Mayor Mamdani And Governor Hochul Make FIFA World Cup Announcement

The Bizarre Strategy Where Losing Actually Helps You Win

The Worst People Imaginable Are Building The Future

Artificial Intelligence

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

Google Gemini

Matt Walsh

Opinion

Socialists

Sonia Sotomayor

Zohran Mamdani

Showing why her own colleagues have long viewed her as the abrasive outlier of the High Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor — who said in 2001, &#8220;I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn&#8217;t lived that life&#8221; —  recently decided that the hallowed traditions of Supreme Court protocol are secondary to her own progressive &#8220;lived experience.&#8221;
Speaking at the University of Kansas, the &#8220;Wise Latina&#8221; took a <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/sotomayor-faults-kavanaugh-over-immigration-stops-concurrence">verbal sledgehammer</a> to Justice Brett Kavanaugh, violating the unwritten rule that judicial disagreements stay within the mahogany walls of One First Street.
Sotomayor’s target was a concurrence Kavanaugh wrote regarding an emergency order on immigration enforcement. While Kavanaugh noted that brief stops for legal residents are typically just that—brief—Sotomayor went for the jugular, and she made it personal. Mocking Kavanaugh’s upbringing, she sneered, “This is from a man whose parents were professionals. And probably doesn’t really know any person who works by the hour.”
It was a stunningly low blow, even for Sotomayor. By attacking Kavanaugh’s class and background rather than his legal reasoning, she didn&#8217;t just breach collegiality; she set it on fire. Supreme Court protocol dictates that justices attack the argument, not the man. But for Sotomayor, identity politics is the only North Star, even if it means suggesting a colleague is too &#8220;privileged&#8221; to understand the plight of the working man.
Of course, this isn&#8217;t Sotomayor’s first time playing the role of the &#8220;grating&#8221; colleague. Her history on the bench is littered with instances where her peers—on both sides of the aisle—have cringed at her antics. Even the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a fellow traveler on the Left, was known to <a href="https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/supreme-court/is-sotomayor-finding-her-voice-or-alienating-her-colleagues/#:~:text=(His%20entire%20concurrence%20is%20a,for%20Jim%20Crow%20%22shameful.%22">trade barbs</a> with Sotomayor in footnotes, frequently questioning her interpretation of the law.
In the Schuette case, Sotomayor’s fifty-eight-page dissent was so vitriolic that Chief Justice John Roberts felt compelled to write a separate concurrence just to call her out for making legal disagreements personal. At the time, even The New York Times admitted her voice was grating on her colleagues. Antonin Scalia was even less diplomatic, famously labeling her comparisons of certain modern policies to Jim Crow as &#8220;shameful.&#8221;
The Supreme Court relies on &#8220;institutional glue&#8221;—the handshake, the shared meals, the omertà of the conference room—to function. Sotomayor, however, seems intent on dissolving that glue. While Justice Amy Coney Barrett <a href="https://www.law.georgetown.edu/news/engaged-in-a-common-enterprise-u-s-supreme-court-justice-amy-coney-barrett-reflects-on-judicial-independence-transparency/#:~:text='An%20act%20of%20the%20will,do%20with%20time%20spent%20together.%E2%80%9D">recently noted</a> that collegiality is an &#8220;act of the will,&#8221; Sotomayor appears to have willed herself into a state of permanent grievance. By publicly slamming Kavanaugh’s character, she has signaled that she is no longer interested in being a judge among peers, but rather an activist-in-exile, writing children’s books and airing dirty laundry because she can&#8217;t win the legal argument.

The Constitutional Court Celebrates Women’s Day

‘Wise Latina’ Sotomayor Breaks SCOTUS Protocol To Trash Kavanaugh’s Pedigree In Public

Brett Kavanaugh

Courts

Supreme Court

U.S.

Group Photograph Of U.S. Supreme Court Justices

Could This Supreme Court Case Permanently Destroy The Democrats?

Blacks

Elections

Ketanji Brown Jackson

Louisiana

Voting

Voting Rights

Whites

Within hours of the Supreme Court&#8217;s decision allowing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to resume sweeps in Los Angeles, California, several prominent Democrats across the city and the state issued statements complaining about the ruling.
Fox News National Correspondent Bill Melugin shared a few of their comments — from Los Angeles Democratic Mayor Karen Bass, Governor Gavin Newsom (D-CA), and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) — in a post on X.
&#8220;Reactions to SCOTUS allowing immigration sweeps to restart in LA: Mayor Bass: &#8216;Today&#8217;s ruling is not only dangerous, it&#8217;s un-American.&#8217; Gov. Newsom: &#8216;Trump&#8217;s hand-picked SCOTUS majority just became the Grand Marshal for a parade of racial terror in LA.&#8217; ACLU: &#8216;Outrageous.'&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Reactions to SCOTUS allowing immigration sweeps to restart in LA:
Mayor Bass: &#8220;Today&#8217;s ruling is not only dangerous, it&#8217;s un-American&#8221;.
Gov. Newsom: &#8220;Trump&#8217;s hand-picked SCOTUS majority just became the Grand Marshal for a parade of racial terror in LA&#8221;.
ACLU: &#8220;Outrageous&#8221;
— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) <a href="https://twitter.com/BillMelugin_/status/1965132720113418548?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 8, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Newsom&#8217;s full statement went a bit further, claiming that the Trump administration planned to hunt down anyone who looked Latino: &#8220;Every person is now a target.&#8221;
&#8220;@realDonaldTrump&#8217;s hand-picked SCOTUS majority just became the Grand Marshal for a parade of racial terror in LA. His administration is targeting Latinos — and anyone who doesn’t look or sound like @StephenM&#8217;s idea of an American — to deliberately harm our families and economy.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Trump&#8217;s private police force now has a green light to come after your family.
Every person is now a target.
California will continue to do all we can fight these abhorrent attacks on Californians.
— Governor Gavin Newsom (@CAgovernor) <a href="https://twitter.com/CAgovernor/status/1965127262531092507?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 8, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;Trump&#8217;s private police force now has a green light to come after your family. Every person is now a target. California will continue to do all we can fight these abhorrent attacks on Californians,&#8221; Newsom continued.
&#8220;I want the entire nation to hear me when I say this isn’t just an attack on the people of LA, this is an attack on every person in every city in this country. Today’s ruling is not only dangerous – it’s un-American and threatens the fabric of personal freedom in the U.S.,&#8221; Mayor Bass said.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
I want the entire nation to hear me when I say this isn’t just an attack on the people of LA, this is an attack on every person in every city in this country.
Today’s ruling is not only dangerous – it’s un-American and threatens the fabric of personal freedom in the U.S. <a href="https://t.co/mFU4ZCh93L">https://t.co/mFU4ZCh93L</a>
— Mayor Karen Bass (@MayorOfLA) <a href="https://twitter.com/MayorOfLA/status/1965129986307936354?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 8, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
At the nation&#8217;s highest court, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor registered her complaint as well, sounding quite a bit like the elected Democrats who object to federal immigration agents being permitted to enforce federal immigration laws.
&#8220;Instead of allowing the District Court to consider these troubling allegations in the normal course, a majority of this Court decides to take the once-extraordinary step of staying the District Court’s order. That decision is yet another grave misuse of our emergency docket,&#8221; Sotomayor protested. &#8220;We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job. Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Sotomayor dissent on SCOTUS decision on ICE raids in LA: “We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job. Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I…
— Jesse Rodriguez (@JesseRodriguez) <a href="https://twitter.com/JesseRodriguez/status/1965094959817572823?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 8, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

California Governor Newsom Announces Lawsuit Challenging Trump Tariff Authority

SCOTUS Decision On LA ICE Raids Triggers All The Right People

ACLU

Gavin Newsom

Illegal Immigration

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

Karen Bass

Politics

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s latest opinion pitted her against her fellow liberals on the bench and revealed her to be far less prepared for her weighty role than her peers, according to a legal expert.
Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, said Jackson’s dissent in a Wednesday court opinion showed her as unserious and unfit for the role of Supreme Court justice.
“What it tells me is that Brown Jackson is really at the far end of the spectrum and that the other justices are getting tired of her,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Wire.
Jackson was the lone dissenter in a court opinion that cleared the way for the Trump administration to begin crafting plans to downsize the federal workforce. The junior justice wrote that the majority opinion is “not only truly unfortunate but also hubristic and senseless.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, another liberal on the high court, wrote a concurrence siding with the majority
“I agree with Justice Jackson that the President cannot restructure federal agencies in a manner inconsistent with congressional mandates,” wrote Sotomayor. “Here, however, the relevant Executive Order directs agencies to plan reorganizations and reductions in force ‘consistent with applicable law’ … and the resulting joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and Office of Personnel Management reiterates as much.”
The court opinion and the split on the bench suggests that Jackson is ill-equipped to handle the intellectual rigors of the Supreme Court, according to von Spakovsky.
“This case was eight-to-one. Even justices Sotomayor and [Elena] Kagan joined with the majority because they didn&#8217;t want a dissent in this particular case,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Wire. “Only the lone dissenter, Brown Jackson, was once again, you know, engaging in an emotional tirade about the idea that — horror, shock — federal employees might actually lose their jobs.”
Jackson has been singled out in other cases as well. In a court decision last month over “birthright citizenship,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/justice-amy-coney-barrett-lays-the-legal-smackdown-on-justice-ketanji-brown-jackson">suggested</a> that Jackson’s dissenting argument was vacuous, or at least not motivated by any serious legal theory.
“The principal dissent focuses on conventional legal terrain, like the Judiciary Act of 1789 and our cases on equity,” wrote Barrett. “JUSTICE JACKSON, however, chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever. Waving away attention to the limits on judicial power as a ‘mind-numbingly technical query … she offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush.”
“I disagree often with what Justice Kagan and Sotomayor put in their decisions, but they at least try to have a legal basis for what they’re saying,” von Spakovsky said.
Jackson claims Trump’s plans to downsize the federal government is &#8220;needless&#8221; and &#8220;there’s no need for getting rid of federal employees,&#8221; von Spakovsky added. “That&#8217;s a policy decision. That&#8217;s got nothing to do with the law. That’s got nothing to do with the constitutional authority of the president to run the executive branch.&#8221;
&#8220;I think it&#8217;s just another sign that, frankly, she was a big mistake getting put on the court, and that she just doesn&#8217;t have the legal acumen to be on the court,&#8221; von Spakovsky said. &#8220;Sotomayor, Kagan, they do, even though I think they&#8217;re often wrong, but I don&#8217;t think [Jackson] does.&#8221;

Even Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Liberal SCOTUS Colleagues Tire Of Her Weak Arguments

Heritage Foundation

Transgender Rights Advocates Rally Against The Supreme Court’s Ban On Gender-Affirming Youth Care

The Trans Agenda Was Just Dealt A Fatal Blow

Clarence Thomas

Gender

SCOTUS

Tennessee

Transgender

transgender surgery

WPATH

This week’s Supreme Court decision in United States v. Skrmetti revealed a stark contrast between rigorous constitutional analysis and sloppy judicial reasoning.
While the six-judge majority correctly applied Equal Protection doctrine to uphold Tennessee&#8217;s commonsense restrictions on experimental medical treatments for minors, Justice Sonia Sotomayor&#8217;s dissent — to which her fellow liberal justices, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, signed on — is a masterclass in how not to interpret the Constitution.
Rather than actual Constitutional analysis, Sotomayor’s dissent relies on emotional manipulation and strained legal analogies.
The centerpiece of Justice Sotomayor&#8217;s dissent rests on a fundamental category error: borrowing reasoning from a case interpreting a civil rights statute and trying to apply it to a very different constitutional text.
Bostock v. Clayton County was the infamous 2020 case in which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the Court’s liberals and Chief Justice John Roberts to conclude that civil rights law barring employment discrimination “because of sex” also barred discrimination based on sexual orientation and transgender status.
Gorsuch’s error in that case grew out of his cramped application of textualism and turned on the precise meaning of the words “because of sex.” As flawed as Bostock’s reasoning was, that reasoning doesn’t apply to Skrmetti, because the words being interpreted in Bostock are found nowhere in the Equal Protection Clause. Instead, it simply prohibits states from denying &#8220;equal protection of the laws.&#8221;
This distinction matters enormously. In a democratic republic like ours, the people make law or adopt constitutional amendments through their elected representatives, and a great deal of negotiation and debate go into the exact words chosen. A court can’t simply decide that the meanings of two phrases in very different legal contexts are close enough for government work. Just because the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause both deal with discrimination doesn’t mean their reasoning is fungible.
Justice Clarence Thomas, who dissented in Bostock, pointed out this analytical flaw in his Skrmetti concurrence, noting that “[a]n abstract similarity between the purposes of the Constitution and a statute is not a license to import the statute’s interpretation into the Constitution, much less to ignore the Constitution’s text.”
It is telling that the dissent put so much weight on Bostock rather than analyzing the language of the Constitution itself, let alone the original understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment.
<blockquote>
<h2>Just because the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause both deal with discrimination doesn’t mean their reasoning is fungible.</h2>
</blockquote>
Perhaps more troubling than the dissent&#8217;s misuse of precedent is its shameless deployment of emotional manipulation where legal reasoning should prevail. Sotomayor devotes substantial space to the personal stories of the plaintiff families, describing children who felt &#8220;trapped in the wrong body&#8221; and parents who worried about their children&#8217;s &#8220;ability to survive.&#8221;
These stories may be heart-wrenching, but there are emotional stories on both sides in this case. Detransitioners speak of the deep regret and lifelong health challenges created by childhood treatments that permanently altered their bodies, sexual function, and fertility.
Constitutional law cannot be decided based on which side tells the most compelling sob stories. The Equal Protection Clause protects important rights, but those rights must be grounded in constitutional text, history, and precedent — not in judicial sympathy for particular litigants.
The dissent&#8217;s emotional appeals serve a strategic purpose: they distract from the weakness of the underlying legal arguments. When Justice Sotomayor cannot convincingly explain why Tennessee&#8217;s age-based and purpose-based medical regulations constitute sex discrimination, she pivots to describing tragic individual circumstances. This is advocacy, not constitutional interpretation.
We’ve seen this type of reasoning before. Instead of discussing the Second Amendment, we are treated to heartbreaking stories of shooting victims. When considering the constitutionality of Obamacare, one side discusses the meaning of the Commerce Clause while the other shows posters of children with cancer. The dissent&#8217;s methodology would transform constitutional law into a contest of competing narratives rather than a discipline grounded in legal principle.
<blockquote>
<h2>Constitutional law cannot be decided based on which side tells the most compelling sob stories.</h2>
</blockquote>
It’s not just judges who too often override their professional standards to advance political objectives. Most of the nation’s medical organizations have themselves become politically compromised and provide cover for results-oriented judges. Justice Sotomayor repeatedly cites the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, and similar groups as if they were neutral and unassailable scientific enterprises rather than advocacy groups wholly captured by progressive ideology.
This appeal to authority crumbles under scrutiny. Justice Thomas&#8217;s concurrence exposes the utter corruption of these supposedly neutral medical authorities. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), which provides the &#8220;scientific&#8221; foundation for these groups&#8217; positions, has admitted in internal communications that &#8220;evidence-based review reveals little or no evidence&#8221; supporting their recommendations. Yet they continue pushing these experimental treatments on children.
One WPATH contributor explicitly stated that medical guidelines should be tailored to &#8220;have serious effect in…law and policy settings.&#8221; Most damning, WPATH ultimately removed age limits for adolescent transgender surgeries after pressure from the Biden administration and specifically to avoid &#8220;devastating legislation.&#8221;
It’s telling that countries like England, Sweden, Finland, and Norway — hardly bastions of conservatism — have moved away from experimental transgender treatments on minors after honest scientific review. So much for the dissent’s alleged scientific consensus.
<blockquote>
<h2>Justice Sotomayor&#8217;s dissent in Skrmetti is a microcosm of the problems with results-oriented judging.</h2>
</blockquote>
When supposed medical authorities admit they&#8217;re pursuing political rather than scientific goals, citing their positions as neutral expertise becomes intellectually dishonest. The dissent never grapples with this evidence of institutional capture, instead treating politically motivated medical organizations as oracles of scientific truth.
Justice Sotomayor&#8217;s dissent in Skrmetti is a microcosm of the problems with results-oriented judging. Rather than honestly grapple with constitutional text and precedent, it deploys weak analogies, emotional manipulation, and appeals to compromised authority to reach a predetermined conclusion.
The good news is that this type of analysis, once commonplace in our constitutional law, is now relegated to a three-justice dissent.
Carrie Severino is the president of JCN and co-author of the bestselling book Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Court.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

The U.S. Supreme Court Poses For Official Group Photo

Justice Sotomayor’s Sloppy Reasoning in Skrmetti: Weak Analogies And Emotional Appeals

Skrmetti

The Supreme Court has now ruled in favor of the idea that you don&#8217;t have to be a member of a minority group in order to be discriminated against.
That is obviously true. The fact of the matter is that you can certainly be a white, straight male and be discriminated against, or, in the case reviewed by the Supreme Court, a white, straight female.
According to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/05/us/politics/supreme-court-straight-woman-workplace-discrimination.html">The New York Times</a>:
<blockquote>The Supreme Court on Thursday <a href="https://archive.is/o/WjYeY/https:/www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1039_c0n2.pdf">unanimously ruled</a> in favor of a straight woman who twice lost positions to gay workers, saying an appeals court had been wrong to require her to meet a heightened burden in seeking to prove workplace discrimination because she was a member of a majority group.
The decision came two years after the Supreme Court <a href="https://archive.is/o/WjYeY/https:/www.nytimes.com/2023/06/29/us/politics/supreme-court-admissions-affirmative-action-harvard-unc.html">struck down race-conscious admissions programs</a> in higher education and amid the Trump administration’s fierce efforts to root out programs that promote diversity. The ruling will place further pressure on employers and others to eliminate affirmative action and other initiatives that seek to provide opportunities to members of historically disadvantaged groups.</blockquote>
Leftist Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the opinion for the court. Again, remember this was a unanimous decision, so the three leftists on the Court, Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor, concurred. Despite the best attempts of The New York Times to turn the decision into a right-wing decision, it was not. It was unanimous.
The Times continued:
<blockquote>The standard for proving workplace discrimination under the law, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court, “does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group.” The case was brought by Marlean A. Ames, who had worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services, which oversees parts of the state’s juvenile corrections system. After a decade there, in 2014 she became the administrator of a program addressing prison rape. Five years later, she applied for a promotion. Her supervisors turned her down, saying she lacked vision and leadership skills. They eventually gave the position to a gay woman who had been at the department for a shorter time and, unlike Ms. Ames, lacked a college degree.
Not long after denying her the new position, her supervisors removed her from her existing job, telling her that they had concerns about her leadership and offering her a demotion that came with a substantial pay cut. She was replaced by a gay man with less seniority.</blockquote>
Ames claimed that she was discriminated against because she was straight.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bss-ep-2212-member-exclusive?elementPosition=2&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
Put aside the underlying facts of the case. The question here for the Supreme Court was whether she had to — as the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals suggested —prove that she was a member of a minority or face a heightened standard because she wasn’t a member of a minority group.
<blockquote>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, said she could have satisfied the “background circumstances” requirement by showing that decisions about her employment were made by “a member of the relevant minority group (here, gay people)” or with statistical evidence. But the appeals court said Ms. Ames had provided neither kind of proof.</blockquote>
The underlying facts of the case are less relevant than the actual ruling, which says that yes, of course, you can be discriminated against if you&#8217;re a white, straight person. If you&#8217;re a member of a majority group, you can indeed be discriminated against.
That should not be a shock in any way, shape, or form.
Good for the Supreme Court for ruling correctly.
* * *
<h3><a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=wisepops&amp;utm_campaign=dad&amp;utm_content=fathersdaygiftpopups">Gift Dad an All Access Membership. Use code DAD40 at checkout to save 40%!</a></h3>

US Supreme Court Slated To Issue Opinions As Term Nears End

Supreme Court Affirms: Discrimination Can Affect Majority Groups Too

Ben Shapiro

Discrimination

Women

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

Wisconsin

MixCollage-04-Dec-2024

This Could Be The Beginning Of The End For Gender Ideology

Gender Identity

Samuel Alito

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, 70, who has type 1 diabetes, is allegedly resisting leaving the court, reportedly disappointing leftists who want her to step down because of her health so that lame-duck President Joe Biden can replace her before President-elect Donald Trump takes office.
Sotomayor is the third-oldest member of the court; Justice Clarence Thomas is 76, and Justice Samuel Alito is 74.
“Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has made clear she has no plans to step down, according to people close to her,” <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/10/politics/sonia-sotomayor-supreme-court-remain/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CNN</a> reported.
“She’s in great health, and the court needs her now more than ever,” one source reportedly close to Sotomayor told CNN.
Leftists are concerned because liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died in 2020, refused to leave the court while she had cancer and Barack Obama was president despite public pleas to step down. One critic <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/14/ruth-bader-ginsburg-retire-liberal-judge" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a> in 2014, “She must retire. Right now. While we&#8217;re at it, Stephen Breyer should retire too. &#8230; If Ginsburg and Breyer wait to retire, it will only serve to maximize the possibility that a Republican president will choose their successor and in the process undo much of what they&#8217;ve worked for their entire careers.”
“Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg should retire from the Supreme Court after the completion of the current term in June,” another critic <a href="https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-chemerinsky-ginsburg-should-resign-20140316-story.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a>, “She turned 81 on Saturday and by all accounts she is healthy and physically and mentally able to continue. But only by resigning this summer can she ensure that a Democratic president will be able to choose a successor who shares her views and values.”
<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>
Obama met with Ginsburg in 2013 and reportedly <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/25/us/politics/rbg-retirement-obama.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">hinted</a> that she should leave the court. She did not. After her death from pancreatic cancer in late 2020, President Trump replaced her with Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
In January 2020, the Supreme Court ruled for the Trump administration, which had asked for permission on the “public charge” rule, banning non-citizens from receiving a green card if the government thought those non-citizens would rely on public assistance. Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/02/justices-grant-governments-stay-request-on-public-charge-rule-for-illinois/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a>, “That ruling put on hold a pair of orders by a federal district court in New York, which had blocked the government from enforcing the rule anywhere in the nation.”
The Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration could enforce that rule in Illinois while the federal government went ahead and appealed a judge’s ruling barring the federal government from enforcing it. That ruling prompted Sotomayor, who was nominated for her seat on the court by former President Barack Obama, to attack the five so-called “conservative” judges on the court who gave the Trump administration a 5-4 victory in the case as being biased in favor of President Trump, writing, “the Court’s recent behavior on stay applications has benefited one litigant over all others.&#8221;

King Felipe Receives Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Of The Supreme Court Of The United States

Sotomayor Won’t Step Down So Biden Can Replace Her: Report

Executive

Joe Biden

U.S. Marshals assigned to protect U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor reportedly shot an alleged carjacker who pulled a gun on them outside her home in Washington, D.C.
The incident happened around 1:15 a.m. on Friday when Kentrell Flowers, 18, pulled up next to the Marshal&#8217;s car, approached the driver&#8217;s side door, and pulled a firearm on two Marshals who were in the vehicle, The Hill <a href="https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4762036-sotomayor-home-us-marshal-shooting/">reported</a>.
One of the Marshals quickly drew his weapon and fired several shots at the suspect, hitting him in the mouth, the report said. The suspect was later transported to the hospital and arrested.
The vehicle that the suspect arrived in had been carjacked, police said.
It&#8217;s not clear whether Sotomayor, a leftist who was nominated by former President Barack Obama, was home during the incident.
&#8220;The Deputy U.S. Marshals involved in the shooting incident were part of the unit protecting the residences of U.S. Supreme Court justices,&#8221; Abigail Meyer, a spokesperson for the U.S. Marshals Service, said in a statement. &#8220;As a general practice, the U.S. Marshals don’t discuss specifics of protective details.&#8221;
Sotomayor has strong anti-Second Amendment views, including <a href="https://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/sotomayor-and-handguns/">believing</a> that the Second Amendment does not protect gun rights at a state level, <a href="https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4722209-sotomayor-rips-thomass-bump-stocks-ruling-in-scathing-dissent-read-from-bench/">attacking</a> conservative justices who overruled the federal government&#8217;s bump stock ban, and more.

Bodyguards For Leftist U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor Shoot Alleged Carjacker Outside Her Home: Reports

Crime

Washington D.C.

Menu