upset by this decision would be a massive understatement. He says that this ridiculous decision will be “remembered through the years” and that it sends a message that “the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites”…

“But this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (‘penalty’ means tax, ‘further [Medicaid] payments to the State’ means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, ‘established by the State’ means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.”

Near the end of his dissent, he chided his fellow justices for rewriting Obamacare in order to save it, and he suggested that this law should now be referred to as “SCOTUScare”…

“This Court revised major components of the statute in order to save them from unconstitutionality.… We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.”

Normally, at the end of a dissenting opinion it is traditional for a Supreme Court justice to state “I respectfully dissent”.

But this time, Scalia simply ended with “I dissent”.

That may not seem like much to you, but in the legal world that is extremely significant.

Of course Obama was absolutely thrilled by this Obamacare decision. The following comes from CBS News

President Obama commended a Supreme Court ruling that upheld a major portion of the Affordable Care Act on Thursday, hailing the decision as a vindication of his push for health care reform – and a clear signal to the law’s opponents that it’s time to give up the ghost.

“As the dust has settled, there can be no doubt this law is working,” the president said in a brief speech from the White House Rose Garden. “After multiple challenges to this law before the Supreme Court, the Affordable Care Act is here to stay. This morning, the court upheld a critical part of this law – the part that’s made it easier for Americans to afford health insurance no matter where you live.”

This all makes me very sad. Our law schools have become indoctrination centers for progressivism. Our law students are being taught that the U.S. Constitution is a “living, breathing document” and that courts should determine what the best end result of a case should be and then figure out the best way to justify that decision.

Our law schools are some of the most liberal institutions in the entire country. This is true even in the most “conservative” states. Over the past several decades, graduates of these law schools have flooded the legal system and now dominate the judiciary on every level.

Yes, we can elect a new president and many new members of Congress in 2016, but changing the judiciary would literally take generations to accomplish. That is why so many prominent voices are increasingly speaking out about “the tyranny of the judiciary”. We have hordes of activist judges running around doing pretty much anything that they feel like doing. It truly is a national crisis.

On a day to day basis, Barack Obama and Congress get a tremendous amount of criticism (and rightly so), but our judicial branch is also deeply, deeply corrupt and it would be much, much harder to fix.

Over the next few days, several more very important Supreme Court decisions will be announced. And without a doubt, we should expect to see the “justices” continue to make stuff up out of thin air.

If our founding fathers could see what was happened to the Supreme Court that they created, they would be rolling over in their graves.

(Originally published on The American Dream)

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!