Posts Tagged ‘Supreme Court of the United States’

Senator Warren is Part of the Problem

April 2, 2017

Senator Elizabeth Warren, aka Fauxcahontas, recently wrote an opinion piece in the Boston Globe opposing the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. On the whole, the article was not worth much, being composed of the usual talking points about right wing extremism and Republican class warfare against the poor, written by a woman who is worth millions but there was one or two paragraphs that caught my attention since they illustrate why there is a lack of civility in contemporary politics.

On the bench, his judicial decisions show a remarkable ability to shape and re-shape legal arguments in ways that benefit large corporations and disadvantage ordinary people seeking justice. In the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores case, when he had to choose between the “rights” of corporations and the rights of women, Gorsuch sided with corporations. In consumer protection cases, when he had to choose between the “rights” of corporations and the rights of swindled consumers, Gorsuch sided with corporations. In discrimination cases, when he had to choose between the “rights” of corporations and the rights of employees to be free from harassment and abuse, Gorsuch sided with corporations.

Notice the use of quotation marks when she speaks of rights that she disagrees with. In her mind, Neil Gorsuch cannot be simply concerned about religious freedom, the effectiveness and constitutionality of certain laws or government overreach in regulating the workplace. There is not an honest difference of opinion or priorities here that can be discussed and debated. No, Neil Gorsuch is a puppet of the corporations and right wing extremists. He has no logical reason for the rulings he has made, he is simply evil.

Warren goes on;

Gorsuch has taken positions that are even more extreme than his extremely conservative colleagues. When it comes to the rules that protect public health and safety, Gorsuch is more radical than Scalia was. Gorsuch believes that courts should not be required to defer to expert agency interpretations of their governing laws. If he had his way, he’d make it even easier for corporations to challenge health and safety rules that prevent them from polluting our air and water, poisoning our food, undermining public safety, or cheating people out of their hard-earned savings.

What she is referring to is the Chevron Deference, the legal principle established by Chevron vs. National Resources Defense Council in 1984, which holds that the courts should defer to agency interpretations of statutes unless they are unreasonable.

What this means is this. Suppose the EPA decides that a ditch in your back yard is a wetland and forbid you to drain it or develop that part of your lawn in any way, You might take the EPA to court in the grounds that they have no jurisdiction over your private property, but the courts must defer to their own interpretation of the relevant regulations, so if the EPA says they have jurisdiction; they have jurisdiction. You may question whether a ditch constitutes an actual wetland, but the court must defer to their expects, so if the EPA says it is a wetland, it is a wetland. This is a silly example that might never occur in real life, but it illustrates the principle and demonstrates why it is almost impossible to win a court case against a federal regulatory agency. The system is rigged in their favor.

This might be a good thing. One would suppose that the people working for the EPA would know the most about protecting the environment and would be less biased than a company that is polluting, but one can see the potential for abuse, especially if the regulatory agencies are staffed with activists and zealots. In any case, there is legitimate concern among conservatives like Neil Gorsuch that the Chevron Deference permits agency overreach and abuse of power. In Senator Warren’s opinion .anyone who questions the Chevron Deference cannot have any real cause for concern. They must want to allow pollution and poisoned food because they are evil and greedy.

How can you have civility in politics when one side accuses the other of wanting to discriminate and cause pollution? How can government function when a constitutionally elected president is routinely compared to Hitler and his opponents call themselves the Resistance as though they are fighting a foreign occupation. To be fair, there is a lot of this on both sides, but I think it is much, much worse on the left. At least, people on the right haven’t been calling for a military coup to overthrow the president or attacking Trump’s supporters. There was a certain amount of insanity from the right during the Obama administration, but responsible Republicans tried to keep it toned down. Where are the responsible Democrats? There don’t seem to be many left in the Senate.

Even if their Name is Barack Obama

March 6, 2016

I have been privileged to receive another fund raising e-mail from none other than James Carville.

Friend, if there’s one thing Republicans love yammering about (besides building walls and banning Muslims), it’s the Constitution.

But this Supreme Court drama tells me they could use a refresher. So here goes:

  1. A president’s term lasts FOUR years, even if their name is Barack Obama
  2. The president fills Supreme Court vacancies, even if they’re a Democrat
  3. The Senate confirms nominees, even if they’d rather cross their fingers for President Cruz, Trump, or Rubio

Mitch McConnell may think obstructing is his job, but holding a branch of government hostage to obstruct President Obama and demoralize Democrats is not just unprecedented — it’s unacceptable.

And boy, will he be upset when he sees how FIRED UP he’s made Democrats about demoting him and putting REAL leaders back in charge!

Can you chip in and help the DSCC close the book on McConnell’s failed majority? Every dollar helps — and if you give by Monday’s FEC deadline, it’ll be MATCHED!

Friend, if you didn’t do your job, you’d be fired. McConnell and company work for US — and this latest charade is the last straw if you ask me. But unless we help the DSCC get the word out and hold Republicans accountable, we’ll be stuck with these guys for years!

That’s where you come in, Friend. Please pitch in (and get your gift MATCHED) to help the DSCC kick this sorry GOP majority to the curb!

Well, one party, at least, has to yammer about following the constitution, enforcing federal immigration laws, and protecting the country against its enemies. The Democrats don’t seem to care about talking or doing any of that. I just wish the Republicans actually followed up their yammering with action.

I think that it is Mr. Carville and the Democrats who badly need a refresher on how Supreme Court vacancies are filled. Here is the relevant section of the constitution.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Note the words in bold, the advice and consent of the Senate. The Senate does not automatically confirm the Supreme Court justices, or any other of the offices mentioned. Here is the way it goes.

  1. The President nominates a person to fill a vacancy.
  2. The Senate decides whether of not that person is suitable for the office and votes to confirm or deny the President’s nominee.

I think that the Republicans in the Senate are making a tactical mistake by saying that they will not even consider anyone nominated by President Obama. They ought to at least go through the motions of holding a hearing, even if they believe that any person nominated by Obama is unacceptable. But, if the Senate wants to delay the proceedings until after the upcoming presidential election, they can do it. In fact, I think it would be better if Obama waited until after the election to nominate anyone to fill Scalia’s seat in order to spare the country the political drama and posturing that will inevitably occur during an election.

The Democrats seem to have this curious idea that the job of the Legislative Branch is to rubberstamp everything the president proposes, at least when the president is a Democrat and Congress is controlled by the Republicans. If a Republican Congress declines to support the president’s legislation, or even passes legislation that the president doesn’t like, they aren’t doing their job and are being obstructionist. Naturally when the situation is reversed, with  a Republican president and Democratic Congress, obstructing the president’s “extreme” agenda is a vital necessity.

In fact, Mitch McConnell is doing his job by obstructing the president. That is what Congress is supposed to do. The framers of the constitution did not want an efficient government that could act quickly. That leads, all too easily, to tyranny or bad policies. They wanted a government that acted slowly and deliberately and they wanted to ensure that no one person or faction could dominate the government and force their policies on the country. They wanted laws to be passed only when there was a broad consensus that the change was needed and only after compromise had made the legislation acceptable to everyone. What we call gridlock, they called checks and balances and did not want the government to act, even if the president is named Barack Obama and is the lightworker trying to bring about fundamental change.

If the president does not want the Senate Republicans to obstruct him, he could perhaps consult with them before he makes any nomination and try to find someone acceptable to both sides. For their part, the Senate Republicans could seriously consider any nominee. But this would require a spirit of compromise which Obama hasn’t shown much sign of having for the past seven years of his presidency and isn’t likely to develop now.

 

Hobby Lobby Outrage

June 30, 2014

Today, the Supreme Court  ruled that a company need not cover contraceptives if it is against their religious convictions. This is a victory for religious freedom in this country, and really for freedom generally. If Hobby Lobby does not wish to pay for their employees’ contraceptives, they shouldn’t have to. If someone wishes to have their employer pay for their contraceptives, they should consider working for a company that does cover them.

Naturally the Democrats don’t see it that way. I have already received fund raising e-mails telling of their disgust and outrage over this decision and asking for money to elect Democrats to make sure it doesn’t happen again. Either they are quick writers, or they had already pre-written their appeals in the event of this decision.

Here is one from Stop the GOP.

Friend — It’s outrageous: Just hours ago, the Supreme Court handed corporations the power to deny women birth control coverage. It’s a sad day for America.

Mitch McConnell’s reaction? He’s gloating, and he just vowed to vote on “limiting abortions if Republicans take control of the Senate in November,” according to Rachel Maddow.

But mark our words: If we let the GOP steal the momentum in the wake of this decision and take the Senate, we will DEEPLY regret it. You MUST stop McConnell and the GOP.

With just 12 hours to go before the most critical FEC deadline of this election, please pitch in to stop a GOP Senate takeover. Your gift will be triple-matched.

Supporter Record: VN96C28FDA1
Mid-year Deadline: 12 hours

If you’ve saved your payment information with ActBlue Express, your contribution will automatically be processed when you click the links below:

EXPRESS DONATE: $3

EXPRESS DONATE: $8

EXPRESS DONATE: $17

EXPRESS DONATE: $25

EXPRESS DONATE: $35

Or donate another amount.

Republicans are ALREADY seizing on this ruling to push even more extreme policies.

Their Tea Party candidates are fighting for EVEN MORE radical policies — a COMPLETE ban on some forms of birth control and EXTREME abortion restrictions.

Don’t let them take the momentum and deliver a crushing blow to women’s rights.

Pitch in immediately to fight back against extreme Republicans before the deadline hits in 12 hours.

Thanks for your support,
Stop the GOP

But the Supreme Court didn’t vote to allow corporations to deny women birth control nor was this a crushing blow to women’s rights. They simply said a corporation could not be forced to pay for something that is against its religious convictions. There is nothing to stop a woman, or man for that matter, from paying for their own contraceptives. Hobby Lobby is not preventing them from doing  whatever they want with their own money. Why should Hobby Lobby, or any other company, pay for contraceptives if they don’t want to? Where did these people get the idea that if I choose not to pay for something someone else wants, I am preventing them from getting it?

Here is another, this one from the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee.

Friend — It’s disgusting: The Supreme Court just ruled that corporations can deny women insurance coverage for birth control.

It’s a shameful day for our country. But we CAN’T let the GOP use this to steal the momentum, erase our lead, and take over the Senate. The consequences would be dire.

With just 14 hours to go before the most critical FEC deadline of this election, please pitch in to stop a GOP Senate takeover. Your gift will be triple-matched.

If you’ve saved your payment information with ActBlue Express, your contribution will automatically be processed when you click the links below:

EXPRESS DONATE: $3

EXPRESS DONATE: $8

EXPRESS DONATE: $17

EXPRESS DONATE: $25

EXPRESS DONATE: $35

Or donate another amount.

This outrageous decision shows that some Supreme Court justices are just politicians in robes. They’re simply another wing of the Republican Party.

It’s revolting — but if we let the Republicans take the Senate because of this, we’ll never forgive ourselves. PItch in immediately — before the most crucial deadline of the election.

Thanks for your support,
DSCC Breaking News

I am getting just a little tired of the phony outrage these people are always writing about. They seem to be eternally outraged and disgusted by the latest foul deeds and extreme positions of the Republicans, conservatives, the Tea Party, or the Koch Brothers. It has a little of the 1984 Hate Week mentality behind it.

As for what happens next with Hobby Lobby, they have dared to oppose the State and Leader and have resisted the process of Gleichschaltung. I am sure they will be punished for it. I would guess that next year the IRS will find all sorts of irregularities in their taxes. Meanwhile, attempts to drive Hobby Lobby out of business, threats of boycotts, etc. Now might be a good time to shop there.

Rational Response

May 10, 2014

The Supreme Court recently ruled, in Town of Greece v Galloway, that the Town of Green, by opening its Town Board meetings with a prayer by a volunteer chaplain is not violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment, even if the prayer happens to mention a specific deity. Naturally, Atheists generally and the Freedom from Religion Foundation particularly are responding in the calm, thoughtful, rational way we have all come to expect. Or, maybe not, judging from this item on their blog. I am  not sure to what extent this is an official position taken by the FfRF but they did allow it to be published on their website, so I must assume they approve of the sentiments.

Today’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in Greece v. Galloway is potentially disastrous for state-church separation. This decision could be the equivalent of Dred Scott or Plessy for our cause. FFRF’s new “Nothing Fails Like Prayer” award/contest is a great incentive and call to action and I hope that hundreds or thousands of citizen activists will take up the challenge. As an activist who has openly protested public prayer on many occasions, I offer the following opinion and suggestions for others to consider going forward.

Justice Kennedy’s argument provided substantial reasoning to strike down Marsh v Chambers and prohibit government-sponsored prayer altogether, but his conclusion was all wrong. With this ruling the high court has opened the door for local majority religions (and religious thugs) to take over city and state government proceedings. “Majority rule” is not democracy and this ill-thought decision should give supporters of Christian prayer pause in light of America’s rapidly shifting demographics. Public prayers will not always be Christian, especially in cities like Dearborn, Mich., which has a growing Muslim majority, or Clearwater, Fla., that has a majority of Scientology followers. These and other influential religions will begin to assert themselves in isolated areas where Christianity is not the majority religion.

Well, actually majority rule is democracy, which is why I am not really a fan of democracy. I prefer a republic in which while public opinion plays some role in making policies, there are checks against a tyranny of the majority and the rights of minorities and individuals are protected. Personally, I have no objection at all to people of other religions praying in public, provided they extend the same courtesy to me. I think I might get along a lot better with a Muslim or Scientologist than I would with a member of the FfRF who does not seem inclined to extend any courtesy at all to me.

Next, there is a four step plan of action. One and two are complain and demand diversity. Number three is:

3. Voice or otherwise express disapproval or objection

When the public is made captive or invited to participate in public prayers, this very act opens a limited opportunity for immediate petition for a redress of grievances. If members of the public are allowed to voice approval in any way (e.g., by answering “Amen” after a prayer or by applauding or cheering after invocations), the public must also be allowed to voice disapproval (e.g., by booing, making thumbs down gestures, blowing a raspberry, or by making other audible sounds signifying disapproval).

The government may not allow positive feedback or approval while at the same time prohibiting negative feedback or disapproval. It’s all or nothing. Total silence or every voice must be heard. Citizens may also express disapproval by remaining seated when urged to stand or by looking up or straight ahead when asked to bow. Citizens may also abruptly walk out of government proceedings and then make an auspicious re-entry as soon as the prayer has ended. Creative activists will find ways to express themselves in these circumstances.

So, if a chaplain begins a prayer, they will make asses of themselves in public by booing, gesturing, and ostentatiously remaining seated or leaving the room. It gets better.

4. Public mockery

If after the above actions have been taken, the government continues to insult atheists and/or religious minorities with sectarian prayers, activists may turn to public mockery and ridicule. One example is the “prayer mockery hat.” Activist can easily make a brightly colored hat with large ear muffs and dark sunglasses. Wording on the cap could say: “I OBJECT TO PRAYER!” Then, as soon as the pastor or chaplain has been introduced, activists can put on their “prayer mockery hat” with exaggeration and then remain seated throughout the prayer, completely ignoring the pastor until finished. Activists can also mount a small GoPro-style camera to their cap to record the response for posting on Facebook or Youtube.com.

In spite of the disastrous ruling, the fight is not over. We must not submit to this subjugation of our constitutional right to be free FROM unwanted religious intrusion by government. Indeed, “Nothing Fails Like Prayer,” so let us use reason and our constitutional rights of free speech, free association, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances to our full advantage.

Have you ever wondered why Atheists tend to be unpopular? Or why a majority of people would not vote for an Atheist for president even if he was otherwise qualified for the job? Perhaps it might have something to do with the sort of antics advocated here. I don’t imagine all, or even most, Atheists would approve of this sort of juvenile behavior, but unfortunately the Atheists most in the public eye tend to come across as ignorant, intolerant jackasses. I think that it is somewhat ironic that the people who continually assert that they are more rational, intelligent, and tolerant than those of us yahoos who believe in God should act in such an irrational and disrespectful manner.

Sign of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, ...

We don’t have to imagine. We’ve seen the results in places like the Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China, North Korea… (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Enhanced by Zemanta

DOMA

June 26, 2013

I wasn’t going to write about the unfortunate decision by the Supreme Court that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, but I read some comments on this ruling from a Catholic priest on Yahoo News.

As a Catholic priest who has performed hundreds of marriages, I am disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act and to leave the Proposition 8 law unresolved. The DOMA decision, in particular, drives a wedge between Christian and secular rights unnecessarily.

If I now decline to perform a same-sex marriage because my church, the Catholic Church, only allows marriage between a man and a woman, how long will it be before my civil privilege of witnessing marriages will be challenged?

I lived in Mexico for four years, where religious and civil marriage ceremonies are entirely separate. When I performed marriages there, I was usually presented with a certificate proving that the couple had first gone to the civil authorities to register their union. My church ceremony was not recognized by the state and the civil marriage was not sacramental and therefore not binding in the eyes of my church.

I am beginning to think Mexico has it right. Let’s get religion out of the civil marriage business so that I and other ministers of religion can perform marriages that uphold the standard of one man, one woman, and one sacramental union. This is not to say that my church refuses membership to gays.

The Catholic Church teaches that same-sex attraction is not evil and that in regard to homosexuals, “every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” (CCC –The Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2358).

Notice the strange word “unjust.” As religious people, we are convinced that marriage is a huge part of God’s plan to share love and bring children into the world. We believe the core of family life is wife, husband and their children. We believe it is our right under the First Amendment to discriminate and limit marriage to members who are heterosexual.

Will the government invade our religion insisting that our schools teach that same-sex unions are marriages? Will our textbooks have to support this new definition of marriage? I hope not.

One thing is sure: Catholic Americans will have to show a new determination to embrace their brothers and sisters whose orientation is same-sex. We Catholics must be inclusive and sensitive in all of our dealings with our church members regardless of sexual orientation.

Maybe the Supreme Court’s decisions today will force us Catholics (and other religious groups) to be clearer about our beliefs, especially those that are counter to the culture in which we live.

I would hope that the First Amendment will protect my right to practice my religion and live my faith.

I am afraid it won’t work. The next step will be for the homosexual zealots to attack any church that refuses to perform same-sex marriages. They simply will not tolerate any dissenting views on this subject. Already, we have seen a bakery, wedding photographer, and a florist punished for refusing to violate their religious beliefs by providing their services to a gay wedding. Can anyone really believe that churches will be left alone?

The gay bullies will not leave anyone alone and will certainly not respect anyone’s religious beliefs. If you are a Christian and believe that homosexual behavior is a sin, your belief is infinitely less important that the homosexual’s right to act as he pleases without any condemnation from anyone. You are not even permitted to keep to yourself and leave them alone. Support the gay lifestyle with all your hearth and all your soul and all your strength, or be publicly condemned as a bigot.

 

 

Waiting Period for Laws

January 28, 2013

In his New York Post column, Glenn Harlan Reynolds suggests a waiting period for laws.

After every tragedy, legislation gets rushed through that’s typically just a bunch of stuff that various folks had long wanted all along, but couldn’t pass before. Then it’s hustled through as a “solution” to the tragedy, even though close inspection usually reveals that the changes wouldn’t have prevented the tragedy, and don’t even have much to do with it.

The goal, thus, is to prevent close inspection through a combination of heavy-handed legislative techniques and bullying rhetoric: If you don’t want to pass our bill without reading it, you must hate the children.

Over the years, we’ve gotten a lot of lousy legislation this way — the Patriot Act, for example, about which I wrote a column something like this one back in 2001. We’ve gotten it because politicians like to manipulate voters and avoid scrutiny.

But why let them?

I’d like to propose a “waiting period” for legislation. No bill should be voted on without hearings, debate and a final text that’s available online for at least a week. (A month would be better. How many bills really couldn’t wait a month?)

And if the bill is advertised as addressing a “tragedy” or named after a dead child, this period should double.

After all, people want waiting periods for guns. Yet, statistically, the percentage of guns involved in crimes is much lower than the percentage of politicians involved in crimes.

Seriously, legislation is supposed to be a deliberative process. When they don’t want to deliberate, it’s because they’re hiding something. And they’re hiding it because they don’t want you to know about it.

The founding fathers did not intend for laws to be passed easily or quickly, for them gridlock was a good thing. There are a couple of other reforms I would suggest. One might be that if the Supreme Court rules that a law is unconstitutional, than every legislator who voted for it be subject to a heavy fine. Repeat offenders would be forced to resign and barred from public office for life. No bill named after a dead child should be permitted and all such laws currently on the books should be automatically repealed. I would also suggest that no bill under consideration be permitted to have irrelevant riders attached to it. A rider is an additional provision attached to a bill that it has no obvious or relevant connection to the main subject of the bill. A rider is often used to enact policies that could never pass on their own. Other democratic countries manage to limit or prohibit the practice of adding riders to bills, as did the Confederate constitution. I don’t see why we should not do likewise. Maybe there should also be a mandatory sunset provision for all laws passed. Term limits for everyone in office couldn’t hurt.

 

 

 

Explaining Robert’s Decision

July 3, 2012

I think I am beginning to understand why Chief Justice John Roberts decided the way he did. Consider this clip from the movie 1776.

 

 

In the play and movie, Judge Wilson is portrayed as desiring to remain anonymous. He does not want to be the one man who holds up the cause of independence for the colonies so he votes against his conscience. I wonder if Judge Roberts had similar feelings. He did not want to end up being reviled as the one man who stopped Obamacare.

 

By the way, that movie is obviously not particularly historically accurate. John Dickinson is portrayed as opposing independence out of loyalty to Great Britain. In fact, he supported the cause of independence, in theory, but felt that it was unwise for the colonies to declare independence when they were obviously losing the war.

Democracy is Dead

June 28, 2012
English: The United States Supreme Court, the ...

The Nine. There were nine Nazgul too. I wonder if that is a coincidence

The Supreme Court upheld Obamacare today. This is not good and I think it might be fair to say that the cause of liberty suffered a setback. Still, you won’t see me crying and sobbing that democracy is dead, like that idiot in Wisconsin. We lost a battle, but the war continues.

Obviously, we have to elect a Republican president and gain both Houses of Congress. Even then repeal will be harder than many might think. We can count on the liberal media to scream about Conservative selfishness and cruelty every step of the way and I am sure that some of our less stalwart Congressmen will cave at the first hostile editorial from the New York Times. What I mean to say is that it is not enough just to send Republicans to Congress. We are going to have to keep on them until this obamanation is ended.

I have not read the actual ruling and dissents yet. I am not a lawyer and I am not sure if I could really understand the legal jargon. I think I will make an effort to plow through it if I ever have the time, or an incurable case of insomnia. I gather, however, that Justice Roberts struck down the use of the interstate commerce clause as a justification for the law, but joined the more liberal Justices in upholding the law on the basis that the individual mandate could be considered a tax. In other words, Congress can not mandate everyone must buy insurance, or any other product, but it does have the authority to levy a tax to fund a program that provides health insurance. I hope that any lawyer reading this will correct me if I have made a mistake here.

Chief Justice John Roberts has come under a lot of criticism from Conservatives. Some have speculated that he has been pressured or even intimidated to rule the way he did. Others have wondered if he wants to impress the Washington D. C. political elite. I am not so sure. I think that he simply is not inclined to legislate from the bench as other Justices have done. He seems to have the opinion that Obamacare is a deeply flawed piece of legislation but that it is not his job to correct it.  I think, I am no expert on these matters, that his reasoning was sound. Congress does have the right to levy taxes. I also think that he might be taking a broader perspective than most. He did oppose the use of the interstate commerce clause, which is the clause that Liberals have been using to justify the expansion of government in the private sphere for decades. If Congress can impose such a tax, then maybe we need to have a long delayed discussion on what should be taxed and what the government should be really be using that money for. I think then that Roberts was subtly undermining the whole basis for the decades long, relentless expansion of government.

In the end, repealing Obamacare is not enough and if we focus just on that than we run the risk of ignoring the wider fight. We need to do more than repeal one law. We need to reverse the whole entitlement mentality that allows so many people to think that they can get something for nothing. We have to somehow educate people like that foolish woman who believed that Obama was going to pay her mortgage. We must teach them that nothing is really free, and if they do not pay for the goodies they want, than their grandchildren will.

This will not be an easy fight. Our enemies are weaker than they used to be, but they still have control of our educational systems, our entertainment industry, and much of our news media. They will not stop until everyone is a serf and freedom is a forgotten word. But, we have the truth on our side and the knowledge that we fight for freedom, while they stand for tyranny.

Obama Pick for Bench Blocked by GOP For First Time

May 19, 2011

This might be good news. I really don’t know enough about Goodwin Liu to make any comment but it’s good to see the Republicans fight, for a change.

According to the article in Yahoo News, he seems to be an ultra-liberal loon, so he’d fit right in with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

To most Democrats and liberal backers, Liu is the type of nominee they want for a lifetime appointment on the federal bench. He supports liberal social issues such as gay marriage and affirmative action. He was given a top rating of unanimously well-qualified by the American Bar Association. He was a Rhodes Scholar and clerked for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He received numerous awards for academic and legal achievements, including the highest teaching award at his law school.

He seems to be qualified, except for a habit of opening his mouth and having venom pour out. About Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito he had this to say;

Liu had said Alito’s vision was an America “where police may shoot and kill an unarmed boy … where federal agents may point guns at ordinary citizens during a raid, even after no sign of resistance … where the FBI may install a camera where you sleep … where a black man may be sentenced to death by an all-white jury for killing a white man, absent … analysis showing discrimination.”

He sort of apologized, when he had to face the Senate Judiciary Committee to confirm his appointment. Funny how that happens.

I know I am a dreamer, but it would be nice to have Justices who tried to follow the laws and the Constitution, instead of using their positions to advance their political agendas.


%d bloggers like this: