The Supreme Court reaffirmed Sullivan today – keep in mind that Sullivan was a rather tortuous ruling which had really only one purpose in mind: allowing Martin Luther King’s people to lie with impunity about Southern rednecks. The genesis of Sullivan (a government official in Alabama) was that King’s people had placed an ad in the New York Times to bring attention to King’s cause. All well and good: but they had fabricated several of their assertions in an attempt to paint King in the best light and Alabama authorities in the worst. Sullivan, the official most directly concerned sued and won – including up to the Alabama Supreme Court because there was zero doubt that there were false statements in the ad which had defamed Sullivan (and, by extension, the entirety of Alabama government). What the Supreme Court did is take valid First Amendment protections (we can say what we want) and turn them on their head by saying “you can lie about an official unless that official can meet nearly impossible standards of proof of malice”.
Nothing in what Sullivan – the person – did in any way inhibited even the most robust free speech. All he was going after was redress for lies. Not mistakes. Not misinterpretations. Not opinions disagreed with. Lies. Bald faced falsehoods which had no basis in fact. Additionally, totally unnecessary lies…that is, the case for King was strong enough based upon the unvarnished truth. King’s people could have retracted, apologized and then got on with it. But that would have been a win for…you know…those people. The Rednecks. Dirty people without proper credentials. What’s a bit of lying compared to the proper, Progressive outcome?
The Court might not have intended all the knock-on effects…but they have been devastating. The whole culture of lies we have in America today stems from the ruling, which made it nearly impossible to punish lies broadcast over any type of media. It didn’t provide protection for free speech – it just protected lies. It completely negated the reason for the First Amendment…to ensure vigorous debate about policy. Now its just a competition to see who can lie the most brazenly and crudely enforce their lies in the public square.
The Supreme Court also ruled today that it is Election Week, not Election Day – essentially giving States the ability to drag out that vote count as long as they like (ie, until the Democrat wins). Now, there is some basis for the ruling – elections, even to federal office, are under the control of the States. But, on the other hand, the Constitution does say it all has to be done on the same day. Not the same week (or longer). The correct ruling would have been all ballots received before close of polls on Election Day are valid – but while we have a 6-3 Court majority on most issues, it is 5-4 against on any issue which would seriously impede the Democrats. That is, if a Ruling would harm Democrat power in any significant way, we’ll find two of the supposedly Conservative Justices knifing us. That way they can go to parties in northern Virginia and point out that they screwed over those dirty Rednecks. Again.
Ultimately, judicial review is going to be set aside – it is something that the Executive has given to the Judiciary as a matter of courtesy. There is no warrant for it in the Constitution. Can’t stop the judges from issuing their rulings…but whether or not they’ll be obeyed is entirely discretionary. I’d prefer we keep the old way of doing it…but I cannot agree that 5 unelected judges get to make such clearly political decisions for us.
On the good news front, the Court ruled that Trump can fire FTC commissioners at will. This is important as it gets rid of what is called Humphrey’s Executor – a 1935 Court decision which held that Congress may via statute limit the President’s ability to fire Executive branch employees. This new ruling – Trump v. Slaughter – restores proper Executive authority. By extension, it might well get rid of all restrictions on firing Executive branch employees. This means that the civil service protections which have saddled us with liberal bureaucrats to undermine GOP Presidents might be gone. We’ll see how that plays out.
UPDATE: The Court ruled absurdly on the citizenship case…figuring that a person can cross the border illegally today and give birth to a citizen tomorrow. No sane reading of the 14th can sustain this…but the three liberals were joined by Roberts and Barrett who want sooooo badly to let their liberal friends know they’re really cool kids and can they please sit at the table?
Trump does retain tools on this – first off, of course, continuing to deport. Also, cracking down on those who employ or otherwise assist illegals to stay in country. Revoke visas for women of child bearing years. Lots of things…but, now, the Court has made it so that we’ll have to amend the Constitution. Know how I want it written?
Whereas only a complete idiot would think the 14th Amendment secures citizenship to the children of illegals born in the United States, this Amendment states you have to be born to two American citizens within the territory of the United States to be a natural born citizen.
Blogs For Victory 
Can’t stop the judges from issuing their rulings…but whether or not they’ll be obeyed is entirely discretionary.
I don’t know whether or not that was the way the Founders intended it, but given their aversion to unchecked government power, I’d have to say that, at the very least, it’s poetic justice. And I’d say it should cut both ways. If Conservatives ever use the judicial system to force people to do something that is immoral, unethical, illegal, or against their own best health or financial interests, the people should tell them to pound sand.
Yep – and the Left’s goal is to totally undermine the American system. Part of that undermining is to get judges who will rule that we have to lie, or be stupid, or participate in evil. This has two effects:
1. Grinds us down – gets us tired of the fight.
2. Collapses support for the very concept of law.
Can’t be emphasized enough that in the old Communist bloc, there was no real law. Solzhenitsyn pointed out that you couldn’t get a copy of the Soviet legal code. It was secret! So that the law was whatever they said it was at the moment. Whether or not you were going to jail was never based upon what you did, but upon what the State thought was best at the time. Every Russian in Germany in 1945 stole everything that wasn’t nailed down…but because Stalin was concerned that Zhukov’s popularity represented a threat, he was the one who had his apartment searched where, of course, they found some looted things. And keep in mind that Stalin essentially gave permission to his armies to steal (and to rape) just for this purpose…to have something on everyone. He did the same thing to the Old Bolsheviks…allowed them to have special privileges just so, when the time was right, he could accuse them of malfeasance.
One thing that epitomizes evil hypocrisy is, many who screams “my body, my choice” or politicians who push to legalize abortion on demand, especially with relatively easy access to the abortion pill, will at the same time by some contorted mental gymnastics, fight against access to the abortion reversal pill. In a similar vein, many of those same mentally and morally decrepit people will fight against someone having access to counseling to suppress gay tendencies or seeking to de-transition. Behind all of the smoke-n-mirrors rhetoric it becomes obvious the intent of this evil is with zero care or concern for people who seek control over their directions but rather in forcing a very specific destructive agenda on the rest of the world.
https://www.lifenews.com/2026/06/29/200-moms-whose-babies-were-saved-by-abortion-pill-reversal-slam-california/?cmid=869a5503-15e1-4b51-a791-e87c837ce7cb
So my ancestors came here in 1692. One of my ancestors, John, fought in the Revolutionary War. Another ancestor of mine, Jacob, fought in the War of 1812, yet I am told I live on stolen land while the Somalian who was just born yesterday, has the right to this country.
That’s Democrat logic and it’s the reason why we can never allow then to have power ever again.
A couple of the SC rulings this morning are the reason why bullets are made.
I don’t know why I am surprised at the bizarre twist Roberts and Barrett put on the concept of “under the jurisdiction” but I am.
As I have repeatedly said, there is a simple test for “under the jurisdiction”. That is: Roberto comes to the United States. It doesn’t matter if he came here legally or illegally, because that should not matter in this context. (I never understood the Trump edict that got everything so tangled up by dragging in legal status.)
So Roberto lives here without any problems, might even have permanent residency status—but he is still a citizen of Spain. He takes a trip to France and gets into some legal trouble—-to which embassy does he go for help? The U.S. Embassy or that of Spain? Obviously, he goes to the Spanish Embassy, because he is still under the jurisdiction of Spain.
I knew a man from Peru who lived in the United States for 12 years, had a “green card” (permanent resident status) and was in the process of applying for citizenship. He died, and immediately the Peruvian Consulate, contacted by his family, stepped in to take over all arrangements related to his death. Why? Because as a citizen of Peru he was still under the jurisdiction of Peru
It is not complicated. The jurisdiction issue is not complicated, nor is the wording of the 14th Amendment. This doesn’t even call for a legal education. It just calls for common sense, some degree of literacy, and willingness to simply read the words and follow them instead of being guided by emotion or politics.
IMHO, a newborn baby is “under the jurisdiction” of their PARENTS, and the jurisdiction those parents are under, is exactly the jurisdiction the newborn is under. This is common sense 101. This is an issue wars are fought over ….
You’ve got to remember that this has never been adjudicated before. Every president, every Congress, every Supreme Court since 1868 has just ignored the plain, straightforward language of the 14th Amendment. Put simply, for the vast majority of people a lie has become the truth. Three justices who should (and DO) know better simply didn’t want to rock this 158-year-old boat. If there IS a judgement day (and I believe there is), I’d love to be a fly on the wall when they stand before God and explain this decision.
I’d like to start with having them explain this decision to ME. I can’t help but think that given my example they would be hard-pressed to rebut it. I am sure that any lawyer could come up with a dozen examples, if not more, of people having to turn to their own embassies for assistance because after all they are under the jurisdiction of the countries where they are citizens.
Have a hearing, with diplomats as witnesses, explaining how they handle issues of American citizens calling for help in foreign nations. For that matter, call diplomats from other countries—–“Sir, why did Mr. Rodriguez call your embassy for help when he had a legal problem in France?” “Because I am the Spanish ambassador and he is a citizen of Spain.”
Democrats tell us we all live on stolen land here in America, yet now they are celebrating that more people can come here and steal more land. Make that make sense. Everything Democrats do anymore is in complete opposition to reality and common sense.
Yep – of course, the Left and RINOs are now saying “under the jurisdiction of” means “in the USA”…but if that was the case, the framers wouldn’t have written “and subject to the jurisdiction”. They had to put that in there in order to get the thing enacted because nobody wanted an Amendment which would grant automatic citizenship to any person who just happened to be within US territory at any given time. Barrett and Roberts wanted to tweak Trump; that is all there is to it. And all they did was make another Roe…but this on steroids as people see this as the existential threat it is. That under this ruling, a foreign power could create an endless number of American “citizens” who could, as adults, do all manner of things to undermine us…from concentrating in a certain electoral district to elect a foreign stooge to carrying out espionage and sabotage on a grand scale. American citizenship is a sacred trust, not a loophole.
“Barrett and Roberts wanted to tweak Trump;“—but it is sad that they were willing to make fools of themselves to do it. Seriously, they have the credentials to strip their statements of any excuse that they simply did not understand the meaning of “under the jurisdiction of” but they were quite willing to step in what will remain in posterity as a statement of sheer basic illiterate ignorance.
DO IT !!!!!
https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15944591/Trump-secretly-weighs-finishing-job-Iran-Vance-lets-slip-grim-new-strategy.html
Ruh-roh! (hat tip to Jeff Childers)
If this decision did anything, it brought the issue before a previously uninterested public in a way that’s never been done before.
If anchor babies are now American citizens, shouldn’t we take the baby away from the foreign parents and raise it ourselves? I submit we require all anchor babies to be put up for an adoption to American families only.