Tag Archives: Supreme Court

Q. Why do the Democrats call for an FBI investigation?

A. So they can stall Supreme Court candidate indefinitely.

Note: It is more than 1.5 years into the Trump presidency, and the Democrats continue to spend taxpayer money on an FBI witch hunt for “Russian Collusion” in the 2016 election where the only guilty parties are Democrats.

In the hearings it was clear that all the Democrats were reading off one script. That script was, “Look how serious these charges are! Don’t you think you should request an FBI investigation, Judge Kavanaugh?!!!”

(Implied: Only a guilty party would refuse an FBI investigation.)

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

A Tweet For Brett Kavanaugh

“Like a fluttering sparrow or a darting swallow, an undeserved curse will not land on its intended victim.” – Proverbs 26:2

This proverb came to mind today regarding the accusations against our latest Supreme Court nominee. It’s not a well researched article…

just a little tweet.

And now another tweet:

“In a lawsuit the first to speak seems right, until someone comes forward and cross-examines.” – Proverbs 18:17

We’ve seen the first round of activity. Whether she is truthful or not, the accuser is great at sounding like an innocent victim. One would have to be heartless to have no sympathy, if she’s telling the truth.

So now as someone cross-examines her, we may discover things that are not as they were presented.

I am personally convinced she is lying. But what if her allegation is true? What then? Then we have been spared the grief of adding another pervert to the Supreme Court. A number of years ago we got the sad news that Barack Obama was elected president. Only in recent years did we learn just how bad a president John McCain would have been. He would have likely committed the same evils as Obama, but disguised as a Conservative. This might have put the Democrats firmly into the driver seat for a very long time.

 

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

The Senate Just Became A Democracy. Harry Reid And The Nuclear Option.

Harry and the Boys just crossed a 200 year old line in the sand.

What’s that you say we are a Democracy? Nope sorry , but we are a
Constitutional Republic/ Federal Republic depending on who you ask. The difference is in a Democracy the Majority/Mob rules. A simple majority.
In other words Mob rules. Here’s an example.
You have 100 people 60 Men and 40 Women.
Certain Men want to rape the Women and they keep voting on it , but they keep losing by a vote of 59-41. So they can not rape.
Now simple rule change and “Democracy/Mob Rule” they vote and it is now 51-49 Men win and get to rape Women. Do you now see why it was important to keep the vote at 60.

But Karma is a Bitch and after 2014 the Demtards will have to pay the piper.

Legal expert says Senate Dems’ nuclear option could lead to ‘mass destruction’

Published November 21, 2013

FoxNews.com
 [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i548245_hBU]Jay Sekulow, the Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice , told Fox NewsMegyn Kelly Thursday Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid’s decision to invoke the so-called “nuclear option” could change the face of the federal judiciary, saying “when you use a nuclear weapon there is mass destruction.”
Sekulow said on “The Kelly File” the Senate decision to approve a rule change that strips the minority party of its primary power to block nominations could be a slippery slope.
“I think Supreme Court nominees aren’t going to be off the table either, I don’t think legislation is off the table,” Sekulow said. “I think what Harry did today was use the nuclear option and Megyn, when you use a nuclear weapon there is mass destruction.”
He said Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, Obama appointees considered to be very liberal, could seem moderate in comparison to future appointees in other federal courts.
(Yikes!)  s_shocked-15
“The president said he wants to remake the federal judiciary and you can imagine the image in which that is going to be remade,” he said.
However, Sekulow said the Democrats’ move may backfire, because Republicans will be able to do the same when they regain the majority in the chamber and there is a Republican in the White House.
“The fact of the matter is they need to play tough too because it is good for both, this is not a one-way ratchet here,” he said.

~Steve~
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/21/legal-expert-says-senate-dems-nuclear-option-could-lead-to-mass-destruction/
 

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Do The Police Have An Obligation To Protect You If They Are Witnessing You Being Assaulted?

Your not going to like this answer, but it is no. Follow with me as this gets a bit complicated. First part is part of a story telling us about Joe Lozito and what happened to him in NY. second part is the reason for the decision. all the way to scotus . Finally there is a You-Tube of Joe talking with Reporter about case. Kinda long at 9:00 Just interesting , but not NECESSARY.

"To umm and serve"

“To umm and serve”

City says cops had no duty to protect subway hero who subdued killer

  • By KATHIANNE BONIELLO
  • Last Updated: 5:56 PM, February 1, 2013
  • Posted: 1:03 AM, January 27, 2013

He says he put his life on the line to stop a killer — and claims cops sat back and watched.
But city lawyers are arguing that the police had no legal duty to protect Joseph Lozito, the Long Island dad stabbed seven times trying to subdue madman Maksim Gelman — a courtroom maneuver the subway hero calls “disgraceful.”
A judge is currently deciding whether Lozito,
( She decided and he lost. Second Part of post will Explain )
who sued the city last year for failing to prevent the attack, will get his day in court.
The drug-fueled Gelman had fatally stabbed three people in Brooklyn and killed another with a car during a 28-hour rampage when he entered an uptown No. 3 train on Feb. 12, 2011.
Police officers Terrance Howell and Tamara Taylor were part of a massive NYPD manhunt. They were in the operator’s cab, watching the tracks between Penn Station and 42nd Street for any sign of the fugitive. Lozito was seated next to the cab.
In the official NYPD account and Howell’s own affidavit, Howell heroically tackled and subdued the killer. But Lozito tells a different story.
The 42-year-old mixed-martial-arts fan says he watched Gelman approach the cab window, barking: “Let me in!” Gelman even claimed to be a cop, but a dismissive Howell turned away, he says.
Gelman walked off. A straphanger recognizing Gelman tried to alert the cops, but was also rebuffed. A minute later, Gelman returned and set his sights on the 6-foot-2, 270-pound Lozito.
“You’re going to die,” Gelman announced — then stabbed him in the face.
Lozito leapt from his seat and lunged at the 23-year-old Gelman as the psycho sliced at him.
“Most of my wounds are in the back of my head,” Lozito said. “He got to the back of my head because my left shoulder [was] in his waist.”
In his account, Lozito pinned Gelman to the floor, disarming him. Howell then emerged from the booth, tapping Lozito’s shoulder: “You can get up now,” he said.
“By the time he got there, the dirty work was already done,” Lozito said.
Gelman was convicted in the spree — which left his girlfriend, her mother, his stepfather and a pedestrian dead, and five others injured.
Lozito says a grand-jury member later told him Howell admitted on the stand that he hid during the attack because he thought Gelman had a gun.

did we get that part. Cop was afraid because he thought psycho had a gun.

Rest of this story HERE!!

OK, now for the Decision. Chilling.

Joe Lozito, New York City, the Supreme Court, and Martial Law

 March 12, 2013
On February 12, 2011, Joe Lozito was stabbed seven times by serial killer Maksim Gelman and successfully halted Gelman’s killing spree.  Two New York City police officers initially watched the scuffle without intervening.  Now, the connection between Joe Lozito, New York City, the Supreme Court, and martial law is in the spotlight.
Last year, Joe Lozito filed a civil suit against the New York City Police Department, alleging that the police officers failed to come to his aid. The City of New York countered, saying that the police have no duty to protect citizensand has filed a motion to dismiss the case.

Supreme Court Says NYPD Not Obligated

Before you join the outraged buzzing going on in social media, you should know that the City of New York is right.
That each person is responsible for his own defense against criminals has long been the law in the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court implied this in 1856, when it decided South v. Maryland, and held that a sheriff did not have a duty to protect an ordinary person, but only had a duty generally to uphold the Law. More recently, in Castle Rock vs. Gonzales, the Court reaffirmed that the government has no duty to protect the average person.
In these cases, and the others like them, the Supreme Court has indirectly upheld and re-affirmed Americans’ private and personal right to keep and to bear arms for self-defense purposes in accordance with recognition of citizens’ inalienable right so protected by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  For all practical purposes, the Constitution and existing case law implies that Americans are tasked with protecting and defending themselves, as the only duty of law enforcement is to keep the peace by upholding the law.

Will the Police Protect YOU?

Given the rampant speculation that the United States government may be in the process of declaring martial law, the relationship between Joe Lozito, New York City, the Supreme Court, and martial law may push those who have maintained trust in the Federal government finally into “conspiracy mode.” The police have no duty to protect American citizens, and may even now be training in preparation to disarm us.
We cannot reasonably expect to be protected or defended by law enforcement.  We can, however, expect police and other law enforcement agencies to “uphold the law.” If suppression of civil liberties becomes the “law,” will you uphold your duty?
https://americanlivewire.com/joe-lozito-new-york-city-martial-law/

So let’s sum this up shall we. Basically as always when seconds count, a cop is always minutes away. And now he just may watch. Do you need anymore reasons to take your own safety into your own hands?   Thought not.

~Steve~

Joe Lozito

Joe Lozito

Officially The NYPD Has No Duty to Protect & Serve

[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbLpDQ-7BwY]
 

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Will Chief Justice John Roberts be blackmailed (again) to rule in favor of same-sex marriage?

Today is the second day of the Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) deliberations on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act and, by implication, of same-sex marriage.
I woke up to a network TV reporter intoning that SCOTUS’s decision will hang on two justices: Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts.
God help us.
Recall that Chief Justice John Roberts was the critical vote that accounted for SCOTUS’s ruling in favor of Obamacare last June, by upholding the most controversial part of the “health care” law — individual mandate. SCOTUS’s “reasoning” was that the Individual Mandate is a tax, and it is within Congress’ power to tax (and spend).
Roberts’ vote on the side of the leftist justices came as a rude surprise to Conservatives. By all accounts, Obamacare was set to be defeated. Five of the conservative justices had even prepared a majority opinion against Obamacare, until one of them — John Roberts — at the 11th hour,  changed his mind, and switched his vote. The formerly majority opinion had to be quickly re-written as a minority dissent.
Roberts’ 11th-hour abrupt switch confounded everyone. Why would an alleged “strict constructionist” who ought to favor limiting governmental power in favor of individual choice, turn into the fifth and deciding vote for Obamacare, which is already changing the United States as we’ve known it. And at the last minute?

Roberts2L to r: John, Jack, Jane, Josie Roberts, Oct. 3, 2005. Do those kids look Latin American to you?

A Huffington Post article in 2012 claimed that “a source close to the Roberts family, who requested anonymity in order to discuss judicial deliberations, told HuffPo that the justice’s wife, Jane, exercises a ‘heavy influence’ over her husband.” Jane Sullivan Roberts is described by Lisa McElroy, author of the biography John Roberts: Chief Justice, as “a very intelligent and high-powered lawyer in her own right.”
Below is an account of what could have led John Roberts to switch betray. (Note: The essay is quite long and should be relegated to the realm of unconfirmed rumors.) Briefly, the contention is that Roberts was blackmailed to switch his vote because he and his wife had illegally adopted two infants from Ireland. The Roberts children are now 12 to 13 years old.
According to a 2009 article in Irish America, John and Jane Roberts are part-owners of a little cottage in Knocklong County Limerick, Ireland, not far from Jane’s mother’s home place in Charleville on the Limerick/Cork border. John Roberts is also of Irish stock, as well as Welsh and Czech.
Since both John and Jane Roberts are practicing Catholics, and the Catholic Church is most decidedly against same-sex marriage (notwithstanding the heretical stance of “liberal” nuns and priests), if Roberts casts his lot in favor of same-sex marriage, it will lend credence to the blackmail rumor.
The following (long) article was first posted on LibertyCaucus.net, and then republished by other sites. (Warning: If you go to the LibertyCaucus.net link, you’ll get a red “Dangerous Site” message from McAfee.)
~Eowyn

Hi 5sRoberts swearing in the POS a second time in 2009

How Roberts Was Blackmailed To Support ObamaCare
Many of us have questioned what caused Roberts  to switch his vote on ObamaCare at the last minute, as reported by CBS, and doing so,  so late that the Conservative Justices were forced to rewrite their majority opinion to be minority dissent. These facts may answer that question.
In 2000 Justice Roberts and his wife Jane adopted two children. Initially it was apparent that the adoptions were “from a Latin American country”, but over time it has become apparent that the adopted children were not Latin American, but were Irish.  Why this matters will become evident.
In 2005 the NY Times began investigating Roberts life as a matter of his nomination to the Supreme Court by George Bush.  The Times was shortly accused of trying to unseal the adoption papers and intending to violate  the anonymity of the adoption process… however there is more to the story.
Drudge did an article in 2005
https://patterico.com/2005/08/04/drudge-says-new-york-times-is-investigating-robertss-adoption-records/

The NEW YORK TIMES is looking into the adoption records of the children of Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.The TIMES has investigative reporter Glen Justice hot on the case to investigate the status of adoption records of Judge Roberts’ two young children, Josie age 5 and Jack age 4, a top source reveals.Judge Roberts and his wife Jane adopted the children when they each were infants.
Both children were adopted from Latin America.
A TIMES insider claims the look into the adoption papers are part of the paper’s “standard background check.”
Bill Borders, NYT senior editor, explains: “Our reporters made initial inquiries about the adoptions, as they did about many other aspects of his background. They did so with great care, understanding the sensitivity of the issue.”

Were the Children Adopted from Ireland?
This is not clear … — the Associated Press reports that they were “adopted from Latin America.” This seems a bit puzzling, in light of the Time magazine report indicating that the children were born in Ireland. Also, their blonde hair and fair skin do not seem conventionally Latin American.1
TIME had a “web exclusive” on the Roberts’s (7/24/05) and quoted a family friend as stating the kids were “born in Ireland 4 1/2 months apart.”
How were the Children Adopted?
According to The New York Times, based on information from Mrs. Roberts’s sister, Mary Torre, the children were adopted through a private adoption.
As explained by Families for Private Adoption, “[p]rivate (or independent) adoption is a legal method of building a family through adoption without using an adoption agency for placement. In private adoption, the birth parents relinquish their parental rights directly to the adoptive parents, instead of to an agency.”2
But was Robert’s adoption utilizing “a legal method”?
Apparently the process of adopting Jack involved some stress for John Roberts. According to Dan Klaidman of Newsweek, during the contested 2000 election, Roberts “spent a few days in Florida advising lawyers [for George W. Bush] on their legal strategy,” but “he did not play a central role,” because ” at the time, Roberts was preoccupied with the adoption of his son.”
It is now quite evident that the two Children were from Ireland.  Even wikipedia references these adoptions at the time of Roberts’ confirmation, and indicates that the children were of Irish birth.
However Irish law 1) prohibits the adoption of Children to non-residents, and 2) also does not permit private adoptions, but rather has all adoptions go through a public agency.
This would explain the children’s origin from a “Latin American country”, so as to circumvent Irish law.
Evidently Roberts arranged for this adoption through some sort of trafficking agency, that got the children out of Ireland and into that Latin American country, from which they were adopted, thereby circumventing two Irish laws — entirely illegal, but perhaps quasi-legitimized by the birth mothers (two) transporting the children out of Ireland.
Undoubtedly Roberts and his wife spent a great deal of money for this illegal process, circumventing Irish laws and arranging for the transit of two Irish children from separate birth-mothers to a foreign nation.  Come 2012, those two children have been with the Roberts’ for roughly 10 years, since they were adopted as “infants”.
Some might feel an impulse dismiss this information, mistakenly believing Roberts and his wife were doing a good thing for a children needing a home.
That would be an inaccurate belief.  As recognized, such an inter-country adoption would only come about at great cost, and those who utilize this method are creating a for-profit black market in adoptive children, trafficking across international borders, and doing so from mothers who have not yet given up  their children except for that profit.  Such actions are creating a very unsavory profit-for-children human trafficking market that even necessitates immediate contact with new birth mothers in dire circumstances to offer financial gain. The entire arrangement is thoroughly predatory, turning children into only financial commodity,  and even providing motivation for their birth mothers to give them up! That’s an important ethical recognition.
Roberts is not deserving of any sort of respect here, and is only the latest example of people in position believing themselves above the law, beyond scrutiny and exempt from repercussion.
It all now makes sense.
The circumstances of these two adoptions explain not only why this would be overlooked by an overall sympathetic media, but also why a sitting Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court would not want this information to become public fodder well into his tenure.  Its release and public discussion would discredit Roberts as an impartial judge of the law, and undoubtedly  lead to his impeachment.
This also explains why Roberts would have a means to be blackmailed, and why that leverage would still exist even after the institution of ObamaCare.
… And it has led to flipping the swing-vote on ObamaCare, which fundamentally changed the relationship between citizen and government, making us de facto property of the state, with our relative worth in care and maintenance able to be determined by the government.  Essentially it was a coup without firing a shot, much less needing even an Amendment to the Constitution.
And it is consistent with Obama’s Chicago-style politics, that has previously involved opening other sealed <divorce> records in order to win election.

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Holder responds to 5th Court of Appeals: Obama screwed up

In order to better protect and secure the rights and liberties of the people, our brilliant Founding Fathers designed a government of separated powers.
Government power would be divided and dispersed among three branches — the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial — each with its separate charges and functions. Our Founders envisioned the result of the Separation of Powers would be Checks and Balance of government.
The head of the Judicial Branch of government is the Supreme Court. Unlike the Executive Branch (the White House, the Cabinet, and constituent offices and departments), the Supreme Court does not actually administer or govern the affairs of state. Unlike the Legislative Branch (Congress), the Supreme Court does not legislate, that is, make laws.
It is to the Supreme Court that the U.S. Constitution entrusts the signal tasks of interpreting the letter and spirit of the Constitution, and reviewing the constitutionality of the actions of the Executive Branch and the laws passed by the Legislative Branch. That review is called “judicial review.”
The term “judicial activism” refers to when the Supreme Court oversteps the boundaries of “judicial review” and begins legislating — making laws.
On April 2, 2012, Barack Obama took the unprecedented step of preemptively commenting on the Supreme Court’s review of the constitutionality of his signature health care law — before the Court has even issued a ruling.
Obama said if “an unelected body,” the Court, were to overturn his Obamacare — a law that was passed by “a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress” — such a move is both “unprecedented” and an example of “judicial activism”.
The next day, a three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals told the Department of Justice (DOJ) it has until Thursday to clarify Obama’s comments, specifically to explain whether the Obama administration believes the courts have the right to strike down a federal law.
Here’s the full text of DOJ’s letter, written by Attorney General Eric Holder, provided online by Fox News’ Insider. To read Holder’s letter in PDF, click here.

Judge Jerry E. Smith
Judge Emilio M. Garza
Judge Leslie H. Southwick
c/o Mr. Lyle W. Cayce

April 5, 2012
Clerk, United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
600 S. Maestri Place
ew Orleans, LA 70130
RE: Phvsician Hospitals o[America v. Sebelius. No. 11-40631

Dear Judge Smith, Judge Garza, and Judge Southwick:

This Court’s letter of April 3, 2012 requested a response to questions raised at oral argument in this case, Physician Hospitals of America v. Sebelius, No. 11-4063 1. From the electronic recording of the argument, I understand the Court to have requested the views of the Department of Justice regarding judicial review of the constitutionality of Acts of Congress. The Court indicated that its inquiry was prompted by recent statements of the President.

The longstanding, historical position of the United States regarding judicial review of the constitutionality of federal legislation has not changed and was accurately stated by counsel for the government at oral argument in this case a few days ago. The Department has not in this litigation, nor in any other litigation of which I am aware, ever asked this or any other Court to reconsider or limit long-established precedent concerning judicial review of the constitutionality of federal legislation.

The government’s brief cites jurisdictional bars to the instant suit and urges that plaintiffs’ constitutional claims are insubstantial. See Appellee Br. of the United States at 17-38. At no point has the government suggested that the Court would lack authority to review plaintiffs’ constitutional claims if the Court were to conclude that jurisdiction exists. The case has been fully briefed and argued, and it is ready for disposition. The question posed by the Court regarding judicial review does not concern any argument made in the government’s brief or at oral argument in this case, and this letter should not be regarded as a supplemental brief.

1. The power of the courts to review the constitutionality of legislation is beyond dispute. See generally, e.g. , Free Ente1prise Fund v. Public Co. Accounting Oversight Bd. , 130 S. Ct. 3138 (20 10); FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307 (1993). The Supreme Court resolved this question in Marbwy v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177-78 ( 1803). In that case, Case: 11-40631 Document: 00511812922 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/05/2012 the Court held that ” [i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marbury, 1 Cranch at 177.

The Supreme Court has further explained that this power may only be exercised in appropriate cases. “If a dispute is not a proper case or controversy, the courts have no business deciding it, or expounding the law in the course of doing so.” Daim/erChJys/er C01p. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 341 (2006); see, e.g., Weinberger v. Sa/fi, 422 U.S. 749, 763-766 (1975) (addressing a statutory bar to jurisdiction). In the case before this Court – Physician Hospitals of America v. Sebe/ius, o. 11-40631 -we have argued that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case. See Appellee Br. of the United States at 15-38.

Where a plaintiff properly invokes the jurisdiction of a court and presents a justifiable challenge, there is no dispute that courts properly review the constitutionality of Acts of Congress.

2. In considering such challenges, Acts of Congress are “presumptively constitutional,” Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 507 U.S. 1301, 1301 (1993), and the Supreme Court stressed that the presumption of constitutionality accorded to Acts of Congress is “strong.” United States v. Five Gambling Devices Labeled in Part .. Mills,and Bearing Serial Nos. 593-221,346 U.S. 441 , 449 (1953); see, e.g., Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 28 (2005) (noting that the “congressional judgment” at issue was “entitled to a strong presumption of validity”). The Supreme Court has explained: “This is not a mere polite gesture. It is a deference due to deliberate judgment by constitutional majorities of the two Houses of Congress that an Act is within their delegated power or is necessary and proper to execution of that power.” Five Gambling Devices Labeled in Part .. Mills,” and Bearing Serial Nos. 593-221, 346 U.S. at 449. In light of the presumption of constitutionality, it falls to the party seeking to overturn a federal law to show that it is clearly unconstitutional. See, e.g., Salazar v. Buono, 130 S. Ct. 1803 , 1820 (20 1 0) (“Respect for a coordinate branch of Government forbids striking down an Act of Congress except upon a clear showing of unconstitutionality.”); Beach Communications, Inc. , 508 U.S. at314-15.

3. While duly recognizing the courts’ authority to engage in judicial review, the Executive Branch has often urged courts to respect the legislative judgments of Congress. See, e.g. , Nature ‘s Daily. v. Glickman, 1999 WL 158 1396, at *6; State University of New York v. Anderson, 1999 WL 680463, at *6; Rojas v. Fitch, 1998 WL 457203, at *7; United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 75i v. Brown Group, 1995 WL 938594, at *6. The Supreme Court has often acknowledged the appropriateness of reliance on the political branches’ policy choices and judgments. See, e.g., Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New Eng., 546 U.S. 320, 329 (2006) (explaining that, in granting relief, the courts ‘·try not to nullify more of a legislature’s work than is necessary” because they recognize that’” [a] ruling of unconstitutionality frustrates the intent of the elected representatives of the people’”(alteration in the original) (quoting Regan v. Time, inc. , 468 U.S. 641, 652 (1984) (plurality opinion))); Turner Broadcasting System, inc., 512 U.S. at 665-66. The “Court accords ‘ great The “Court accords ‘ great weight to the decisions of Congress”‘ in part because “[t]he Congress is a coequal branch of government whose Members take the same oath [judges] do to uphold the Constitution of the United States.” Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57,64 (1981) (quoting Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94, 102 (1973)). These principles of deference are fully applicable when Congress legislates in the commercial sphere. The courts accord particular deference when evaluating the appropriateness of the means Congress has chosen to exercise its enumerated powers, including the Commerce Clause, to accomplish constitutional ends. See, e.g. , NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 32 (1937); McCulloch v. Matyland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 408 (1819). See also Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, 651 F.3d 529, 566 (6th Cir. 20 11) (Opinion of Sutton, J.); Seven Sky v. Holder, 661 F.3d 1, 18-19 (D.C. Cir. 201 1) (Opinion of Silberman, J.)

The President’s remarks were fully consistent with the principles described herein.
[Filed and served via ECF]

Sincerely,
Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General

Case: 11-40631 Document: 00511812922 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/05/2012

Translated into ordinary English, Holder’s letter confirms that:

  • Judicial review is the unique constitutional responsibility of the Supreme Court;
  • It is not “judicial activism” for the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of any act of Congress; and
  • Barack Obama’s accusation that the Supreme Court’s judicial review of Obamacare is improper and constitutes a case of “judicial activism” was out of line.

Translated into even more understandable English, what Holder is saying is “I know the bastard screwed up but you and I both know what the law is.”
His former law student is dismayed at Obama’s entirely improper use of the term “judicial activism”. Read his essay here.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Big Brother is watching you via social media

Fellowship of the Minds is delighted to have a guest writer today.
Her name is Fiona Causer, who describes herself as “a student pursuing her bachelor’s degree in Legal Studies. She enjoys writing and seeks to use it as a vehicle to convey ideas and engage others in discussing relevant issues of our day.”
I’m impressed by the quality of her writing — lucid, fluid, and displaying a mastery over the English language which, in my experience, few college undergraduates have. I’m even more impressed by her political awareness and sure instincts. Fiona gives me hope for America’s future.
~Eowyn

Social Media: A Step Towards a Big Brother State

by Fiona Causer
While some people fear the intrusion of employers and potential employers into the world of social media, others know the real issue is far bigger: The intrusion of federal, state and local government agencies into social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter.
Law programs and paralegal certification curricula that focus on privacy law maintain a strong emphasis on the Bill of Rights, namely the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and an American’s right to speak freely without fear of government persecution. But currently, it appears the interpretation of that Constitutional right is being blurred. George Orwell’s dystopic vision of Big Brother is puny when compared to the technology available today to government bureaucrats, which can and are used against innocent American citizens who simply want to share pictures of their grandchildren and an occasional political opinion.
Think it’s far-fetched that government employees are monitoring Facebook posts and Twitter tweets?
Think again.
According to an article in The Washington Post, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) obtained a copy of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) materials related to monitoring social media. Ginger McCall, director of EPIC’s open government program, said in the article, “The language in the documents makes it quite clear that they are looking for media reports that are critical of the agency and the U.S. government more broadly. This is entirely outside of the bounds of the agency’s statutory duties and it could have a substantial chilling effect on legitimate dissent and freedom of speech.”
The New York Times report on a 2011 reference guide for DHS analysts provides further evidence of the government’s intrusion into private lives, including a list of categories of “items of interest” that will trigger a DHS report of an individual’s social media activity. Among the categories is discussion of “policy directives, debates and implementations related to DHS.” In other words, individuals interested in having an online discussion about DHS policies are in danger of being reported to the government.
The DHS manual also lists keywords that DHS bureaucrats are searching for when they peruse Twitter feeds and Facebook posts. While DHS representatives claim the key words are primarily related to natural disasters or problems with long airport security lines, the manual lists far more inclusive terms such as “China, cops, hacking, illegal immigrants, Iran, Iraq, marijuana, organized crime, police, pork and radicals.” In other words, beware of discussing solutions to the problem of illegal immigration or posting a harmless recipé for a pulled pork sandwich!
Social media monitoring isn’t limited just to DHS. In fact, the FBI plans to monitor Facebook and Twitter as well as online blogs using keyword searches, too. Some of the keywords the FBI plans to search for include “white powder, suspicious package, lock down, bomb, active shoot, and school lock down”, according to an article on itbusiness.ca.
What happened to the U.S. Constitution’s protection for American citizens? Private citizens and civil liberties groups are rightfully concerned about the impact of these new governmental snooping into social media.
The First Amendment to the Constitution protects freedom of speech and of the press. One is hard pressed to find in the First Amendment justification for government bureaucrats reading blog posts, Facebook posts and Tweets.
The Fourth Amendment gives Americans the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,against unreasonable searches and seizures.” When government snoops into our social media — our technological online homes — that should be construed as a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
All this is yet another sign that rapidly changing technology is outpacing our political institutions. The Founding Fathers and the Constitution they crafted did not anticipate our 21st century world of Facebook, Twitter, stem cells, biometric IDs, and radical transhuman bio-engineering.
In the end, tasked by the Constitution with that responsibility, the Supreme Court will need to step in and weigh in. Until the nine justices do that, We the People must be aware of Big Brother’s prying eyes, and exercise due caution and prudence in our online activities.

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Update: Agenda 21- Sacketts v EPA

Mike Sackett, who terms the battle “David versus Goliath,” said at the Supreme Court Monday, “Property owners have their right to their day in court, and the EPA has to be subject to the rule of law.”
He says the couple’s lot sits in a residential neighborhood with sewer lines and homes built all around. The EPA maintains that experts have found wetlands on the lot.
The Natural Resources Defense Council, writing a brief in support of the EPA, said that the Sacketts “should not be rewarded for failing to utilize the multiple administrative processes that they could (and should) have followed to achieve a resolution of their concerns.”
In Monday’s hearing, Justice Elena Kagan questioned why the Sacketts didn’t simply file for a wetlands permit. “Couldn’t you have gotten the legal determination that you wanted through that process?” Attorneys for the Sacketts say the process would be exceptionally costly and time-consuming, especially when they maintain that there is no need for such a permit because their lot doesn’t contain wetlands.
A number of the Justices seemed empathetic to the Sacketts’ argument that, without the ability to sue in federal court, they’d essentially be left with no real way to challenge the EPA’s order or threatened fines.
Justice Samuel Alito asked Justice Department attorney Malcolm Stewart, “Don’t you think most ordinary homeowners would say this kind of thing can’t happen in the United States?
A decision is expected by June.

~LTG
Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Agenda 21: Sackett v EPA Case on Supreme Court Docket Tomorrow

[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0lJ5bR66zc]
In 2005 Mike and Chantell Sackett purchased a vacant lot in a fully built-out portion of property along the shores of Priest Lake, in northern Idaho, with the ideas of building a modest 3-bedroom home. In 2007, they started work, but were forced to stop when the EPA claimed they were filling a wetland without a permit.

Idaho wetlands fight lands in Supreme Court

An Idaho couple’s dream home will be the center of a legal storm Monday at the Supreme Court.
For homebuilders, farmers and major corporations, the case called Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency resonates well beyond one person’s ambitions or even the wetlands protections specifically at issue. Business groups reckon the case can help roll back federal regulations along a broader front.
“The Clean Water Act has, in short, become a tool for regulators to micromanage even the most routine decisions of farmers and ranchers,” attorney Mark Stancil wrote in a brief filed for the American Farm Bureau Federation.    Full Story
~LTG

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

545 Spending Monkeys

[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w35yYpOp2MI]
~~LTG

Please follow and like us:
error0