SCOTUS

“You seem...to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchyOur judges are as honest as other men, and not more so...and their power [is] the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control…The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”

Thomas Jefferson (Stated in a letter to William Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820)
Unfortunately, Jefferson’s warning proved to be all too accurate.
Sixty-plus years ago, the progressive, liberal left in America decided the best way, possibly the only way, to impose their will on the American people was not at the ballot box or through the Legislative Branch of our government; it was through the Supreme Court.
To do so, they would only need five of the nine members.

The inappropriate belief that the Supreme Court had supreme power over all government decisions would allow only five unelected people to impose and enforce their will over 300,000,000 Americans! ...
No entity or group has allowed more evil into America than the Supreme Court.
As Phillip Jauregui points out (The Parable of the Prodigal Court) so clearly in this critical book, only five individuals were needed to remove God and His principles from American schools, our government, and the public square. They trampled on constitutional rights, made the right to murder babies the law of the land, and overruled the will of the people in thirty states, who agreed with God that marriage was between one man and one woman.

On June 26, 2015, five Justices decided they had the right to redefine a 6,000-year-old definition of marriage–a definition clearly given by God, mind you–and redefine this covenant He instituted!

Just let that sink in: five people (two of whom had participated in gay wedding ceremonies, yet refused to recuse themselves), arrogantly granted themselves the “authority” to overrule God…and the American people.
The deception and arrogance of this was mind-numbing.

The late Justice Scalia stated, regarding this:
“I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy...
Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court...

“This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied [as it is today] by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776–the freedom to govern themselves…

To allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.”
Regarding this usurpation, Justice Alito said:

“Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage...

“All Americans, whatever they’re thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority’s claim of power portends.”
It is time to break this un-constitutional and inappropriate belief that the Supreme Court has supreme power over all government decisions.
The inappropriate belief that the Supreme Court has supreme power over all government decisions allows only five unelected people to impose and enforce their will over 300,000,000 Americans!

R*n S******z

Going to get your voter ID......

PresidentialReviews    By Hugh Janus, TDS News

CLEVELAND, OH — In a groundbreaking feat that has left feminists everywhere scratching their heads, local Ohio resident Annie Rection has shattered glass ceilings by becoming the first woman in recorded history to legally acquire a photo ID. “It was a grueling process,” Rection admitted, wiping sweat from her brow. “I had to walk all the way to the DMV, fill out a form, and wait in line for what felt like 15 whole minutes. But hey, I did it—proving once and for all that women aren’t delicate flowers who crumble at the sight of bureaucracy.”

Experts are already sounding the alarm: If the SAVE Act passes, requiring voters to show ID at the polls, Rection could very well be the only woman casting a ballot in the upcoming midterms. “This is a catastrophe for democracy,” warned Democratic strategist and professional pearl-clutcher, Wilma Dikfit. “Women simply can’t be expected to handle something as insurmountable as getting an ID. What next? Asking them to tie their own shoelaces? It’s voter suppression on steroids!”

Critics of the SAVE Act, mostly blue-haired activists and cable news pundits, insist that mandating photo ID is akin to building an invisible force field around polling places that only repels the fairer sex. “Women have jobs, families, and Netflix queues—how on earth are they supposed to squeeze in a trip to get an ID?” lamented one anonymous source, who apparently forgot that millions of women already have driver’s licenses, passports, and even those fancy Costco cards that require a photo.

But Rection, now a national hero (or villain, depending on your Twitter feed), begs to differ. “If I can do it, any woman can,” she said, flexing her newly minted ID like a trophy. “Heck, I even renewed my library card on the same day. Ladies, rise up—against the nonsense that we’re too helpless to function in the real world!”

As the midterms approach, TDS News will continue monitoring this developing story. Will more women defy the odds and obtain IDs? Or will polling places become ghost towns echoing with the faint sobs of disenfranchised damsels? Stay tuned—and remember, folks, satire is the best disinfectant for political absurdity.

Trump wants White men to sue for race discrimination. This man did
Story by Jessica Guynn, USA TODAY

David Duvall had been a senior vice president at Novant Health for five years in July 2018 when the multibillion-dollar health system told him it was “going in a different direction.”

After his firing, Novant Health promoted two of Duvall’s deputies, a White woman and a Black woman, to take over his duties while it conducted a search for his successor. A Black woman was appointed to permanently replace him.

Duvall sued in federal court in November 2019, alleging he was let go because of a push to diversify the leadership ranks.

At trial two years later, Duvall presented evidence he received strong performance reviews and gained national recognition for the marketing program he developed for Novant Health. His manager testified he had seven White men as direct reports at the start of 2018 but none by the time of the trial.

His former employer said Duvall was terminated for performance issues, including walking off stage while giving a public presentation. Novant Health said he was given a job coach and more public speaking opportunities but Duvall delegated those. 

The jury sided with Duvall. A federal appeals court later upheld the $4.8 million award in 2024. 

Duvall’s was a bellwether case that put the spotlight on high-profile lawsuits in which White men accuse their employers of racial bias, claiming they were dismissed or denied opportunities so companies could make room for more women and people of color through diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

Legal experts say the ruling was an early shot across the bow for diversity initiatives that are exclusive rather than inclusive.

Even though men – and White men in particular – dominate corporate America, these cases have ramped up as anti-DEI activists and the Trump administration target corporate diversity efforts.

While statistically rare, research shows that White men still file discrimination claims, just at a lower rate than other groups. 

White workers make up about two-thirds of the U.S. workforce but only account for about 10% of all race discrimination claims, according to data USA TODAY obtained in 2023 from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. A study from the Center for Employment Equity at the University of Massachusetts found that White men filed about 9% of race discrimination claims from 2012 to 2016.Trump targets White discrimination

The view that “unlawful” and “woke” DEI policis have harmed White Americans – and White men in eparticular – was central to President Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and now his second term in office. 

The Trump administration has urged White men to come forward with bias complaints, upending decades of civil rights policy that once prioritized the rights of women and people of color. 

The EEOC had made this DEI enforcement a top priority. The agency charged with fighting workplace discrimination is investigating Nike’s diversity policies for allegedly discriminating against White employees and it sued a Coca-Cola Co. distributor for allegedly discriminating against male employees by organizing a women-only retreat.

Signaling that the commission is poised to pursue more enforcement actions, EEOC chair Andrea Lucas warned Fortune 500 leaders that the Trump administration will not tolerate "discrimination against certain races or groups."

"All citizens are entitled to equal treatment under law and therefore should have equality of opportunity in every sector of our society, including the workplace," she wrote in a letter in February.

Reverse discrimination’ claims increase

Even before Trump took office, “reverse discrimination” lawsuits were on the upswing. Now lawyers predict the Trump administration’s enforcement efforts will spur even more bias complaints from White men. 

In June, the Supreme Court made those lawsuits easier to bring, unanimously ruling that antidiscrimination laws apply equally to everyone regardless of race or gender.

"Discrimination is unlawful whether the victim is Black, White, male or female," Nick Barry, senior counsel at the advocacy group America First Legal, told USA TODAY. "Many have hesitated to come forward because they feared retaliation or backlash. But the tide is finally turning and momentum is building around the simple principle that merit, not race or sex, must govern workplace decisions."

A white man sued for discrimination. 50 years later, the nation is still divided.

Steven Miller, a senior portfolio manager, recently sued Bausch + Lomb and his billionaire employer Carl Icahn, alleging he was denied a board seat because he is White.

According to the complaint filed in December in a Miami federal court, Bausch + Lomb required one of the two board directors nominated by Icahn Capital to be “diverse,” meaning non-White.

Bausch + Lomb and Icahn Enterprises did not respond to a request for comment.

“Undoubtedly, employers will soon experience the impact of this messaging,” Charles Plumb, a lawyer with the McAfee & Taft law firm in Oklahoma, said. “We should anticipate an uptick in reverse employment discrimination investigations by federal agencies and lawsuits brought against employers.”

Bias claims face tough hurdles, long odds

Like those brought by women and people of color, these discrimination lawsuits face tough hurdles and long odds, but some White workers have had success in court.

A New Jersey jury awarded $1.3 million to two White educators who alleged they were passed over for vice principal posts at Newark high schools for younger and less experienced candidates of color. Starbucks was ordered to pay $25 million to Shannon Phillips, a regional director who claimed she was fired for being White. 

“Sadly, it is with the slimmest of odds that employees get their day in court, let alone prevail,” Duvall told USA TODAY in an email in 2024.  

Trump wants to end affirmative action. Here’s how he plans to do it.

“I hope my nearly six-year journey is helpful to others who lose their livelihood unfairly,” he wrote. 

His lawyer, Luke Largess, said Duvall didn’t set out to become the face of the anti-DEI movement. He supported Novant Health’s diversity efforts during his tenure there, Largess said.

Novant Health told USA TODAY in a statement that ensuring equal employment opportunities "is a foundational aspect of Novant Health’s culture and we continue to vehemently disagree with the finding of liability."

For Duvall, standing up for himself in court came at a steep price. He told USA TODAY the litigation caused “immeasurable damage to my employment, my professional reputation and my career.”

After Novant, Duvall landed a job that paid more and included a signing bonus. He was fired not long after he filed his discrimination lawsuit in November 2019. 

Even so, headhunters contacted him with interest from four employers. His phone stopped ringing when Duvall informed them about the lawsuit.

Today, the high-powered marketing executive works as a consultant.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump wants White men to sue for race discrimination. This man did

mm