By now you should be able to detect those who will resort to violence. Those are the ones who call for Equity, not Equality, but equity. Equity mean that they demand what you have. “They are the violent carnivores who are ripping up city after city. Progenitors of the BLM and ANTIFA movements are among the most belligerent. The right wing Democratic stripe profess to do away with the Constitution, stack the Supreme Court, defund police, allow the Defense Department to implode, pay homage to Iran, stand down to China and Russia. They are the DEMOCRAT PARTY, ENEMY #1.
There is no middle ground here. It is a fight to the death, a blood sport indeed, where winners live, losers are killed. Never let down your guard, you will be attacked when least expected; they will come at you from behind, in the middle of the night and in broad daylight. These attackers will stop at nothing to take control of you and your property.
Yesterday the Supreme Court validated the Arizona legislation that improved the veracity of the vote. But the liberals went into a tirade as expected. They are in a rage. Calls for the demolition of SOTUS went out quicker than a band of locusts inhaling a cornfield. Then the Court handed a victory to those who made anonymous donations. the court agreed that donors should remain anonymous to the dismay of the libtard herd. They went wild, calling for more belligerency against the highest court in the land.
Supreme Court Upholds Arizona Voting Restrictions
The decision, a test of what remains of the Voting Rights Act, suggests that challenges to many new measures making it harder to vote may not be successful.
By Adam Liptak July 1, 2021
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday gave states new latitude to impose restrictions on voting, using a ruling in a case from Arizona to signal that challenges to laws being passed by Republican legislatures that make it harder for minority groups to vote would face a hostile reception from a majority of the justices.
The vote was 6 to 3, with the court’s three liberal members in dissent.
The decision was among the most consequential in decades on voting rights, and it was the first time the court had considered how a crucial part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 applies to restrictions that have a particular impact on people of color.
Anonymous Donors Should Stay That Way
On balance, the Supreme Court is correct that the First Amendment protects the right to donate privately.
By Stephen L. Carter July 1, 2021, 1:35 PM EDT
The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down California’s law requiring disclosure of large donors to registered charities is bound to be controversial but seems to me, on balance, correct. Part of the reason is libertarian: It’s no business of mine where my neighbors choose to give money, and it’s no business of theirs where I do. The rest of the reason … well, I’ll get to that.
In Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta — popularly known as AFP — two conservative-leaning groups challenged the California requirement as violating their rights under the First Amendment. In a 6-3 opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court largely agreed. The disclosure rule, according to the majority, burdens the right to free association, which is closely tied to the right to associate privately. To justify the burden, there must be “a substantial relation between the disclosure requirement and a sufficiently important governmental interest” — and, in addition, the disclosure must “be narrowly tailored to the interest it promotes.” A generalized interest in preventing wrongdoing does not justify so broad a demand.