Saturday, August 7, 2010
Friday, August 6, 2010
Thursday, August 5, 2010
"Closing Argument" Of Senator Sessions On Voting Against Kagan
Unfortunately, Elena Kagan was confirmed and is now the 112th Supreme Court Justice of the United States by a vote of 37 to 63. The shameful Republicans that defected and voted for this nominee, and who obviously join Democrats in not caring at all that those on the highest court in the land interpret the Constitution according to its original meaning, are Maine Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham, retiring Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, and Indiana’s Richard Lugar.
Tweet
Terrorism Charges In Minnesota, California, And Alabama
The Washington Post reports that a "number of people in Minnesota, California and Alabama are being charged with providing support for the terrorist group al-Shabab in Somalia, two U.S. officials said Thursday. Most of the people are U.S. citizens, with some supporting the terrorist organization from the United States and others traveling to Somalia to do so. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity in the investigation which is culminating in several indictments. The charges in Minnesota are the latest development in an inquiry in that state which has been under way for some time." Tweet
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Law Professor Gerard Bradley: "Why Has Media Ignored Judge's Possible Bias In California's Gay Marriage Case?"
Notre Dame Law Professor Bradley writes in part that "I do not doubt that Judge Walker made up his mind about Prop 8 before the trial began. But that is not the bias that has received too little attention. Battalions of commentators have wondered about his bizarre handling of the case, and many have attributed it to Walker’s belief that it is unjust for the law to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples. Nor is the neglected bias related to the fact that (as several newspapers have reported) the judge is openly gay... The neglected bias in the Prop. 8 trial has instead to do with the fact that – as reported in The Los Angeles Times last month – Judge Walker 'attends bar functions with a companion, a physician.' If (as The Times suggests) Judge Walker is in a stable same-sex relationship, then he might wish or even expect to wed should same-sex marriage become legally available in California. This raises an important and serious question about his fitness to preside over the case. Yet it is a question that received almost no attention." Tweet
Federal District Court Abuses Constitution And Rules California's Proposition 8 Is Unconstitutional, Appeal Promised
The Alliance Defense Fund reports that attorneys "representing ProtectMarriage.com will appeal a federal judge’s decision Wednesday that declared California’s voter-approved constitutional amendment protecting marriage as the union of one man and one woman unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution. Alliance Defense Fund attorneys are litigating the lawsuit, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, together with lead counsel Charles J. Cooper and ADF-allied attorney Andrew Pugno, who represent the official proponents and campaign committee of California’s Proposition 8... In May 2009, attorneys representing two men and two women who were denied marriage licenses filed suit against the new amendment, challenging its constitutionality. Amendment defenders were allowed to intervene in the lawsuit in July. Closing arguments in the trial were held on June 16."
“In America, we should respect and uphold the right of a free people to make policy choices through the democratic process--especially ones that do nothing more than uphold the definition of marriage that has existed since the foundation of the country and beyond,” said ADF Senior Counsel Brian Raum.
“We will certainly appeal this disappointing decision. Its impact could be devastating to marriage and the democratic process,” Raum said. “It’s not radical for more than 7 million Californians to protect marriage as they’ve always known it. What would be radical would be to allow a handful of activists to gut the core of the American democratic system and, in addition, force the entire country to accept a system that intentionally denies children the mom and the dad they deserve.”
“The majority of California voters simply wished to preserve the historic definition of marriage. The other side’s attack upon their good will and motives is lamentable and preposterous,” Raum said. “Imagine what would happen if every state constitutional amendment could be eliminated by small groups of wealthy activists who malign the intent of the people. It would no longer be America, but a tyranny of elitists.”
“What’s at stake here is bigger than California,” Pugno added. “Americans in numerous states have affirmed--and should be allowed to continue to affirm--a natural and historic public policy position like this. We are prepared to fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.”
The fact is that this judge was exercising raw naked illegitimate power while making a mockery of the Constitution.
Two centuries of American law and jurisprudence, and centuries more of Western civilization generally, challenged by a single judge sitting in San Francisco overturning the democratic will of the people of the State citing Constitutional provisions ratified in 1868 meant to protect freed blacks as the basis for a subversion of the democratic process and an abuse of the judicial role in order to do nothing more than impose his own social views. Whether gays should be able to wed should be left to State legislature's to decide either way, not left with one black robbed lawyer that simply disagrees with seven million voting citizens of his State and seeks to impose his rules on every other State as well.
The centuries of American law are the State marriage laws that were always applied only to unions of men and women. The fact is that within Supreme Court jurisprudence no previous court has gone so far, this ruling is by its very nature unprecedented. Even in one of the Supreme Court precedents known as Lawrence v. Texas (a precedent which established a Constitutional right to engage in sodomy earlier this decade), which was most helpful to the judge in issuing his ruling, the Supreme Court specifically made sure to add in a sentence in its ruling saying they they were not at all addressing the issue of marriage. This judge's ruling would effectively redefine marriage nationwide to include gay couples, and that does indeed go against centuries of laws and jurisprudence and has little basis in the Constitution. Imposing one's own view, creating new "rights" out of thin air while at the same time allowing unlimited federal government growth and power because it allows for your personal views to be furthered, is the essence of activist judging.
Tweet
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Missourians Overwhelmingly Vote For Proposition C Opting Missouri Out Of Obamacare Individual Mandate
KWMU St. Louis Public Radio reports that the "first major test of national health care overhaul legislation was voted on by Missourians on Tuesday. The core of Proposition C is an opt-out provision that bars the government from forcing Missourians to buy individual health insurance, as part of the administration's larger overhaul of health care. The measure's passage was good news for Republicans who oppose the President's agenda on health care. State Senator Jane Cunningham was the measure's lead sponsor. She says Prop C sends a clear message to Washington about the individual mandate."
"It is unprecedented in the United States of America for a government to say, you will buy a product, with your own money against your will,'" says Cunningham. "That has never before happened in America. And that question needs to be addressed to the U.S. Supreme Court."
The AP reports that "about 71 percent of Missouri voters backed a ballot measure, Proposition C, that would prohibit the government from requiring people to have health insurance or from penalizing them for not having it. The Missouri law conflicts with a federal requirement that most people have health insurance or face penalties starting in 2014."
Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Kentucky Resolution of 1798 "that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government." He would no doubt approve of this vote by the people of Missouri.
Tweet
Constitutional Ignoramus Congressman Pete Stark Says That E-Verify Might Be Unconstitutional
Remember, this is the same member of the House of Representatives that said in the same townhall meeting that the Constitution allows the federal government to do anything it likes.
Tweet
Monday, August 2, 2010
House Panel Charges Maxine Waters With Ethics Violations
The AP reports that a "House panel announced Monday that Rep. Maxine Waters has been charged with violating ethics rules, setting the stage for a second election-season trial for a longtime Democratic lawmaker and adding to the party's political woes. The charges against Waters, a 10-term California congresswoman, focus on whether she broke the rules in requesting federal help for a bank where her husband was a board member and owned stock. She immediately denied the charges. The House ethics committee's announcement comes just days after it outlined 13 charges against Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., including failing to disclose assets and income, delayed payment of federal taxes and improper use of a subsidized New York apartment for his campaign office. Rangel, the former Ways and Means Committee chairman who has served for 40 years, faces a trial in the fall. Democrats face certain losses in the congressional elections, the first midterms for President Barack Obama, and the high-profile trials could further damage the party's political standing." Tweet
Federal Judge Refuses To Dismiss Virginia's Challenge To ObamaCare Mandate
Reuters reports that "a judge ruled on Monday that the state of Virginia could proceed with its challenge to President Barack Obama's landmark healthcare law, a setback that will force the White House to defend its reforms in the middle of a tough congressional election campaign. In the opening salvo of the legal fight, U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson refused to dismiss the state's lawsuit, which argued the requirement that its residents have health insurance was unconstitutional. Hudson, who noted that his ruling was an initial step, decided the law was ripe for review. He said the issue the state raised -- whether forcing residents to buy something, namely healthcare, is constitutional -- had not been fully tested in court." Tweet
RSS Feed (xml)