For years, Republicans and fair-minded people have expressed concern about the unequal application of the law in the area of First Amendment protections. For example, churches during the COVID-19 pandemic were famously restricted from meeting, but protests for the “Black Lives Matter” movement were allowed to go forward. Last week marked the courts stepping in to push back and uphold the First Amendment:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in a unanimous 3-0 decision, found that two anti-abortion groups had plausibly alleged that the D.C. government “discriminated on the basis of viewpoint in the selective enforcement of its defacement ordinance.”

The groups, the Frederick Douglass Foundation and Students for Life of America, sued the D.C. government in 2021 after local police arrested two protesters who wrote “Black Pre-Born Lives Matter” on a public sidewalk during an August 2020 demonstration.

The foundation claimed D.C. authorities abandoned enforcement of the anti-graffiti law during widespread protests in the city following the murder of George Floyd by police in Minneapolis. Yet that same summer, the group claimed, the restriction was “vigorously” enforced against them.

A bombshell report by Capital Research Center details how the "nonpartisan" Voter Registration Project worked to only benefit the Democrats—contrary to law—in their voter registration efforts. This is extremely problematic as an article from The Daily Caller explained:

“Encouraging qualified voters to exercise their right to vote is a noble purpose, served by legitimate nonpartisan, nonprofit organizations, and community leaders around the country,” Lawyers Democracy Fund Executive Director Lisa Dixon, who was not involved in CRC’s report, told the DCNF. “But when supposedly nonpartisan organizations conduct get-out-the-vote efforts in a manner that seems designed to benefit one political party, voters are rightly skeptical of how fair and nonpartisan such efforts are.”

Democrats continue to show that they have different standards for the conduct of conservative versus liberal Supreme Court Justices. Senate Democrats are demanding that Justice Alito recuse himself from certain future cases because he has spoken out against the dangerous Supreme Court "ethics" legislation currently making its way through the Senate. However, it is apparently acceptable for liberal Justice Elena Kagan to essentially speak in support of the same bill. National Review reported:

Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats sent a letter to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Thursday demanding that he force Justice Samuel Alito to recuse himself from any future cases involving efforts to regulate the high Court, citing Alito’s public defense of the Court’s independence from Congressional oversight as disqualifying. Shortly after the letter was sent, Justice Elena Kagan publicly weighed in on the debate in the other direction, defending the right of Congress to check the Supreme Court. . .

Today, U.S. Attorney for Delaware David Weiss was appointed Special Counsel by Attorney General Merrick Garland. As House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan points out:

First, David Weiss said he didn’t have the power he needed and wanted special counsel status.

Then, he said he had all the power he needs.

Now, he gets special counsel status because he didn’t really have the power he needs?

Something’s not right.

— Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) August 11, 2023

House Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith gives a very plausible answer to Chairman Jordan’s question:

🧵Announcement of a special counsel only happened because congressional GOP exposed the two-tiered judicial system by shining light onto the investigation into Hunter Biden’s alleged financial crimes & the political interference that shielded both him & POTUS from scrutiny.

— Rep. Jason Smith (@RepJasonSmith) August 11, 2023

Last week, the Oakland NAACP shocked many for speaking out against the dangerous soft-on-crime policies of Leftist city leaders and demanding that a "state of emergency" be declared in response to the city's ongoing crime crisis. Now, a Democrat member of the D.C. City Council is calling for the National Guard to be called in in response to a recent onslaught of violent crime in our nation's capital.

With three dead in mass shooting last night, August in Washington DC is off to a murderous start. These are MPD year-to-date stats. Murder, robbery, car theft rising fast. https://t.co/IJY1Mcx5mc https://t.co/d8ZKmQXHnW pic.twitter.com/uLbdYD1LtQ

— Byron York (@ByronYork) August 6, 2023

In recent weeks, the prioritization of partisanship over principle by the Biden Department of Justice (DOJ) has increasingly come into focus. As we reported last week, a plea deal between Hunter Biden and the DOJ for tax crimes was rejected by Delaware U.S. District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika who pointed out that the agreement contained "unusual" terms that would have given Biden "broad immunity" from other charges being considered against him.

The Oakland, California chapter of the NAACP has broken with its typical support for leftist policies and released a letter condemning the city's rogue prosecutor and the "defund the police" movement for the city's ongoing crime crisis. The Washington Free Beacon reported:

The Oakland NAACP released a statement Thursday calling for state and local elected leaders to declare a "state of emergency" as a result of increasing violent crime in the California city.

On Wednesday, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas testified before the House Judiciary Committee and again failed to answer for the Biden Administration's disastrous border and immigration policies. Fox News reported, "[A] number of Republicans doubled down on accusing Mayorkas of pushing 'open border policies' and expressed anger at what they saw as Mayorkas not answering any of their questions."

On Wednesday, Hunter Biden was expected to plead guilty and accept a plea deal for a felony gun possession charge and two misdemeanor tax crimes. However, the deal fell through when Delaware U.S. District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika expressed concerns about the scope of the agreement. National Review reported:

Noreika described the deal struck with U.S. Attorney David Weiss of Delaware as “unusual” and questioned why the deal contained some “non-standard terms,” such as “broad immunity” from other potential charges.

On Monday, the Internal Revenue Service announced that it is making significant changes to its controversial policy of making unannounced visits to taxpayers' homes:

The Internal Revenue Service announced Monday that it will "end most" unannounced visits by agency revenue officers to taxpayers' homes as part of an effort to address "public confusion and enhance overall safety measures for taxpayers and employees."