Supremes rule government cannot compel speech which violates beliefs about same-sex marriages, ruling should set precedent against pronoun requirements

 SIDES WITH WEB DESIGNER WHO REFUSES TO DO GAY SITES...

 Phillips’ lawyer, Kristen Waggoner, of the Alliance Defending Freedom, also brought the most recent case to the court. On Friday, she said the Supreme Court was right to reaffirm that the government cannot compel people to say things they do not believe. “Disagreement isn’t discrimination, and the government can’t mislabel speech as discrimination to censor it,” she said in a statement.

LOL Mexico soccer fans strike again, Las Vegas match called early because of Puto! chants

Things are really getting bad if you have to go to Mexico to escape the Nazis to practice the First Amendment.

 

Homophobic chants force US-Mexico soccer match to end early in Las Vegas

The United States men’s match against Mexico was cut short Thursday night by the referee after the stadium devolved into echoes of homophobic chants from Mexican soccer fans. ... Four players were ejected in a testy second half of the game, which the U.S. won 3-0 for a spot Sunday in the CONCACAF Nations League final against Canada.

Wait for it.

Every time you silence someone you make yourself a prisoner of your own action, because you deny yourself the right to hear something

 -- Christopher Hitchens, in

Fire in a Crowded Theatre 

. . . from David Irving’s edition of the Goebbels Diaries . . . I learned more about the Third Reich than I had from studying Hugh Trevor­ Roper and A. J. B. Taylor combined when I was at Oxford.

 

The problem with Rex Reed is the people he names in the same paragraph

 He's not a critic. He's a drive-by shooter.

 

  The people to whom we waved goodbye in 2021 were not all heroes.  Expect no celebratory parades for disgraced Ponzi schemer Bernie Madoff or Hustler  publisher and smut peddler Larry Flynt, but in fairness, Flynt was a brave advocate for First Amendment rights before he was gunned down by a racist extremist in 1978 and left paralyzed for the rest of his life. And “So long” to Prince Philip, 99, the Duke of Edinburgh, who left the monarch of England, Queen Elizabeth II, to endure the antics of her dysfunctional family alone.

More.

Twitter has suspended Alex Berenson this week for having the temerity to publish the Pfizer trials conclusion that 15 died in the vaccine group, 14 in the placebo

During the blinded, controlled period, 15 BNT162b2 and 14 placebo recipients died; during the open-label period, 3 BNT162b2 and 2 original placebo recipients who received BNT162b2 after unblinding died. None of these deaths were considered related to BNT162b2 by investigators. Causes of death were balanced between BNT162b2 and placebo groups (Table S4).

More.

Six Month Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1.full-text

The results receive considerable discussion in the comments section. Many people are uncomfortable given all the hype surrounding this "vaccine" when confronted with the result that 15 vax recipients died and 14 placebo recipients died from all causes.

Many will wonder if causes of death are balanced between the groups, what's the point of getting the vaccine?

And what was the point of the First Amendment again?

The idiots at Vox don't know that the constitution specifies a minimum congressional district size of 30,000

Here:

"Literally nothing in the Constitution prevents Congress from admitting the Obama family’s personal DC residence as a state — a state which would then be entitled to two senators, one member of the House, and exactly as much say on whether the Constitution should be amended as the entire state of Texas."

Article I, Section 2.3:

The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative;

You can't have two per thirty thousand, that is, one per fifteen thousand, let alone one representative for just four people.

It doesn't occur to the idiots at Vox, nor Harvard Law whence the idea comes, that the main problem with the federal government is that the US House concentrated power in its hands decades ago by stopping the growth of representation. It's been on a spending spree ever since, picking the taxpayers' pockets.

Why do you think we have a $23 trillion debt?

Giving Obama his own representative just makes the Obama family more like Wyoming, our least populous state, which already has too much representation relative to California according to these liberals.

The feds grabbed this power by fixing the number of representatives at 435 way back in 1929, contrary to the intent of the constitution, which required a census every ten years in order to add representatives to the US House as the country grew in size. The original First Amendment to the constitution would have fixed the formula at one per fifty thousand, giving us over 6,000 representatives by today. It failed ratification by just one vote. The bastards finally realized this loophole in 1929 and pulled a power play.

Yes, maybe some mega states like California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Ohio should be carved up to add states to the union and increase representation that way. Northern Californians and Southern Illinoisans already feel this way.

But carving up DC into a bunch of states? Really? It has about 705,000 residents total, less than the current average size of one US congressional district. If it were a state, the most representatives it should have today would be fourteen, but under the current way it's done, just one.

And the Obama family doesn't get its own private Representative to the US House, not while we're alive anyway. He got to be president for eight years. He can cast his useless vote now like everyone else.

What a farce is Vox. 

"Improper" drawing of congressional districts is not the problem, improper restriction of the number of districts is

To Fix Our Democracy, First End Gerrymandering:

Gerrymandering, the pervasive practice of drawing congressional districts for political purposes, owns a great deal of responsibility for the dysfunction of our government and the loss of trust among Americans in their government.

This story is a smokescreen obscuring the real problem, which is that Congress voted decades ago to stop the growth of representation. Gerrymandering is simply the problem you face after committing the offense of fixing the number of districts.

By 1930 the number of congressional districts had grown to 435, more or less naturally as required by the Constitution and the Census every ten years. The number would have kept growing, but the natural process was halted, by a bigoted, power hungry Congress.

The very people who are supposed to represent us stopped the growth of representation and fixed it at 435 in the 1920s, because they could.

The original First Amendment, never ratified with the rest of the Bill of Rights for want of but one vote, would have ensured the natural growth of representation with the natural growth of population in perpetuity by a formula. The argument was over the formula, so our forebears punted the problem, and the issue was never settled. Post-WWI, however, alarums began to sound over the expansion of the Congress to include lots of new representatives for America's burgeoning German-American population, so the Congress voted to fix representation at its then current level, 435, so they didn't have to sit next to the evil Hun in their own Capitol. (The Congress also effectively halted immigration, but that's another story).

So in 1930 one US representative held the power of the purse over 283,000 Americans, on average. Fast forward to today and a US representative can steal from 757,000 of us at a stroke, on average. How their power has grown, and how coveted the seats! Now you know why it takes $10 million to win one.

Just to get the ratio back down to 1930 levels, we'd have to have 1,163 congressional districts today instead of the 435 we do have.

Adding them would dramatically reduce the power the current 435 have over us, which is why it doesn't happen. Nancy Pelosi would have to herd 582 cats to get anything done instead of 238. And with 1,163 representatives, it's unlikely Nancy Pelosi would be the Speaker in the first place.

Redrawing the lines of this tyranny which they exercise over us isn't the solution. That's simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

The power hungry House is the biggest impediment to our democracy. Ironically, a bigger House is the answer, because it returns power to the people.

The First Amendment exists to help us identify our enemies, which is why the enemy wants to get rid of it

Chicago Tribune: Voters can fairly conclude Illinois Governor Rauner defeated alliance between unions and Democrats

Here:

Voters can fairly conclude that, with Wednesday’s Supreme Court verdict, Rauner defeated the long invincible alliance of public employee unions and Illinois Democrats. Voters may well give Rauner new respect as the Republican who dared to fight the twin Goliaths of Illinois politics and governance. He really did risk his political future when he picked this fight early in 2015. ... “Government union bargaining and government union political activity are inextricably linked,” he said one month after being sworn in early in 2015. “As a result, an employee who is forced to pay unfair share dues is being forced to fund political activity with which they disagree. That is a clear violation of First Amendment rights and something that, as governor, I am duty-bound to correct.”

Marco Rubio entertains infringing the Second Amendment

How about the First Amendment, Marco? Or the Sixteenth? or the Fourteenth? You skull full of mush.

Here:

"If we are going to infringe on the Second Amendment, it has to be a policy that will work," Rubio said in an interview Thursday with AP.

Hillary is an enthusiast for REGULATING the Bill of Rights, not for the rights themselves

Here:

[L]ike every other of our rights, our First Amendment rights, every right that we have is open to and even subject to reasonable regulations.  

It all depends on what the meaning of reasonable is.

Leftists shut down Trump rally in Chicago through sheer numbers, intimidation and violence

From a legal immigrant who was there, here:

What I did see, however, was fear. Fear from the rally attendees for their immediate safety, and fear of Donald Trump from the protesters.

More than that, I feel that I experienced today, for the first time in my life, true totalitarianism and authoritarianism, expressed laterally from citizen to citizen, in order to silence opinions from being shared. This enforcement was shared through sheer numbers and intimidation, and in a few cases, violence.

People brought their children, loved ones, and friends to attend the Trump rally. I saw an older Asian man and his white wife in attendance, and the looks on their faces when the rally was declared cancelled almost broke my heart. I saw scared children clinging to their parents’ sides as they exited the building to the screams of protesters. I saw a quiet, but excited crowd of Donald Trump supporters get thrown out of Chicago.

Worst of all, I saw the first amendment trampled, spit on, and discarded like trash.

Michael Savage attacks the pope for saying limits exist to free speech, ends up saying the same thing

Michael Alan Weiner

Michael Savage attacked the pope yesterday for two things: for stating that there are limits to freedom of speech, and for opining that human beings bear some responsibility for global warming.

Savage found the first idea an affront to the First Amendment of the US Bill of Rights ("Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"), wondering how the pope never heard of it.

The pope in his capacity as the vicar of Christ on earth, however, wasn't telling Congress to abridge the freedom of speech of anyone. He was simply reminding Christians everywhere (and chiding the secularists of France and the United States especially--hello Hugh Hewitt) to restrain their own speech as a matter of spiritual principle, in obedience to the teaching of Jesus:

"Hear and understand: not what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man. ... [W]hat comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man."

-- Matthew 15:10f, 18ff.

The pope was reminding the world that there is a higher law than the laws of France or the laws of the United States when it comes to what we say. Every Jew should be able instantly to recognize this idea, since practicing Jews frequently restrain their own speech as a matter of principle. They will often write "G-d" instead of "God" for fear of taking God's name in vain as the commandment in the decalogue warns. More to the point, every Jew should already grasp the Jewish basis for the Christian idea of self-restrained speaking because it comes from the prophet Jeremiah who said that "the heart is evil above all things". And neither do Jews have any excuse to be surprised by the doctrine since it is well worked out by the rabbis in the doctrine of "the evil inclination" which must always be guarded against.

Michael Savage, however, is lately more interested in removing the guards, indeed in "unprotected talk", rather than in the circumspect speech implied by his well-known motto of borders, language, culture. Freedom of speech as understood absolutely by civil libertarians is at war with that, because it leads to open borders, many languages and multiculturalism. Savage should understand by now that such libertarianism is incompatible with conservatism, and that when it comes to mental disorders, liberalism does not have a corner on the market.

The coup de grace came yesterday when Savage turned to the global warming statement made by the pope. Savage said he objected to the pope addressing a matter that had nothing to do with religion because it was outside the pope's area of expertise, outside his scope, as Savage put it, which it certainly is.

But isn't that nice. The pope exercises his freedom of speech on a matter not expressly religious and Savage all of a sudden wants to limit it, obviously because he disagrees with it but also because the pope is not an expert. But the pope has every right to speak his nonsense in the United States, whether religious or otherwise. The point of criticism on this matter should be on the substance of what the pope says, not on his role as pope supposedly "pontificating" about it.

In this still Protestant country, the pope is viewed as nothing more than a man who is no different from us, whether he speaks about the teaching of Jesus or anything else. We can say that the pope is right about the limits to freedom of speech as he stated them, and that he is probably quite mistaken about the human role in global warming, because on both counts we can look into the matter and decide for ourselves from the evidence.

We read, mark, learn and inwardly digest, but unless we do, we risk appearing Christians or Jews or Americans in name only.

Supremes unanimously slap down the King of constitutional law in the White House for 13th time

From John Fund here:

"Those decisions are very revealing about the views of President Obama and Eric Holder: Their vision is one of unchecked federal power on immigration and environmental issues, on presidential prerogatives, and the taking of private property by the government; hostility to First Amendment freedoms that don’t meet the politically correct norms; and disregard of Fourth Amendment protections against warrantless government intrusion. These are positions that should alarm all Americans regardless of their political views, political-party affiliations, or background."

Jimmy Carter appointee in Wisconsin overturns Defense of Marriage Amendment

As usual, the meaning of liberalism is to overturn by the decree of a single individual what the voters have passed into law. In other words, to impose what they can't pass. In this case the now 75 year old judge waited like a sleeper for many years until Barack Obama made it safe to unleash rulings against the people.

Barbara Brandriff Crabb, who has been inflicting herself on the voters since 1979 thanks to an appointment to the US District Court by Jimmy Carter, has previously ruled in 2010 the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional. A federal appellate court subsequently ruled she had no standing. She has also ruled in 2013 against the clergy exemption from income of housing allowances. In 2009 she ruled that Wisconsin's restrictions on judges against joining political parties, endorsing candidates and raising campaign funds violated their First Amendment rights.

Story here:

A federal judge in Madison on Friday overturned Wisconsin's gay marriage ban, striking down an amendment to the state constitution approved overwhelmingly by voters in 2006 and prompting an emergency action by the state to halt the scores of weddings that began in the state's two largest cities. ... In Wisconsin, voters in 2006 resoundingly approved the same-sex marriage amendment, 59% to 41%. Every county in the state except Dane voted for it.

Sean Trende Calls For A Larger US House But Never Mentions The Actual Language Of The Constitution

In "It's Time To Increase The Size Of The US House", here, Sean Trende of Real Clear Politics makes many of the same points we have made about the sorry state of representation in these United States, including the importance of the "unratified" Article the First as the real First Amendment as opposed to the mythology which has grown up around the default one.

As Trende ably shows, Article the First would have fixed representation eventually at 1 US representative for every 50,000 of population. He appears horrified, however, at the prospect of a Congress of 6,100 representatives today.

Is that why he never mentions Article I Section 1 of the actual constitution which is ratified and under which we are supposed to operate?

"The number of representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand . . .."

If 6,100 representatives is horrifying, the 10,533 representatives we should have according to the spirit of the actual constitution is downright heart-stopping. I can understand Trende not talking about this, but how come the Tea Party never does? After all, they carry the constitution around with them pretty much everywhere and are supposed to be the quintessential originalists these days, second only to Antonin Scalia.

This was the language Article the First was supposed to remedy. But as it stands, the constitution was ratified with this loophole specifying how many representatives we may not have, but not how many we should. As a consequence, when the light finally dawned on the dimwits in Congress in the 1920s that they could fix representation at the then current 435, they set up for themselves quite the little oligarchy of power, influence and corruption, and representation ceased to expand ever since. And along with that expanded our discontent.

That's why your congressmen doesn't know your name nor the name of the other 728,000 average constituents in his district. Nor does he care to. The only name in his Rolodex (sorry, I'm dating myself) is the Club for Growth or some such "org".

It's also why we have the other problems Trende mentions: malapportionment as in Montana, gerrymandering of the most unnatural sort just about everywhere, underrepresented minority enclaves and rural areas, and the expensive bought and paid for campaigns which depend on mostly outside money.

Trende mentions the British House of Commons has more representatives than we do, but the irony that they are better represented than we are never dawns on him. Nor does Trende mention New Hampshire. They have 400 in their House, a ratio of 1:3300.

America should be more like New Hampshire.  

Article The First, The Never-Adopted First Amendment, Sought To Increase Federal Representation Naturally

Your Congressman doesn't even know your name? Maybe there aren't enough of them, which is to say he or she represents too many people to represent you, so that we have representation without representation.

The first first amendment, Article I., sought to prevent this:

"After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred representatives, nor less than one representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than two hundred representatives, nor more than one representative for every fifty thousand persons."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ratified by many states but never adopted, the constitution ended up with different, open-ended language, which a later act of the Congress of the United States interfered with in the 1920s, fixing representation instead of letting it continue to grow with population:

"The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand . . .."

On this language we should have 10,490 representatives, not a fixed 435 (one for every seven hundred twenty-three Thousand at present). But on the language of Article the First, we might have had only 6,294 representatives.

The anti-federalists, however, who insisted on a bill of rights, couldn't imagine such numbers to be at all adequate to represent the people, and some of them called for one for every fifteen Thousand, which would have meant an astounding 20,979 federal representatives today.

Contrast such levels of representation with actual total representation in state legislatures in the US today (as of March 2013): 5,411, which represents a ratio of one for every fifty-eight Thousand. Clearly state government representation today, taken overall, most clearly approximates the levels of representation called for by the un-adopted Article the First for federal representation.

That said, residents of New Hampshire, with 400 representatives, are the best represented in the nation, at a ratio of one for every 3,302!

And Californians are among the worst represented with just 80 representatives to the state legislature, a ratio of one for every 475,518.

Supremes Slap Down Imperial Obama 3x In Last 18 Months In Property Cases 9-0

Story here:

"Horne was the administration's third unanimous defeat in a property rights case in 18 months."

-------------------------------------------------

It's not just the Fifth Amendment which has been under attack by the Obama regime, either. The Supremes also handed down two unanimous defeats in First and Fourth Amendment cases in 2012.

America, are you listening? Your president hates your constitution.

Lois Lerner Pleads The Fifth Amendment After Trampling On The First

Seen here.

US Embassy Cairo Decides Religious Feelings Trump Free Speech

I'm sure the Supremes are amused by the attempt to assert the priority of one clause of the First Amendment over another clause of the First Amendment.

I saved the screen shot from 9/12/12.

Speaking of not abusing the right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others, the news reports that The Piss Christ is back on display.

So let me get this straight. Muslims do not believe in the deity of Christ, nor of Muhammad for that matter, but if you insult Muhammad you must die.  But Christians in America worship Christ as a god but its government does nothing to protect them from hurt religious feelings when he is insulted.

So therefore the government of the United States thinks Islam is deserving of superior treatment, for some reason.

Gee, I wonder what that would be?