It didn’t take long. Just days after the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in March on the constitutionality of ObamaCare, President Obama lashed out – chastising the Justices of the high court. If the Justices reject ObamaCare, the President warned that the Court would be taking an “unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” He also attempted to raise doubts about the legitimacy of such opposition by what he called “activist” and “unelected” justices.

And, now another example of unfair and unwise criticism aimed at the high court. This time, the target is Chief Justice John Roberts. And the warning is issued by Sen. Patrick Leahy, (D-Vermont) and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. During a speech on the Senate floor, Sen. Leahy lashed out against the Chief Justice, and warned he would be branded a “conservative activist” if Roberts and a majority of the Court declare ObamaCare unconstitutional. He even warned that the legacy of the Chief Justice would be tarnished if the court doesn’t “do the right thing” and keep ObamaCare in place.

This attack on the Chief Justice is absurd and unwarranted.

As I told Megyn Kelly on FOX News today, the comments by Sen. Leahy are an outrageous bullying tactic – an effort to meddle into the internal operations of the nation’s highest court.

To engage in this kind of intimidation campaign aimed at the high court is not only wrong, but disheartening as well. What’s worse, it’s happening while the case is pending, before the decision is announced.

What Sen. Leahy and President Obama would like Americans to ignore is the fact that the judiciary – with the nation’s highest court at the helm – is a co-equal branch of government. Not subservient to Congress or to the President. This latest round of the politics of intimidation is disappointing, but sadly predictable.

Jay Sekulow

We have filed our amicus brief with the federal appeals court backing a decision by Texas to stop using taxpayer funds for abortion and to halt funding that ends up subsidizing Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider.

As you may recall, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overturned a lower court decision and put in place a preliminary injunction prohibiting Texas from cutting off funds that ultimately benefit Planned Parenthood.

In our amicus brief filed on behalf of nearly 40,000 Americans who signed on to our Committee to Stop Taxpayer Funding of Abortion, we urge the appeals court to vacate the injunction and argue that the decision by Texas to determine where it spends its funds is constitutionally sound.

The fact is Texas has joined a growing number of states that no longer desire to provide taxpayer funding that ends up subsidizing abortion providers.

Our position in the brief is very clear. We argue that under the Supreme Court’s government speech cases, “the Texas Health and Human Services Commission enjoys speaker autonomy to promote a message favoring childbirth over abortion, and to select speakers who are best suited to deliver health services in a manner consistent with that message.”
 
“That same speaker autonomy permits the Commission to exclude from participation in the program grantees who risk garbling or distorting the Commission’s message,” the brief asserts. “The Plaintiffs here link the Women’s Health Program in a conspicuous way to one of the nation’s most prominent abortion rights advocates, and thereby undermine the Commission’s intended message. Because Plaintiffs’ identity and mission as Planned Parenthood affiliates are antithetical to the Commission’s pro-life message, the Commission’s autonomy over its message includes the authority to exclude Plaintiffs from participation.”

You can read our entire brief here.

Planned Parenthood maintains that the loss of funding would cause them and their patients “irreparable harm” because it would force cutbacks in services.

Ridiculous. Planned Parenthood cannot legally force the state of Texas to fund its programs.

In fact, the actions taken by Texas are protected by the First Amendment, as our brief clearly points out:
 
“The First Amendment does not require the Commission to permit plaintiffs’ participation in the program just because they provide women’s health services. Plaintiffs have a First Amendment right to engage in abortion rights advocacy, but they do not have a First Amendment right to undermine Texas’ message disfavoring abortion by publicly and conspicuously linking the Texas Women’s Health Program with Planned Parenthood.”

This is an important legal fight in Texas. I want to thank the nearly 40,000 Americans who are standing with us. We remain hopeful the appeals court will permit Texas to exercise its constitutionally-protected authority to reject the pro-abortion message and halt funding to programs that support it.

Jay Sekulow

The U.S. Attorney General – the nation’s top law enforcement officer. A difficult job under any circumstances. And a position that often generates controversy.

Now, there’s growing criticism that Attorney General Eric Holder is playing politics, especially when it comes to determining which cases to prosecute, and which to ignore.

In an interview with Megyn Kelly on FOX News today, I discussed issues facing Attorney General Holder – including voting rights, immigration, and the botched gun-running Justice Department program, Operation Fast & Furious.

There’s going to be a lot of attention on Attorney General Holder in the next couple of weeks regarding Operation Fast & Furious, as House Speaker Boehner urged President Obama to have his Attorney General comply with Rep. Issa’s subpoena of him in the Congressional investigation.

This from the Daily Caller:  “Holder has thus far failed to comply with all 22 categories of the subpoena that requires him to provide Congress with documents relating to Fast and Furious. On 13 of the categories, Holder has provided no documents. On the other nine subpoena categories, Holder is still far from compliant.”

Operation Fast & Furious: one of many issues facing Attorney General Holder. And, as I have reported before, there’s certain to be more questions about the Attorney General and the politics of prosecution.

Jay Sekulow

With his re-election campaign in high gear, President Obama is focusing on his outreach to women. And, make no mistake about it, the president’s pro-abortion track record regarding the funding of programs in this country and abroad has not gone unnoticed.

In fact, President Obama just received a very strong endorsement from NARAL, one of the nation’s most active and prominent pro-abortion groups.

This from NARAL President Nancy Keenan:

“At a time when politicians are attacking choice on the campaign trail, in Congress, and in state legislatures, President Obama continues to distinguish himself as a leader who stands with women and their families . . . We will make sure that voters understand the importance of re-electing President Obama. We are ready to go to battle and work every day to keep a pro-choice leader in the White House.”

And in a plea to get voters to watch the NARAL video production endorsing Obama, Keenan put it more bluntly: “We must keep the White House pro-choice this November. The time is now to stand in the face of these extremists and fight for the rights of women everywhere.”

The pro-abortion crowd is very aggressive. NARAL is doing all it can to get President Obama re-elected. And, Planned Parenthood is pulling out all stops to challenge a growing number of states that have decided that it’s time to put a halt to sending taxpayer funds to the nation’s largest abortion provider.

As you may know, we’re preparing an amicus brief to be filed with a federal appeals court within days – standing up for a Texas law that prevents Planned Parenthood affiliates in Texas from receiving taxpayer dollars. Planned Parenthood has gone to court and we’re now challenging a decision by a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed an emergency stay, and now clears the way for taxpayer funds to go to Planned Parenthood.

We know this battle is unfolding across the nation. One state at a time. We’ve already filed an amicus brief in a critical case in Indiana, backing that state’s efforts to defund Planned Parenthood.

We will continue to challenge this pro-abortion effort in court and in the public arena. It is an important time to stand for life. That’s why thousands already have signed on to our petition urging officials in each and every state to stand-up against Planned Parenthood and to stop sending taxpayer dollars to the nation’s largest abortion provider.

If you haven’t done so, please add your name now.

Jay Sekulow