USA Today Posts Highly Misleading Article Title About SCOTUS Re-Opening Gay Marriage Debate

Wow, USA Today!


That isn’t what the case is about at all!

If you don’t know, SCOTUS agreed to hear a case about the Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding. The case is not reopening the debate over gay marriage. The case is actually about whether or not someone can use a religious objection as a reason to not participate in or serve a couple who is doing something against their religion.

I don’t have an issue with gay marriage, personally; we’ve talked about this before. But in many religions, a wedding between two people of the same sex is not allowed to be done or participated in (and no, it is not only the Christian faith). And by baking a cake for a gay wedding, they would, in fact, be participating in furthering the action.

That is what the court is going to be hearing and discussing. It is a religious rights case more than a gay marriage case. Whether or not gay marriage should be allowed is not in question.

The media is doing this sort of thing more and more. It is, of course, our online clickbait culture that is playing a huge roll in it. You are more likely to click on the article if you think the right for gays to marry is going to be debated again and possibly revoked than you would if you see something about a baker not wanting to bake their wedding cake.

But it doesn’t make it right. This was a misleading headline that was tweeted out to their followers and fed into their own fears (their readership is largely liberal, and a good portion of liberals believe the right to gay marriage is in imminent danger). What it actually does is lower the credibility of USA Today and puts them in the category of outlets like Buzzfeed… which is a joke.

And then they can’t understand why people are constantly yelling “fake news,” claiming to not trust the media, or searching out alternative sources for news. This, media. This is why. Your advertisers aren’t going to go away if you post truthful headlines. People will still read the stories and see those advertisers. Maybe more so. I promise.

Supreme Court Will Hear Travel Ban Case

The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it would decide whether President Trump’s revised travel ban was lawful, setting the stage for a major decision on the scope of presidential power.

Mr. Trump’s revised executive order, issued in March, limited travel from six mostly Muslim countries for 90 days and suspended the nation’s refugee program for 120 days. The time was needed, the order said, to address gaps in the government’s screening and vetting procedures.

Two federal appeals courts have blocked critical parts of the order.

The administration had asked that the lower court ruling be stayed while the case moved forward. The court granted part of that request in its unsigned opinion.

The court, in effect, said that foreigners with ties or relationships in the United States would not be prohibited from entering the country. But, those applying for visas who had never been here, or had no family, business or other ties could be prohibited.

Supreme Court Deals Blow to Property Rights

Olivier Douliery – Pool via CNP/Newscom

The court voted 5-3, in Murr V. Wisconsin, a closely watched Fifth Amendment property rights case. The case arose from a dispute over two tiny parcels of land along the St. Croix River in western Wisconsin and morphed into a major property rights case that drew several western states into the debate before the court.

Chief Justice John Roberts, in a scathing dissent, wrote that ruling was a significant blow for property rights and would give greater power to government bureaucrats to pass rules that diminish the value of property without having to compensate property owners under the Firth Amendment’s Takings Clause.

Source: Supreme Court Deals Blow to Property Rights – Hit & Run :

Supreme Court Limits Government’s Ability To Revoke Citizenship

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday to limit the government’s ability to strip U.S. citizenship from legal immigrants for lying on their naturalization applications.

The Court said that naturalized immigrants cannot lose their citizenship for making false statements that are irrelevant to an immigration official’s decision to grant it. Instead, a jury must decide if such false statements would have influenced the decision.

“When the illegal act is a false statement, that means demonstrating that the defendant lied about the facts that would have mattered to an immigration official, because they would have justified denying naturalization or would predictably have led to other facts warranting that result,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the ruling opinion.

Full article: Supreme Court Limits Government’s Ability To Revoke Citizenship

Supreme Court Strikes Down Claim That ‘Hate Speech’ is Not Protected by 1st Amendment

The case concerned a band called The Slants that was denied copyright protection because their name was deemed offensive:

In Matal, the government refused to register “The Slants” as a band’s trademark, on the ground that the name might be seen as demeaning to Asian Americans. The government wasn’t trying to forbid the band from using the mark; it was just denying it certain protections that trademarks get against unauthorized use by third parties. But even in this sort of program, the court held, viewpoint discrimination — including against allegedly racially offensive viewpoints — is unconstitutional.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for four justices:

A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.

In a concurring opinion by Samuel Alito, joined by three others, Alito wrote:

[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”

That last line is a quotation from Oliver Wendell Holmes, who wrote it in a dissenting opinion in 1928:

Freedom from the thought that we hate is never an easy sell, but without it, we do not have true liberty.

Full article: BREAKING: Supreme Court Strikes Down Claim That ‘Hate Speech’ is Not Protected by 1st Amendment | Buck Sexton

Thank you! Seriously, thank you, Supreme Court!

The whole “hate speech isn’t protected under the 1st Amendment” thing always got on my nerves because, let’s face it… anything the left doesn’t like is considered hate speech. The term no longer has a meaning because if it doesn’t agree with their views, it is some phobe, ist, or ism, and therefore hate speech.

Not anymore! Folks, if you don’t like what someone is saying… walk away! Why is this such a hard concept?! If you don’t like speakers, don’t attend their speeches. If you don’t like claims someone is making, debate them. Have debates, have conversations, stop screaming people down, burning buildings down, and generally silencing thought you don’t agree with. If you believe you are right, you should be able to converse freely with someone else without having to silence them by screaming them down, blocking them from speaking, etc. And if you don’t like the name of the band that started this, don’t buy their music! Simple as that!

McConnell: “In What Universe Is Ruth Bader Ginsburg Mainstream, But Neil Gorsuch Is Not?”

I know, old news kind of, but he actually makes a good point.

Source: McConnell: “In What Universe Is Ruth Bader Ginsburg Mainstream, But Neil Gorsuch Is Not?” – Conservative Country


Senate Republicans Deploy ‘Nuclear Option’ to Clear Path for Gorsuch

“This is the latest escalation in the left’s never-ending judicial war, the most audacious yet,” Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, said after describing Democratic opposition in the past to Judge Robert H. Bork and Justice Clarence Thomas. “And it cannot and it will not stand. There cannot be two sets of standards: one for the nominees of the Democratic president and another for the nominee of a Republican president.”

downloadBut Democrats had shown no signs of forsaking their filibuster plans all week calling for Judge Gorsuch to be replaced by a compromise nominee if he could not earn 60 votes. Their stance has pleased their most progressive voters, who have preached resistance to President Trump at every opportunity, and supplied the minority party with perhaps its loudest megaphone so far under the new president.

Many Democrats remain furious over the treatment of Judge Merrick B. Garland, President Barack Obama’s nominee for the seat left vacant with the February 2016 death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Republicans refused to even consider Judge Garland during the presidential election year, a fact Mr. McConnell has not dwelled on during public statements about the history of Republican behavior under Democratic presidents.

Full article: Senate Republicans Deploy ‘Nuclear Option’ to Clear Path for Gorsuch – The New York Times