The John Roberts-written ruling on birthplace citizenship marks a chief justice who has sacrificed judicial courage at the altar of comity.
The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that states can acknowledge that biological reality matters when it comes to women’s sports. In a 9-0 ruling regarding Title IX and a 6-3 ruling on equal protection, the Supreme Court upheld laws in West Virginia and Idaho that protect safety and fairness for women and girls in athletics. Alliance […]
Fox News commentator and right-wing talk radio host Mark Levin lashed out at the Supreme Court's decision upholding their century-old birthright citizenship precedent — but swiftly got called out by experts and observers for getting a basic fact about the decision incorrect.Levin, who declared the ruling "one of the dumbest decisions I’ve seen" on "Hannity" after it was handed down, took to X to complain that "The 14th amendment was adopted by more than 2/3rds of the members of Congress and thereafter ratified by 3/4ths of the states. Yet, nowhere can the Court or its proponents point to all those elected representatives at the federal and state level who argued for birthright citizenship for the children of aliens — illegal aliens of all matter!"That issue, Levin said, "wasn’t even on their collective mind. They were dealing with Reconstruction, which was going poorly. No, this is not a constitutional decision. It’s a cowardly decision. An abomination giving constitutional protection to what is illegal conduct."There's just one problem, as many observers pointed out: the Supreme Court did, in fact, address the exact issue Levin is claiming they did not address."Mark Levin is either outright lying or tacitly admitting he did not read the decision, because the Court explicitly discussed in great detail how 'those elected representatives' intended the 14th Amendment would apply to children of immigrants," wrote American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, quoting a passage from Chief Justice John Roberts' opinion that notes, "the bill's sponsor, Senator Lyman Trumbull, enthusiastically agreed with the bill's critics that it would make citizens of 'the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country.'""Tell me you didn't read the Roberts opinion without saying you didn't read that history lesson," wrote immigration attorney and Emory University law professor Charles Kuck."The history of the 14th Amendment is, literally, laid out extensively in the text of the majority opinion," wrote Tangle News founder Isaac Saul. "The entire first 20 pages is Roberts citing all the drafters of the 14th Amendment and their understanding exactly what they were doing. Does anyone read anymore?"
The Supreme Court ruled in NRSC v. FEC that political parties can spend unlimited amounts of money in direct coordination with their own candidates, further increasing the influence of money in politics and drowning out the voices of ordinary citizens.
What is proposed below is regulatory, lawful and entirely intended to create hardships and burdens. Thus, a new era in State Department visa requirements respond to newly established guidelines by the Supreme Court. As a pragmatic and patriotic American I respectfully suggest and recommend the U.S. State Department immediately institute the “Roberts Requirement” following similar […] The post The Roberts Requirement – Pregnancy Tests for U.S. Travel Visas appeared first on The Last Refuge.
A favorable ruling from the “hyper-partisan” Supreme Court didn’t stop the left from returning to their court-packing narrative with full-throated fearmongering. “In the party of socialists and […]
Republicans scored a victory Tuesday at the Supreme Court, and Vice President J.D. The post Supreme Court Gives Republicans a Big Win with Campaign Finance Ruling appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
The recent SCOTUS case greatly increased the power of the executive branch
The Supreme Court ended its most recent term on Tuesday with an announcement that it has “agreed to hear a case that asks them to determine whether bans on AR-15s and other semiautomatic rifles are constitutional,” wrote former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, who then warned that the end of controversial rulings has not come to an end.As she noted on her Substack platform, the Supreme Court is never really dormant and less so recently, using the so-called "shadow docket" to excess in the service of Donald Trump. With that in mind, she raised a red flag over a case involving the availability of assault-style weapons, which could lead to another controversial ruling.The significance is unmistakable, Vance wrote, explaining, "The Court doesn’t take cases like this just to pat a state on the head and sign off on its ban—it has bigger fish to fry than affirming the status quo."According to Vance, the case marks a dramatic reversal from just last year. In June 2025, the court declined to hear Snope v. Brown, a direct challenge to Maryland's semiautomatic rifle ban. But that decision masked a deeply fractured court teetering on the edge of upheaval.At the time, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote an eight-page dissent from the denial, explaining: “This petition presents the question whether this ban is consistent with the Second Amendment. The Fourth Circuit held that it is, reasoning that AR–15s are not 'arms' protected by the Second Amendment … I would grant certiorari to review this surprising conclusion.”"That’s not the kind of language you use if you intend to affirm the ban," Vance suggested before noting that now the case will be taken up after getting the needed fourth vote to grant cert, pointing out that Justice Brett Kavanaugh once wrote, "a denial of certiorari does not mean that the Court agrees with a lower-court decision or that the issue is not worthy of review," before adding, "...in my view, this Court should and presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon, in the next Term or two.” "We don’t know if the four Justices picked up a fifth vote along the way that convinced Justice [Brett] Kavanaugh this was 'the right time,'” Vance warned.