Winning. Schiff is Censured. Now we go to the House Ethics Committee.
The House voted on party lines Wednesday to censure Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) as a formal condemnation for Schiff’s outspoken promotion of allegations that former President Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia in the 2016 election.
The vote passed 213 to 209. Six voted present, including five Republicans on the House Ethics Committee, who are now required to probe Schiff as part of the resolution, and Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO).
Democrats, who unanimously opposed the vote, could be seen rallying around Schiff at the conclusion of it, chanting “Shame! Shame!” and “Disgrace!” at House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) as the speaker stood up to read the resolution.
“I have all night,” McCarthy said in response to the disruptions.
Censures are rare and serve as the highest form of punishment in Congress outside of an expulsion. Only two other members have been censured in the last nearly four decades, including, most recently, Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) for sharing a cartoon of himself killing Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).
The resolution against Schiff stated that while he was serving as the top Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, he “spread false accusations that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.”
Schiff also “perpetuated false allegations from the Steele Dossier accusing numerous Trump associates of colluding with Russia into the Congressional Record.”
The resolution required Schiff to present himself in the well of the House floor while McCarthy read the resolution and for the Ethics Committee to conduct an investigation into Schiff’s “falsehoods, misrepresentations, and abuses of sensitive information.”
Schiff notoriously claimed while in his position of authority on Intel that “clear evidence” that Trump colluded with the Russians existed in “plain sight,” despite multiple federal investigations ultimately concluding that there was no sufficient evidence of the alleged collusion.
McCarthy removed Schiff from his position on Intel this year because of the same reasons cited in the censure resolution.
Schiff has never retracted his claims and said on the House floor prior to the vote that he would wear the censure as a “badge of honor.”
He said:
I wear this partisan vote as a badge of honor, knowing that I have lived my oath, knowing that I have done my duty to hold a dangerous and out of control president accountable, and knowing that I would do so again in a heartbeat if the circumstances should ever require it.
The resolution was led by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), who initially included a $16 million fine against Schiff, which she said would compensate for a portion of what American taxpayers ultimately paid for the Trump-Russia federal probes. Several Republicans opposed the fine though, including Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), who said it was unconstitutional, leading Luna to excise that provision.
Several Republicans celebrated the passage of the resolution in statements on social media:
Schiff, who is running for the open Senate seat in California in 2024, has been fundraising off the disciplinary action against him, sending what Insider found to be at least 20 fundraising emails, in addition to social media posts soliciting donations.
Editor’s note: Justin Elliott and Josh Kaplan of ProPublica, which styles itself “an independent, nonprofit newsroom that produces investigative journalism with moral force,” emailed Justice Alito Friday with a series of questions and asked him to respond by noon EDT Tuesday. They informed the justice that “we do serious, fair, accurate reporting in the public interest and have won six Pulitzer Prizes.” Here is Justice Alito’s response:
ProPublica has leveled two charges against me: first, that I should have recused in matters in which an entity connected with Paul Singer was a party and, second, that I was obligated to list certain items as gifts on my 2008 Financial Disclose Report. Neither charge is valid.
• Recusal. I had no obligation to recuse in any of the cases that ProPublica cites. First, even if I had been aware of Mr. Singer’s connection to the entities involved in those cases, recusal would not have been required or appropriate. ProPublica suggests that my failure to recuse in these cases created an appearance of impropriety, but that is incorrect. “There is an appearance of impropriety when an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant facts would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties” (Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices appended to letter from the Chief Justice to Senator Durbin, April 25, 2023). No such person would think that my relationship with Mr. Singer meets that standard. My recollection is that I have spoken to Mr. Singer on no more than a handful of occasions, all of which (with the exception of small talk during a fishing trip 15 years ago) consisted of brief and casual comments at events attended by large groups. On no occasion have we discussed the activities of his businesses, and we have never talked about any case or issue before the Court. On two occasions, he introduced me before I gave a speech—as have dozens of other people. And as I will discuss, he allowed me to occupy what would have otherwise been an unoccupied seat on a private flight to Alaska. It was and is my judgment that these facts would not cause a reasonable and unbiased person to doubt my ability to decide the matters in question impartially.
Second, when I reviewed the cases in question to determine whether I was required to recuse, I was not aware and had no good reason to be aware that Mr. Singer had an interest in any party. During my time on the Court, I have voted on approximately 100,000 certiorari petitions. The vast majority receive little personal attention from the justices because even a cursory examination reveals that they do not meet our requirements for review. See Sup. Ct. R. 10. To ensure that I am not required to recuse, multiple members of my staff carefully check the names of the parties in each case and any other entities listed in the corporate disclosure statement required by our rules. See Supreme Court Rule 29.6. Mr. Singer was not listed as a party in any of the cases listed by ProPublica. Nor did his name appear in any of the corporate disclosure statements or the certiorari petitions or briefs in opposition to certiorari. In the one case in which review was granted, Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., No. 12-842, Mr. Singer’s name did not appear in either the certiorari petition, the brief in opposition, or the merits briefs. Because his name did not appear in these filings, I was unaware of his connection with any of the listed entities, and I had no good reason to be aware of that. The entities that ProPublica claims are connected to Mr. Singer all appear to be either limited liability corporations or limited liability partnerships. It would be utterly impossible for my staff or any other Supreme Court employees to search filings with the SEC or other government bodies to find the names of all individuals with a financial interest in every such entity named as a party in the thousands of cases that are brought to us each year.
• Reporting. Until a few months ago, the instructions for completing a Financial Disclosure Report told judges that “[p]ersonal hospitality need not be reported,” and “hospitality” was defined to include “hospitality extended for a non-business purpose by one, not a corporation or organization, . . . on property or facilities owned by [a] person . . .” Section 109(14). The term “facilities” was not defined, but both in ordinary and legal usage, the term encompasses means of transportation. See, e.g., Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language 690 (2001) (defining a “facility” as “something designed, built, installed, etc., to serve a specific function affording a convenience or service: transportation facilities” and “something that permits the easier performance of an action”). Legal usage is similar. Black’s Law Dictionary has explained that the term “facilities” may mean “everything necessary for the convenience of passengers.” Federal statutory law is similar. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C §1958(b) (“ ‘facility of interstate commerce’ includes means of transportation”); 18 U.S.C §2251(a) (referring to an item that has been “transported using any means or facility of interstate commerce”); Kevin F. O’Malley, Jay E. Grenig, Hon. William C. Lee, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions §54.04 (February 2023) (“the term ‘uses any facility in interstate commerce’ means employing or utilizing any method of . . . transportation between one state and another”).
This understanding of the requirement to report gifts reflected the expert judgment of the body that the Ethics in Government Act entrusts with the responsibility to administer compliance with the Act, see 5 U.S.C. App. §111(3). When I joined the Court and until the recent amendment of the filing instructions, justices commonly interpreted this discussion of “hospitality” to mean that accommodations and transportation for social events were not reportable gifts. The flight to Alaska was the only occasion when I have accepted transportation for a purely social event, and in doing so I followed what I understood to be standard practice.
For these reasons, I did not include on my Financial Disclosure Report for 2008 either the accommodations provided by the owner of the King Salmon Lodge, who, to my knowledge, has never been involved in any matter before the Court, or the seat on the flight to Alaska.
In brief, the relevant facts relating to the fishing trip 15 years ago are as follows. I stayed for three nights in a modest one-room unit at the King Salmon Lodge, which was a comfortable but rustic facility. As I recall, the meals were homestyle fare. I cannot recall whether the group at the lodge, about 20 people, was served wine, but if there was wine it was certainly not wine that costs $1,000. Since my visit 15 years ago, the lodge has been sold and, I believe, renovated, but an examination of the photos and information on the lodge’s website shows that ProPublica’s portrayal is misleading.
As for the flight, Mr. Singer and others had already made arrangements to fly to Alaska when I was invited shortly before the event, and I was asked whether I would like to fly there in a seat that, as far as I am aware, would have otherwise been vacant. It was my understanding that this would not impose any extra cost on Mr. Singer. Had I taken commercial flights, that would have imposed a substantial cost and inconvenience on the deputy U.S. Marshals who would have been required for security reasons to assist me.
Justice Alito is an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Looking. Clean your own house ProPublica before you go after the Supreme Court Justices. Recently Pro Publica has gone after several Supreme Justices. Claimed they weren’t revealing trips and gifts. But Pro Publica has dirty laundry of their own.
The organization, a self-described “independent, nonprofit newsroom that produces investigative journalism with moral force,” is bankrolled by charitable contributions. And while the group is transparent about the source of some of that money, it won’t say where millions of dollars of its funding comes from, according to the New York Post.
In the years 2020 and 2021, ProPublica accepted $6.3 million from anonymous donors, and a quarter of the group’s revenues in 2022 came from two unnamed donors.
Pro Publica is not an independent news organization. They are a far left media outlet that favors leftist groups.
Looking. Don’t be surprised if we’re not given the full DOJ information on Hunter Biden. Ongoing Investigation. I’m sure that Republicans in both the House and Senate will ask for the information that was gathered over the past five years.
I’m also sure that the DOJ will say that it’s an ongoing investigation. Below are the charges filed in 2018.
WILMINGTON, Del. – The United States Attorney for the District of Delaware filed charges today against Robert Hunter Biden (“Hunter Biden”) of Los Angeles. Hunter Biden has been charged with two misdemeanor tax offenses and a felony firearm offense and has agreed to enter a plea of guilty to the tax offenses and enter into a pre-trial diversion agreement with regard to the firearm charge at a proceeding to be scheduled by the assigned United States District Court judge.
According to the tax Information, Hunter Biden received taxable income in excess of $1,500,000 annually in calendar years 2017 and 2018. Despite owing in excess of $100,000 in federal income taxes each year, he did not pay the income tax due for either year.
According to the firearm Information, from on or about October 12, 2018 through October 23, 2018, Hunter Biden possessed a firearm despite knowing he was an unlawful user of and addicted to a controlled substance.
Hunter Biden is charged with two violations of failure to pay income tax and one violation of unlawful possession of a firearm by a person prohibited. If convicted, he faces a maximum penalty of 12 months in prison on each of the tax charges and a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison on the firearm charge. Actual sentences for federal crimes are typically less than the maximum penalties. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after taking into account the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
Hundreds of years ago, two men named John boarded ships to America to seek opportunity. One worked onboard as a barber; one was an indentured servant.
But when they landed in East Coast port cities hundreds of miles apart, their lives abruptly diverged. When John Greene, believed to be an ancestor of Supreme Court JusticeKetanji Brown Jackson, got off a schooner from Trinidad in Charleston, S.C., he was immediately enslaved and dispatched to a plantation, according to family lore. When John Howland, the 10th-great-grandfather of Jackson’s husband, Patrick Jackson, disembarked the Mayflower at Plymouth, Mass., he was given housing and several acres.
Thus were two newcomers to America cast into racially predetermined roles. Today, as new genealogical research illustrates, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Patrick Jackson are left with a historical subject in common: enslaved people. His ancestors owned them, while her ancestors were them.
“As more and more families from different backgrounds marry into one another, the experience of their ancestors is going to have a lot more variety than it might have had a hundred years ago,” said Christopher C. Child, senior genealogist with the New England Historic Genealogical Society in Boston. “This is what is happening over time.”
Few know the Jacksons’ ancestry better than Child and his colleagues. Shortly after President Biden nominated Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court in February 2022, Sarah J. Dery, NEHGS’s research and library services manager, began to dig into Jackson’s roots. Child already had co-written a book on a line of Patrick Jackson’s relatives, as well as an article about a man enslaved by Patrick Jackson’s distant cousin. Child, Dery and other genealogists have since delved deeper into the subject,sharing their findings with The Washington Post.
The Jacksons met in a history class at Harvard, but the familial paths that took the couple there could not have been more different. Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of the country’s nine most powerful legal arbiters, tracks her family history through generations of enslavement and coercive sharecropping. Patrick Jackson, a gastrointestinal surgeon in D.C., counts among his ancestors King Edward I of England, four Mayflower passengers and a signer of the U.S. Constitution.
“We were an unlikely pair in many respects,” Ketanji Brown Jackson saidin a 2017 speech, noting their respective family histories and areas of study, “but somehow we found each other.”
American royalty and slavery
Patrick Jackson’s family history is well documented. In addition to his royal and Pilgrim ancestry, his distant cousins include Herman Melville, 15 U.S. presidents and a half-dozen governors of Massachusetts. His great-great-great-great grandfather Peter Chardon Brooks was the richest man in New England when he died, having made his fortune insuring ships, including some involved in the slave trade.
One thing many of his well-to-do relatives on his paternal side had in common was a Harvard education. All told, the family has at least 30Harvard graduates over the course of 12 generations, according to Child’s research, including Patrick, who graduated in 1991. One generation of Ketanji Brown Jackson’s family had attended college before she went to Harvard and graduated a year after Patrick.
Patrick was raised outside Boston, but his maternal grandfather’s ancestors lived in the South. Based on public slave schedules from 1850 and 1860, Child estimates the family owned about 189 enslaved people at the time. “Every male ancestor of Patrick’s maternal grandfather over the age of 21 alive in 1850 or 1860 was a slaveowner,” Child said. One of his ancestors was alsoa Confederate soldier.
So well documented were the lives of some of Jackson’s prominent ancestors that narratives of some of the people they bought and sold can also be found. One of them was a Black man named Silvanus Warro, enslaved by colonial settler and civic leader Daniel Gookin in the 1600s. Gookin brought Warro to Boston from Maryland and promised to set him free but ultimately reneged and rented him to a local deacon. Warro remained enslaved until his death.
Then came a man identified asChance, born in slavery to one of Patrick’s relatives in Marblehead, Mass., in 1762, according to a 2010 article by Child in American Ancestors magazine. When he turned 14, his enslaver leased “all rights & title to my Negro boy Chance & his Services, for the space of twelve years” to another man for the sum of 30 pounds. That slavery was effectively eliminated in Massachusetts seven years later appeared not to matter: Chance remained enslaved until the lease expired.
Patrick’s ancestor Patrick Tracy, a wealthy merchant who came to Newburyport, Mass., from Ireland, went against the family’s stance on slavery. He freed his enslaved worker Apropos and his wife after “the idea began to spread that even men of dark skins might love the rights of freedom,” according to “A Memoir of Dr. James Jackson,” an ancestor. When he died, Tracy left to “my faithful black man Apropos” a home to live in and six pounds a year, and he instructed his children to join “in assisting him to render his life comfortable,” according to his 1789 will.
Patrick Jackson, meanwhile, positioned himself as an “ally” of people of color at Harvard, a classmate told the New York Times, taking classes in Black history and social justice. In his spare time, he served as a director on the Committee on Help for the Advancement of Needy Children Through Education (CHANCE), which worked to help a diverse group of local high school students attend college. Patrick Jackson and Ketanji Brown Jackson did not respond to interview requests.
Her family welcomed Patrick into their home in Miami, where she grew up; her father, Johnny Brown, was the chief attorney for the county school board and her mother, Ellery Brown, was a school principal. While the Brown family was generally aware of Patrick’s background before the two married, they apparently knew nothing of his ancestors’ long history of enslaving Black people.
“I don’t think it came up at all, nor was it a point of interest or concern,” Calvin Ross, Ketanji Brown Jackson’s uncle and a former Miami Police Department chief, said of Patrick’s family history. “We had two people who loved each other, and that was enough. You can’t rewrite history. It is what it is.”
An interrupted family history
But many of Ketanji Brown Jackson’s relatives have taken great interest in their own family history. A two-page written version of John Greene’s story, “Our Family,” is widely circulated at the family’s large reunions. Greene, as the story goes, was born free and was warned not to disembark from his ship in Charleston, a hub in the slave trade. But because of “‘the independent mindedness’ (stubbornness) which characterizes the family, John went ashore, was captured and sold as an enslaved person to the Sharp Plantation. There he met Ella who was a slave.” After slaverywas abolished, John and Ella moved to Georgia, and he helped his three brothers and sister come to America, according to the family story.
As with much African American history, documentation of the story is not easy to find. Few enslaved people were able or permitted to write their own history, and early documents generally record their existence as property and rarely include their fullnames.
“You can find the names, the ages, and it all seems to fit together, but it’s very hard to find that golden record that proves it all true,” Dery, the genealogist, said.
Dery, however, was able to identify several enslaved people she believes are the justice’s ancestors and whose information coincides with the family story. While she was unable to trace a John Greene from Trinidad, she found several people she believes were his descendants linked to a plantation in Randolph County, Ga., owned by John P. Sharp: a “domestic servant” (probably a formerly enslaved person) named Peter Green, and Anderson and Callie Green, who lived two houses away, according to the federal census. All three of those names, with a slightly different spelling of their last name, appear as John’s siblings in “Our Family.”
Ten years later, the 1880 federal census recorded a John and Ella Green in Edison, Ga., where three generations of Ketanji Brown Jackson’s family would come to live. Tax records from the same year list freedmen John, Peter and Henry Green, who the genealogists believe were very likely Jackson’s ancestors.
“There’s always some fact that travels along with family lore,” said Lindsay Fulton, NEHGS’s vice president of research and library services, “so the fact that the family knows this story, the family gave us those names, and the names appear in the records we are looking at.”
John Green’s granddaughter Euzera and her husband — Ketanji Brown Jackson’s grandparents — moved the judge’s maternal line from Georgia to Florida in the mid-20th century; she worked as a nurse’s aide and he as a landscaper at the Miami airport. On Euzera’s maternal side, Dery thinks Ketanji Brown Jackson’s great-great-great-grandfather was a man named Henry Merriweather, whom the genealogists believe was enslaved in the mid-1800s by a wealthy plantation owner named Michael Dennis in southwest Georgia.
In November 1865, Dennis wrote a letter to the Freedmen’s Bureau, the government agency established to help recently freed enslaved people, listing the names, ages and physical condition of the people he had formerly enslaved, including a 55-year-old Merriweather, who was described as “unsound.” Dennis also wrote with astonishment that, while he had offered annual work contracts to the more than 100 Black people he had previously enslaved, “this they positively refused to do for any consideration.” He said he hoped the government would help persuade them to sign.
“He was acting as though slavery still existed,” said Willie James Watson Sr., Ketanji Brown Jackson’s distant cousin and Merriweather’s great-great-grandson.
The genealogists also found a well-documented link to slavery on Ketanji Brown Jackson’s paternal side. Her great-great-great-grandfather was Olmstead Rutherford, who after the Civil War lived with his wife and their seven children in Houston County, Ga., on a 700-acre plantation owned by John H. Rutherford, probably their former enslaver.
In January 1867, Rutherford, who enslaved 65 people before the war, signed a sharecropping contract with 11 people who shared his last name, including “Armstead Rutherford + children + wife Lucy.” Apparently unable to write, Armstead, as his name was sometimes spelled, and the other freedmen signed the document with an X. None of them were to be paid for their labor, instead receiving rations and one-fourth of the crops they cultivated.
“It was just another form of slavery,” Dery said.
Olmstead soon registered to vote and signed the Oath of Allegiance to the United States, as was required of citizens in the former Confederacy.
One hundred fifty-five years later, Olmstead’s great-great-great-granddaughter became the first Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court.
Much of what happened in between remains unknown. The genealogists’ group is hopeful that as information about Ketanji Brown Jackson’s ancestors is made public, more relatives will come forward with details of family history. But as some of Ketanji’s family members see it, they already know the most important part of the story, spelled out on those two sheets of paper handed out at family reunions.
“It is from these roots that the family has grown to its present state,” the Greene family narrative concludes. “The family takes great pride in its contribution to the development of America. The roots of this family grew the food, felled the trees, and labored in all of the great undertakings which forged the great nation of the United States of America.”
The Texas Rangers are the only team in Major League Baseball to not hold a Pride Night, which has led some employees and former employees to direct criticism at the team and its ownership.
[Oh, boo hoo! Find your safe space and STFU! — TPR]
The Rangers will host a Choctaw Casinos & Resorts night, a Harry Potter night, and community nights such as Abilene Christian University day and Vegan day, that are advertised as a “chance to experience Globe Life Field with others who share a common interest.”
However, they will not hold a Pride Night unlike all the other teams in the league, a “tradition” that MLB teams adopted in 2001 beginning with the Chicago Cubs.
In 2003, the Rangers attempted to host a Pride Night, and had invited several LGBT groups to celebrate at the stadium. However, after Rangers fans had expressed concerns and did not support the idea, the team decided to cancel future celebrations.
A former employee, speaking under anonymity, criticized the team for their decision saying that not holding pride festivities has always been something that bothered the employee.
“(The silence) is deafening,” the employee said. “The fact of the matter is it’s a free marketing opportunity, it doesn’t cost them anything personally and they can boost revenue by looking inclusive. The fact that there hasn’t been one (for Texas), is the biggest ‘actions speak louder than words’ I’ve ever seen. The fact that there’s so much resistance is a huge point of contention, not just for the gay folks, but for everyone. It was always something that bothered me greatly about the organization. They do a lot of things well, where they have all these other nights for different fans and cultures. The fact that they omit one group very clearly is just ridiculous.”
Another employee blamed the ownership of the team.
“When you have someone so opposed at the top,” the employee said. “It creates this spillover effect that, even though most of the organization I think wants it to happen, or at least isn’t vehemently opposed to it, it’s just this dark cloud that’s signifying it’s OK to treat this group of people like s—.”
The team released a statement over the weekend in response to the criticism they have received.
“Our commitment is to make everyone feel welcome and included in Rangers baseball,” the statement read. “That means in our ballpark, at every game, and in all we do – for both our fans and our employees. We deliver on that promise across our many programs to have a positive impact across our entire community.”
In contrast, the Los Angeles Dodgers had held their Pride Night and had invited a group called the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, in order to honor them. The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence are “a queer and trans group that uses religious imagery and mocks Catholicism to call attention to sexual intolerance,” according to the New York Post.
The events by the Dodgers were met with protests.
On Friday, protestors filled the streets surrounding the Dodgers stadium as the team conducted their festivities. They refused to enter the stadium while the group was being honored.
Looking. Democrats demanding that Joey Boy debate RFK JR. The cry is getting louder and the latest polls show it. In the latest polling the majority of Democrats are demanding that Biden debate.
A majority of Democrats want President Biden to debate Democrat challenger Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a Convention of States Action/Trafalgar Group survey found.
This consensus is actually bipartisan, as 57.5 percent of Democrats believe Biden should debate RFK Jr. another 31.7 percent believe they should not debate, and 10.8 percent of Democrats remain unsure. Predictably, most Republicans — 92.8 percent — believe the two should debate, as do 80.1 percent of independents.
Looking. A U.K. woman fired for speaking out against transgender and sex education lessons taught at her son’s Church of England primary school won an appeal Friday after a judge overturned a previous ruling upholding her dismissal.
Kristie Higgs said she was initially fired from her role as a teaching assistant at the Farmor’s School in Fairford, Gloucestershire, England, after an anonymous person noticed her Facebook posts speaking out against her son’s school’s plan to introduce books containing transgender ideology and reported the posts to the head teacher.
Though the school says otherwise, she maintains the firing was an attack on her Christian faith.
Kristie Higgs, a Christian mother of two, was fired from her position as a pastoral assistant at the Farmor’s School in Fairford, Gloucestershire, England in 2019 after raising concerns on her private Facebook page about sex education for children. (Christian Concern)
“From the beginning, despite the many attempts by the school to suggest otherwise, this has always been about my Christian beliefs and me being discriminated against for expressing them in my own time,” she said, according to BBC News.
Higgs also gathered signatures from her family members and friends, challenging plans to implement the curriculum by sharing an online petition on Facebook.
The post read in part, “THEY ARE BRAINWASHING OUR CHILDREN!” adding that, with the new curriculum in place, “Children will be taught that all relationships are equally valid and ‘normal’, so that same-sex marriage is exactly the same as traditional marriage, and that gender is a matter of choice, not biology, so that it’s up to them what sex they are.”
Kristie Higgs lost her job as a pastoral assistant at a Church of England primary school after an anonymous person complained about her Facebook post. (Christian Concern)
President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in London Jennifer Eady ruled in Higgs’ favor Friday, arguing that “the freedom to manifest belief (religious or otherwise) and to express views relating to that belief are essential rights in any democracy.”
She added that the right to manifest the beliefs, no matter who they might offend, is protected without limits.
Eady previously dismissed two members of the appeal panel for perceived bias, particularly two who had historically advocated for LGBTQ rights.
Higg’s appeal came after an employment tribunal ruled in October 2020 that she did not suffer discrimination or harassment due to the firing.
A protester voices support for the promotion of transgender ideology in schools during a pro-transgender march in October 2022. (Mark Kerrison/In Pictures via Getty Images)
According to the BBC, Higgs’ case will now head back for a fresh tribunal.
“I am pleased that the courts have overturned the previous judgment, but I am frustrated by the further delays to receiving justice,” she said of the decision.
“I was, and still am, appalled by the sexual ideology that was being introduced to my son’s Church of England primary school… Since I lost the job I loved, there has been so many disturbing revelations about transgender ideology in schools and children being taught inappropriate sex education. I feel so justified and vindicated for sharing and expressing the concerns that I did.”
Hopefully the school drops this and allows this person back. If not, then it’s back to the next court. Is this what the school wants? Let’s stay on top of this.
Obama Appointed Judge Rules ‘THERE ARE ONLY TWO GENDERS’ T-Shirt is Not “Protected Speech”
The First Amendment only applies when speech is sanctioned by the state.
A Federal Judge has ruled the First Amendment does not protect 12-year-old Liam Morrison’s right to express his opinion on a t-shirt while attending public school in Massachusetts.
In a June 16th ruling, Judge Indira Talwani said, “School administrators were well within their discretion to conclude that the statement ‘THERE ARE ONLY TWO GENDERS’ may communicate that only two gender identities—male and female—are valid, and any others are invalid or nonexistent.”
The Obama appointee went on to support the Middleborough, Massachusetts school’s assertion that the message on Morrison’s t-shirt — a statement of biological fact — constituted an attack on the identities of other students.
As previously reported by Gateway Pundit and elsewhere, the 12-year-old boy “went off on school board members after his school sent him home because he refused to change his T-shirt.”
On May 5, 2023, Morrison attempted an end-around to the rule by wearing the same t-shirt — this time, with the words “ONLY TWO” covered by a piece of tape with the word “CENSORED.” Once again, the school concluded he was bullying a “protected class.”
After failing to find an appropriate administrative remedy, Morrison’s father and stepmother assisted their son, Liam, in filing suit against the school district, Superintendent Carolyn Lyons, and Nichols Middle School Principal Heather Tucker.
The lawsuit alleged “violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights,” and pointed out that Nichols Middle School commonly “observes events like ‘Pride Month,’ and ‘Pride Day’ in support of the ‘LGBTQ+ community.’”
Judge Talwani ruled that “the original message of the Shirt was not protected speech” and went on to explain how “the Taped Shirt did not merely protest censorship but conveyed the ‘censored’ message and thus invaded the rights of the other students.”
Even though multiple students began wearing the same shirt in an apparent act of solidarity with Morrison, Judge Talwani ruled that injunctive relief “is not in the public interest.”
“By contrast,” Talwani explained, “Defendants point to statutes passed by the Massachusetts Legislature prohibiting discrimination, bullying, or harassment in schools based on gender identity or expression, as well as directives from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education requiring that schools provide a safe environment to progress academically and developmentally regardless of gender identity.”
It remains to be seen if any further legal action will be taken by Liam Morrison and his family, but the message from Judge Talwani is clear: The First Amendment only applies when speech is sanctioned by the state.
According to a new Harvard poll, most registered voters believe that the indictment of former President Donald Trump was politically motivated and election interference. Additionally, the poll found that 57 percent of registered voters believe that Trump will be acquitted.
The survey found that 55 percent of Americans say Trump’s indictment is politically motivated, including 83 percent of Republicans and 55 percent of Independents.
Additionally, 56 percent of voters across the political spectrum consider Trump’s federal indictment to be an interference by the Justice Department in the 2024 Election. Only 44 percent of those polled said the indictment was “the fair application of the law.”
The pollsters also questioned voters about Joe Biden’s similarly mishandled documents and Hillary Clinton’s email scandal.
“A majority of 65 percent of respondents believe Biden ‘mishandled’ classified material, while 72 percent think Clinton did, with 69 percent saying she ‘obstructed justice’ by acid-washing her emails,” Breitbart News reports.
The pollsters asked voters, “Do you think indicting a former president for taking classified documents after leaving office, something done by Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and other senior officials, is a fair application justice or selective prosecution?”
A 53 percent majority responded that going after Trump is a “selective prosecution.”