Supreme Court (sic) to hear case of whether California can force non-profits to turn over list of their donors to the state

Half a century ago, when our nation still had a semi-honest Supreme Court, that court ruled that non-profit organizations didn't have to give a list of their donors to a state government.  The court agreed with plaintiffs that a state might leak the donor list to favored parties, allowing donors to be harrassed or threatened by those parties.

Now for those who don't know much about our legal system, a ruling by the Supreme Court has always been taken as having the force of law in all 50 states--just as when the court ruled that gay marriage was suddenly legal.  Because the SC RULED that gay marriage was legal, no state would bother trying to pass a law against gay marriage, since every federal court would instantly void such law, cuz of the SC RULING.  Got it?

So unless the SC later reversed its long-ago RULING that states could NOT force non-profits to give a state a list of their donors (and the court has never reversed that ruling), that should still have the force of law.

But of course Democrats are experts at using the law as a weapon, and California's Democrat-controlled legislature passed a law forcing any nonprofit that raised money in that state to give the state a list of its donors.  Two conservative nonprofit organizations--Americans for Prosperity (AFP) and the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC)--refused to comply, citing the half-century-old SC ruling--which, if you're still hazy on the concept--is supposed to prevent states from passing a law to the contrary.

Now, in 2015, when Kamala Harris was attorney-general of California, she ordered the two non-profits to turn over their donor lists.  Harris had to have known about the landmark 1958 SC ruling, but eagerly ignored it.  Graciously, the socialist bitch gave the organizations 30 days to comply, and threatened that if they refused, they could no longer solicit donations from Californians.

As noted, both groups support conservative values in the culture wars, so naturally the left-wing smear factory called the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has labelled them “hate groups.”  Both conservative non-profits often receive hate mail from the insane Left, and both wanted to protect their donors from such attacks.

“We don’t want people who donate to us either losing their job or being threatened at home, or their businesses being threatened--things that have happened to people who take a stand,” said the TMLC president.  He said people should be able to give money to causes they believe in without being afraid that they'll be fired--which is happening right now.

Previous Cali attorney-generals, knowing full well that their state law violated the SC's 1958 ruling, simply ignored the refusal of the two conservative non-profits to turn over their donor list.  But Harris--an aggressive, hateful leftist (redundancy alert)--upped her threats, threatening to fine both organizations for the years in which they refused to turn over their list of donors.

TMLC sued Harris in California state court, citing the 1958 SC ruling.  The non-profit won, but Harris appealed to the totally-leftist 9th circuit court of Democrat rulings, which overturned the lower court ruling against Harris and ordered the non-profits to obey the presumably-illegal state law.  The non-profits then appealed to the U.S. supreme court.

TMLC's attorneys should have had one argument:  "In 1958 the Supreme Court ruled that a state could not force a non-profit to turn over its donor list.  Our organization is a legitimate non-profit that has not been accused of anything.  We rest our case."

Instead, attorneys for the non-profits argued that the 9th circuit's ruling was in error because that court used a standard called “exacting scrutiny” in not voiding California's illegal law demanding the donor list, and argued that the 9th should instead have used a test called “strict scrutiny” because the case involved fundamental First Amendment rights like free speech and freedom of association. Under “strict scrutiny,” a state government would have to prove that its policy advanced a "compelling interest."

The problem with arguing such hair-splitting means you're now fighting on the dictators' terms--which the dictators will win.  People simply don't understand an argument hinging on the differences between "exacting scrutiny" and "strict scrutiny," so when the Lying Media assures them that the law favors the dictator socialists, they can't knock down that lie.  And who the hell decides what qualifies as a "compelling interest"?  Oh, dat's right: da 9th circuit.

Again, the argument should have been "In 1958 the SC ruled states couldn't do what the California law allows.  Our case is totally on point with this court's 1958 case."  And force California's attorney-general to try to show why the two cases are NOT identical.

Well...now that Harris is co-president after the stolen election, her successor as A-G, Xavier Becerra, has continued to demand donor lists from the non-profits.  Does anyone think the SC will rule against Harris's position in this case?

Now for the twist:  In the 1958 case the state of Alabama had demanded that the NAACP give the state a copy of its list of donors.  The Supreme Court defended the NAACP--and by extension, its donors--from having to comply with the state's demand.

But of course that was then, and liberal judges loved the plaintiff NAACP.  By contrast, today's plaintiffs are conservative non-profits.  Any bets on whether the SC will uphold its 1958 ruling, or will it reverse that ruling because...um...well, same reason the court refused to even hear the suit filed by Texas alleging massive vote fraud would do, eh?

At least the court didn't refuse to hear this case.  But you can't draw any conclusions from that, since the court would have to hear the case to reverse its earlier ruling.

When the Supreme Court has just RULED that no one in the country has the legal standing to sue for massive election fraud, it's clear that the concept of "the law" is totally subjective.  Double-standards rule.