Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
At first I was wondering why there aren't huge crowds there protesting Biden illegally giving away $10-20K for useless degrees (especially useless graduate degrees).

Then I realized those people have jobs and are at work.
Last edited:


PREMO Member

‘Canceling Student Loan Debt Is Not Legal,’ Iowa Attorney General Says After Supreme Court Arguments

“Canceling student loan debt is not legal,” Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird says. “In order for that to happen, something would have to pass the House, the Senate, [and] be signed by the president. It’s basic constitutional law.”

Last year, President Joe Biden announced plans to forgive $10,000 of debt for individual student loan borrowers who make less than $125,000 per year ($250,000 for households) and $20,000 for borrowers who received a Pell Grant.

Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and South Carolina sued the Biden administration over the loan forgiveness plan and on Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the legal challenge.

Bird, Iowa’s first Republican attorney general since 1979, was at the Supreme Court during the arguments and joins “The Daily Signal Podcast” to explain her key takeaways and how she thinks the justices will rule on the case.


PREMO Member
U.S. Marshals Were Told Not to Arrest Protesters at Supreme Court Justices' Homes

The discrepancy was highlighted at a budget hearing on March 27 by freshman Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.), who pointed out that training materials for the federal marshals didn’t give them a “free hand” to arrest anyone.

The marshals were discouraged from making arrests because the “no protest” law might invite legal challenges.

Britt grilled Garland about the training materials given to marshals who were to guard the homes of justices.

“After your appearance before the Judiciary Committee, we obtained copies of the slide deck that was used to train and prepare the Marshals for their protective details at the home of the justices,” Britt said. “Those training materials show that the Marshals likely didn’t make any arrests under Section 1507 for a pretty simple reason — they were actively discouraged from doing so. As you can see on the slide behind me, the Marshals were explicitly told to avoid, unless absolutely necessary, any criminal enforcement actions involving the protestors.”

Britt continued, “The slides went on to say, they explicitly state, that making arrests and initiating prosecutions was not the goal of the Marshals’ presence at the homes of the Justices. And the ‘not’ was actually italicized and underlined.”


PREMO Member

Conservative Justices Issue Blistering Dissent On SCOTUS Decision Not To Take Women’s Sports Case

Two conservative justices dissented from the Supreme Court’s decision Thursday to decline to review a state’s law banning biological men from competing in women’s sports.

West Virginia asked the court to overturn an injunction against its Save Women’s Sports Act in early March, which had been blocked by the Fourth Circuit after a challenge from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). In a dissent joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the request concerns an issue the court will “likely to be required to address in the near future.”

The Fourth Circuit panel, which ruled 2-1 to grant the emergency injunction, was divided on whether Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause prohibit restricting participation in women’s sports based on sex, Alito noted.



PREMO Member

Why isn't it racism when the media and other Democrats seek to destroy conservatives who happen to be people of color?

By Jack Hellner

Every day, the media and other Democrats seek to brand Republicans as racists if they dare disagree with Democrats' radical leftist ideology and policies.
Democrats who engage in lawless acts and who happen to be people of color, are treated as heros. That includes two legislators who participated in a riot, protest or insurrection in Tennessee with the aim of disrupting legislative hearings and then got themselves expelled from that body as a result. They were invited to the White House and they were feted. That stands in stark contrast to the failure of Joe Biden to visit the Christian families of Nashville who were just killed recently by a transgender mass shooter. But Biden being Biden, he invited the two disruptive legislators to D.C. for the purpose of playing the race card. He certainly didn't want to take questions on Afghanistan.

In contrast, for decades Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been under attack from the left for the sole reason that he is a black conservative. When Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court, the media and other Democrats sought to destroy him for an unconfirmed story about some kind of sex harassment against Anita Hill, which Thomas vehemently denied. It was no different from their comparable effort to destroy Judge Brett Kavanaugh with an unverified story about things he supposedly did when he was young during his Supreme Court hearings.

Now they are out to destroy Thomas because he took trips with a billionaire friend without disclosing them, which based on a loophole in U.S. law, he wasn't required to report anyway. Rather than close the loophole, which they have the power to do as legislators, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants Thomas to be impeached for this. There is absolutely no indication that Thomas has ever done political favors for the billionaire in exchange for the trips, so why is this treated as a big scandal?


PREMO Member

Supreme Court Rules Against Biden Administration in Agency Lawsuit Dispute

The new ruling encompasses two cases: Axon Enterprise Inc. v. FTC, court file 21-86, and SEC v. Cochran, court file 21-1239.

Scottsdale, Arizona-based Axon makes body cameras and digital evidence management systems for law enforcement.

Axon purchased an insolvent competitor, Vievu LLC, for around $13 million in 2018. A month later the FTC sent Axon a letter indicating the acquisition raised antitrust concerns. Axon claimed it was subjected to “extensive and expensive investigatory proceedings,” and after 18 months of this “with no end in sight, Axon offered to walk away from its acquisition entirely,” but this did not satisfy the FTC.

Axon offered to unload its Vievu assets and provide millions of dollars in working capital to “a divestiture buyer,” but instead the FTC demanded that Axon transform Vievu “into a ‘clone’ of Axon using Axon’s intellectual property,” and threatened Axon with “an administrative proceeding” if it failed to do so.

Michelle Cochran is a certified public accountant in Texas.

In 2016, the SEC brought an enforcement action against Cochran, claiming she violated the Exchange Act by failing to comply with auditing standards issued by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board when performing quarterly reviews and annual audits between 2010 and 2013.

An SEC administrative law judge (ALJ) fined Cochran $22,500 and banned her from practicing before the SEC for 5 years. Cochran objected but before the agency could rule on her objection, the Supreme Court held in Lucia v. SEC (2018) that SEC ALJs are officers of the United States under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, who must be appointed by the president, a court of law, or a department head.


PREMO Member

Sorry everyone, but Clarence Thomas can take undisclosed money from whomever he wants and there is little to be done about it

Judiciary ethics experts told Insider the bombshell ProPublica report left them "shocked" and "disturbed." But don't expect the SCOTUS lifetime appointee to face any real repercussions as a result of his growing list of ethics concerns, at least, not in this political climate, they said.

The outlet on Thursday reported that Thomas sold a Savannah, Georgia property to Crow, a longtime friend and powerful right-wing donor, for $133,363 in 2014, marking the first known, but never disclosed, instance of direct cash flow between the two.

"The idea that someone is shoveling money to a Supreme Court justice with no disclosure is highly disturbing," Clare Pastore, a professor of the practice of law at USC Gould School of Law and an expert in legal ethics, told Insider.

The ProPublica report comes one week after the outlet reported that Thomas has been accepting, and also failing to disclose, several luxury vacations from Crow for years. While Thomas defended the undisclosed trips by citing an ill-defined "personal hospitality" exemption included in disclosure requirements, the real estate revelation may be harder to explain away.


PREMO Member

Billionaire Republican mega donor Harlan Crow calls 'inaccurate' Clarence Thomas stories a 'political hit job' aimed at Supreme Court - and claims his historical collection was a range of 'bad guys' and not just Hitler

  • Company belonging to Texas billionaire Crow bought three properties right next to each other in Savannah, Georgia, including a single-story home and two lots
  • The billionaire hit back at ProPublica stories about how he funded lavish vacations with Thomas
  • A source blamed aides, and said Thomas didn't think he had to file after taking a loss following improvements to home where his mom still lives


PREMO Member

The leftists manufacturing a Clarence Thomas scandal need a lesson in American government

What the indignant hype leaves out, however, is that Thomas’s compliance with any disclosure rules is purely voluntary. A law that cannot be enforced is at best a suggestion.

This manufactured scandal is an opportunity to dispel a liberal myth and impart a lesson about where sovereignty lies in our nation.

The myth is that there is some abstract thing called the federal government that stands above each of its individual branches.

Just as individuals have to obey the rules made by regulators and laws passed by Congress, presidents and Supreme Court justices are also answerable to impartial administrators.

Thus, Thomas must follow federal guidelines about financial disclosures.

But the fact is that Supreme Court justices and the president are literally above the law, in the sense that federal law is something that descends from Congress.

The power of law lies in the penalties that can be imposed on those who violate it.


PREMO Member

Thomas and Crow: What’s Going on Behind the Curtain

To understand the left’s goal, we need to look at another one of Mr. Crow’s passions: politics. Mr. Crow is a true conservative, and according to reports, has contributed more than $30 million over the last three decades to GOP candidates and the party. I believe it is for this reason that these attacks are so vitriolic against him.

One of the greatest weapons the progressive Democrats have in their fight to take over this nation is the money of kingmaker George Soros. Soros spent over $125 million in the last midterm election alone. Through his different entities, Soros has reportedly donated hundreds of millions and possibly even billions to leftist candidates over the years. These Soros dollars have helped put extreme leftists into national and local offices. In 2015, Soros started getting involved in local politics, and District Attorneys around the nation who are anti-police and pro-crime — such as New York’s Bragg and Los Angeles’ Gascon — owe their careers to Soros’ donations. Stacy Abrams, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Chuck Schumer, and more have been beneficiaries of Soros’s money, and his donations have been highly successful in putting extreme leftists in positions of power. The left knows how money can translate to success in elections. The greatest Republican answer to Soros was Sheldon Adelson, z”l, may his memory be a blessing. Adelson gave over $400 million to Republican candidates and causes in the last years of his life. But with his death in January of 2021, many of the other large donors to Republican causes and candidates have become even more vitally important to counteract Soros’ influence.

And now we start to see the deeper plan of the left in attacking Harlan Crow.

Mr. Crow is a man who lives his beliefs, and will undoubtedly continue to offer his financial help to conservative candidates and causes. But it would be a tremendous success for the left if they were able to take Mr. Crow’s finances out of the political equation.

Consider the following example scenario that could happen in the near future. “Mr. Peloni” is considering running to be the District Attorney of Los Angeles, and he knows it will be an expensive battle. He is offered a contribution by Mr. Crow to help in that battle, but is reminded by those around him of what happens to people who get involved with Mr. Crow based on what is currently happening to Justice Thomas. Peloni’s advisors, family, and friends counsel him not to take Mr. Crow’s donation, lest the campaign becomes labeled as being affiliated with “a Nazi lover.” “Look”, they say to candidate Peloni. “Look how a friendship with Harlan Crow hurt someone as powerful as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. If you accept Crow’s money, you will never recover. You’ll be labeled pro-Hitler and be destroyed politically.” The candidate chooses not to accept Mr. Crow’s generosity, and as a result, the campaign would be financially at a disadvantage to the Soros-sponsored candidate.

If this seems like too much “looking behind the curtain,” realize it has already been attempted by the Democratic establishment as part of their playbook. In 2015, Debbie Wasserman Schultz used this exact same play to try to discredit Presidential candidate Marco Rubio. The exact scenario as detailed above, only with Crow and Rubio rather than Justice Thomas.

And there are other examples of this Democratic strategy. In 2012, shortly before the elections, Sheldon Adelson was accused of prostitution and organized crime by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, a claim they finally retracted. A brief scan of the internet finds dozens of large GOP donors accused of improprieties in the last few years. While the majority of these accusations seem baseless on their face, they are strong enough to make GOP candidates pause about receiving contributions. The left has realized that if they can control the flow of money to GOP candidates, it gives them a huge advantage in the elections. So rather than fight the candidates, they attack the donors.


PREMO Member
Senate Democrats are concerned about the revelations made in a heavily criticized report from ProPublica regarding Justice Clarence Thomas' financial disclosures, which he is amending, so much so that Chairman Dick Durbin (D-IL) has asked Chief Justice John Roberts to come before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

A press release from the committee mentions that Durbin and other Democrats on the committee had sent a letter to Roberts on April 10 "urging him to take swift action to address reported conduct by Justices that is inconsistent with the ethical standards the American people expect of public servants." The letter also "advised that the Committee would hold an upcoming hearing, and that if the Court doesn’t resolve this issue on its own, the Committee will consider legislation to resolve it," according to the press release.

That legislation is something Democratic members would likely be thrilled about, especially Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who sits on the committee and is often ranting and raving about the Court, its conservative justices, and the Federalist Society.

It's worth offering though that if Roberts fails to respond, perhaps Durbin can know how his Republican colleagues feel when members of the Biden administration are constantly ignoring their letters.



PREMO Member

The Truth About Clarence Thomas’s Disclosures

ProPublica describes itself as “an independent, nonprofit newsroom that produces investigative journalism with moral force.” It promises “deep-dive reporting” dedicated to “exposing corruption, informing the public about complex issues, and using the power of investigative journalism to spur reform.”

Give ProPublica credit for admitting its journalism has an agenda. So does mine, as the word “opinion” atop this page should make clear. But ProPublica’s acknowledgment that it’s in the opinion business doesn’t excuse it from the obligation to report facts accurately, carefully and thoroughly.

ProPublica has at least three reporters working the Clarence Thomas beat—Justin Elliott, Joshua Kaplan and Alex Mierjeski. Their story, published last Thursday, is titled “Billionaire Harlan Crow Bought Property From Clarence Thomas. The Justice Didn’t Disclose the Deal.” The troika write that the lack of disclosure “appears to be a violation of the law, four ethics law experts told ProPublica.” That statement is equivocal because it’s a legal theory based on incomplete facts. Justice Thomas didn’t respond to ProPublica’s questions or to mine.


But my review of Justice Thomas’s disclosures and other documents convinces me that any failure to disclose was an honest mistake. On all other matters involving his scanty real-estate inheritance, he followed the Filing Instructions for Judicial Officers and Employees, prepared by the Committee on Financial Disclosures of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Those instructions don’t make clear the statutory obligation to disclose the 2014 transaction.

Further, the ProPublica troika made a sloppy reporting error, the effect of which is to cast Justice Thomas’s disclosures in a falsely unfavorable light—to make them look shambolic or perhaps even dishonest when in fact they followed the filing instructions without fail.

The reporters’ error involves a confusion about what Justice Thomas did disclose. “By the early 2000s,” ProPublica reports, “he had stopped listing specific addresses of property he owned in his disclosures. But he continued to report holding a one-third interest in what he described as ‘rental property at ## 1, 2, & 3’ in Savannah.” It’s worth noting—ProPublica doesn’t—that the filing instructions (on page 32) prescribe disclosing rental properties in precisely this manner.

The story continues: “Two of the houses were torn down around 2010, according to property records and a footnote in Thomas’ annual disclosure archived by Free Law Project.” That footnote in Justice Thomas’s 2010 disclosure states in full: “Part VII, Line 2 - Two of the Georgia rental properties have been torn down. The only remaining property is an old house in Liberty County.”

Liberty County is where our journey began, but the ProPublica troika somehow missed it on the map. Their story leads the reader to think that the “remaining property” was the Savannah house where Justice Thomas’s mother lived. A Friday letter from the Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington—co-signed by Virginia Canter, the first of ProPublica’s “four ethics experts”—expressly says so and accuses Justice Thomas of deceptively disclosing (rather than failing to disclose) the property’s disposition.

The footnote makes clear that this is wrong. There’s a fourth property. Justice Thomas’s 2009 disclosure listed three rental properties in “Sav., GA.” Beginning in 2010, he listed only one, in “Liberty Cty, GA.” Savannah is in Chatham County, not Liberty. But Liberty County is in the Savannah area, roughly a 45-minute drive from the city. For someone living hundreds of miles away, it would have been reasonable to describe the three rental properties collectively as being “in Savannah.”


PREMO Member
Alito wrote a four-page dissent and explained why he would allow partial restrictions on the drug mifepristone, after the Biden administration appealed a ruling against a Texas district judge who ruled to overturn the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) approval of the pill.

But he disagreed that chaos would be triggered by a conflict between two federal court orders. A Texas judge put an injunction on the FDA-backed drug nationwide, and a judge in Washington state ordered the FDA to not make any changes that would restrict access to the abortion drug.

“At present, the applicants are not entitled to a stay because they have not shown that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the interim,” Alito wrote (pdf), noting that the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals fast-tracked hearing the arguments of the case. “The applicants claim that regulatory ‘chaos’ would occur due to an alleged conflict between the relief awarded in these cases and the relief provided by a decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington.”

Because the “appeal has been put on a fast track, with oral argument scheduled to take place in 26 days,” he noted that “there is reason to believe that they would get the relief they now seek—from either the Court of Appeals or this Court—in the near future if their arguments on the merits are persuasive.”

His reference to “chaos” was in response to Justice Department Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar’s previous petition to the high court. Writing on behalf of the FDA, Prelogar said the government’s appeal dealt with “unprecedented lower court orders countermanding FDA’s scientific judgment and unleashing regulatory chaos by suspending the existing FDA-approved conditions of use for mifepristone.”

“The FDA did not appeal that appealable order, and when seven states that might take such an appeal asked to intervene, the FDA opposed their request,” Alito wrote. “This series of events laid the foundation for the Government’s regulatory ‘chaos’ argument.”



PREMO Member

Chief Justice Roberts Says No Thanks to Dick Durbin, Won't Testify at Supreme Court Ethics Hearing

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-IL) invited Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to testify at a May 2 hearing on court ethics. Roberts delivered his answer Tuesday: thanks, but no thanks.

Roberts wrote a letter to Durbin which was released by a court spokesperson:

I must respectfully decline your invitation.
Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee by the Chief Justice of the United States is exceedingly rare as one might expect in light of separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving judicial independence.


Roberts appeared to rub it in a little, attaching a Statement of Ethics Principles and Practices with the letter and noting, “All of the current Members of the Supreme Court subscribe.”

Durbin had requested that the chief justice testify after reports revealed that Justice Clarence Thomas had gone on vacations with his longtime friend and GOP donor Harlan Crow, and had also failed to report several 2014 real estate transactions on his financial disclosures. He lost money on the deals so thought he didn’t have to report them; he now is reported to be working on filing updates. Meanwhile, he said in a statement that he didn’t report the vacations because the ethics guidelines in effect at the time did not require him to.

Democrats are crying foul:

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia have led about two dozen Democratic members of Congress in asking Chief Justice John Roberts to launch an investigation, and they are calling on the Judicial Conference – a policymaking body for the federal courts – to refer Thomas to the US attorney general for potential violations of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.
“There is at least reasonable cause to believe that Justice Thomas intentionally disregarded the disclosure requirement to report the sale of his interest in the Savannah properties in an attempt to hide the extent of his financial relationship with Crow,” Whitehouse and Johnson said in a joint statement.

Durbin responded to those reports by sending a letter to Roberts earlier this month urging him to “immediately open” an investigation and “take all needed action to prevent further misconduct.” He ominously warned, “If the court does not resolve this issue on its own, the committee will consider legislation to resolve it.”