RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/

The liberals and leftists whose malice for Trump and his supporters knows no bounds, haven’t yet reached the rock bottom essence of their souls, and confine themselves to harassing and yelling at their victims in their homes, at restaurants and movie theaters, and screaming at them and menacing them, but the time is coming when they will take physical action. They will not adopt the Antifa route, and wear masks and hoods – not now.

But I think the most relevant thing here is a quotation from p. 1145 of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, when the statists are torturing the hero, John Galt, to compel him to become the country’s economic dictator and save their power.

“Jim, hasn’t he had enough? Don’t forget, we have to be careful.”

“No! He hasn’t had enough! He hasn’t even screamed yet!”

“Jim!” cried Mouch suddenly, terrified by something in Taggart’s face. “We can’t afford to kill him! You know it!”

“I don’t care! I want to break him! I want to hear him scream! I want – “

And then it was Taggart who screamed….he was seeing his face as the face of a killer whom all men should rightfully loathe, who destroyed values for being values, who killed in order not to discover his own irredeemable evil….

James Taggart was seeing something about himself he had never wanted to see, and had spent a lifetime closing his mind to, but which he could not now evade seeing. His hatred for Galt had forced it to the top of his consciousness. It was all he could know now.

At the moment, the Trump protesters want their victims to bow, grovel, or to run, or to express “shame,” to apologize, in this case, for an immigrant policy established by George Bush and Barack Obama, and for the success of President Trump’s successes since his election. The perfect symbol of their irredeemable hate, for the time being, is the burnt, decapitated carcass of an animal left on the doorstep of the Virginia home of Home Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/270583/left-loses-judiciary-daniel-greenfield

Fisher v. University of Texas protected racial discrimination in college admissions.

Justice Kennedy wrote the decision joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Breyer. The court’s only African-American justice dissented. As did Roberts and Alito. Scalia had been the most vigorous of the Supreme Court members in challenging racial preferences in college admissions. But he had passed away.

The 4-3 decision that continued the shameful tradition of progressive racist jurisprudence will become an impossible relic once President Trump’s next Supreme Court nominee joins Gorsuch on the bench.

As we wrap up a season of Supreme Court decisions successfully reaffirming constitutional law, if at times only narrowly, it’s time to look forward to the coming restoration of our founding document.

And the restoration of our freedoms, our dignity and our honor.

The early years of the Trump administration have seen both the worst and the best of the judiciary. Federal judges joined the leftist resistance by seizing the power to decide everything from immigration policy down to whom the President of the United States can block on Twitter. These decisions weren’t just power grabs, they ignored basic law and precedent, and not to mention checks and balances.

The President spent months having his legitimate authority of office crippled while waiting for the Supreme Court to intervene. And sometimes these interventions, as in Trump v. Hawaii, were shockingly narrow. Without Gorsuch, the 5-4 decision, in which the court’s four leftists insisted on denying Trump the authority of his office, would have been the verdict of the Supreme Court and the law of the land.

During the election, Never Trumpers told us that a Republican Senate could check Hillary Clinton. Now, George Will and other GOP defectors insist that the Senate needs to be turned over to the Democrats.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/janus-case-free-speech-wins-supreme-court-again/

In Janus v. AFSCME, the court struck a strong blow against government-compelled speech for the third time this term.

Perhaps the worst government affront to the rights of conscience, far worse than mere censorship, is compelled speech, the practice of forcing Americans to fund or express ideas they find abhorrent. It’s one thing to tell a man or woman that they can’t speak. It’s another thing entirely to compel them to use their voice, their artistic talents, or their pocketbook in support of a cultural, political, or religious enterprise with which they disagree.

Yet that’s exactly what the state of Colorado tried to do in punishing Christian baker Jack Phillips for refusing to use his artistic talents in the service of a gay-marriage ceremony. That’s exactly what the state of California tried to do in legally mandating that pro-life pregnancy centers advertise for free abortions. And that’s exactly what the state of Illinois tried to do in requiring non-union public employees to fund union activities.

Today, the Supreme Court released its decision in the last of these cases, Janus v. State, County, and Municipal Employees. At issue was an Illinois law that forced state employees to subsidize public-employee unions, “even if they choose not to join and strongly object to the positions the union takes in collective bargaining and related activities.” Illinois required these employees to pay a so-called agency fee that funded (among other things) collective bargaining, lobbying, social activities, membership meetings, and litigation.

Many of those items directly impact key and contentious elements of public policy, matters of public concern. And public employees themselves have widely divergent opinions. Yet they were all forced to fund the same point of view. Justice Alito, writing for the majority, spoke clearly:

When speech is compelled, however, additional damage is done. In that situation, individuals are coerced into betraying their convictions. Forcing free and independent individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable is always demeaning, and for this reason, one of our landmark free speech cases said that a law commanding “involuntary affirmation” of objected-to beliefs would require “even more immediate and urgent grounds” than a law demanding silence.