Supreme Court Justice <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/neil-gorsuch" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Neil Gorsuch</a> shredded Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent in the Court&#8217;s ruling to strike down a Colorado law that would have punished a Christian graphic designer who declined to design a website for a same-sex wedding that violated her religious beliefs.
In a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-sides-with-christian-graphic-designer-who-refused-to-work-on-same-sex-weddings" target="_blank" rel="noopener">6-3 decision</a> in the case of 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the high court cited the First Amendment in ruling that Lorie Smith could not be forced by state civil rights law to design websites that run counter to her sincerely-held religious beliefs. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority, which included Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, saying “no public accommodations law is immune from the demands of the Constitution.”
&#8220;It is difficult to read the dissent and conclude we are looking at the same case,&#8221; Gorsuch said. &#8220;Much of it focuses on the evolution of public accommodations laws, post, at 7–13, and the strides gay Americans have made towards securing equal justice under law, post, at 14–17. And, no doubt, there is much to applaud here. But none of this answers the question we face today: Can a State force someone who provides her own expressive services to abandon her conscience and speak its preferred message instead?&#8221;
&#8220;When the dissent finally gets around to that question—more than halfway into its opinion—it reimagines the facts of this case from top to bottom,&#8221; he said. &#8220;The dissent claims that Colorado wishes to regulate Ms. Smith’s &#8216;conduct,&#8217; not her speech. Post, at 24–29. Forget Colorado’s stipulation that Ms. Smith’s activities are &#8216;expressive,&#8217; App. to Pet. for Cert. 181a, and the Tenth Circuit’s conclusion that the State seeks to compel &#8216;pure speech,&#8217; 6 F. 4th, at 1176. The dissent chides us for deciding a pre-enforcement challenge. Post, at 23. But it ignores the Tenth Circuit’s finding that Ms. Smith faces a credible threat of sanctions unless she conforms her views to the State’s. 6 F. 4th, at 1172–1175. The dissent suggests (over and over again) that any burden on speech here is &#8216;incidental.&#8217; Post, at 24, 26–30, 32–33. All despite the Tenth Circuit’s finding that Colorado intends to force Ms. Smith to convey a message she does not believe with the &#8216;very purpose&#8217; of &#8216;[e]liminating . . . ideas&#8217; that differ from its own.&#8221;
Gorsuch <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-sides-with-christian-graphic-designer-who-refused-to-work-on-same-sex-weddings" target="_blank" rel="noopener">continued</a>:
<blockquote>Nor does the dissent’s reimagination end there. It claims that, “for the first time in its history,” the Court “grants a business open to the public” a “right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.” Post, at 1; see also id., at 26, n. 10, 35. Never mind that we do no such thing and Colorado itself has stipulated Ms. Smith will (as CADA requires) “work with all people regardless of . . . sexual orientation.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 184a. Never mind, too, that it is the dissent that would have this Court do something truly novel by allowing a government to coerce an individual to speak contrary to her beliefs on a significant issue of personal conviction, all in order to eliminate ideas that differ from its own.
There is still more. The dissent asserts that we “sweep under the rug petitioners’ challenge to CADA’s Communication Clause.” Post, at 26. This despite the fact the parties and the Tenth Circuit recognized that Ms. Smith’s Communication Clause challenge hinges on her Accommodation Clause challenge. (So much so that Colorado devoted less than two pages at the tail end of its brief to the Communication Clause and the Tenth Circuit afforded it just three paragraphs in its free-speech analysis. See Brief for Respondents 44–45; 6 F. 4th, at 1182–1183.) The dissent even suggests that our decision today is akin to endorsing a “separate but equal” regime that would allow law firms to refuse women admission into partnership, restaurants to deny service to Black Americans, or businesses seeking employees to post something like a “White Applicants Only” sign. Post, at 1, 16–21, 26, 28–29, 32, and n. 13, 37. Pure fiction all.
In some places, the dissent gets so turned around about the facts that it opens fire on its own position. For instance: While stressing that a Colorado company cannot refuse “the full and equal enjoyment of [its] services” based on a customer’s protected status, post, at 27, the dissent assures us that a company selling creative services “to the public” does have a right “to decide what messages to include or not to include,” post, at 28. But if that is true, what are we even debating?
Instead of addressing the parties’ stipulations about the case actually before us, the dissent spends much of its time adrift on a sea of hypotheticals about photographers, stationers, and others, asking if they too provide expressive services covered by the First Amendment. Post, at 27–29, 31–32, 37. But those cases are not this case. Doubtless, determining what qualifies as expressive activity protected by the First Amendment can sometimes raise difficult questions. But this case presents no complication of that kind. The parties have stipulated that Ms. Smith seeks to engage in expressive activity. And the Tenth Circuit has recognized her services involve “pure speech.” See supra, at 6, 9. Nothing the dissent says can alter this—nor can it displace the First Amendment protections that follow.
The dissent’s treatment of precedent parallels its handling of the facts. Take its remarkable suggestion that a government forcing an individual to create speech on weighty issues with which she disagrees—all, as the Tenth Circuit found, with the goal of “[e]liminating” views it does not share, 6 F. 4th, at 1178—only “incidental[ly]” burdens First Amendment liberties. Post, at 26–35. Far from embracing a notion like that, our cases have rejected it time after time—including in the context of public accommodations laws. See Parts II–IV, supra; FAIR, 547 U. S., at 61– 64 (no government may affect a “speaker’s own message” by “forc[ing]” her to “accommodate” views she does not hold); Hurley, 515 U. S., at 563, 566 (using a public accommodations law to compel parade organizers to include speech they did not believe was no mere “‘incidental’” infringement on First Amendment rights); Dale, 530 U. S., at 659 (employing a public accommodations law to require the Boy Scouts to alter their admissions policies had more than “an incidental effect on protected speech”).</blockquote>
Smith said she was willing to work with anyone regardless of their sexual orientation, but objected to being forced to build wedding websites for same-sex couples because same-sex marriage goes against her deeply held beliefs.
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://onelink.to/dwapp" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-102078">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
“There are some messages I can’t create no matter who requests them,” Smith <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/05/politics/supreme-court-same-sex-couples-lorie-smith/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> in December.
Smith said she delayed expanding her business to start designing wedding websites because she was worried her beliefs would bump up against a Colorado public accommodations law. Colorado argued that Smith simply wanted to discriminate against same-sex couples and said the public accommodations law governs the conduct, not the speech of a person running a Colorado business.
Mairead Elordi contributed to this report.

Supreme Court Justices Pose For Formal Group Photo

Gorsuch Lambasts Sotomayor’s Dissent In Christian Web Designer Ruling: ‘Opens Fire On Its Own Position’

Gorsuch Lambasts Sotomayor's Dissent In Christian Web Designer Ruling: 'Opens Fire On Its Own Position'

Courts

Neil Gorsuch

Sonia Sotomayor

Supreme Court

U.S.

Supreme Court Justice <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/neil-gorsuch" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Neil Gorsuch</a> said Thursday he hopes the report on the leaked draft opinion of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision comes soon.
“Improper efforts to influence judicial decision-making, from whatever side, from whomever, are a threat to the judicial decision-making process and inhibit our capacity to communicate with one another,” Gorsuch <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/09/supreme-court-abortion-leak-gorsuch/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> at a conference for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Colorado. The <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-gorsuch-said-findings-of-probe-into-leaked-roe-draft-opinion-will-be-made-in-report-11662684240?st=6q2jaspsa8jvbky&amp;reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Wall Street Journal</a> and <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/top-court-leak-threatens-judicial-decision-making-gorsuch-says" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bloomberg Law</a> reported on his comments.
“I very much hope we get to the bottom of this sooner or later,” he added.
Gorsuch didn’t comment on if the report would be released to the public, and reporters were not allowed to conduct interviews with him or other judges, at the conference’s direction, the Journal reported.
“The chief justice appointed an internal committee to oversee the investigation,” Gorsuch said. “That committee has been busy and we’re looking forward to their report, I hope soon.”
In May, Chief Justice John Roberts said the Supreme Court marshal would be in charge of an investigation to discover where the leak came from, but the high court has been silent on the matter since that time and not discussed the topic with the public. Investigators required the clerks at the high court to take part in interviews and hand over their cellphones this past summer. At the time, many of the clerks sought lawyers of their own due to the requirements.
The Dobbs opinion was leaked prior to the official ruling being released, setting the American public — on both sides of the debate — into a frenzy over the potential overturning of Roe v. Wade. When the majority opinion was released, it was very similar to the leaked draft, resulting in decades of precedent from the Roe v. Wade ruling no longer applying. The decision returned the topic of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/abortion" target="_blank" rel="noopener">abortion</a> back to individual states, allowing them to pass and enact their own laws concerning the controversial procedure.
States have taken action over the past year to eradicate abortion, allow it in certain circumstances, or promote it and attract women from states where it is banned.
At the conference, Gorsuch discussed several topics in a joint public discussion with two circuit judges, including the steps American students must go through to become lawyers.
“That’s something we have to ask ourselves about: Does it really require seven years of collegiate education to become a competent lawyer?” Justice Gorsuch said.

94806F28-C250-41CE-B335-71EC012A8D76_1_201_a

Justice Gorsuch Says He Hopes Report On Dobbs Leak Will Come Soon

Justice Neil Gorsuch Says He Hopes Report On Dobbs V. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Leak Will Come Soon

Abortion

Dobbs

Roe v. Wade's Long And Brutal Legacy

New reports suggest that Chief Justice John Roberts <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/26/politics/supreme-court-john-roberts-abortion-dobbs/index.html">lobbied hard</a> to prevent the more conservative members of the Supreme Court — namely Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — from voting to <a href="https://dailywire.com/news/pope-says-he-respects-supreme-court-decision-that-overturned-roe/">overturn Roe v. Wade</a>.
Roberts ultimately voted with the six-justice majority upholding a new Mississippi abortion law — capping abortions at 15 weeks — in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, but joined the four-justice minority in voting to uphold Roe. However, he did pen his own dissenting opinion stating that he would have opened the door for states to impose stricter limits on abortions, particularly after the first trimester.
And according to recent reporting, Roberts worked diligently to bring the conservative justices around — until someone leaked an early opinion draft indicating the landmark abortion case, along with the subsequent Planned Parenthood v. Casey, could be in danger.
<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/26/politics/supreme-court-john-roberts-abortion-dobbs/index.html">CNN reported</a> that Roberts had been focused on swaying the two newest justices — Kavanaugh and Barrett — but that he had been derailed somewhat when the leaked draft, authored by Justice Alito, became public.
&#8220;Roberts’ persuasive efforts, difficult even from the start, were thwarted by the sudden public nature of the state of play,&#8221; the report stated. &#8220;He can usually work in private, seeking and offering concessions, without anyone beyond the court knowing how he or other individual justices have voted or what they may be writing.&#8221;
The report also concluded that Roberts&#8217; efforts, however fervent, did not appear to be moving the needle with regard to Kavanaugh and Barrett even before the leak — and added that if threats against their families was not enough to sway them from their position, it was unlikely the Chief Justice would have been successful.
CNN&#8217;s &#8220;New Day&#8221; covered the topic on Tuesday morning as well:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
New CNN reporting from <a href="https://twitter.com/JoanBiskupic?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@JoanBiskupic</a>: Chief Justice John Roberts privately lobbied his fellow conservative justices to preserve Roe v. Wade – but the unprecedented leak of the draft opinion may have doomed his efforts. <a href="https://t.co/g0fKkIT14f">pic.twitter.com/g0fKkIT14f</a>
&mdash; New Day (@NewDay) <a href="https://twitter.com/NewDay/status/1551892687447531522?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 26, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
A number of critics followed the decision overturning Roe with accusations against Kavanaugh and Barrett specifically, claiming that <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/pelosi-blasting-abortion-decision-suggests-kavanaugh-gorsuch-lied-hear-rcna35208">they had lied</a> during their Senate confirmation hearings when they stated that the 1973 decision was &#8220;precedent.&#8221;
But both also declined to answer any questions about how they might vote in future cases — as those questions were rooted in hypotheticals — and precedents have been overturned in the past when the law was later found to be unjust. Examples of those include Plessy v. Ferguson — which allowed racial segregation under the banner of &#8220;separate but equal&#8221; and was later overturned in Brown v. Board of Education — and Korematsu v. United States, under which Japanese Americans were rounded up and placed in internment camps while the United States battled the Empire of Japan in World War II.

Chief Justice Roberts Lobbied Court Conservatives Hard To Salvage Roe: Report

Amy Coney Barrett

Brett Kavanaugh

Clarence Thomas

John Roberts

Samuel Alito

Congresswoman <a href="https://dailywire.com/news/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-tells-pro-abortion-crowd-she-was-raped-a-decade-ago-i-was-completely-alone/">Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez</a> (D-NY) teamed up with Congressman Ted Lieu (D-CA) to issue a letter calling on the Senate to declare Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh liars.
In the letter — which they addressed to Senate Majority Leader <a href="https://dailywire.com/news/chuck-schumer-promised-kavanaugh-would-pay-the-price-after-the-arrest-of-kavanaughs-would-be-assassin-hes-silent/">Chuck Schumer</a> — the pair claimed that both Gorsuch and <a href="https://dailywire.com/news/chasten-buttigieg-mocks-kavanaugh-for-fleeing-restaurant-amid-protests-but-the-joke-blows-up-in-his-face/">Kavanaugh</a> had lied to the Senate when they said during their respective confirmation hearings that Roe v. Wade was settled precedent.
&#8220;Our Constitutional Republic cannot tolerate Supreme Court Justices who lied in order to get confirmed. The legitimacy of the Court is at stake,&#8221; Lieu tweeted, sharing a screenshot of the letter. &#8220;Letter from @AOC and me requesting the Senate to make a finding on whether Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch lied to the American people.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Our Constitutional Republic cannot tolerate Supreme Court Justices who lied in order to get confirmed. The legitimacy of the Court is at stake.
Letter from <a href="https://twitter.com/AOC?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@AOC</a> and me requesting the Senate to make a finding on whether Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch lied to the American people. <a href="https://t.co/snQQf2cVKm">pic.twitter.com/snQQf2cVKm</a>
&mdash; Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) <a href="https://twitter.com/tedlieu/status/1546568769748606976?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 11, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Ocasio-Cortez shared Lieu&#8217;s comment and added her own, saying, &#8220;We cannot allow Supreme Court nominees lying and/or misleading the Senate under oath to go unanswered. Both GOP &amp; Dem Senators stated SCOTUS justices misled them. This cannot be accepted as precedent. Doing so erodes rule of law, delegitimizes the court, and imperils democracy.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
We cannot allow Supreme Court nominees lying and/or misleading the Senate under oath to go unanswered.
Both GOP &amp; Dem Senators stated SCOTUS justices misled them. This cannot be accepted as precedent.
Doing so erodes rule of law, delegitimizes the court, and imperils democracy. <a href="https://t.co/yZW6BKnqFG">https://t.co/yZW6BKnqFG</a>
&mdash; Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) <a href="https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1546573260531400708?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 11, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;We request that the Senate make its position clear on whether Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch lied under oath during their confirmation hearings,&#8221; Ocasio-Cortez and Lieu wrote in the letter, adding, &#8220;We must call out their actions for what they were before the moment passes so that we can prevent such a mendacious denigration of our fundamental rights and the rule of law from ever happening again.&#8221;
Both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh stated during their confirmation hearings that they considered Roe — along with its successor, Planned Parenthood v. Casey — to be settled precedent in the eyes of the court. Many took those statements to mean that they would never vote to overturn the two landmark abortion cases — which they did in late June. But stating that those cases were &#8220;precedent&#8221; did not mean that either justice was lying — nor did it necessarily constitute a promise to never overturn said precedent.
The fact that both Roe and Casey were &#8220;precedent&#8221; did not mean that they were necessarily constitutional or that they were not simply bad law, however. <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/163us537">Plessy v. Ferguson</a> — which allowed for segregation under the banner of &#8220;separate but equal&#8221; — was also precedent once, until <a href="https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/brown-v-board-of-education-of-topeka">Brown v. Board of Education</a> reversed that. <a href="https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-korematsu-v-us">Korematsu v. United States</a> — which allowed for the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II — was also considered precedent until it wasn&#8217;t.

Press Conference Held To Discuss Congressmembers Stock Trading

AOC Wants Chuck Schumer To Have The Senate Declare Gorsuch And Kavanaugh Liars

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Chuck Schumer

Ted Lieu

ShutDownDC announced on Friday that organizers would pay anyone who could tip protesters off to the locations of the conservative Supreme Court justices — and the price increased if they were still at the named location 30 minutes later.
The call for tips went out after news broke that Justice <a href="https://dailywire.com/news/police-arrest-armed-man-near-brett-kavanaughs-home-who-allegedly-wanted-to-kill-the-justice-report/">Brett Kavanaugh</a> had been forced to leave Morton&#8217;s Steak House in Washington, D.C., through a rear exit in order to avoid a crowd of protesters gathered outside the restaurant.
&#8220;DC Service Industry Workers&#8230; If you see Kavanaugh, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Coney Barrett or Roberts DM us with the details! We&#8217;ll venmo you $50 for a confirmed sighting and $200 if they&#8217;re still there 30 mins after your message,&#8221; @ShutDown_DC&#8217;s tweet read.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
DC Service Industry Workers&#8230; If you see Kavanaugh, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Coney Barrett or Roberts DM us with the details! 
We&#39;ll venmo you $50 for a confirmed sighting and $200 if they&#39;re still there 30 mins after your message. <a href="https://t.co/xXWZ5JZiE7">https://t.co/xXWZ5JZiE7</a>
&mdash; ShutDownDC (@ShutDown_DC) <a href="https://twitter.com/ShutDown_DC/status/1545421407223521280?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 8, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Politico&#8217;s Daniel Lippman <a href="https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2022/07/08/schumer-ups-pressure-on-mcconnell-in-usica-reconciliation-dance-00044652?nname=playbook&amp;nid=0000014f-1646-d88f-a1cf-5f46b7bd0000&amp;nrid=0000014c-2414-d9dd-a5ec-34bc527c0005&amp;nlid=630318">reported</a> on Kavanaugh&#8217;s disrupted dinner departure, noting, &#8220;Justice Brett Kavanaugh had to exit through the rear of Morton&#8217;s on Wednesday night after DC protestors showed up out front.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
NEW: Justice Brett Kavanaugh had to exit through the rear of Morton&#39;s on Wednesday night after DC protestors showed up out front. A Morton&#39;s rep told me: &quot;Politics … should not trample the freedom at play of the right to congregate and eat dinner.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/wlA4J2nxYW">https://t.co/wlA4J2nxYW</a> <a href="https://t.co/jpsfhB3JVo">pic.twitter.com/jpsfhB3JVo</a>
&mdash; Daniel Lippman (@dlippman) <a href="https://twitter.com/dlippman/status/1545357451234615298?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 8, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Lippman reported that Kavanaugh did not actually come into contact with any of the protesters but left the restaurant through a back door without staying for dessert.
A spokesperson from Morton&#8217;s gave a statement after the incident, telling Politico, &#8220;Honorable Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh and all of our other patrons at the restaurant were unduly harassed by unruly protestors while eating dinner at our Morton’s restaurant. Politics, regardless of your side or views, should not trample the freedom at play of the right to congregate and eat dinner. There is a time and place for everything. Disturbing the dinner of all of our customers was an act of selfishness and void of decency.&#8221;
Fox News White House Correspondent Peter Doocy questioned Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre about the incident, asking whether President Joe Biden and his administration had any issues with protesters continuing to harass the conservative justices outside their homes or in public.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Doocy on Kavanaugh being forced out of a DC restaurant by protesters: &quot;So these Justices, because protesters do not agree with an opinion&#8230; have no right to privacy?&quot;
Jean-Pierre: &quot;This is what a democracy is.&quot;<a href="https://t.co/26EIf4ptiZ">pic.twitter.com/26EIf4ptiZ</a>
&mdash; Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDailyWire/status/1545472464511197185?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 8, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;People should be allowed to be able to do that,&#8221; Jean-Pierre replied. &#8220;If it&#8217;s outside of a restaurant, if it&#8217;s peaceful, for sure.&#8221;
Doocy pressed again, asking whether she meant that the administration was signing off on protesters following the justices around simply because they didn&#8217;t like a ruling the court had issued.
&#8220;People have the right — this is what a democracy is,&#8221; Jean-Pierre insisted.

President Trump Gives State Of The Union Address

ShutDownDC Promises To Pay Tipsters For SCOTUS Whereabouts

Shut Down DC Promises To Pay Tipsters For SCOTUS Whereabouts

Democratic lawmakers are falsely accusing two <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/supreme-court">Supreme Court</a> justices of lying under oath about <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/roe-v-wade">Roe v. Wade</a>, suggesting that the justices should face an <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/impeachment">impeachment</a> inquiry.
“They lied,” said Democratic New York Rep. <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/alexandria-ocasio-cortez">Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez</a> of Justices <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/neil-gorsuch">Neil Gorsuch</a> and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/brett-kavanaugh">Brett Kavanaugh</a> during a Sunday interview with &#8220;Meet the Press.&#8221; &#8220;There must be consequences for such a deeply destabilizing action and hostile takeover of our democratic institutions.&#8221;
The only problem — neither justice promised to uphold Roe.
Both Kavanaugh and Gorsuch declined to directly address questions about Roe v. Wade during their confirmation hearings: Kavanaugh <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/06/us/politics/kavanaugh-hearing-confirmation.html">referred</a> to the case as “important precedent of the Supreme Court that has been reaffirmed many times,&#8221; while Gorsuch <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/27/us/aoc-roe-abortion-scotus.html">called</a> Roe “a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court that had been reaffirmed.”
“For a judge to start tipping his or her hand about whether they like or dislike this or that precedent would send the wrong signal,” Gorsuch said at the time. “It would send the signal to the American people that the judge’s personal views have something to do with the judge’s job.”
Mark Paoletta, the former general counsel for the Office of Management &amp; Budget who worked on Justice Kavanaugh&#8217;s, Gorsuch&#8217;s, and Clarence Thomas’s confirmations, told The Daily Wire that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh recognizing Roe as precedent was a statement of fact — &#8220;not a promise never to overturn it.&#8221;
&#8220;That’s absurd,&#8221; he said, emphasizing that nothing in the justices&#8217; testimony was inconsistent with their actions. &#8220;And to make such a commitment would be unethical and a violation of the judicial code of ethics. They testified truthfully in every way. These clams by the Left are ridiculous.&#8221;
Both West Virginia Sen. <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/joe-manchin">Joe Manchin</a> (D-WV) and Sen. <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/susan-collins">Susan Collins</a> (R-ME), who voted to confirm the justices, expressed concerns following the overturn of Roe that the justices had lied to them.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Incredibly poor judgment by ⁦<a href="https://twitter.com/SenatorCollins?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SenatorCollins</a>⁩ ⁦to attack Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh over the recent abortion ruling, including this ⁦<a href="https://twitter.com/nytimes?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@nytimes</a>⁩ hit piece.
They appropriately answered questions on precedent like all judicial nominees do. <a href="https://t.co/x9JW0XtB8Q">https://t.co/x9JW0XtB8Q</a>
&mdash; 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) <a href="https://twitter.com/mrddmia/status/1541207243605024768?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 26, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;I trusted Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh when they testified under oath that they also believed Roe v. Wade was settled legal precedent and I am alarmed they chose to reject the stability the ruling has provided for two generations of Americans,&#8221; Manchin <a href="https://www.manchin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/manchin-statement-on-scotus-decision-to-overturn-roe-v-wade">said</a> in a statement on Friday that expressed support for legislation codifying Roe v. Wade.
Collins echoed these sentiments, suggesting that the justices were dishonest when they met with her.
“This decision is inconsistent with what Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh said in their testimony and their meetings with me, where they both were insistent on the importance of supporting long-standing precedents that the country has relied upon,&#8221; she <a href="https://www.collins.senate.gov/newsroom/senator-collins-statement-on-scotus-dobbs-decision">said</a>.
Neither Collins nor Manchin immediately responded to requests for comment from The Daily Wire.
<div id="attachment_402713" style="width: 2570px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-402713" decoding="async" loading="lazy" class="wp-image-402713 size-full" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/GettyImages-1241580127-scaled.jpg" alt="" width="2560" height="1707" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/06/GettyImages-1241580127-scaled.jpg 2560w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/06/GettyImages-1241580127-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/06/GettyImages-1241580127-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/06/GettyImages-1241580127-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/06/GettyImages-1241580127-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/06/GettyImages-1241580127-2048x1366.jpg 2048w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/06/GettyImages-1241580127-1800x1200.jpg 1800w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/06/GettyImages-1241580127-1200x800.jpg 1200w" sizes="(max-width: 2560px) 100vw, 2560px" />An &#8220;Impeach Thomas&#8221; sign against security fencing outside of the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., US, on Monday, June 27, 2022.  Photographer: Eric Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images</div>
<div class="css-s99gbd StoryBodyCompanionColumn">
<div class="css-53u6y8">
During her NBC interview, Ocasio-Cortez called Collins&#8217; and Manchin&#8217;s remarks &#8220;very explosive&#8221; and claimed they warrant a House Judiciary Committee inquiry and potentially impeachment (the House <a href="https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/impeachment-and-removal-judges-explainer">can impeach</a> a federal judge through a majority vote, but for the senate to convict a judge, there must be a two-thirds majority).
</div>
</div>
<div class="css-s99gbd StoryBodyCompanionColumn">
<div class="css-53u6y8">
“I believe that lying under oath is an impeachable offense,” Ocasio-Cortez said.
</div>
</div>
Sen. <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/kirsten-gillibrand">Kirsten Gillibrand</a> (D-NY) agreed.
“Every single one of them said they would not undermine a settled precedent, every single one of them said under oath, that they would actually preserve Roe,” Gillibrand <a href="https://wskg.org/gillibrand-some-supreme-court-justices-lied-about-roe-v-wade-during-confirmation-hearings/">said</a> of the justices who overturned Roe. “So the fact that they all lied, is shocking.”
“I hope we have hearings, because I don’t know how you can accept Supreme Court justices who lied in order to be confirmed,” Gillibrand added. “That is absolutely fraud, and there should be consequences. So I hope there’s an investigation.”
American Enterprise Institute fellow Marc Thiessen <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/28/kavanaugh-gorsuch-roe-kagan-supreme-court/">wrote in a Washington Post op-ed</a> that &#8220;none of the conservative justices promised to uphold Roe,&#8221; noting that if they had done so, &#8220;that would be an impeachable offense.&#8221;
<div class="article-body" data-qa="article-body">
&#8220;It would be a serious violation of judicial ethics for a nominee to the federal bench to say how they would vote in a case before hearing the facts and evidence,&#8221; wrote Thiessen.
During Ruth Bader Ginsburg&#8217;s 1993 confirmation hearings, Ginsberg <a href="https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1993/07/21/997393.html?pageNumber=2">explained</a> that “it would be wrong for me to say or preview in this legislative chamber how I would cast my vote on questions the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide.”
&#8220;A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process,&#8221; the late justice added.
&#8220;It is perfectly understandable for senators to try to divine how a justice, if confirmed, would rule on a case they care about,&#8221; Thiessen wrote. &#8220;But it would be a gross dereliction of judicial ethics for a nominee to prejudge a case or give senators any assurances of how they would decide. Which is why they all follow the &#8216;Ginsburg rule.&#8217; And there is nothing impeachable about that.&#8221;
</div>

Screen Shot 2022-06-28 at 5.41.06 PM

Democrats Falsely Accuse Kavanaugh, Gorsuch Of ‘Lying Under Oath’ About Roe V. Wade

Dems Call For Impeachment Inquiry, Falsely Claiming Kavanaugh, Gorsuch Lied 'Under Oath' About Roe v. Wade

Joe Manchin

Susan Collins

On Monday evening, Politico <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/shapiro-draft-supreme-court-majority-opinion-leaks-striking-down-roe-v-wade-heres-what-all-of-that-means">dropped</a> a massive leak &#8212; Supreme Court decision before the Court had even officially handed it down. According to the leaked draft, which is 98 pages, the majority opinion held that Roe v. Wade “was egregiously wrong from the start,” effectively overturning the landmark decision that legalized abortion around the country. 
The Politico report sent the country into rage, rejoice, and confusion. But what does the leaked initial draft say about abortion going forward, and what does it mean if the court follows through with this decision? 
Here are five takeaways from the leaked majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization:
1. “Roe and Casey Must Be Overruled”
Justice Samuel Alito, the author of the draft, states the decision plainly for all to understand: Roe and Casey were poor decisions and do not hold up under the scrutiny of the Constitution. 
Roe v. Wade was the landmark decision in 1973 that struck down Texas state laws criminalizing abortion. Roe determined that the Constitution did not allow states to punish abortion, effectively legalizing the practice nationwide. In a 7-2 decision, the justices used the 14th Amendment to argue that a “woman’s right” to an abortion is protected by her “right to privacy.” 
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) was decided nearly 20 years after the Roe decision came down, and in a 5-4 decision, the justices reaffirmed Roe and also set a standard in place to determine if a state set certain requirements on women wanting an abortion. They called the standard the “<a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/91-744">undue burden</a>,” explaining it as a “substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.”
In the leaked majority opinion from Dobbs, Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito reportedly agree that Roe and Casey have no foundation in Constitutional law. 
Alito writes, “The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely–the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
The draft goes on to say that the Due Process Clause – which guarantees due process of law before the government can take away life, liberty, or property – does not include “some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution,” including the “right to privacy.”
On this basis, the majority reasons, Roe and Casey cannot stand. 
2. The Constitution Requires Abortion To Be Decided by the States
Before Roe, abortion was left up to the states. In 1970, New York legalized the practice, becoming “a magnet for women who wanted to terminate their pregnancies but were barred from doing so where they lived,” as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/us/politics/new-york-abortion-roe-wade-nyt.html">The New York Times</a> put it. Alaska, Hawaii, and Washington also repealed abortion bans between 1967 and 1973. Another 13 states allowed for more abortion exceptions without fully legalizing it.
After the Roe ruling came down, state laws against abortion became impossible to enforce, but some states have continued to push for abortion bans. Those recent actions on abortion are what led to Monday’s leaked decision, which is expected to be handed out by the Court in the coming months.
In 2018, Mississippi passed a law banning abortions after the baby reached 15 weeks gestation. The only licensed abortion agency in the state, Jackson Women’s Health Organization, sued. A district court ruled that Mississippi could not enforce a 15-week abortion ban, arguing that the state did not prove a baby has viability at 15 weeks. A U.S. Appeals Court upheld the decision, and the case came before the U.S. Supreme Court in December.
Mississippi is far from the only state seeking to ban some abortions. Eight states, including Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, South Carolina, and Texas have recently passed heartbeat bills, banning abortions after an unborn baby’s heartbeat can be detected. There are also <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2022/04/12/america-after-roe-v-wade/">26 states</a> that would likely ban abortions after Roe is overturned. Abortion would still be legal in most cases in the remaining 24 states. 
That is the reality the justices say the Constitution demands. “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives,” Alito wrote. 
3. Overturning Precedent 
In the Dobbs v Jackson draft opinion, the Court overrules prior precedent set by Roe, and Alito notes that “Some of our most important constitutional decisions have overruled prior precedents.”
He points to the infamous decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, a case that established the “separate but equal” treatment of black Americans. “In Brown v. Board of Education, the Court repudiated the ‘separate but equal’ doctrine, which had allowed States to maintain racially segregated schools and other facilities,” Alito writes. “In doing so, the Court overruled the infamous decision in Plessy v. Ferguson … along with six other Supreme Court precedents that had applied the separate-but-equal rule.”
The majority opinion reminds us that “adherence to precedent is the norm but not an inexorable command.” The precedent set in Roe does not require the Court to uphold the decision, especially when the majority questions its constitutionality. 
“Roe … was remarkably loose in its treatment of the constitutional text,” Alito writes. “It held that the abortion right, which is not mentioned in the Constitution, is part of a right to privacy, which is also not mentioned.”
Once again, Alito writes with unmistakable clarity. Neither the right to an abortion nor the right to privacy appears anywhere in the Constitution, so federal law cannot stop a state from prohibiting abortion based on the Constitution. 
The Court, in the draft, gets back to the originalist interpretation of the Constitution, making it clear that a legal ruling handed down from the Court cannot be made on the basis of cultural activism but only on Constitutional law. 
Alito continues: “Roe expressed the ‘feel[ing]’ that the Fourteenth Amendment was the provision that did not work, but its message seemed to be that the abortion right could be found somewhere in the Constitution and that specifying its exact location was not of paramount importance.”
The Dobbs ruling would set a new precedent, changing how abortion will be argued before the Court in the future. The so-called “right to privacy” is not a valid legal argument for the constitutionality of abortion. Abortion supporters who maneuvered their way through arguments in 1973 can no longer rely on their “loose … treatment of the Constitutional text” to argue for a right to abortion. 
4. Roe and Casey Have Divided the Country
A point easily lost in the bombshell report is the reason these cases have caused so much panic in the first place. Even some liberals will admit Roe and Casey were poorly reasoned arguments, with little-to-no basis in the Constitution, and were decided more on political motivations than on Constitutional principles. So it should be no surprise that the decisions led to years of division and hostility between political parties, friends, neighbors, and family.
&#8220;Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division,&#8221; Alito writes. 
But the draft stresses that the latest decision was not affected by current or future political reactions to the issue. 
“We cannot allow our decisions to be affected by any extraneous influences such as concern about the public’s reaction to our work,” Alito explains. “We do not pretend to know how our political system or society will respond to today’s decision overruling Roe and Casey. And even if we could foresee what will happen, we would have no authority to let that knowledge influence our decision.”
The justices might not know exactly how the country will react to this decision, but everyone has a good idea that the overturning of Roe will have just as much, if not more, of a divisive effect as the original decision.
Not only was Roe a landmark decision in terms of judicial precedent, but it was also a decision that set the table for next decades of the culture wars. Just as Roe led to an extreme partisan divide in the past, its reversal will lead to more division. 
5. There&#8217;s a Racial Disparity to Abortion
Justice Alito ventured into even more controversial territory in his draft opinion, as he writes of the early supporters of abortion who favored eugenics, especially as a way to control the black population. 
“Some such supporters have been motivated by a desire to suppress the size of the African American population,” Alito writes. “It is beyond dispute that Roe has had that demographic effect. A highly disproportionate percentage of aborted fetuses are black.”
He is correct in his connection of abortion to racism. In the early 20th Century, some of the most influential abortion advocates, such as Planned Parenthood founder <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/planned-parenthood-ny-will-remove-margaret-sangers-name-from-clinic-over-harmful-connections-to-racism-eugenics">Margaret Sanger</a>, also supported eugenics and had ties to racism. Planned Parenthood even removed Sanger’s name from one of their clinic’s after backlash from people pointing out Sanger’s racism.
Statistical evidence also proves abortion’s disproportionate effect on the black community. 
According to a Congressional <a href="https://www.congress.gov/115/meeting/house/106562/witnesses/HHRG-115-JU10-Wstate-ParkerS-20171101-SD001.pdf">report</a> from June 2015, black women made up 36% of all women getting abortions while only making up 14% of “the childbearing population.” Since 1973, over 19 million black babies have been aborted, meaning around 30% of all aborted babies were black, even though African-Americans make up only 12% of the U.S. population.
Opponents of abortion have long pointed out this harrowing reality. To have the argument written down in a Supreme Court decision cements its importance in history for all to see. 
The views expressed in this piece are the author&#8217;s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Roe v Wade

5 Key Takeaways From The Leaked Majority Opinion Draft Overruling Roe V. Wade

5 Key Takeaways From The Leaked Majority Opinion Overruling Roe V. Wade

Planned Parenthood

Readers Pass

The United States Supreme Court has voted to strike down the controversial Roe v. Wade decision, according to an initial draft of the majority opinion obtained by Politico.
The draft, written by Justice Samuel Alito, &#8220;is a full-throated, unflinching repudiation of the 1973 decision which guaranteed federal constitutional protections of abortion rights and a subsequent 1992 decision – Planned Parenthood v. Casey – that largely maintained the right,&#8221; Politico <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473">reported</a>. &#8220;Deliberations on controversial cases have in the past been fluid. Justices can and sometimes do change their votes as draft opinions circulate and major decisions can be subject to multiple drafts and vote-trading, sometimes until just days before a decision is unveiled. The court’s holding will not be final until it is published, likely in the next two months.&#8221;
Alito reportedly writes in a document titled &#8220;Opinion of the Court&#8221; that &#8220;Roe was egregiously wrong from the start&#8221; and that &#8220;we hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled.&#8221;
&#8220;It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives,&#8221; he reportedly added.
Politico&#8217;s report said that they received a copy of the draft opinion from &#8220;a person familiar with the court&#8217;s proceedings in the Mississippi case along with other details supporting the authenticity of the document.&#8221;
Other Supreme Court Justices that sided with Alito included Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. It is not clear how Chief Justice John Roberts will vote.
“The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion,” the draft concludes. “Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.”
The draft&#8217;s leak caused an immediate reaction online with notable figures and publications weighing in on the matter, including SCOTUSblog, which wrote: &#8220;It’s impossible to overstate the earthquake this will cause inside the Court, in terms of the destruction of trust among the Justices and staff. This leak is the gravest, most unforgivable sin.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
It’s impossible to overstate the earthquake this will cause inside the Court, in terms of the destruction of trust among the Justices and staff. This leak is the gravest, most unforgivable sin.
&mdash; SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1521295411545260035?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 3, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Other notable initial responses to the leak included:
<ul>
<li>Megyn Kelly, journalist: &#8220;Omg. Legal earthquake if true but first: how in God’s name did a draft SCOTUS OPINION LEAK? Insanely unorthodox, inappropriate, UNPRECEDENTED. Disgusting breach, frankly. Will be major investigation into who did it.&#8221;</li>
<li>Allie Beth Stuckey, podcast host: &#8220;As happy as I am about the SCOTUS abortion decision &#8211; why leak it now? So the leftists’ weeping and gnashing of teeth can get Roberts to change his mind?&#8221;</li>
<li>Scott Jennings, CNN commentator: &#8220;I hope the leaker is found and prosecuted if this an attempt to violate this institution and bully the Court. Stay the course, Constitutional conservatives.&#8221;</li>
</ul>
This article was expanded after publication to include additional information.

Washington, D.C., scenes

Supreme Court Strikes Down Roe V. Wade Decision In Draft Of Majority Opinion, Report Says

Supreme Court Strikes Down Roe V. Wade Decision In Draft Of Majority Opinion, POLITICO Reports

U.S. Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch released a joint statement Wednesday refuting a report from NPR, calling it simply &#8220;false.&#8221;
Notably, NPR <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/01/18/1073428376/supreme-court-justices-arent-scorpions-but-not-happy-campers-either">reported</a> Tuesday that Sotomayor was refusing to do her job in-person because Gorsuch, who is vaccinated and boosted like Sotomayor, is refusing to wear a mask after being asked.
&#8220;Reporting that Justice Sotomayor asked Justice Gorsuch to wear a mask surprised us,&#8221; the statement said. &#8220;It is false.&#8221;
&#8220;While we may sometimes disagree about the law, we are warm colleagues and friends,&#8221; the statement added.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
JUST IN. SCOTUS releases a short joint statement from Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch:
&quot;Reporting that Justice Sotomayor asked Justice Gorsuch to wear a mask surprised us. It is false. While we may sometimes disagree about the law, we are warm colleagues and friends.&quot;
&mdash; SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1483841138079453188?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 19, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The report started to crack Tuesday evening, when Fox News reported that their source refuted the claim.
Speaking to Fox News&#8217; Bret Baier, network host and reporter Shannon Bream noted that the NPR report said Sotomayor &#8220;did not feel safe in close proximity to people who were unmasked.”
“Chief Justice John Roberts, understanding that, in some form asked the other Justices to mask up,&#8221; the NPR report claimed.
&#8220;It then says that Justice Gorsuch who normally sits right next to Sotomayor on the bench has repeatedly refused to do so and that’s forced Justice Sotomayor to operate remotely from her office for arguments and conferences,&#8221; Bream outlined.
&#8220;I am told that is not accurate,&#8221; the Fox News host asserted.
&#8220;A source at the Supreme Court says there has been no blanket admonition or request from Chief Justice Roberts that the other Justices begin wearing masks to arguments,&#8221; she explained. &#8220;The source further stated Justice Sotomayor did not make any such request to Justice Gorsuch. I&#8217;m told, given that fact, there was also no refusal by Justice Gorsuch.&#8221;
&#8220;The Justices are all vaccinated and boosted and they do test before taking the bench for arguments,&#8221; Bream noted.
Partial transcript <a href="https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2022/01/18/shannon-bream-busts-fake-news-npr-gorsuch-spiteful-masking">via</a> NewsBusters: 
<blockquote>BRET BAIER: You know, Shannon, there is another mask story at the Supreme Court grabbing headlines about a dispute apparently over the justices wearing or not wearing masks. What have you been able to find out?
SHANNON BREAM: Okay. So, NPR published this story, Bret, saying that Justice Sotomayor, who has diabetes and has regularly been wearing a mask on the bench during arguments, expressed that she, quote, “Did not feel safe in close proximity to people who were unmasked.”
The story goes on to say, “Chief Justice John Roberts, understanding that, in some form asked the other Justices to mask up.” It then says that Justice Gorsuch who normally sits right next to Sotomayor on the bench has repeatedly refused to do so and that’s forced Justice Sotomayor to operate remotely from her office for arguments and conferences.  I am told that is not accurate.
A source at the Supreme Court says there has been no blanket admonition or request from Chief Justice Roberts that the other Justices begin wearing masks to arguments. The source further stated Justice Sotomayor did not make any such request to Justice Gorsuch. I&#8217;m told, given that fact, there was also no refusal by Justice Gorsuch.
The Justices are all vaccinated and boosted and they do test before taking the bench for arguments. Bret.
BAIER: There you go. Straight in and out for us. We will see you tonight, Shannon. Thanks.</blockquote>

Gorsuch, Sotomayor

Gorsuch, Sotomayor Release Joint Statement Calling NPR Report About Mask ‘False’

Face Masks

National Public Radio (NPR)

NPR <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/01/18/1073428376/supreme-court-justices-arent-scorpions-but-not-happy-campers-either">reported</a> Tuesday that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor was refusing to do her job in-person because fellow Justice Neil Gorsuch, who is vaccinated and boosted like Sotomayor, is refusing to wear a mask after being asked.
The report, however, was quickly contradicted by reporting from Fox News&#8217; Shannon Bream Tuesday evening.
Speaking to Fox News&#8217; Bret Baier, Bream noted that the NPR report said Sotomayor &#8220;did not feel safe in close proximity to people who were unmasked.”
“Chief Justice John Roberts, understanding that, in some form asked the other Justices to mask up,&#8221; the NPR report claimed.
&#8220;It then says that Justice Gorsuch who normally sits right next to Sotomayor on the bench has repeatedly refused to do so and that’s forced Justice Sotomayor to operate remotely from her office for arguments and conferences,&#8221; Bream outlined.
&#8220;I am told that is not accurate,&#8221; the Fox News host asserted.
&#8220;A source at the Supreme Court says there has been no blanket admonition or request from Chief Justice Roberts that the other Justices begin wearing masks to arguments,&#8221; she explained. &#8220;The source further stated Justice Sotomayor did not make any such request to Justice Gorsuch. I&#8217;m told, given that fact, there was also no refusal by Justice Gorsuch.&#8221;
&#8220;The Justices are all vaccinated and boosted and they do test before taking the bench for arguments,&#8221; Bream noted.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
🚨EXCLUSIVE<a href="https://twitter.com/FoxNews?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@FoxNews</a> Supreme Court reporter <a href="https://twitter.com/ShannonBream?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ShannonBream</a> airs inaccurate reporting today by <a href="https://twitter.com/NinaTotenberg?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@NinaTotenberg</a>:
“A source at the Supreme Court says there has been no blanket admonition or request from Chief Justice Roberts that the other Justices begin wearing masks to arguments.” <a href="https://t.co/petcj6q1nK">pic.twitter.com/petcj6q1nK</a>
&mdash; 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) <a href="https://twitter.com/mrddmia/status/1483590769806135297?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 19, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
As highlighted by <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/liberal-sotomayor-wont-attend-scotus-in-person-because-gorsuch-wont-wear-a-mask-report">The Daily Wire</a>, Sotomayor recently made false statements while hearing arguments regarding President Joe Biden&#8217;s vaccine mandates for private businesses and health care workers.
“We have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition and many on ventilators,&#8221; the justice falsely stated.
“The number is not 100,000, it’s roughly 3,500 in hospitals now,&#8221; Baier corrected.
Partial transcript <a href="https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2022/01/18/shannon-bream-busts-fake-news-npr-gorsuch-spiteful-masking">via</a> NewsBusters: 
<blockquote>BRET BAIER: You know, Shannon, there is another mask story at the Supreme Court grabbing headlines about a dispute apparently over the justices wearing or not wearing masks. What have you been able to find out?
SHANNON BREAM: Okay. So, NPR published this story, Bret, saying that Justice Sotomayor, who has diabetes and has regularly been wearing a mask on the bench during arguments, expressed that she, quote, “Did not feel safe in close proximity to people who were unmasked.”
The story goes on to say, “Chief Justice John Roberts, understanding that, in some form asked the other Justices to mask up.” It then says that Justice Gorsuch who normally sits right next to Sotomayor on the bench has repeatedly refused to do so and that’s forced Justice Sotomayor to operate remotely from her office for arguments and conferences.  I am told that is not accurate.
A source at the Supreme Court says there has been no blanket admonition or request from Chief Justice Roberts that the other Justices begin wearing masks to arguments. The source further stated Justice Sotomayor did not make any such request to Justice Gorsuch. I&#8217;m told, given that fact, there was also no refusal by Justice Gorsuch.
The Justices are all vaccinated and boosted and they do test before taking the bench for arguments. Bret.
BAIER: There you go. Straight in and out for us. We will see you tonight, Shannon. Thanks.</blockquote>

Fox News: NPR Report About Justice Gorsuch Not Accurate

MSNBC host Rachel Maddow lashed out at Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, accusing him of preventing his colleague, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, from &#8220;being able to come to work.&#8221;
<a href="https://dailywire.com/news/watch-hillary-clinton-has-coughing-fit-on-rachel-maddow-show/">Maddow</a> was responding to reports indicating that Sotomayor has refused to attend the high court&#8217;s oral arguments in person because <a href="https://dailywire.com/news/washington-post-columnist-blasts-justice-neil-gorsuch-for-not-wearing-mask-during-vax-mandate-hearing/">Gorsuch</a> refuses to wear a mask, and she suggested that he might &#8220;revel&#8221; in the knowledge that everyone now knew that he was the reason she felt unable to come to work.
&#8220;It&#8217;s folly to try to get inside anyone else&#8217;s head, I know, but I just can&#8217;t shake this,&#8221; Maddow tweeted Tuesday, adding, &#8220;Does Justice Gorsuch revel in everyone now knowing that he&#8217;s keeping her from being able to come to work? Or is he embarrassed? I mean, how do you live with yourself?&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
It&#8217;s folly to try to get inside anyone else&#8217;s head, I know, but I just can&#8217;t shake this.
Does Justice Gorsuch revel in everyone now knowing that he&#8217;s keeping her from being able to come to work? Or is he embarrassed? I mean, how do you live with yourself?<a href="https://t.co/O8AfWHafPP">https://t.co/O8AfWHafPP</a>
— Rachel Maddow MSNBC (@maddow) <a href="https://twitter.com/maddow/status/1483521424371421193?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 18, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Writer <a href="https://twitter.com/MarieMyungOkLee/status/1483527840075333632">Marie Myung-Ok Lee</a> responded, saying, &#8220;I don&#8217;t understand why Gorsuch isn&#8217;t the one being exiled for being a d***.&#8221;
And others quickly agreed that Gorsuch should have to be the one working remotely if he was not going to wear a mask during oral arguments.
The Daily Caller&#8217;s editor-in-chief Geoffrey Ingersoll offered a different perspective, noting that all of the Justices were vaccinated and were constantly being tested.
&#8220;Maddow [quoting] npr&#8217;s garbage story is like a multilevel marketing scheme for political hacks,&#8221; he said. &#8220;They&#8217;re all vaxxed and tested every day. Nothing is stopping her from going to work but herself. The shrieking from cultish covid enthusiasts puts westboro baptist to shame, my god.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Maddow qting npr&#8217;s garbage story is like a multilevel marketing scheme for political hacks.
They&#8217;re all vaxxed and tested every day. Nothing is stopping her from going to work but herself.
The shrieking from cultish covid enthusiasts puts westboro baptist to shame, my god. <a href="https://t.co/Am2TY8XQpJ">https://t.co/Am2TY8XQpJ</a>
— Geoffrey Ingersoll (@GPIngersoll) <a href="https://twitter.com/GPIngersoll/status/1483522336297041924?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 18, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/01/18/1073428376/supreme-court-justices-arent-scorpions-but-not-happy-campers-either">Sotomayor</a> is diabetic and at higher risk of complications from a COVID-19 infection — and according to NPR&#8217;s report, she opted to wear a mask even when none of the other justices felt the need to do so. As the Omicron variant spread, however, Sotomayor said that she was no longer comfortable working where others remained unmasked.
As <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/liberal-sotomayor-wont-attend-scotus-in-person-because-gorsuch-wont-wear-a-mask-report">The Daily Wire</a> reported:
<blockquote>U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor is refusing to take part in person when the Supreme Court takes the bench for one reason: Justice Neil Gorsuch steadfastly refuses to wear a mask, according to a report.
Sotomayor, who has diabetes and has been the only justice to wear a mask since the Court resumed activity in fall of 2021, will only join the other justices through a microphone setup in her chambers. After Chief Justice John Roberts requested that all the justices wear a mask because of the Omicron surge, Gorsuch, who sits next to Sotomayor on the bench, refused, according to <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/01/18/1073428376/supreme-court-justices-arent-scorpions-but-not-happy-campers-either">NPR</a>.
“Last week, Gorsuch was the only justice in the courtroom not to wear a mask during oral arguments, while Sotomayor and Justice Stephen Breyer both appeared remotely. Breyer, at 83 the oldest member of the court, stayed out of the courtroom after a spokesperson said he received the results of a Covid test that was later determined to be a false positive,” <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/18/supreme-court-gorsuch-refused-to-wear-mask-despite-sotomayors-covid-concerns.html">CNBC</a> reported.</blockquote>

Today – Season 68

‘How Do You Live With Yourself?’: Rachel Maddow Slams Gorsuch For Keeping Sotomayor From ‘Being Able To Come To Work’

Rachel Maddow

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor is reportedly refusing to take part in person when the Supreme Court takes the bench for one reason: Justice Neil Gorsuch steadfastly refuses to wear a mask, according to a report.
Sotomayor, who has diabetes and has been the only justice to wear a mask since the Court resumed activity in fall of 2021, will only join the other justices through a microphone setup in her chambers. After Chief Justice John Roberts reportedly requested that all the justices wear a mask because of the Omicron surge, Gorsuch, who sits next to Sotomayor on the bench, refused, according to <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/01/18/1073428376/supreme-court-justices-arent-scorpions-but-not-happy-campers-either">NPR</a>.
Fox News partly contradicted NPR&#8217;s report, stating Tuesday evening that a source at the Supreme Court &#8220;says there has been no blanket admonition or request from Chief Justice Roberts that the other Justices begin wearing masks to arguments.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
🚨EXCLUSIVE<a href="https://twitter.com/FoxNews?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@FoxNews</a> Supreme Court reporter <a href="https://twitter.com/ShannonBream?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ShannonBream</a> airs inaccurate reporting today by <a href="https://twitter.com/NinaTotenberg?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@NinaTotenberg</a>:
“A source at the Supreme Court says there has been no blanket admonition or request from Chief Justice Roberts that the other Justices begin wearing masks to arguments.” <a href="https://t.co/petcj6q1nK">pic.twitter.com/petcj6q1nK</a>
&mdash; 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) <a href="https://twitter.com/mrddmia/status/1483590769806135297?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 19, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/18/supreme-court-gorsuch-refused-to-wear-mask-despite-sotomayors-covid-concerns.html">CNBC</a> noted that Gorsuch was &#8220;the only justice in the courtroom not to wear a mask during oral arguments,&#8221; while both Justices Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer participated remotely. &#8220;Breyer, at 83 the oldest member of the court, stayed out of the courtroom after a spokesperson said he received the results of a Covid test that was later determined to be a false positive,&#8221; the outlet reported.
Recently, Sotomayor made false statements when the Court considered President Joe Biden&#8217;s vaccine mandates for health care workers and for corporations that employ more than 100 people. Sotomayor claimed, &#8220;We have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition and many on ventilators.”
Fox News’ Bret Baier noted, “The number is not 100,000, it’s roughly 3500 in hospitals now.”
Even the leftist site <a href="https://dailywire.com/news/politifact-slams-liberal-justice-sotomayor-for-claiming-100k-kids-in-serious-condition-with-covid/">Politifact</a> acknowledged that Sotomayor’s statement was &#8220;False,&#8221; <a href="https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jan/07/sonia-sotomayor/fact-checking-sotomayor-kids-severe-covid-19/">writing</a> in part:
<blockquote>While the number of coronavirus-positive pediatric hospitalizations has risen with the spread of the omicron variant, Sotomayor’s number was way off. 
At the time she made this comment, federal data showed that fewer than 5,000 coronavirus-positive children were in the hospital. In fact, fewer than 83,000 children have been hospitalized for COVID-19 — cumulatively — since August 2020. 
There are over 100,000 cases among children, but scientists say that few of those are severe.</blockquote>
In February 2020, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz (TX) compared left-leaning Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor to an “arsonist,” after she attacked the five justices on the court who ruled in favor of the Trump administration’s request for an emergency stay on a lower court&#8217;s nationwide injunction against its “public charge” rule. That rule banned non-citizens from receiving a green card if the government believed those non-citizens would rely on public assistance.
Sotomayor suggested the five conservative justices had demonstrated bias for the Trump administration. Cruz responded, &#8220;I read it a little bit like an arsonist complaining about the noise from the fire trucks.”
The Daily Wire <a href="https://dailywire.com/news/cruz-torches-sotomayor-like-an-arsonist-complaining-about-the-noise-from-the-fire-trucks/">explained</a>:
<blockquote>The progressive justice, Cruz suggested, has the whole problem backwards. The issue is not that the Trump administration is requesting emergency stays on lower court&#8217;s injunctions, or that the Supreme Court is granting those stays. The problem is that activist judges in lower courts are excessively blocking Trump administration policies. “
If you look to the facts of what’s happening with nationwide injunctions, I think it will explain why the Department of Justice has had to ask the Supreme Court to intervene over and over again,” said Cruz.</blockquote>
This article has been updated to include Fox News&#8217; report that Roberts did not issue a blanket request that justices be masked during oral arguments.

pjimage-2

Liberal Sotomayor Won’t Attend SCOTUS In Person Because Gorsuch Won’t Wear A Mask: Report

masks

Menu