Category

LBB

Payback: Abortion Radicals to the Court

By | LBB, News and Events | No Comments

President Joe Biden is doing everything in his power to pay back his pro-abortion supporters who are enraged following the recent Supreme Court decision in Dobbs, which finally overturned Roe v. Wade, sending the issue back to the states.

 

He recently signed an executive order to allow Medicaid funds to be used to facilitate travel for women who want to have an abortion, in clear violation of the spirit, if not the letter of federal law, as expressed through the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal money being used to cover the cost of abortions.

 

But the Left long ago figured out that taking such illegal actions requires judges willing to manipulate the law to make sure the policy choices they cannot get through the legislative process are imposed by judicial fiat, exactly what they did through Roe for so many years.

 

Enter Julie Rikelman, President Biden’s nominee to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit based in Massachusetts. Rikelman is none other than the abortion rights activist who represented the abortion clinic in Dobbs. It doesn’t get more brazen than that.

 

Rikelman has dedicated her life to promoting abortion. She is the senior director of the Center for Reproductive Rights, the nation’s most active pro-abortion organization challenging pro-life laws in the states. She was appointed to that position after returning to the organization where she first served as a “Blackmun Fellow.” Justice Blackmun was the author of the Roe v. Wade decision.

 

Needless to say, Rikelman is not an impartial jurist. She is an abortion activist and has been tapped for this position for that very reason. This White House has shown complete contempt for law and justice and the proper role of a judge.

 

President Biden nominated Rikelman after word got out that he might have a deal with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) that would have allowed, Chad Meredith, a nominee some considered conservative to be nominated. Radical groups immediately jumped on the White House to get in line. And so they did, nominating Rikelman to appease the mob and showing little regard for the proper role of a judge.

 

This fits with the increasing abortion radicalism of this White House. Recently, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said the Justices took “an unconstitutional action” in Dobbs. That was right on the heels of calling Justice Clarence Thomas “Justice Thompson,” showing complete disdain for Justice Thomas simply because of his judicial philosophy.

 

Senators in the Senate Judiciary Committee must stand against the Rikelman nomination while raising awareness of the dangers of the continued political weaponization of the processes of justice.

 

We have seen it, not only in the nominations process, but in the Department of Justices’ targeting of parents, in the FBI’s mishandling of critical information about those they favor politically, and more.

 

Senators should use every tool at their disposal to protect the ideas that guard our liberties. The corruption and politicization of justice should be right at the top that list.

Defining Reality

By | LBB, Legal, News and Events, Religious Liberty | No Comments

Who defines what is? It’s a strange question. Most people would struggle to even grasp the question at first. The point is reality. Who defines it? The Founding Fathers had a beautiful way of describing things that are “self-evident.” All men are created equal. Says who?

 

Reality says—truth. But the truth is under assault in our day and age. The Founders embraced a Judeo-Christian worldview precisely because it best describes (helps explain) the reality of the human heart and experience. It is self-evident that babies are born male or female. We can observe it and know that it is true. When we look at Scripture, we get insight into that observable reality. “So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” (Genesis 1:27)

 

Science, of course, confirms it, as science is based on scientific observations. Our biological makeup, physical, chemical, and psychological, bears witness to that reality. As scientific advancement gives us more information about DNA and XY chromosomes, we only gain more evidence of what is a well-established fact.

 

But from the beginning, the garden’s serpent came to question what was. “Did God actually say?” was its attack then. It still is today. We must realize that this is the battle, in politics, the culture, the church, within your very soul! We either hold on to reality or succumb to the enemy’s manipulations.

 

Redefining reality does not change it. A man is not a woman because he believes he is a woman. He does not become a woman if everyone else around him goes along with it. He and those going along with it are living a lie and lies will always conflict with reality. You may believe you are the man of steel, but you step in front of a bullet at your peril…

Click here to read the rest of Mario’s exclusive Substack column. And be sure to subscribe below to never miss one of his posts again!

 

Unlawful Attacks on Supreme Court Justices Multiply

By | LBB | No Comments

Even after the attempted assassination of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the campaign of harassment at the homes of conservative justices has continued by a tiny but vocal radical crowd. Protesters showed up recently at a restaurant where Justice Kavanaugh was dining.

 

To his shame, Attorney General Merrick Garland continues ignoring these clear federal law violations. Title 18 U.S. Code § 1507 authorizes a fine or even imprisonment to “Whoever … with the intent of influencing any judge … pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge …”

 

But these radicals operate at the urgency of legal, liberal intellectuals. Harvard Law School lecturer Alejandra Caraballo tweeted recently that the justices should be harassed at every turn. “It is our civic duty,” she wrote, “to accost them every time they are in public. They are pariahs. Since women don’t have their rights, these justices should never have a peaceful moment in public again.”

 

Congress, too, is participating. A radical group of Democrats introduced a bill to put “term limits” on Supreme Court Justices. The bill titled the Supreme Court Tenure Establishment and Retirement Modernization Act of 2022 is blatantly unconstitutional. Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution states plainly, “The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.” But they have no regard for the Constitution or the rule of law.

 

Their unconstitutional legislation says, “Each justice shall serve in regular active service for 18 years from the date of justice’s commission, after which the justice shall be deemed to have retired from regular active service ….” And it requires the President to nominate new justices “during his first and third years after a year in which there is a Presidential election.”

 

It is a messaging bill, as radicals are so apt at producing. It is part of their strategy to harass and intimidate the justices into submission. It is going nowhere, and even if it did, it would be immediately declared unconstitutional.

 

But the point for us is to realize that the attacks on our constitutional structure and the rule of law are in full force, and we must engage them both at the spiritual and policy level. So, pray for the justices, pray against the evil schemes of harassment, and make sure your members of Congress are standing up to protect the crucial institution that is our U.S. Supreme Court.

The Myth of the Neutral State in Matters of Religion

By | LBB, Legal, News and Events, Religious Liberty | No Comments

Now-retired Justice Stephen Breyer’s dissenting opinions in Carson v. Makin, one of the U.S. Supreme Court’s latest cases clarifying America’s robust religious liberty protections, reveals one of the fundamental misunderstandings of the First Amendment which impairs many people’s judgment in such cases. It is the myth of the neutral state.

 

In comparing religiously affiliated private schools to public schools, Justice Breyer writes that “public schools are religiously neutral.” I was glad I was not taking a sip of my coffee at that moment, or it would have been all over my desk. Can anyone who is aware of what is being taught in our schools seriously argue that schools are “neutral” regarding religious matters?

 

The radical left’s dogma is being imposed much more forcefully than any other religious tenet taught in most American religious institutions. And it’s not even close.

 

In Carson, the state of Maine had enacted a tuition assistance program for children in school districts that do not have a state secondary school. The program allows parents to choose the public or private school their children will attend, and the government would pay the school to help defray the cost. Before 1981, parents could choose any school if they met some basic requirements. But in 1980, the state excluded religious schools with a condition that the schools be “nonsectarian.”

 

The state “considers a sectarian school to be one that is associated with a particular faith or belief system and which, in addition to teaching academic subjects, promotes the faith or belief system with which it is associated and/or presents the material taught through the lens of this faith.”

 

Are not our public schools overwhelmingly associated with a particular “belief system”? In addition to teaching academic subjects, don’t they promote that belief system in any way they can? Have you seen the modern classroom decor? Have you seen the resources they are spending money to bring into the school… 

Click here to read the rest of Mario’s exclusive Substack column. And be sure to subscribe below to never miss one of his posts again!

Grasping at Straws on Dobbs

By | Dobbs, LBB, Legal, News and Events, Sanctity of Life, Substack | No Comments

The boorish left is having a full-blown meltdown over the leaked opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and its impending official release by the United States Supreme Court. Justice Samuel Alito’s unassailable, monumental takedown of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey’s complete lack of constitutional underpinning has them panicked.

 

It is certainly not the result they want. That is the reason for all the screeching, weeping, and gnashing of teeth we have seen in front of the Supreme Court and at the constitutionalist justices’ homes in clear violation of federal law. But the worst part about it is that Roe’s legal reasoning is such a dud that all they are left with is trying to manipulate what they see as the internal soap opera at the Court. Their target, as usual, is Chief Justice Roberts, who they hope can somehow swindle other justices into keeping Roe alive.

 

Politico’s Senior Legal Affairs Reporter Josh Gerstein’s latest “What a Roberts compromise on abortion could look like” is the latest not-so-subtle attempt at this. “It’s a longshot,” says the tagline on the piece, “but court watchers are closely eyeing the chief justice for middle ground on Roe.”

 

Gerstein acknowledges no one wants this middle ground. The pro-abortion side emphatically rejected it at oral arguments. Still, they can dream. Here is how he summarized the feeble argument of this dream opinion: “The central organizing principle for a Roberts opinion is likely to be one he has articulated many times: that the court shouldn’t issue a sweeping decision when a more modest one would do.” …

 

 

Click here to read the rest of Mario’s exclusive Substack column. And be sure to subscribe below to never miss one of his posts again!

The Right Kind of Victims

By | Dobbs, LBB, Legal, News and Events, SCOTUS, Substack | No Comments

The establishment media portrays the radical left as caring for “victims” in many contexts, but the reality is that they are laser-focused not on defending but on victimizing the right kind of people. For them, pro-life, pro-family, conservative Americans are the right kind of victims. Violence against them is understandable and even desirable.

 

But worse than merely the media portrayal is the fact that the federal government, under the Biden-Harris Administration, is entirely controlled by the radical left. They, too, ascribe to this warped philosophy. That is why the spectacle of January 6 is worthy of a multi-million-dollar investigation and media focus. In contrast, the attempted assassination of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice must be buried. One goes after the right kind of people. According to the left, both the January 6 investigation and the attempted assassination against Justice Brett Kavanaugh are going against those who deserve to be punished.

 

Attacks on abortion clinics in the past were intolerable and taken seriously. The FBI and DOJ were quickly mobilized. The full resources of the federal government were invested in protecting those injured. They were the wrong kind of victims…

 

Click here to read the rest of Mario’s exclusive Substack column. And be sure to subscribe below to never miss one of his posts again!

Female Athletes Are Being Victimized to Pander to the Personal Fantasies of a Few

By | LBB, Legal, News and Events, Sexual Exploitation, Women's Sports | No Comments

Women athletes are in danger of losing their rights to the desires of men who feel they are women.

 

The anti-science effort to erase the physical differences between men and women is regressive and dangerous. Women are being victimized in the name of an AstroTurf diversity that discriminates against all who do not conform to the personal fantasies of a few.

 

The effort has consequences that go well beyond women’s athletics. In April, a male Rikers inmate claiming to be a woman was sentenced to seven years for raping a female prisoner in the women’s section of the jail. Concerned Women for America, the organization I represent — a Christian, conservative organization — is supporting a lawsuit by the liberal feminist organization Women’s Liberation Front to fight for women’s rights on this front.

 

We are also witnessing the pernicious promotion of transgender ideology in public schools, which ignores the sadpractical reality of the harmful long-term effects of life-altering surgical procedures on all young people, but on young women in particular.

 

But legally speaking, the women’s sports aspect of this battle, which has the backing of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, should be preventing the injustices we are witnessing…

 

Read the rest of this op-ed as featured exclusively on The Western Journal.

You Can’t Undo the Supreme Court Leak

By | LBB, Legal | No Comments

The United States Supreme Court has stayed relatively quiet following the shameful news of the leaked Dobbs draft opinion. Chief Justice John Roberts issued a statement condemning the leak and calling for an investigation, but we have heard nothing else since.

 

As you know, Concerned Women for America (CWA), though encouraged by the content of the opinion, refuse to engage in any public analysis of its content, believing the ethical breach by someone at the Court, presumably a liberal clerk, worthy of the utmost contempt.

 

In a recent interview, Justice Clarence Thomas tried to put words to the magnitude of the breach, and I think you must be aware of his wise words. He was interviewed by his former law clerk John Yoo at an event in Dallas. He said:

 

“[T]he institution that I’m a part of if someone said that one line of one opinion would be leaked by anyone in you would say that, ‘Oh, that’s impossible. No one would ever do that.’ There was such a belief in the rule of law, belief in the court, a belief in what we were doing, that that was verboten. It was beyond anyone’s understanding, or at least anyone’s imagination that someone would do that. And look where we are, where now that trust or that belief is gone forever. When you lose that trust, especially in the institution that I’m in, it changes the institution fundamentally. You begin to look over your shoulder. It’s like kind of an infidelity that you can explain it, but you can’t undo it.”

 

The Supreme Court will never be the same. We must reckon with that reality. We don’t even know the extent of this breach yet. Help me pray that the person responsible is exposed convincingly so that they can be severely punished. That would help tremendously. We expected this would be quickly resolved, given how tight things are kept within the Court, but nothing has been announced.

 

The warning is broader than the Court. Justice Thomas said:

 

“I think we are in danger of destroying the institutions that are required for a free society. You can’t have a civil society, a free society, without a stable legal system. You can’t have one without stability and things like property or interpretation and impartial judiciary. And I’ve been in this business long enough to know just how fragile it is.”

 

Most Americans can see that. Both the Court and the Country are in a fragile state. We must proceed with caution and urgency. We need courage. Justice Thomas spoke about that too. “I think a lot of people lack courage,” he said, “like they know what is right, and they’re scared to death of doing it.” He is right, of course. We need help from above, no doubt.

Question the Mules

By | Electoral College, LBB, Legal, News and Events | No Comments

Question the mules. That’s the only reasonable response to the evidence presented by Dinesh D’Souza’s new movie, 2000 Mules. The documentary offers concerning evidence of election fraud in the 2020 election that should be investigated. Whatever your views on former President Donald Trump or President Joe Biden, they are not the focus of the investigation.

 

It is uncontroverted that states bent and amended election rules when faced with the COVID-19 pandemic. Mail-in and absentee ballots were greatly expanded with little time for proper implementation. Hundreds of drop-off boxes were added to ensure everyone had access to them while maintaining social distancing, but many went unmonitored. That’s where D’Souza’s documentary raises some critical questions and gives us an urgent cautionary tale for future elections. We must do better.

 

How secure were these drop boxes? Do we have a way to monitor them? How do we stop bad actors from abusing the system? No one needs to be depositing multiple ballots at 2:00 a.m.

 

The film does not answer all the questions. For example, the organizations from which these mules were allegedly getting ballots are generically referenced but not mentioned by name. But the evidence presented of people depositing several ballots at a time using gloves and taking pictures so as to document that they had deposited them is seriously suspicious and should be quickly investigated.

 

The attorneys general in the states involved should follow up with an investigation. True the Vote (TTV), the organization that provided the information to D’Souza, has the names of the individuals and organizations involved, and they are willing to cooperate with law enforcement. So why wouldn’t every state want to follow up and either clear the record or catch and expose the perpetrators as a strong deterrent for future elections?

 

Conspiracies are not good for our democracy, and ignoring the legitimate evidence presented in the documentary will only fuel those. On the other hand, an investigation would serve to tamper speculations and give confidence to voters, whatever the outcome, by answering some basic questions about what happened and punishing any bad actors.

 

The crux of the investigation is the identification of 2,000 individuals who deposited multiple ballots while visiting an average of 20-30 drop boxes and stopping by left-leaning non-profit organizations in between those visits. These are identified as the mules. TTV used commercial cell phone tracking data to identify and track these individuals. The evidence becomes compelling when they are able to obtain footage of some individuals depositing multiple ballots at locations that kept surveillance on some drop boxes.

 

Not all locations were on camera, though, which has raised some questions. Though it is not unreasonable to think they were doing the same at other sites, you are left wishing there was more on tape. The fact that some locations that were supposed to be monitored somehow were not also raises concerns. Again, the evidence is compelling enough for law enforcement to go and ask the questions at the very least. If nothing wrong was done, they should be able to confirm it.

 

The documentary features one person who says they believe they were involved in paying “mules” for this work, which is not legal in any state. But she cannot corroborate it completely because she can only say she assumes she was handing out checks. She also says she had been approached about her own ballot. It is conceivable that others may come forward if an investigation is started.

 

Contact your state attorney general and express your desire to see a full investigation into the matter.

 

The documentary is certainly a must watch for anyone interested in the topic. But ultimately, my prayer is that you are left inspired, not frustrated, to become part of the solution and get involved in the election process in your state. Sunshine is the best policy when it comes to our election procedures.

 

If you would like to know more about how you can do that, click here to connect with our She Prays She Votes 2022 effort.

 

 

 

Boston Violates First Amendment by Targeting Christian Flag

By | Case Vault, LBB, Legal, News and Events | No Comments

All nine justices of the United States Supreme Court agree in Shurtleff v. City of Boston. The city violated the First Amendment rights of Harold Shurtleff, the director of Camp Constitution, by refusing to allow him to fly the Christian Flag at a public pole where the city allowed private groups to fly their flags indiscriminately.

 

“The most salient feature of this case is that Boston neither actively controlled these flag raisings nor shaped the messages the flags sent,” wrote Justice Stephen Breyer in his majority opinion as the Court concluded what Boston was engaging in was not government speech. “Boston told the public that it sought ‘to accommodate all applicants’ who wished to hold events at Boston’s ‘public forums.’” Except for those pesky Christians.

 

Thankfully, the Court 9-0 (though using different rationales) declared, “Boston’s refusal to let petitioners fly their flag violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.” The Court correctly stated, “When the government does not speak for itself, it may not exclude private speech based on “‘religious viewpoint’; doing so ‘constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination.’”

 

Breyer’s majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. They were also three concurring opinions. One by Justice Kavanaugh, a second by Justice Alito joined by Thomas and Gorsuch, and a third by Justice Gorsuch joined by Justice Thomas.

 

Justice Kavanaugh, concurring, made clear this case only got to the Supreme Court “because of a government official’s mistaken understanding of the Establishment Clause.” We should also add that many judges share the mistaken view, also. But as Kavanaugh writes, “Under the Constitution, a government may not treat religious persons, religious organizations, or religious speech as second-class.”

 

Justice Alito’s concurrence agrees with the Court’s ultimate conclusion but disagrees with the majority’s analysis. And with good reason. Justice Alito rightly points out that some of the “tests” the majority uses to answer the question here, like “the extent to which the government has actively shaped or controlled expression,” can actually be used by bad actors to discriminate against those with whom it disagrees. But that, too, would be an impermissible violation of the First Amendment.

 

Justice Alito smartly advocates for a more precise and robust definition of government speech, which, after all, is the only organism restricted by the First Amendment. “Government speech,” he writes, “is thus the purposeful communication of a governmentally determined message by a person exercising a power to speak for a government.” Furthermore, after establishing that government speech is at issue, “the government must establish it did not rely on a means that abridges the speech of persons acting in a private capacity.” This is the type of clear definitional guidelines that will help judges around the country administer justice in a much fairer way. Let us hope Justice Alito’s test finds wide acceptance in the years to come.

 

Finally, Justice Gorsuch writes a concurring masterpiece on what is known as the Lemon test. This is an approach that Concerned Women for America  has asked the Court to overturn on many occasions. As he wrote, “Lemon ignored the original meaning of the Establishment Clause, it disregarded mountains of precedent, and it substituted a serious constitutional inquiry with a guessing game.”

 

The historical discussion especially is worthwhile in Gorsuch’s concurrence; I commend it to you. Here is a taste (citations omitted):

 

As a close look at these hallmarks and our history reveals, “[n]o one at the time of the founding is recorded as arguing that the use of religious symbols in public contexts was a form of religious establishment.” For most of its existence, this country had an “unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life.” In fact and as we have seen, it appears that, until Lemon, this Court had never held the display of a religious symbol to constitute an establishment of religion. The simple truth is that no historically sensitive understanding of the Establishment Clause can be reconciled with a rule requiring governments to “roa[m] the land, tearing down monuments with religious symbolism and scrubbing away any reference to the divine.” Our Constitution was not designed to erase religion from American life; it was designed to ensure “respect and tolerance.”

 

It is a critical discussion that accentuates his clear thinking on religious liberty issues.

 

This is a great win that envisions even greater protections for religious freedom for decades to come—a great development for all Americans regardless of religious belief.

 

Reason Demands an End to Roe

By | Dobbs, LBB, Legal, News and Events, Sanctity of Life, Substack | No Comments

A young wife and her husband were enthusiastically awaiting the birth of their first baby. It was a girl. They had already done a big baby shower with family and friends; they had bought all the furniture and decorated the room— a beautiful retreat of yellow and pink. They had faithfully kept every doctor’s appointment and attended all the classes, learning everything about what to expect when you’re expecting. They had even named her: Mary Beth.

But at 28 weeks (7 months), mom confesses she was not ready. She is just too young and not mentally and emotionally prepared to be responsible for another human being. So instead, she wants to have an abortion.

Dad earnestly pleads with her to no avail. “It’s my body,” came the answer.

“Is an abortion even legal so far along in a pregnancy,” he thought? Yes, one quick Google search informed him that there are no limits even for late-term abortions in their home state of New Jersey. He quickly found a clinic’s website offering the service and explaining a third-trimester abortion procedure, but he could not bear to finish reading the short description. He even explored legal options but has no recourse.

So, on a day they were supposed to go to another doctor’s visit and see their baby girl on the latest sonogram, mom will instead drive to an abortion clinic to “terminate her pregnancy.”

Such is the state of abortion policy in our nation. It is part of the wretched legacy of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that invented a constitutional right to abortion…

Click here to read the rest of Mario’s exclusive Substack column. And be sure to subscribe below to never miss one of his posts again!

Ketanji Brown Jackson – Judge or Policy Maker?

By | Breyer, Judicial Nominations, LBB, Legal, News and Events, SCOTUS, Vacancy | No Comments

The first day of the hearings of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s (KBJ) nomination to the United States Supreme Court is over. Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee got an opportunity to make opening remarks, and then we heard the opening statement from KBJ.

In his opening remarks, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) set up the hearings well by addressing why nomination hearings have become so controversial. Judicial activists taking on the role of legislators has much to do with it. Here is the clip:

This is the central question to assess in looking at this nomination. Will she be the type of justice that sees her role as one who brings “progress” to the law, pushing legal interpretation beyond the text of the law and the Constitution in order to implement policies that they personally believe are important.

Roe v. Wade is the classic example of the justices reaching beyond the text of the Constitution in order to implement changes they personally deem important. KBJ’s support for abortion “rights” is alarming, and it is one area that we hope we can hear more about during the hearings. Note the difference. The support of the policy is not the issue. The use of legal interpretation as a way to promote social or cultural change is the crux of the matter.

The Court is primed to hear some crucial cases in the coming years in which this type of judicial philosophy will be crucial to the protection of our liberties. We were grateful for Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee) for bringing up some the issues of parental rights and women’s rights during her opening remarks. Here’s that important clip:

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) also raised some important questions regarding KBJ’s work as a trial judge deeply involved with sentencing matters. He listed several concerning cases related to the very sensitive issue of child pornography. As Sen. Hawley ended his opening remarks, we look forward to hearing the nominee’s explanation in the next few days.

Finally, we were glad Sen. Cruz heard our request for some accountability on the incredible injustice done to Justice Kavanaugh and the numerous blatant violations of Senate procedures committed for purely partisan reasons. This fact should never escape conservative senators’ minds going forward until some accountability is implemented.

Concerned Women for America (CWA) is at the hearings right now meticulously monitoring this nomination and will have updates for you throughout the week as we get into the question and answers portion of the hearings which we hope will help to shed more light on the concerns about the type of justice KBJ would be.

Leftists viciously malign Clarence Thomas

By | LBB, Legal, News and Events | No Comments

Justice Clarence Thomas has done well for himself.  He is in no need of defense by anybody.  His life and work are inspiring by any measure.  But the despicable, racially motivated, coordinated media attacks against him and his family are so unfair that even a slight appreciation of justice would compel a reasonable person to speak.

His professionalism and honor play a part, too, so that reasonable observers can appreciate that in shining a light on the praiseworthy work of the good justice and the nefarious motives of his critics, one speaks for him who “cannot speak for himself,” given the seriousness with which he takes the oath he took.

What pushed me over the edge to add my voice to those decrying the media smear machine against Justice Thomas and his family was a loathsome sentence written by a Washington Post “reporter” that described Justice Thomas as “the Black justice whose rulings often resemble the thinking of White conservatives.”  It’s been a week, and I cannot shake it.

Can you imagine the deep prejudice that’s required among not one, but a group of writers and editors to publish a sentence like that in a “respectable” newspaper?  They can try to correct it all they want, but the animus that produced such a vile sentiment is alive and well at the Post.

Click here to read Mario’s op-ed as exclusively featured on American Thinker.

Indefensible Roe –The Spiritual Track

By | Indefensible Roe, LBB, Legal, News and Events, Publications, Sanctity of Life | No Comments

Thank you for reading. Throughout the Indefensible Roe series, we have explored how the infamous Roe v. Wade decision that opened the door to the more than 62 million babies killed in abortion in the U.S. since 1973 has no basis to stand on today as the Supreme Court reexamines its validity in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The Supreme Court’s meddling in abortion policy has been a complete failure—a betrayal of the most fundamental principles of liberty. We have discussed how Roe and its supporting cases are indefensible legally, as a matter of policyscientifically, and today we explore perhaps its most tragic failure: the spiritual one.

Though some may be tempted to dismiss this aspect of the discussion as somehow outside the bounds of the legal/policy discussion, I submit to you that the injustice of abortion strikes at the heart of the legal case. As Aquinas put it, an unjust law is no law at all, but a sort of violence:

Human law is law only by virtue of its accordance with right reason; and thus it is manifest that it flows from the eternal law. And in so far as it deviates from right reason it is called an unjust law; in such case it is no law at all, but rather a species of violence. (Summa Theologiae, Ia-Ilae, q. xciii, art. 3, ad 2m.)

Further, the social consequences of the spiritual atrophy our country has suffered in the last 50 years, following the selfish, deathly path of abortion, have brought our country to the brink of self-destruction.

Look around. We are not a healthy nation.

Click here to read the rest of Mario’s exclusive Substack column. And be sure to subscribe below to never miss one of his posts again!

Shining a Light on Education

By | Education, LBB, News and Events | No Comments

I believe it was Voltaire who said, “Common sense is not so common.” Such is the case for the educational bureaucracy suffocating our children’s future with their sociological experiments in public schools. Parental involvement and transparency seem like common sense requirements to any successful public-school program, but not according to the radicals who so often have taken over education in our cities and states. They are hurting our kids, putting on them unnecessary burdens to satisfy their personal cravings while actively shielding themselves from accountability by keeping parents in the dark.

The age of Tik Tok has exposed how a disturbing number of teachers use their classrooms for self-affirmation, with many planning their “coming out” as LGBTQ+ as teaching exercises, or tricking students into pledging to the LGBTQ+ flag, or incentivizing them to attend Antifa rallies for classroom credit, or promoting Critical Race Theory (CRT) themes to shame white students about their “privilege.” The list is endless.

The curriculum and books assigned are often chosen to support these same radical ideas. Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds (Republican) recently brought attention to one book being used. In a recent interview, she quoted from the “memoir-manifesto” called “All Boys Aren’t Blue” by the self-identified “non-binary” author George Johnson. The scene she mentioned describes a graphic and disturbing sexual act between two cousins, both male. I will not quote the passage as it is too graphic, but, just so you get a taste, it starts with, “You told me to take my pajamas, my pajama pants … You then took off your shorts, followed by your boxers.”

There are hundreds of books like this in our K-12 school libraries all over the country. Some may be in your child’s school. But you are kept in the dark by design.

The answer to the works of darkness is always light. This is the invitation that Paul gives us in Ephesians 5:11 to “Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.”

In that spirit, I want to highlight for you one effort that every state should take up. These are efforts to require school curriculum, resources, and training materials to be posted and easily searchable to the public online. If your state does not have this law, I encourage you to approach your elected state representative or senator with the idea. Christopher Rufo at the Manhattan Institute, who has been an important voice exposing the CRT tentacles in our society, has a model bill called “A Model for Transparency in School Training and Curriculum,” which can be a useful starting point.

But a number of states have similar legislation in the works — Arizona, Utah, Indiana, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, among others.

Transparency is the key. No longer should school bureaucracies be able to shield bad actors within our education system, as they have done for years.

But rest assured that school bureaucracies will not give up that power easily. It must be demanded. By you and me.

Breyer Retires

By | Breyer, LBB, SCOTUS, Vacancy | No Comments

I was done writing my newsletter piece to you when the news broke. Justice Stephen Breyer is retiring. That changes things a bit.

No official word from the Supreme Court, though, which is interesting and suggests someone talked without authorization. It immediately brought memories of these radical groups in Washington, D.C., driving trucks saying “Breyer Retire” all over town, trying to bully him into submission. The Left is so eager to see him gone that they even messed up his announcement. Usually, the justice who is retiring gets to announce it himself. He must not be happy.

Whatever the case, the radicals got their wish. Breyer is retiring, they have the majority in the U.S. Senate, and President Joe Biden gets to appoint whomever he wants.

Except, that is not entirely true. President Biden made a pledge. During the 2020 presidential debate in South Carolina, when his campaign was struggling to get off the ground, then-presidential candidate Biden promised that, if elected, he would appoint the first African American woman to the Supreme Court. “Not a joke,” he emphasized with his usual common-man style.

As told through different reports, the story of the pledge behind the scenes is not about sincere, ordinary person concerns for the country but about raw politics, as you might have guessed.

The story goes that candidate Biden desperately needed the endorsement of one of the most influential figures in South Carolina, House Majority Whip James Clyburn, who had also been the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. Without his endorsement, the whole campaign could tank. Clyburn asked him not only to commit to appointing the first African American woman but also to pledge it publicly during the debate.

According to Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, who wrote the book “Lucky,” Clyburn was so frustrated when he didn’t hear candidate Biden say the pledge publicly that he went backstage during one of the breaks to put pressure on him. “Don’t you leave this stage without doing it,” he is reported saying.

And so, he did. Now, President Biden is locked into a very narrow pool of candidates, not based on professional qualifications and merit, but on identity politics. Sad to see the judicial nominations process reduced to these sorts of calculations.

Given that, some names are already floating around. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who was recently elevated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which is said to be the second-highest court on the land, is the first name you will hear. She is a former clerk of Justice Breyer.

California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger has also been mentioned, as well as South

Carolina U.S. District Judge Michelle Childs and NAACP attorney Sherrilyn Ifill.

For our part, we must add this nomination to our prayers as we continue to lift up the Court on the upcoming Dobbs decision. As CWA President Penny Nance said in her statement on Justice Breyer’s resignation, let us pray for President Biden that he may use this opportunity to unite the country, instead of further alienating half, to appease the most extreme elements of his party.

“The president has a chance to finally unify the country with a consensus nominee, breaking away from the shameful and vile tactics we have experienced in recent Supreme Court nominations,” Penny said.

Let us pray as one for that as we await an official announcement. And stand by, ready to lift our voices for justice.

Indefensible Roe – The Cultural Track

By | Indefensible Roe, LBB, Legal, News and Events, Publications | No Comments

The detrimental effects of Roe on American culture are too numerous to catalog. But the denial of the humanity of the unborn sits at the root of it all.

Today, as we commemorate the 49th March for Life, protesting the harrowing Roe v. Wade 1973 decision that invented a constitutional right to abortion, let us consider why culturally speaking, Roe is indefensible.

Few would deny the fact that we are living in contentious times. We are a divided nation. Many are shouting, but few are listening. It is not mere disagreement. We are way past that. The people who stand opposite you, in many circles, are not even worthy of consideration. They are a sort of sub-human.

If this seems shocking to you, just consider the way we are treating each other on the topic of the COVID vaccines. Radio shock jock Howard Stern recently said on his popular radio show, “If it was up to me, anyone unvaccinated would not be admitted to a hospital.” And he is, unfortunately, not alone. But, again, I’m really not talking about the vaccine issue here, but about the warped mentality that would say to his neighbor, if I had my way, “all hospitals would be closed to you. You’re going to go home and die,” over a health policy disagreement.

Facts have nothing to do with it. Your side or my side is all that matters. Facts will be accommodated accordingly. Take a look at this example…

Click here to read the rest of Mario’s exclusive Substack column. And be sure to subscribe below to never miss one of his posts again!

Drama at Supreme Court on Texas Abortion Law Case

By | LBB, Legal, News and Events, Texas | No Comments

If there is drama at the U.S. Supreme Court these days, you can rest assured that Justice Sonia Sotomayor is at the center of it. And when the issue in the case is protecting unborn babies, you already know the side for which she fights. So here is why you are hearing so much about her and what the U.S. Supreme Court did in the Texas abortion law case.

If you remember, last time, the Supreme Court dismissed most of the challenges against the law but left the one against the medical licensing officials to go on. That is the case the Fifth Circuit was to consider when Texas asked that the question of whether the medical licensing official can enforce the law if it is violated be sent to the Texas State Supreme Court for clarification as to what the state law allows. The Fifth Circuit allowed that to proceed. This makes sense because the case deals with state law, not federal law.

The pro-abortion side objected to this because it would cause a delay in the proceedings while the law is still in effect. So, they went back to the U.S. Supreme Court and asked it to intervene to stop the case from going to the Texas Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied the request, making no judgment, but simply allowing the proceedings to continue.

That’s where the pro-abortion advocates at the Supreme Court led by Justice Sonia Sotomayor lost it. They dissented with much fanfare, saying, “The Fifth Circuit should have immediately remanded this case to the District Court, allowing it to consider whether to issue preliminary relief.” Imagine all these babies being born in Texas. Preposterous, in their view. It is a disaster as far as Justice Sotomayor is concerned. She wrote, “This case is a disaster for the rule of law and a grave disservice to women in Texas, who have a right to control their own bodies. I will not stand by silently as a State continues to nullify this constitutional guarantee.”

Aside from the forceful pro-abortion advocacy of Justice Sotomayor, supported by Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, not a lot has happened in the case. It is still ongoing. Texas may still lose in the end. The ruckus you read about in the media is the early signs of desperation from the pro-abortion side.

It is a preview of what we can expect when the Dobbs decision is handed down if it does not live up to their abortion on demand for any reason up to birth dreamland.

CWA Stands for Religious Freedom and the Christian Flag at the Supreme Court

By | LBB, Legal, News and Events | No Comments

Today, Concerned Women for America (CWA) was proud to stand for the Christian principles of our founding in an important First Amendment case before the United States Supreme Court. Annabelle Rutledge, National Director of CWA’s Young Women for America program, delivered an impassioned speech (below) in front of the Court as they heard oral arguments in Shurtleff v. Boston.

 

Statement by Annabelle Rutledge
National Director
Concerned Women for America’s Young Women for America
Delivered January 13, 2022, at the United States Supreme Court
Shurtleff v. Boston Oral Arguments Rally

Good morning everyone

My name is Annabelle Rutledge from Concerned Women for America, the largest public policy organization for women in the nation. I serve as the national director of CWA’s Young Women for America project, which is training the next generation of young women on the Christian and constitutional principles that are the foundation of our liberties and freedoms.

I stand here on behalf of hundreds of thousands of women who want to see an end to the pernicious hostility towards religion that has become all too common in our day and age. If we are being honest, the hostility we see in many cases is directed specifically at Christians.

Many Americans fail to realize that the very foundations of the liberties they enjoy sprout out of Biblical soil. Therefore, in attacking religion as a whole, and Christianity more specifically, they work against their own interests, against their own liberty.

This case is a prime example that sometimes the loudest voices crying for diversity and tolerance are the most intolerant of diversity when that diversity is also inclusive of people of faith with whom they disagree.

The City of Boston has a worthy goal for its flagpole policy in its city hall plaza. The city explained that it wants “to create an environment in the City where everyone feels included and is treated with respect.” Except that “everyone,” according to the City of Boston, does not include Christians—we are apparently the right kind of people to exclude.

The city’s website further explains their policy this way, “We also want to raise awareness in Greater Boston and beyond about the many countries and cultures around the world. Our goal is to foster diversity and build and strengthen connections among Boston’s many communities.”

Accordingly, LGBTQ+ communities are loudly celebrated, their flag displayed with pride, no pun intended. Likewise, flags with Muslim themes from countries other than our own are welcomed with open arms. “Yay, diversity!”

But the flag that represents the faith of the very people who founded the City of Boston (the Puritans) that flag is just not welcomed. For Boston, diversity stops at Christianity’s doorsteps.

Needless to say, this nonsensical policy stands in clear violation of the First Amendment to our Constitution, which states plainly, as applied to the states, that the city “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” In targeting religious speech and somehow saying it is unworthy of the same protections afforded other types of speech, the city violates the most basic principles of justice and fairness, not to mention the essence of our First Amendment.

As we pointed out in our brief before the Court, the city’s attempt to differentiate between religious organizations and civic organizations fails to recognize the nature of our faith. By their very nature, religious organizations are civic organizations. Our concern for the poor and needy, for the weak and oppressed, and for justice and righteousness cannot be contained to the four walls of a building. Call that building a church or call it what you want.

Our faith is a living faith. We are called to go and love our neighbors. We cannot do otherwise.

That faith gave birth to many of the freedoms we enjoy. The faith that is at the root of the City of Boston, whose very city flag contains its motto in Latin words that read, “God be with us as he was with our fathers.”

Fitting, since from the founding of our country, churches have been the most important civic institution, bringing incredible progress. It is why the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 declared that “religion, morality, and knowledge [were] necessary to good government.”

The words of John Adams also stand as a similar reminder when he said that “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Religion and faith are not only compatible with our Constitution; they are indispensable to its proper understanding.

We are confident the Supreme Court understands this, and we expect a unanimous Court to send a clear message by striking down this unconstitutional policy.

Thank you.

Click here for a PDF version of the statement.

Sensible Supreme Court Opinion Halts Vaccine Mandate

By | Briefs, Case Vault, Gorsuch, LBB, Legal, News and Events | No Comments

In a “per curiam” opinion, meaning a decision authored by the entire Court, instead of a single justice, the United States Supreme Court granted a stay of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) vaccine mandate for employers with 100 or more workers. The rule, therefore, will not go into effect until the case goes through the entire appellate process.

But the Court’s division can be further assessed by the fact that the three more liberal justices—Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan— dissented from the opinion, and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined a very strong concurring opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch.

The Court’s sensible approach to the issue simply noted that OSHA’s “emergency standard,” which it used here and which circumvents the usual public notice and comment accountability processes, should be used with precision and caution. Instead, the Court notes that the OSHA rule which applies to 84 million workers “requires workers receive a COVID-19 vaccine, and it pre-empts contrary state laws,” works as “a blunt instrument.” It found the exemptions presented (for employees who work outside 100 percent of the time or who work exclusively outdoors, for example) were “largely illusory.” The rule “draws no distinctions based on industry or risk of exposure to COVID-19.”

The Court found those objecting to the rule were “likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that [OSHA] lack[s] authority to impose the mandate.”

In doing so, the Supreme Court returns power to the states and the people, where it belongs, because the vaccine mandate goes way beyond establishing a simple workplace standard, as the agency is charged to enact, and into establishing nationwide public health policy. Remember, OSHA has never in its history done anything like this.

And here is where Justice Gorsuch’s concurrence is extremely helpful because it acknowledges what most Americans understand. This administrative mandate is trying to accomplish what President Joe Biden could not get done through the people’s representatives. He is trying to enact something Congress up until now has rejected.

If the people want a vaccine mandate, they could easily demand it from Congress. The reality is most people do not. In fact, the President’s approval numbers have been steadily declining. The latest numbers show him at an all-time low of 33 percent.  Fifty-five percent disapprove of his handling of the pandemic.

That is why President Biden had to work through OSHA to establish this national vaccine mandate. He lacks the necessary support to do it otherwise.

Justice Gorsuch wrote:

The central question we face today is: Who decides? No one doubts that the COVID–19 pandemic has posed challenges for every American. Or that our state, local, and national governments all have roles to play in combating the disease. The only question is whether an administrative agency in Washington, one charged with overseeing workplace safety, may mandate the vaccination or regular testing of 84 million people. Or whether, as 27 States before us submit, that work belongs to state and local governments across the country and the people’s elected representatives in Congress.

That power belongs to the people, said the Supreme Court today—to those most immediately accountable to them. The concurrence noticed that “a majority of the Senate even voted to disapprove OSHA’s regulation.” Therefore, it seemed reasonable to conclude “the agency pursued its regulatory initiative only as a legislative ‘work-around.’”

With this decision, the Court re-affirms what it has said in the past, that major questions of doctrine with broad effects on the public are left to the people’s elected representatives, and that they must make it very clear when they are giving such broad power to an agency. The concurrence said this rule, known as the “major questions doctrine”:

[E]nsures that the national government’s power to make the laws that govern us remains where Article I of the Constitution says it belongs—with the people’s elected representatives. If administrative agencies seek to regulate the daily lives and liberties of millions of Americans, the doctrine says, they must at least be able to trace that power to a clear grant of authority from Congress.

And even then, the concurrence suspects that such an intrusive mandate brought through the backdoor of an administrative agency might run afoul of the “nondelegation doctrine,” which “ensures democratic accountability by preventing Congress from intentionally delegating its legislative powers to unelected officials.”

Justice Gorsuch concludes:

On the one hand, OSHA claims the power to issue a nationwide mandate on a major question but cannot trace its authority to do so to any clear congressional mandate. On the other hand, if the statutory subsection the agency cites really did endow OSHA with the power it asserts, that law would likely constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority.

Whatever your view of the COVID vaccine in general, it should be encouraging to all to see the Court protecting the Constitutional structures that guard our liberties in this way. As Justice Gorsuch put it, “The question before us is not how to respond to the pandemic, but who holds the power to do so.”

The rule will be halted for now, but the case will continue. As we await further proceedings let us pray for a wiser, more honest, and unifying approach to fighting the pandemic going forward.