A Slip of the Tongue in the Supreme Court

Written by Terence P. Jeffrey

When lawyer Sarah Weddington stood up in the U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 11, 1972, to present the pro-abortion argument in the case of Roe v. Wade, she was legalistically careful in the language she used to describe whom exactly an abortion aborted.

She avoided normal human terms like “unborn child” or “baby” — and, most importantly, “person.” She preferred “fetus.”

Presumably, this was because the Fourteenth Amendment states,

“nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

NPR’s Fake News From the SCOTUS

Written by Tim Graham

CNN anchor Brianna Keilar is hosting a temporary program pompously titled “Democracy In Peril.” On Jan. 18, Keilar huffed: “We can’t discuss the tsunami of disinformation, jeopardizing American democracy, without talking about the mothership, Fox.”

On the very same day, NPR U.S. Supreme Court reporter Nina Totenberg aired a story claiming that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch was callously ignoring requests from Chief Justice John Roberts to wear a mask during oral arguments in deference to diabetes-suffering colleague Justice Sonia Sotomayor.… Continue Reading

Will Roberts and Kavanaugh Stand With the Unborn or the Unjust?

Written by Terence P. Jeffrey

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, both nominated by Republican presidents, have both written absurd opinions on abortion laws.

The case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, which the U.S. Supreme Court will hear this year, could give them an opportunity to redeem themselves.

At issue in this case is a Mississippi law that bans most abortions after a baby’s 15th gestational week. The question: Can a state prohibit doctors from killing unborn babies who are not yet old enough to survive outside the womb?… Continue Reading

Exposing The Left’s Radical Version of ‘Normal’

Written by Robert Knight

Given the level of insanity erupting at all levels in America, it wasn’t really a shock when the huge, multinational corporation Unilever announced in early March that it was pulling the word “normal” from at least half of its products.

No more soap for “normal skin care,” or shampoo for “normal hair.” It’s offensive.

A global study by Unilever found that the word “normal” made 56 percent of the respondents feel excluded and that 70 percent felt that using the word on packaging has a negative impact on people.… Continue Reading

Democrats Leap Into the Abyss of Hypocrisy

Written by Laurie Higgins

Just when you thought Leftists couldn’t be more cynical, hypocritical, dishonest, tyrannical, and cruel, they step up to prove you wrong. When Democrats, by whatever janky standards they’ve made up, think Republicans have gone “low,” they–that is, Democrats–dive headlong into the abyss of hypocrisy and nastiness.

They’ve been doing their theatrical performative best to argue that the attack on the Capitol is particularly heinous because of the building’s symbolic significance—which, of course, it has.… Continue Reading

The Disastrous Co-Belligerence of Never-Trumpers and Leftists

Written by Laurie Higgins

Listen to this article:

Never-Trumpers in a de facto alliance with leftist Trump-loathers of various stripes have apparently succeeded in their effort to elect a cognitively impaired man who claims to be Catholic while heartily endorsing a legal right to slaughter the unborn and making the public pay for their deaths.… Continue Reading

Dark Days in the U.S. Senate

Written by Laurie Higgins

Every day, “progressives” provide evidence for their unfitness for any positions of leadership, power, or influence. Senate minority leader and master of hyperbole and prevarication Chuck Schumer (D-NY) provides a case in point.  In response to the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court, Schumer made this comment on the U.S. Senate floor:

It will go down as one of the darkest days in the 231-year history of the United States Senate.

This Only Happens When Republicans Nominate Judges

Written by Peter Heck

As the American political world gears up for what promises to be one of the most acrimonious, bitter, and embarrassing confirmation hearings in the history of the federal judiciary, I’m curious if anyone has picked up on a common theme when it comes to these reputation desecrations we call senatorial “advise and consent.”

Out of sheer curiosity I conducted an informal, and extraordinarily unscientific survey of a small group of 5 politically aware colleagues and friends.… Continue Reading

16 Questions Conservatives Should Ask Any SCOTUS Nominee

Written by Daniel Horowitz

Democrats never have any doubts about their court nominees. They know with certainty that once their picks are on the court, they will be willing to do anything in a real case to interpret the U.S. Constitution the way they see it. They will rule with the party’s preferred political outcomes regardless of past precedent or the plain meaning of the Constitution. There is no reason why conservatives cannot have that same confidence that GOP nominees will rule on the side of the original meaning of the U.S.… Continue Reading

An Important Win for Religious Liberty: Espinoza v. Montana

Written by John A. Sparks

Sometimes, the facts of a case have an emotional appeal in addition to a strong constitutional basis. Espinoza v. Montana certainly qualifies.

Kendra Espinoza, a hard working (three jobs) and determined single mom, decided to take her two daughters out of the local public schools and enroll them in Stillwater Christian School in Kalispell, Montana. She explained that she “wanted them to be able to read the Bible and be taught how to pray, and taught from that faith-based perspective.”… Continue Reading