Yesterday SCOTUS issued a series of rulings. Every single one of them sent the Democrats into a frenzied tailspin of lamentations and pearl-clutching. What’s interesting is that they all started the day with a singular lamentation about Dobbs. Democrats from the national to local level were in lockstep on that one.

Julie Gonzales is a State Senator (excuse me Senadora) here in CO. She definitely got the Dobbs memo. Only one problem with her assertion. CO has abortion laws in place that, shamefully, allows for full-term abortions. So she’s just engaging in grandstanding and gaslighting. 

And then, the SCOTUS rulings dropped. 

Lamentation #1: 

A huge win for the Second Amendment. Hawaii tried to mandate that a lawful gun owner would have to ask permission to carry on privately owned property that is open to the public. Such as wedding venues, beaches, skate parks, and more. SCOTUS kicked that mandate to the curb.

Cam Edwards at Bearing Arms has some good info on the ruling and why the 9th Circuit as well as the Hawaiian government got schooled yesterday. 

The response from the Democrats? SCOTUS has put public safety at risk. The sky will FALL!!! 

Brady's president continues the org's streak of being much more unhinged than other gun control groups, saying "I will not mince words: This deeply dangerous majority opinion privileges guns over everything and all people in society." pic.twitter.com/7d3zuOZaeL

— Rob Romano (@2Aupdates) June 25, 2026

Every damned time. Lives will be at risk, we will all die! Yet, every single time the gun control people are asked which law on the books will stop criminals from using guns, they have no answers. The gun you see, is the bad thing. The criminal is…not. 

I have to laugh at Team Newsom’s comms people getting ratio’d into the sun with this take. 

When we presented statistical evidence in May v. Bonta that those with CCW permits almost never commit crime, your DOJ didn't even argue that point. They conceded it. https://t.co/pB94U8IEta

— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) June 25, 2026

Lamentation #2 & 3:

There were two immigration rulings. I wrote about the Temporary Protection Status here. Evidently we are supposed to be totally fine with TPS people coming here and just staying …for decades. Which has cost the American taxpayer untold billions of dollars. Which is, just like all the fraud, something the Democrats don’t give a damn about. 

MSNOW is melting down over SCOTUS decision on TPS for Haitians.

Immigration Atty: "There are a lot of people who are going to die and suffer."

Weren't we told Haiti is an amazing, beautiful country? pic.twitter.com/KK0RCfTKP8

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) June 25, 2026

Why yes, yes we were. During President Trump’s first term, he described Haiti as a “sh*thole country.” And sadly, in many aspects it is. Certainly, the Clinton Foundation’s largess didn’t give any relief to that country. But I digress. Now the Democrats, who claimed Haiti was amazing all those years ago, have changed their tune. 

It was a temporary program, how did they “have worked and raised families here”?

— Sunny (@sunnyright) June 25, 2026

Excellent question!

The New York Times added to the lament. 

But no longer. In a 6-to-3 opinion, the Supreme Court gave the Trump administration virtually free rein to end the program.

Former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem decided at several points in her tenure to arbitrarily scuttle T.P.S. designation for 13 countries, including Haiti and Syria. This was among the most insidious examples of the second Trump administration’s cruel treatment of immigrants. It seemed, as well, an effort to turn legal immigrants into undocumented migrants. After Thursday’s decision, some one million T.P.S. holders — out of nearly 1.3 million people who hold T.P.S. protections — are at risk of immediate arrest, detention and deportation.

The third case involved illegals coming in via Mexico who need to apply for asylum or start the LEGAL immigration process before showing up at, or crossing the border. Evidently putting that type of restriction in place that …follows established law… makes us all white supremacists. 

Democrats erupted over the Supreme Court for handing dueling victories to the Trump administration on two major immigration cases, with some pushing to expand the bench.

The high court ruled that the Trump administration could yank temporary protective status (TPS) away from thousands of Haitian and Syrian migrants, and in a separate case, cleared the way for the turning away of migrants who show up at the US-Mexico border before they apply for asylum.

“Today Trump’s loyalists in the Supreme Court have joined forces with him to deny immigrants internationally recognized human rights and advance an authoritarian white supremacist agenda,” Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) fumed.

Republicans pounce and seize. Democrats righteously erupt.

Justice Sotomayor read her dissent, all 35 pages of it, from the bench. Prompting Justice Alito to offer a short rebuttal. 

As Sotomayor read her 35-page dissent, Alito — never known for his poker face — began rocking back and forth in his chair before leaning forward, propping his chin in his hands and staring at the ceiling while his colleague described the majority opinion as “egregiously wrong,” according to The Hill.

After Sotomayor finished, a scowling Alito tersely said that had he known she would deliver her dissent in full, “there’s much more I would have added” to his own comments.

Which was definitely unusual. But I could just envision him thinking … VERY LOUDLY to himself that Sotomayor doesn’t know the law if it hit her upside the head with a clue bat! Which she doesn’t, but is at least better than Jackson! 

Lamentation #4: 

Monsanto and Roundup. 

In an ideologically mixed 7-2 decision, the justices ruled that federal law preempts cancer victims from bringing lawsuits against Monsanto in state courts, where most such claims are filed. The justices ruled Monsanto was not required to offer a warning because the Environmental Protection Agency holds that Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, is not a cancer risk.

And the cries of SCOTUS bowing to big business got rolling. 

Oh, is that what the case was about? The Court convened, and the justices were asked whether they liked “big business” or those with “cancer,” and seven of the nine chose “big business”? Or was it about FIFRA’s preemption clause? The press’s coverage of the law is a disaster. https://t.co/40OlyH6pc3

— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) June 25, 2026

Since the EPA doesn’t require a warning label for glyphosate, then Monsanto doesn’t have to put a label on. They do anyway, but I digress. 

You can darned well bet the lamentations from the Democrats will continue, at least through the weekend. Bring your popcorn as the show will be epic!

Feature Photo Credit: Original artwork by Victory Girls Darleen Click