purchase cheapest viagra
1Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the LORD cometh, for it is nigh at hand; Joel 2:1
Show MenuHide Menu

Category Archives: Supreme Court

Apathetic and Pathetic American Christians

February 19, 2014

Christians: Empty the Churches and Fill the Streets

By: T.L. Davis

David Green, founder and CEO of Hobby Lobby, has, through great hesitation, decided to sue the federal government to ensure his rights to pursue his religious rights as guaranteed in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
This is just another in a long line of needless lawsuits arising out of an unjust and unconstitutional law, affectionately called Obamacare by Barack Obama, or otherwise given the ironic title of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which accomplishes neither patient protection, nor affordable care.
The Constitutional questions are not questions at all. There is no more clear wording in the Bill of Rights than: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or  prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” There simply is no more clear admonition than “Congress shall make no law…” What part of “no” is vague? What part of “congress” is vague? What part of “law” is vague? What part of “prohibiting the free exercise thereof” is vague?
Very clearly, if Congress makes a law, drafts a law or passes a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion, i.e. requires that Christians, in order to obey such law, must violate their religious beliefs against abortion by funding that activity, providing that activity through any means, which violates their admonition from God in the Ten Commandments not to kill, is not unconstitutional, then words mean nothing.
Unfortunately, we have seen all too often that when it comes to federal government power, the federal Supreme Court, has found in favor of the government and against the citizen. It is hostile to religion. It is hostile to liberty.
If it is found that Hobby Lobby is forced to violate their freedom of religion, it is the intent of David Green to close its doors. Realistically, they will probably sell their assets to some other large retailer and the stores will stay open under another name. Christian values, however, will be largely diminished.
There are a long list of reasons Obamacare should have been ruled unconstitutional, not just for the violation of religious freedoms inherent in its language, but the violations of individual liberty wherein a mandate requiring the people to purchase anything, including medical coverage, is a violation of the Constitution.
Finding Obamacare constitutional is an example of how the Supreme Court is acting illegally by failing to uphold the Constitution. It is why every judgment made by this Supreme Court is an affront to justice. Allowing any nine people in the nation to encumber the entire population with unwanted, unwarranted violations of liberty is political malpractice. It changes the very fundamentals of a republican form of government and arrives at a system much more akin to an oligarchy.
Christians must fight back against these abuses of government. They are now involved in the fight and while many Christians find it unpalatable to engage in politics, politics have engaged them. To honor God is not to forfeit His will to bureaucrats because of sloth and a refusal to take up Christ’s defense in the public square. It is the duty of Christians to empty the churches and fill the streets.
From CM: http://christianmerc.blogspot.com/

Why the SCOTUS voted For Obamacare

January 10, 2014


From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/

There is No Longer Rule of Law in America – only Lawless Judges

December 20, 2013

Free Exercise Thereof

By T.L.Davis

We are in a post-republic America. There is no rule of law, there is only a rule of judges. Legislation is equal to a dictate from the king. That we elect the barons and the lords to rule over us does not lessen tyranny, but it makes us feel better; it gives us faith in the “system” and that is all the government really needs.Through several supreme court decisions, largely where they have ruled on Obamacare, the message as been sent: Whatever the government chooses to do is within its power. Think of that, what is a king, but someone allowed to do whatever they choose and the fact that they choose to do it makes it within their power.

No, we are not quite a monarchy, because the king is changed by the will of the people. But, we are much closer to a democracy, where whatever the government can persuade the people to support, through bribery, coercion or charisma, becomes law.

A republic is a government set up by law, where the law is greater than anyone who might violate it. There can be no one who violates the law and chooses to change the law rather than to suffer its consequences. There are means of dealing with such people, it is written int the Constitution and prescribes even how a president might be removed.

Our lost republic had recognized certain rights as being endowed by the creator, inviolable, irrevocable. Of these certain, inalienable rights is the right to religion, but that right is often misread and almost always misinterpreted. It states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The second clause is the important one:  Or prohibiting the free exercise there of. The congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Does that sound even remotely accurate to what we enjoy?

There is a deep necessity of those on the left to abolish Christianity. Now, I would say religion, but that is not true. They are accommodating of almost any religion, even phony religions, but not Christianity. To them, Christianity must be banished from the public eye. All references to Christianity must be striken from the record, banned from the schools, ripped from the monuments.

Why? (I ask this as a rhetorical device, please don’t send an e-mail explaining it to me)

Is it that they (Marxists in general and their stooges) intend to obliterate, defame and denigrate our founders to make change that much easier? They have already done what they can to link them with slavery, with racism, with every evil under the sun. They speak of them as if they were doddering old, racist fools who clung to religion and guns just like our friends in Pennsylvania. “Old White Men”. Why do they need to pretend that Lincoln, their hero, was not a Christian? He was not of a particular religion, but he was extraordinarily well versed with the Bible and could quote from it verbatum.

The whole reasoning behind the Revolution is undermined if God is taken out of government, because it is religion that founded this nation, gave it spirit, emboldened its revolutionaries and sustained them in the darkest days. Think of George Washington dropping to his knees and praying for his troops, for the survival of the new republic.

Any fight for liberty includes the right to practice religion, of any kind, freely, openly, without fear of reprisal by the government. In today’s society George Washington would have been reported to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and replaced by a more sensitive, diverse general, who would have promptly lost the war and everything could return to normal with the king.

It is that mentality that runs our government. It is that mentality that rules the GOP. They want things to go back to normal: when they didn’t get phone calls all the time by the Tea Party or the 2A supporters. When they could just do some dinners, raise some money and play chess with their liberal buddies on the other side of the aisle.

Piece by piece they have come after every right that protects the people from government and have honored every law that protects government from the people. The laws against privacy and guns are passed by legislators. The laws against religion are passed by judges. Maybe it’s time some phones at the Supreme Court began to ring.

From CM: http://christianmerc.blogspot.com/

I Stand With Matthew. The So Called Fines associated with Obamacare are Blatantly Unconstitutional and Must Be Ignored – John Roberts and SCOTUS be Damned.

October 3, 2013

I Will Not Comply

By Matthew  May

Like  most members of the Congress that passed it and, undoubtedly, the president of  the United States who signed it, I have not read the entirety of the ill-named  Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  Yet there is one aspect  concerning that legislation of which I am certain: I will not  comply.


I  will not comply because I am a free citizen of the United States, not a subject  of its government.  I consider non-compliance with this monstrosity and the  tens of thousands of pages of regulations that are to be enforced by an  unelected bureaucracy, and that have left a gigantic carbon footprint on our  environment and the United States Constitution, a duty.


Non-compliance  is my executive order, and that order reads in part that I do not  recognize any government’s claim on my action or inaction in the marketplace,  nor upon any personal information I am unwilling to divulge.


I  will not submit to a cabal who read George Orwell’s 1984not as a terrifying warning, but as an instruction manual.  Nor will I  submit to the dictates of those who attempt to trample the right of free speech  of others in the halls of government who are warning us about the looming  tyranny.  I refer to those sons of liberty who, as Camus  wrote, “are not all legitimate or to be admired. Those who applaud it only when  it justifies their privileges and shout nothing but censorship when it threatens  them are not on our side.”


If  (when) the IRS or HHS or any other such entity attempts to extort a tax or fee  of any kind for not participating in mandated commerce, they will be met with  resistance.  I will not pay any such tax or fee.


I  live in Massachusetts, where, once upon a time, a spirit of resistance and  independence animated much of the citizenry.  But many here have devolved  from the shot heard round the world to sheltering in place.  Not I — nor  many of my fellow Bay Staters, who are outnumbered but  undaunted.


Refusing  to comply with the dictates of an illegitimate law that is selectively enforced,  and from which the privileged few are exempted, is not, in the annals of  American history, brave or difficult.  Those who refuse to comply are not  barefoot in the snows of Valley Forge, crying out in agony at Gettysburg, or  rushing the cockpit of Flight 93.  While there will be consequences to  civil disobedience in defiance of oppression, any difficulties can be and will  be overcome.


We  are, however, drawing a line that the forces of repression, socialism, and  tyranny must not cross.  Some might even color the line red.  Yet  unlike a certain other, this red line is immovable.  I yield nothing on the  plane of freedom.  I will not take any small step that is, in actuality,  one giant leap backward to the darkness we thought we had  vanquished.


Who  is with me?


Matthew  May welcomes comments at  may.matthew.t@gmail.com.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/09/i_will_not_comply.html#ixzz2ggLTNyPK

Hobby Lobby, Obamacare, and Freedom of Religion

September 23, 2013


The Truth About Hobby Lobby and the Supreme Court

By on 9.23.13

Some actual facts to wash off the media muck thrown at you over the weekend.

 If you began last Friday by scanning the web for interesting news items, you were hit by a tsunami of stories suggesting that the Obama administration wishes the Supreme Court to intervene in its legal battle with Hobby Lobby over that company’s refusal to comply with the HHS contraception mandate. Most of the major “news”outlets began their coverage with a rented AP report titled, “US Wants Supreme Court to Take Up Hobby Lobby Case,” and followed up with tendentious opinion pieces insinuating that the administration took this step to thwart a dark plot by Hobby Lobby to deny its employees birth control coverage.

In reality, the Obama administration “wants” the Supreme Court involved in this case just about as much as you want a root canal. It was forced to file an appeal with the high court because, last June, Hobby Lobby dealt the government’s lawyers a resounding defeat in a federal appeals court. To understand how, one must first understand what this lawsuit is really about. It does not concern, as the Los Angeles Times suggests, whether a corporation can have religious beliefs. The case isn’t even about contraception — Hobby Lobby’s employee insurance plans cover birth control. Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius is about religious liberty.

The First Amendment of the Constitution begins thus: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The Hobby Lobby case has arrived on the steps of the Supreme Court because the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the company’s owners that the HHS contraception mandate restricts the free exercise of their religion. Rejecting the administration’s arguments to the contrary, the majority wrote, “[W]e cannot see why an individual operating for-profit retains Free Exercise protections but an individual who incorporates… does not.”

Read the entire article at: The American Spectator – http://spectator.org/archives/2013/09/23/the-truth-about-hobby-lobby-an


The Clintons Always Ride the Contemporaneous Popular Horse

June 28, 2013

Bill Clinton Praises Supreme Court For Basically Calling Him A Bigot And A Homophobe


Clintons Praise Supreme Court Reversal Of Bill Clinton’s Gay Marriage Ban – Daily Caller

Bill and Hillary Clinton praised the Supreme Court’s reversal of a key provision in the Defense of Marriage Act Wednesday, calling the 1996 law “discrimination.”

. ……….

“By overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, the Court recognized that discrimination towards any group holds us all back in our efforts to form a more perfect union,” the Clintons said in a statement posted on the Clinton Foundation website. “We are also encouraged that marriage equality may soon return to California.”

The former president and his wife, the former secretary of state, concluded, “We applaud the hard work of the advocates who have fought so relentlessly for this day, and congratulate Edie Windsor on her historic victory.”

Left unmentioned was the fact that Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law while president. The 1996 Clinton-Gore ticket ran ads on Christian radio stations taking credit for the legislation, which prevented federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

The Defense of Marriage Act also allowed states to withhold recognition of gay marriages that were legal in other states. Senate Democrats voted 32 to 14 in favor. House Democrats supported it by a margin of a margin of 188 to 65.

Liberal stalwarts Joe Biden, Paul Wellstone and Barbara Milkulski were among the Democratic “yes” votes.

Democratic strategist Robert Shrum has said that Clinton urged John Kerry to support state-level gay marriage bans during the 2004 presidential campaign. Clinton has denied the charge.

Hillary Clinton also supported DOMA as a Democratic senator from New York. Even as she argued against a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, she described marriage as “not just a bond, but a sacred bond between a man and a woman.” She cited her own troubled marriage with Bill as a reason for that belief.

Clinton then invoked “the fundamental bedrock principle that [marriage] exists between a man and a woman going back into the mists of history as one of the founding foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization, and that its primary, principle role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society into which they are to become adults.”

Early in her presidential campaign, Clinton insisted to the YearlyKos convention that “DOMA served a very useful purpose.”

Both Clintons now favor gay marriage. Hillary Clinton is considered the frontrunner for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/

I Agree With Scalia

June 27, 2013

Scalia: ‘High-Handed’ Kennedy Has Declared Us ‘Enemies of the Human Race’

By Tim Grieve
                                    Updated: June 26, 2013 |  1:33 p.m.                                        June 26, 2013 | 10:15 a.m.

Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy                  (AP Photos)

Dissenting from this morning’s opinion on the Defense of Marriage Act, Justice Antonin Scalia – as expected – holds nothing back.

In a ripping dissent, Scalia says that Justice Anthony Kennedy and his colleagues in the majority have resorted to calling opponents of gay marriage “enemies of the human race.”

But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to con- demn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to “dis- parage,” “injure,” “degrade,” “demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homo- sexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence— indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.

Scalia says that the court’s holding – while limited to the Defense of Marriage Act – is a sure sign that the majority is willing to declare gay marriage a constitutional right.

It takes real cheek for today’s majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here—when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority’s moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress’s hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will “confine” the Court’s holding is its sense of what it can get away with.

And, he says, the holding will short circuit the debate over gay marriage that should have been carried out in the states.

In the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated. It is hard to admit that one’s political opponents are not monsters, especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end proves more than today’s Court can handle. Too bad. A reminder that disagreement over something so fundamental as marriage can still be politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier times was called the judicial temperament. We might have covered ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that it was theirs to settle and that we would respect their resolution. We might have let the People decide.


But that the majority will not do. Some will rejoice in today’s decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better. I dissent.

From National Journal: http://www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/scalia-high-handed-kennedy-has-declared-us-enemies-of-the-human-race-20130626

Texas Now Uses Its States Rights as It Should

June 26, 2013

Nice! Texas Immediately Restores Its Voter ID Law After Supreme Court’s Voter Rights Act Decision…

Gotta love Texas.

Via Daily Caller:

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott announced Tuesday his state will re-establish its voter ID law after the Supreme Court struck down a section of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that required certain states to seek federal approval before changing the electoral process.

Congress must devise a new racial calculus to determine which counties and states must petition the federal government to change election laws, the majority announced.

Texas greeted the ruling with plans to implement its suspended voter ID laws and district maps.

“With today’s decision, the State’s voter ID law will take effect immediately. Redistricting maps passed by the Legislature may also take effect without approval from the federal government,” Abbott’s statement read.

Keep reading…

From Wesel Zippers:  http://weaselzippers.us/

Supreme Court Gets Something Right – About Damn Time This Whole Thing was Shut Down

June 26, 2013

SCOTUS Strikes Down Section 4 Of Voting Rights Act – Right Scoop


In short, the Supreme Court struck down the formula used in determining which voting jurisdictions need to ask the DOJ before they can change their voter laws – because of past history of discrimination. The court basically told Congress that the current formula is outdated, given it was established in the 1960s, and gives Congress the opportunity to update it:

ATLANTIC WIRE – The Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder on Tuesday. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion in the 5 to 4 decision. The court found that the VRA’s formula for deciding which jurisdictions should be subject to preclearance is unconstitutional, SCOTUSblog explains, because while the formula was rational in the 1960s, it’s not anymore. In other words, things are different in the South.

The Alabama county challenged Section 5 of the legislation, which requires that states and counties with a history of trying to block minorities from voting get pre-clearance from the Justice Department to change any voting laws – from the requirements to register to vote to the location of a polling station. Section 4 is the formula that determines what places Section 5 applies to. The majority opinion says, “Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting found in [Section] 2. We issue no holding on [Section] 5 itself, only on the coverage formula. Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions.”

As Doug Mataconis on twitter pointed out, without section 4 there is no section 5. So basically the DOJ can’t lawfully challenge any state or jurisdiction for changing their voting laws until Congress reestablishes the formula. Let’s hope they don’t.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/

A Rare Clarence Thomas Interview at Harvard Law School

February 19, 2013

Found at Ann Alhouse

Sotomayor is the New Skank Bitch of SCOTUS

January 6, 2013

A Real Skank in SCOTUS

From Reg T
Back on the 6th of December, I posted an article about the company called Hobby Lobby, which sells craft supplies. The article was called “No Waivers for Christians”, because this business was denied a waiver on Obamacare due to the owner’s religious objections to paying for insurance which provides for abortions. Obama, Congress, and the Supreme Court appear to believe that the First Amendment doesn’t really mean anything – just as they believe about the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Tenth.Many unions, as well as a number of businesses owned by friends of Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and other perverted scuzbags, have been given waivers just because they don’t want to have to pay the fines the law now requires for those who do not provide medical insurance for their employees. People with legitimate religious objections to providing insurance which covers abortion – including the Catholic Church – have been told to pound sand, as they will not be given waivers like the ones given to friends of the high and mighty in our government.

Several businesses, groups, and individuals have sued in court to fight the payment of fines for adhering to their religious convictions. Some Federal court judges (will miracles never cease) have actually issued injunctions protecting those folks from being hammered with massive fines, at least until they have had their day in court.

Enters this b*tch, the Skank of SCOTUS:

This ugly – inside as well as outside – skank is “Justice” Sotomayor. The Obama appointee to SCOTUS who feels a “wise Latina” should be able to legislate from the bench. A sick Marxist who is determined to apply her personal agenda to the Court, rather than performing the job she took an oath to perform – defending and supporting the Constitution. Just looking at her makes me want to hurl, in all senses of the word.
I have not read how she came to the decision she made, but she ruled on her own that the owners of Hobby Lobby (and a Christian bookstore) did not have any standing to seek justice from SCOTUS. That means they will be hammered, crushed by .Gov with massive fines while waiting to get their day in Court (SCOTUS, which we all know is where it will end up). So, rather than using her position to support the Constitution, and protect the First Amendment rights of the people of this country, this “wise Latina” has decided to punish them instead.
Even if their position that their religious objections must be honored wins in the end, they will most likely be driven out of business by the costs of fighting their case. Or, they will be forced to close the business in order to avoid the fines and the cost of litigation, which will put thousands of more people out of work. Good going, “wise Latina”. I hope you rot in Hell for eternity, if such is possible. If not, I would be quite pleased if something horrible, painful, humiliating, and ultimately fatal overtakes you in the not-too-distant future, like pancreatic cancer, perhaps. It would be no less than you deserved.
From Hell on Earth: http://hellonearth-1.blogspot.com/

Blacks Would Do Better if Everyone Stopped Meddling With Them, Leave Them Alone, and Let Them Stand on Their Own

October 26, 2012

“Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us!”

Frederick Douglass, quoted by Clarence Thomas.

Posted by Ann Althouse: http://althouse.blogspot.com/


The following is an excerpt of Clarence Thomas’s Opinion  on an Affrimative Action Case Before the Supreme Court.

[June 23, 2003]

Justice Thomas , with whom Justice Scalia joins as to Parts I–VII, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Frederick Douglass, speaking to a group of abolitionists almost 140 years ago, delivered a message lost on today’s majority:

“[I]n regard to the colored people, there is always more that is benevolent, I perceive, than just, manifested towards us. What I ask for the negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice . The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us… . I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! … And if the negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! … [Y]our interference is doing him positive injury.” What the Black Man Wants: An Address Delivered in Boston, Massachusetts, on 26 January 1865, reprinted in 4 The Frederick Douglass Papers 59, 68 (J. Blassingame & J. McKivigan eds. 1991) (emphasis in original).

Like Douglass, I believe blacks can achieve in every avenue of American life without the meddling of university administrators. Because I wish to see all students succeed whatever their color, I share, in some respect, the sympathies of those who sponsor the type of discrimination advanced by the University of Michigan Law School (Law School). The Constitution does not, however, tolerate institutional devotion to the status quo in admissions policies when such devotion ripens into racial discrimination. Nor does the Constitution countenance the unprecedented deference the Court gives to the Law School, an approach inconsistent with the very concept of “strict scrutiny.”

Read the whole opinion here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/02-241/#writing-ZX1

Oh The Inequity! Oh The Want! Laws! Laws! Laws are Required to Address These Sins!

July 7, 2012

Forbath Lost Me At ‘Laws To Redress Want And Inequity’

Posted on | July 6, 2012 |

by Smitty

American Power links the Grey Lady soiling herself with Commie tripe. Lots of good analysis from Mr. Douglas, but I went non-linear in the second paragraph:

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/

Justice John Roberts Was “Intimidated” By The Left

July 4, 2012

Charles Krauthammer: Justice Roberts Was ‘Intimidated’ By the Left

He nails it.

See Bill O’Reilly’s interview with Charles Krauthammer at RealClearPolitics.

And more here: “Custodian of the Court: Charles Krauthammer Explains Chief Justice John Roberts’ ObamaCare Ruling.”

And in case you haven’t read it yet, here’s the opinion in NFIB v. Sebelius.

The strange news keeps coming out about this. See Owen Kerr at Volokh, “So Now We Have Supreme Court Leaks Disagreeing With the Substance of Other Supreme Court Leaks” (via Memeorandum).

And John Podhoretz thinks Roberts caved to the bullying, “Roberts the Coward“:

Our system grants federal judges lifetime tenure precisely to shield them from political pressure. Of course, the Supreme Court has often fallen short of that ideal. The early 20th century political wit Finley Peter Dunne, writing in the voice of Chicago saloonkeeper Mr. Dooley, famously declared flatly that “the Supreme Coourt follows th’ illiction returns.”

Yet the polls show the unpopularity of ObamaCare, as did the overwhelming results of the election in November 2010 that followed the bill’s passage. So, if Roberts had been following election returns and public opinion, he wouldn’t have hesitated to overturn.

No, he seems to have flip-flopped over worries about the hostility a 5-4 decision overturning ObamaCare would generate among pundits. No, let me be more precise — among liberal pundits like E.J. Dionne and the editorialists at The New York Times.

It seems astonishing that the chief justice of the United States would be motivated by fear of E.J. Dionne and the like.

But there it is. And if this is indeed why the chief justice changed his vote — out of fear of attacks on the court’s legitimacy by scribblers like me — then the court’s legitimacy deserves to be challenged.

What legitimacy does a decision on the most important case of the last decade have if a justice came to it for reasons other than his understanding of the law?

Not to mention that the naked intellectual cynicism on display in the Roberts opinion has satisfied no one.

In her concurring opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg heaps scorn upon it. The dissent by the four conservatives whom Roberts abandoned “deliberately ignored Roberts’ decision,” according to Crawford’s reporting, “as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate.”

That’s sounds overly harsh, actually. Roberts was bullied, but I don’t think it’s immoral that he switched. People change their minds for many reasons. And depending how Team Romney plays it, the Supreme Court might have helped deliver the election to the Republicans. More on that later.

Meanwhile, Ann Althouse argues that Roberts has made it extremely difficult for Democrats to use Commerce Cause powers to expand government going forward: “‘The commentary on John Roberts’s solo walk into the Affordable Care Act wilderness is converging on a common theme: The Chief Justice is a genius’.”

From American Power: http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/

Here a Tax, There a Tax, Everywhere a Tax…

July 2, 2012

As Long As We’re Viewing ObamaCare With Integrity, What About Social Security?

Posted on | July 1, 2012 |

by Smitty

The main reason I figured the SCOTUS was going to find ObamaCare Constitutional was that punting it could open up challenges to the rest of the Progressive project, e.g. Social Security.

Progressivism is antithetical to liberty as we know it. The silver lining crew is attempting to find something good in the Thursday’s whuppin’. And you can re-fight it like a Civil War battle all you like. Whether or not history shows that Roberts gave us the Full Denton doesn’t matter: that’s the decision.

So, instead, let us prove ourselves an exceptional nation. Let’s muster all the patriotic attorneys general, and the great conservative legal minds, and set about saying that a tax is a tax; that godforsaken sacred cow Ponzi scheme known as Social Security is a tax, and send it to the butcher along with ObamaCare.

Who is with me?

Amen. ZTW

From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/

SCOTUS and Obama Have Approved Obamacare – Also Known as The F*#k You Act

June 29, 2012

The State of Things

A few days ago, I suggested a general rule for predicting Supreme Court decisions:

In light of the above examples and the Court’s generally odious history, and if one must engage in fruitless speculation, I suppose one might adopt this rule of thumb: with the subject and questions of the particular case in mind, what is the worst way the Supreme Court can fuck you? Answer that, and you should at least be in the right ballpark.

In this case, the worst way the Supreme Court can fuck each and every one of us is to find the individual mandate constitutional — which is precisely what the Court did.Since I long ago dubbed the health insurance bill The Fuck You Act, it all fits together very neatly.

For the moment, I’ll leave the lengthy exercises in sadomasochism, otherwise known as legal analysis, to others. For those of us favored by Providence to live in the freest, noblest, bestest ever country in this best of all possible worlds, here is how things stand. The following summary rests on a charmingly out of date notion — namely, that once a principle has been established, the rest is only a matter of time and degree. And this principle was not proclaimed for the first time today, although today’s decision states the principle in stark terms which cannot be avoided or minimized.

The State has announced:

You will do exactly as we tell you in every area of your life. You will work as and when we allow you to work, you will spend what little money we allow you to keep as and when we tell you to spend it, you will say what we tell you to say — and if you disagree with us about any of this, you will indicate your disagreement as and when we allow you to. In brief: you will follow orders. Please don’t be tiresome and petulant, telling us this isn’t what you want. We’ve been systematically approaching this end for well over a century. You can hardly claim this is surprising, not if you wish to avoid ridicule. And you might have stopped these developments much earlier — if you’d wanted to. You didn’t want to.

Aw, you’re upset. What are ya gonna do? Not vote? Not pay taxes? Not buy health insurance? Hahahahaha. A few Americans have responded that way in the past when the State acted in ways they viewed as deeply evil. One of your great heroes did. But you don’t want to do that, do you? Of course you don’t. Inconvenient. Might cause trouble. Oh, a few of you respond that way today, but not enough to make a difference. And we know who you are. If we allow you to get away with it, that’s only because you amuse us. And when a few of you object in ways that might actually matter and we let you get away with it (at least temporarily), it allows the rest of you to continue to believe you’re “free.” We love that shit.

So understand this:

The Constitution created a government of, by and for the most wealthy and powerful Americans — and it made certain (insofar as men can make such things certain) that their rule would never be seriously threatened. The most wealthy and powerful Americans were the ones who wrote it, after all.

We emphasize: that is what the Constitution itself accomplished. And you say you’re surprised by subsequent events? You’re making this much too easy. You could at least make it more interesting for us.

Yes, it’s all about us. We talk about how much we care about “ordinary” Americans, and constantly proclaim that everything we do is for their benefit — and some of you actually believe that crap. Christ, you’re funny, in a sickeningly pathetic kind of way.

So you’ll do exactly what we tell you to do, with regard to everything that matters to us. We’re giving you exactly what many of you said you wanted. So shut up and stop being annoying about it.

Oh, there is one more thing. It’s a little thing, and almost none of you seem to have even noticed it. Even after you do everything we tell you to do in every area that we care about, there is something else we still might do. We might do it because we’re in a rotten mood, or because we’re bored, or because we just feel like it. We won’t announce our decision, or tell you anything about how we made the decision. What? You think you have a “right” to know such things? God, you are so funny.

So one day, when you’re going to the job we allow you to keep, or buying something we tell you to buy, or minding your own business in the home we permit you to live in, we might decide to give the order. Maybe just because we feel like it, or because you pissed off the friend of our sister’s husband’s father. For some reason, or for no reason at all, we’ll decide to give the order.

And you’ll be murdered.

There now. Is it all finally clear to you? Now do what we tell you, follow orders — and shut the fuck up.

Found at American Digest: http://americandigest.org/
Original Post in entirety here at Once Upon a Time: http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2012/06/state-of-things.html

Lies Have Nullified the United States Constitution and Obama is The Supreme Liar

June 29, 2012

The Liars Have Triumphed

 By Alan Caruba

The Supreme Court decision on Obamacare confirmed that lies have triumphed over the Constitution.

It also is a reminder that the Supreme Court is a political entity and a human one. Only the Justices who dissented from the majority decision on Obamacare were willing to take the heat. The majority ruled that the individual mandate under the commerce clause was unconstitutional, but gave Obamacare life as a tax.

It was always a tax, but President Obama repeatedly told Americans that it was not until his administration’s lawyers went before the Supreme Court and admitted and argued that it was a tax. The lawyers on the Court agreed, the majority in effect saying that there is no limit to the ability of Congress to tax Americans.

As Politico.com reported: On the losing end of a 5-4 decision, Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said that the entire health care reform law should have been struck down.

They wrote: “The Act before us here exceeds federal power both in mandating the purchase of health insurance and in denying non-consenting states all Medicaid funding. These parts of the Act are central to its design and operation, and all the Act’s other provisions would not have been enacted without them. In our view it must follow that the entire statute is inoperative.”

Obamacare is a blow to state’s rights as sovereign republics.

A fellow blogger, writing under the pseudonym of J.D. Longstreet, warned that “The lesson here is — don’t play around with socialism. You cannot win. It kills its host country every time.”

Not since the Civil War and the more recent 9/11 has America faced a darker day. That day killed nearly three thousand Americans. Today, the fate of more than three hundred million Americans has been sealed. This is particular true of older Americans who, if the law is not repealed, will learn to their dismay that they cannot have essential medical care if bureaucrats conclude it is too costly. Others will die waiting to be admitted to hospitals to mitigate cancers and other life threatening diseases.

It is a death sentence for them. It is a death sentence for America.

There is the prospect that Mitt Romney may secure election to office and that the Republican Party may secure control of the Senate as well as the House. Without question Obamacare along with the economy becomes the central issue of the months leading up to Election Day.

Not a single Republican voted for Obamacare 820 days ago.

The House will vote on a full repeal of Barack Obama’s health care law during the week of July 9, Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said Thursday morning. The scheduling of another repeal vote came less than an hour after the Supreme Court upheld the health care mandate.

This is, however, purely symbolic. The bill will not be taken up in the Democrat-controlled Senate. It would be vetoed if sent to Obama.

Too many with whom I have talked believe that the same Americans who elected Obama in 2008 will reelect him in 2012. He lied his way into office then and it is entirely plausible he will do so again.

America will not survive him if he is reelected. He is truly the Manchurian candidate sent to destroy America.

© Alan Caruba, 2012
Editor’s note: Caruba blogs daily at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/

Daley Gator Has A Take on The SCOTUS Decision

June 28, 2012

ObamaCare: The Supreme Court Has Just Handed Romney The Presidency, But Is He Smart Enough To Take It?

Today’s USSC decision upholding ObamaCare’s individual mandate as constitutional has served one positive purpose, which is to practically guarantee Barack Obama’s defeat in November.

How so? It’s fairly simple, really. You see, Mitt Romney can now run on two major campaign issues, the terrible economy and Obama’s hideous health care law. Frankly, either of these poisoned pills alone would probably be enough to sink Obama’s re-election campaign, but taken together they’re as toxic as the Fukushima nuclear plant.

But Ed, (you ask with your head cocked slightly to one side) how can the guy who brought RomneyCare to Massachusetts reasonably argue that ObamaCare is a bad idea and should be repealed?

Here’s How:

1. RomneyCare is actually legal, even though it’s an anti-free market “solution” to the problem it was designed to solve, and will inevitably destroy the health care system of the Bay State.

ObamaCare is blatantly unconstitutional, despite the recent USSC ruling to the contrary, and anyone with half a brain knows it.

By the way, SHAME ON YOU CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS for siding with the radical leftists of the court in this case. You are all MALIGNANT TUMORS on the neck of our great nation. —

2. RomneyCare – while it is nearly as awful as ObamaCare – was a popular idea among the mostly leftist citizenry of Massachusetts when it was proposed. Suffice it to say that those idiots got exactly what they asked for.

ObamaCare has never been popular among anyone outside of Washington DC, Hollywood and most mainstream media news organizations.

3. RomneyCare doesn’t inflict its stupidity upon the people of any other state.

ObamaCare is a plague on all Americans, and if left unchecked, will lead to the otherwise completely avoidable deaths of countless U.S. citizens.

Simply put, if there is any single issue that can unite right-leaning Americans against the tyranny of the left, this is the one. Traditional conservatives, libertarians and most independents DETEST the very notion of socialized medicine, and the aforementioned Supreme Court decision will unleash a firestorm of revolt among them come election day. After all, it was the ObamaCare debate that fired up average Americans in 2010 and led to the Tea Party-fueled electoral tsunami that swept Republicans back into power in the U.S. House, as well as in state legislatures and governors’ mansions across the country.

From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/

Also keep in mind that all this happened back when the GOP still had a shot at getting Obama’s health care monstrosity overruled by our nation’s highest court. Since that option is no longer on the table, we the people have no alternative but to rid our federal government of every parasitic leftist we possibly can, even if that means replacing some of them with – shall we say – less than hard-right Republicans. To do otherwise is to commit national suicide, and even some Ron Paul supporters are now beginning to recognize that fact.

Mitt – if I may be so bold as to address you by your nickname – all you have to do to win the White House at this point is refrain from saying anything truly stupid or offensive to conservatives, stick to the topics of the economy and ObamaCare, and try to pick a running mate who isn’t as big a RINO as you are. Might I suggest Marco Rubio… or Allen West?

As for you, Barack, you’re political death warrant has just been signed, sealed and delivered by five smarmy, activist lawyers in black robes, and the genuinely comical thing is that you’re too dumb to realize it. While I’m sure the Jurassic press will join you in declaring victory today, I’m equally as certain that the real victors in all this will be the people of this country once they throw your sorry butt out of office and begin the process of retaking their liberties from a degenerate and dictatorial federal government.

So go ahead and gloat over your perceived triumph, Mr. President. Pop the champagne corks and revel in your success. While you’re busy patting yourself on the back, freedom-loving Americans like myself will be actively engaged in undermining every Marxist scheme you devise.

See you in November, jackass.

Justice Kagan – Nothing But a Poseur Placed on The Court By Poseur Obama

April 5, 2012

Justice Kagan has no business being on the Supreme Court…

 and barring some strange occurrence, I will have to listen to this mental midget until I shuffle off this mortal coil.

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’.

From Adrienne’s Corner: http://adriennescatholiccorner.blogspot.com/2012/03/justice-kagan-has-no-business-being-on.html