First reactions

A few quick observations on the Supreme Court decision requiring people to purchase health care, as we attempt to analyze the entire ruling:

1.  Since according to Chief Justice John Roberts this is apparently a "tax" (even though the administration argued repeatedly and vociferously that it wasn't one), President Obama is now guilty of breaking yet another campaign promise, this one to "not raise one dime" the taxes of people making under $250,000:

"The high court's ruling leaves in place 21 tax increases in the health-care law costing more than $675 billion over the next 10 years, according to the House Ways and Means Committee. Of those, 12 tax hikes would affect families earning less than $250,000 per year, the panel said, including a “Cadillac tax” on high-cost insurance plans, a tax on insurance providers, and an excise tax on medical device manufacturers." 

But who's counting?

2.  Be careful of what you wish for, supporters of the President.  One day someone you may not agree with politically will be in the Oval Office, and then what will you do when he or she unilaterally decides to quit enforcing certain of the nation's laws with which they don't agree, and/or requires you to purchase something you don't wish to own or participate in an activity in which you have no interest?  We're sure you won't be so deliriously happy when the dictatorial shoe is on the other foot. 

3. Speaking of delirium, to DNC Executive Director Patrick Gaspard, as well as the liberal "friend" who texted us at 7:45 a.m. this morning to rub our faces in the decision: way to keep it classy, folks. Your maturity level astounds us.

4.  Donations are apparently absolutely pouring in to the RNC and the Romney campaign today.  Romney is certainly not our ideal or even preferred candidate, but our country's status as the freest nation on earth will simply not survive another Obama term.  This November is it.

5.  Yes, health care for all is a noble goal and we certainly don't wish anyone to suffer needlessly.  This way of going about it, though, goes against everything our country supposedly stands for and further erodes individual and state liberties in favor of an all-powerful central government, something the Founders were adamant should not be allowed to happen.  Again, the upcoming election will decide for good one way or another the direction of this country.

Taking their ball and going home

"The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police."

(Washington Times)

This is a proudly raised middle finger to America by the feds in direct response to today's Supreme Court ruling allowing law enforcement officers to attempt to ascertain the immigration status of people already being investigated for other offenses whom they reasonably believe are in the country illegally.  For instance, resident aliens under current Federal law must have their immigration papers with them at all times.  Why is it so wrong, then, for police to investigate why someone given a ticket for a traffic violation or accident has no driver's license or ID that any normal citizen must produce, along with other indicators of unlawful immigration status?

Once again, as we have seen in so many other arenas (Defense of Marriage Act, internet gambling, marijuana, voter intimidation laws and unilaterally granting waivers to No Child Left Behind, among others), the Obama administration has basically abrogated its responsibility to enforce the laws on the books, this time by refusing to respond to calls for service from local police agencies who arrest illegal immigrants for committing other crimes.

We vehemently disagree with most of these statutes; the fact remains, however, that they are valid laws until repealed by Congress or stuck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and thus must be enforced the same as any other rule.  Otherwise one rapidly experiences anarchy and chaos, which on second thought is probably exactly what Mr. Obama wants.  That way he gets to swoop in and make up even more fanciful policies all on his own to ostensibly "clean up the mess", just like any other good tyrant.

Why I carry a handgun for protection, Vol. 52

Because of events just like what happened today, when the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the state of California to immediately release upwards of 46,000 inmates, many of whom are violent felons, due to overcrowding in the mismanaged prison system there.

"[Dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia] added that 'terrible things are sure to happen as a consequence of this outrageous order.' Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with him."

We of course want prisoners to be treated humanely, but there's got to be a better solution to this crisis than simply opening the prison gates and letting so many predators back out among the law-abiding populace to once again wreak their mayhem.

California is one of the few states left that unfairly refuses to issue handgun carry permits to most law-abiding citizens, reserving that "privilege" for special persons such as Dianne Feinstein (virulently anti-gun politician for everyone else but her) and Sean Penn (rich and famous celebrity who has a long and violent police record, including an arrest for felony domestic assault).  That's too bad, because it certainly appears as if those innocent residents are going to need all the help they can get in very short order.

A win for the Constitution

"Supreme Court: anti-gay funeral picketers allowed"

The right decision, of course.  Even homophobic jackasses enjoy the right of free speech in America.  First Amendment protections generally aren't needed for polite talk that everyone loves listening to.

Here's an idea - maybe some of the many people on whom this bully church enjoys picking should go picket them for a change.

The very real problems directly caused by unchecked illegal immigration

A faithful reader calls our attention to the story of an illegal immigrant and career troublemaker (which includes hard time in Illinois and Texas for killing people) who has been deported to Mexico at least three times (but not after his manslaughter and murder convictions, oddly enough), yet somehow manages to still be here in this country causing mayhem, most recently in Minnesota for a large amount of such lovely offenses as felony assault, indecent exposure and DWI.

"Federal and local officials acknowledge that they don't know why he's been allowed to stay despite so many run-ins with the law."

(Duh, don't ask us.  We're instead far too busy busting law-abiding people for such "crimes" as haplessly ending up in New Jersey with their checked luggage [which included properly-declared firearms and ammunition] after their airline strands them there.  The traveler, Greg Revell, spent ten days in jail after simply trying to check his bags back in at the Newark airport the next morning. 

The Supreme Court has decreed that Revell may not sue the Port Authority over the incident.  Lesson learned - don't accept your luggage from baggage claim if you're not at your proper destination, but instead let the airlines handle the issue.  And stay out of New Jersey at all costs.  They don't deserve your vacation dollars.)

Anyway, back to the matter at hand.  Mario Montalban-Ramirez has now finally been federally charged with illegal entry after deportation and he faces up to 20 years in prison for his decades of thumbing his nose at American society.  Just imagine the sheer amount of nonsense that would have been avoided had he been so charged for his being here unlawfully back in 1997 and 2003, the last two times he was tossed out of the country.

We reiterate - the vast majority of illegal immigrants do not commit crimes on the level of murder, assault and serial DWI.  But this one has (and shows no signs of ever stopping) without much at all in the way of sanction, and his case illustrates that our "leaders" need to take the vexing problem of illegal immigration much more seriously than they have to date. 

Until we get a handle on our sieve-like border and identify and figure out a way to return to their home countries the people who jumped the line and are already here in violation of our laws, irritating societal warts like Montalban-Ramirez will continue to come here to prey upon and injure innocent citizens and legal residents.  Demand your representatives fix the problem.

Hallelujah

As you've no doubt heard by now, federal judge Henry E. Hudson has (correctly, in our opinion) ruled that Dear Leader's Four Year Plan to require all citizens of the U.S. to purchase a product they may or may not wish to own is indeed unconstitutional.

This sets up an inevitable Supreme Court challenge over the issue, and we like our chances there.

From the Department of Glaringly Obvious Headlines

A few quick hits:


"High Court questions broad use of FOIA exemption"

By President Transparency's open administration, of course. 

"Obama may delay Hawaiian vacation over tax fight"

Don't strain yourself, sir.  Fret not; we're sure you'll still be able to score some prime tee times.

"U.S. Rep. John Conyers says he's sorry, will repay government for son's use of congressional vehicle"

Darn skippy he will.  In other news, an expensive 2010 Cadillac Escalade SUV apparently is a perfectly valid choice for a run of the mill "government vehicle".  An identical size but less-tony hence less-expensive Chevy Tahoe just wouldn't do?  It sure is nice to be one of the overlords who control the purse-strings.

"John Conyers III, 20, had worked in a $15-an-hour part-time job for his mother, Monica Conyers, a Detroit city councilwoman, before she pleaded guilty to federal bribery charges."  (emphasis ours)

Christmas dinner this year is sure going to be interesting in that particular household.

"Democratic Leader Says Will Force Vote on Dream Act" 

He doesn't have the votes; it's merely pandering to his base.  

Bring it on, Mr. Reid.  A failure to pass this amnesty bill during the lame-duck session will hopefully make it go away for a good while at least, as forever is probably too much to hope for.

Different strokes for liberal folks

"Harriet Miers has had a distinguished career as a lawyer, but since her experience does not include serving as a judge, we have yet to know her views on many of the critical constitutional issues facing our country today."

- Then-Senator Barack Obama, correctly pointing out President George W. Bush's aborted Supreme Court nominee's judicial shortcomings back in 2005.

Dear Leader has, of course, now appointed Elena Kagan to the Court, despite her having the exact same non-credentials as Miers.

Please explain why Ms. Kagan rates being treated completely differently than Ms. Miers besides the obvious fact (which is not supposed to be taken into consideration in any event) that you approve of the former's politics, Mr. President.

Watch and learn

Here's your probable next Supreme Court Justice, making a complete fool of herself by being patently unable to answer the simplest of questions about the Interstate Commerce Clause, in this example as it applies to making Americans eat whatever the Imperial Federal Government tells them to:



"It would be wrong for courts to strike down laws that they think are senseless just because they're senseless."

That wasn't the question, ma'am.  Nice try, though.

What a shocker

"The government can ban books because we won't really ever enforce that law.  Really.  Pinky Swear."

 - Solicitor General Elena Kagan, President Obama's "modest, impartial" (in her words before the Senate yesterday) nominee for the Supreme Court, pleading a case that she lost 9-0.

Kagan has never served as a judge and has spent the vast majority of her career in ivory-towered academia.  Nothing wrong with that per se, but how does such an undistinguished legal background qualify her for the highest court in the country?  Harriet Myers, George W. Bush's aborted nominee, was just as much of a disaster and Bush rightly got roasted for attempting to put her on the bench.  Why should Kagan, then, get a free pass?

Big news day

1.  The Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 that the Second Amendment does indeed apply to state and local governments as well as the Federal Leviathan, as expected.  King Emperor Mayor-for-Life Richard Daley of Chicago, as that city's thirty-some year complete ban on handgun possession by law-abiding citizens prompted the lawsuit, must be throwing quite the juvenile tantrum right about now.

The biggest non-surprise here was that four justices (we haven't yet read any of the news articles, but let us hazard a guess - the retiring socialist, the ex-ACLU counsel, the Wise Latina and the other guy in that clique) somehow feel that the Amendment ranked Second in the Bill of Rights (after only free speech) shouldn't restrain the actions of local governments.  Do they feel the same about the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, for example, or is the "ickiness" factor of firearms overriding their sensibilities on this one subject?

Much more analysis later on this one.

UPDATE:  Right on cue, here comes Daley's petulant whining: 

"Daley said the city would have in place a new ordinance aimed at making it difficult to purchase and own a gun in Chicago." (emphasis ours)

Nothing like having the so-called "leader" of a major American city openly plotting to place as many obstacles as possible in the way of allowing his constituents to enjoy the free exercise of their inalienable rights, particularly given the fact that Justice Alito notes in the McDonald decision that Chicago is just about ready to call out the National Guard to attempt to get a handle on the out-of-control crime in that burg.  God forbid the martinets there let a law-abiding retiree (McDonald, the plaintiff in the case) keep a handgun in his home for self-protection, though.  That would be the end of world, according to Daley's way of thinking.

In other news, since protesters and journalists who use First Amendment protections are a constant thorn in Boss Daley's side, he is expected to soon have in place "a new ordinance aimed at making it difficult to demonstrate against his administration, or for news organizations to cover those protests".

What an utter jerk.

2.  Senator Robert Byrd, D-WVa, has passed away at the age of 92.  Segregationalists and West Virginians who were the recipients of Federal largesse out of all proportion to their population and tax contributions will no doubt mourn the hardest.

The residents there should indeed be sad - the gravy train has come to a screeching halt for them.  West Virginians can comfort themselves, however, by fondly gazing upon the hundreds of make-work structures and buildings narcissistically named after Byrd as well as offices (including a Coast Guard facility in a landlocked state that has no "coast") mysteriously relocated to the outer sticks to appreciate how lucky they were to have the wily old Klansman around for so many decades.

How are you going to denigrate this man's actions, Boss Daley?

An 80-year-old Chicago resident who is reported to be a Korean War veteran shot and killed an armed intruder at his home early yesterday.  The thug had apparently been trying to enter the back door of the home the man shares with his elderly wife when the incident occurred.

A clear case of successfully defending one's home, life and loved ones?  Indubitably.  Case closed.

The problem now, though, lies in the fact that the homeowner used a handgun to accomplish said trash removal, and that particular item has been outlawed for that town's residents since 1976 (although we see how much good the ordinance did in stopping the bad guy from getting his hands on one).  That law is still in force, although the Supreme Court is expected to rule against that unconstitutional ban any day now.

"Neighbors described the elderly couple, who both walk with canes, as pillars of the community in Garfield Park, where home invasions have been all too frequent."

We absolutely dare King Emperor Mayor-for-Life Richard Daley to allow his pet district attorneys to charge this man with a crime for daring to defy His Dishonor's edict on possessing a legitimate self-defense weapon, one which served the exact purpose for which it was manufactured, namely enabling a law-abiding citizen to save the two lives (including his own) which were being directly threatened by that home invader.  An attorney has already offered to defend the homeowner for free:

"'Self-defense isn't just a right, it's a duty,' said attorney Joel Brodsky. 'If this man is prosecuted for saving his own life it's not just a travesty, it's justice turned inside out.'"

Not to mention the fact that we really, really doubt that there are two law-abiding jurors in that town, much less 12, who would vote to convict this man of anything right about now.

Good luck defending your cherished freedom-robbing law now, regardless of how short a time it's got left to remain in effect, Mr. Daley.  We hope some of your corrupt monies were used to hire a stellar PR team.  You're going to need their assistance very soon.

Chicago's trampling of the Constitution is finally on trial

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments this morning as to just why a 79-year-old law-abiding citizen is unable to possess a handgun in his home in Chicago, Illinois for the purpose of protecting his home (which has been broken into numerous times) and his person (which has been threatened more than once).

As expected, King-Emperor-Mayor-for-Life Richard Daley, who coincidentally enjoys 24-hour protection wherever he goes from an army of police officers, stepped forth to put his two cents in:

"'We have the right for health and safety to pass reasonable laws dealing with the protection and health of the people of the city of Chicago,' Daley said."

Sorry, "Boss".  The individual rights enumerated by the Bill of Rights trump whatever nebulous "health and safety rights" arguments you've pulled out of thin air, especially considering that the onerous bans you've saddled your peasants with, which are completely ineffective and have actually made them more unsafe, judging by the astronomical crime and murder rate your thoroughly corrupt burg has enjoyed since the ban was enacted in 1982.  By way of comparison, if you and your toadies on the City Council decided that a free-speech ban was necessary for "health and safety", would that be tolerated?  Of course not, and neither should this unconstitutional law.

By the way, what's so "reasonable" about a complete ban?

"[Daley] also said the rollback of the city's handgun ban could lead to further erosion of legislation having to do with guns."

Hopefully.

Fox News is reporting that Second Amendment Foundation attorney Alan Gura, who argued the plaintiff's case today and who previously successfully argued the Heller case, received "positive reactions" from the justices.  That's a very good sign.

Come again, ma'am?

"Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong." (Emphasis mine)

- Supreme Court Justice Margaret Sanger Ruth Bader Ginsburg discussing abortion rulings, New York Times, July 7, 2009.

Wow.

Imagine the immediate explosive (and justified) media outcry had usual boogeymen Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas come out with that little gem.

Well, where are those same dominant news types now that one of the most reliable liberal doctrinaires on the Court has apparently been exposed as a closet eugenicist?


(Liberty's Teeth via The War on Guns)

A city indeed can't toss a test merely because they don't like the results

The Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 that a municipality such as New Haven, Connecticut may not arbitrarily toss out the results of a civil service promotion exam simply (and solely) because the whites and Hispanics who passed the test don't happen to fit the burghers' reverse-racism "diversity" requirements.

The fact that the majority of the Justices disagreed with appellate Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who saw fit to flippantly dismiss the legitimate complaints of the firefighters who filed the lawsuit with a one-paragraph explanation, in addition to her own numerous other public statements on the subject, convinces us that Sotomayor is indeed a "quota queen" who simply isn't fit to render impartial judgments as a member of our country's court of last resort.

A reasonable ruling from justices we usually don't agree with

The Supreme Court has agreed with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals by ruling 8-1 that the strip-search of a then-13-year-old Arizona girl by school officials who suspected her of possessing a couple of pills of ibuprofen, based on no other evidence than being pointed in her direction by another student who was busted with the contraband, goes just a wee bit too far.

We find ourselves in the rare position of agreeing with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

"'Abuse of authority of that order should not be shielded by official immunity,' Ginsburg wrote"

while begging to differ with the lone dissenter, Justice Clarence Thomas:

"Justice Clarence Thomas dissented. 'Judges are not qualified to second-guess the best manner for maintaining quiet and order in the school environment,' Thomas wrote."

So you're saying, Justice Thomas, that if school administrators unilaterally decide that, say, tying students up and duct-taping their mouths shut, or whacking them in the head with a paddle, or slipping a little muscle relaxant into their milk is the "best manner" for maintaining discipline in their classrooms, they're free to do so, and judges shouldn't intervene?

We respectfully disagree.

That pretty much confirms our suspicions about her

Supreme Court justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor, meeting with South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, manages to not answer a direct and simple question concerning the Second Amendment:

"She was unwilling to say the Second Amendment protects a fundamental right that applies to all Americans, which raises serious questions about her view of the Bill of Rights."

We would hope for general agreement on the idea that someone who holds the opinion that any or all of the amendments in the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to all Americans (regardless of which of the ten we're discussing) should immediately be disqualified from serving in the institution that serves as the court of last resort for upholding and protecting those very rights.


(h/t: Dustin)

Muzzled

Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the normally voluble, sassy and "wise" Supreme Court nominee who feels entitled to make up her own laws (and who has had her wrist slapped for it numerous times, once in an 8-0 high court decision authored by Justice Stevens, no less), was struck dumb during her visit to Capitol Hill yesterday and declined to answer questions, despite being paraded around during an entire day of media pressers and photo-ops:

"Judge Sonia Sotomayor is, sadly, unable to speak for herself."

That's funny, as she didn't seem to have much problem at all doing so, at least until her views on the acceptability of legislating from the bench, as well as her racist ranking of Hispanic women over white men (at least as relating to judicial competence) became more widely known.

We know that we've been hitting Sotomayor hard around here recently, but we believe that it's vitally important (and completely relevant to this blog) to do so, as activist judges like her regularly rob American citizens of the freedoms and fairness guaranteed by the Constitution to them, simply because the jurists feel like doing so.

It's hoped that the readers of this blog realize just how bad of a pick Judge Sotomayor is for the Supreme Court, as it is "policy-making" overreachers just like her that:

Decided that an official government policy of wiretapping American citizens without a warrant is A-OK;

Ruled that a municipality is perfectly justified in taking someone's home by eminent domain and giving it to another private party, solely because the town will then generate more tax revenue;

Think that using taxpayer money to take over and run a bankrupt private industry is perfectly reasonable;

Decreed that a city may ignore the Second Amendment whenever it pleases;

Found a right to abortion in the Fourteenth Amendment (whatever one thinks of this volatile issue, there's no mention of it anywhere in the Constitution).

And on and on.

This disastrous appointment must be rejected by the American people, not for any ideological, political, racial (and/or gender) or personal reasons, but because judicial lawmaking and institutional societal engineering is undesirable at any court level, but is particularly unacceptable at the Supreme Court, as there is no further place to appeal their decisions.

A blatant case of judicial activism, Chicago-style

A three-judge panel of the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the city of Chicago can indeed ban handguns within its limits, even though that ruling is in direct opposition with the Supreme Court's recent Heller decision.

The panel seems to have found that Chicago's draconian outlawing of self-defense weapons does not violate Heller because they have concluded that Washington, D.C. is a federal zone to which the Constitution apparently applies solely, and that the state of Illinois is, well, a state, and as such its citizens enjoy no guaranteed Second Amendment rights.

To make sure we've got this sort of thinking straight, abortion was deemed legal in all 50 states based on some nebulous "privacy" right some justice magically "found" in the Constitution, but an enumerated natural right (specifically protected by that same document, by the way) doesn't restrain a given state at all from completely banning the free exercise of that right?

Following their tortured logic to its natural conclusion and to maintain a consistent legal theory, one has to now believe that these judges also would find that the First Amendment does not carry any authority over states, and that Illinois is now free to ban newspapers that publish unpopular opinions or jail publishers that annoy its lawmakers. Additionally, can state and local police forces now decide that they are free to enter a private home without a shred of evidence of criminal activity, despite what the Fourth Amendment plainly states?

Of course not, which is why this asinine decision will be rocketed to the top of the Supreme Court docket should the full Seventh Circuit decline to hear the case. Hopefully it will be heard before Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who seems to favor these sorts of ludicrous "policy-making" rulings, gets confirmed, as now seems to be inevitable.

One lawyer who sees through the hype

Attorney Allan J. Favish nails down the main argument why Judge Sotomayor is not a good candidate to be a Supreme Court Justice:

"Because the Justices are freed of political influence, the
Framers also designed the system so that the Justices should not make law,
but only interpret law. It would have been undemocratic to allow those freed
of political influence to make law." (Emphasis mine)

People who have lifetime appointments with no provision for recall should not additionally be allowed to have lawmaking powers whether implicitly or explicitly, as that much unchallengeable authority invested in one branch of government is not supportive of a free society.

We've had enough difficulties with the justices already on the Supreme Court finding "rights" in the Constitution that just don't exist, as well as mysteriously ignoring the true individual rights that are plainly stated in that document. There is no need to add someone who publicly admits to such a bias before her confirmation hearings even start.


Full disclosure: I am on an email list with Mr. Favish where ideas and comments are regularly communicated to and fro.