Supreme Court Rules Law Banning Disparaging Trademarks Is Unconstitutional

“I am THRILLED!  Hail to the Redskins.” said Redskins Team owner Daniel Snyder in a statement.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a federal trademark law banning offensive names is unconstitutional, siding with a rock band whose name had been deemed racially disparaging by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

In an 8-0 ruling, the court determined the law’s so-called “disparagement clause” violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.

The case centered on Oregon-based, Asian-American band The Slants, which was denied a trademark because its name was considered offensive. The band countered that the 70-year-old law at issue violates free-speech rights —  and Justice Samuel Alito, in the court’s opinion, agreed.

“The commercial market is well stocked with merchandise that disparages prominent figures and groups, and the line between commercial and non-commercial speech is not always clear, as this case illustrates. If affixing the commercial label permits the suppression of any speech that may lead to political or social ‘volatility,’ free speech would be endangered,” he wrote. FoxNews

Wikileaks: Soros Ally Colludes With Podesta On SCOTUS Pick



George Soros input on the U.S. Supreme Court pick!

An ally of liberal financier George Soros and Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta had multiple conversations concerning a replacement for late Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court, new emails released by WikiLeaks show.

The candidate who was discussed is something of an unconventional choice.

Chris Stone, president of the Open Society Foundations (OSF) — a network of foundations and projects founded and chaired by Soros — emailed Podesta mere hours after Scalia died Feb. 13 to discuss a potential successor. Before joining OSF, Stone was a professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and received accolades from Her Majesty’s government for his work in criminal justice reform in the United Kingdom.

“Remember our discussion of Wallace Jefferson, Chief Justice in Texas?” Stone wrote, under the subject line Scalia replacement. DailyCaller  Email

Democrat Senator Says Progressive Supreme Court Top Goal

United-States-Supreme-CourtA  judge is suppose to uphold U.S. law and the U.S. constitution.  Not push their agenda, which is what is seen with the liberal justices on the Supreme Court.

Justice Ruth Ginsberg “argues that the U.S. Supreme Court, assigned the task of interpreting the U.S. Constitution, should take into account the decisions and interpretations of foreign courts “engaged in measuring ordinary laws and executive actions against charters securing basic rights.” Her language means that she will give deference to courts in liberal Europe, where “the measuring [of] ordinary laws” has been influenced by treaties, charters, and cultural factors that have nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution.” AlbertMohler

Sen. Chuck Schumer has reminded us just how important the upcoming presidential election will be in shaping the federal judiciary, calling getting a progressive Supreme Court his “number one goal.”

“A progressive majority on the Supreme Court is an imperative, and if I become majority leader, I will make it happen,” Schumer, D-N.Y., said to attendees at a conference last week hosted by the Rev. Al Sharpton.

These statements should concern individuals with a proper understanding of the limited role of the judiciary. The next president will appoint at least one justice to the Supreme Court and could fill one-third of judgeships on the lower courts by the end of two terms.

And a “progressive” Supreme Court is not outside the realm of possibilities. DailySignal

Franklin Graham:  Senator Chuck Schumer, a liberal Democrat from NY, said that his “number one goal” is to see a progressive Supreme Court. What does progressive mean? More and more it means secular and godless. He wants a court with judges like the unjust judge in the Bible who did not fear God. A progressive Court will be no friend to the Christian faith. A progressive Court does things like overruling 31 states and creating same-sex marriage. A progressive Court feels free to ignore the Constitution and create new law out of thin air.

The Court Senator Schumer envisions would be devastating for the future of America. We desperately need judges in this nation who fear God and have reverence for His standards. No matter what the media wants you to think, the upcoming presidential election is not about personalities, tone, taxes, or emails. Schumer is right about one thing—this election is about the Supreme Court.

Donald J. Trump has released a list of potential Supreme Court nominees and we have those posted for you at as you research and pray. It would be helpful if Hillary Clinton would release her list to help us all become more informed, and we would include her list on our site as well. Facebook

Hacked Documents Show George Soros’ Foundation Tried To Influence The U.S. Supreme Court Justices On Immigration Case

United-States-Supreme-CourtSoros’ tentacles seems to be everywhere trying to create chaos.

In one memo written to members of the organization’s board  – which include journalists and members Soros’ wealthy family – in February, officials for the foundation’s U.S. operations set a goal of influencing a positive outcome in the U.S. vs. Texas Supreme Court Case.

‘Grantees are seeking to influence the Justices (primarily via a sophisticated amicus briefs and media strategy) in hopes of securing a favorable ruling in U.S. v Texas,’ the memo notes.

The case dealt with an Obama executive order that would have give the illegal immigrant parents of U.S. citizens the right to stay in the country – an order that would have applied to millions of illegal immigrants.

By the time the court got around to making a decision on the case, Antonin Scalia had died, effectively tying the justices on the issue.

Therefore, the lower courts’ ruling to overturn the order was held.

The memo is perhaps shocking considering that the OSF officials were directly asking members of the media to write favorably in an attempt to sway the justices to defend the Obama order.  DailyMail

Supreme Court Blocks Virginia Transgender Student from Using Boys Bathroom

United-States-Supreme-CourtThe Obama administration is trying to reinterpret Title IX to include “gender identity”.

“This is very good news that the Supreme Court blocked this silly ruling that says a girl can use the boy’s restroom and vice versa,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. “The federal law never intended to allow people to change their general by fanaticizing they are something other than reality. This is the stuff of make believe and fantasy and should not be engaged in by learned judges. I am pleased the Supreme Court blocked this ruling before children return to school,” said Staver. CanadaFreePress

The Supreme Court intervened for the first time Wednesday in the controversy over transgender rights and blocked a lower court ruling that would have allowed a transgender boy to use the high school restroom that fits his “gender identity.”

In an unusual 5-3 order, the justices granted an emergency appeal from a Virginia school board which said it is fighting to “protect the basic expectations of bodily privacy of Gloucester County students.”

The school was seeking to be exempted from the Obama administration’s position that schools nationwide are required under a new interpretation of existing federal law to allow transgender students to use the bathroom they preferred. LATimes

Report: Supreme Court Justice Thomas Considers Retirement

Clarence_ThomasUpdate:  A report suggesting Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas would soon step down has been soundly rejected by Thomas’ wife.    Columnist Paul Bedard on Monday stood by his sources.  HuffPo

The next president will tip the balance of the Supreme Court and could appoint 1-5 Supreme Court Justices.

Appointing a new Justice to fill Justice Scalia’s vacancy.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 83.  Anthony Kennedy turns 80 this year and Stephen G. Breyer will be 78 this year.

Now reports of Justice Thomas considering retirement.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is reportedly considering retirement from the nation’s high court after this year’s presidential election.

Appointed by former President George H.W. Bush and approved by the Senate in 1991 after bitter confirmation hearings, the conservative’s retirement, along with the vacancy left by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, would have a big impact on control of the high court.

The court is currently divided 4-4, the next president will certainly tip the balance with a replacement for Scalia. Republican Justice Anthony Kennedy, considered a swing vote on the high court, will be 80 next year, the Examiner notes. NewsMax

Donald Trump Unveils His Potential Supreme Court Justice Nominations

United-States-Supreme-CourtTrump’s potential Supreme Court Justice nominees list contains conservative constitutionalist.

The [Trump] campaign’s statement emphasized that the list was compiled “first and foremost, based on constitutional principles, with input from highly respected conservatives and Republican Party leadership.”

The NY Times looks at the bench of people Trump would consider nominating – – Click here to read the list.

Supremes Take Up Case That Could Subject Jurors To Investigation For Racial Bias After Convictions


The next president could appoint 1-4 Supreme Court Justices.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 83.  Anthony Kennedy turns 80 this year and Stephen G. Breyer will be 78 this year.

Courts:   When Hillary Clinton and other liberals claim “systemic racism” in criminal justice, they’re not just talking about cops and courts. They also think juries are racist, and they’re pushing “reforms” to second-guess their verdicts.

Several liberal groups, including the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, are backing a major lawsuit that aims to subject jurors to investigation for racial bias after they convict criminals.

If they succeed, defense lawyers could challenge convictions based on the vaguest notions of bias, and there are liberal judges who would no doubt agree to overturn them.

This week the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear their crusading case: Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado.

Hispanic immigrant Miguel Pena-Rodriguez claims his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury was violated when the state convicted him of criminal sexual contact with two teenage girls. Despite overwhelming evidence against him, Pena-Rodriguez insists he was railroaded because a juror was biased against illegal immigrants.

Most states, along with the federal courts, prohibit the questioning of jurors about claims that one of the members of their panel engaged in misconduct while the jurors were making up their minds.

Largely to protect their privacy, jurors don’t have to testify about their deliberations behind close doors. The rule also is intended to promote the finality of verdicts.


Obama’s SCOTUS Pick Cited YouTube Video Lie For Benghazi Deaths

Merrick Garland
Merrick Garland

No!  Merrick Garland is the nominee for a pivotal position on the Supreme Court.  Judge Garland cited the You Tube video “Innocence of Muslims” for the death of Americans during the Benghazi attacks, court transcripts show.

Long after it was established that the Obama administration lied about an anti-Muslim internet video sparking the riot that killed the U.S. ambassador in Libya, the president’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, cited the tale as fact in a federal court hearing involving Judicial Watch. Here is an official transcript of the proceeding.

JW was arguing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and Garland was one of the three judges on the panel. The case involves a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit requesting the release of dozens of images of Osama bin Laden’s body captured after the Al Qaeda leader was killed in a 2011 raid by U.S. Special Forces. The hearing took place on January 10, 2013, long after it had been confirmed that the president and his cohorts lied to cover up the facts surrounding the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attacks….

Judge Garland suggested that it was within the executive branch’s right to claim the images would negatively impact national security and pointed to what he asserted were examples of Americans getting killed after certain information got released.  One news outlet that covered the 2013 hearing tore apart the cases cited by Garland, which included “wrongly” stating that Ambassador Stevens was killed in Benghazi during riots that were triggered by a YouTube video. The other was an inaccurate 2005 Newsweek report that suggested a Koran was flushed down a toilet at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Newsweek eventually apologized for the false report that got picked up by media in Afghanistan and Pakistan, igniting violent anti-American demonstrations that killed four and injured dozens. Judicial Watch

Lecture: Justice Antonin Scalia On Capitalism, Socialism, And Christian Virtue

Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died unexpectedly on Saturday.

Scalia gave a lecture on the question “Is Capitalism or Socialism More Conducive to Christian Virtue?” in 2013 at the Lanier Theological Library in Houston, Texas.  Justice Scalia was careful when at the lecture to state he was “speaking as a Christian and not a federal judge.”

“Is Capitalism or Socialism More Conducive to Christian Virtue?”

“While I would not argue that capitalism as an economic system is inherently more Christian than socialism … it does seem to me that capitalism is more dependent on Christianity than socialism is.”

Scalia’s lecture includes defining the terms “Right” and “Left” and his use of them refers to capitalists and socialists.

While I would not argue that capitalism as an economic system is inherently more Christian than socialism … it does seem to me that capitalism is more dependent on Christianity than socialism is. For in order for capitalism to work – in order for it to produce a good and a stable society – the traditional Christian virtues are essential.

Test of a good government:

“I do not believe a Christian should choose his government on the basis of which shall be more conducive to his faith any more than he ought to choose his toothpaste on that basis. To be sure, there are certain prohibitions. A Christian should not support a government that suppresses the faith, or one that sanctions the taking of innocent human life, just as a Christian should not wear immodest clothes. But the test of the good government, like the test of well-tailored clothes, is assuredly not whether it helps you save your soul.”

“Government is not meant for saving souls, but for protecting life and property and assuring the conditions for physical prosperity. Its responsibility is the here, not the hereafter, and the needs of the two sometimes diverge.

It may well be, for example, that a governmental system which keeps its citizens in relative poverty will produce more saints. The rich, Christ said, have a harder time getting to heaven. But that would be a bad government nonetheless. This recognition of the separate spheres of church and state is not just a teaching of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. It is also, I think, the teaching of Jesus Christ who spoke of rendering to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s, and who is regarded as not having indicated any preference about government – except one: he did not want the people to make him king.”

The lecture is on a very important topic relative today.  Scalia explored the values of capitalism and socialism and which economic system was most conductive to promote not just the common good but the Christian common good.

“I know of no country where the churches have grown fuller as the government has moved leftward. The churches of Europe are empty. The most religious country in the West – belief in God, church membership, church attendance – is that bastion of capitalism least diluted by socialism, the United States

Scalia’s answer to the question is interesting and worth the time to listen too.

US Supreme Court Approves Gay Marriage In 5-4 Decision

Once again the federal government has taken control over an issue that should have been left in the hands of state legislative bodies.

First line of Justice Scalia’s dissent:  “I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.”

Justice Roberts in his dissent stated:  “But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered).”

In a blistering dissenting opinion, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia said the decision shows the court is a “threat to American democracy.” The ruling “says that my ruler and the ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court,” Scalia added.

In a blistering dissenting opinion, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia said the decision shows the court is a “threat to American democracy.” The ruling “says that my ruler and the ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court,” Scalia added.

Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts read a summary of his dissent from the bench, the first time he has done so in his 10 years on the court. Roberts said although there are strong policy arguments in same-sex marriage, it was not the court’s role to force states to change their marriage laws.

“Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law,” Roberts wrote.

The dissenters raised concerns about the impact of the case on people opposed to same-sex marriage on religious grounds.

Although the ruling only affects state laws and religious institutions can still choose whether to marry same-sex couples, Roberts predicted future legal conflicts.

“Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage,” Roberts said. Roberts gave as an example a religious college that provides married student housing only to opposite-sex couples.  France24

The full decision.

Online:  Albert Mohler-Special Edition of the Briefing: The Supreme Court’s Ruling on Same Sex Marriage.  Worth listening to no matter where you stand on this issue.

Supreme Court Argument: Between Gay and Religious Rights-“It is Going to Be an Issue”


Four cases were consolidated into one that is before the Justices.  Challenges to laws in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee that ban gay marriage or do not recognize gay uniions from states where they are legal.   The Supreme Court is considering two questions: Does the 14th Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? And does the 14th Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

Three of the more conservative justices voiced questions over religious interests.

The first exchange on religious liberty came as Justice Antonin Scalia asked Mary L. Bonauto, lead counsel arguing for same-sex marriage, if clergy would be required to perform same-sex ceremonies. Bonauto insisted that declaring a constitutional right for gay marriage would not require clergy of any faith to perform same-sex ceremonies.

The second exchange was between Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Solicitor General Verrilli, also arguing for same-sex marriage. The Chief Justice asked: “Would a religious school that has married housing be required to afford such housing to same-sex couples?”

The Solicitor General did not say no. Instead, he said that the federal government, at present, does not have a law banning discrimination in such matters on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. As for the states, “that is going to depend on how the States work out the balance between their civil rights laws, whether they decide there’s going to be civil rights enforcement of discrimination based on sexual orientation or not, and how they decide what kinds of accommodations they are going to allow under State law.” He went on to say that “different states could strike different balances.”

Make no mistake. The Solicitor General of the United States just announced that the rights of a religious school to operate on the basis of its own religious faith will survive only as an “accommodation” on a state by state basis, and only until the federal government passes its own legislation, with whatever “accommodation” might be included in that law. Note also that the President he represented in court has called for the very legislation Verrilli said does not exist … for now.

Verrilli’s answer puts the nation’s religious institutions, including Christian colleges, schools, and seminaries, on notice. The Chief Justice asked the unavoidable question when he asked specifically about campus housing. If a school cannot define its housing policies on the basis of its religious beliefs, then it is denied the ability to operate on the basis of those beliefs. The “big three” issues for religious schools are the freedoms to maintain admission, hiring, and student services on the basis of religious conviction. By asking about student housing, the Chief Justice asked one of the most practical questions involved in student services. The same principles would apply to the admission of students and the hiring of faculty. All three are now directly threatened. The Solicitor General admitted that these liberties will be “accommodated” or not depending on how states define their laws. And the laws of the states would lose relevance the moment the federal government adopts its own law.

The third exchange on religious liberty came as Justice Samuel Alito asked Verrilli about the right of religious institutions to maintain tax-exempt status, citing the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the Internal Revenue Service to strip Bob Jones University because of that school’s policy against interracial dating and interracial marriage. That policy of Bob Jones University remains a moral blight to this day, even though the university has since rescinded the policy. Bob Jones University stood virtually alone in this unconscionable policy, but the Court’s decision in that lamentable case also set the stage for Justice Alito’s question — “would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?”

Pay close attention to Solicitor General Verrilli’s response:

“You know, I — I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I — I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is — it is going to be an issue.”

Verrilli’s pauses no doubt indicate that he understood the importance of what he was saying — “It’s going to be an issue.”  Albert Mohler