Vigilant News

Eternal Vigilance is the price of liberty.

Supreme Court

Recent Polling Shows Majority of Democrats Now Want SCOTUS Abolished

By ,

Democrats, who remain largely unaware of the great victory the Supreme Court has secured against the EPA, are in a tizzy over the Roe v Wade overturn. A recent poll shows that a majority of Democrats have an “unfavorable opinion” of the highest court in the land and believe that it should be abolished.

The poll was conducted by Rasmussen:

According to the report:

A new national telephone and online survey by Rasmussen Reports and the Heartland Institute finds that 52% of Likely U.S. voters view the Supreme Court favorably, including 29% who have a Very Favorable opinion of the court. Forty-three percent (43%) view the Supreme Court unfavorably, including 25% with a Very Unfavorable opinion. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

In the wake of a recent string of decisions strengthening the Second Amendment, reining in the power of the Environmental Protection Agency, and ending the constitutional right to an abortion, however, Democratic voters mostly disapprove of the Supreme Court. Only 33% of Democrats view the court favorably, while 63% have an unfavorable opinion of the court, including 40% of Democrats who have a Very Unfavorable view of the Supreme Court. By contrast, 72% of Republicans and 52% of independent voters have a favorable opinion of the court.

A majority of Democrats view the Supreme Court as racist and discriminatory against women, and favor either “packing” the court by adding extra justices or replacing the existing court with democratically elected justices.

Democrats also seem to believe that the court is racist despite having 2 people of color sitting as justices.

In a nutshell, the far-left Democrats are livid that the court changed under President Trump and has more conservatives that don’t make decisions politically but make their decisions based on the law.

CONSTITUTIONAL VICTORY: SCOTUS Strips EPA of Authority It Never Had in West Virginia v. EPA

By ,

WASHINGTON DC — In a 6 to 3 ruling today, the Supreme Court limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority, preventing the agency from exercising it’s claimed power to reduce carbon emissions in concert with the Biden administration’s April 2021.

In a ruling that angered climate change activists, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr, writing the majority opinion, said that the EPA had not received proper authority from Congress to limit carbon emissions.

It was believed, that the Clean Air Act in concert with initiatives put forward by the Obama administration, that the EPA had all the authority it needed, but that is not the case.

At issue, is the question in the case, West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 20-1530, whether the Clean Air Act allowed the EPA to codify sweeping regulations that have the force of law, without proper Congressional involvement.

The key issue, in this writer’s opinion, is that any rights of the body corporate, We The People, cannot be infringed without proper consent from the people. Congress provides the mechanism of consent at a national level, especially since the supposed climate change science is hardly a settled issue. The EPA cannot unilaterally act as if it has that de jure authority. If SCOTUS did side with the EPA, it would have, in effect, authorized the EPA’s side-stepping of the people’s rights through Congress. And SCOTUS would have, in effect, granted rights to the EPA in a similar way that Roe v Wade created rights in the recently overturned ruling from the ’70s.

The decision exposed the judicial activism of some of the liberal justices in the court.

Justice Elena Kagan, in dissent of the ruling, said,

“Whatever else this court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change,” … “And let’s say the obvious: The stakes here are high. Yet the court today prevents congressionally authorized agency action to curb power plants’ carbon dioxide emissions.”

Whether SCOTUS “does not have a clue about how to address climate change” isn’t the issue. The issue is whether the EPA can grant itself rights it never had to address climate change—which is not scientifically proven to exist. And if the highest court in the land should go along with the EPA’s renegade strategies.

The fact that a sitting justice doesn’t seem to understand the importance of Congress and is all too ready to use SCOTUS to manufacture rights and legislate from the bench has alarmed many.

Patrick Morrisey, the attorney general of West Virginia and one of the leaders of the challenge to the E.P.A.’s authority, welcomed the decision.

“E.P.A. can no longer sidestep Congress to exercise broad regulatory power that would radically transform the nation’s energy grid and force states to fundamentally shift their energy portfolios away from coal-fired generation,” he said.

Morrisey appears to understand the deeper constitutional attacks underpinning climate activists to assume any and all power to implement their green agenda.

Richard Lazarus, a law professor at Harvard, said “the court’s ruling is a major setback for E.P.A.’s ability to address climate change, and it could hardly have come at a worse time.”

“By insisting instead that an agency can promulgate an important and significant climate rule only by showing ‘clear congressional authorization’ at a time when the court knows that Congress is effectively dysfunctional, the court threatens to upend the national government’s ability to safeguard the public health and welfare at the very moment when the United States, and all nations, are facing our greatest environmental challenge of all: climate change,” he added.

The comments by Lazarus and Justice Kagan are alarming because they are essentially arguing that the challenges of going through the proper Congressional process are too great, and, in effect “the ends justify the means.” But if anyone should be arguing for adhering to the proper congressional process, it should be a justice of the Supreme Court.

The ruling did not hinder the EPAs ability to regulate the energy sector, it merely pushed back against the agency’s attempt to claim powers it was never given by Congress.

Read more about the questionable science of the EPA in our article here.

American Taxpayers Fund EPA Junk Science for the Globalist Climate Agenda

By ,

A decision has been reached in the U.S. Supreme Court case West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency. In a 6 – 3 ruling, the Court has determined that the Clean Air Act is no longer an appropriate vehicle for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The ruling is favorable to the conservative lawmakers, states, and of course, the fossil fuel industry’s desire to reduce the authority of the EPA. The move is a win for the nation’s energy production and keeps Biden from further exacerbating the country’s fuel production problems.

Gregg Phillip of TrueTheVote and 2000 Mules fame put out a post the night before calling for prayers in regards to the ruling, cryptically claiming that “The consequences of this ruling will resonate for another 100 years”.

Despite a well-crafted and disarming name, America’s grievances with the EPA are numerous and often neglected by the mainstream. 

Ron Arnold of cfact.org has claimed that “Virtually all EPA regulations have been justified by nontransparent data and unverifiable claims” aka junk science. American taxpayers foot the bill for the Agency’s costly regulations, and they should have a right to see the underlying science, but EPA bureaucrats routinely hide this information.

Back in 2014, the former chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee held a hearing on “Ensuring Open Science at EPA” which was the launching pad for the Secret Science Reform Act of 2014, a bill to bar the EPA from proposing regulations based upon science that is not transparent or not reproducible.

This of course sent shockwaves through Big Green, which has a vested interest in hiding outdated, biased, falsified, sweetheart-reviewed, and even non-existent “science” that has destroyed the lives of thousands in the death-grip of agenda-driven EPA rules.

Environment Subcommittee Chairman Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ) gaveled the hearing to order.

“For far too long, the EPA has approved regulations that have placed a crippling financial burden on economic growth in this country with no public evidence to justify their actions.”

The first witness at the hearing was John D. Graham, a dean at Indiana University and former administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, has years of experience telling good science from junk.

Graham surprisingly said that “The EPA’s downfall is its poorly developed science culture, said Graham.”

“In my experience working with the EPA, I have found that the political, legal, and engineering cultures are fairly strong but the cultures of science and economics are highly variable…

First-rate scientists who are interested in public service employment might be more inclined to launch a career at the National Academy of Sciences or elsewhere”.

Graham cited a decade of National Science Foundation reports documenting the bad quality, transparency, and reproducibility of EPA’s scientific determinations.

Even science editors complain that many published research articles are false and even peer-reviewed results are not reproducible. EPA demands sensational reports, true or not, and isn’t checking scientists’ work.

If that isn’t alarming enough, let’s look at it in an economic light.

Raymond J. Keating, the chief economist of the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, who testified for the Center for Regulatory Solutions, provided one of the hearing’s big shockers:

“The annual cost of federal regulations registered $1.75 trillion in 2008.”

So, before you go off to protest how the evil Supreme Court wants to see the polar ice caps melt, consider that much of the “science” you take for granted may have actually been fabricated to fit an agenda.

Jane Roe: The True Story of the Woman Behind America’s Abortion Precedent

By ,

Ryan DeLarme,
June 27th, 2022

A surprising percentage of younger, modern abortion activists are unaware that Roe v Wade is considered a Supreme Court ruling which established a precedent, not an actual law. Even more still are unaware of the true history behind the court ruling, and the implications that weighed heavily on a single woman.

Norma McCorvey, better known as “Jane Roe”, is a little-known name with a marginalized voice, but her pseudonym is synonymous with abortion access in the United States.

McCorvey was 22 years old when she appeared as a plaintiff in the landmark 1973 case that enshrined a woman’s right to get an abortion. In a reversal that shocked many at the time, McCorvey became a fierce opponent of Roe v Wade, and soon after was all but forgotten by the media.

In 1969 the legendary “Jane Roe” was pregnant for the third time living in the largely conservative south. Her first daughter, whom she birthed as a teenager, was primarily raised by her parents, and the second was put up for adoption.

McCorvey was briefly married at the age of 16 and recalled how her mother beat her when she came out as a lesbian. In addition to her familial crises, McCorvey had a drinking problem and not a penny to her name.

After the birth of her first child, she “quickly realized that she was not fit to be a mother,” nor did she want to be. This is according to author and journalist Joshua Prager, who wrote the book “The Family Roe”.

Faced with the possibility of a third child, McCorvey began to consider abortion. The only problem was that in Texas, the state where she lived at the time, abortion was illegal. In those days, solutions for unwanted pregnancies included secret clinics or traveling to a state that authorized abortion, but at the time McCorvey “simply could not afford it”.

It was at this time that McCorvey was referred to attorneys Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee. The young lawyers had purportedly been seeking a pregnant plaintiff with whom they could take abortion all the way to the Supreme Court. They found exactly what they were looking for in Norma McCorvey and thus “Jane Roe” was born.

The lawyers achieved their goal, the historic decision set the precedent for women to receive abortions, but the ruling came several years later, meaning that the woman credited with setting the precedent for legal abortion never received her abortion. She gave birth to the third child, colloquially referred to as “Baby Roe”, and gave the child up for adoption.

Although initially not involved in the abortion rights movement, McCorvey came out of the shadows in the late 1980s, doing multiple interviews, participating in demonstrations, and even writing the bestseller “I Am Roe.”

Finally seeking the limelight, she fell somewhat short, however, with the feminist movement little inclined to let her speak. “She was not very educated. And they really marginalized her, they pushed her away,” Prager said, explaining that the rejection came as a slap in the face.

Eventually, in the mid-1990s, after years spent defending access to abortion and having even worked in a clinic herself, McCorvey declared that she was opposed to the procedure. The turnaround came shortly after meeting evangelical pastor Flip Benham.

McCorvey became an active Protestant, growing ever more evangelical, before later converting to Catholicism — strongly defending her new convictions along the way.

 “My lawyers did not tell me that I would later come to deeply regret that I was partially responsible for killing 40 to 50 million human beings,” she said during a 2005 congressional hearing.

In one of the saga’s great ironies, Dallas County prosecutor Henry Wade, who argued in the opposite camp before the Supreme Court, was privately in favor of abortion, according to Prager.

It is difficult to know the true feelings of McCorvey, who died in 2017. Prager said that at the end or her life, she told him she was in favor of abortion through the first trimester.

Her oldest daughter, Melissa Mills, expressed outrage at the Supreme Court’s possible reversal of the Roe decision, revealed in a leaked draft opinion in early May. 

“I think mom would be turning in her grave because she was always pro-woman,” Mills told USA Today. Shelley Thornton, McCorvey’s third child also known as “Baby Roe,” never met her birth mother.