Category Archives: Supreme Court
Found at Ann Alhouse
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:
Blacks Would Do Better if Everyone Stopped Meddling With Them, Leave Them Alone, and Let Them Stand on Their Own
“Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us!”
The following is an excerpt of Clarence Thomas’s Opinion on an Affrimative Action Case Before the Supreme Court.
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
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/
See Bill O’Reilly’s interview with Charles Krauthammer at RealClearPolitics.
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.”
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’.”
Posted on | July 1, 2012 |
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?
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
The State of Things
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.
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.
There now. Is it all finally clear to you? Now do what we tell you, follow orders — and shut the fuck up.
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.
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?
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 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’.