I mean, it was first, after all. Isn’t that important? You might even say that it — to borrow a legal phrase — indicates “standing.”

Stick with me now, John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Because if “we the people” don’t have permanent and unambiguous standing on behalf of the First Amendment to the Constitution, then explain to me what we can possibly have standing on without threat of it being taken away.

And what is the ACLU’s standing to sue Oklahoma over speech? Or what’s the Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation’s standing to sue Louisiana over speech? Notice how this street only goes one way? So if you happen to think this latest Supreme Court perversion of justice in Murthy v. Missouri is just a procedural vote, let me first tell you that David French and his never-ending menagerie of blessings of liberty send their regards.

Let me now put a finer point on it. Do any of you remember the 2013 marriage case known as Windsor v. United States? And do you remember on what grounds the Supreme Court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional? There were concurring majority opinions, but the main reason the court ruled against the marriage amendment in California was that — wait for it — the people of California lacked standing.

More than 8 million Californians voted for Proposition 8, which defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. That’s more than had ever voted for any Republican candidate for office, from governor to president, in the state’s history. Thus, when it comes to questions of “standing,” the game has been afoot for quite some time.

This was not merely a simple procedural thing for the current court to rule on standing. This was a coward’s way out for Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. They are now in the same class of justices who botched Plessy v. Ferguson, Dred Scott, and Roe v. Wade.

This Supreme Court ruling has made clear it is fine for you to be sorted as an “other” if it suits the appropriate powers and principalities. Now who is doing that sorting, you might ask?

In each of the three historic cases mentioned above, it was the government saying separate is equal, Dred Scott is property, and the unborn aren’t persons.

So shall it be moving forward regarding vaccines, transgenderism, and whatever else the woke terrorists demand. Can you imagine the level of censorship you should prepare to see in the next 19 weeks ahead of the November election? It doesn’t matter that they got caught red-handed burying the Hunter Biden laptop story to win last time. They just got permission to top that every day.