Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts

Friday, March 25, 2022

Why Ketanji Brown Jackson Is Not Qualified for Supreme Court

The following from moonbattery.com

Ketanji Brown Jackson only needs to fulfill three qualifications to become one of the most powerful people in the world for the rest of her life: she must be a left-wing black woman. Let’s see if she qualifies.

🙶 Left-wing? Check. She sympathizes with degeneracy and depravity at the expense of children, just like abortion advocates and opponents of Florida's Parental Rights in Education bill, as Josh Hawley has documented:

Black? She certainly looks black. But from the liberal point of view, there is more to blackness than skin tone and ancestry. As Joe Biden croaked at the ostensibly black Charlamagne tha God, “I tell you if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”

🙶 Ketanji Brown Jackson says she was inspired by Derrick Bell. Bell is the intellectually depraved Harvard Law professor credited with creating critical race theory, according to which America is inherently evil and so are white people. As an appeals court judge, she has said that CRT ideology ought to influence sentencing, presumably meaning that whites should have harsher sentences and blacks more lenient ones on the basis of their race.

🙶 Ketanji says she was also inspired by the 1619 Project, which endeavors to replace American history with a fictional account promoted by the New York Times, in which the Revolutionary War was fought not to preserve liberty but to suppress it on behalf of slavery. By embracing this malign and pernicious ideology, Ketanji Brown Jackson confirms that she is black even from the exclusive liberal viewpoint.

But is she a woman? Let’s see:

She can’t know if she is a woman if she does not know what a woman is. Since she cannot confirm that she is a woman, Ketanji Brown Jackson is not qualified to serve on the Supreme Court as a Democrat appointee.
We shall see if she is confirmed, if so several self-congratulating Republican senators will join in feeling good about themselves for being compromising. We do not need or want anyone who gives just a slap on the wrist to convicted child pornographers. All things considered, there is no getting around the fact Ketanji Brown Jackson is a radical Marxist disguised in a judge's robe.

The most obvious indicator that she is not qualified is her selection by team Biden/Obama. We need someone who will uphold the U.S. Constitution as it was written not interpret it to fit their liberal ideologies. I think her priority is being a strong social justice warrior from the bench.

I now see that Democrat Sen. Joe Manchin who has spoken out concerning Biden's crazed spending, has said he will vote for Ketanji Brown Jackson for the high court. Either he is not aware, but should be, that Jackson goes very easy on child porno scum or he is being true to his party and will help Biden continue the trashing of our country. It would be interesting to ask his voters in West Virginia how they feel about that.
Today’s Editorial Cartoon by Tom Stiglich

Thursday, March 24, 2022

Senator Kennedy Stumps Supreme
Court Nominee with One Question

The following from townhall.com

As Tuesday's Supreme Court confirmation hearing dragged into the evening hours, Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) raised a simple question about when constitutional protections for life — or even just life itself — begins.

"When does life begin, in your opinion," Senator Kennedy asked Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson for starters.

"Senator... um... I don't... know," Judge Jackson replied, followed by an uneasy, awkward laugh.

"Do you have a belief?" Kennedy pressed."

"I have, um, personal religious and otherwise beliefs that have nothing to do with the law in terms of when life begins," Jackson responded.

"Do you have a personal belief though about when life begins?" Kennedy probed.

"I have a religious view that I set aside when I am ruling on cases," Jackson evaded again.

Senator Kennedy pushed further on the point, asking Judge Jackson an important follow-up, "When does equal protection of the laws attach to a human being?"

"I have, um, personal religious and otherwise beliefs that have nothing to do with the law in terms of when life begins," Jackson responded.

"Do you have a personal belief though about when life begins?" Kennedy probed.

"I have a religious view that I set aside when I am ruling on cases," Jackson evaded again.

Senator Kennedy pushed further on the point, asking Judge Jackson an important follow-up, "When does equal protection of the laws attach to a human being?"

🙶 "Well Senator, um... I believe that the Supreme Court... um... actually I, I actually don't know the answer to that question — I'm sorry — I don't," Judge Jackson responded, again with an ill-timed grin on her face as her initially confident answer turned to another know-nothing response.

🙶 How Senate Judiciary Democrats and Judge Jackson's "sherpa" — former Senator Doug Jones (D-AL) — apparently failed to prepare her to answer questions relating to the debate over life displays either arrogance that Jackson's answers don't matter to the outcome of the confirmation vote or ignorance that such questions might arise.

With the Supreme Court set to rule in the near future on one of the most significant challenges to Roe v. Wade in a generation and the issue of life being a long-running priority for Republicans in the Senate, it is absurd to think Judge Jackson's team would assume questions on the topic wouldn't arrive. Yet, it doesn't seem Jackson has given the issue much thought.
Under no circumstances should a person who holds beliefs like Jackson ever be allowed to sit on the Supreme Court. The Democrats (Biden/Obama etc.) are really very sick people. But what should we expect when Biden arbitrarily bars 99% of the qualified judges from consideration because he wants his nominee to have a specific color and genitalia. Odds are good that he would have gotten a better judge if he had just drawn a name from a hat.

Fake news will continue to point out her positives and tell us that the Republican Party is vicious to attack Jackson because she really is well qualified. Perhaps in time it will become clear who is actually running the puppet show at the White House.
News Links

Ketanji Brown Jackson can't define what a Woman is: "I'm not a Biologist"...

The Most Disqualifing statement Ketanji Brown Jackson has made yet...

KB Jackson accused of Judicial 'Activism' for halting deportations of Illegals...

Editorial Cartoon by Gary Varvel

Saturday, February 26, 2022

Biden Picks Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson
As His Supreme Court Nominee

President Joe Biden announced Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson as his Supreme Court nominee Friday.

This from the dailycaller.com

The president vowed to announce his pick before the end of February after Associate Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer announced his plans to retire. Biden reiterated his promise to nominate a black woman, and Jackson was long viewed as one of the front-runners.

🙶Jackson is one of Biden’s most high-profile judicial nominees and was confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in 2021. Three senate Republicans voted to confirm her at the time, with the confirmation coming in at a narrow 52-46 vote. She is the first black woman to be nominated to the Supreme Court in the U.S.

In early February, Biden expressed confidence that his Supreme Court nominee would garner bipartisan support, telling NBC News’ Lester Holt during an interview that he wasn’t “looking to make an ideological choice here.”

“I think whomever I pick will get a vote from the Republican side for the following reason: I’m not looking to make an ideological choice here. I’m looking for someone to replace Judge [Stephen] Breyer, with the same kind of capacity Judge Breyer had – with an open mind, who understands the Constitution and interprets it in a way that’s consistent with the mainstream interpretation of the Constitution,” the president said.

🙶Biden’s Friday afternoon announcement comes exactly two years after he first promised to nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court, according to CNN. The president made his initial vow during a South Carolina primary debate in 2020.

Prior to serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Jackson was nominated by former President Barack Obama in 2013 to the U.S. District Court for D.C. She also has a background as an assistant federal public defender and clerked for Breyer in 1999.
The country could probably not do much worse. She is regularly overruled by liberal appeals court justices for issuing illegal rulings. She is an activitist, politician in judges robes. She was mostly put on basic cases, except when they needed someone to attack Trump. Her biggest case had her blocking Trump from sending illegals back to their place of origin immediately when caught, but she was overruled by the DC court of appeals who said that the law is clear, the president has sweeping powers on immigration.

Biden apparently says, let's not look for the best qualified or most competent nominee, let's look for the token hire. That would be the one Obama told Joe to place on the court. This is because Obama is still smarting that Merrick Garland was not able to sit his liberal self on a high court bench. The Biden method for choosing a nominee for Supreme Court Justice is, whatever Barack tells him. The fraud that now resides in the White House, combined unconstitutional racial and sexual discrimination to eliminate at least half of the best-qualified candidates from consideration.
Editorial Cartoon by Gary Varvel

Wednesday, April 21, 2021

Democrats Prove They Hate The Constitution!


Blog Author's Input: The fact that AOC was elected to Congress in the first place is proof positive election fraud exists. The Democrats are fond of playing dishonestly and only in their slanted leftist direction; they don't want the Constitution to be followed. The threat to pack the Supreme Court is just a quick reminder to many members of the high court that they should not have any ideas about opposing any of the left's new ideas. There's no need for the left to pack the court they seem to already own it. Every time something important comes up, SCOTUS punts. It has happened every time since the most extremely unpleasant election in my lifetime.

The democrats do not want the Constitution to be followed. And what is wrong with the laws we already have? With existing laws they don't fit the narrative of the Democratic Party that believes the country should have and abide by. Typical Democrat, Chuck Schumer will talk to Republicans so long as they do whatever the Democrats demand. The left are definitely adamant about taking advantage of the opportunity they have with their progressive elected officials, and will do as much damage as they can while they have control.

Links To More News

Candace Owens reacts to Derek Chauvin guilty verdict...

Obama's statement on Derek Chauvin verdict, Al Sharpton cries…

Jim Jordan stays cool… Democrat Val Demings, as usual goes berserk…

Black perp who threw bleach in cop's face, had 5 firebombs in his car...

Today’s Editorial Cartoon by Michael Ramirez

Saturday, December 19, 2020

Greg Kelly — Just You Wait...


Blog Author's Input: No matter how many fake reporters, late night comedians and so-called 'insiders' tell you otherwise, this presidential election is not yet over. There is still time for something to go the right way to retain President Trump in the White House. It is definitely a disgrace to see people who hold positions as Supreme Court Justices, who will not actually stand for justice. Chief Justice Roberts has and always will be a thorn in all conservatives’ sides; he should not be on the court if he cannot follow the United States Constitution.

All members of the high court should do their jobs and stop playing politics with other people’s lives. Roberts has always been clearly biased and influences many of the other judges, if the story we heard unfold is true Roberts should not have his job. As for President Trump giving up, that will not happen, he does not do that, it is not who he is. The Supreme Court has turned their back on the American people and let them down. If some members of the court are afraid of domestic retaliation, they should think about what a Biden presidency could bring.


More information...


Today’s Editorial Cartoon by A. F. Branco

Wednesday, December 9, 2020

Texas Goes Straight to The Supreme Court!


Blog Author's Input: The depressing part in all of this is that the Supreme Court probably will not take the case. They would not want to overturn the election outcome as it now stands, even though that would be the right ruling to make. Democrats continually disenfranchise voters, and sneer at logic, law and reason. This is the biggest crime in US history, the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election winner. It is despicable the inaction of all those elected and appointed to protect our freedoms.

I would rather deal with the "peaceful protestors and demonstrations" than to have Biden and Harris in office. Covid-19 is and has been the all-purpose excuse to either take rights away from us, or impose restrictions upon us and to upend the Constitution. The government officials who violated the law should be prosecuted.

This was not an accident or incompetence; this was a premeditated, concerted effort to violate the law, President Trump and his supporters. Making voting easier should never be the number one priority. Making sure that the votes of the people are secure against fraud of any kind should be the top priority for everyone at all times, otherwise, why vote at all?


More Information Concerning The Above

Texas files election lawsuit against GA, MI, PA and WI at Supreme Court...

Louisiana and Alabama join Texas case before Supreme Court...

Editorial Cartoon by A. F. Branco

Saturday, November 14, 2020

The Game Is Not Over. Here Is What The
Supreme Court Needs To Do Without Ambiguity


Blog Author's Input: To quote Dinesh D'Souza: 'The Supreme Court must not only make sure that this election is fair, but future elections as well. The Supreme Court must decide what is a legal vote, and anything else organized any other way, is not a legal vote. By doing that, it would help to establish not only this fight but the future of all legal elections.' Most of us know the media is pure prograganda, the only people voting democrat, are those who still trust and believe the mainstream media including Fox News.

I most certainly agree with the President, there is something seriously wrong, if anyone believes the story that Joe Biden fairly won the election. President Trump is an American hero, and he will hopefully be declared the winner when it is over. The democrats have no regard for the Constitution. Assuring a free and fair election falls under President Trump's oath to uphold the Constitution. His not conceding to the media and democrats is one of the many reasons I and many others care for him. He is a fighter and does not give up, and as President Trump said: "Never bet against me."

Today’s Editorial Cartoon by A. F. Branco

Saturday, December 22, 2018

Supreme Court Rejects Request To Stay Lower Court Ruling
On Asylum Ban - Judge Roberts Sides With Liberal Justices

Somehow, despite 85-year-old Justice Ginsburg being incapacitated by surgery and intensive care recovery, the supreme court voted 5-4 to allow a lower court block on President Trump’s asylum restrictions to remain in place. Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the three resistance activists and the unknown puppeteer for Ginsburg.


WASHINGTON(AP) - A divided Supreme Court won’t let the Trump administration begin enforcing a ban on asylum for any immigrants who illegally cross the U.S.-Mexico border.

Chief Justice John Roberts joined his four more liberal colleagues Friday in ruling against the administration in the very case in which President Donald Trump had derided the “Obama judge” who first blocked the asylum policy.

New Justice Brett Kavanaugh and three other conservative justices sided with the administration. There were no opinions explaining either side’s votes.
(Via: TLR)
Blog Author's Comments: Chief Justice Roberts is a disaster. First bailing out Obamacare, then failing to investigate FISA court abuse which he overseas, and now this. This ruling is going to destroy some states on the border, but obviously the Chief Justice does not care. He and Obama must have a good laugh whenever they see each other, over how they pulled yet another one over the too-trusting and naïve conservatives. From the minute it was announced that the Affordable Care Act was deemed a tax and therefore “constitutional”, I knew Roberts was definitely part of the deep state. How can anyone that cares about our country have any respect for this liberal 'turn coat'?

I also cannot see, no matter how tough and mean Ruth Ginsburg is, that she will be around much longer. The Democrats and leftist media's heads will explode if President Trump can install another conservative Republican on the high court. If that happens, Robert's votes will no longer matter. I have to believe he must not see the Constitution as a valid document. A fake conservative is somehow more harmful and dangerous than an admitted liberal. Judge Roberts is obviously compromised. Perhaps he is making decisions not on the Constitution, but on his dislike of the President.

Editorial Cartoon by Michael Ramirez

Tuesday, September 25, 2018

Christine Balsey Ford And Deborah Ramirez, Falsey Accuse
Judge Brett Kavanaugh, To Stop His Ascent To The Supreme Court


A woman who accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of exposing himself to her in college admitted that she made the allegation “because Senate Democrats came looking for this claim.”

On Sunday, The New Yorker’s Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer published a report alleging that Deborah Ramirez, 53, accused President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee of exposing himself to her when they both attended Yale in the 1980s.

Farrow appeared on Good Morning America Monday where he was asked why Ramirez came forward.

“She came forward because Senate Democrats came looking for this claim,” Farrow said. “She did not flag this. This came to the attention of people on the hill independently, and it has cornered her into an awkward position. She said, point-blank, I don’t want to ruin anyone’s life, but she feels this is a serious claim. She considers her own memories credible and she felt it was important to tell her own story before others did for her.”

The news comes as every witness named by Kavanaugh’s first accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, denied being at the party where the sexual assault she alleged took place.

Ann Coulter On Left's Meltdown Over Kavanaugh


Blog Author's Comments: Democrats and Liberals have declared war against reality, they have lost their minds. To those on the Right, everyone needs to stop walking on eggshells concerning Ford and Ramirez. These are desperate claims made at the 11th hour as a hit job to slow and taint or possibly stop a great judge who will make an even greater Justice of the Supreme Court.

Chairman Grassley, must maintain control of the senators this week and hopefully his fellow Republicans can come to the correct conclusion that they should. What these women are saying are baseless accusations by both Ford and Ramirez and being led by the Democrats to halt any progress they can of President Trump. So, what is next? Are we going to start looking at the behavior of any and all public servants when they were in grade school? With respect to this absolutely despicable and ridiculous situation, if these women were so emotionally damaged by an event that is well over 30 years old, why did not either of them mention it to their parents? Because in either case it did not happen.

What precisely was the extent of damage that the person who supposedly forced himself on them did? They came forward with no doubt nonsense, but this can ruin Kavanaugh and his family’s lives. Which Senator or representative of congress approached them to do this? My bet is that somehow, someone found these women and promised to make it worth their time. I must add that Christine Balsey Ford will not meet with the senators on Thursday, there will be yet another excuse as to why she cannot attend.

Wednesday, January 25, 2017

Liberal Hack Chuck Schumer Threatens
To Leave Ninth Supreme Court Seat Vacant


News Ninja -- Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is continuing to play games with his tamper tantrum still going on ever since the November elections.

First, he has been intentionally trying to halt President Trump’s nominees from having the Senate vote on their confirmations. Now it has been reported on Sunday that he wants to leave the seat of late Justice Antonin Scalia vacant if he doesn’t like Trump’s nominee.

The Hill reports the following:

“If the nominee is not bipartisan and mainstream, we absolutely will keep the seat open,” Schumer told CNN’s “State of the Union.”

The Supreme Court vacancy has been open since last February, when Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia passed away.

Schumer said he is prepared to fight “tooth and nail” should Trump not choose a mainstream nominee.


So in other words, if Trump dares nominate a constitutional conservative to the high court, Schumer will fight it. Because we know when a leftist like Schumer says he wants a “mainstream nominee” that’s code for wanting a justice who is either liberal or moderate.

He can keep playing his games, but we will hopefully nominate a strong conservative who upholds the Constitution, whether Schumer likes it or not.
Blog Author's Comments -- This is simply more delusions of relevance by Senate Minority Leader Schumer. Thanks to Democrat over-reach by Harry Reed and Senate Democrats, the Republicans now have the power to approve appointments with 51 votes. Simple solution for the GOP, use the Harry Reid Nuclear Option and do to them what they did to us when they were in power.

Karma is a bitch Chucky! You are now the impotent Party, suck it up. Schumer and the Democrats can't do anything to stop anything. All they can do is be a pain in the ass, which is what they will always be. This hack can't stop President Trump from filling the Supreme Court. Not to worry, it will be done.

~ Links To More News ~

Construction Of Border Wall To Begin In Months

Trump To Sign Executive Orders That Include A Temporary Ban On Most Refugees

Thanks To President Trump, Dow Hits 20,000 For First Time Ever

Use Seized Drug Money To Fund Border Wall

Thursday, July 5, 2012

Romney - The Obamacare Mandate is a Tax


Mitt Romney calls individual mandate a tax

Yahoo News -- Mitt Romney steered his campaign message back in line with other top Republicans on Wednesday, insisting that the health care law's individual mandate that requires most Americans to buy health insurance was "a tax."

"The majority of the court said it is a tax, and therefore it is a tax," Romney said in an interview with CBS Wednesday, citing the Supreme Court's health law ruling last week that the individual mandate fell under the federal government's authority to levy taxes and was therefore constitutional.

"They have spoken. There's no way around that. You can try and say you wish they had decided a different way, but they didn't."

Romney's comments came days after senior adviser Fehrnstrom rejected the notion that the individual mandate imposed a "tax," saying instead that it was a "penalty."[...]

Romney, who contradicted Fehrnstrom's comments today, picked up a line of attack that many of his fellow Republicans had already launched at the president after the Supreme Court's ruling.

"The American people know President Obama has broken the pledge he made," Romney told CBS. "He said he wouldn't raise taxes on middle-Americans. Not only did he raise the $500 billion that was already in the bill, it's now clear that his mandate, as described by the Supreme Court, is a tax."

Blog author's comments - This was a clear cut and firm statement from Romney while clearing up what his senior adviser Fehrnstrom had said earlier. Now Mitt Romney and other Republicans should use their time from now until the November election, informing the voters what Obama has done to our economy with his policies and agenda.

The GOP must tell the voters the truth. That as long as Obama is in office the economy will not see a major recovery. Concentrate on Obama, if the GOP and Romney can win, they can take care of Obamacare. What the Obama regime has planned should Obama win a second term will be devastation to the country.

I believe that most who follow politics knew that the four liberals on the high court would ignore the Constitution, but for Justice Roberts to side with them and basically rewrite the Obamacare mandate as a tax was wrong and a surprise.

The Supreme Court is supposed to rule on the law the way it was written. It was not written as a 'tax'. If the Justices are going to play politics they should not be on the court for life. There should be a limited number of years they can serve.

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare


Supreme Court upholds Obama's health-care law

Washington Post -- Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. on Thursday joined the liberal wing of the Supreme Court to save the heart of President Obama’s landmark health-care law, agreeing that the requirement for nearly all Americans to secure health insurance is permissible under Congress’s taxing authority.

Even as it upheld that central component of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, however, the court modified another key provision of the law, ruling that the federal government cannot withdraw existing Medicaid funding from states that decide not to participate in a broad expansion of Medicaid eligibility.

The court’s historic compromise, which will affect the health-care choices of millions of Americans, amounts to a major victory for the White House less than five months before the November elections, although the Medicaid decision sets new limits on the power of the national government.[...]

“The highest court in the land has now spoken,” Obama said. “We will continue to implement this law. And we’ll work together to improve on it where we can. But what we won’t do, what the country can’t afford to do, is refight the political battles of two years ago or go back to the way things were. With today’s announcement, it’s time for us to move forward.”[...]

Illustrating the divided nature of the ruling, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, representing the court’s most consistent conservatives, read a scathing dissent, while Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, representing the liberals, issued a separate opinion supporting Roberts but differing with him on key aspects of the case.[...]

The high court rejected the argument, advanced by the Obama administration, that the individual mandate was constitutional under the commerce clause of the Constitution. But Roberts joined the court’s four liberal justices — Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen G. Breyer and Elena Kagan — in ruling that a penalty for refusing to buy health insurance amounts to a tax and thus is permitted. Ginsburg favored going further and allowing the mandate under the commerce clause.

Entire column...

Blog author's comments - The Supreme Court, to be more precise Chief Justice John Roberts, shoved the nation much closer to Socialism. Justice Roberts had the chance to save our freedom of choice when it comes to health care but instead found a way to save the Obama legacy.

I have no respect for Justice Roberts. The Obamacare balloon was his and he had the chance to burst it. Instead he handed it to Obama and the Democrats. This was an extraordinarily frustrating day. I had expected the entire Obamacare law to be struck down by the high court.

Roberts found the individual mandate was unconstitutional under the commerce clause but okay as a tax. It was not presented as a tax, he and the four liberal Justices gave the Democrats a victory. Hopefully this is a huge motivator to get out the conservative vote this fall.

So now as I see it the only way to remove this monster money-eating law is to fix this legislatively. January 2013 must see a Republican anti-Obamacare controlled House, a Republican Senate and Mitt Romney in the White House.

If this ruling did not show all thinking Americans what we are up against there is no hope for them or for our country. If Romney should win in November I hope he will do the right thing and repeal the Obamacare law.


In 2009 Obama Says Individual Mandate Is Not A Tax

Friday, June 1, 2012

Pelosi - Quite Sure The Supreme Court Will Uphold Obamacare


Pelosi: Obamacare Will Be Upheld 6-3, 'Because I Know the Constitution'

CNSN News -- House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the Supreme Court will uphold the constitutionality of President Barack Obama’s health care law, predicting a 6-3 decision because, as she remarked, “I know the Constitution.”

At a Capitol Hill press conference on Thursday, a reporter asked Pelosi, “Madame Leader, the Supreme Court is getting ready to rule in the next month or so on the health care bill, and you’ve expressed pretty high confidence – I think you said 6-3 – but I’m just wondering if Democrats and the Democratic leadership have had any discussions or meetings to plan for any sort of contingency plan given the possibility that the court could strike any provisions from the law or the whole law, I’m wondering if Democrats are having any meetings to discuss contingency plans?”

Pelosi, in reference to how the nine-judge court will rule, said, “6-3. That’s it. 6-3.”

She was then asked why she was so confident about her prediction, "Do you have a crystal ball or what is your confidence -- you wrote the bill but why do you have this confidence?"

Pelosi said: “Because I know the Constitution. This bill is ironclad. It is ironclad.”

Keep reading...

Blog author's comments - Pelosi is sure Obamacare will be upheld -- "because I know the Constitution." Does she also believe she is a Constitutional scholar? The Supreme Court's decision is going to come down within a few weeks -- it should be interesting.

Pelosi used this as a preliminary jab…setting the stage for calling the Supreme Court Justices ‘partisan activists’ who didn’t follow the Constitution if they rule against Obamacare. I will be both surprised and disappointed if the SCOTUS does not rule the entire Obamacare law unconstitutional.

Patrick Henry said: "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."

Really folks, think about where we have gone -- just a few small steps at a time -- so that many people did not notice. But put them all together on a list and a large number of people would say, how did this happen? We’ve come a long way in the wrong direction. Now how do we get back? Certainly not with the crowd that’s running things now.


Nancy Pelosi On The Obamacare Bill

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Obama Lawyer - Arizona Law Will Cause 'Foreign Relations Problems'


Obama Lawyer: Arizona Law Will Result in 'Mass Incarceration,'
Causing 'Significant Foreign Relations Problems'

CNS News -- The lawyer arguing for the Obama administration against provisions in Arizona’s controversial immigration law said Wednesday that if the U.S. Supreme Court upholds S.B. 1070 “mass incarceration” of Latinos would cause “significant foreign relations problems.”

During oral arguments before the high court on the law – which allows state police to check the immigration status of individuals stopped, detained or arrested for other reasons – Solicitor General Donald Verrilli responded to Justice Antonin Scalia’s remarks that Arizona seems to be merely enacting laws that are already federal statutes.

“Well, what I think they are going to do in Arizona is something quite extraordinary, that has significant real and practical foreign relations effects,” Verrilli said. “And that's the problem, and it's the reason why this power needs to be vested exclusively in the federal government.”

Verrilli said Arizona’s “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act” takes that power away from the government and gives it to the state.

“And so – so, you’re going to have a situation of mass incarceration of people who are unlawfully present,” he argued. “That is going to raise – poses a very serious risk of raising significant foreign relations problems.

Justice Anthony Kennedy responded: “So you’re saying the government has a legitimate interest in not enforcing its laws?”

“No,” Verrilli replied. “We have a legitimate interest in enforcing the law, of course, but it needs to be – but these – this court has said over and over again, has recognized that the balance of interest that has to be achieved in enforcing the immigration laws is exceedingly delicate and complex, and it involves consideration of foreign relations, it involves humanitarian concerns...[...]

“It seems to me that the federal government just doesn’t want to know who’s here illegally,” commented Chief Justice John Roberts.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed SB 1070 into law two years ago. Several groups, including the Department of Justice, challenged the law in court.

Only eight justices will decide the case since Justice Elena Kagan recused herself because of her work on immigration during her tenure as Solicitor General.

The court is expected to rule on the case by the end of its current term this summer. Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Indiana and Utah have proposed or enacted similar legislation.
Entire column...

Blog author's comments - The lawyer arguing for the Obama administration against Arizona’s immigration law said that if the U.S. Supreme Court upholds S.B. 1070 “mass incarceration” of Latinos would cause “significant foreign relations problems.” - If a crime is committed, then incarcerate them.

What does “foreign relations problems” have to do with illegals breaking our immigration laws? If the federal government will not enforce the laws then the state should be able to administer the laws and protect its citizens. It appears that the elected officials in Arizona take this seriously unlike most of the Democrats in the federal government.

Obama wants illegals here because to him they are potential Democratic Party voters. Hopefully Arizona wins this one and can begin to gain control of the illegals.

Monday, June 28, 2010

Gun Rights Extended By Supreme Court

5-4: Supremes Affirm Gun Rights Nationwide


The Washington Post
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court held Monday that Americans have the right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live, advancing a recent trend by the John Roberts-led bench to embrace gun rights.

By a 5-4 vote, the justices cast doubt on handgun bans in the Chicago area, but signaled that some limitations on the Constitution's "right to keep and bear arms" could survive legal challenges.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court, said that the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states."

The court was split along familiar ideological lines, with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and four liberals opposed. Chief Justice Roberts voted with the majority.

Two years ago, the court declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defense in the home.

That ruling applied only to federal laws. It struck down a ban on handguns and a trigger lock requirement for other guns in the District of Columbia, a federal city with unique legal standing. At the same time, the court was careful not to cast doubt on other regulations of firearms here.

Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun control laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill, where handguns have been banned for nearly 30 years. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence says those laws appear to be the last two remaining outright bans.

Lower federal courts upheld the two laws, noting that judges on those benches were bound by Supreme Court precedent and that it would be up to the high court justices to ultimately rule on the true reach of the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court already has said that most of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights serve as a check on state and local, as well as federal, laws.

Monday's decision did not explicitly strike down the Chicago area laws. Instead, it ordered a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling. But it left little doubt that the statues eventually would fall.

Still, Alito noted that the declaration that the Second Amendment is fully binding on states and cities "limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values.". . Read entire column

At least five of the members of the Supreme Court know tyranny is never far away, so they did what is true & right for all of America! Thankfully we have the U.S. Constitution.

Both scary and pathetic that it was so close only 5-4. Too close for comfort, it should have been unanimous. The four liberals do not believe in the Second Amendment or the Constitution.


A Side Note:
In July of 2009 two Republicans voted against a Senate Bill which would have allowed anyone with a Concealed Carry Permit to legally carry a concealed weapon in most states.

The vote was 58-39 in favor. The amendment needed 60 votes to pass. The vote split the Democrats, with 20 supporting the measure and 35 opposing it. Two of the Senate's 40 Republicans -- Richard Lugar of Indiana and George Voinovich of Ohio voted against it.