Image 01 Image 03

DOJ Goes Insurrectiony – Vows To Minimize Effects Of Supreme Court 2nd Amendment and Abortion Rulings

DOJ Goes Insurrectiony – Vows To Minimize Effects Of Supreme Court 2nd Amendment and Abortion Rulings

US Department of Justice to rise above politics and to use its vast resources to effectuate the Supreme Court’s rulings — JUST KIDDING.

The two big U.S. Supreme Court decisions this week concerned the Second Amendment and abortion. Democrats are furious with both decisions.

But not to worry, the United States Department of Justice has decided to rise above politics and to use its vast resources to effectuate the Supreme Court’s rulings — JUST KIDDING.

DOJ and Attorney General Merrick Garland have vowed to use their vast resources to limit the effect of the Supreme Court’s rulings. They are going all insurrectiony, but legally, of course.

On June 23, 2022, DOJ issued a statement of disagreement with the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Second Amendment in the Bruen case:

The Department of Justice today released the following statement from spokeswoman Dena Iverson following the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc., et al. v. Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police, et al.:

“We respectfully disagree with the Court’s conclusion that the Second Amendment forbids New York’s reasonable requirement that individuals seeking to carry a concealed handgun must show that they need to do so for self-defense. The Department of Justice remains committed to saving innocent lives by enforcing and defending federal firearms laws, partnering with state, local and tribal authorities and using all legally available tools to tackle the epidemic of gun violence plaguing our communities.”

Today, DOJ issued a statement in the name of Garland vowing to counteract the potential effects of the abortion decision in the Dobbs case (emphasis added):

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland today released the following statement following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization et al.:

“Today, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey and held that the right to abortion is no longer protected by the Constitution.

“The Supreme Court has eliminated an established right that has been an essential component of women’s liberty for half a century – a right that has safeguarded women’s ability to participate fully and equally in society. And in renouncing this fundamental right, which it had repeatedly recognized and reaffirmed, the Court has upended the doctrine of stare decisis, a key pillar of the rule of law.

“The Justice Department strongly disagrees with the Court’s decision. This decision deals a devastating blow to reproductive freedom in the United States. It will have an immediate and irreversible impact on the lives of people across the country. And it will be greatly disproportionate in its effect – with the greatest burdens felt by people of color and those of limited financial means.

* * *

“The Justice Department will work tirelessly to protect and advance reproductive freedom.

“Under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, the Department will continue to protect healthcare providers and individuals seeking reproductive health services in states where those services remain legal. This law prohibits anyone from obstructing access to reproductive health services through violence, threats of violence, or property damage.

“The Department strongly supports efforts by Congress to codify Americans’ reproductive rights, which it retains the authority to do. We also support other legislative efforts to ensure access to comprehensive reproductive services.

“And we stand ready to work with other arms of the federal government that seek to use their lawful authorities to protect and preserve access to reproductive care. In particular, the FDA has approved the use of the medication Mifepristone. States may not ban Mifepristone based on disagreement with the FDA’s expert judgment about its safety and efficacy. 

“Furthermore, federal agencies may continue to provide reproductive health services to the extent authorized by federal law. And federal employees who carry out their duties by providing such services must be allowed to do so free from the threat of liability. It is the Department’s longstanding position that States generally may not impose criminal or civil liability on federal employees who perform their duties in a manner authorized by federal law. Additionally, the Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has determined that federal employees engaging in such conduct would not violate the Assimilative Crimes Act and could not be prosecuted by the federal government under that law. The Justice Department is prepared to assist agencies in resolving any questions about the scope of their authority to provide reproductive care.


“The Justice Department will use every tool at our disposal to protect reproductive  freedom. And we will not waver from this Department’s founding responsibility to protect the civil rights of all Americans.”

DOJ is not vowing to violate the law. But it is vowing to use its prosecutorial and investigative power to limit the Supreme Court rulings. That’s a political function. DOJ is just another political player.

I repeat, Mitch McConnell Did The Nation A Great Favor By Keeping Merrick Garland Off The Supreme Court.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Merrick Garland – boy, did we dodge a bullet when this guy never got a chance to be on the USSC.

Anyone have any doubts that the AA-entitled Ketanji Jackson will be ultra-lefty?

    fscarn in reply to fscarn. | June 24, 2022 at 9:37 pm

    Garland a Democrat political hack stated, “The Department strongly supports efforts by Congress to codify Americans’ reproductive rights, which it retains the authority to do.”

    Is that true? Under what text in the Constitution would Congress have such authority?

    We should all recognize the dangers of an Article V constitutional convention which is being pushed by a bunch of lefty groups. Should such a convention ever be called none of us will be pleased with their new constitution. For example, there’ll be no First and Second Amendments and abortion will be an Incan ceremony like Capacocha.

      MattMusson in reply to fscarn. | June 24, 2022 at 9:41 pm

      AG Garland is a traitor to the Constitution.

      korp in reply to fscarn. | June 25, 2022 at 12:02 am

      “Is that true? Under what text in the Constitution would Congress have such authority?”

      Generally, article 1 of the Constitution. It defines the legislative branch and allows them to make laws.

      Roe was not a law, it was a decision made by activist judges that “found” a missing right in the Constitution and allowed judges to interpret that right to allow abortions nationwide. If Congress passes a law to allow (or prohibit) abortion nationwide, such is the law of the land.

        fscarn in reply to korp. | June 25, 2022 at 7:15 am

        But Article 1, section 8 has a list of specific, enumerated powers where Congress can legislate. My question, which one allows it to legislate on abortion? The one most likely to be cited is the interstate commerce clause, but com’n?

          caseoftheblues in reply to fscarn. | June 25, 2022 at 9:04 am

          Yah might want to re-read the Constitution….your legal interpretation reads like someone who was in the same study group as Sotomayor in law school…in other words someone who hasn’t a clue

        PersonofInterests in reply to korp. | June 25, 2022 at 1:57 pm

        It may be the law of the land until the SCOTUS gets another case to judge the Congressional Law to be Unconstitutional.

        But the reality is that Abortion Rights got 49 years of life because of Activist Justices Legislating from the bench BECAUSE THE LIBERAL LUNATICS COULD NOT GET ABORTION PASSED IN CONGRESS. That is the whole tyranny of Judicial Activism and the Presidential Executive Orders practiced wholesale by O’Dinglebarry: Neither require political support of a majority.

        Othniel in reply to korp. | June 25, 2022 at 2:08 pm

        The Constitution ought not to allow Congress to pass such a law, as legislating for public health belongs to the states. Of course, the Commerce Clause has been warped and twisted to allow the US Congress to do practically anything it wants, even in violation of all common sense (see Wickard v Filburn), so there will absolutely be a battle over the Commerce Clause if the pro-aborts manage to codify abortion in as a US statute. Hopefully there are enough good justices to slap them down if that ever happens. I’d love to see the Commerce Clause reigned in.

      Lefties like Mark Levin?

      lurker9876 in reply to fscarn. | June 25, 2022 at 1:43 pm

      But but but….he got some of the GOP votes to confirm him as our US AG!

      Milhouse in reply to fscarn. | June 26, 2022 at 2:09 am

      “The Department strongly supports efforts by Congress to codify Americans’ reproductive rights, which it retains the authority to do.”

      Is that true? Under what text in the Constitution would Congress have such authority?

      Presumably the interstate commerce clause. Since there’s a national market in baby-killing, congress could presumably regulate it nationally, and thus preempt all state regulations.

      Until the supreme court gathers up the resolve to cut back the interstate commerce clause to its pre-1930s understanding, there are very few limits to what congress can do.

    PersonofInterests in reply to fscarn. | June 25, 2022 at 2:20 pm

    Actually, the decison by Mitch McCommunist was more a function of his desire to multiply his power base. He never imagined that Donald Trump was going to be elected and wanted a bargaining chip to use with Hillary Clinton in expanding his secret empire.

    We the People just got lucky for once and given his performance as Attorney General, are witness to a sampling of the kind of destructive tyranny that he is capable of producing albeit would have been diluted by being just one of nine justices.

    The real fly in the ointment for the Communist Democrats was Justice Ginsberg wanting to retire once Hillary Clinton became President. Liberal Lunatics love their “Firsts” like the first Black President, First Female Lesbian Mayor of Chicago, and first Black Female Vice President. We thank Ruth Ginsberg while she undoubtedly serves Satan for being the old sick fool that she was.

      Not clear it’s completely covered by current reading of Commerce Clause. That probably allows Congress to prevent prosecution of a person who delivers an abortion pill and certainly allows Congress to bar criminalizing traveling to get an abortion. But the fact that the procedure is legal in some states, to which people may travel from other states, may not make the procedure itself a matter of interstate commerce over which Congress can preempt state regulation.

Bitch McConnell only did himself a favor.

He was fully expecting Hillary to win, and Republicans to take the Senate. All he wanted was an appropriate payoff before he rubber stamped whatever leftist radical she cared to nominate on the Court.

The shell of the remaining aspects of the Hyde amendment may limit the sphere of federal action on abortion, particularly so when a new r controlled Congress is seated and they reinforce it.

I sincerely doubt that the Cadre of federal prosecutors will suddenly begin vigorously going after federal firearms violations given the utter lack of attention so far during the Biden administration. All that no cattle.

The Gentle Grizzly | June 24, 2022 at 9:42 pm

Is the Justice Department in the Constitution?

    It was accidently left out. The Founders quickly acknowledged that, the first case of not actually following the Constitution.

    Is there any justice in the Justice Department?

    PersonofInterests in reply to The Gentle Grizzly. | June 25, 2022 at 2:11 pm

    Much of what exists in the Federal Leviathan with all of its hidey holes for marixist and liberal lunatics is NOT in the Constitution. And most of existing mess came about from thoughtful politicians wanting to demonstrate their will to “Do Something” to their voter base to be elected/reelected.

    There can be no better example than the Dept. of Homeland Security that was a consequence of the 9/11 attack. We needed that “White Elephant” like we needed a Covid Scamdemic to launch the imagined need for the Federal Deathcare Cabal that resides under the Dept. of Health and Human Services; that employs 80,000+; and cost taxpayers $1.3+ Trillion per year to provide a hidey hole for people like America’s version of Nazi Josef Mengele: Anthony Faucistein.

    The big question is how many more like Faucistein doing only God knows what nefarious activities are buried within the Federal Leviathan?

    If Congress was doing its job and employing “Zero Base Budgeting” to audit every expenditure of taxpayer’s money instead of “Baseline Budgeting” that merely pluses up the prior year budget by some percentage, we may have known what Faucistein was doing and why perhaps even why there are so many Biolabs in the Ukraine.

    But of course that will never happen and so, we can only hope that something will stir a desire to Downsize, Defund, and Dissolve much of Government because even the 800,000+ Nonessential Employees that were exposed during the last Federal Government Shutdown, cannot be fired. So, just eliminate about 80% of their hidey holes to avoid all the Civil Service BS.

    Is the Justice Department in the Constitution?

    Yes. Article 1 Section 8, last clause: ” the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof”; Article 2 section 2: “the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments”, and “the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments”; 25th amendment, section 4: “a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide.

    Yes, because the Attorney General is.

LukeHandCool | June 24, 2022 at 11:05 pm

This development seems a little bit more important than a president trading barbs with journalists on Twitter.

Close The Fed | June 24, 2022 at 11:18 pm

Unclear to me under what authority Congress would adopt abortion laws.

Where is that in the text of the Constitution? “General Welfare”??

    Congress can pass laws allowing (or denying) anything and everything not called out in the Constitution. Roe was a bad decision because it wasn’t based on a law Congress had passed, and wasn’t supported by the Constitution. If Congress decides to pass a law, abortion can become legal again, nationwide.

    Not that I support that, I think it should remain a 10th Amendment issue where states can allow/deny as they see fit, but that’s the system we have.

      james h in reply to korp. | June 25, 2022 at 2:29 am

      I don’t think this is true. Congress can only pass laws related to its enumerated powers.

      “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

      I believe the ruling today closed the door to the normal exceptions like the Commerce Clause.

        diver64 in reply to james h. | June 25, 2022 at 6:28 am

        I think you are correct in your reasoning but I’m not a Constitutional Scholar. I’d like to hear some argument on this before making up my mind but as it stands now, I don’t think Congress has the authority to act on this if the Constitution were to actually be followed.

          Roe v. Wade was adopted unconstitutionally because the Constitution says nothing about abortion. SCOTUS can only rule on constitutionality. So it goes back to the states to work it out.

          Remember, abortion was very unpopular when Roe v. Wade was adopted. It would not have succeeded had most Americans been allowed a chance to weigh in on it. The abortionists did an end around by getting SCOTUS to rule and then declaring it to be “settled law” hoping that would be the end of it. It wasn’t. It only got more heated. So here we are. Right where we should have been 50 years ago.

          That’s the entire point of this. SCOTUS didn’t ban abortion. It ruled that since there is nothing in the Constitution declaring this to be an inalienable right, the issue needs to be settled by the people. Keep in mind that the Republicans (remember Betty Ford?) were instrumental in legalizing abortion when it was very unpopular. The issue was never resolved and it won’t be anytime soon.

          Abortionists feel entitled and WILL NOT NEGOTIATE NOR DELIBERATE. All they know is rioting and looting when they don’t get their way. They need to be marginalized so the democratic process can survive. We can’t go on like this.

        oldvet50 in reply to james h. | June 25, 2022 at 8:37 am

        Of course, you are right, but it does not matter anymore. The government will do as it wishes, as it always has. They cannot seize your property without due process, yet many have had their property taken from them on suspicion (only) of drug violations. There are so many more laws that are blatantly un-constitutional (gun laws) , but ….so? It’s not like we have any civil recourse.

        Othniel in reply to james h. | June 25, 2022 at 2:13 pm

        Sadly, it’s effectively true, as the Commerce Clause created a loophole big enough for Congress to drive a mack truck through. Your understanding is correct with regard to the Constitution as drafted and properly interpreted. I think it likely there will be a battle over this in the future. I’d love to see the Commerce Clause whittled down to its use as intended.

        Milhouse in reply to james h. | June 26, 2022 at 2:28 am

        I believe the ruling today closed the door to the normal exceptions like the Commerce Clause.

        No, it didn’t. The commerce clause is not an exception to the enumerated powers; it is an enumerated power.

          henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | June 26, 2022 at 2:58 am

          I hope our courts will never countenance the sweeping pretensions which have been set up under the words “general defence and public welfare.” These words only express the motives which induced the Convention to give to the ordinary legislature certain specified powers which they enumerate, and which they thought might be trusted to the ordinary legislature, and not to give them the unspecified also; or why any specification? They could not be so awkward in language as to mean, as we say, “all and some.” And should this construction prevail, all limits to the federal government are done away.

          CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | June 26, 2022 at 1:03 pm

          Who’s scope was distorted beyond any recognition by the wrongly reasoned decision in Wickard.

          JackinSilverSpring in reply to Milhouse. | June 26, 2022 at 4:39 pm

          True, but this enumerated power has been totally bent out of shape by Leftist to mean something it does not mean. Originally it was meant to give the federal government the power to prevent states from impeding interstate commerce through tarrifs and quotas. It was not meant to give the feds carte blanche regulatory power over anything moving between stares.

      caseoftheblues in reply to korp. | June 25, 2022 at 9:07 am

      There you go again Korp…are you actually a lawyer or do you just play one on tv?

      Milhouse in reply to korp. | June 26, 2022 at 2:26 am

      Congress can pass laws allowing (or denying) anything and everything not called out in the Constitution.

      That is exactly backwards. Congress has only the powers expressly granted it in the constitution. It can only make laws on topics the constitution says it can (including those necessary and proper to carrying out laws on those topics). Unfortunately one of those grants of power is to regulate interstate and international commerce, and that covers almost every conceivable law congress might care to make. Only a handful of laws passed under that power have been struck down for not being closely enough connected to such commerce, and most of those were then reenacted under some other power. Certainly, under current understanding of the commerce power, Congress could create a national regulation scheme for abortion, which would preempt all state laws to the contrary.

    Milhouse in reply to Close The Fed. | June 26, 2022 at 2:21 am

    Unclear to me under what authority Congress would adopt abortion laws.

    Where is that in the text of the Constitution? “General Welfare”??

    Interstate commerce.

This is insane, they literally are refusing to uphold the laws of the United States, our highest DOJ

We are lost as a nation, forever lost

We have lost our Republic Mr Franklin

November can’t come soon enough

Not sure it’s not too late

How does this serve and protect the Constitution of the United States vow work when everything you do is to destroy it?
Our problem in November is getting people willing to go against the Marxists and not play along like the RINOs who jumped in bed with them on this so called Do Something bill and it’s Red Flag law.

taurus the judge | June 25, 2022 at 6:56 am

This is turning out to be a perfect wake up call.

The left and RINO’s are now fully unmasked as to what their true heart, belief and agendas are and who they serve.

Only a fool now will disregard the facts in front of his face and make believe otherwise.

Personally, I believe this was brought about by God to force the choice prior to the execution of Judgement. Evil is out there now in plain sight not requiring any discernment whatsoever.

Choose this day who you shall serve.

If I’m wrong, nothing happens and things play out as they will.

If I’m right, don’t be the ones with the dead faith and no acts to accompany it.

    We are headed into civil unrest with a virtual certainty of another shutdown over the latest chic virus so the danger of another stolen election is very high. I’m expecting more all-mail-in voting in November. And since the McConnell Mafia is still out there defending stolen elections, we have our work cut out for us. Notice how all of the Republican squishes like McConnell, Pence, etal.. are out there claiming victory over Roe v. Wade but not the gun ruling? The Dems are out but nothing has been gained if they are replaced by a new wave of younger corrupt squishes. We need BOTH Trump and DeSantis fighting united against this. It’s not one or the other, we need BOTH! So far, DeSantis has been rock solid on this point.

The DoJ subverted themselves as political activists long before the USSC’s presently correct reading and understanding of the Constitution.

It is not such a tragedy, to remand to the states such matters as ought to be decided at the local level. Whereas, compelling hundreds of millions of Americans to comport themselves with the specious thoughtfulness of places as San Francisco, NYC, Detroit or Dallas is as bitterly vile as living under a Venezuelan dictatorship. Or worse, being like Canadians!

It seems Garland is either violating many rules of the RPC, which govern attorney conduct, or intends to violate rules of the RPC. Either way, he should be disbarred.

Without judging whether the Plan B usage is right or wrong, I am curious as to why California, for example, can ban numerous items in interstate commerce such as pesticides, cars, guns, etc. but a State may not ban a drug?

    Milhouse in reply to puhiawa. | June 26, 2022 at 2:31 am

    Because drugs are governed by the FDA regulations, which preempt all contrary state and local laws. The items CA bans are not explicitly authorized by national regulations, so state and local regulations can apply. Congress could stop it by imposing a national set of regulations on whatever it is.

      venril in reply to Milhouse. | June 28, 2022 at 4:07 pm

      Another federal department with far too much power over the States and the citizens.

      venril in reply to Milhouse. | June 28, 2022 at 4:16 pm

      “… In particular, the FDA has approved the use of the medication Mifepristone. States may not ban Mifepristone based on disagreement with the FDA’s expert judgment about its safety and efficacy. …”

      This has nothing to do with the FDA’s Charter function. While they may have decided it’s a safe and effective medication, it’s used to perform an act which is explicitly illegal per several state laws. The FDA can’t make the act for which it is generally used magically legal.

      Knowingly providing such drugs for the purposes of committing a crime is certainly illegal as well. Conspiracy to commit? How are folks who provide legal drugs to folks to commit suicide, knowing that was the intention? Or to commit murder of Dad or the wife?

Thank you Donald Trump!!!!

And Europeans are also crediting Trump:

Lest we forget, McConnell is the Senate Leader of the Uniparty. Trump saved us from President Hillary! Why do we assume that any Senate Majority Leader other than McConnell would have allowed a Garland appointment for AG?

Could we give President Trump any credit for anything at all? Thanks to Trump, SCOTUS just issued the two most epic decisions in our lifetimes and we allow the squishes to claim credit. We deserve to lose. We are too stupid.

At the proper time the entire US Department of Justice must be ordered to stand down, without pay, until Congress 100% certifies that all congressional inquiries /questions have been fully satisfied.

I cannot wait to watch this beyond pathetic, effeminate little leftist wimp get impeached and thrown out into the street next January. This entire collection of leftist tools that the demented fossil Biden has surrounded himself with is dead set on destroying this country, and silencing anyone who refuses to see the world through their progressive lenses.

    JackinSilverSpring in reply to yerheinous. | June 26, 2022 at 4:44 pm

    While they may be impeached, there will regretfully not be enough votes in the Senate to remove them.

VaGentleman | June 27, 2022 at 5:23 pm

Wouldn’t it be nice if we had someone on our side who fought as hard for our principles as he does for his?