• The Supreme Court Reasserts Rule Of Law And Affirms Our Constitution

    This is the Real Reason our Elites Hate Donald Trump.

    Public Domain.

    Please Follow us on GabMindsTelegramRumbleGab TV, Gettr, Truth SocialTwitter

    The comedian Greg Gutfeld observed “Donald Trump’s second term is more successful than his first.”

    He has a point. As president, Donald Trump kept his word and appointed judges who believed laws should follow our Constitution and that only our elected representatives should enact new laws, not judges themselves. Our ruling class is aghast, as they believe the Constitution is an anachronism and the average voter is too stupid to know what is good for him.

    Trump lost his reelection bid but his Supreme Court appointments live on.

    During the last Supreme Court session, Merrick Garland refused to enforce laws that prevented protestors from harassing judges. Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer threatened the justices with violence when he stood in the front of the Supreme Court building during a pro-abortion rally and screeched: “I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

    But the Trump-appointed judges were not intimidated. They ruled that Americans have the constitutional right to bear arms and those who disagree should change the Constitution. Further rulings stated that abortion should be legalized by elected officials - as was in other western democracies – not judges. And if Congress wants to regulate carbon dioxide output (which humans expire incidentally) to supposedly stop climate change, then elected officials should do so, not entrenched unaccountable bureaucrats.

    Our ruling class tried to intimidate the judges again in 2023, this time criticizing them for such atrocities as going on fishing trips with billionaires. But it didn’t work. In three Supreme Court decisions, three sacred cows for our elites were thrown into the circular file:

    Student for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College. The court repudiated Affirmative Action, ruling that Harvard could not discriminate against Asian students in favor of other minorities. While elitists were aghast, this could improve race relations in the long run. Black students at Harvard feel so marginalized that they demanded and received separate housing and even separate graduation ceremonies! What’s next? Separate water fountains?

    Biden v. Nebraska. The Court ruled that President Biden did not have the power to forgive over $400 billion in student loans without Congressional approval. Thus, freeloading college graduates will now have to find a job rather than hanging out in chic bistros drinking pumpkin lattes while the non-college educated pay taxes to subsidize their lifestyle. The downside is that if you own any stock in companies that make blue hair dye, you may want to sell it.

    303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. The Court ruled that a conservative Christian web site designer could not be bullied into making a web site featuring a couple’s gay marriage, especially since there are multiple other designers who would be glad to have the business. Again, elitists are aghast. But how would these same elitists have reacted if a conservative Christian wanted to force a gay web site designer into making a homophobic web site?

    The Supreme Court’s courage appears to be spilling over to our lower courts, which recently affirmed two Constitution rights, free speech (First Amendment) and the right to face your accuser (Sixth Amendment).

    A U.S. Appeals court allowed a Texas law to go in effect that prohibits social media sites from banning conservative political speech. As stated by Trump-appointed judge, Andrew Oldham: “Today we reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say.”

    But the most amazing recent decision came from the liberal Connecticut Supreme Court. Feminists dominating college politics believe in ex post facto sexual consent, in which a co-ed can accuse a previous lover of rape without allowing the alleged rapist to introduce potentially exculpatory evidence or even questioning his accuser.

    This policy was the norm at Yale. Thus, when Saif Khan, a neuroscience student and Afghan refugee, had what he presumed to be consensual relations with a co-ed, she accused him of rape. A Yale quasi-judicial body did not allow him to plea his case and he was expelled. He has sued Yale for $110,000,000 and also his accuser. Thanks to the Connecticut Supreme Court’s 7-0 decision, his Six Amendment rights are now validated, and these cases will either go to trial or be settled.

    Our seething ruling class has not cried uncle. Their plans are to hold the presidency, eventually win the Senate and pack the Supreme Court with six liberal justices. And they are determined to make Trump pay for placing these conservative appointees on the bench by not only denying him the presidency but by also incarcerating him. Stay tuned.

    Follow Dr. Joe Bentivegna on twitter @joebentivegnamd

    ‘NO AD’ subscription for CDM!  Sign up here and support real investigative journalism and help save the republic!

    SHARE THIS ARTICLE

    Author

    Dr. Joseph Bentivegna

    Dr. Joseph Bentivegna is an ophthalmologist in private practice who ran for Congress and US Senate in Connecticut. You can subscribe to his Substack here: https://substack.com/@jfbentivegna
    Subscribe
    Notify of
    guest

    0 Comments
    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments
  • Copyright © 2024 The Connecticut Centinal
    magnifier