The Supreme Court on Thursday <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-320_m648.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">unanimously ruled</a> that disabled veterans were entitled to retroactive compensation.
The case, Soto v. United States, began as a class action lawsuit led by Simon Soto, who served in the Marines for six years until he was medically retired. Soto served for part of this time in Mortuary Affairs, where he was “assigned to ‘search for, recover, and process the remains’ of war casualties.’” He struggled to return to civil life and was later diagnosed with a 100% disability rating for post-traumatic stress disorder by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), signifying “[t]otal occupational and social impairment.”
Soto applied for combat-related special compensation (CRSC), which is intended to offset the portion of retirement pay veterans are required to waive in order to receive disability benefits from the VA. Originally available only to veterans with 20 or more years of service, Congress extended special compensation to all veterans in 2008.
Soto applied for CRSC in 2016, and was found eligible. The government gave him retroactive compensation for his waived retirement pay, but capped it at six years, citing the Barring Act, which “subjects most claims to a six-year limitations period.” But the Barring Act also said that if “another law” allows the government to adjudicate settlements with the government, the six-year ceiling is not applicable.
Soto filed a class action lawsuit with other veterans whose compensation was limited under the Barring Act. They argued that the combat-related special compensation falls under the Barring Act’s loophole for superseding laws. The government argued that the statute establishing combat-related special compensation lacked the “specific language” needed to establish this.
A district court ruled in favor of Soto, and a federal circuit ruled in favor of the government, sending the case to the Supreme Court.
Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the court, which emphasized that Congress isn’t limited by specific language arguments.
“As this Court has repeatedly explained, Congress &#8216;need not state its intent in any particular way,” and &#8216;[w]e have never required that Congress use magic words.&#8217;”
The Court ruled that there is sufficient basis for “another law” in the combat-related special compensation statute, ultimately deciding that Soto and his fellow veterans, whom they described as a “group of exceptionally deserving claimants”, can receive full disability compensation for their service.

Clarence Thomas

Supreme Court Rules Unanimously In Favor Of Back Pay For Disabled Vets

Supreme Court

Veterans

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of a Catholic charity that sued Wisconsin after it was mandated to pay certain unemployment taxes while other religious organizations were exempted.
In its <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-154_2b82.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ruling</a>, the court struck down a decision from the Wisconsin Supreme Court that said the Catholic Charities Bureau had to pay taxes on unemployment compensation. The court said that the interpretation of state tax law by Wisconsin&#8217;s Supreme Court violated the First Amendment.
&#8220;The First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religions and subjects any state-sponsored denominational preference to strict scrutiny,&#8221; Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the majority decision. &#8220;The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s application of [Wisconsin law] imposed a denominational preference by differentiating between religions based on theological lines.&#8221;
Catholic Charities Bureau is an organization that provides services to poor people, the disabled, the elderly, and children with special needs as a ministry of the Catholic Church in the Diocese of Superior. According to its <a href="https://ccbsuperior.org/about-us/">website</a>, it provides around 50 programs to over 10,500 people.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion, saying that in addition to violating the First Amendment, the Wisconsin Supreme Court violated the church autonomy doctrine, which means that a religious institution is not defined by any corporate entity it may form.
&#8220;I would reverse for an additional reason — that the Wisconsin Supreme Court violated the church autonomy doctrine,&#8221; Thomas wrote. &#8220;However incorporated, Catholic Charities and its subentities are, from a religious perspective, a mere arm of the Diocese of Superior. The Wisconsin Supreme Court should have deferred to that understanding, and its failure to do so amounted to an unlawful attempt by the State to redefine the Diocese’s internal governance.&#8221;
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=wisepops&amp;utm_campaign=dad&amp;utm_content=fathersdaygiftpopups" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gift Dad an All Access Membership. Use code DAD40 at checkout to save 40%!</a>
Thomas noted that the government could not use entities created by religious institutions as a backdoor means to regulate their internal governance.
&#8220;In short, the corporation is made for the church, not the church for the corporation. Both the basic principles of church autonomy and the history of religious corporations establish that religious institutions are more than the corporate entities that they form,&#8221; he wrote. &#8220;It follows that the government may not use such entities as a means of regulating the internal governance of religious institutions.&#8221;
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also issued a separate concurring opinion.

DOGE-FED-BUILDINGS

Supreme Court Sides With Christian Charity Targeted By Wisconsin

Catholic Church

First Amendment

Religious Liberty

Sonia Sotomayor

Wisconsin

Support among Republicans for gay marriage has plummeted in the last three years, according to a new <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/691139/record-party-divide-years-sex-marriage-ruling.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gallup poll</a>.
Gallup’s poll released on Thursday found 41% of GOP voters support gay marriage, as opposed to 55% in 2021 and 2022. A whopping 88% of Democrats approved of gay marriage in the new poll; the 47-point gap between the two parties is the largest since Gallup first asked the question in 1996. Seventy-six percent of independents approve of gay marriage. In 1996, 16% of Republicans approved; 33% of Democrats and 32% of independents agreed.
86% of Democrats said gay or lesbian relations are morally acceptable; 38% of Republicans agreed, a drop from 2022, when 56% of Republicans agreed. Among those who attend religious services at least once a week, 33% said same-sex marriage was morally acceptable and 24% said gay-lesbian relations were socially acceptable. Gallup polling between 2020-2023 <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/507692/church-attendance-lower-pre-pandemic.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener">found</a> that more Republicans attended weekly religious services than Democrats by 15 percentage points.
When writing a <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22067323-dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health-organization-clarence-thomas-concurrence/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">concurring opinion</a> in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the case that overturned Roe v. Wade, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas made the legal case for overturning Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges, the last of which guaranteed the right to gay marriage.
Thomas explained that the three cases relied on substantive due process, which he called “an oxymoron that lack[s] any basis in the Constitution.”
Courts have used substantive due process to protect unenumerated rights not mentioned in the Constitution. The right to privacy and the right to gay marriage have been recognized under substantive due process.  
“On the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas has long argued (consistent with much academic commentary) that insofar as the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates enumerated rights against the states and protects unenumerated rights, this work is done by the Privileges [and] Immunities Clause, and not the Due Process Clause,” Reason <a href="https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/26/on-justice-thomas-dobbs-precedent-and-substantive-due-process/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">noted</a>.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=memorial&amp;utm_content=editorialmemorialday&amp;_gl=1*1qdq03s*_gcl_au*MTYyNDg0MTE0OS4xNzQxODk4NTMz*_ga*MTEzOTk1NjkxNi4xNzI2MzI1MDQz*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*czE3NDgzNzg2NDgkbzEwMDMkZzEkdDE3NDgzODEwMTckajU4JGwwJGgw" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Get 40% Off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” Thomas wrote. “Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous,’ we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents, After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated.”
“Substantive due process exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority,&#8221; he wrote, “Substantive due process distorts other areas of constitutional law. &#8230; Substantive due process is the core inspiration for many of the Court’s constitutionally unmoored policy judgments. &#8230; The harm caused by this Court’s forays into substantive due process remains immeasurable.”

Group of People Celebrating Gay Pride Parade- Pride Month and Parade-People marching with the rainbow LGBTQ+ flag

Support For Gay Marriage Plummets Among Republicans: Gallup Poll

Gallup

Republicans

Same-Sex Marriage

WASHINGTON—President Donald Trump announced his first wave of his judicial nominees on Tuesday, a highly-anticipated event given the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/inside-leonard-leos-plan-for-conservatives-to-crush-liberal-dominance">massive impact</a> Trump had on the federal judiciary during his last administration.
The nominations comes as top Trump administration officials — and Trump himself — daily express their frustration with judges who immediately block the president&#8217;s orders. As recently as Wednesday morning, Trump posted on Truth Social: &#8220;Our Court System is not letting me do the job I was Elected to do. Activist judges must let the Trump Administration deport murderers, and other criminals who have come into our Country illegally, WITHOUT DELAY!!!&#8221;
Trump <a href="https://x.com/TheElizMitchell/status/1919868297916391549">promised The Daily Signal&#8217;s Elizabeth Mitchell</a> on Sunday evening that he would release his nominee names &#8220;rapidly,&#8221; noting, “We’re putting them in rapidly and trying to get very good ones.&#8221; Several nominees came from Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey&#8217;s office, Bailey pointed out on Wednesday, boasting: &#8220;Missouri is leading the way in restoring legal excellence to the federal bench.&#8221;
First came the nomination of Whitney D. Hermandorfer of Tennessee, a former clerk for Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh, to serve as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Her nomination drew quick criticism from leftist critics and judicial groups, such as the Leadership Conference on Civil &amp; Human Rights, which called her nomination “appalling.&#8221;
Trump described her as &#8220;a staunch defender of girl&#8217;s and women&#8217;s sports,&#8221; and Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) praised her career as &#8220;nothing short of outstanding,&#8221; dubbing her &#8220;a rising star in Tennessee.&#8221;
Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said in a statement that &#8220;Whitney Hermandorfer&#8217;s unwavering commitment to the rule of law, her exacting analytical rigor, and her unshakeable optimism will serve our country well.&#8221;
JCN&#8217;s Carrie Severino predicted that Trump&#8217;s other nominees will face criticism from left-wing groups as well,<a href="https://x.com/JCNSeverino/status/1920169760408363483"> warning</a>, &#8220;Expect to see more of the same duplicated attacks from the Left on the president’s judicial picks as we did with Hermandorfer.&#8221;
The Heritage Foundation&#8217;s Thomas Jipping <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/the-judicial-appointment-train-is-leaving-the-station/">offered</a> a similar prediction: &#8220;Expect more of this mantra, with the name of the current nominee cut and pasted, in the months ahead.&#8221;
Trump also nominated a former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, Joshua M. Divine of Missouri, to serve as judge on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri and Western District of Missouri. Divine also previously served as chief counsel to Republican Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley and is currently the Solicitor General of Missouri.
<div id="attachment_917233" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-announces-first-wave-of-judicial-nominees-amid-fury-from-left-wing-activists/neil-gorsuch-is-sworn-in-as-associate-justice-to-supreme-court-2" rel="attachment wp-att-917233"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-917233" class="wp-image-917233 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/GettyImages-666855120-864x576.jpg" alt="" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/GettyImages-666855120-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/GettyImages-666855120-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/GettyImages-666855120-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/GettyImages-666855120.jpg 1024w" sizes="(max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" /></a>(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)</div>
&#8220;Joshua has devoutly served the Great State of Missouri, as the State’s Solicitor General and, previously, as Chief Counsel to Senator Josh Hawley, a true Patriot,&#8221; the president said in a Truth Social post. &#8220;A former Clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Joshua knows what is required to protect the Rule of Law and Constitutional Rights for the Great People of Missouri. We must have Constitutionalist Judges now, more than EVER BEFORE. Congratulations Joshua!&#8221;
Trump tapped Zachary Bluestone to serve as judge on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Bluestone (described by Trump as a &#8220;true legal warrior&#8221; as well as &#8220;tough, smart, and LOVES our great country&#8221;) is currently appellate chief and a violent crimes prosecutor in the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Missouri and previously served in the Missouri Attorney General’s Office as Deputy Solicitor General.
Maria A. Lanahan, the current principal deputy solicitor general in the Missouri Attorney General&#8217;s Office, has been nominated to serve as a judge on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, and Cristian M. Stevens, who served as first assistant attorney general and deputy attorney general of the criminal division in the Missouri Attorney General&#8217;s Office, is also nominated to serve as judge on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Trump described Stevens as &#8220;a Great Patriot,&#8221; and Lanahan as &#8220;a very Smart and Talented Lawyer&#8221; who &#8220;will do GREAT work in this new role.&#8221;
The last Trump nominee is Edward Aloysius O’Connell, whom Trump is nominating to serve as an associate judge on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. O&#8217;Connell is currently the chief of staff and deputy general council of the Office of the Inspector General of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. He has spent the past two decades serving as a prosecutor in the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia.
&#8220;Eddie will help fix Violent Crime in the City by restoring the RULE OF LAW to Washington, D.C.,&#8221; Trump posted on Wednesday evening. &#8220;Eddie served for nearly two decades as a Tough on Crime Prosecutor for the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, where he prosecuted many Horrific Crimes, including Homicides, Domestic Violence, Organized Crime, Narcotics Offenses, and more. D.C. could, and should, be a wonderful place, if political hacks would stop making such terrible decisions.&#8221;
&#8220;I know Eddie will help make everyone much safer,&#8221; the president added. &#8220;Congratulations Eddie!&#8221;
Demand Justice, one of the most vocal leftist activism groups opposing the president&#8217;s nominees, this week accused Trump&#8217;s nominees of having  &#8220;extreme backgrounds&#8221; and arguing that their resumes &#8220;signal Trump’s intent to continue to transform the federal judiciary into another arm of the MAGA movement by appointing loyalist judges who will rubber stamp his most controversial and lawless policies.&#8221;
&#8220;These state AGs have aggressively used their offices to advance the MAGA agenda and, in one case, even to protect Trump himself from legal accountability,&#8221; the group argued.
“Trump’s first slate of nominees is exactly what we predicted–it includes loyalists who have a proven record of advocating for the kinds of radical policies featured in the Project 2025 agenda,&#8221; claimed Demand Justice Interim Executive Director Maggie Jo Buchanan. &#8220;While Trump and his allies continue to attack fair-minded jurists, he is also going after the independence of our courts by appointing politically motivated lawyers who will greenlight his extreme agenda from the bench.&#8221;

US-CHINA-POLITICS-DIPLOMACY

Trump Announces First Wave Of Judicial Nominees Amid Fury From Left-Wing Activists

9th Circuit

Amy Coney Barrett

Brett Kavanaugh

Donald Trump

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) delivered a quick fact-check to Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) during a Tuesday hearing, using her own previous actions to discredit her current position on the impeachment of judges.
Crockett, along with several other Democrats, used her time during the committee hearing to complain that democracy itself would be left in shambles if Republicans were to succeed in impeaching any of the judges who have unilaterally blocked President Donald Trump’s administration from taking certain actions.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
🔥Jasmine Crockett starts HYPERVENTILATING about protecting the institution of the judiciary — before PROMPTLY being reminded by <a href="https://twitter.com/repdarrellissa?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@repdarrellissa</a> that she cosponsored legislation to impeach Justices Thomas &amp; Alito!
&quot;AOC filed articles of impeachment on Justice Thomas &amp; Alito.… <a href="https://t.co/lQZwj3tAWT">pic.twitter.com/lQZwj3tAWT</a>
&mdash; Townhall.com (@townhallcom) <a href="https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1907134854317142079?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 1, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
“The problem that we have right now is that if we continue down this road, we will not have a rule of law because we have people that are currently serving and they’re saying things like, ‘Ignore the judge’s order.’”
Making no mention of the fact that President Joe Biden had done exactly that when he pushed ahead with student loan forgiveness despite a Supreme Court decision stating that he did not have the authority to do so, Crockett continued.
“What it means to have law and order in this country is that you follow the order and you go through the appeals process even if you dislike what the judge did,” Crockett said before yielding back her time.
She relied, as have other Democrats and media talking heads alike, on the narrative claiming that Republicans wanted to impeach the federal judges over rulings they “did not like” — despite the fact that the reasoning given by those calling for impeachment is rooted instead in those judges’ alleged abuses of power.
Issa stepped in briefly then, observing that when Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) had introduced articles of impeachment against conservative Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, Crockett herself had co-sponsored the move.
“It does seem interesting that when the shoe is on the other foot, everyone is self-righteous!” Issa said before moving on to the next agenda item.

House Oversight And Accountability Members And Watchdog Group Court Accountability Focus On Supreme Court Ethics

Darrell Issa Stops Crockett Cold With Real-Time Fact Check On Impeaching Judges

Congress

Impeachment

Jasmine Crockett

Judges

Politics

Samuel Alito

On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to hear a free speech challenge to university &#8220;bias response teams&#8221; that conservatives argue silence their viewpoints on campus.
Two of the nine justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, indicated they would have granted a hearing on the free speech lawsuit brought by the Indiana University students, <a href="https://apnews.com/article/colleges-free-speech-supreme-court-879a12f6e7aaf9d678009e56a8ab6ed0">reported</a> The Associated Press.
“I would grant the petition. It raises an important question affecting universities nationwide; Speech First estimates that over 450 universities have similar bias-reporting schemes.” Justice Thomas wrote in his dissent. Justice Alito agreed with Thomas, arguing that the case should be on the court’s docket.
The Indiana University students, represented by the free speech advocacy group Speech First, argue that the bias-response team targets right-leaning political speech by enabling anonymous reports of what are deemed “offensive” remarks.
Speech First specifically points to threats of discipline against conservatives who held contrary viewpoints on “gender identity, immigration, affirmative action, and the Israel-Palestine conflict,” suing Indiana University for forcing students to self-censor out of fear of retribution by these bias response teams.
University administrators maintain that the program is meant to provide education and support, not punishment.
In his dissent, Justice Thomas continues: &#8220;Given the number of schools with bias response teams, this Court eventually will need to resolve the split over a student&#8217;s right to challenge such programs.&#8221;
&#8220;I have serious concerns that bias response policies, such as Virginia Tech’s, objectively chill students’ speech,&#8221; Thomas further <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/thomas-alito-dissent-as-scotus-refuses-to-review-free-speech-concerns-over-university-bias-response-teams/">expressed</a>, per Courthouse News.
The Supreme Court’s decision not to grant a hearing does not imply agreement or disagreement with the lower courts, only indicating that fewer than four justices were interested in taking up the case for whatever reason, as the Court declined to provide an explanation for declining Speech First’s case on Monday.
Although the Court’s action leaves Indiana University’s program intact, the public statements from two justices suggest the matter of bias-response teams could reappear on the Court’s docket in a future case, given the right circumstances.

Justice Thomas Attends Forum On His 30 Year Supreme Court Legacy

Justices Thomas And Alito Dissent As SCOTUS Passes On Campus Free Speech Case

American Universities

Censorship

Courts

Free Speech

SCOTUS

U.S.

MixCollage-04-Dec-2024

This Could Be The Beginning Of The End For Gender Ideology

Gender

Gender Identity

Ketanji Brown Jackson

Matt Walsh

Opinion

Transgender

transgender surgery

Shortly after Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-matt-gaetz-withdraws-name-from-ag-consideration?topStoryPosition=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">withdrew his name</a> from consideration for attorney general, multiple political commentators suggested that President-elect Donald Trump nominate a conservative Supreme Court justice for the position.
Gaetz withdrew his name from consideration for AG after being tapped by Trump for the position, saying it was “clear that my confirmation was unfairly becoming a distraction to the critical work of the Trump/Vance Transition.” The move came as the House Ethics Committee weighed releasing a report on alleged sexual misconduct by Gaetz.
Conservative commentators floated Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito for attorney general, a move that would also open up a seat for Trump to appoint someone to the nation&#8217;s highest court. Trump appointed three Supreme Court justices in his first term.
&#8220;Trump could put Justice Alito up for Attorney General and then fill the SCOTUS seat,&#8221; <a href="https://x.com/KatiePavlich/status/1859654297107193887" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a> Katie Pavlich. In a follow-up post, Pavlich added, &#8220;Or:&#8221; next to a GIF of Thomas.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Or: <a href="https://t.co/j6tXbmM4kr">https://t.co/j6tXbmM4kr</a> <a href="https://t.co/pralJXF1UK">pic.twitter.com/pralJXF1UK</a>
&mdash; Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) <a href="https://twitter.com/KatiePavlich/status/1859655571898761237?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 21, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Steve Deace of The Blaze floated Thomas for the position in the second Trump administration. &#8220;Appoint Clarence Thomas attorney general, and then fill his seat on the Supreme Court with either Ted Cruz or Ron DeSantis,&#8221; Deace <a href="https://x.com/SteveDeaceShow/status/1859666753925869635" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>.
Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sam Brown also endorsed the idea of nominating Thomas for AG.
&#8220;Double Win! President Trump appoints Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito, strong defenders of the Constitution, as his Attorney General. Then, he can immediately nominate a new US Supreme Court Justice!&#8221; Brown wrote on X. Make America Great Again! 🇺🇸 Left’s meltdown continues.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
🚨Double Win!
President Trump appoints Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito, strong defenders of the Constitution, as his Attorney General. 
Then, he can immediately nominate a new US Supreme Court Justice! 
Make America Great Again! 🇺🇸
Left’s meltdown continues. <a href="https://t.co/xfsemfPgwG">pic.twitter.com/xfsemfPgwG</a>
&mdash; Sam Brown (@CaptainSamBrown) <a href="https://twitter.com/CaptainSamBrown/status/1859666567056986325?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 21, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<a href="https://www.amiracist.com/?_gl=1*jtghwp*_gcl_au*ODQ1NjYzNTg2LjE3Mjg5MDk3OTE.*_ga*MTc2NzM0NDQ2NS4xNzI4OTA5Nzkx*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*MTczMDEyMDgwOS40OS4xLjE3MzAxMjA4MzkuMzAuMC4w">MATT WALSH’S ‘AM I RACIST?’ NOW STREAMING ON DAILYWIRE+</a>
Other names that have been floated for attorney general include Attorney Mark Paoletta, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.
Trump only has a few positions left to fill in his new cabinet. Some of his picks, including Gaetz, have caused a stir on Capitol Hill and in legacy media newsrooms. Decorated veteran Pete Hegseth, the nominee for Defense Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the nominee for Health and Human Services Secretary, and Tulsi Gabbard, the nominee for Director of National Intelligence, have all come under fire after being tapped by Trump.

Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito

Commentators Float Conservative SCOTUS Justices For AG

Attorney General

Matt Gaetz

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) is still trying to steal headlines and distract from the failure of Joe Biden by introducing articles of impeachment against Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
This is nothing but ridiculous and silly grandstanding. There are no grounds for the impeachment of Thomas or Alito. Thomas did not violate any ethics standards of the Supreme Court by hanging out with people who happen to be rich Republicans any more than Democrats on the Supreme Court have violated their ethical standards by hanging out with rich Democrats.
Being on the Supreme Court automatically makes you a member of the economic and philosophical elite in this country. That&#8217;s just the way it works.
The idea that Samuel Alito should also be impeached demonstrates the full-scale insanity of the joke. The Democrats are claiming that a full-on senile president who&#8217;s incapable of forming sentences should remain in the White House, and everyone in the cabinet who knew who he is senile should remain.
But Alito’s wife flew flags the Democrats didn’t like, and they’re trying to construct that into some sort of statement about January 6 so that Alito is impeached.
Ocasio-Cortez knows her act is going nowhere. She doesn’t control the House. But getting a member to introduce articles of impeachment is the simplest thing in the world.
It&#8217;s an attempt to undermine the credibility of the Supreme Court. These same people say Donald Trump is a threat to democracy, yet our institutions are filing articles of impeachment against Thomas and Alito for absolutely nothing. They’re completely fine with the integrity of the Supreme Court as long as the majority is made up by people sympathetic to Democrats.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-2002-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h4>
The minute that there is a Republican majority, a Republican-appointed majority on the Supreme Court, then it&#8217;s time for the Democrats to destroy the institution as a whole.
Yesterday, Ocasio-Cortez put out <a href="https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/ocasio-cortez-introduces-articles-impeachment-against-justice-thomas-and" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a statement</a> saying, “The unchecked corruption crisis on the Supreme Court has now spiraled into a Constitutional crisis threatening American democracy writ large. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito’s pattern of refusal to recuse from consequential matters before the court in which they hold widely documented financial and personal entanglements constitutes a grave threat to American rule of law, the integrity of our democracy, and one of the clearest cases for which the tool of impeachment was designed.”
What “unchecked corruption crisis”? Please name the case in which Clarence Thomas was paid for his opinion. Can she? The answer, of course, is no, she cannot.
So what are the impeachment articles against Thomas?
First, “Failure to disclose financial income, gifts and reimbursement, property interests, liabilities, and transactions, among other information.” Yet he did all of the legal disclosures he&#8217;s required to do.
Next, “Refusal to recuse from matters concerning his spouse&#8217;s legal interest in cases before the court.” She is not named in any of the court cases. If my spouse has political interests, why should I have to recuse based on that? I seem to remember being told by Democrats that to even imply that married women don&#8217;t have their own political interests because they&#8217;re married, and so they&#8217;re obviously impacting their husband or vice versa, would be sexist.
Ocasio-Cortez says with regard to Alito, “Refusal to recuse from matters involving his spouse’s financial interest in cases before the court.” Personal bias or prejudice? I&#8217;m sorry. Is the new standard that justices are not supposed to know people or groups? Because that&#8217;s going to be a hard one for Democrats to fulfill.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/scamala-kamala-harris-unmasked#" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: Ben Shapiro&#8217;s new three-part series: &#8220;Scamala: Kamala Harris Unmasked&#8221; on DailyWire+</a></h4>
This is not going anywhere. The sponsors are the usual cast of idiots: Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Delia Ramirez (D-IL), Maxwell Frost (D-FL), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) and Jasmine Crockett (D-TX). It&#8217;s the clown caucus. And many of those members are also members of the pro-Hamas caucus in the House of Representatives.
This is AOC’s latest attempt to storm the castle.
Pathetic.

Headline-Grabber Ocasio-Cortez Attacks Thomas, Alito. It Won’t Work.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Ben Shapiro

Readers Pass

‘The Left Is Triggered By Justice Thomas’: Mark Paoletta On The Crusade Against The Supreme Court

'The Left Is Triggered By Justice Thomas': Mark Paoletta On The Crusade Against The Supreme Court

Democrats

Leftists

Morning Wire

Neil Gorsuch

The <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/supreme-court" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Supreme Court</a> struck down a federal ban on bump stocks enacted by the Trump administration on Friday. 
The 6-3 ruling was split along ideological lines. Justice <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/clarence-thomas" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Clarence Thomas</a> wrote in the majority opinion that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) exceeded its statutory authority when it announced a ban on bump stocks following a 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas. In the ruling, Thomas said that equipping rifles with bump stocks does not turn them into machine guns, meaning they cannot be prohibited under existing law.
“This case asks whether a bump stock — an accessory for a semi-automatic rifle that allows the shooter to rapidly reengage the trigger (and therefore achieve a high rate of fire) — converts the rifle into a ‘machinegun,’” Thomas <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-976_e29g.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a> in his decision. “We conclude that semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a ‘machinegun’ because it does not fire more than one shot &#8216;by a single function of the trigger.&#8217;”
A <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-agrees-to-take-up-challenge-to-trump-era-bump-stock-ban" target="_blank" rel="noopener">bump stock</a> is a device that can be attached to a semi-automatic firearm. It reduces the length of time between trigger pulls by harnessing the gun’s energy from recoil.
Thomas was joined in his decision by Justices John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Samuel Alito, who wrote a concurring opinion. In his concurrence, Alito said it would require new congressional legislation to ban bump stocks. 
“The horrible shooting spree in Las Vegas in 2017 did not change the statutory text or its meaning. That event demonstrated that a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock can have the same lethal effect as a machinegun,” Alito wrote. “There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bump stocks and machineguns. Congress can amend the law—and perhaps would have done so already if ATF had stuck with its earlier interpretation.”
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1700760801843000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2PQrVSrJfhxNb4LcARqniG">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
The three liberals on the court, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, all dissented. 
The <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-gun-bump-stocks-ban-unlawful-rcna154651" target="_blank" rel="noopener">case came</a> to the high court after gun owner Michael Cargill sued the government to reverse the ban after he turned in two of his bump stocks to the feds. 
As the case made its way through the court system, both the 5th and 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the ban. Biden’s Justice Department defended the rule in court after it was implemented by the Trump administration.

Congress Debates Sale Of Bump Stock Devices After Las Vegas Mass Shooting

Supreme Court Strikes Down Federal Bump Stock Ban

Gun Control

Guns

Las Vegas Shooting

The <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/supreme-court" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Supreme Court</a> upheld Republican-backed electoral maps in <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/south-carolina" target="_blank" rel="noopener">South Carolina</a> in a 6-3 decision on Thursday, arguing that those suing to overturn the maps had not proven they were racially drawn.
A lower United States district court <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-upholds-gop-drawn-voting-map-south-carolina" target="_blank" rel="noopener">previously</a> ruled that maps approved by the Republican-controlled South Carolina legislature were unconstitutional after they were challenged by a chapter of the NAACP and the ACLU. The majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, said that the district court had ruled wrongly and that the maps could stand.
“When partisanship and race correlate, it naturally follows that a map that has been gerrymandered to achieve a partisan end can look very similar to a racially gerrymandered map,” Alito <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-807_3e04.pdf#&amp;_intcmp=fnhpbt3_1,hp1bt" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a>. “In other words, the plaintiffs failed to meet the high bar for a racial-gerrymandering claim by failing to produce, among other things, an alternative map showing that a rational legislature sincerely driven by its professed partisan goals would have drawn a different map with greater racial balance.”
Alito’s decision was joined by Justices John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barret, and Brett Kavanugh, with Clarence Thomas adding a concurring opinion.
Thomas wrote that the court had no authority to be intervening in disputes over electoral districts.
“In my view, the Court has no power to decide these types of claims,” he wrote in his concurrence. “Drawing political districts is a task for politicians, not federal judges. There are no judicially manageable standards for resolving claims about districting, and, regardless, the Constitution commits those issues exclusively to the political branches.”
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1714657703188000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0-8IzS3B7axoRMsynY0m75">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
The liberal wing of the court, including Justice Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, said they agreed with the lower court in their dissent and said that it was “more than plausible” that South Carolina had done race-based districting.
&#8220;In every way, the majority today stacks the deck against the Challengers. They must lose, the majority says, because the State had a &#8216;possible&#8217; story to tell about not considering race — even if the opposite story was the more credible,” they wrote.
The challenged map was already slated to be used for the 2024 election due to the ongoing court deliberations over the case.

Menu