Category Archives: Supreme Court

#MarchForOurLives: Remember Kate Steinle and those responsible for her death


Kate Steinle: Murdered by an illegal alien in sanctuary San Francisco

Remember this:

The government FAILED Kate, just like every single government agency failed Parkland students.

The government has FAILED those who live in strict gun-controlled Baltimore:

The government has FAILED those who live in strict gun-controlled Chiraq:

#MarchForOurLives: Why have you “cover stars” been silent in raising the voice for the victims of gun violence in Baltimore and Chiraq?

Why have you been silent in the death of Kate Steinle? Kate was an AMERICAN CITIZEN killed by an illegal alien enabled by the government’s actions.

Blame the NRA all you want. Doesn’t change the facts that 1) criminals don’t follow the laws, 2) government agencies may fail to protect citizens, 3) when seconds count the police are minutes away (and even if they are on site they still may cower) 4) police do not have a Constitutional duty to protect you and 5) because of reason number 3 we need the Second Amendment for self defense.

Remember Kate Steinle today.



Mississippi passes law to limit abortion at 15 weeks

baby at 15 weeks

About a baby’s development at 15 weeks, from InfoBaby:

“This stage is very special, because many important organs of the fetal starts to develop. Central nervous system is developing, in the future it will have to control the whole body. The process of the development of the cerebral cortex and the division of nerve cells lasts one month. Therefore, you have to treat yourself very gently and carefully during the pregnancy.

The taste buds are already formed; the fetus now can clearly distinguish the taste of the mother’s food. If the fetus is male, at this term he starts to produce testosterone (male hormone).

At fifteen weeks the baby’s cardio-vascular system is developing rapidly, you can even see the vessels. The transparent skin of the fetus acquires reddish or pinkish color. The pigment of the hair color starts to appear. The heart is able to pump 20 liters of blood per day.

The intestines start to function well receiving the bile secreted by the liver, then feces are produced. The kidneys function well, and the fetus often exerts the urine in the amniotic fluids.

At the fifteenth week, lungs are developing through swallowing and spitting water. All the muscles of the baby are also developing actively. The glottis is now open as the voice cords are already formed.

The baby’s bones are growing and starting to get harder. The baby begins to move, turns and bump, opens and closes her fists, which contributes to the active development of joints and muscles. The hair begins to grow and thicken, the eye brows and eye lashes are forming and become visible.”

From The Guardian: Mississippi’s governor has signed the nation’s tightest abortion restrictions into law.

Governor Phil Bryant, a Republican, signed House Bill 1510 on Monday afternoon. It becomes law immediately and bans most abortions after 15 weeks’ gestation. Bryant has frequently said he wants Mississippi to be the “safest place in America for an unborn child”.

The law’s only exceptions are if a fetus has health problems making it “incompatible with life” outside the womb at full term, or if a pregnant woman’s life or a “major bodily function” is threatened by pregnancy. Pregnancies resulting from rape and incest are not exempted.

Abortion rights advocates are calling the law unconstitutional because it limits abortion before fetuses can live outside the womb. The owner of Mississippi’s only abortion clinic, Diane Derzis, opposes the law and has pledged to sue.

Derzis said after the state legislature passed the bill earlier this month that if the governor signed it – adding: “Phil Bryant has never seen an abortion bill he didn’t like” – her clinic would be forced to turn away women who seek abortions after 15 weeks and refer them out of state, where the number of clinics is also dwindling in the face of legal and legislative challenges by a resurgent anti-abortion, religious right movement.

A legal challenge could set up a supreme court showdown over the 45-year-old landmark Roe v Wade case that legalized abortion in the US in 1973.

Mississippi, a relatively poor state, has the highest infant mortality rate and worst overall ranking in the nation for children and infant care, according to the 2018 Health of Women and Children report published earlier this month by America’s Health Rankings, which has been publishing an annual state-by-state assessment for nearly 30 years, according to Newsweek.

(So why include the above? To justify keeping abortion legal at any time so one doesn’t have to raise a child in a poor state?)

Along with shortening the window in which a woman can seek to have an abortion, the law, also known as the Gestational Age Act, also says a person found guilty of performing an abortion after 15 weeks of gestation will face a felony conviction and up to 10 years in prison and could have their medical license suspended or revoked. Before the new law, Mississippi banned abortion after 18 weeks of gestation.


Bombshell: Jerome Corsi says Justice Antonin Scalia was a pedophile, murdered by 13 y.o. boy

Dr. Jerome Corsi, 71, is an author and columnist for WND (WorldNetDaily) and Human Events, as well as InfoWars‘ Washington, DC bureau chief. He received his Ph.D. in political science from Harvard University in 1972.

On February 26, 2018, Right Wing Watch (RWW) posted an interview of Dr. Corsi to YouTube, in which he made the startling claim that the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was a pedophile, who was killed by a 13-year-old boy in a “bad sex incident”.

Note: Right Wing Watch is a project of People for the American Way — the left-wing advocacy group founded by TV producer Norman Lear in 1980 for the express purpose of challenging the “moral majority” of the Christian right. RWW describes itself as reporting “on the extreme rhetoric and activities of key right-wing figures and organizations by showing their views in their own words.”

In the clip below, Corsi was asked why Justice Scalia’s name is “suddenly popping up” more than two years after his death.

Corsi replied:

“What surfaced in the last week, and again this is another one that is gonna be disturbing for many people, but there’s evidence that surfaced — and I’m not gonna say it’s true — it’s not proven, but evidence surfaced. First of all, QAnon has been saying Scalia was killed, but said from the beginning he was murdered. This has been a theme from QAnon for months.

So the story is the pedophilia ranch, a boy ranch for elite to go on these so-called hunting trips and have sex with young children, with young boys. The story is being circulated and with some, again, evidence that can’t be dismissed out of hand, that has to be investigated — that there was an incident with a 13-year-old boy, the story is. And it will mean that Scalia was involved in pedophilia, and it didn’t go well, and the kid cut his throat and killed him. It was then disposed as a bad sex incident . . . .

Again, we don’t have proof of this. We’re not saying it’s true. We’re not saying this is how it happened. But if you’re investigating, you’ve got to answer certain questions, again, that don’t fit together.”


We are told that on February 13, 2016, Scalia suddenly died in his sleep in his room in Cibolo Creek Ranch, a 1,700-acre ranch and luxury hotel in west Texas, only 15 miles from the US-Mexico border. To this day, Scalia’s death is shrouded in mystery. The things “that don’t fit together” include the following:

See “13 questions to ask about Justice Antonin Scalia’s death“.

Devil masks on dining room wall of Cibolo Creek Ranch

A man named David Shurter, who claims to be a victim of Satanic ritual abuse in the infamous Franklin child-prostitution ring in Omaha, Nebraska in the late 1980s to early 1990s, said he had been sexually abused by Scalia. See “Former Victim Claims Scalia Was a Pedophile“.


Supreme Court: Detained aliens are not entitled to US citizen right

At a protest against Arizona immigration law

One of the frustrating things about the problem of illegal “immigration” in America is that illegal aliens and their advocates demand — and are given —  rights that U.S. citizens have. To add injury to insult, illegal aliens are accorded public defenders — all paid for by taxpayers.

One of those rights is the right to bond after arrest and to bond hearings (Galantar Law):

  • Right to bond: When an individual is arrested, he/she is entitled to bond out of jail immediately.
  • Right to bond hearing: If you are being held without bond or you can’t afford the standard bond, you will need a bond hearing to get released. The hearing must take place within 24 hours of your arrest. If you are still in jail after your initial hearing appearance, you will need a criminal defense attorney to get you a bond or get your bond amount lowered. If you have a high bond, a lawyer can file a motion to lower your bond with your trial judge. At that time you must show that you are not a flight risk and that you have good ties to the community.

On February 27, 2018, in Jennings v. Rodriguez, the Supreme Court ruled 5-3 that detained aliens in the United States, such as asylum seekers and permanent residents, do not have the right to periodic bond hearings during the course of their detention. 

In effect and by implication, the government can detain non-citizen aliens for an indefinite period.

The 5 justices are Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch; the dissenting 3 justices are Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor. Elena Kagan recused herself, as she should, because she had been involved in Jennings v. Rodriguez as solicitor general in the Obama administration.

The History

The lead plaintiff in Jennings v. Rodriguez is Alejandro Rodriguez who came to the U.S. from Mexico as a child, was convicted for joyriding as a teenager, and became a U.S. permanent resident in 1987. In 2004, 24-year-old Rodriguez, still a Mexican citizen, was convicted and pleaded guilty to misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance. He remained in detention while the government sought to deport him to Mexico.

In May 2007, while still litigating his removal, Rodriguez filed a habeas corpus petition, claiming that:

  1. His “prolonged” detention was unjustified in the absence of a bond hearing.
  2. He was entitled to an individualized bond hearing.
  3. In that hearing, the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that his continuing detention is justified.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) took up Rodriguez’s case and filed a class action lawsuit. The infamous Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Rodriguez and the ACLU — that immigrant detainees and asylum seekers can’t be detained indefinitely and that they have a right to a bond hearing every six months, unless the government can show that the detainee would pose a danger or become a flight risk if set free.

And so, the ACLU won Rodriguez’s release and the cancellation of his deportation order. He remains in the U.S.

The Obama administration appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that Congress — not the courts — has the power to make immigration law and that the law allows the government to detain “criminal and terrorist aliens” as well as “aliens seeking admission to the United States.” The Trump administration continued the case by asserting that detained immigrants should not be recognized as a class that could bring legal action, but should rely on individual habeas corpus petitions to challenge their detentions.

The Ruling

Justice Samuel Alito penned the majority opinion in Jennings v. Rodriguez:

Every day, immigration officials must determine whether to admit or remove the many aliens who have arrived at an official “port of entry”… or who have been apprehended trying to enter the country at an unauthorized location. Immigration officials must also determine on a daily basis whether there are grounds for removing any of the aliens who are already present inside the country. The vast majority of these determinations are quickly made, but in some cases deciding whether an alien should be admitted or removed is not as easy. As a result, Congress has authorized immigration officials to detain some classes of aliens during the course of certain immigration proceedings. Detention during those proceedings gives immigration officials time to determine an alien’s status without running the risk of the alien’s either absconding or engaging in criminal activity before a final decision can be made. […]

To implement its immigration policy, the Government must be able to decide (1) who may enter the country and (2) who may stay here after entering. […] Even once inside the United States, aliens do not have an absolute right to remain here. For example, an alien present in the country may still be removed if he or she falls “within one or more . . . classes of deportable aliens.” §1227(a). That includes aliens who were inadmissible at the time of entry or who have been convicted of certain criminal offenses since admission. […]

U. S. immigration law authorizes the Government to detain certain aliens seeking admission into the country under §§1225(b)(1) and (b)(2). It also authorizes the Government to detain certain aliens already in the country pending the outcome of removal proceedings under §§1226(a) and (c). The primary issue is the proper interpretation of §§1225(b), 1226(a), and 1226(c). […]

In their complaint, Rodriguez and the other respondents argued that the relevant statutory provisions—§§1225(b), 1226(a), and 1226(c)—do not authorize “prolonged” detention in the absence of an individualized bond hearing at which the Government proves by clear and convincing evidence that the class member’s detention remains justified. Absent such a bond-hearing requirement, respondents continued, those three provisions would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. […]

And so, the Supreme Court ruled that:

Immigration officials are authorized to detain certain aliens in the course of immigration proceedings while they determine whether those aliens may be lawfully present in the country. For example, §1225(b) of Title 8 of the U. S. Code authorizes the detention of certain aliens seeking to enter the country. Section 1225(b)(1) applies to aliens initially determined to be inadmissible due to fraud, misrepresentation, or lack of valid documentation, and to certain other aliens designated by the Attorney General in his discretion. 

Section 1225(b)(2) is a catchall provision that applies to most other applicants for admission not covered by §1225(b)(1). Under §1225(b)(1), aliens are normally ordered removed “without further hearing or review,” §1225(b)(1)(A)(i), but an alien indicating either an intention to apply for asylum or a credible fear of persecution, §1225(b)(1)(A)(ii), “shall be detained” while that alien’s asylum application is pending, §1225(b)(1)(B)(ii). Aliens covered by §1225(b)(2) in turn “shall be detained for a [removal] proceeding” if an immigration officer “determines that [they are] not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled” to admission. §1225(b)(2)(A).

The Government is also authorized to detain certain aliens already in the country [referring to legal permanent residents like Alejandro Rodriguez]. Section 1226(a)’s default rule permits the Attorney General to issue warrants for the arrest and detention of these aliens pending the outcome of their removal proceedings. The Attorney General “may release” these aliens on bond, “[e]xcept as provided in subsection (c) of this section.” Section 1226(c) in turn states that the Attorney General “shall take into custody any alien” who falls into one of the enumerated categories involving criminal offenses and terrorist activities, §1226(c)(1), and specifies that the Attorney General “may release” one of those aliens “only if the Attorney General decides” both that doing so is necessary for witness-protection purposes and that the alien will not pose a danger or flight risk, §1226(c)(2). […]

Nothing in §1226(a), which authorizes the Attorney General to arrest and detain an alien “pending a decision” on removal and which permits the Attorney General to release the alien on bond, supports the imposition of periodic bond hearings every six months in which the Attorney General must prove by clear and convincing evidence that continued detention is necessary.

Writing for the liberal NPR, Domenico Montanaro, Richard Gonzalez and Nina Totenberg point out that:

The case, Jennings v. Rodriguez, has implications for legal permanent residents whom the government wants to deport because they committed crimes and for asylum seekers who are awaiting a court date after turning themselves in at the border. Immigrant advocates contend that many of these immigrants have a right to be free on bail until their case is heard.

The decision reversed a Ninth Circuit ruling, but this is not the last word and could come back to the high court. The Supreme Court sent the case the back to the lower court with two questions unresolved. First, whether indefinite detention without a chance for bail is unconstitutional. Second, whether the challenge to that no-bail provision can be brought as a class action, instead of as individual cases.

Writing for the dissenting minority opinion, an outraged and hyperbolic Justice Stephen G. Breyer called SCOTUS’ Jennings v. Rodriguez ruling “legal fiction” that would leave the government “free to starve, beat, or lash those held within our boundaries”.

See also:


Racism: Sen. Chuck Schumer won’t vote for judge because he’s white

On February 28, 2018, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said he would not vote for Trump judicial nominee Marvin Quattlebaum because he’s a white male. 

Schumer fumed:

“The nomination of Marvin Quattlebaum speaks to the overall lack of diversity in President Trump’s selections for the federal judiciary. Quattlebaum replaces not one, but two scuttled Obama nominees who were African American. As of February 14th, 83% of President Trump’s confirmed nominees were male, 92% were white. That represents the lowest share of non-white candidates in three decades. It’s long past time that the judiciary starts looking a lot more like the America it represents. Having a diversity of views and experiences on the federal bench is necessary for the equal administration of justice.

To begin, Sen. Schumer is in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, sex, or ethnic origin.

As for Schumer’s contention that those in government must “look a lot more like the America it represents,” then he should begin by looking into a mirror:

  • According to Wikipedia, Jews make up 1.7% to 2.6% of the U.S. population, numbering 5.5 to 8 million.
  • Compared to their percentage in the U.S. population, however, Jews are way over-represented in government:
    • Jews make up 33.33% (or 3 of 9) of the U.S. Supreme Court — Stephen Bryer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan. (Source: Jewish Virtual Library)
    • Jews make up 5.6% (or 30) of the 115th Congress: 5.1% (or 22 representatives) of the House; 8% (or 8 senators) of the Senate. (Pew Research Center)

Given the over-representation of Jews in the Senate, and since Chuck Schumer is Jewish, I urge him to resign in the interest of making the Senate “look a lot more like the America it represents”.

Arthur Marvin Quattlebaum Jr., 53, received his J.D. from the University of South Carolina School of Law. He was the president of the South Carolina Bar from 2011 to 2012, and is a partner at the office of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

On August 3, 2017, President Trump nominated Quattlebaum to serve as a U.S. District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. On March 1, 2018, the Senate voted 69-28 to confirm his nomination.

See also:

H/t The Daily Wire


Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that Second Amendment applies to individuals, not militias, and may include military weapons

On February 23, 2018, during a radio interview with Hugh Hewitt, Stanford U. political science professor and President George W. Bush’s secretary of state Condoleezza Rice said:

“I think it is time to have a conversation about what the right to bear arms means in the modern world. I don’t understand why civilians need to have access to military weapons. We wouldn’t say you can go out and buy a tank.”

By “military weapons,” Rice means the semi-automatic AR-15 rifle that confessed Parkland school shooter Nikolas Cruz allegedly used to kill 17 students and teachers on Feb. 14 in Parkland, Florida.

It is astonishing that a political science professor doesn’t seem to know that ten years ago in 2008, the Supreme Court had ruled 5-4 that:

  1. The Second Amendment’s guarantee of the “right to bear arms” pertains to individuals and not, as some insist, to militia.
  2. The Second Amendment’s prefatory clause [a “well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State“] may include citizens’ right to bear military weapons because today’s military has sophisticated weapons that government didn’t have in the 18th century. To ban individual right to such weapons would effectively render meaningless the prefatory clause’s “well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Prior to the Court’s ruling, the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 had restricted District of Columbia residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.

But the Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller, struck down the Regulations Act’s ban on handguns as unconstitutional, as well as the Act’s requirement that all firearms — including rifles and shotguns — be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock”.

The majority opinion, written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, is considered an example of constitutional originalism — interpreting the meaning of the U.S. Constitution in accordance with the original intent of our Founders. According to the Court’s ruling:

  1. The Second Amendment protects the individual‘s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. (Pg. 2–53 of District of Columbia v. Heller)
  2. The “people” to whom the Second Amendment right is accorded are the same “people” who enjoy First and Fourth Amendment protection. In the words of Justice Scalia: “The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.”
  3. The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by:
    1. Analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment’s drafting history reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. (Pg. 28–32 of District of Columbia v. Heller)
    2. Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century. (Pg. 32–47)

    But the Supreme Court also ruled that the Second Amendment right, like most rights, is not unlimited:

    (1) The right to bear arms is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

    (2) On the matter of “military weapons,” the Supreme Court ruled that:

    “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller [United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174] said . . . that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradi­tion of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ […] It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause [a “well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”]. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have lim­ited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.” (pp. 58-59)

    Clearly, SCOTUS’ 2008 ruling understood the 2nd Amendment as a safeguard against a tyrannical government via citizens owning arms to defend themselves. What those arms are depend on the circumstances, specifically, arms technology. In the 18th century, those arms were rifles. But in the 21st century, handguns and rifles are insufficient against the vastly superior armament of  the government’s military. And so, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court left open the possibility of individual right to military-grade weapons as a means to defend against a tyrannical government.

    If we are to go by Condoleezza Rice’s assertion — “I don’t understand why civilians need to have access to military weapons” — we might just as well junk the Second Amendment entirely.

    UPDATE (Feb. 28):

    I just took an online survey, the language of which is skewed in favor of gun control. Please go take it and register your views! Click here.


Hell just froze over: CA judge rules in favor of Christian baker who refused to bake wedding cake for lesbians

In October 2017, two lesbians, Eileen and Mireya Rodriquez-Del Rio, sought to buy a wedding cake from Tastries Bakery in Bakersfield, CA, for their upcoming same-sex marriage.

Mireya and Eileen Rodriquez-Del Rio

The owner of the bakery, Cathy Miller, said she must decline “because she does not condone same-sex marriage,” but that she would send their order to another bakery, Gimme Some Sugar.

The lesbians filed a complaint before California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), which sided with the lesbian couple and ordered Miller to provide the cake on the grounds that:

  • Miller had violated California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination in public accommodations, in this case the baking and selling of a cake.
  • Miller is not protected by the First Amendment, which protects only “those occasions where government requires a speaker to disseminate another’s message”.

Source: Washington Post

On February 5, 2018, California Superior Court Judge David R. Lampe ruled in favor of Cathy Miller. Judge Lampe wrote in his decision:

“The State of California brings this action under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code section 51, against defendants Cathy’s Creations, Inc. and Cathy Miller. Miller refuses to design and create wedding cakes to be used in the celebration of same sex marriages. She
believes that such marriages violate her deeply held religious convictions. The State seeks to enjoin this conduct as unlawfully discriminatory. The State brings the action upon the administrative complaint of a same-sex married couple, complainants Rodriquez-Del Rios.
The State cannot succeed on the facts presented as a matter of law. The right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment outweighs the State’s interest in ensuring a freely accessible marketplace.
The right of freedom of thought guaranteed by the First Amendment includes the right to speak, and the right to refrain from speaking. Sometimes the most  profound protest is silence. […]
The State’s purpose to ensure an accessible public marketplace free from discrimination is a laudable and necessary public goal. […] No artist, having placed their work for public sale, may refuse to sell for an unlawful discriminatory purpose. No baker may place their wares in a public display case, open their shop, and then refuse to sell because of race, religion, gender, or gender identification.

The difference here is that the cake in question is not yet baked. The State is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell a cake. The State asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create a cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of a marital union her religion forbids. For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment. […]

Such an order would be the stuff of tyranny. Both sides advocate with strong and heartfelt beliefs, and this court has a duty to ensure that all are given the freedom to speak them. The government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas.1

No matter how the court should rule, one side or the other may be visited with some degree of hurt, insult, and indignity. The court finds that any harm here is equal to either complainants or defendant Miller, one way or the other. If anything, the harm to Miller is the greater harm, because it carries significant economic consequences. When one feels injured, insulted, or angered by the words or expressive conduct of others, the harm is many times self—inflicted. The most effective Free Speech in the family of our nation is when we speak and listen with respect. In any case, the court cannot guarantee that no one will be harmed when the law is enforced. Quite the contrary, when the law is enforced, someone necessarily loses. Nevertheless, the court’s duty is to the law. Whenever anyone exercises the right of Free Speech, someone else may be angered or hurt. This is the nature of a free society under our Constitution.

Judge David Lampe’s ruling will be a precedent for the U.S. Supreme Court to consider in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, wherein Colorado baker Jack C. Phillips argues that the First Amendment’s free speech and free exercise of religion clauses give him the right to refuse wedding services to a same-sex couple, despite public accommodations laws that require businesses that are open to the public to treat all potential customers equally.

Phillips has the support of the Trump administration, marking the first time the U.S. government has argued for an exemption to an anti-discrimination law.

David R. Lampe, who has a J.D. from Santa Clara University School of Law, was appointed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) in June 2007 to the Superior Court of Kern County, California.

God bless Judge Lampe!