Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Obama chief of staff: ObamaCare not a tax, even though our own attorney argued that it was and SCOTUS ruled that it was.

Chris Wallace leads along the poor schmuck nicely, forcing the guy to basically say “Our own solicitor general argued that ObamaCare’s individual mandate is a tax, and SCOTUS agreed…but hey, lawyers say all kinds of crazy things that aren’t true, so don’t read anything into it!”  Um…yeah.

Advertisements

July 3, 2012 Posted by | big government, Fox News, health care, hypocrisy, Obama, Supreme Court, taxes | 3 Comments

Did Roberts’ ruling on ObamaCare actually HELP conservatism and help Romney?

Interesting analyses, from many different sources.  Excerpts here, and you really should check them out.

Essentially, conservative pundits are wondering that while the ObamaCare ruling was a short-term win for Chairman Zero, maybe Roberts’ rejection of the Commerce Clause being used to regulate economic inactivity (which lower courts ruled was valid) will prevent future Congresses from trying to use that clause to expand the power of the federal government and thus advance the cause of limited government.  Perhaps that cause, plus the outrage from the ruling which will galvanize the conservative base to rally around Romney (which they may not have otherwise done), will put Romney and Republicans in charge…or so the thinking goes.  And if Romney and Republicans take control, they will definitely repeal ObamaCare…which means that ObamaCare got repealed PLUS the Court will have prevented similar abuse of the Commerce Clause in future sessions.

Anywho, that’s the school of thought…or spin, depending on how you look at it.  What do YOU think?

June 29, 2012 Posted by | big government, conservatism, health care, Obama, Romney, Supreme Court, taxes | 10 Comments

When is a tax NOT a tax, and a tax increase NOT a tax increase?

You tell me.

June 29, 2012 Posted by | health care, hypocrisy, Obama, socialism, Supreme Court, taxes | Leave a comment

Paging Mitt Romney re: ObamaCare

Now that the Court has ruled that the federal government can make you buy anything if they just call it a “tax”, I hope Mitt Romney and the Republicans are smart enough (yeah, I know, that’s laughable) to ride this abortion of a ruling into November.

I’m watching my country die.

June 28, 2012 Posted by | big government, health care, Romney, shameful, socialism, Supreme Court | 9 Comments

Obama declares war on Arizona

Even though the administration won on three of four points in its lawsuit against AZ for the state’s criminal immigration law, Team B.O. is bent that the Court allowed the profiling aspect to remain.  So, naturally, Chairman Zero will honor the rule of law and assist AZ in any way possible.

Yeah.  Right.

The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.

That means police statewide can immediately begin calling to check immigration status — but federal officials are likely to reject most of those calls.

This authoritarian jack#ss has GOT to go come November.

June 26, 2012 Posted by | corruption, illegal immigration, Obama, Supreme Court | 5 Comments

Cartoon of the day, “Justice Ginsburg and the Constitution” edition

Follow up to my previous post.

February 9, 2012 Posted by | Constitution, Egypt, shameful, Supreme Court | 2 Comments

Justice Ginsburg to Egypt: Our constitution sucks, so don’t models yours after ours

A typical liberal reaction to our Constitution…but shameful nonetheless.  Details:

Following are excerpts from an interview with US Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which aired on Al-Hayat TV on January 30, 2012.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: It is a very inspiring time – that you have overthrown a dictator, and that you are striving to achieve a genuine democracy. So I think people in the United States are hoping that this transition will work, and that there will genuinely be a government of, by, and for the people.

I can’t speak about what the Egyptian experience should be, because I’m operating under a rather old constitution. The United States, in comparison to Egypt, is a very new nation, and yet we have the oldest written constitution still in force in the world(Just so you know, you statist hag, that is NOT a bad thing…it’s a GREAT thing! – CL)

You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone one since the end of World War II. I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary… It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution – Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?

In other words, the very Constitution she has sworn to uphold is, in her own words, outdated.  No d@mned wonder this wench looks to foreign law to mold her leftist decisions: she doesn’t think very highly of our own laws, statutory or constitutional.  As the Spectator notes, while she was praising the freedoms found in our First Amendment, she was oblivious to the fact that those rights are far less protected in South Africa, Canada, and Europe than they are here.  Maybe she’s racist for not wanting those rights extended to Egyptians?

If Uhhhhhhbama gets re-elected, he will look to find another one of these anti-American jackwagons to sit on the SCOTUS in the event of another vacancy.  It is shameful that such a moron serves on the bench of the Supreme Court.

February 4, 2012 Posted by | Constitution, Egypt, judiciary, shameful, Supreme Court | 17 Comments

ACORN: We’re entitled to taxpayer funds! SCOTUS: No, you’re not.

Score one for the good guys:

The Supreme Court won’t hear an appeal from ACORN, the activist group driven to ruin by scandal and financial woes, over being banned from getting federal funds.

The high court on Monday refused to review a federal court’s decision to uphold Congress’s ban on federal funds for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

Congress cut off ACORN’s federal funding last year in response to allegations the group engaged in voter registration fraud and embezzlement and violated the tax-exempt status of some of its affiliates by engaging in partisan political activities.

ACORN sued, but the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City upheld the action. The high court refused to hear its appeal.

The case is ACORN v. United States, 10-1068.

ACORN will have to raise their own money in order to shield pimps of underage prostitutes.

June 20, 2011 Posted by | ACORN, Supreme Court | 4 Comments

Jimmah Carter: Crap, you mean I can’t cozy up to Hamas and Hezbollah anymore?

Jimmy the Dhimmi is fretting over Monday’s Supreme Court ruling about providing material support to terrorist groups.  Details:

Former President Jimmy Carter has voiced concern that Monday’s Supreme Court ruling on “material support” to terrorist groups may criminalize his “work to promote peace and freedom.”
 
Carter, whose advocacy has entailed contact with groups designated by the U.S. government as “foreign terrorist organizations” (FTOs) – notably Hamas and Hezbollah – said he was disappointed by the court decision.
 
The high court, in a 6-3 decision, upheld a federal law that forbids providing “material support” to an FTO, ruling that it can be applied to U.S. organizations whose engagement with terrorists involves promoting non-violent solutions to conflicts.
 
The law, part of the post-9/11 USA Patriot Act, forbids the provision of any aid, defined as including “service,”  “training” or “expert advice or assistance,” to a designated FTO.

In a statement reacting to the decision, Carter said, “We are disappointed that the Supreme Court has upheld a law that inhibits the work of human rights and conflict resolution groups.”

Yeah, because when I think of “human rights and conflict resolution groups”, I naturally think of Hamas and Hezbollah.

Carter, the most anti-Semitic president this country has ever had the shame in electing, has a history of playing kissyface with thugs, dictators, and terrorists.  Now, he fears criminal prosecution for it.  Sucks for him.  Schmuck.

Exit question: Do you think that Jimmah sees President Kick#ss quickly gaining ground on his own legacy as America’s worst president ever, and thus is trying to keep his reign in tact with this horrendous publicity stunt?  “Darnit, The Won just may make people forget me.  I’m not going to stand for that!”

June 23, 2010 Posted by | Carter, dhimmitude, religion of peace, Supreme Court | 2 Comments

Justice Hillary Clinton?

Sen. Hatch (R-UT) says he’s heard the Hilldawg’s name bandied about as a possible replacement for liberal SCOTUS Justice Stevens, who is retiring a decade short of the century mark of life.  How Hatch has any insider info on B.O.’s thinking, I dunno.  Story here.

Anywho, this may stun you fine folks, but I think I might support the choice.  Before you think I’ve been hitting the bong, please hear me out.

First of all, ObaMao isn’t going to pick a conservative or a centrist.  Period.  Secondly, the ideological makeup wouldn’t change, as you’re replacing a leftist with a leftist.

No, I think our gain would be to get this disaster out of the State Department.  She’s alienated our allies and has bungled so many foreign policy moves that it’s not even funny.  While I know that Oprompter would replace her with another leftist hack, his stock is badly damaged now, compared to when he was first sworn in.  The GOP could now mount an offense against whatever Marxist surrender-happy meat stick B.O. picks.

Additionally, there are those who think that B.O. will be so badly damaged in 2012 that either he won’t run or he’ll get a primary challenge, either of which would open the door for Her Highness.  She’d be better on the Court and not in the Oval Office.

Obviously, this is not a warm, enthusiastic endorsement for Shrillary.  It’s a backhanded “How can we be screwed the least?” endorsement.

What sayeth the commenters? 😀

April 12, 2010 Posted by | Hillary, Obama, Supreme Court | 5 Comments

Notes from Obama’s SOTU address

1.  Chris Matthews says he forgot B.O. was a black man “for and hour”.  Awaiting howls of racial condemnation from the left in 3…2…1…

2.  B.O. criticized the recent Supreme Court decision that allows businesses and organizations to exercise their First Amendment rights.  Justice Alito dissented, publicly.  Rep. Joe Wilson just called to tell Justice Alito that he could have been a little more vocal about it. 😆  Anywho, you would figure that a constitutional law professor like Uhhhh-bama would be a little more familiar with the Constitution and with Supreme Court precedents.

3.  Not content with the negative fallout from his unpopular socialized medicine plan, B.O. thought trying to implement another massively unpopular policy (allowing gays to serve openly in the military) would be just the thing to get America back on his side.

4.  Here’s our DHS Secretary, putting the “nap” in “Napolitano”.  Reid apparently forgot to take his 5-Hour Energy shot, too.

5.  Fact check: You know, Obama’s kinda full of bovine feces on a bunch of things he said last night, huh?

6.  Russ (via Ace) said that the big winner from the SOTU speech was…Jimmy Carter.  How?  Because now, Carter is no longer the official worst president we’ve seen in our lifetime.  B.O. now has that dubious distinction.  After all, can you ever recall a president that was a lame duck after just ONE year?

January 28, 2010 Posted by | bigotry, Constitution, health care, Janet Napolitano, moonbats, Obama, Reid, Supreme Court | 4 Comments

Supreme Court overtuns Sotomayor’s bigoted ruling

No doubt many of you are aware of the case in New Haven, CT, where a firefighter exam’s results were tossed out because no black firemen passed the test.  The white firefighters who passed sued, arguing that they were discriminated against because of their race.  It’s obvious to anyone with half a brain that they were right.  So of course, the liberal appeals court told them to stick it up their white chutes (or whatever the legalese equivalent of that is).  SCOTUS nominee Sonia Sotomayor ruled against the firefighters and in favor of racism.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the liberal court, on a predictable 5-4 ruling, with the four liberal justices naturally and reflexively siding with racism.

Exit question: Does this put a dent in Sotomayor’s claim that by virtue of her being a “wise Latina woman”, she will reach “better conclusions” than non-Latin males?

June 29, 2009 Posted by | bigotry, political correctness, Supreme Court | 2 Comments

Week’s ending review

B.O.’s SCOTUS nominee, we are told, made this one isolated reference to female Hispanic making better decisions than men of any race.  If, by “isolated”, they mean “she’s said it on multiple occasions“, then yeah…”isolated”!

When he’s not busy shilling for criminal aliens, Sometimes-Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham likes to spend his time pacifying the base by slamming Sotomayor’s racist words.  I’m not sure why he’s got such a problem with her, since she was a member of the Hispanic supremacist group La Raza…the same La Raza that Graham appeared before to “tell the bigots to shut up” about criminal immigration.

Quote of the week by filmmaker John Ziegler, who has put out a movie called “Media Malpractice” about the Kamikaze Media’s coverage of the 2008 election: “Monica Lewinsky never dreamed of doing to Bill Clinton some of the things Brian Williams did to Barack Obama”!  Heh.

When unemployment was 5% during the Bush years, the MSM howled.  Now that it’s doubled under The One’s watch, the MSM spins unemployment as “fun”…”funemployment“!  Please pick your jaw up off the floor long enough to say “Nope…no liberal media bias!”  I’m guessing the Second Great Depression will be “Funpression #2”, maybe?

Obama said the Holocaust is bad, but then implies that it’s no worse than what those d#mned Joooooos are doing to the poor, innocent, peaceful “Palestinians” every day.  Moral equivalency: it’s not just for dinner anymore.

June 5, 2009 Posted by | bigotry, illegal immigration, media bias, Obama, Supreme Court | Leave a comment

Weekend roundup

Obama says that just because his SCOTUS nominee is a race-obsessed leftist ideologue doesn’t mean she’s unqualified to sit on the bench, and that she should not be filibustered.  The same dude that tried to filibuster a far more qualified jurist in Sam Alito is saying that there shouldn’t be a filibuster?  Alrighty, then.

By the way, since the MSM is telling us that Sotomayor’s compelling story (born poor, raised poor, life as a minority, overcomes all to be a federal judge) is reason enough for America to love her and to put her on the court, I do have to ask: where was the MSM when this same story manifested itself in Clarence Thomas and Miguel Estrada?  Nope…no liberal media bias!

Some wingnut psycho murdered an abortion doctor in Kansas.  Predictably, the MSM chooses to make this nutjob the face of principled anti-infanticide folks like me.  I don’t know how many different ways we can cite “Thou shalt not murder” to show where we stand on murder, both babies and abortion doctors.  If this nutbar were a true Christian (who wasn’t deranged, that is), he would be aware of both the aforementioned commandment, as well as Romans 12:19: “Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY,” says the Lord.”

B.O. offers his “personal commitment” to Muslims.  Yeah, I bet.

As we leave May and head into June, New York gets a big dose of global “warming”, AKA a freeze watch.

For once, I agree with the Russkies, and they would know first hand about this: “American capitalism gone with a whimper.”  The column is excellent, however critical (though largely accurate) it may be of American society.

May 31, 2009 Posted by | abortion, global warming, hypocrisy, media bias, Obama, religion of peace, Russia, socialism, Supreme Court, wingnuts | 1 Comment

Obama’s activist Supreme Court nominee

President Oprompter has settled on his Supreme Court nominee to replace Bush the Elder’s mistake (David Souter).  So what do we know about Sonia Sotomayor?

Well, for starters, we know that she thinks it is the role of the appeals courts to make policy:

Um, all of the legal defense funds out there, um, they’re looking for people out there with court of appeals experience, because court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know, I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t make law, I know. Um, um — [laughter] — I know. I’m not promoting it, I’m not advocating it, and, I’m … you know. [laughter]

We also know that she is a racist and a sexist:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” — Judge Sonia Sotomayor, in her Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California (Berkeley) School of Law in 2001

So by virtue of her being a Latina, her legal reasoning and grounding in constitutional law is stronger than that of a black man, or a white woman, or anyone else?  Anyone care to guess what the reaction from the left and the MSM (pardon the redundancy) would have been if a white dude had made an identical statement that lauded the advantages that while maledom would bring to the court?

We know that Uhhh-bama told us during the election that SCOTUS justices don’t need to know the Constitution, so long as they possess a trait more important than that: empathy.  Do you people now see why I refer to liberalism as a “feeling, not thinking” ideology?  Any man who thinks that a SCOTUS justice who “empathizes” better than she understands the Constitution that she’s been given lifetime tenure to interpret is clearly devoid of any thinking skills.  Therefore, it should come as no surprise that he picks a nominee who is equally dismissive of prerequisites of constitutional knowledge.

One other thing we know: the American Idol that the lost sheeple elected last year will see his nominee approved, regardless of what kind of ideologue she is.

May 26, 2009 Posted by | Obama, Supreme Court | 7 Comments

Weekend in review

Here’s the haps from the weekend:

My county now has a case of the swine flu at one of the local schools.  Friggin’ wonderful.

RIP Jack Kemp.

You know how I’ve been saying for the last five years that global “warming” nuts prefer to use the term “climate change” or other euphemisms when it’s cold and “global warming” when it’s hot?  The NYT confirms this calculated effort by the environuts.

Finally, the Obamedia does some deep investigative journalism of the president.  Excerpt:

Obamas take a walk, holding hands in the evening

WASHINGTON — The first couple took full advantage of the cool spring night.
After a date night out on Saturday evening, President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama decided to take a stroll when their motorcade arrived back at the White House.

So they began walking on the driveway of the White House South Lawn while holding hands. First they passed the West Wing, then their children’s swing set. They kept walking, swinging their hands together. … 

The Obama administration threatened to use the power of the adoring “enchanted” press corps to destroy a Chrysler investment firm if it didn’t go along with Chavez’ Oprompter’s bankruptcy plan.  Chicago thuggery at its finest, no?  Paging Mr. Orwell!

Our ideologue president gets to pick a Supreme Court justice, since Souter is retiring.  The balance of the court isn’t changing, since Souter’s a leftist anyway.  But the odds-on favorite to be his replacement is a woman who says that “the courts are where policy is made“.  But hey, why would you go thinking she might be a leftist judicial activist or something?

Napolitano is at it again.  Yet another memo has emerged from her agency that describes a different breed of “extremists”: People who oppose giving drivers licenses, in-state tuition, medical benefits, or public schooling to criminal aliens.  That pretty much paints the vast majority of Americans as “extremists”, no?  Conspicuous by its absence from the list of “extremists”, however, is Muslim extremists.  “Jewish extremists” is on the list, though, although for the life of me, I can’t recall an act of domestic terrorism perpetrated by a Jewish extremist.

May 4, 2009 Posted by | big government, environuts, global warming, media bias, news bytes, Obama, religion of peace, shameful, Supreme Court, swine flu | 3 Comments

Supreme Court declines to hear “Obama is an American” case

Details here, but it’s time I said something about this:

People, let it go.

He was born in Hawaii in 1961.  HI was a state in 1961.  Ergo, he is a citizen.  I feel that the right is done a great disservice when its members pull a “He’s not my president!” line of thinking that the unhinged left has displayed for eight years now.

Look, I’ll grant you that the Constitution is crystal clear on the matter.  And if some incontrovertible proof surfaces that Obama is not a citizen, then the legal process will work itself out.  Until then, the Certificate of Live Birth that the state of HI provided is going to have to suffice.

December 8, 2008 Posted by | Obama, Supreme Court | 4 Comments

Poll: Liberals wants Supreme Court to rule on “fairness”, not Constitution

A scary, yet unsurprising, look in to the gourds of liberals.  From Rasmussen:

While 82% of voters who support McCain believe the justices should rule on what is in the Constitution, just 29% of Barack Obama’s supporters agree. Just 11% of McCain supporters say judges should rule based on the judge’s sense of fairness, while nearly half (49%) of Obama supporters agree.

Remember this whenever you hear some brain-dead leftard rant about Bush supposedly “trashing the Constitution”, OK?  The left cares about the Constitution only when it serves their interest.  The rest of the time, it’s just a cocktail napkin that the Founding Fathers scribbled some words on the back of.

September 9, 2008 Posted by | Constitution, McCain, moonbats, Obama, polls, Supreme Court | 4 Comments

Resumés: Obama vs. Thomas

More on Obama’s “not experienced” gaffe on Justice Clarence Thomas, via the WSJ:

So let’s see. By the time he was nominated, Clarence Thomas had worked in the Missouri Attorney General’s office, served as an Assistant Secretary of Education, run the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and sat for a year on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation’s second most prominent court. Since his “elevation” to the High Court in 1991, he has also shown himself to be a principled and scholarly jurist.

Meanwhile, as he bids to be America’s Commander in Chief, Mr. Obama isn’t yet four years out of the Illinois state Senate, has never held a hearing of note of his U.S. Senate subcommittee, and had an unremarkable record as both a “community organizer” and law school lecturer. Justice Thomas’s judicial credentials compare favorably to Mr. Obama’s Presidential résumé by any measure. And when it comes to rising from difficult circumstances, Justice Thomas’s rural Georgian upbringing makes Mr. Obama’s story look like easy street.

So why won’t The One do more unscripted events?

So much for civility in politics and bringing people together. And no wonder Mr. Obama’s advisers have refused invitations for more such open forums, preferring to keep him in front of a teleprompter, where he won’t let slip what he really believes.

Who knew the Obamessiah could be such a phony?  For those of you on the left, that question was both sarcastic and rhetorical.

August 18, 2008 Posted by | hypocrisy, Obama, Supreme Court | 4 Comments

Laugher of the day

Regarding Clarence Thomas, the Obamessiah says he wouldn’t have nominated Thomas because…I kid you not…Thomas didn’t have enough experience at the time!  Oh, the hilarity!

Obama: “I don’t think that he was exp–…a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time.”

Video clip here.

August 17, 2008 Posted by | Obama, quote of the day, Supreme Court | 3 Comments

Quote of the day, SCOTUS justices edition

Two jawdropping quotes from a couple of robed commies on the Supreme Court bench, courtesy of IBD:

In a speech in South Africa recently, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that if judges can consult law review articles and such in the U.S., “why not the analysis of a question similar to the one we confront contained in an opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Constitutional Court of South Africa, the German Constitutional Court or the European Court of Human Rights?

Justice Stephen Breyer, another citizen of the world, recently said: “We see all the time . . . how the world really — it’s trite but it’s true — is growing together. The challenge (will be) whether our Constitution . . . fits into the governing documents of other nations.

Whether our Constitution fits?

For our part, we think that the Constitution and our laws belong to the American people, to be changed through and by our elected legislatures. And we think that those who assault, rape and murder American citizens should be tried in American courts under American laws.

Wow.  And a President Obamaliar would appoint more moonbats like these!

August 8, 2008 Posted by | moonbats, quote of the day, Supreme Court | 2 Comments

Night and Day, Obama’s Second Amendment edition

Barry O last year, while courting the moonbats needed for the Dem nomination:

“. . . the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he ‘…believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.’”

The Obamaliar today, right before the predictable outcome of the Supreme Court – DC gun ban – Second Amendment case:

With the Supreme Court poised to rule on Washington, D.C.’s, gun ban, the Obama campaign is disavowing what it calls an “inartful” statement to the Chicago Tribune last year in which an unnamed aide characterized Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as believing that the DC ban was constitutional.

“That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator’s consistent position,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News.

If, by “consistent”, you mean “Changing my mind, or at least my rhetoric, within an seven-month window”, then yeah…”consistent”!

Notes Ed Morrissey:

Suddenly, with the general election looming, Obama discovers that his campaign’s statement was inartful.  This seems rather puzzling, because before he ran for public office, Barack Obama was supposed to be a Constitutional law expert.  One might expect the “inartful” excuse on wetlands reclamation or some other esoteric matter of public policy, but the Constitution is what he supposedly studied at Columbia and Harvard.  One has to wonder whether Obama has any competence even in his own chosen field to have seven months go by before realizing that he got the Constitutional question wrong.

Wait, wait, lemme guess: “This is not the Constitution I knew”, right?

June 26, 2008 Posted by | gun rights, hypocrisy, Night and Day, Obama, Supreme Court | 6 Comments

SCOTUS: Second Amendment guarantees individual right to bear arms

Finally, a victory for common sense…which would explain the four liberal justices’ dissent.  From FNC:

WASHINGTON —  The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices’ first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court’s 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia’s 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.”

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”

What Stevens conveniently ignores is that the D.C. gun ban didn’t regulate firearms…it prohibited them.  It was a clear violation of the Second Amendment, and kudos to the Court for finally putting the debate to rest once and for all: the Second Amendment is an individual right, just as are the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights.

June 26, 2008 Posted by | gun rights, Supreme Court | 12 Comments

Supreme Court: Yes, you actually have to prove you’re eligible to vote!

The left fought this tooth and nail, since it does stymie their efforts to perpetuate vote fraud.  However, they are a resilient bunch, so I’m sure they’ll figure out a way to overcome this obstacle.  If only they’d put in half as much effort at getting a job as they do in trying to cheat at the ballot box, they’d likely be more successful in life.  Anywho, from MSNBC:

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.

In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana’s strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to prevent fraud.

The law “is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting ‘the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'” Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy. Stevens was a dissenter in Bush v. Gore in 2000.

Indiana provides IDs free of charge to the poor and allows voters who lack photo ID to cast a provisional ballot and then show up within 10 days at their county courthouse to produce identification or otherwise attest to their identity.

Stevens said these provisions also help reduce the burden on people who lack driver licenses.

Stevens concurred with the common sense segment of the SCOTUS?  OK, who found some photos of Stevens in compromising positions with livestock?  Fess up, you wingnuts!  😀

Isn’t this ruling just sheer lunacy?  Today, voting precincts are verifying voter eligibility.  Tomorrow, they’ll probably do someting barbaric like disenfranchising the dead and the pet population! For those of you on the left, this entire paragraph was sarcasm.

It’s telling that Indiana actually will provide free ID for those who don’t have one, in order to help them vote, thus alleviating the biggest complaint that the left had about the law…and that still wasn’t good enough for them. It’s obvious that the left is all about vote fraud and they knew this law would make their jobs of commiting vote fraud that much tougher.

April 28, 2008 Posted by | Supreme Court, vote fraud | 5 Comments

Supreme Court to Muslim inmate: Get over it

A victory for common sense, although regrettably not a unanimous one.  From the AP:

The Supreme Court said Tuesday that a Muslim inmate cannot sue the government over the disappearance of the prisoner’s copies of the Quran and a prayer rug.

In a 5-4 ruling, the justices said the federal law the inmate relied on prohibits lawsuits against federal corrections officers.

Abdus-Shahid M.S. Ali says the missing books and rug reflect widespread harassment against Muslim inmates in federal, state and local prisons stemming from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

“Reports from all over the country have come in” on Muslims’ religious property that “has been destroyed, confiscated, looted, lost, stolen or taken without cause,” Ali said in the lawsuit he filed in federal court.

Ali is serving a sentence of 20 years to life in prison for committing first-degree murder in the District of Columbia. 

Well bless his little murderous heart!  Those mean ol’ criminals took his Koran!  Just what is our criminal justice system coming to when they let thieves into prison?  Anywho, the sob story continues:

The issue in the case was whether federal prison guards are immune from suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

The law blocks lawsuits against the government over goods detained by customs and excise officers or “any other law enforcement officer.” Two lower federal courts said Ali cannot sue because prison officials are law enforcement officers.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for a majority that cut across ideological grounds, agreed with the lower courts. The law “forecloses lawsuits against the United States for the unlawful detention of property by ‘any,’ not just ‘some,’ law enforcement officers,” Thomas said.

Tuesday’s ruling was the first 5-4 split of the term, following a term in which the margin in 24 cases was a single vote.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia joined Thomas. The dissenters were Justices Stephen Breyer, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter and John Paul Stevens. 

Oh my Allah!  The incredibly rare display of common sense by Race Baiter Ginsburg notwithstanding, the leftists (and yes, that includes Justice Kennedy) on the Supreme Court just can’t get a damned thing right, can they?

January 23, 2008 Posted by | dhimmitude, political correctness, religion of peace, Supreme Court | 2 Comments

Justice Stevens turned against death penalty when we killed Pearl Harbor architect

Wow.  Just “wow”!  Just when I thought these bedwetting liberals on the Supreme Court couldn’t appall me any more than they already do, I read this:

[Justice Stevens] won a bronze star for his [World War II] service as a cryptographer, after he helped break the code that informed American officials that Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto, the commander of the Japanese Navy and architect of the Pearl Harbor attack, was about to travel to the front. Based on the code-breaking of Stevens and others, U.S. pilots, on Roosevelt’s orders, shot down Yamamoto’s plane in April 1943.

Stevens told me he was troubled by the fact that Yamamoto, a highly intelligent officer who had lived in the United States and become friends with American officers, was shot down with so little apparent deliberation or humanitarian consideration. The experience, he said, raised questions in his mind about the fairness of the death penalty. “I was on the desk, on watch, when I got word that they had shot down Yamamoto in the Solomon Islands, and I remember thinking: This is a particular individual they went out to intercept,” he said. “There is a very different notion when you’re thinking about killing an individual, as opposed to killing a soldier in the line of fire.” Stevens said that, partly as a result of his World War II experience, he has tried on the court to narrow the category of offenders who are eligible for the death penalty and to ensure that it is imposed fairly and accurately. He has been the most outspoken critic of the death penalty on the current court. 

Oh. My. God.

Eugene Volokh has several reasons as to why this is a preposterous, absurd view to take, especially the fact that Yamamoto was a military target who had masterminded the “9/11 of the time” at Pearl Harbor.  But I was perplexed as to how Stevens could possibly connect the targeting of a military commander with the American death penalty.  Volokh does a great job expanding on that:

And where exactly is the connection to the death penalty? Consider the chief arguments against the death penalty: the person being executed might be innocent; it’s just wrong for the state to kill people; others can be kept equally safe by locking the person up for life; the death penalty is likely to be applied in arbitrary or prejudiced ways. None of them work here. 

Indeed, good and decent people have legitimate concerns with the death penalty, most of which for the reasons that are outlined above.  However, none of those reasons are pertinent in the discussion about Yamamoto! Ponders Ace:

Wonder what Stevens thought about our “execution” of al Zarqawi, and how much he regrets not being able to sign a stay of execution for this wonderful man.

Stevens is no spring chicken, and will likely hang it up in the next term or two.  The thought of a younger Stevens getting put onto the Supreme Court is terrifying, which is why it is so important not to let the left regain the keys to the Oval Office.

October 31, 2007 Posted by | moonbats, Supreme Court | 2 Comments

Souter almost quit over Bush v. Gore

From the Examiner:

According to Jeffrey Toobin’s new book on the Supreme Court, Justice David Souter nearly resigned in the wake of Bush v. Gore, so distraught was he over the decision that effectively ended the Florida recount and installed George W. Bush as president.

In “The Nine,” which goes on sale Sept. 18, Toobin writes that while the other justices tried to put the case behind them, “David Souter alone was shattered,” at times weeping when he thought of the case. “For many months, it was not at all clear whether he would remain as a justice,” Toobin continues. “That the Court met in a city he loathed made the decision even harder. At the urging of a handful of close friends, he decided to stay on, but his attitude toward the Court was never the same.”

Were we to have been so lucky!  Those poor folks in New London, CT, may still have their property today had Souter left the Court.

September 4, 2007 Posted by | judiciary, Supreme Court | 3 Comments

Bad news for teachers unions

That means good news for parents of school-aged children. The Supreme Court recognizes the right to homeschool your child. From the Washington Times:

It is no secret that home-schooling is growing and gaining credibility as a viable educational alternative.

More and more colleges are actively recruiting home-schooled students, each year there are an estimated 50,000-plus home-school high school graduates who find work or go to college and thousands of new curriculum products have become available over the past five years. Meanwhile, the number of home-schoolers continues to grow by 7 percent to 15 percent each year, more states are reforming their laws to remove the burdens from parents who want to home educate, and home-schoolers continue to excel in national competitions as well as on standardized tests. In short, home-schooling is a major success story.

Now, for the first time, home-schooling has been recognized in an opinion by a U.S. Supreme Court justice as a viable educational alternative. Morse v. Frederick, which recently made national headlines, involves free speech and whether a public school can regulate what a student says. The 5-4 decision said that the school principal, Deborah Morse, did not violate the free speech rights of Joseph Frederick when she took down his pro-marijuana banner, which said “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.” The student had violated school policy and was advocating illegal drug use.

While the Home School Legal Defense Association agrees with the ruling in this specific case, it is a reminder to all families that when your child enters the public school, you have virtually ceded your parental rights to the public school.

The clearest explanation of this view was expressed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Fields v. Palmdale, when it said, “While parents may have a fundamental right to decide whether to send their child to a public school, they do not have a fundamental right generally to direct how a public school teaches their child.”

This is the reason many parents have chosen to home-school, especially those parents who have a religious worldview, because they know their children will be taught secular values by the public system.

In Morse v. Frederick, however, Justice Clarence Thomas said, “If parents do not like the rules imposed by those schools, they can seek redress in school boards or legislatures; they can send their children to private schools or home school them; or they can simply move.”

This is the first time the Supreme Court specifically has recognized home-schooling as a viable educational alternative. HSLDA has worked for 24 years to advance a parent’s right to home-school and to promote home-schooling to the general public.

After 24 years, it is gratifying to read the words of a Supreme Court justice who rightfully placed home-schooling on a level playing field with public and private schools. This kind of recognition is tremendously significant to the home-school community.

It’s another step on the long road to raise home-schooling to the point where, when the terms public, private or home-school are used in the same sentence, they all will be seen as mainstream educational alternatives.

Home-schooling is a modern education success story and HSLDA urges all parents to carefully consider their educational options. Home-schooling should be front and center because it is a viable alternative that has helped hundreds of thousands of children become mature, productive citizens.

If you don’t like how your local government school is educating Little Johnny, you can either move to a different school district, enroll him in a private school, or home school. That’s it. Efforts have existed for years by the NEA (leftist teachers union) to eliminate homeschooling, since homeschooling makes their job of indoctrinating and dumbing down your kid considerably tougher.

No, I am not bashing all or even most public school teachers. I am blessed to know far more decent, competent, and dedicated teachers than those who are not. I also recognize that some parents are about as sharp as a velvet bag full of styrofoam peanuts and probably aren’t serving their children well by educating them directly. However, I reflexively defer to parents in determining the best interests of their kids until it can be demonstrated that the contrary is occurring.

Maybe homeschooling is for your kids. Maybe it’s not. The good news is that it’s your choice.

July 10, 2007 Posted by | public education, Supreme Court, unions | Leave a comment

SCOTUS shoots down racial preferences, upholds WA voters’ wishes

From Michelle Malkin:

If any of you followed my work at the Seattle Times, you know how closely I covered the battle against government racial preferences in Washington state. You may remember that Washington passed Initiative 200 to ban government racial preferences in public hiring and education. Despite massive establishment opposition (led by my then-publisher), the measure was approved overwhelmingly–even in liberal enclaves like Seattle and other parts of western Washington. As in California and Michigan, the Left fought bitterly to undermine the letter and spirit of the law. One of the areas where inequality in the name of “diversity” reigned was the Seattle public school system. Several parents rose to challenge the racial bean-counting and have fought in court since 1998. Their case reached the Supreme Court, which will issue a decision this morning.

10:34am Eastern update breaking:

The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected public school assignment plans that take account of students’ race.

The decision in cases affecting schools in Louisville, Ky., and Seattle could imperil similar plans in hundreds of districts nationwide, and it leaves public school systems with a limited arsenal to maintain racial diversity.

The court split, 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts announcing the court’s judgment. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a dissent that was joined by the court’s other three liberals.

Chalk one more up for the good guys! With today’s shamnesty vote failing, today is turning out to be a darned good day! 🙂

June 28, 2007 Posted by | bigotry, Supreme Court | Leave a comment

Teachers’ free speech trumps union politics

Once in a while, the Supreme Court gets one right. From WND:

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a decision that could impact millions of public-sector employees nationwide, concluded today the First Amendment right of teachers trumps the speech privileges of organized labor.

The decision, in the consolidated Washington vs. Washington Education Association and Davenport vs. WEA cases, found organized labor, such as teachers associations, have no “constitutional right” to use money collected as “agency fees” from nonmembers for political purposes.

“We are elated that the U.S. Supreme Court has honored the First Amendment rights of teachers by overturning the state Supreme Court’s decision,” said Bob Williams, president of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, which has worked on the case for a decade. “The court understood that the constitutional rights of teachers should be protected and are not superseded by the union’s statutory rights.

“This ruling will help protect non-member teachers from having their agency fees used on union politics against their will,” he said.

Booker Stallworth, communications director for the foundation, told WND the case originated with a list of teachers who had a variety of complaints about the Washington Education Association’s dedication of its financial resources to help causes to which the teachers objected, including homosexual marriage and abortion issues.

Some of the teachers appreciate collective bargaining but don’t like union politics,” he told WND. “Some of the teachers are pro-life, some are against homosexual marriage. For a number of reasons they preferred to not have the union speak for them politically and have their own dollars used against them.”

Diane Lenning, an English and history teacher, said, “My major objections to the NEA are that there is an operative glass ceiling for moderate and conservative Republicans, independents and Christians.”

Added Cindy Omlin, a speech pathologist. “There were many political causes that they were funneling my union dues toward that I found to be very offensive.”

“I wanted to be congruent with my beliefs,” said Karen Petty, another instructor. “My dues were going to causes that personally I would go against.”

The case focused on a Washington initiative, approved by voters, that required labor organizations to get permission from nonmember workers before using mandatory dues for political purposes.

In many cases, workers are not required to be union members but must pay a fee equivalent to union dues because they are the beneficiaries of collective bargaining.

Unions, however, are increasingly active politically, and many times support causes such as homosexual marriage and the abortion industry under the guise of “rights” — issues Christians and others would choose not to back.

WEA had admitted to multiple violations of the Washington law during an investigation then was fined more than $590,000 for its actions. However, on appeal, the Washington state Supreme Court concluded the “free speech rights” of the union superseded the First Amendment rights of the individuals.

“The agency-fee cases did not balance constitutional rights in such a manner, because unions have no constitutional entitlement to nonmember-employees’ fees,” the U.S. Supreme Court countered. “For First Amendment purposes, it is immaterial that [state law] restricts a union’s use of funds only after they are within the union’s possession. The fees are in the union’s possession only because Washington and its union-contracting government agencies have compelled their employees to pay those fees.”

“As applied, … [Washington state law] is not fairly described as a restriction on how the union can spend ‘its’ money; it is a condition placed upon the union’s extraordinary state entitlement to acquire and spend other people’s money,” the Supreme Court said.

“The next step is to make sure the law is strongly enforced … to ensure the WEA and other unions are in compliance,” Williams said. “The WEA has been busily attempting to undermine the law while it was under Supreme Court review.” …

This is good news for teachers everywhere who object to their unions spending their dues on grotesque liberal policies and agendas.

June 15, 2007 Posted by | public education, Supreme Court, unions | Leave a comment