Category Archives: Justice System
Found at FIJAW: http://maddmedic.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/wrong.jpg
A Federal Court Finally Interprets Constitutional Law Correctly and Rules Obama’s Power Grabs Unconstitutional
Finally, a first step. A Federal Court provides us with much needed relief from the maniacal power grab of a President out of control. If a Republican played third world dictator, there would be hell to pay from a rabid media. But the reporting on this is comical: “Obama claims he acted properly…..”
Obama Labor Board Recess Appointments Are Unconstitutional, Federal Court Rules AP, January 25, 2013
WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court has ruled that President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate to fill vacancies on a labor relations panel.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit says Obama did not have the power to make recess appointments earlier this year to the National Labor Relations Board.
Obama claims he acted properly because the Senate was away for the holidays. But the court says the Senate technically stayed in session when lawmakers gaveled in and out every few days for so-called “pro forma” sessions.
GOP lawmakers used the tactic specifically to prevent Obama from using his recess power to fill vacancies in an agency they claimed was too pro-union.
The Obama administration is expected to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.
From Atlas Shrugs: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/
England Pays for the Legal Defense of mooslim Terrorists? Pathetic Suicide for a Once Great Bastion of Western Civilization.
Such civilizational suicide is without equal. Why don’t they provide the bombs, as well?
While Tommy Robinson and Kevin Carroll rot in jail.
Al Qaeda bomb plot gangs were handed £30m in legal aid to fund their defence Daily Mail,January 21, 2013 (thanks to Daryl)
- Trial of attempted July 21 bombers cost taxpayers £7.1million in legal aid
- Terrorists who plotted to blow up planes given £12.2million to fund defence
- Justice Secretary plans to hire junior lawyers to cut down on costs
Anger: Justice Secretary Chris Grayling is adamant he will cut the cost of legal aid
Two gangs of Al Qaeda terrorists who plotted to inflict mass murder on the British public shared more than £30million in legal aid, it emerged last night.
Figures released by the Ministry of Justice show the astonishing sums being paid out by taxpayers to fund defence in criminal cases.
Recipients of huge amounts include the July 21 bombers, a group of Islamist fanatics behind the 2006 airline liquid bomb plot and a string of fraud cases.
The former fugitive Asil Nadir – who rented a £23,000-a-month London residence during his trial – received more than £1million in legal aid.
‘Suffolk Strangler’ Steven Wright, who murdered five prostitutes in Ipswich, was given £444,220 to pay for his defence.
Justice Secretary Chris Grayling said of the revelations: ‘Of course everyone deserves a defence.
‘But when you look at costs involved in some cases, you have to ask whether we can afford to provide this level of support in criminal trials.
Criminal legal aid costs one billion a year, and at a time like this, you have to challenge whether we are getting appropriate value for taxpayers’ money.’
A breakdown published by Mr Grayling’s department details the most expensive legal aid cases in each of the last five financial years.Help: The July 21 bombers, pictured on CCTV buying peroxide, received £7.1million in taxpayer funds
In 2007/08, the July 21 terrorism trial swallowed £7.1million. Muktar Ibrahim, Ramzi Mohammed, Yassin Omar and Hussain Osman were convicted of attempting to blow themselves up on the London transport network just two weeks after the 7/7 atrocity in 2005.
The four men tried to mirror the previous attack but their rucksacks, packed with explosives, failed to detonate. At their trial in 2007, they claimed it was a deliberate hoax to protest over the war in Iraq.
The following year the eight defendants in an alleged conspiracy to launch suicide bomb attacks on a succession of transatlantic airliners, using liquid bombs, cost £12.2million in legal aid. The plot led to draconian restrictions on what could be taken on flights.
The first jury failed to reach a verdict in the case – leading to re-trials which swallowed a further £14.8million. Ultimately, seven out of the eight original suspects were found guilty of conspiracy to murder.Money: Jars of substances kept by the attempted transatlantic plane bombers, whose trial sucked up £12.2million in legal aidRICH TYCOON’S £1M HANDOUT
Asil Nadir received £1,056,588 of taxpayers’ money in legal aid– even though he was renting a house in London at a cost of £23,000 per week during his trial.
From Atlas Shrugs: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/
Unbelievable: Obama NLRB Sues Nursing Home To Reinstate SEIU Union Workers Who Sabotaged Patients Records Before They Went On Strike…
In a sane world these people should have been arrested for putting patients lives in imminent danger, but in Obamaland the government is suing to get their jobs back.
Via Washington Examiner:
President Obama’s National Labor Relations Board asked a judge this week to force a Connecticut nursing home to re-hire employees involved in a labor dispute, including the workers who sabotaged patient homes as they went on strike.
The Service Employees International Union members who worked at HealthBridge went on strike after rejecting the company’s final offer in contract negotiations. HealthBridge cut benefits, pensions, and raises wages 2.2 percent. [...]
That includes the union members who committed acts of sabotage on the way out the door which exploited the weakness of the Alzheimer’s patients in the nursing home in order to make it more difficult for those patients to receive care from the replacement workers. As The Washington Examiner previously noted:
The director of the facility in Newington, Conn., told police that “the name tags on the patients’ doors for the Alzheimer’s ward were mixed up. The photos attached to the medical records for these patients were removed, further complicating, but not making impossible, the identification of the patients. Also, dietary blue stickers affixed to the door name tags were removed.” Some medical equipment also went missing.
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
Today was a dark day in American history, but you’d never know because the media is complicit in this sharia enforcement. I had a front-row seat to witness the rape of the First Amendment in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Rosemary Collyer, presiding. Robert Spencer and I went down to Washington as defenders of America’s most fundamental and unalienable right. And in return, we had the sad misfortune of watching a U.S. District Court Judge discard, denigrate, downplay and dismiss our most basic law of the land: the freedom of speech.
The Judge went out of her way to validate and substantiate the ridiculous premise of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), that the AFDI pro-freedom ad would endanger passengers on the D.C. subways and thus must not be posted, or at least delayed until some (fanciful) time when the jihad threat would subside. It was painful to watch Judge Collyer almost physically wrestling with the First Amendment, trying to tackle it and pin it to the floor. But the First Amendment was much too wily for the wrongheaded, utterly subjective, and clueless judge.
Philip Staub, the lawyer for WMATA, invoked the international Muslim riots that have been blamed (falsely) on the Muhammad video, and said the WMATA had received an email threatening them if they posted our ad. He was, in other words, counseling submission to violent Muslim intimidation, and the curtailing of the freedom of speech to appease savages. He made the laughable argument that if the ad ran after November 1, the threat would have subsided by then, and would be well — as if the jihad terror threat would completely die down by then. Judge Collyer then asked him if the ads could be posted sooner if they were moved away from the train platforms, so that passengers would be less likely to get caught up in fights or terrorist attacks over them. He seemed open to that idea.
The whole issue about moving the ads represented the judge’s attempt to find a way to accommodate the WMATA’s fearmongering argument that the ad would endanger passengers. And is that now the American response to threats of violence from a fascist ideology – to accede and submit to that very same fascist ideology? The judge was an embarrassment to every proud American who understands what is at stake. I can’t speak for our lawyer, Robert Muise, but his frustration was palpable.
Staub also argued that the ad constituted fighting words, but here even Judge Collyer couldn’t go along with what he was saying, although she struggled mightily to do so. She gently pointed out to Staub, whom she treated with kid gloves and like a special-needs child the whole afternoon, leading him by the hand to the disbelief of the open court (in sharp contradistinction to her frequent interruptions and contradictions of Robert Muise – stop making sense!), that for the ad to constitute fighting words, there had to be an imminent threat of violence. But the ads have run without incident in San Francisco and New York – they were vandalized in New York in an attempt to shut down free speech, but there was no violence aside from Muslim Brotherhood poster girl Mona Eltahawy’s pink spray can) – and so it was impossible for Staub or Collyer to sustain the idea that they constituted an imminent threat to the safety of the passengers. But Collyer certainly tried, coaching and coaxing Staub, and at one point saying to him, “The imminence issue is hard for me to get to. Just trying to tell you where I am going.” She never gave Muise any such hints.
Collyer further coached Staub by saying that she assumed – assumed! – that he was arguing (since he was so inept at actually doing so, the point wasn’t clear) that the government’s “compelling interest” in refusing or delaying these ads was concern for the safety of the passengers. She then said, with obvious reluctance, that against that concern there had to be balanced “the very broadly read First Amendment,” and asked him how he thought this could be done.
Staub answered that the safety of the passengers could be balanced against the First Amendment by delaying the ads. He said that he thought things would cool down in Africa, Asia and the Middle East by November 1, and that the ads could run then. Remember, guys, we’re talking about four little ads here, and the WMATA is talking about unrest on two continents. That’s how paralyzed with fear of savages the U.S. Government has become.
Then our lawyer, Robert Muise, called for an immediate injunction overruling WMATA’s delay and ordering that the ads run immediately. He cited ample legal precedent to show that it was an established point of law that the delay of a citizen’s freedom of speech constituted irreparable harm.
But then Judge Collyer broke in with her most disquieting, most un-American argument of all. She said that while Muise was arguing that the ad was core political speech, and thus the most protected category of speech of all, Collyer said, “I see hate speech. When you defend this ad as core political speech, I have a problem with that.” Muise pointed out that U.S. District Court Judge Paul Engelmayer in New York had ruled that the very same ad was core political speech, Collyer said peremptorily that she disagreed with Judge Engelmayer, and rudely cut Muise off when he tried to explain that the ad was not hate speech and that the main part of it — “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man” — was adapted from the work of Ayn Rand. Collyer snapped defensively that she knew who Ayn Rand was and still thought the ad was hate speech, constituting a hateful message.
The ad is not hate speech, it’s love speech. It’s love of life speech. The ad speaks to the defense of freedom and individual rights for all. There’s nothing hateful about it. 9/11 was hate. 3/11 in Madrid was hate. 7/7 in London was hate. The Fort Hood jihadi was hate. The Christmas balls bomber was hate. The Fort Dix Six was hate. Pushing back against such hate is not hate. This poor woman hasn’t a clue as to the jihadic doctrine that relentlessly seeks to violently impose Islamic law and pursues jihad against non-Muslims. Judge Collyer is on her own personal jihad to defend and sanction the very dull knife that will be employed to cut her own head off.
In the midst of this nonsense, Muise kept acting like the one kid in the sixth grade classroom who was trying to keep his classmates from running wild in front of the hapless substitute teacher: he kept trying to remind Collyer (and Staub) of basic points of American law. He reminded Collyer that there is no law against “hate speech” in America, so that even if she did think the ad was “hate,” that should have no bearing on her ruling. Speech is only considered inciteful, he said, if the speech itself is calling for the lawless, violent action. WMATA’s argument about the threat this video posed to the safety of the passengers, he pointed out, rested entirely on riots that took place not in the U.S. but in Muslim countries, and not because of this ad, but (supposedly) because of the Muhammad video. The video and the ad, he said, did not have remotely the same content. There was one email that the WMATA received that apparently contained threats related to this ad, he said, but he explained that we cannot allow those who threaten violence to restrict our First Amendment rights, and cannot have the government acquiesce in the restriction of those rights in response to threats.
Collyer seemed to grasp none of this, and went on to say contemptuously to Muise, “No threat? Where have you been?” But in trying to show her awareness of the jihad threat she only demonstrated how little she knows about it, naming the recent riots and the London attack of 2005 (“admittedly, that was a few years ago”) as if that was all there was. She said that it was not reasonable to think that in light of the worldwide riots over the Muhammad video that WMATA was not right to be concerned about the safety of its passengers if this ad went up.
In response to that, Muise pointed out that DHS had issued guidelines for precautions public agencies can and should be taking, and that to stand down from saying things that might offend the rioters would be giving the heckler’s veto the sanction of American law, and saying that in that case anyone could threaten violence to silence someone whose speech he disliked. Collyer showed her reflexive willingness to submit and acquiesce to savagery when Muise said that to postpone or cancel the ads would be to validate the threat of that one emailer and encourage people to make more such threats. He said that this emailer could even rightly be called a “savage,” whereupon Collyer said, “He could be standing behind you” — as if that should change what Muise would be saying about him, and implying that Muise should curb his speech to appease the violent.
Muise further reminded her that the First Amendment was put into place precisely so as to protect speech that some might find offensive. He also completely torpedoed the idea that the ad is hate speech when Collyer asked him to summarize in his own words what he thought it meant, and he patiently explained that it was calling for support for Israel against those who commit savage attacks against innocent civilians in the name of jihad. Collyer then demonstrated even more vividly that she has no idea what the jihad is and what it’s all about, when she complained that our ad wrongly applied the concept of jihad to what she termed a “long-standing territorial dispute” between Israelis and Palestinians — one that she obviously thinks has nothing to do with jihad.
Finally, Collyer explained that she was going to make no ruling today. This poor, silly woman said she needed to give the case more thought. She is clearly going to take some time to try to figure out a way to circumvent the First Amendment and allow WMATA to kowtow to violent intimidation.
And worst of all? She’s a Bush appointee. As we pursue free speech cases around the country, I have come to dread Bush appointees: they always side with the government, no matter what, even against (as Collyer probably will in this case) the Constitution. Clinton and Obama appointees, meanwhile, while they’re far to the left, often will see the merits of a case against the establishment elite in a way that the Bush judges don’t. This is no endorsement of Obama by any stretch of the imagination. It’s just an indication of just how hard times have become for the rule of law and above all for the First Amendment in the United States.
Free speech is in its death throes. Clearly, Collyer is trying to establish a precedent that will allow for the criminalizing of “hate speech” — which will mean any speech the political elites want to silence. It is indeed a very dark day.
Commie Organization – Media Matters – In Bed With Holder and The DOJ – Well Surprise, Surprise, Surprise!
Posted on | September 18, 2012
Internal Department of Justice emails obtained by The Daily Caller show Attorney General Eric Holder’s communications staff has collaborated with the left-wing advocacy group Media Matters for America in an attempt to quell news stories about scandals plaguing Holder and America’s top law enforcement agency.
Dozens of pages of emails between DOJ Office of Public Affairs Director Tracy Schmaler and Media Matters staffers show Schmaler, Holder’s top press defender, working with Media Matters to attack reporters covering DOJ scandals. TheDC obtained the emails through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. . . .
Emails sent in September and November 2010 show Schmaler working with Media Matters staffer Jeremy Holden on attacking news coverage of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation scandal.
Holden attacked former DOJ Civil Rights Division attorneys J. Christian Adams and Hans von Spakovsky on Sept. 20, 2010 for what he called an attempt “to reignite the phony New Black Panther Party scandal.”
Before Holden posted his article at 7:52 p.m., Schmaler sent him several emails with information helping him attack both former DOJ officials. . . .
Read the whole scary thing. You may ask, “Who is Tracy Schmaler?” Former communications director for the Senate Judiciary Committee under Democrat Sen. Patrick Leahy.
UPDATE: Some more helpful background on Schmaler from last November, courtesy of J. Christian Adams at PJ Media:
Holder is spending five days in the Dominican Republic, Barbados, and Trinidad. I have learned from sources with direct knowledge of Tracy Schmaler’s goings-on that the spin-mistress of the Justice Department Office of Public Affairs is accompanying Holder on this tropical jaunt. . . .
Tracy Schmaler is a name which may grow into a household one as the lies surrounding Fast and Furious unravel faster. . . .
She is the witchy federal employee who screams and cusses at reporters for NBC, the Washington Times, CBS and the American Spectator, yet doesn’t get fired because thug is so in style in this administration.
UPDATE II: J. Christian Adams has some interesting information on Media Matters “flying monkey” Matt Gertz, an obedient henchman of the DOJ’s chief propagandist Schmaler:
Gertz also provided quick reports to Schmaler about his attacks on PJ Media’s Andy McCarthy, Town Hall’s Katie Pavlich, Breitbart’s Joel Pollack, and Megyn Kelly of Fox News.
This exposes MMFA as the brownshirt operation it really is.
UPDATE III: Informed by J. Christian Adams on Twitter that Schmaler’s gig as a reporter was at the Rutland (Vt.) Herald before joining Senator Leahy’s staff. Another trip through the media-Democrat revolving door for a left-wing reporter. Republicans, by contrast, would never let an actual journalist within a half-mile of their media-relations office, because all GOP campaign staffers think of themselves as media experts, which explains their vicious hostility toward the press. Keep it up, guys — one of these days, that strategy might start working.
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
It’s finally over. The 3-year, disgraceful witch-hunt of Sheriff Joe Arpaio by the Obama Department of Injustice was dropped tonight, with absolutely no charges to be filed in the matter.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Ann Birmingham Scheel released a statement saying her office “is closing its investigation into allegations of criminal conduct” by current and former members of the sheriff‘s and county attorney’s offices.
Scheel didn’t elaborate, saying only that County Attorney Bill Montgomery was advised of the decision “not to pursue state criminal charges related to the investigation.” Scheel, who is based in Arizona, said she was acting on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Friday night releases of embarrassing political revelations are a long and infamous tradition, in order to minimize the exposure of the story to the American people. But this release took the cake: Friday at 5pm, before a Labor Day weekend, and right after the close of the Republican National Convention.
And no wonder. This one was a doozy. After all, this was a political persecution right from the start. The Obama DOJ started this thingless than 100 days after Obama took office, at a time when the Department was not even fully staffed. They were chomping at the bit to go after him. And now it is all for nothing.
Dozens of investigators, 4 Federal prosecutors, countless FBI agents, all working for three damn years to try and bring down Sheriff Joe. We won’t hold our breath waiting for the left-wing media to demand to know how much the DOJ spent on this disgraceful witch-hunt, but you can bet it was in the tens of millions.
And they came up with NOTHING. Because there IS nothing. Because this was never about substance, only politics.
They simply hate Sheriff Joe Arpaio. They hate his muscular enforcement of our immigration laws without apology, his workplace raids to liberate jobs for legal Americans, his “posse” and “crime suppression sweeps” that brought in tens of thousands of illegal aliens, identity thieves, drug and human smugglers and violent criminals. They hate his Tent City – which began its 20th year this month.
They hate him for being the biggest national symbol in the fight against illegal immigration – and for having the support of millions of Americans in that effort.
We will always stand with him, and say to ‘America’s Toughest Sheriff’ tonight, WAY TO GO JOE!
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
Via Shall Not Be Questioned comes this nugget from a statement by the Illinois Attorney General
Our message is this: we will no longer use the power and authority of our office to criminalize and punish decent, otherwise law-abiding citizens who choose to exercise the rights granted to them by the Second Amendment of the United States’ Constitution to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and their families.
Wow, I love the sound of that. Of course, the Left is flipping out and mashing the panic button to beat the band I ESPECIALLY love this tweet
@SebastianSNBQ We oppose anyone & everyone who flouts our Constitution & takes the law into their own hands. And we always will.
Aha, so NOW the gun grabbers give a rat’s ass about the Constitution? The same Constitution they actively seek to destroy where the 2nd amendment is concerned? I like this quote from the link, it really sums up the real priorities of the gun control zealots
This is what they are freaking out about. It’s not criminals possessing guns, it’s not drug dealers possessing guns — they are freaking out because a prosecutor has declared he’s not going to try to put otherwise law-abiding, honest people in prison.
BINGO! In the demented minds of these folks, armed Americans who defend themselves with a gun are a bigger threat than actual criminals.
H/T to Bill Quick who is quite pleased too
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
The Justice Department has denied that political motivations went into the dismissal of the New Black Panthers case following President Barack Obama elections and the appointment of Attorney General Eric Holder.
A Federal court in Washington, D.C. on Monday dismissed the DOJ’s claims that its political appointees did not interfere with the New Black Panthers case.
In a case that decided whether the watchdog group, Judicial Watch, could receive fees and costs associated with the New Black Panthers litigation, U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton held that:
“documents reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision.”
“Surely the public has an interest in documents that cast doubt on the accuracy of government officials’ representations regarding the possible politicization of agency decision making,” Walton wrote in his opinion. “And the DOJ has not shown that these particular materials were released prior to this litigation, or that the information contained therein was already in the public domain.”
The New Black Panthers case revolves around members of the racist group who were caught on tape intimidating voters at a polling station during the 2008 elections in Philadelphia. The Justice Department initially charged the four New Black Panthers in the case. But after Obama shaped the Justice Department with his appointees, the Justice Department reversed course, dismissing the charges against three of the New Black Panthers while a fourth received a restraining order.
Judge Walton’s decision again shows that politics have often trumped the law in the Obama administration.
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
High Ranking DOJ Official Refuses To Affirm 1st Amendment Rights, Commit To Not Criminalizing Criticism Of Islam…
Pretty simple yes or no question.
ZIP at Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
The five jihadists plotted and killed thousands in the name of Islam on September 11, 2001, in the largest and bloodiest attack on American soil in our nation’s history, and we are setting aside American jurisprudence out of “respect” and submission to that very ideology? Ramadan is exactly when these jihadist savages should be put on trial and sentenced to death.
No matter how many times I read and repeat that, it never fails to astound and shake me. Anywhere American law and Islamic law conflict, American law has to give way. Is that not the defination of surrender to the conquering ideology? 3,000 Americans are weeping in their graves.
“Judge delays Guantanamo hearing in Sept. 11 case to avoid Ramadan conflict” Newser July 15, 2012 (thanks to David)
Muslim holy period delays Sept. 11 case at Gitmo
A U.S. military judge agreed Monday to postpone the next court hearings at the Guantanamo Bay prison for five men charged in the Sept. 11 attacks to avoid a conflict with the Muslim holy period of Ramadan.
The judge issued a short order postponing the next pretrial hearings at the U.S. base in Cuba until Aug. 22-26 at the request of all five defendants, said James Connell, a lawyer for one of the accused.
The hearings had been scheduled to run from Aug. 8-12, which fall during the last 10 days of Ramadan, a period in which devout Muslims fast during the day and pray during the night. That would make it difficult for the accused to participate in their defense, said Connell, a lawyer for Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali.
“It’s very difficult to pay attention to sometimes intricate legal proceedings when you haven’t had any sleep and you haven’t had any food,” Connell said.
They eat like horses in the morning and after sundown. Gimme a break.
Posted on | July 6, 2012 |
The Supreme Court is again putting up constitutional barriers against laws to redress want and inequity.
Never mind about the Supreme Court actively putting up barriers. The SCOTUS is chartered to interpret the existing barriers, and when it goes putting up resistance to government expansion, the SCOTUS frequently resembles a punctured prophylactic in its retention capability.
But what’s this folderol about “laws to redress want and inequity”? Really? You can legislate away envy? Inequity? We’re assuming (a) a rational comparison function is attainable, and (b) somebody reliable can broker it. But our government doesn’t tax, budget, or spend in a remotely forthright way. Thus, Forbath cannot be seen as making a rational argument. ‘Want’ and ‘inequality’ being so subjective, Forbath is either (a) a complete fool, recirculating his own Kool-Aid, (b) diabolical, and making emotional plays at people who really ought to discern the scam, or (c) a combination of (a) and (b). I’m going with (b), because I don’t think these Lefties actually believe in anything whatsoever.
From the standpoint of sheer hooey, this statement ranks just a little below the all-time stupidest thing I’ve seen in print, also courtesy of theNattering, Yammering Turd-mongers:
From the standpoint of governance, what is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption.
What idiots. The government is the traffic cop, not the automotive engineer. And when the traffic cop tries to exceed his bounds, it all comes up jackwagons. Would the NYT just please hurry up and die? We’re going to have a right jolly party, dancing on its bones.
Update: now a Memeorandum thread.
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
Mandate upheld: what now?
posted at 10:41 am on June 28, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
It’s an interesting argument, but one that should have Americans worried. Basically, this is a tax that you have to pay to private companies. For all of the screaming the Right did over single-payer — and for good, outcome-based reasons — at least the money paid by taxpayers would go directly to government [see update II]. The Supreme Court has signed off on what is, in very practical terms, a tax levied by the insurance industry on Americans simply for existing. It’s an amazing, and fearsome, decision that really should have both Right and Left horrified.
Nevertheless, this is the law of the land. We can now look forward to taxes levied by the auto industry for not having bought a new car in the last seven years, the liquor industry for buying too few bottles of wine to maintain your health, and by the agricultural industry for not buying that damned broccoli after all. We might even have Obama attempt to impose a tax for not buying enough contraception; we can call that the Trojan tax.
By the way, don’t forget when Obama insisted that this wasn’t a tax, via Patterico:
So what now? Mitt Romney and Republicans can now run on repeal as a big issue in the campaign. They should emphasize the tax argument when they do, because this tax hits everyone. The ruling may alleviate some of the bad polling the ACA has received, but probably not by much. It’s going to remain deeply unpopular for the next few months. On top of that, the decision to uphold the law also means that the fight is still on over the HHS contraception mandate. We can expect the Catholic bishops to keep up the pressure on the Obama administration’s attempt to define religious expression for the purpose of controlling and limiting it — and we can probably expect the challenge to it to reach the Supreme Court, too.
This started off as a political fight, though, and it’s now clear that it has to get resolved as a political fight.
Update: Bill Whittle explains why ObamaCare won’t work:
Expect the GOP to be making these arguments on the campaign trail over the next few months.
Update II: I clarified what I meant in the second paragraph by editing it a bit. My argument is this: the tax isn’t just on non-compliance, which is what Roberts and the court ruled constitutional. The law forces people to give money to private industry, in the form of buying health insurance. That’s a tax too, imposed by force on Americans, in this case the force of the penalties and the legal consequences of not paying them.
Holder and the Obama Regime Refusing to Give Congress Documents Related to CAIR Terrorism Funding Case
Even though he gave CAIR and ISNA access to the same documents.
Via World Threats:
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is in the spotlight after the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted to hold him in contempt because he is refusing to provide documents related to the Fast and the Furious scandal. But there’s another scandal you should know about. For over one year, he has refused to hand over documents about the Muslim Brotherhood network in the U.S.
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), vice chairman of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, confronted Holder about the matter on Thursday, June 21. Rep. Gohmert wants Congress to have access to documents from the trial of the Holy Land Foundation, the largest terrorism financing trial in U.S. history. Five Foundation officials were found guilty of funding Hamas and evidence introduced by the federal government shows it was set up by the Muslim Brotherhood’s secret “Palestine Committee” in the U.S.
Three prominent Muslim-American organizations were labeled by the federal government as “unindicted co-conspirators” in the trial-the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT). The documents requested by Rep. Gohmert for the past year were provided to the Holy Land Foundation’s defense team, yet are being denied to Congress.
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
Found at The Other McCain
More Assploding Hypocrisy From Demorats. You have to Present Photo ID to Enter Any Federal Court House – Holder Didn’t Even Know That – Yet To Expect ID at The Voting Booth is Raaaacist!
US Attorney General Eric Holder completely unaware that federal courthouses require visitors to show government-issued photo IDs
Galactically stupid and irremediably corrupt.
(POLITICO) — Due to a recent work assignment, I had the opportunity to enter a federal courthouse about 200 times in the past six weeks or so. Each and every time, I was asked for a photo ID, which the court security officer looked at and then allowed me to put away in my wallet.
This procedure, which takes place tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of times each day in federal courthouses across the country, is apparently entirely unknown to the nation’s top law enforcement officer, Attorney General Eric Holder.
At a House Judiciary Committee oversight hearing Thursday, Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.) asked Holder about the practice, which has been standard procedure at most, if not all, federal courthouses for the last decade or so.
“If I were to go to the federal courthouse here in D.C., either as a party or as an attorney, wouldn’t I have to show a government-issued photo ID?” Lungren asked.
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
House Report Urges Justice Dept. To Cut Ties with Terrorist Front Group CAIR – Don’t Think That Will Happen Since Holder and O’Sucka Love Some mooslims.
Something tells me this won’t fly with Holder.
Via Daily Caller:
The Department of Justice is being encouraged to follow in the footsteps of the FBI in cutting off all non-investigative ties to the country’s largest Muslim advocacy organization, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).
The Fiscal Year 2013 Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Bill, which passed the House on Wednesday, contains in its Committee Report (a separate public document that spells out how agencies are expected to spend the money allocated to them) a recommendation that Attorney General Eric Holder follow in the FBI’s footsteps and sever ties with CAIR:
Liaison partnerships. — The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in a case in which the Holy Land Foundation was found guilty of material support of a terrorist organization. The committee acknowledges the attorney general’s refusal to attend certain meetings knowing that CAIR officials would be present, as indicated in testimony before the committee on February 28, 2012. The committee understands that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has an existing policy prohibiting its employees from engaging in any formal non-investigative cooperation with CAIR. The committee encourages the attorney general to adopt a similar policy for all department officials.
In January 2009, the FBI ended its relationship with CAIR and its affiliates across the country due to the conviction of those involved in the Holy Land Foundation terrorist funding trial, in which CAIR was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator.
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
Notice of Intent to File Civil Action: U.S. Justice Department Officially Serves Notice to Sheriff Joe Arpaio and His Department Over Allegations of Civil Rights Violations
Defends the US Constitution? Check.
Frustrated with Obama’s lawlessness? Check.
Then prosecute the bastard.
(ABC News) — Federal authorities say they intend to file a lawsuit against Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio and his department over allegations of civil rights violations.
The U.S. Justice Department sent a letter dated Wednesday to lawyers for the Maricopa County sheriff, giving his office “notice of intent to file civil action.”
Arpaio’s office has been accused of racially profiling Latinos, basing immigration patrols on racially-charged citizen complaints that didn’t allege crimes and punishing Hispanic jail inmates for speaking Spanish.
The DOJ also has accused Arpaio of having a culture of disregard for basic constitutional rights.
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
The Martin-Zimmerman matter is a nightmare because of the way in which government officials, private citizens, and the media have made blunder after blunder in taking a sad situation and provoking it into a national and international catastrophe. Instead of acting as the leader of the nation and seeking to calm the situation, President Obama engaged in blatant racial pandering by saying the dead youngster would have looked like his son if he had one.
Attorney General Holder has been even worse and I assume that he is working with the active approval or indeed the encouragement of Mr. Obama and the White House staff. Of all the sins committed in recent months by the Obama-Holder Justice Department, one of the worst is the refusal to curb the blatant criminal activities of the New Black Panther Party. This hate group has taken to the Florida streets and has openly put a $10,000 bounty on the head of George Zimmerman, dead or alive. If the attorney general needs legal advice on what federal statutes have been violated by the Panthers, I will seek out some freshman law student in Washington and send him down the street to the Justice Department.
Such shameful racial pandering gets votes, lots of them. There is an important election coming in November. As a veteran of the original civil rights movement, I simply cannot believe that this is happening to the country that I love. I have the same angry, sad feeling that I had when I sat in a civil rights hearing in July 2010 and watched J. Christian Adams blow the whistle on in his former colleagues in the Civil Rights Division for their racist behavior in the performance of their official duties. The current disturbing actions of Messrs. Obama and Holder demonstrate that Adams’ seminal book, Injustice, was sadly prophetic.
Read the rest at The American Spectator: http://spectator.org/archives/2012/04/19/the-trayvon-martin-nightmare
Here’s the problem as I see it, whenever I attempt to communicate some ideas to the readers of this blog, I run into a problem. It is not that Romney supports guns and Obama wants to take them away, it is that every politician wants to take them away, either from an ideological police state mentality, or from a law and order, “make it safer for our guys, the government guys”, point of view.
Does it Matter?
The fact is, I don’t care if Obama wants to take our guns because he is a fascist, collectivist or whether Romney wants to take them away because he wants to be able to control society to a greater degree and give his government co-horts an upper hand in any conflict.
Guns aren’t even the issue, the issue is control. I don’t give a dang who has a gun, issue them to felons when they come out of prison if you want to. If they want one, they’ll get it and use it to do whatever they want. Issue them to school children, what difference does it make? Those who will use them will get them and use them. Trying to stop it by taking the guns away from those who could stop it is insanity. One has to believe in the goodness of the people to understand my point. There are one hundred times more good people who would stop that insanity with guns as there are people who would do bad things with them.
The point is, we supposedly have a free society, I mean that is the point of America is its freedom, but everyday that loses a little bit of legitimacy and what is America without it? It is just another dictatorship of elected officials. The vote doesn’t matter, cast them for whoever you want to, elect Barack Obama again, elect him ten more times. Nothing will change, every new insult, every new violation of freedom just makes the principles of freedom and justice that much more rare and that much more valuable and every politician will come after them, because freedom is the opposite of government. It is matter and anti-matter.
There comes a time when the average guy has to look out on his perfectly manicured lawn, his recycle bins and his low flow toilets and ask himself if this is what has been worth the blood of so many young men in the history of this nation. Is it?
People don’t understand freedom anymore. The concepts of liberty are lost on them, it has become foreign, unusual, a little dangerous, even stupid to the properly trained and indoctrinated collectivist and that is what America is about today, whether openly or secretly, it is about collectivism. Everyone pays for the benefits of others and those paying are all just looking for a way to cash in themselves. It is a disgusting society of black marketeers and insider traders.
I don’t know if there will ever be a time when enough of us look out on the landscape of a trapped and imprisoned population and decide that no one has the right to do to us what they have done. Those who have the money and the power look down on us rightfully and shake their heads at our lack of will, our lack of honest principles.
They have the will when they pass these laws that they know are unconstitutional, but they also know the system is so corrupt that no one will call them on it. They know that every cop has violated time and time again his oath of office. They know that every judge is as guilty as they are. It is a sham, it is a fraud. It is government.
I have been pleading and hopefully providing some inspiration to the patriot community, to encourage them that they are not alone in their thoughts or intended actions, that we are not all just crazy for believing in things most Civics teachers will tell you is nonsense, that the government doesn’t really work that way, that every day, when the average guy wakes up he has been fleeced and bullied and pushed around by the system that they are not wrong, that there are others who know they are not crazy, that these are things to believe in, to risk for and perhaps to die for.
If there were twenty people who felt exactly as I do, who had the fortitude to go through with it, as I do, the world would be a different place. It takes a dedication, a desire to do something important, even greater than your life, greater than the lives of everyone you love. Read history, really take a look at it and understand that there were people one time who sacrificed everything on principle, it cost them something dear and meaningful, but they did something, the bastards had to pay the price for their pretensions to commanding a free people.
Look at the Alamo and don’t tell me that there was one man in that situation who thought he was going to get out of it alive. They did it, they stood up, they said “no more” and they died for it. Yes, the average private, or volunteer probably thought their actions were stupid, reckless and would not have an impact on the future, but they were wrong. It created a new world, where Texas means something.
The question really is, is your life ever going to mean something? This is the question I ask myself every day. I could die of cancer, or get hit by a truck, or a drunk could come across the median and kill my whole family in a traffic accident. Is there honor in that? Will I have accomplished something with that sort of death?
We are all going to die, the question is how. I don’t want to die a pedestrian’s death when there is so much more to be accomplished with the years I have left, when there is so much more that needs to be accomplished. Our freedom was not purchased with the lives of the wealthy or powerful, it was purchased by the volunteer at the Alamo, the private on the landing craft at D-Day. Would you honor that with a hospital death, leaving your family drowning in medical bills?
There is something dreadfully wrong with the nation that was the only point of light in a dark and deadly history of the world. Think about it. Think about how many ordinary lives were taken to cement the power of Stalin, or the power of Pol Pot, or the power of Mao. Do we want to repeat that? Is that admirable?
You are an American, your light shines into every dark corner of the world, illuminating the hopes of the starving and enslaved masses of the world. Every tortured heart and oppressed soul begs for us to shine, to bring them our freedom, our liberty and to that plea, to that cry, we do what? What do we do in response to that lost and empty plea from the oppressed billions? Do we fight for ourselves to make our nation the promise they have been given, or do we just switch on the TV?
If we fail to make that promise true, the darkness will fill the void of America, it is filling the void right now, we all know it. If darkness descends on us, it descends on the world and there may be thousands of years before human beings will know humanity again.
Found at The Reb: http://www.washingtonreb.com/
From Weasel Zippers
And It’s Off to the Zimmerman Verdict for Those “Sweet Parents”
Good evening everyone.I am Angela Corey, special prosecutor for the Trayvon Martin case.
Just moments ago, we spoke by phone with Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton. Three weeks ago our prosecution team promised those sweet parents we would get answers to all of their questions, no matter where our quest for truth led us. — Steve Sailer: Not reassuring …
Thanks to American Digest: http://americandigest.org/
The Mob wants meat.Sharpton and Jackson want meat. Obama wants meat.
The New Black Panther Party most certainly wants meat, and will pay you handsomely to deliver it. And they shall have it. Jurisprudence be damned. It’s bigger than that now. Hell, Zimmerman’s own attorneys will sell him up the river. They need clients tomorrow too, you know. Prediction: they will eschew any plea agreement, not that any will be offered, and take it to trial so that Zimmerman gets the murder verdict, and it can be business as usual for them the following day. They just want the publicity. That misbegotten beaner ain’t paying them shit. — Velociworld: Bread and Circuses
Thanks American Digest: http://americandigest.org/
Black Supremacy is Good But White Supremacy was Bad? There is Something Very Wrong With this Premise.
Why? Why? Why is Bill Zachery considered a nothing and these 5 black thugs are covered by the MSM? Where is the hate/race crime? You all DO realize that Mr. Zachery is white? You all DO realize that if this was a gang of whites, they would be charged with race/hate crimes if the victim was black? Why have white leftists made bad black men into black supremacists? They railed against the KKK, (and still do, even though the KKK has like 5 members). That’s what this is. You know it, I know it.
So, from now on, I have decided that this is what I am calling these crimes; Black supremacy. I believe the KKK organized crimes in the late 50′s early 60′s in a couple of states in the south against innocent black people. Bad blacks today are doing the exact same thing the KKK did. I believe these are organized crimes perpetrated by black men who think they are superior and know they get away with it, just as the KKK did for a couple of decades–same as now, only in reverse.
Mr. Bill Zachery:
The Black Supremacists, [all they need is their hoodies to make the job complete, just as the KKK did, in the past]:
Pictures from CofCC, website that has the honor of being on the ADL “hate-map.” The ADL is a Stalinist, anti-American, anti Christian, anti-religious Jewish website that hates everyone except leftist Soviets. Rabbi Kahane & Rabbie Antelman were right about these SCHMUCKS.
Justice Kagan has no business being on the Supreme Court…
Listen to the first four or so minutes of the third day of Supreme Court hearing on Obamacare (below).
Listen very closely to the words of Kagan, who interrupts Clements before he has barely completed his first sentence.
Hear her describe Federal money as a “gift to the states” as though the federal government “owns” that money and has indeed called that money into existence through some magical unicorn dance under a full moon.
Justice Kagan, allow me to disabuse you of that concept. That is not your money. It is our money. It is the money of the hardworking people of this country, who pay taxes under threat of fines and even incarceration if not paid. And when you “give it back to us” it does not constitute a “gift.”
Listen, you disgusting squid of a small minded, intellectually challenged poseur. You only sit on the Supreme Court because an equally small minded, intellectually challenged, malignant narcissist squid of a president who, in my opinion, is not even eligible to be president, and who was voted in by the small-minded losers of this country appointed you to the position.
So go home, pour a cocktail, put your feet up, turn on Desperate Housewives, and enjoy your evening. You made your position clearly, and in language that even the most obtuse of this country could understand.
Warning: if what you hear makes your blood pressure spike, the government will not mandate that you receive “free” blood pressure meds, because it’s all tapped out paying for birth control. Just sayin’.
I’m grateful for the favor Obama did for us yesterday of exposing his extreme constitutional ignorance, with his comments on how it would be “unprecedented” for the Court to strike down a law passed by a “strong majority” in Congress. (As if a House margin of seven votes is a “strong” majority.) True, he walked back the comment today, but surely because his statement was not merely indefensible but outright embarrassing to his media defenders.
I’ve been growing weary of hearing people mention that he’s a “constitutional scholar,” since he never published a single thing on the subject either as editor of the Harvard Law Review or as a member of the faculty at the University of Chicago Law School. But hey – he taught constitutional law, didn’t he?
His course on constitutional law, one of several constitutional law courses on the U of C curriculum, dealt exclusively with the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment—the favorite, all-purpose clause for liberal jurists to use to right wrongs and make us more equal by judicial fiat. There is no evidence that Obama ever taught courses that considered other aspects of constitutionalism, such as executive power, the separation of powers, the Commerce Clause, or judicial review itself.
I have a copy of one of his final exams. It is a long hypothetical involving civil rights, which begins thus:
In part, Hardsville’s racial isolation is the result of white flight and the limited economic means at the disposal of the black community. It is also well documented, however, that Hardsville’s racial isolation arose in part due to decisions by a white-controlled city government prior to the seventies that were purposely discriminatory.
So you can see what kind of “narrative” this exam question promotes, and hence the kind of answers likely to get an A from Professor Obama. One of the questions students are asked is, “What is the likelihood that the city will be held liable for violating the constitutional rights of blacks under the Equal Protection Clause…” There’s a second hypothetical involving potential gender discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause.
A law student in Professor Obama’s class would learn virtually nothing about the constitutionalism of the Founding, or even of John Marshall or Joseph Story.
Now, clearly Obama is hoping to intimidate the Court in the same way FDR did in 1937 with his court-packing scheme. Some time later I’ll discuss FDR’s extraordinary rhetoric attacking the Court that year, but suffice it to say for now that Obama already showed his hand with his inaccurate attack on the Citizens United decision in the State of the Union speech two years ago. As John Steele Gordon put it well, “It seems there is simply no lie President Obama will not tell in pursuit of his agenda.”
Notwithstanding the fact that Justice Alito could be seen mouthing the words, “Not true,” the Supreme Court by its traditions does not hit back at the President or Congress in these kind of brawls. But thank goodness for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which today rather tartly demanded that the Justice Department please explain, in at least three pages, within 48 hours, its understanding of judicial review. This should be interesting. Here’s a copy of the follow-up letter from the court:
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
Fifth Circuit calls out DOJ lawyer: Is your boss now claiming that courts don’t have the power to strike down laws? Update: A lawyer’s take
posted at 5:19 pm on April 3, 2012 by Allahpundit
The panel is hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician-owned hospitals. The issue arose when a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.
The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, answered yes — and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago, according to the lawyer in the courtroom.
Smith then became “very stern,” the source said, telling the lawyers arguing the case it was not clear to “many of us” whether the president believes such a right exists. The other two judges on the panel, Emilio Garza and Leslie Southwick–both Republican appointees–remained silent, the source said.
Smith, a Reagan appointee, went on to say that comments from the president and others in the Executive Branch indicate they believe judges don’t have the power to review laws and strike those that are unconstitutional, specifically referencing Mr. Obama’s comments yesterday about judges being an “unelected group of people.”
They ordered the DOJ to submit a three-page letter stating its position on judicial review by noon on Thursday, even though the Department’s lawyer conceded that Marbury v. Madison is good law and even though Obama himself never went so far yesterday as to say that the Supreme Court lacks the power to overturn laws. He said overturning ObamaCare specifically would be “unprecedented,” but no true-blue Warren-Court-loving lefty like The One would ever seriously impugn judicial review. And the Fifth Circuit knows it. What they’re doing here is humiliating him as a way of getting him to stop the demagoguery, with the letter acting as the equivalent of a kid writing on the blackboard as punishment after class. “I will not question Marbury v. Madison, I will not question Marbury v. Madison, I will not question…” Rest assured, a liberal court will pay President Romney back for this somehow at some point. And in fact, O might use the letter as a political opportunity. Now that there’s bound to be intense media interest in it, he could explain in it why (a) yes, of course he accepts judicial review, unlike that darned Newt Gingrich who wants to haul judges before Congress, and (b) it would nonetheless be kinda sorta “unprecedented” to use judicial review on his pet health-care legislation.
Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor is Either Stupid or a Demogogic Liar. Reality Check: Poor People Don’t Pay a Penny At The Emergency Room.
Sonia Sotomayor was chosen to sit on the Supreme Court, sharing essentially unlimited power over America with only eight other people, due to an impressive list of five qualifications:
1. She can be depended on never to let the Constitution get in the way of the hard left political agenda.
2. She is Hispanic.
3. She can be depended on never to let the Constitution get in the way of the hard left political agenda.
4. She is more or less female.
5. She can be depended on never to let the Constitution get in the way of the hard left political agenda.
With a resume like that, it would be unreasonable to expect her to have even the most basic knowledge about reality outside the little bubble of toxic lies liberal elitists live cocooned inside. Yet Jason Lee gasps in amazement of how little she knows about the healthcare system she will vote to destroy:
“What percentage of the American people who took their son or daughter to an emergency room and that child was turned away because the parent didn’t have insurance,” asked Sotomayor, “…do you think there’s a large percentage of the American population that would stand for the death of that child — (who) had an allergic reaction and a simple shot would have saved the child?”
I have a precise answer for Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
The percentage of American people who took their son or daughter to an emergency room and were turned away because the parent didn’t have insurance is exactly zero.
No person, whether American or not, is ever turned away from an emergency room for lack of health insurance. Ever.
Since Sotomayor’s own brother is a doctor practicing in New York, it’s hard to believe she knows so little about medical care. Maybe she isn’t utterly clueless; the alternative is that she is a shameless demagogue lying to our faces. With progressives it is never easy to tell.
On tips from Wingmann, Bob Roberts, and Sam Adams.
From Moonbattery: http://moonbattery.com/