Archive for the ‘the courts’ Category

Apparently taking the jobs of Massachusetts State Police members who did not get the vax wasn’t enough for our state:

The head of the State Police has informed troopers fired for failing to get COVID shots that their permits to carry firearms will be “expired” as of next week.

Col. Christopher Mason’s letter, obtained by the Herald, adds the ex-troopers’ ability to possess guns or ammunition will be suspended until they seek licensing through their hometowns.

All the officers were subject to the governor’s Vax mandate and were denied exemptions without the right to appeal so now it’s surrender your legally purchased guns and ammo or become a felon:

“You will no longer be permitted to have firearms, rifles, shotguns, machine guns, large capacity feeding devices, and ammunition in your possession. Possession of a firearm and/or ammunition without an LTC is a criminal offense” he wrote, with the last two words in boldface.

Former troopers have been advised, according to the letter, that they must surrender their firearms to a licensed person for the time being and that they must go through their hometown police chief in order to get a new license approved — a process that can take months.

Hey defy the vax mandate and out go your basic rights.

I think given what we’ve seen both from SCOTUS and now lower courts in response to these rulings, this is a rather winnable SCOTUS case, but if they don’t want to go through that hassle I’m sure there are Red States that would love to have trained State Police move on down and join their forces.

The race between my death from old age and Massachusetts becoming a state that is unlivable for free people continues apace.

Was part of an interested twitter exchange that will make a better post than what I was going to write:

It started with my reply to a Mollie Hemmingway tweet:

A fellow (or lady) by the name of Still following took umbridge at my suggestion that the left would consider the murder of a justice who opposed them a good thing:

I’ll give him/her/it full marks for suggesting that the protests (which are illegal under federal law) are wrong but his attempt to pivot to “republicans support the murder of citizens is so weak and such a standard response by the left that it’s almost not worth fisking, but I had the time…

I then started to note this piece at powerline rather than the tweets quoting the piece let’s just quote it directly:

What do the Democrats think about attempted assassinations of Supreme Court justices? To my knowledge, neither Schumer nor Joe Biden’s handlers have commented. I surmise that the Democrats are hoping for one or more assassinations to take place before Biden is hustled out of the White House, so that his handlers can appoint a successor.

The attempt on Kavanaugh’s life has only emboldened the Democrats’ efforts to intimidate conservative justices. Thus, the dark money group called “Ruth Sent Us,” which has been behind much of the publication of justices’ home addresses and threats against their families, is calling for action against Justice Amy Barrett:

why not double down if there is no push back:

Barrett attends church “DAILY”? The horror!

What I would like to know is, who funds “Ruth Sent Us”? I hazard a wild guess that it is not some fringe group, but rather mainstream Democratic Party donors like, say, George Soros. I think the campaign to expose conservative Supreme Court justices and their families to the risk of assassination is not “extremist,” but rather has been orchestrated by the leaders of the Democratic Party–Joe Biden’s handlers, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and so on. And I think they hope that one or more assassins will succeed so that Biden’s handlers will be able to nominate one or more justices.

Let me remind you that this is the opinion of John Hinderacker. A lawyer who has a long steady record and not someone who just shoots his mouth off: He continues:

Does this speculation seem beyond the pale? Once, I would have thought so. But, apart from open advocacy of assassination by Democrats as in the tweet above, Democratic leaders haven’t done anything to rebut it.

And I can’t think of an alternative explanation of why Merrick Garland and other Democratic Party authorities have failed to enforce laws against demonstrating outside judges’ homes. I can’t think of another explanation of why leaders of the Democratic Party can’t bestir themselves to condemn an assassination attempt. I can’t think of another explanation for why the Washington Post buried news of the attempted murder of Justice Kavanaugh deep in their “local news” section.

The “local news” bit is of course in line with DaTechGuy’s 3rd law of Media Outrage but the Merrick Garland business reminds me of how lucky we were not to have this evil asshole on the court. My apologies for the language but I can’t think of something worse description to use that is printable. He concludes:

Nor can I think of another explanation of why leaders of the Democratic Party haven’t called off “Ruth Sent Us” in the wake of the Kavanaugh assassination attempt. Could they do so? I am pretty sure they could. But let’s find out! Who, exactly, is financing “Ruth Sent Us”? How do those people (or maybe just one person) relate to assassination-inciter Chuck Schumer and the Democratic Party generally?

Inquiring minds want to know. The effort to intimidate or, better yet, assassinate Supreme Court justices didn’t begin with marginal characters like Nicholas Roske, just like the idea of assassinating the House Republican baseball team didn’t originate with James Hodgkinson. The leaders of the Democratic Party are in the dock. Can they defend themselves?

So far, they haven’t even tried.

In fairness even if they wanted to speak I believe that there are two factors here preventing them:

  1. The people who are funding these guys have things on the left to shut them up
  2. They are afraid of they murderous loonies on their side because unlike us on the right they know they’re willing to kill

But there is one more reason while the argument of Still Following fails and this is it:

Nobody is claiming that the Uvalde shooter murdered those kids in protest over gun control o the fellow who shot up his surgeon did so because he objected to limits on magazine sizes or that the gang bangers in Chicago, Baltimore or Philadelphia are basically having a “national day of gunning down people in support of Heller”. For his argument to have the slightest bit of rationality that would have to be true.

But that’s the left for you. it’s all about the narrative and the political goals.

It amazes me that anyone is surprised at the left leaking an SCOTUS opinion concerning overturning Roe Vs Wade.

People who are willing to use riots, violence in US cities and draconian COVID sanctions, not to mention stealing election are not going to blink at breaking norms.


What I’m really interested in knowing is if one of the justices authorized said leak or hinted to a clerk to do so.

It’s no surprise to me if it’s true, remember dishonorable people don’t suddenly become honorable because they are elevated to a position of honor or hired to assist someone in such a position.


Back when the left could count one enough votes to keep their agenda going the left/media were all about the sanctity of the court. We’ve been seeing signs for months if not years that the left media is all in on abandoning said position.

There is no surer sign that the left believes they will not retake the court’s majority anytime soon then a tactic like this which hurts the institution and it’s reputation. If the court is not theirs then as far as they are concerned it’s not legit.


As a general rule you will see Roberts vote with the right in three situations:

  1. If the right already has five votes without him so it doesn’t matter
  2. If the left already has five votes without him so it doesn’t matter
  3. If it’s an issue that the left is not invested in.

If however you have a key issue like Obamacare where he can give the left the winning vote he’ll always vote with the Obama crowd.

This time it’s different. If the left can’t intimidate one of the five actual conservatives Roberts vote would not matter in theory but if they can’t change the end result the next best thing the can do is make it a 5-4 vote in order to make it seem less legit so without a doubt Roberts vote will be required of him by the left.

That to me will be the key tell that the left has something on John “Old Yellowstain” Roberts to keep him in line. If you didn’t believe it before before you’d better start believing it now.

I’d be delighted to be proven wrong, but frankly if he becomes the 6th vote to overturn I think the shock might be too much for me.


Finally it will be quite interesting to see how far the left goes in terms of violent protect in DC. Given that there are still dozens of people still being held without trial for basically trespassing on January 6th how the Capital Police and the AG & White House treats people who go over the line here is going to be VERY telling.

I predict that anything short of actually murdering a conservative justice will not rise to the level of “insurrection” to the press, and even that might still cause any protests to be called “mostly peaceful”

Unexpectedly of course

I’m not going to bother with a long essay here I’m going to explain this provocative statement in just a few sentences.

For the last several years we have seen it clearly demonstrated that the left and it’s gatekeepers are dishonest and dishonorable who have lied, cheated, stolen elections, persecuted political enemies while allowing rioters to go free and enriched themselves and those who willing to aid them in these efforts to a point where I’m actually surprised that we haven’t ended up with a shooting war here.

These very people have now advanced Ketanji Brown Jackson as their primary choice to be on the final arbiter of justice in these United States and moreover they have done so over an alternative choice, favored by one of their own that not only met their dishonorable racial/gender quota1 but who, whose qualifications, honesty and integrity were vouched for by two members of the opposite party who are diametrically opposed to her judicial philosophy.

I submit and suggest that Judge J. Michelle Childs was not passed over because her honesty and integrity was doubted by these dishonest and dishonorable gatekeepers, but because it was believed and thus could not be counted to to advance the agenda of dishonest and dishonorable people.

And of course there is this, when you conceal documents it’s for a reason.

For these reasons I think anyone who does not start from the proposition that Judge Jackson is dishonest and dishonorable is a fool. If on the basis of objective facts and evidence you are persuaded otherwise that’s up to you, but any person who thinks bad actors advance good people to achieve evil ends are smoking something.


1Let the record show that neither Joe Biden nor anyone in his administration has been willing or able to define “Woman” or “Black”. I’d find it quite interesting to hear judge Jackson’s definition of either.