A former Universal Music Enterprises employee said he was fired by the company last month after refusing to work on June 24, the day the Supreme Court overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion decision.
“I’m a queer brown person and I was fired during Pride month for speaking up in defense of abortion rights at Universal Music Enterprises (UMe) (a subsidiary of Universal Music Group),” Michael Lopez wrote in a lengthy LinkedIn post a week ago.
Lopez’s LinkedIn profile indicates he worked at the company as a production coordinator from January 2021 till June. His profile currently says he is a freelance graphic designer.
Lopez said he had to process reports for the company’s upcoming releases every Friday. Part of the work involved writing to an email list with 275 people on it.
The Supreme Court on June 24 upheld a Mississippi law that banned abortions 15 weeks post-conception and overturned Roe v. Wade in a landmark decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
In response to the decision, Lopez emailed the 275 people on the mailing list that day to say he did not do the work he was then supposed to do because he was “in mourning due to the attack on people with uteruses in the US. Federally guaranteed access to abortion is gone.”
“Vivendi and Universal Music Group must stop donating to anti-abortion, anti-queer and anti-trans politicians. Politicians like Marsha Blackburn, Ken Buck, Victoria Spartz, etc. Or expect more unproductive days,” he wrote, naming three Republican members of Congress.
Lopez signed off the email with the words, “Yours in fury.”
He said in his LinkedIn post that although he thought he might lose his job, he “was proud of letting allies know that our company has been donating to these politicians.”
Would you fire an employee who did something like this?
Yes: 99% (910 Votes)
No: 1% (8 Votes)
According to Lopez, fellow employees expressed their support for what he had done, and his manager subsequently asked him to take the day off.
However, the company’s leadership apparently did not take this mutiny lightly.
A week after the incident, a company HR official met with Lopez via Zoom and told him that he was being fired.
“I was being let go,” he said in his LinkedIn post, “for (paraphrasing) ‘Not doing your job, disrupting the day of 275 people and poor judgement.’”
Universal asked him to sign out of his work accounts and took back his work laptop an hour after the meeting, he said.
The entitled snowflake confirmed hir single digit IQ by sending another email to the same group as before — AFTER being fired.
In response to his firing, however, Lopez emailed the mailing list again.
“Just got fired for this email from Friday, so they’re letting you know where they stand on employees speaking out on politicians that support marginalization for folks like me,” he wrote, according to his LinkedIn post.
“A brown queer person terminated during Pride month speaking in support of abortion rights. Seems like that’s exactly what America is all about right now,” Lopez said.
“I don’t speak for my former company. I speak for myself and employees that will suffer under these discriminatory laws,” he said.
“Their actions today, their silence on Friday are indicative of their motivations. Profit at all costs,” Lopez wrote. “Solidarity, only if it’s profitable. And above all of that is maintaining the status quo and saying f*** you to the working class.”
Lopez’s post has grown popular since the time he shared it, earning more than 3,400 reactions and 605 comments as of Tuesday afternoon.
Universal Music Group was asked about the situation, and a representative told the New York Post, “As a matter of policy, we can’t discuss an individual’s personnel record. We can say that what was posted on social media is inaccurate.”
“UMG has a long record of support for women’s issues,” the representative said. “In the wake of the recent US Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v Wade, the company has extended its efforts to assure that these important healthcare services remain accessible to employees.”
“We also financially support non-profit groups working in this area and offer a match for employee’s contributions to those groups, as well.”
I saw the Salon article yesterday and I finally stopped laughing long enough to write this little diddy. Washington was a military leader who led us to victory. Biden led us to the Afghanistan retreat. Jefferson was one of the authors of the Declaration of Independence. Biden was a plagiarizing author.
Now if the author just showed the defeats between the three, and how Washington and Jefferson owned slaves and Joe had KKK friends, I could see common ground. But to compare Joe’s destroying of the Trump economy with some of the great things the founding fathers did? Laughable.
Privacy advocates are watching the case closely, concerned that police could use reverse keyword searches to investigate people who seek information about abortions.
(Oh? IS that the ONLY privacy concern? — TPR)
A teen charged with setting a fire that killed five members of a Senegalese immigrant family in Denver, Colorado, has become the first person to challenge police use of Google search histories to find someone who might have committed a crime, according to his lawyers.
The pushback against this surveillance tool, known as a reverse keyword search, is being closely watched by privacy and abortion rights advocates, who are concerned that it could soon be used to investigate women who search for information about obtaining an abortion in states where the procedure is now illegal.
In documents filed Thursday in Denver District Court, lawyers for the 17-year-old argue that the police violated the Constitution when they got a judge to order Google to check its vast database of internet searches for users who typed in the address of a home before it was set ablaze on Aug. 5, 2020. Three adults and two children died in the fire.
That search of Google’s records helped point investigators to the teen and two friends, who were eventually charged in the deadly fire, according to police records. All were juveniles at the time of their arrests. Two of them, including the 17-year-old, are being tried as adults; they both pleaded not guilty. The defendant in juvenile court has not yet entered a plea.
The 17-year-old’s lawyers say the search, and all evidence that came from it, should be thrown out because it amounted to a blind expedition through billions of Google users’ queries based on a hunch that the killer typed the address into a search bar. That, the lawyers argued, violated the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches.
“People have a privacy interest in their internet search history, which is really an archive of your personal expression,” said Michael Price, who is lead litigator of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers’ Fourth Amendment Center and one of the 17-year-old’s attorneys. “Search engines like Google are a gateway to a vast trove of information online and the way most people find what they’re looking for. Every one of those queries reveals something deeply private about a person, things they might not share with friends, family or clergy.”
Keyword searches differ from traditional search warrants in that police seek them without knowing the name of a suspect; instead, they are seeking information that might lead them to a suspect.
Keyword searches have grown increasingly common in recent years, as police have used them to search for suspects in a variety of crimes, including a string of Texas bombings, sexual abuse in Wisconsin and fraud in Minnesota. They differ from traditional search warrants in that police seek them without knowing the name of a suspect; instead, they are seeking information that might lead them to a suspect.
Google does not publish data on the number of keyword search requests it receives, and did not respond to a request to provide that information. Google also did not respond to requests for comment.
Now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade, privacy advocates and women’s rights groups worry that keyword searches could expand into investigations of illegal abortions in states that have outlawed them.
“Police officers are going to try to investigate people they think are violating those laws. One way of finding that is to ask Google to hand over information on everyone who has searched for a Planned Parenthood in a particular place,” said Jennifer Lynch, surveillance litigation director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit civil rights group that plans to file a brief supporting the 17-year-old’s challenge to the keyword search warrant.
“If Google is allowed or required to turn over information in this Colorado case, there is nothing to stop a court in a state that has outlawed abortion to also require Google to turn over information on that kind of keyword search.”
(Boo hoo, snowflakes. Try your scare tactics elsewhere — TPR)
Abortion rights advocates are also concerned about geofence warrants, in which police ask Google to provide information on devices that were near the scene of a crime in order to find a suspect. That tool was found unconstitutional by a judge in Virginia last year, but that ruling doesn’t restrain police in other parts of the country.
Denver police, with help from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, turned to the keyword search several weeks after the fire, when they had yet to identify the people caught on security video in masks just before the fire was set.
The keyword search warrant, issued in November 2020, led Google to search for anyone who queried the address of the home that burned in the 15 days before the fire. Google delivered information on 61 queries, according to court filings, along with the IP address — a unique number for each computer on the internet. Investigators focused on a handful of those queries, asking Google to provide detailed user information for them. One of them was linked to the 17-year-old.
From there, investigators examined the teen’s other online activities, including Snapchat, Facebook, Instagram and text messages.
The investigation revealed that the fire was set in a mistaken attempt at revenge against someone who’d stolen one of the co-defendant’s phones, a Denver detective testified last year. After the fire, the co-defendant realized the people killed were not the people he thought stole the phone, the detective said.
If it wasn’t for the keyword search warrant, investigators would never have suspected the 17-year-old or his friends, his lawyers wrote in the motion filed Thursday.
“The starting point was a search of billions of Google users, and all without a shred of evidence to search any one of them,” the lawyers wrote.
The lawyers called the search a privacy violation of not only the 17-year-old defendant but of all people who conducted a search on Google during the 15-day period.
The Denver Police Department declined to comment. So did the Denver district attorney’s office, which is prosecuting the case.
Price said that allowing the government to sift through Google’s vast trove of searches is akin to allowing the government access to users’ “thoughts, concerns, questions, fears.”
“Every one of those queries reveals something deeply private about a person, things they might not share with friends, family or clergy,” Price said. “‘Psychiatrists in Denver.’ ‘Abortion providers near me.’ ‘Does God exist.’ Every day, people pose those questions to Google seeking information.”
Jon Schuppe is an enterprise reporter for NBC News, based in New York.
In a June 2022 dissenting opinion, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas asserted a debunked claim about the use of aborted fetal cells in COVID-19 vaccines.
This is the second one.
Five conservative Supreme Court justices dishonestly suggested, in Senate confirmation hearings, that they thought Roe v. Wade was beyond overturning.
It’s a sad day for the left when Snopes calls them out for their lies. The big lie was that the conservative justices lied to get confirmed. Lied about how they would vote on Roe V. Wade. As Snopes tells us, none of them lied.
Snopes goes through them one by one.
In May 2022, after news leaked that the U.S. Supreme Court had provisionally voted to overturn the abortion protections enshrined in Roe v. Wade, the left-wing political action committee MeidasTouch briefly caused “#LyingGOP” to trend on Twitter, with a video that accused five Republican-appointed justices of lying about their intentions to overturn the landmark ruling.
However, the creators of the video badly misrepresented the full scope of relevant facts in two important ways, and we are issuing a rating of “False.”
First, they engaged in highly selective editing of much longer and more nuanced archival clips of future justices during their U.S. Senate confirmation hearings, in order to grossly misrepresent the substance of what they said.
Second, they appeared to misunderstand or misrepresent the meaning of a Supreme Court precedent. In brief, describing a ruling as an important precedent is not tantamount to giving a commitment not to overturn that ruling, or indicating you believe that ruling cannot be overruled. Therefore, the sweeping allegations of premeditated dishonesty on the part of GOP-appointed justices were as poorly supported by evidence as they were wrongheaded.
The following is our breakdown of what the MeidasTouch “megaviral supercut” video claimed, lined up against what the factual record shows.
Justice Clarence Thomas
The following is how Meidas Touch presented Thomas’s remarks:
Clarence Thomas: I believe the constitution protects the right to privacy. And I have no reason or agenda to prejudge the issue.
Caption: HE LIED
In this section of the video, MeidasTouch mutilated a 1991 quotation from then-Supreme Court nominee Thomas, and grossly misrepresented the substance and meaning of his remarks. In reality, Thomas absolutely did not provide any assurances on how he might rule on the specific case of Roe v. Wade, nor on the question of abortion rights.
U.S. Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, D-Ohio, had been attempting to pin down Thomas’s views on whether the U.S. Constitution protects abortion rights, and had highlighted what he presented as discrepancies in Thomas’s past pronouncements.
In particular, Metzenbaum asked Thomas to resolve an apparent gap between his putative support for a constitutionally-enshrined right to privacy, more broadly, and abortion rights in particular. Metzenbaum put it to Thomas that:
I fear that you, like other nominees before the committee, could assure us that you support a fundamental right to privacy, but could also decline to find that a woman’s right to choose is protected by the constitution.
At the culmination of his remarks, Metzenbaum asked Thomas:
I must ask you to tell us here and now whether you believe that the constitution protects a woman’s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy, and I am not asking you as to how you would vote in connection with any case before the court.
In response, Thomas prevaricated, as so many judicial nominees have in recent decades:
I am afraid though, on your final question, Senator, that it is important for any of us who are judges, in areas that are very deeply contested…I think that to take a position would undermine my ability to be impartial…
I am afraid that to begin to answer questions about what my specific position is in these contested areas would greatly — or leave the impression that I prejudged this issue.
When Metzenbaum again attempted to pin down the nominee, Thomas again prevaricated, providing the quotation that would be mutilated and misrepresented by MeidasTouch in their video:
Senator, as I noted yesterday, and I think we all feel strongly in this country about our privacy — I do — I believe the constitution protects the right to privacy. And I have no reason or agenda to prejudge the issue or to predispose to rule one way or the other on the issue of abortion, which is a difficult issue. [Emphasis is added].
As the transcript makes clear, MeidasTouch cut off the second half of Thomas’s sentence, in which he stipulated that he had “no reason…to prejudge” or “to predispose to rule one way or the other on the issue of abortion.”
In reality, Thomas was repeatedly urged and asked to make pronouncements on abortion rights, and refused to do so. The notion, therefore, that in this exchange he somehow gave an assurance that he would not ever vote to overturn Roe v. Wade is utterly without basis in fact.
Justice Samuel Alito
The following is how MeidasTouch presented Alito’s remarks:
Alito: Roe v Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It was decided in 1973. It has been challenged on a number of occasions and the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the decision. When a decision is challenged and it is reaffirmed, that strengthens its value.
Caption: HE LIED
Once again, this presentation gives the grossly misleading impression that, in his confirmation hearings, Alito indicated he would not vote to overturn Roe v Wade. In reality, the full scope of his remarks clearly shows that — like most judicial nominees — Alito very carefully avoided giving any assurances about how he might vote on that precedent.
Ironically, the starting point for the exchange was the concern expressed by U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., that Alito had “decided to create categories of cases that have been decided by the Court that you will concede have constitutional protection, but you have left in question the future of Roe v. Wade.”
In other words, Durbin was concerned that Alito had not stated, for the record, that Roe v. Wade was no longer open to overturning, and indeed had in the past asserted that “the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.”
So while MeidasTouch presented Alito’s remarks as proof that he thought Roe v. Wade was beyond overturning — “Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court” — what those remarks actually constituted was Alito’s careful avoidance of describing the ruling as such. Here’s the key exchange:
Durbin: Do you believe [Roe v Wade] is the settled law of the land? Alito: Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It was decided in 1973, so it has been on the books for a long time. It has been challenged on a number of occasions, and I discussed those yesterday, and the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the decision, sometimes on the merits, sometimes [as] in Casey based on stare decisis, and I think that when a decision is challenged and it is reaffirmed that strengthens its value as stare decisis… Durbin: Is it the settled law of the land? Alito: It is a — if settled means that it can’t be re-examined, then that’s one thing. If settled means that it is a precedent that is entitled to respect as stare decisis, and all of the factors that I’ve mentioned come into play, including the reaffirmation and all of that, then it is a precedent that is protected, entitled to respect under the doctrine of stare decisis, in that way.
What Alito is saying here is that Roe v. Wade is clearly a precedent whose conclusions have been repeatedly reaffirmed by the court, and would not lightly be overturned, taking into account the doctrine of stare decisis — the legal principle of deference to precedent expressed in the Latin phrase, which means “let stand what has been decided.”
What Alito is not saying — indeed, what he is scrupulously avoiding saying, despite Durbin’s best efforts — is that Roe v Wade is beyond overturning, like various other landmark precedents he had mentioned elsewhere in the hearings, such as Brown v. the Board of Education.
So the full scope of Alito’s remarks, when viewed objectively and in context, actually show the opposite of what the brief clip, strategically cut away by MeidasTouch, appeared to show.
Justice Neil Gorsuch
The following is how Meidas Touch presented Gorsuch’s remarks.
Gorsuch: Roe v Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court, worthy [of] treatment [as] precedent, like any other.
Caption: HE LIED
MeidasTouch badly misrepresented Gorsuch’s remarks in the same way as it did Alito’s. In reality, by describing Roe v. Wade as a precedent “worthy of treatment as precedent,” Gorsuch was assiduously avoiding going any further or categorizing it as beyond overturning.
The pattern should be familiar by now. Gorsuch’s remarks came during a Senate confirmation hearing on March 21, 2017, and can be read and viewed in their proper context.
During his questioning of the Trump nominee, Judiciary committee chairman U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, asked Gorsuch whether he thought DC v. Heller, a landmark 2008 decision in which the court reaffirmed the Second Amendment right to bear arms, had been correctly decided. Gorsuch said:
Senator, I would respectfully respond that it [DC v Heller] is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court, and as a good judge, you do not approach that question anew, as if it had never been decided. That would be a wrong way to approach it. My personal views, I would also tell you, Mr. Chairman, belong over here. I leave those at home…Part of being a good judge is coming in and taking precedent as it stands, and your personal views about the precedent have absolutely nothing to do with the good job of a judge.
Senator, again, I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. The reliance interest considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered. It is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy [of] treatment [as] precedent like any other.
Did Gorsuch indicate that Roe v Wade was particularly or unusually vulnerable to being overturned? No. Did he suggest it was immune to overturning? Absolutely not.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh
The following is how MeidasTouch presented Kavanaugh’s remarks.
Kavanaugh: As a judge, it is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. By “it” I mean Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey. Been reaffirmed many times. Casey is precedent on precedent.
Caption: HE LIED
The clip in question came from Kavanaugh’s Senate judiciary committee hearing on Sep. 5, 2018, during questioning by U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. Readers can consult the relevant transcript and video.
Feinstein had been attempting to pin down Kavanaugh about his views on the status of Roe v. Wade as a precedent, and whether it “could be overturned.” Kavanaugh, stating the obvious, acknowledged Roe was a precedent and described Planned Parenthood v. Casey as “precedent on precedent” but declined to go further, despite repeated invitations by Feinstein.
Feinstein: …It has been reported that you have said that Roe is now settled law. The first question I have of you is what do you mean by “settled law”? I tried to ask earlier do you believe it is correct law? Have your views on whether Roe is settled precedent or could be overturned, and has your views changed since you were in the Bush White House?
Kavanaugh: Senator, I said that it is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis. And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.
Feinstein followed up one last time, asking “What would you say your position today is on a woman’s right to choose?” and Kavanaugh again prevaricated on the future sustainability of Roe v Wade:
As a judge, it is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. By “it,” I mean Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. They have been reaffirmed many times. Casey is precedent on precedent, which itself is an important factor to remember.
As we have pointed out in other cases, acknowledging that a ruling is a precedent, or even “precedent on precedent,” is not the same as saying you would never overturn it.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett
The following is how MeidasTouch presented Barrett’s remarks.
Barrett: Roe is not a superprecedent because calls for its overruling have never ceased, but that doesn’t mean that Roe should be overruled.
Caption: THEY ALL LIED
This is perhaps the most egregious example of all, and comes from the second day of Barrett’s Senate confirmation hearing, Oct. 13, 2020. An official transcript was not readily available in this case, but readers can consult video footage.
U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., was questioning Barrett about various Supreme Court landmarks, and the concept of the “superprecedent” — a somewhat ambiguous term coined by former Sen. Arlen Specter.
In a 2013 paper, Barrett wrote “Superprecedents are cases that no justice would overrule, even if she disagrees with the interpretive premises from which the precedent proceeds,” and included the following more detailed explanation from law professor Michael Gerhardt:
[T]he point at which a well-settled practice becomes, by virtue of being well-settled, practically immune to reconsideration is the point at which that precedent has become a superprecedent. Nothing becomes a superprecedent, at least in my judgment, unless it has been widely and uniformly accepted by public authorities generally, including the Court, the President, and Congress.
In that 2013 paper, Barrett also explicitly listed a handful of Supreme Court cases — including Brown v. the Board of Education — which were typically cited as superprecedents.
Earlier in her confirmation hearing, during questioning by judiciary committee chairman U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Barrett had said that, in the context of legal scholarship, a superprecedent was a “precedent that is so well established that it would be unthinkable that it would ever be overruled” and Barrett would also similarly tell Klobuchar that the term described a precedent that was “so widely-established and agreed-upon by everyone [that] calls for its overruling simply don’t exist.”
That was the background against which Klobuchar asked Barrett whether Roe v. Wade was a superprecedent, and Barrett explicitly excluded Roe v. Wade from the small handful of cases to which that term applies. She said:
The way that [“superprecedent”] is used in the scholarship, and the way that I was using it in the article that you’re reading from was to define cases that are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling. And I’m answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn’t fall in that category. And scholars across the spectrum say that doesn’t mean that Roe should be overruled, but descriptively it does mean that it’s not a case that everyone has accepted and doesn’t call for its overruling.
…As Richard Fallon from Harvard said, Roe is not superprecedent because calls for its overruling have never ceased, but that doesn’t mean that Roe should be overruled. It just means that it doesn’t fall on the small handful of cases like Marbury v Madison and Brown v the Board, that noone questions any more.
Reading Barrett’s remarks in their proper context clearly demonstrates that she directly and explicitly exploded the frankly laughable claim, made by MeidasTouch, that she had indicated Roe v. Wade was immune to overruling. In fact, she did just the opposite.
– CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF HON. BRETT M. KAVANAUGH TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-115shrg32765/html/CHRG-115shrg32765.htm. Accessed 5 May 2022.
Alito Confirmation Hearing, Day 3 Part 1 | C-SPAN.Org. https://www.c-span.org/video/?190503-1/alito-confirmation-hearing-day-3-part-1. Accessed 5 May 2022.
Barrett Confirmation Hearing, Day 2 Part 1 | C-SPAN.Org. https://www.c-span.org/video/?476316-1/barrett-confirmation-hearing-day-2-part-1. Accessed 5 May 2022.
Barrett Confirmation Hearing, Day 2 Part 2 | C-SPAN.Org. https://www.c-span.org/video/?476316-4/barrett-confirmation-hearing-day-2-part-2. Accessed 5 May 2022.
Becker, Jo, and Charles Babington. “No Right to Abortion, Alito Argued in 1985.” Washington Post, 15 Nov. 2005. www.washingtonpost.com, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2005/11/15/no-right-to-abortion-alito-argued-in-1985/bcbd4e02-0c2e-4dac-8caf-0d252c5630a0/.
“Exclusive: Supreme Court Has Voted to Overturn Abortion Rights, Draft Opinion Shows.” POLITICO, https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473. Accessed 5 May 2022.
GOP Judges EXPOSED as Liars in Megaviral Supercut. www.youtube.com, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jbHMHN_mfo. Accessed 5 May 2022.
Gorsuch Confirmation Hearing, Day 2, Part 1 | C-SPAN.Org. https://www.c-span.org/video/?425138-1/supreme-court-nominee-stresses-independence-calls-criticism-judges-disheartening&airingid=61108104. Accessed 5 May 2022.
“Hunting for ‘Super Precedents’ in U.S. Supreme Court Confirmations – National Constitution Center.” National Constitution Center – Constitutioncenter.Org, https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/hunting-for-super-precedents-in-u.s-supreme-court-confirmations. Accessed 5 May 2022.
Judiciary, United States Congress Senate Committee on the. Nomination of Judge Clarence Thomas to Be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States: Hearings Before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, First Session … U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993.
“Stare Decisis.” LII / Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis. Accessed 5 May 2022.
Stolberg, Sheryl Gay. “Roe Is ‘Settled Law,’ Kavanaugh Tells Collins. Democrats Aren’t Moved.” The New York Times, 21 Aug. 2018. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/us/politics/kavanaugh-collins-abortion.html.
Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing, Day 2, Part 1 | C-SPAN.Org. https://www.c-span.org/video/?449705-1/supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-hearing-day-2-part-1. Accessed 5 May 2022.
Thomas Confirmation Hearing Day 2, Part 1 | C-SPAN.Org. https://www.c-span.org/video/?21115-1/thomas-confirmation-hearing-day-2-part-1. Accessed 5 May 2022.
By Michael Robison for TGP Published June 29, 2022
On Tuesday, Dr. Anthony Fauci confirmed that he is experiencing “COVID rebound” after taking Pfizer’s Paxlovid, the so-called silver bullet that Biden wasted billions in taxpayer dollars to support.
Paxlovid appears to have almost zero effectiveness for people that are already vaccinated, according to the manufacturer Pfizer’s data.
Fauci, shared his health update while speaking remotely at the Foreign Policy Global Health Forum.
Earlier in June, Fauci tested positive for the virus with mild symptoms, including fatigue. According to Fauci, as his symptoms worsened, he began a five-day course of the supposed wonder drug.
When talking about his experience with the medication, Fauci said that he tested negative for the virus three days in a row. However, when he tested again on the fourth day, the test was positive again.
Fauci said that his symptoms were “much worse” after he tested positive for the second time following the treatment with Paxlovid.
In May, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) issued a formal warning of a COVID rebound due to a course of Paxlovid.
The CDC said that some patients prescribed Paxlovid suffered a recurrence of symptoms or tested positive for Covid between two and eight days after beginning treatment.
According to a June 22 University of California San Diego School of Medicine study, Covid-19 rebound symptoms after a course of Paxlovid are due to the failure of Pfizer’s wonder drug to impact infected cells and stop viral replication. The study notes that the medication may be rendered useless in vaccinated individuals.
The day after that study was published, Pfizer published its own data from stage 2 drug trials confirming the exact details. The study noted that a fully vaccinated person with a low risk of COVID complications had little to gain from using the drug.
A COVID-positive person allegedly should use Paxlovid to limit symptoms and prevent them from becoming severe enough to require hospitalization. The drug received emergency use authorization in late 2021.
Biden has touted the drug during his 2022 State of the Union address as one of the triumphs of America’s COVID response.
At the 2022 State of the Union, Biden said: “If you get COVID-19, the Pfizer pill reduces your chances of ending up in the hospital by 90 percent.”
“I’ve ordered more pills than anyone in the world has. Pfizer is working overtime to get us a million pills this month and more than double that next month,” he said.
Fauci’s experience seems to verify that of the drug trials, Paxlovid offers little to no benefit for treating the China virus. It is simply another tool used by the big pharmaceutical companies to milk the U.S. government for billions of dollars.
Reacting to a surprising and growing monkeypox outbreak, U.S. health officials on Tuesday expanded the group of people recommended to get vaccinated against the monkeypox virus.
They also said they are providing more monkeypox vaccine, working to expand testing, and taking other steps to try to get ahead of the outbreak.
“We will continue to take aggressive action against this virus,” said Dr. Ashish Jha, White House COVID-19 response coordinator, who has also been playing a role in how the government deals with monkeypox.
The administration said it was expanding the pool of people who are advised to get vaccinated to include those who may realize on their own that they could have been infected. That includes men who who have recently had sex with men at parties or in other gatherings in cities where monkeypox cases have been identified.
Most monkeypox patients experience only fever, body aches, chills and fatigue. People with more serious illness may develop a rash and lesions on the face and hands that can spread to other parts of the body. The disease is endemic in parts of Africa, where people have been infected through bites from rodents or small animals. It does not usually spread easily among people.
Last month, cases began emerging in Europe and the United States. Many but not all of those who contracted the virus had traveled internationally. Most were men who have sex with men, but health officials stress that anyone can get monkeypox.
Case counts have continued to grow. As of Tuesday, the U.S. had identified 306 cases in 27 states and the District of Columbia. More than 4,700 cases have been found in more than 40 other countries outside the areas of Africa where the virus is endemic.
There have been no U.S. deaths and officials say the risk to the American public is low. But they are taking steps to assure people that medical measures are in place to deal with the growing problem.One of the steps was to expand who is recommended to get vaccinated. Vaccines customarily are given to build immunity in people before they are ever infected. But if given within days or even a few weeks of first becoming infected, some vaccines can reduce severity of symptoms. A two-dose vaccine, Jynneos, is approved for monkeypox in the U.S. The government has many more doses of an older smallpox vaccine ACAM2000 that they say could also be used, but that vaccine is considered to have a greater risk of side effects and is not recommended for people who have HIV.
So it’s the Jynneos vaccine that officials have been trying to use as a primary weapon against the monkeypox outbreak. So far, the government has deployed over 9,000 doses of vaccine. U.S. officials on Tuesday said they are increasing the amount of Jynneos vaccine they are making available, allocating 56,000 doses immediately and about 240,000 more over the coming weeks. They promised more than 1 million more over the coming months. Officials said limited Jynneos doses will be allocated “using a four-tier distribution strategy that prioritizes jurisdictions with the highest case rates of monkeypox,” and that the number of doses distributed would be based on the number of people at risk for monkeypox and on how many of them can’t get ACAM2000 because of HIV.
That suggests the largest number of doses might go to states like New York, California and Illinois, each of which has reported more than 40 cases. However, officials on Tuesday did not say exactly which jurisdictions would be at the top of the list.
David Harvey, executive director of the National Coalition of STD Directors, was critical of the government’s announcement. “We have more questions than ever about how this vaccine will make it to those most at-risk in an equitable way and how the U.S. will ramp up testing and provide access to the best therapeutics,” Harvey said in a statement.
Another change announced Tuesday: Until now, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has advised that vaccines be given after exposure to people whom health officials identify as close personal contacts of cases. But on Tuesday, CDC officials say they are expanding the recommendation to people who were never identified but may realize on their own that they may have been infected.
That can include men who have sex with men who have recently had multiple sex partners in a venue where there was known to be monkeypox or in an area where monkeypox is spreading.
“It’s almost like we’re expanding the definition of who a contact might be,” said the CDC’s Jennifer McQuiston. If people have been to a party or other place where monkeypox has been known to spread “we recommend they come in for a vaccine,” she said.The CDC’s expansion follows similar steps taken in New York City and the District of Columbia.The District of Columbia has identified 19 cases, but case-tracking investigations revealed that some of the infected men had been in gatherings where they were hugging, kissing or in other forms of close intimate contact with people they didn’t know, said Anil Mangla of the D.C. health department.
It was clear that “we were missing something here,” and needed to start offering services to others, said Mangla, an epidemiologist.
Last Thursday, New York City’s health department — armed with 1,000 of doses of Jynneos from the federal government — announced it was opening a temporary clinic to offer the vaccine to all gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men who have had multiple or anonymous sex partners in the previous two weeks.
But all the appointments quickly filled up that day, and the last round of appointments was Monday. “Until we receive more supply we are unable to release additional vaccination appointments,” said Patrick Gallahue, a spokesman for the city’s health department, in an email.
On Monday, the District of Columbia’s health department took a similar step. The department started taking appointments at 1 p.m. Monday but had to stop after 20 minutes, Mangla said.
The department only had 200 doses of Jynneos, and it was clear at the point that it the department didn’t have the vaccine supply or staffing to continue to sign up new people, he said.
Hmm… wonder if we’ll get a new lockdown…just in time for the General Election, maybe?
Or maybe they want to get rid of these men, like with Aids?
We just got news that a 108 year old man had testimony so damaging to President Trump, that another special hearing is going to take place tomorrow. Our top reporter was told that this man saw Donald Trump leaving the grassy knoll back in 1963. If true Trump shot JFK.
More damaging was what Trump said to the man as he was leaving. Trump said this to the gentleman.” This isn’t nothing. In 2020 I’m going to plan an insurrection that will keep me in the White House till 2024.”
Of course you figured out that this is satire. But from the stuff coming out of these hearings, nothing would surprise me.
Five of these indicted men currently sit in pre-trial detention. They include Proud Boy Chairman Enrique Tarrio and his pals Joseph Biggs, Ethan Nordean, Dominic Pezzola and Zachary Rehl.
This recorded Zoom meeting was leaked by an Indicted Proud Boy that had viewed it live.
The Department of Justice had confiscated this video from the phone of Proud Boy Chairman Enrique Tarrio and hidden it from the public.
Luckily, these DOJ geniuses did not realize it still lived on a hidden YouTube link or they surely would have forced their minions at YouTube to take it down.
In the video, Proud Boy Chairman Enrique Tarrio said:
“We are never going to be the ones to cross the police barrier, or to cross something in order to get to somebody… We’re always going to be the ones standing back, right? We are always going to be the ones to f**king defend.”
The group then proceeds to discuss how they will defend themselves against Antifa attackers and avoid getting stabbed by not wearing their normal uniforms of black and yellow so they blend in.
They discuss the importance of organization, group leaders and formation. They drill in the importance of staying sober as to stay out of trouble. They pledge to stay away from women and avoid “normies” (non-Proud Boys) so they can march in an actual straight line and avoid losing each other on the day of the march. They discuss the danger of wandering off alone to “take a leak”. They mention how charming they are. They insult a female that irritated them at a past rally. They chat about going to the Dollar Tree store to purchase cutting boards to put in their shirts to act as stab-proof vests in case of an Antifa attack (multiple Proud Boys were stabbed at a rally only a few weeks prior to this meeting by Antifa infiltrators). They talk about “beer tax” and poke fun at each other. They barely mention the Capitol or President Trump.
There is no evidence pointing to a group planning on taking over the government.
Yet, the maniacal prosecution and January 6th Selective Misinformation Committee have literally alluded to a baseless conspiracy theory that a drinking fraternity (the Proud Boys) and Oath Keepers somehow magically assisted President Trump in an “insurrection”. The government, Liz Cheney and Merrick Garland’s DOJ have been planting these seeds in the minds of their minions in the fake news and spreading this misinformation everywhere.
In fact, prosecutors stated on the record that the Proud Boys began planning the Capitol Attack on December 19th, 2020, directly after President Trump tweeted to his followers to come to Washington DC on January 6th.
Yet, this video was taken eleven days after that and shows NO CONSPIRACY TO EVEN ENTER THE CAPITOL.
The Indicted Members of the Proud Boy Drinking Fraternity, now know to the Biden Regime as “Seditious Conspirators”. A new video proves innocence.
“They conscientiously FRAMED INNOCENT MEN- innocent American Citizens- for political power and gain. This will go down in history as one of the most organized attacks on the American people by their own Government.”
“After viewing this new evidence that the government withheld from the media and manipulated in court documents, perhaps this particular journalist realized the media has been misled by the Department of Justice.” said Ryan. “It seems he is fair in this new piece.”
“The meeting, on Dec. 30, 2020, marked the founding of a special new chapter of the Proud Boys called the Ministry of Self-Defense. The team of several dozen trusted members was intended, Mr. Tarrio told his men, to bring a level of order and professionalism to the group’s upcoming march in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021, that had, by his own account, been missing at earlier Proud Boys rallies in the city.
Over nearly two hours, Mr. Tarrio and his leadership team — many of whom have since been charged with seditious conspiracy — gave the new recruits a series of directives: Adopt a defensive posture on Jan. 6, they were told. Keep the “normies” — or the normal protesters — away from the Proud Boys’ marching ranks. And obey police lines.
The prosecution has claimed that the Proud Boys began to plan their assault as early as Dec. 19, 2020 — the day that President Donald J. Trump posted a tweet announcing his Jan. 6 rally and saying it would be “wild.” But the video conference shows that, just one week before the event, when Mr. Tarrio and other Proud Boys leaders gathered their team for a meeting, they spent most of their time discussing things like staying away from alcohol and women and taking measures to ensure their own security.
The recorded meeting makes no mention of any planning that might have occurred in the week directly before the Capitol attack. And while Mr. Tarrio suggests during the meeting that the complex structure he created for the Ministry of Self-Defense was meant to be self-protective — not offensive — in nature, prosecutors have claimed that the group’s “command and control” design was instrumental in facilitating the Capitol attack.
Lawyers for the Proud Boys say the recorded meeting is a key piece of exculpatory evidence, contradicting claims by the government that a conspiracy to attack the Capitol was hatched several weeks before Jan. 6.”
The January 6th Committee is panicking as their lies are finally being revealed in the mainstream media.
*Please see the entire UNEDITED version of the video here. We want to give you the option of seeing the video in its entirety so you know that nothing of importance was edited out.
Warning-this video may incriminate these men for having filthy mouths and offensive speech habits, but NOT of Seditious Conspiracy!
This video has been mentioned in court hearings but was not available to the public.
The prosecution had viewed the recording in its entirety, and cherry-picked out bits to misconstrue evidence to incriminate the defendants.
“These sick demonic people literally knew the Proud Boys were never planning on going inside the Capitol,” said Tina Ryan of Citizens Against Political Persecution. “They saw this tape. Yet they made the conscious decision to manipulate the contents of this video and present it to the judge and the public with the malicious intent to smear these men and jeopardize their lives and fair trails.”
Proud Boy Pals and Drinking Buddies Enrique Tarrio and Joseph Biggs at a rally before they were charged with Seditious Conspiracy by the Biden Regime.
The January 6th Select Committee undoubtedly knew about this video as well- yet they still decided to move forward during their first hearing and nail the Proud Boys to a cross by knowingly accusing them of tremendous false crimes.
These Committee members hid exculpatory evidence from the American people after looking into the cameras and promising to tell the American people “the truth about January 6th”.
Proud Boy Ethan “Ruffio” Nordean before his pre-trial detainment.
“The January 6th Hearings have made it impossible for the Proud Boys on this indictment to ever get a fair shake at a trial,” said Ryan. “They demonized the Proud Boys and accused them of seditious conspiracy in a ‘special video presentation’ before their trials. The Proud Boys charges should be dropped and these Congresspeople held liable for conspiring to falsify evidence.”
This is the perfect example of how the government continues to withhold important information from the people of the United States about a day as important as January 6th.
This is one of hundreds of unreleased videos that can potentially exonerate defendants.
“The court of public opinion will decide the fate of these men,” said Ryan.
Ryan ended with this: “It is completely unethical that this type of evidence has been held from the public and manipulated to frame these men for the ‘crime of the century’. These prosecutors and Congresspeople must be held accountable.”
Andrew Jose for The Western JournalJune 27, 2022 at 3:23pm
A New York State Supreme Court Judge ruled Monday that a New York City law, which would have permitted resident non-U.S. citizens in the city the right to vote, violated state law and the state constitution.
“There is no statutory ability for the City of New York to issue inconsistent laws permitting non-citizens to vote and exceed the authority granted to it by the New York State Constitution,” Staten Island Supreme Court Justice Ralph Porzio wrote in his 13-page ruling, according to the New York Post.
The judge said that the city’s December “Our City, Our Vote” would go against the state’s Election Law and Municipal Home Rule Law. These laws permitted only U.S. citizens above 18 to vote in state and local elections, according to the judge, the New York Post reported.
Because the city’s law went against state constitutional requirements, should the city extend voting rights to its over 800,000 resident aliens, it would first need to hold a referendum, the judge wrote in his ruling, according to the New York Times.
Non-citizen voting in New York is illegal.
In December, the New York City city council approved 33-14 with two abstentions in the measure granting the city’s resident aliens, who comprise 10 percent of its population, the right to vote, according to reporting from the Washington Post.
The law was set to come into effect in the state’s January 2023 elections, according to the Times.
Then former New York Mayor Bill de Blasio doubted the law’s survivability in the face of lawsuits, although he did not veto it.
“I still have a concern about it. Citizenship has an extraordinary value. People work so hard for it,” de Blasio said in December, according to the Associated Press.
Republican New York City city council Minority Leader, Joseph Borelli, was among the plaintiffs challenging the law..
In December, Borelli said that the law “devalues citizenship, and citizenship is the standard by which the state constitution issues or allows for suffrage in New York state elections at all levels,” the wire service reported.
Borelli welcomed the Monday ruling in a news release.
“Today’s decision validates those of us who can read the plain English words of our State Constitution and State statutes,” Borelli wrote in the news statement shared on his Twitter account.
“Non-citizen voting in New York is illegal,” Borelli wrote.
The law’s proponents told Gothamist that the case’s outcome was not surprising since plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in Staten Island, a Republican-leaning part of the city.
“They went court shopping where they knew that the court would be favorable to them,” New York City Immigration Coalition head Murad Awawdeh told Gothamist.
“We’re gonna keep fighting to ensure that nearly 1 million New Yorkers who are building their families, paying taxes and investing in our communities have a say in their local democracy,” Awawdeh said, according to the Gothamist.
“That is what this comes down to,” Awawdeh added.
Should non citizens be allowed to vote in local elections as long as they don’t vote in state or federal elections?
“COVID Vaccines Saved 20M Lives In 1st Year, Scientists Say”
Provided By – Video Elephant on June 24, 2022
Nearly 20 million lives were saved by COVID-19 vaccines during their first year, but even more deaths could have been prevented if international targets for the shots had been reached, researchers reported Thursday.
On Dec. 8, 2020, a retired shop clerk in England received the first shot in what would become a global vaccination campaign.
Over the next 12 months, more than 4.3 billion people around the world lined up for the vaccines.The effort, though marred by persisting inequities, prevented deaths on an unimaginable scale, said Oliver Watson of Imperial College London, who led the new modeling study.
“Catastrophic would be the first word that comes to mind,” Watson said of the outcome if vaccines hadn’t been available to fight the coronavirus. The findings “quantify just how much worse the pandemic could have been if we did not have these vaccines.”
…used data from 185 countries to estimate …
The researchers used data from 185 countries to estimate that vaccines prevented 4.2 million COVID-19 deaths in India, 1.9 million in the United States, 1 million in Brazil, 631,000 in France and 507,000 in the United Kingdom.An additional 600,000 deaths would have been prevented if the World Health Organization target of 40% vaccination coverage by the end of 2021 had been met, according to the study published Thursday in the journal Lancet Infectious Diseases.
Using only reported COVID-19 deaths
The main finding 19.8 million COVID-19 deaths were prevented is based on estimates of how many more deaths than usual occurred during the time period. Using only reported COVID-19 deaths, the same model yielded 14.4 million deaths averted by vaccines.The London scientists excluded China because of uncertainty around the pandemic’s effect on deaths there and its huge
The study has other limitations.
The study has other limitations. The researchers did not include how the virus might have mutated differently in the absence of vaccines.
And they did not factor in how lockdowns or mask wearing might have changed if vaccines weren’t available.
Another modeling group used a different approach to estimate that 16.3 million COVID-19 deaths were averted by vaccines. That work, by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation in Seattle, has not been published.
In the real world, people wear masks more often when cases are surging, said the institute’s Ali Mokdad, and 2021’s delta wave without vaccines would have prompted a major policy response.
“We may disagree on the number as scientists, but we all agree that COVID vaccines saved lots of lives,” Mokdad said.
The findings underscore both the achievements and the shortcomings of the vaccination campaign
The findings underscore both the achievements and the shortcomings of the vaccination campaign, said Adam Finn of Bristol Medical School in England, who like Mokdad was not involved in the study.”Although we did pretty well this time we saved millions and millions of lives we could have done better and we should do better in the future,” Finn said.
Funding came from several groups including the WHO; the UK Medical Research Council; Gavi,the Vaccine Alliance; and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
GAVI, officially Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance (previously the GAVI Alliance, and before that the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization) is a public–private global health partnership with the goal of increasing access to immunization in poor countries.In 2016, Gavi channeled more than half of total donor assistance for health, and most donor assistance for immunization, by monetary measure.
You know it’s bad when Wikipedia itself bad mouths an entry( sorry I couldn’t make it any bigger.):
So, of the four acknowledged funding sources, three are obviously questionable for their integrity.