This morning the Supreme Court gave conservatives (and other sensible Americans) three victories and the truly remarkable element is that these decisions were unanimous. Since this is a breaking news story, we won’t go very deep into any of them but the short version is that they said that civil rights law protects straight people from discrimination, that the First Amendment protects Catholic Charities’ religious freedom and that Federal law protects a gun manufacturer from anti-Second-Amendment lawfare.
So, let’s get through this, shall we?
The cut off text:
Judge-made doctrines have a tendency to distort the underlying statutory text, impose unnecessary burdens on litigants, and cause confusion for courts. The ‘background circumstances’ rule—correctly rejected by the Court today—is one example of this phenomenon.’
So that is the case where they ruled in favor of straight people being protected from discrimination and while we won’t be doing any deep analysis, this also holds implications for anyone in so called ‘reverse discrimination’ cases. Basically, it means white people are as protected as anyone else from racial discrimination, men are as protected as women from sex discrimination and so on.
On to the next haymaker:
The cut off text:
As many of us argued, the lawsuit should have been barred under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Big win for gun manufacturers and, by extension, gun rights advocates.
What was happening there was that the government of Mexico was suing Smith & Wesson because their guns were showing up in Mexico. You know, rather than just controlling the border like a normal country. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was Federal legislation designed to protect gun manufacturers from being sued out of oblivion through lawfare. The Supreme Court ruled that this law protects Smith & Wesson. SCOTUSblog, which famously quit Twitter/X and then quietly came crawling back to it, has more information:
That means that Mexico didn't even properly allege, let alone prove, that Smith & Wesson had any responsibility for any of their guns going down to Mexico.
Finally, we have the Catholic Charities case:
That line about neutrality is talking about neutrality among religions, and is quoting from a case that also says there has to be neutrality between religion and non-religion.
There are other opinions—five in total this morning—but these appear to be the big ticket items. We might do more analysis or reactions later, but we wanted to get this information to you quickly.
RELATED: If You Thought Democratic Rhetoric on Immigration Was Racist, Wait Until You See This (VIDEO)
New Details About Mohamed Soliman As He Is Indicted in Boulder Firebombing Case (With LAWSPLAINING)
WATCH: Jasmine Crockett Says Biden’s Cognitive Decline Was a False Narrative
LAWSPLAINING: Margot Cleveland Suggests That the FBI Has Systematically Violated Defendants’ Rights
‘First Do No Harm:’ Fisking John Oliver on the Transgender/Sports Issue
The Question Isn’t Whether Trump Can Revoke Biden’s Pardons. It’s Whether They Were Issued at all
Editor’s Note: Radical leftist judges are doing everything they can to hamstring President Trump’s agenda to make America great again.
Help us hold these corrupt judges accountable for their unconstitutional rulings. Join Twitchy VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.