Share This Article with a Friend!


Leftist Judges Are Creating A Pre-Civil War America

Activist Judge

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



The Pledge of Allegiance says, “One Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all,” but in today’s Leftist federal courts America is neither indivisible, nor does it offer liberty or justice on an equal basis.

Most conservatives are well aware of the two-tiered system of justice on display in such high-profile cases as the failure to prosecute Hillary Clinton for her obstruction of justice, lying and breach of national security in the email scandal and the pass given to James Comey for his leaking and purloined documents, but there’s another less obvious segmentation of liberty and justice going on in the federal courts at the hands of liberal judges and liberal state governors and attorneys general.

The latest example of this often-successful attempt to bifurcated America is a decision rendered by a Far Left Ninth Circuit federal judge in California blocking Trump administration rules which would allow more employers to opt out of providing women with no-cost birth control.

Our friends at NewsMax report that Judge Haywood Gilliam granted a request for a preliminary injunction by California, 12 other states and Washington, D.C. The plaintiffs sought to prevent the rules from taking effect as scheduled yesterday while a lawsuit against them moved forward.

The Trump administration rules changes would allow more employers, including publicly traded companies, to opt out of providing no-cost contraceptive coverage to women by claiming religious objections. Some private employers could also object on moral grounds.

California and the other states argue that women would be forced to turn to state-funded programs for birth control and experience unintended pregnancies.

"The law couldn't be more clear — employers have no business interfering in women's healthcare decisions," California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement reported by NewsMax. "Today's court ruling stops another attempt by the Trump Administration to trample on women's access to basic reproductive care. It's 2019, yet the Trump Administration is still trying to roll back women's rights. Our coalition will continue to fight to ensure women have access to the reproductive healthcare they are guaranteed under the law."

At issue is a requirement under the Obamacare law that birth control services be covered at no additional cost. Obama officials included exemptions for religious organizations. The Trump administration expanded those exemptions and added "moral convictions" as a basis to opt out of providing birth control services.

At a hearing on Friday, Gilliam said the changes would result in a "substantial number" of women losing birth control coverage, which would be a "massive policy shift."

Setting aside the larger question of whether certain abortion-inducing drugs should be classed as “health care” notice what the judge is doing.

He is imposing the values and obligations of Far-Left liberal states on the residents of conservative states.

There’s nothing in the Trump administration rules that prohibits companies and employers from offering no-cost contraceptive coverage to female employees; the proposed rule places the choice to do so with the employer.

Those who wish to attract a certain type of employee might readily agree to do so, and even advertise the benefit, those who object on moral or religious grounds would be perfectly free to avoid violating their conscience by not offering the benefit.

To Democrats, such a liberty-based choice is anathema, particularly when the choice is based on religious conviction, and it is even more repugnant to them if it results in conservative states offering individuals haven from the Democrats’ oppressive laws.

Thus, as in pre-Civil War America, Democrats must use the courts to impose their regressive ideas and anti-liberty laws on the residents of other states.

In the days before the Civil War the worst example of this Democratic Party impulse was to defend slavery and to pass legislation, such as the Fugitive Slave Act, that forced free states and anti-slavery individuals to be complicit in the institution of slavery.

And when anti-slavery forces appeared to be winning the public opinion battle, Democrats relied on the courts, particularly the then-Democratic Party controlled Supreme Court, to impose their will upon those who refused to be complicit in the institution of slavery.

The Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott decision authored by Democrat Chief Justice Roger B. Taney was the ultimate expression of this long-held Democrat Party notion that officials elected as Democrats have the right to impose their will and their laws on the residents of other states.

Slavery, Democrat Taney said, could not be banned in the territories, nor could a black person ever be a citizen.

So, it seems that, just like slavery was in Democrat Chief Justice Roger B. Taney’s pre-Civil War America, abortion and employer-paid contraception, once imposed in Democrat-controlled states, must be imposed everywhere.

Lori Windham, senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents the Little Sisters of the Poor and other religious non-profits, wrote in an op-ed for USA Today, “We know of no state suing over the new rule that has identified even one business that plans to end contraceptive coverage because of the rule.” The reason that is so is because the Democrat state lawsuit isn’t about protecting rights, it is about imposing Far-Left Democrat mores on all Americans, just as they tried to impose slavery on the whole country just prior to the Civil War.

Share this

Federal Apellate Courts

The liberal DCPA (Democrat Communist Party of America) aka Democrat Party has been "stacking" all levels of our court systems with radical leftists judges for decades. They knew very long ago how important it is to control the courts systems. Once they had these people in place they started using the courts to block and even over turn legally legislated laws and decisions. This "legislating from the bench" began in the 60's and has been growing stronger ever since. It is time to put a halt to "judge shopping" which is all too blatantly obvious.