The Supreme Court of the United States met on Friday to decide whether or not to take up J6 defendant Jake Lang’s case asserting that the 1512 Obstruction of Congress charge against him is unconstitutional. As Lang, who’s been held more than 1,000 days with no trial, explained to National File in an exclusive interview from the DC Gulag, his case has the potential to blow up the DOJ’s charges against not just himself, but hundreds of other J6 defendants, including President Trump, charged under a politicized perversion of the law.

J6 Patriot Jake Lang spoke to National File in an exclusive phone interview from the DC Gulag, where he’s being held in solitary confinement, as he has been for the vast majority of his time across more than a dozen federal detention facilities since his 2021 arrest. As Lang spoke with National File, the Supreme Court of the United States was deciding whether or not to take up his case, a challenge to the constitutionality of the 1512 Obstruction of Congress charge faced by Lang and hundreds of other J6 defendants, including President Trump himself.

The charge carries up to two decades in prison, and a decision from the high court, on whether or not it will hear arguments in Lang’s challenge, is expected by December 4th.

“This charge was originally made a federal criminal statute during the Enron case,” Lang explained during his interview with National File. “Congress wanted to ensure that the massive corporation Enron wasn’t going to shred their documents, doctor them, or obfuscate them in any way [after they’d been subpoenaed] and so they made it a very serious federal felony to do so.”

“The 1512 Obstruction of Congress charge centers around the word ‘corrupt’, or ‘corruptly’,” Lang explained to National File.

“The Supreme Court will be looking at the word ‘corruptly’ as it’s applied in the law, to determine whether or not the intentions of J6 demonstrators were ‘corrupt’,” he went on.

“We were at the Capitol on January 6th in the name of the Constitution and liberty. We’re arguing that the word ‘corruptly’ in the statute is misapplied. For them to say we were there ‘corruptly’ is ridiculous.”

“The DOJ is taking this charge and they’re overbroadly and selectively applying it,” Lang told National File.

“They’re saying that the J6ers are different than the Palestinian protestors who stormed the Capitol, or the Kavanaugh protestors who disrupted proceedings, or Rep. Jamaal Bowman, who was caught on camera pulling a fire alarm in the Capitol, apparently to obstruct a Congressional hearing.”

As mentioned, Lang’s case with the Supreme Court could have a wide-reaching impact on the entire J6 persecution saga, including as it pertains to President Trump.

“In effect, us fighting this in the Supreme Court presents the greatest opportunity for President Trump to stay out of prison,” Lang told National File. “Out of all the charges in his indictments, Obstruction of Congress is by far the heftiest charge.”

“The political implication of whether they take this case or not is whether the Republican frontrunner will be running his campaign from inside a prison cell or not,” Lang went on. 

“If the Supreme Court does pick this up and then side with us in our case, it will send a shockwave out to all of the George Soros prosecutors and all of the weaponized prosecutors and federal agencies out there that this will not stand!” said Lang.

“Abusing the law, using it as an instrument to bend to your will, will not stand!”

Read More in the X Post Below and Follow Jake Lang HERE

The Supreme Court is convening right now to decide whether or not to take up J6 defendant @JakeLangJ6's case asserting that the 15-12 Obstruction of Congress charge against him is unconstitutional.

Lang's case has wide-reaching implications for hundreds of J6 defendants facing… pic.twitter.com/WdWKTIGEEe

— Frankie Stockes (@realStockes) December 1, 2023

RELATED EXCLUSIVE: Leftist CNN Cameraman Jayden X Plotted J6 Riot On Antifa Discord Servers, Met Up With Ray Epps Before Going To Capitol, Jayden X’s Brother Says

The justices split 3-3 on whether making the envelope dates mandatory under state law would violate provisions of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars election officials from discarding votes cast with immaterial errors or omission when counting.

State and national Republican organizations, in addition to voters, sought immediate review by the Supreme Court due to conflicting plans. Some counties planned on separating the ballots, others were going to count them, and some counties were going to discard the ballots entirely.

Despite a previous ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, Democrat Governor Tom Wolf’s administration had directed state election officials to count undated ballots. Acting Secretary of State Leigh Chapman announced last month that Pennsylvania election officials should continue counting ballots that arrive with undated or improperly filled-out envelopes, citing a previous state Supreme Court ruling.

“Every county is expected to include undated ballots in their official returns for the Nov. 8 election, consistent with the Department of State’s guidance,” Chapman wrote. “That guidance followed the most recent ruling of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court holding that both Pennsylvania and federal law prohibit excluding legal votes because the voter omitted an irrelevant date on the ballot return envelope.”

While the court did not rule that undated or improperly filled-out mail-in ballots should be thrown out, they did order county election officials to “segregate and preserve” those votes. “The Pennsylvania county boards of elections are hereby ORDERED to refrain from counting any absentee and mail-in ballots received for the November 8, 2022 general election that are contained in undated or incorrectly dated outer envelopes,” the court wrote.

“We hereby DIRECT that the Pennsylvania county boards of elections segregate and preserve any ballots contained in undated or incorrectly dated outer envelopes,” the state’s highest court added.

State and national Republican organizations and candidates have praised the ruling as a step towards restoring faith in elections.

Pennsylvania’s GOP gubernatorial candidate Doug Mastriano, who has campaigned on election reform, celebrated the ruling as a win for election integrity. “A victory for election integrity! The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled today that undated ballots must be segregated and not counted,” Mastriano wrote in a tweet.

A victory for election integrity! The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled today that undated ballots must be segregated and not counted.#ElectionIntegrity pic.twitter.com/h0sXJOS5ax

— Senator Doug Mastriano (@SenMastriano) November 1, 2022

Republican National Committee chairwoman Ronna McDaniel called the court’s decision a “massive victory.”

“This ruling is a massive victory for Pennsylvania voters and the rule of law. Following an RNC, NRCC, and PAGOP lawsuit, Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court has made clear that incorrectly dated and undated mail ballots can not be counted,” McDaniel wrote. “Republicans went to court, and now Democrats and all counties have to follow the law: this is a milestone in Republicans’ ongoing efforts to make it easier to vote and harder to cheat in Pennsylvania and nationwide.”

While many conservatives have celebrated the ruling, America First Policy Institute Center for Election Integrity chairman Ken Blackwell cautioned that the decision could have been a “tactical retreat” by the court’s Democrats.

“This is a big win for election integrity, leaving open the question as to how a partisan Democrat state supreme court could have voted for it,” Blackwell told Breitbart News. “There was a question about whether this requirement could be severed from other items the Left cares about. Given that, I’m raising my eyebrows as to whether this was a tactical retreat.”

The justices were the split on the question of violating the Civil Rights Act. Three Democrat judges argued that the dating requirement violates federal law, while one Democrat and two Republican justices saw no violation. Written opinions detailing the court’s reasoning were not immediately available.

Pennsylvania has received a little over 850,000 returned mail-in ballots out of 1.4 million requested, the Associated Press reported.

RELATED: PA’s Secretary of State Warns of ‘Delays’ in Tallying Midterm Ballots

RELATED: Doug Mastriano Slams ‘Coward’ Opponent Josh Shapiro For Dodging Debate

A group of Congressional Democrats that includes career politicians who have spent decades in Washington is proposing legislation to enact term limits for Supreme Court justices in the wake of the court’s Roe reversal and other recent rulings dealing blows to their left-wing agenda.

Georgia Democrat Hank Johnson, who once expressed concern that the island of Guam would “capsize” due to an overpopulation of US troops, introduced the legislation to term limit Supreme Court justices, claiming that the effort will “restore legitimacy” to the court. The legislation comes amidst an uptick in attacks on the court by Democrats and the political left and failed attempts by Democrats to “pack” the court full of additional left-wing justices to overrule its current pro-Constitution majority.

The bill, titled the Supreme Court Tenure Establishment and Retirement Modernization (TERM) Act is being co-sponsored by a number of Johnson’s fellow Democrats, many of whom, like Johnson who has been in Congress since 2007, are career politicians.

Included among the bill’s co-sponsors is Jerry Nadler, of New York’s 10th District, who has been in Congress since 1992 and was first elected to the New York State Assembly in 1977. Dating back to the 1990s, Nadler has opposed term limits for members of Congress, like himself.

Also numbered among the so-called TERM Act’s co-sponsors are Democrat Representatives Shelia Jackson Lee, of Texas, and Steve Cohen, of Tennesee. Jackson Lee has been in Congress almost as long as Jerry Nadler, coming to Washington in 1995. Cohen, who was first elected to the Tennessee State Senate in 1983, spent well over two decades in that body before bouncing to Capitol Hill 15 years ago in 2007.

In the Senate, the legislation is being carried by career Democrat politician Sheldon Whitehouse, who has been in politics for decades and in the Senate since 2007.

Under the proposed legislation, justices would be limited to serving 18 years on the high court and each president would be “entitled” to appoint at least two justices, with a new justice leaving and coming on to the bench every 2 years, drawing comparisons the unstable judiciaries of some third world nations.

In a public statement announcing the proposed legislation, Rep. Hank Johnson claimed that the Supreme Court is “facing a legitimacy crisis” after it had backed the Constitution, and was joined by the bill’s co-sponsors in expressing a sense of urgency to drastically remake the Supreme Court in an effort to rescue their far-left agenda.

“With all the harmful and out-of-touch rulings from the Supreme Court this last year, legislation creating 18-year terms for justices is essential. Otherwise, we will be left with a backward-looking majority for a generation or more,” Rep. Jerry Nadler said. 

Related: ‘Uncle Clarence’ Trends on Twitter as Pro-Abortion Leftists Launch Race Attacks on Supreme Court Justice

Late Tuesday, the U.S. House passed a bill into law that could codify same-sex marriage into law.

47 Republicans voted with Democrats to pass the Respect for Marriage Act which seeks to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and provide federal protections for homosexual couples and interracial marriages.

The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act was passed with bipartisan support and defined marriage as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” The act also defined a spouse as “a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

Various Republicans criticized the bill. Rep. Lisa McClain (R-MI) said the Democrats were pushing the bill to avoid focusing on serious issues affecting the country currently: “At a time when inflation is at 9.1% and the southern border is in a full-blown crisis, Democrats in Congress are wasting time on a bill about marriage. Is that really the most pressing issue facing our country? How about we focus on things that matter, like lowering gas costs rather than voting on pointless bills that only score political points?”

House Minority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA.) voted against the bill, saying, “it was a political game by Democrats.”

Rep. Bob Good (R-VA) voted against the bill, explaining how he believes it contrasted “God’s definition of marriage.” Good said “I’m a biblical conservative, I believe in God’s definition of marriage. And, you know, God’s perfect design is one man for one woman for a lifetime.”

Good added that he thinks the SCOTUS never “should have tried to make law on that issue.”

Only one Texas representative voted in favor of the bill. Zero Arizona reps voted “yay” on the bill.

For the bill to pass into law, 10 Republican Senators need to vote in favor of it.

GOP Senators have made various comments regarding the bill. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) expressed his intentions to vote against the bill, calling it a “stupid waste of time.”

Sen. Josh Hawley said he wants marriage to be up to the states and how he believes same-sex marriages is not defined in the Constitution. “I don’t think there is any constitutional basis for the Supreme Court to say ‘this is what the definition of marriage is according to the Constitution. I don’t think the Constitution has marriage in it.'”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) made comments on Sunday where he suggested same-sex “marriage” legislation should be left up to the states. “I think that decision was clearly wrong when it was decided. It was the court overreaching,” the Senator said on his podcast, which was published Sunday.

“Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation’s history. Marriage was always an issue that was left to the states. We saw states before Obergefell, some states were moving to allow gay marriage, other states were moving to allow civil partnerships. There were different standards that the states were adopting,” Cruz added.

WATCH:

Controversial Republican Sen. Mitt Romney also hinted he would vote “no” on the bill, calling it “unnecessary.” Rep. Lindsey Graham affirmed he would vote against the bill.

As of Wednesday, only four Republican Senators have vocally and publicly expressed plans to vote in favor of the bill.

As of today, only 4 Republicans expressed support/openness for codifying protections for gay marriage: Collins, Portman, Murkowski, Tillis.

6 short needed to break a filibuster.

— Igor Bobic (@igorbobic) July 20, 2022

Stay tuned to National File for any updates.

RELATED: Federal Judge Rules University of Idaho Cannot Punish Students For Opposing Homosexuality

Texas attorney general Ken Paxton sued the Biden administration after the White House encouraged doctors in pro-life states to perform abortions.

Paxton filed his lawsuit after the Biden administration released guidance last week that said doctors could legally provide abortions if it was part of an “emergency treatment.” The guidance threatened to defund hospitals that refused to provide abortions.

Paxton claimed Biden is attempting to “transform every emergency room in the country into a walk-in abortion clinic.”

The guidance, released by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), alleges that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) requires medical professionals to carry out “life- or health-saving abortion services in emergency situations.”

READ MORE: Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton Suggested He May Defend Anti-Sodomy Law

HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra believes this means doctors in pro-life states must perform abortions. “When a state law prohibits abortion and does not include an exception for the life and health of the pregnant person … that state law is preempted,” Becerra said.

If doctors and hospitals refuse to perform abortions, despite the guidance order, hefty fines and repercussions could be carried out.

“These hospitals are now threatened with having to choose between violating state law under the threat of criminal penalty or jeopardizing their ability to participate in Medicaid,” Paxton argued in his lawsuit.

Paxton pushed back on the EMTALA loophole Becerra and Biden advocated for.

“EMTALA does not authorize and has never been thought to authorize the federal government to require emergency healthcare providers to perform abortions. Now they are trying to have their appointed bureaucrats mandate that hospitals and emergency medicine physicians perform abortions,” Paxton explained.

READ MORE: Biden Signs Executive Order Targeting Red States over Abortion Laws

The Texas attorney general added that he will continue to defend the SCOTUS decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. “I will ensure that President Biden will be forced to comply with the Supreme Court’s important decision concerning abortion, and I will not allow him to undermine and distort existing laws to fit his administration’s unlawful agenda.”

Currently, the only legal way a mother will be able to abort her child in Texas is if she is facing a life-threatening situation. Within a few weeks, Texas’ trigger law will officially come into effect and permit abortion if birth “places the female at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function.”

Biden’s White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre bashed Paxton’s lawsuit on Twitter.

“The Texas Attorney General’s lawsuit is yet another example of an extreme and radical Republican elected official,” she tweeted.

Stay tuned to National File for any updates.

RELATED: Video: Mother of 10-Year-Old Ohio Rape Victim Defends Illegal Alien Rapist to Telemundo Interviewer

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost told Fox News his office has heard “not a whisper” about the widely publicized story on a 10-year-old girl who was allegedly raped and traveled across state lines to receive an abortion.

Following the SCOTUS decision on Dobbs v. Jackson which overturned Roe v. Wade, Ohio’s trigger laws banning abortions went into effect. These laws allegedly forced a 10-year-old rape victim to travel to Indiana for an abortion. However, Yost questioned the story’s validity.

“I know our prosecutors and cops in this state, there’s not one of them that wouldn’t be turning over every rock in their jurisdiction if they had the slightest hint that this occurred there,” Yost told Fox News’ Jesse Watters.

Suggesting the story may not be true, Yost explained there is no record of any 10-year-old requesting a rape kit from the Ohio state crime lab.

“Any case like this, you’re going to have a rape kit, you’re going to have biological evidence, and you would be looking for DNA analysis, which we do most of the DNA analysis in Ohio. There is no case request for analysis that looks anything like this.”

WATCH:

BREAKING: Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost says there is "not a whisper" that a 10-year-old child was raped and impregnated, there has been no request for crime lab results, and that Ohio's heartbeat law would have allowed such a young girl to get an abortion in the state. pic.twitter.com/oIhJzNiq52

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) July 11, 2022

The first news outlet to publish the story is The Indianapolis Star. The Star published the article on July 1 with abortion activist and Doctor Caitlin Bernard being the only source cited in it.

Bernard alleges she was contacted four days earlier by an Ohio “child abuse doctor” who claimed a 10-year-old child was six weeks pregnant and seeking an abortion.

According to Ohio law, the doctor who claimed to have had the 10-year-old as a patient would be legally required to notify law enforcement that the child was raped.

There is no such report in record. Ohio law explicitly says physicians must report any case where a child is “suffering any physical or mental wound [or] injury.”

Yost explained how the Ohio doctor either does not exist and the story is fabricated, or the doctor committed a crime by not reporting the story to law enforcement.

“We don’t know who the originating doctor in Ohio was, if they even exist. But the bottom line is, it is a crime — if you’re a mandated reporter — to fail to report.”

The story exploded across social media and even President Biden referenced it during a speech bashing trigger laws in red states like Ohio.

“She was forced to have to travel out of the state to Indiana to seek to terminate the pregnancy and maybe save her life,” the president said.

“Imagine being that little girl. I’m serious, just imagine being that little girl. Ten years old,” Biden added.

Pres. Biden on 10-year-old who reportedly was raped and had to travel out of state to terminate the pregnancy: “Imagine being that little girl. I'm serious, just imagine being that little girl. 10 years old!” https://t.co/jZ8JYZ6fZW pic.twitter.com/y3iRTPjfv6

— ABC News (@ABC) July 8, 2022

The Washington Post, Snopes, and the New York Post unsuccessfully attempted to verify the story.

Conservative journalist Megan Fox was the first to push the narrative that the Ohio story may be fake news.

Fox noted how the Indiana doctor, Caitlin Bernard, who rushed to the media to cover this story has been active in media appearances for years.

In 2017, Bernard was featured in a New York Times piece on abortion. Before the Ohio story, Bernard was featured in three separate media outlet’s story where she dramatically reacted to the Dobbs v. Jackson ruling.

Before the Dobbs decision, Bernard also gave comments for a June 19th Politico article about abortion.

https://twitter.com/MeganFoxWriter/status/1544426366837342208?s=20&t=KOOpzwRgOFndVuMFSmQ8lg

As the Conservative journalist who detailed Bernard’s media appearances noted, no local Ohio news outlets reported the story.

Stay tuned to National File for any updates.

Update 7/13: 

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost changed his tune after news was released that a Columbus, Ohio man was charged for impregnating a 10-year-old girl on Wednesday. The Ohio AG released a statement which said: “We rejoice anytime a child rapist is taken off the streets.”

RELATED: Biden Considers Establishing Public Health Emergency To Allow Abortions

Pete Buttigieg defended Leftist activists who protested outside a D.C. steakhouse once they heard SCOTUS Justice Brett Kavanaugh was dining inside.

Buttigieg, Biden’s Transportation Secretary, said on Fox News Sunday that Kavanaugh and the other justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade “should expect” these kinds of protests.

“[I’m comfortable with] protesting peacefully outside in a public space…and the bottom line is this: any public figure should always, always be free from violence, intimidation, and harassment, but should never be free from criticism or people exercising their First Amendment rights,” Buttigieg told Fox News’ Mike Emanuel.

However, Buttigieg’s approval and encouragement of such protests may be in contrast to a Department of Justice (DOJ) federal statute.

According to John Daukas, the Former Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the DOJ, these protests are “certainly” illegal.

“It certainly is illegal. And it is right there in the sweet spot of the statute,” Daukas said, referencing 18 U.S. Code § 1507.

Daukas explained the statute, which was established as law in 1950, “is designed exactly to prevent people from intimidating, harassing, or influencing any judge.”

The statute reads:

Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

The DOJ established the statute following excessive amounts of public backlash in the wake of rulings concerning Jim Crow laws.

Speaking with Fox News Digital, Daukas contrasted Buttigieg’s perspective, saying, “there is no reason — there’s no legitimate reason — to try to influence a judge by picketing and so forth, because the judge is not supposed to listen to that kind of thing.”

Last Wednesday, a mob of protestors congregated outside a DC steakhouse after hearing SCOTUS Justice Brett Kavanaugh was dining inside. 

One pro-abortion activist posted the steakhouse’s phone number on Twitter and encouraged individuals to harass the steakhouse by calling the number to “tell them it’s gross they welcomed Brett Kavanaugh as a diner tonight. Men who take away womens [sic] rights should be shunned.”

The restaurant, Morton’s steakhouse, told Politico that the protestors’ demonstration was “an act of selfishness and void of decency.”

“Politics, regardless of your side or views, should not trample the freedom at play of the right to congregate and eat dinner. There is a time and place for everything. Disturbing the dinner of all of our customers was an act of selfishness and void of decency.”

Along with Pete Buttigieg, his partner Chasten stirred up controversy over his support of the protestors. “Sounds like he just wanted some privacy to make his own dining decisions,” Chasten posted to Twitter, suggesting Kavanugh hurt Americans’ right to privacy by overturning Roe v. Wade.

Former Trump adviser Stephen Miller slammed Chasten Buttigieg for his comment. “Justice Kavanaugh was the recent target of an assassination attempt. Sanctioning the use of mob intimidation tactics against our Justices is wildly irresponsible,” Miller replied on Twitter.

Justice Kavanaugh was the recent target of an assassination attempt. Sanctioning the use of mob intimidation tactics against our Justices is wildly irresponsible.

— Stephen Miller (@StephenM) July 8, 2022

Stay tuned to National File for any updates.

RELATED: Would-Be Kavanaugh Assassin Was Motivated by Gun Control

On Friday morning, President Biden signed an Executive Action aimed at “Protecting Access to Reproductive Health Services.” The order, euphemistically titled, is designed to enable the Federal Government to ignore the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which declared that there is no right to abortion in the Constitution.

The move by Biden comes after weeks of public pressure from his own party to take more extreme actions to counter the Dobbs decision. Such extreme policies are reflected in the order, which is largely designed to undermine pro-life policies in red states.

The order includes policies such as shielding both women getting an abortion and abortion providers in red states, “protecting the privacy” of women getting an abortion, reiterating that Conservative states cannot ban abortion drugs, and encouraging women to get abortions in states where the practice is still legal.

The action comes as Democrats continue to be underwater in polling for the upcoming midterm elections. Democrats, including Biden, believe their radical pro-abortion message will fare better with voters than the flailing economy, soaring inflation, or high gas prices. However, polling has actually worsened for Democrats since the Dobbs decision two weeks ago.

While executive actions are not as easily enforced as laws, the move still has the potential to interfere with the laws of individual states. If the executive action significantly undermines the rights of states to set their own laws regarding abortion, a legal battle is likely to occur.

Biden has not yet taken further action to promote abortion nationwide, such as opening clinics on federal lands or packing the Supreme Court to include more liberal justices. However, this order is a troubling sign that Biden will continue to fold to more radical elements of his party on the issue of abortion. Given that he has also come out in support of abolishing the filibuster to get pro-abortion legislation passed, it is not beyond reason to be concerned that more radical steps regarding abortion will be taken in the future.

RELATED: ‘Uncle Clarence’ Trends on Twitter as Pro-Abortion Leftists Launch Race Attacks on Supreme Court Justice 

President Biden called for Senate filibuster rules to be suspended so that Democrats can codify Roe V. Wade with a simple majority.

“I believe we have to codify Roe v. Wade in the law and the way to do that is to make sure that Congress votes to do that, and if the filibuster gets in the way, it’s like voting rights, it should be ‘we provide an exception for this’ — require an exception to the filibuster for this action to deal with the Supreme Court decision,” Biden said during a press conference at the NATO summit in Spain.

Joe Biden calls for eliminating the filibuster to legalize abortion nationwide until the moment of birth. pic.twitter.com/okoVAdgA8R

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) June 30, 2022

Biden has previously been opposed to bypassing the filibuster. An increasing number of elected Democrats have called for the rule to be tossed entirely, however.

Others, including Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Ed Markey (D-MA) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) have called for President Biden to add more justices to the Supreme Court. “We cannot have a right-wing court run America. How that changes, we’ll see,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY).

“We need to repeal the filibuster so that we can expand the Supreme Court to reclaim the two stolen seats on a now illegitimate court, which are stealing the rights of the American people,” Markey said at a recent event.

Biden has resisted calls to expand the Supreme Court, at least for now.

Despite Biden’s wishes, Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema has said in the past that she does not support lowering the filibuster threshold for voting rights legislation. Joe Manchin (D-WV) has said that he supports codifying Roe V. Wade, but he has also thrown cold water on filibuster proposals.

RELATED: Dem Senator Ed Markey Says Supreme Court is ‘Illegitimate’ 

The Supreme Court made a 6-3 decision which ruled the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is not allowed to pass extensive regulations on greenhouse gas emissions without Congressional approval.

The Thursday decision in West Virginia v. EPA significantly hurts the Biden administration’s climate change agenda, while it helps Republicans fighting back against the climate change narrative.

“Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible ‘solution to the crisis of the day,’ But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in Section 111(d),” Chief Justice John Roberts said in the Court’s opinion, where he referenced Section 111 of the Clean Air Act.

The Court explained how it was Congress’ responsibility to try and pass any climate change legislation, saying, “a decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body.”

The Conservative majority on the Court, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, supported the opinion. The three liberal justices, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Stephen Breyer, dissented.

The ruling states the EPA is allowed to regulate emissions at the power plant level but is not able to set up a national system without Congressional approval. The opinion noted how Congress has repeatedly failed to pass any such national system.

The case was petitioned to be heard by the SCOTUS after Obama-era regulations sought to cut out carbon emissions from coal power plants. Last year, Republican-led states and coal miners successfully petitioned to rule on this case and the scope of the EPA’s power.

Conservatives across social media supported the ruling. “Today’s SCOTUS decision on WV vs. EPA was a big win for not just WV, but America! I fully support reducing the power of the administrative state. It should be Congress, not unelected bureaucrats who craft our legislation,” Clare Anne Ath, a county commissioner in West Virginia, said of the SCOTUS decision.

Former President Trump’s Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, commented, “I’ve been fighting against the EPA‘s ridiculous, unconstitutional overreach since I was in Congress. Today’s ruling at SCOTUS is another big win for our Constitution!”

RELATED: Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot Issues ‘Call to Arms’ Over SCOTUS Leak