BREAKING: The Supreme Court Just Ruled Against the Democrats!!

Reports on Monday have confirmed that the Supreme Court has ruled against Democrats in a Wisconsin Gerrymandering case.

As reported by The Supreme Court on Monday sidestepped the issue of partisan gerrymandering, finding procedural grounds to rule against Democratic voters in Wisconsin and Republican voters in Maryland challenging their state maps.

The justices ruled narrowly against a group of Democratic voters in Wisconsin who challenged the state's 2011 redistricting plan as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander in a case known as Gill v. Whitford.

The court said the voters lacked standing to challenge the state's entire map and remanded the case back down to the lower court to give them an opportunity to prove how they were injured.

The voters alleged Republican legislators unfairly and strategically put them at a disadvantage, but in delivering the opinion of the court, Chief Justice John Roberts said the plaintiff's alleged harm, which is the dilution of their vote power, is an injury that is specific to their voting district.

"Remedying the individual voter's harm, therefore, does not necessarily require restructuring of all the state's legislative districts," he said.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch agreed that the voters lacked standing to bring the case forward, but dissented in the court's decision to send the case back to the lower court.

Another loss for Democrats in the Supreme Court. It seems like whenever the Democrats lose, the constitution wins.

What are your thoughts? Please share and comment with your opinions.

Posted Monday, June 18, 2018

This was also posted about 30 days ago.

BREAKING: The Supreme Court Just Made the Decision!

On Monday, The Supreme court struck down a law that targeted gun owners free speech in Minnesota. As reported by
The Supreme Court struck down a Minnesota law that forbade voters from wearing “political insignias” at polling places after the law was challenged by a voter who was told he must remove or cover his Tea Party shirt. It is beyond a doubt that the state’s application of the law unfairly discriminated against the free speech of NRA members. The lawyer for the state himself told the court that, under the law, a shirt with the slogan “Parkland Strong” would be permissible, while an NRA shirt would not. Ironically, while a shirt displaying the text of the First Amendment would be allowed, a Second Amendment shirt, which “could be viewed as political” would not. The Supreme Court was right to conclude that the vague standards set by the Minnesota law violated the right to free speech. Since a polling place is considered a public forum, government restrictions on speech may not discriminate based on speakers viewpoints. Clearly, Minnesota’s interpretation of what constituted forbidden “political insignias” was biased against the viewpoint of gun rights advocates. This case evidences, once again, the entwined nature of the First and Second Amendments. Without the First Amendment, we cannot advocate our support for the Second. As NRA members know, without the Right to Keep and Bear Arms the Right to Free Speech falls at the mercy of the whims of the government. It is ridiculous to assert, as the State of Minnesota did, that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is somehow “more political” than our other constitutional rights. We applaud the Supreme Court’s decision not to allow the State of Minnesota to shut down the expression of certain viewpoints, while allowing those they find favorable, under the guise of creating an apolitical space. NRA members, and all freedom-loving Americans, must continue to stand up to any government official or law that seeks to silence us based on our outspoken support of the Second Amendment.
This is a huge ruling for both the first and second amendments. Please share, share, share and comment with your thoughts.

Latest News