Tag: Supreme Court of the United States

Of all our liberties, the Left hates this one the most

Matt at Conservative Hideout makes the case and explains why the Left so loathes gun rights

That state of passive captivity is exactly where the state wants all of us.  And, the political left attempt to create this by use of the Alinsky Method.  People that dissent, believe in freedom, and such are singled out and destroyed.  They are harassed in public, and in their own homes.  Their children and tracked and harassed.  They receive death threats, false lawsuits are filed.  Basically, the target is relentlessly isolated and attacked until they submit.  They want the target to submit and be passive, and they want to people witnessing it to not get any bright ideas about having independent thoughts of their own.  Also, when children are singled out for punishment in school for being Christian, or c0llege students are threatened with failing grades for not embracing the “tolerance” of the regressives. we see the isolation and attack mode that seeks to create passive sheeple, and punish those that stand up.

How this applies to gun control is simple.  A firearm provides a sense of security and confidence.  As the old saying goes, “God made man, but Samuel  Colt made them equal.”  Meaning, that it became very difficult to intimidate and subjugate a man that is armed.  It is a catalyst for independence, as when a human can defend themselves, they will stand up to the state, community organizers, or union goons.  It’s the “emboldening agent” that could be applied to the picture.  It’s the great equalizer of our Republic. It is the counterbalance to tyranny; the gun owner is confident, and the one(s) that would attack him are wary.  It doesn’t matter that the gun owner cannot impose his will on others, as others cannot impose their will on him.  There is a certain reciprocity there, as all sides are potentially “equal” in terms of their power to protect themselves.

If you will notice, we see stories about union attacks, andcommunity organizers intimidating people far more in urban areas.  Why is this?  I think most of you will understand why.  In the cities, there are more gun control laws, so these thugs have less of a chance of being confronted by an armed citizen.  In the suburbs, and especially in rural areas, the thug’s shenanigans would be confronted with the sound on dozens of “metallic clicks.”  It’s hard to intimidate someone that can fight back, even if he or she is outnumbered (or, unless the government limits the amount of bullets that go in magazines).

Go read the whole thing, It is quite insightful, and dead on accurate. as I often say, the Collectivist Left despises anything that supports Individualism, and individual liberty, nothing does more to those ends than the right to own firearms.

Eric “Fast and Furious” Holder ignores Supreme Court ruling on Voting Rights Act

Here goes Team Obama again, snubbing their nose at the rule of law, and the highest court in America

Via Red Alert:

In response to the Supreme Court’s recent decision that states are innocent of institutional racism until proven guilty, Attorney General Eric Holder is arguing that Texas’ “history of pervasive voting-related discrimination against racial minorities” should make its voting laws subject to the Department of Justice’s oversight indefinitely.

While speaking before the National Urban League in Philadelphia on Thursday, Holder said his agency would ask a federal judge to require Texas to submit all its voting laws to the DOJ for review before they can be legally enacted because the state has a supposed history of discrimination and racism.

“And today I am announcing that the Justice Department will ask a federal court in Texas to subject the State of Texas to a pre-clearance regime similar to the one required by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act,” Holder said at the organization’s annual conference.

The Attorney General cited “evidence of intentional racial discrimination” found following the case Texas v. Holder, in addition to a ”history of pervasive voting-related discrimination against racial minorities.” He continued, saying the state would need to acquire “pre-approval” from either the Department of Justice or a federal court before implementing any future changes in voting laws.

I expect there is a good chance Governor Perry will ignore the Attorney General. Don’t mess with Texas!


Some much needed words of wisdom from the past

Loopy Loo, posting at Zilla’s place, has a must read bit of history

United States Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1779-1845) was a famous jurist, and his Commentaries was a very influential treatise on United States constitutional law

His tenure on the Supreme Court spanned three decades, from 1811 to 1845.   At the beginning of the twentieth century, Story was elected to the Hall of Fame.   His views on the Constitution of the United States are still widely respected.

On November 18, 1811, President James Madison nominated Story to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Senate confirmed the appointment on February 3, 1812. At the age of thirty-two, Story was the youngest person ever appointed to the Supreme Court. While on the Supreme Court, Story served as a delegate to the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention of 1820 and was a Professor of Law at Harvard, where he wrote a series of nine commentaries on the law, each of which was published in several editions. Story served on the Supreme Court for thirty-three years. He died on September 10, 1845, at the age of sixty-five.

This quote from him caught  my attention:

“Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people in order to betray them.”

– Joseph Story – Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 2d ed. (1851), vol. 2, chapter
Is that not a very near perfect summation of where America is today? The wise ARE mocked, and the honest are called “extremists”. Many of our citizens are blithely ignorant of our Constitution, our founders, our founding principles, and of our history. And some of the worst cases of ignorance occur in well-educated Americans. This is, I believe, because our education system  is about idoctrination, not education. 
Go read the rest of the post, it is worth it.



Junior Race Pimp: Minorities are just too stupid to compete or succeed!


Yes, I know, Toure did not say those exact words, but, if you think about he did say, then clearly he thinks that no minority would succeed without government run affirmative action

During Tuesday‘s edition of MSNBC’s “The Cycle,” co-host Touré made the argument that without affirmative action in colleges, “the entire leadership of America would become entirely white.”

This, he explained, is barely a “whitewashing of what we already have” in America today.

“The Cycle” hosted Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor Jr., the authors of “Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It’s Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won’t Admit It.” Touré began by citing the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, which called their work “junk science,” in an attempt to discredit them before even allowing them to make their case.

“You suggest that it’s better for these black and brown students to go to second tier schools rather than to go to Harvard or Yale, the first tier schools. The entire Supreme Court comes from Harvard or Yale. Almost all presidents, Harvard or Yale – all the top of corporate America,” Touré said.

“So, if we follow your prescription then the entire leadership of America would become entirely white, which is just a barely whitewashing of what we already have,” he added.

Toure, Toure, Toure, you backasswards little man, you are the lowest hanging branch on the Tree of Low-Hanging Blogging Fruit!


Remember that obnoxious song “Send in the Clowns”?


Yes, it is quite possibly the worst song ever, but, this post is about another song. A song sung by unions “Send in the Thugs”

WASHINGTON (AP) — Labor unions plan to send out more than 300,000 volunteers later this month to canvass voters to support President Barack Obama’s re-election.

The effort begins on Aug. 25, when activists fan out across 27 states during a national “day of action.”

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka says a record 400,000 union-based volunteers will be knocking on doors and talking to voters in all 50 states later this year.

For the first time, unions can use their funds to target non-union households as well as those with family members in a union. That change comes as a result of the Supreme Court’s landmark campaign finance decision in Citizens United.

I cannot wait till they knock on my door


So, what can the government make you buy, or pay a tax, er penalty now?

That was the very first question in my mind when I heard about the SCOTUS ruling. J.E. Dyer, breaks the bad news to us.

1.  Congress can force you to buy an electric car.

2.  Congress can force you to buy solar panels.

3.  Congress can force you to buy and install a remote-control thermostat for your home.

4.  Congress can force you to buy internet service.

5.  Congress can force you to buy particular kinds of food.

6.  Congress can force you to buy contraceptives for yourself.

7.  Congress can force you to buy biofuels, even if you don’t have any use for them.

8.  Congress can force you to donate to political causes and “charities.”

9.  Congress can force you to pay union dues.

10. Congress can force you to buy the New York Times.

11. Congress can force you to buy “green travel” packages.

12. Congress can force you to buy a 3-bedroom, 2-bath townhome with a 1-car parking spot for your electric car.

Those are a few to ruminate on, But please, go read the whole thing.

The ugly truth about Justice Roberts is that he sold out his principles

Via The Blaze

CBS News’ Jan Crawford is reporting that Chief Justice John Roberts originally sided with the Supreme Court’s four conservative justices to strike down the heart of Obama’s health care reform law, often referred to as “Obamacare,” but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.

CBS continues (all subsequent emphasis added):

Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy – believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law – led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.

“He was relentless,” one source said of Kennedy’s efforts. “He was very engaged in this.”

But this time, Roberts held firm. And so the conservatives handed him their own message which, as one justice put it, essentially translated into, “You’re on your own.”

The conservatives refused to join any aspect of his opinion, including sections with which they agreed, such as his analysis imposing limits on Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause, the sources said.

Instead, the four joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsigned joint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts’ decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate.

 So what got to Roberts? What made him change the vote? Apparently, he simply lost track of his principles

CBS explains a possible reason for the change of heart:

[Unlike some other justices] Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As Chief Justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the Court, and he also is sensitive to how the Court is perceived by the public.

There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the Court – and to Roberts’ reputation – if the Court were to strike down the mandate. Leading politicians, including the President himself, had expressed confidence the mandate would be upheld.

Some even suggested that if Roberts struck down the mandate, it would prove he had been deceitful during his confirmation hearings, when he explained a philosophy of judicial restraint.

It was around this time that it also became clear to the conservative justices that Roberts was, as one put it, “wobbly,” the sources said.

It is not known why Roberts changed his view on the mandate and decided to uphold the law. At least one conservative justice tried to get him to explain it, but was unsatisfied with the response, according to a source with knowledge of the conversation.

So, basically, he was worried about PR rather than the Constitution? What a gutless wonder! The report also says Roberts tried to convince the other justices to switch votes, to make the court appear more  “united”. Also it seems that Justice Kennedy was trying to get Roberts to come back until the very last-minute. Here is part of Kennedy’s dissent, the words are, to me, chilling.

“The fragmentation of power produced by the structure of our government is central to liberty, and when we destroy it, we place liberty in peril…Today’s decision should have vindicated, should have taught, this truth; instead our judgment today has disregarded it.”

Indeed sir, indeed! 

Linked at I’m a Man thanks! BC adds this

This is a prime example of why the liberals keep winning. 

Conservatives fear being labeled  ideological  or ignorant, so they let the left  dictate what is appropriate for debate. Some are even willing compromise their good sense or integrity to stay in the elitist crowd.

Yes, Liberals are NEVER afraid of what they will be called no matter what they say. Some Conservatives forget this. They also seem to forget that Liberals will say whatever they want about Conservatives, no matter what the Conservative says or does. To the Left is is all about winning, anything is acceptable to them if it leads to a victory for them.

Chief Justice John Roberts Wields the Knife of Judicial Activism

I am uploading my podcast about Roberts and his indefensible vote today. Some have suggested he was interested in judicial restraint, or that he is concerned that the SCOTUS not look extreme, or partisan to America. Me? I think he had a job to do, and he failed. Some might say he is still a ” strict constructionist” sorry, I do not see how anyone believes that. What he did was to change, or re-write the Obamacare bill, changing the mandate, which even he said was not covered under the Commerce Clause into a tax, which is within the power of Congress. Is there a clearer case of judicial activism than that? 

While Justices Kennedy, Scalia, Alito and Thomas voted with the constitution, Roberts voted against it! Sorry, again there is no other way to put it. These justices have one job to do, to uphold, or strike down laws, or portions of laws, as those laws are written. Roberts went well beyond his duties here. He actually chose to re-write the law, so he could uphold it it would seem. Now, a precedent has been set. Congress may now make us buy anything, as long as they call it a tax, and not a mandate! More here in my podcast, click the pic to listen

Look at me! I am Mr. Judicial Restraint!


To be ignorant and depraved is one thing, but to know, and revel in your depravity….

Planned Parenthood is, once again, pimping themselves out for Mother’s Day, because nothing celebrates mothers like killing 300,000 babies every year. Stacy McCain writes today about how the irony of this escapes Planned parenthood.

Do they lack a sense of irony? Or have no sense of shame?

As families across the nation gather to celebrate Mother’s Day, others will gather to support the abortion industry. Never one to miss a fundraising opportunity, a New York affiliate of Planned Parenthood is hosting a Mother’s Day brunch to support the clinic. . . .
This is not Planned Parenthood’s first attempt to raise money through Mother’s Day. Year after year, the abortion giant encourages supporters to donate on behalf of their mothers. . . .
The organization responsible for the death of over300,000 children annually has no right to be raising money in honor of mothers. Abortion steals motherhood from women.

Remember this: If you were born after 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States has declared your life utterly worthless, without value, and deserving of no legal protection. That you are even alive to read this is therefore proof that God had some purpose for your life.

Why don’t you think about that? Ask yourself whether you, having miraculously survived despite the hatred of those who viewed your life with such vicious contempt, have a duty — indeed, an obligation of sacred honor — to speak up on behalf of those yet unborn.

A pretty compelling argument isn’t it? Most of us, even if we are pro-life, do not focus as much attention on it as we ought to. Some of us likely think that the issue is too polarizing. We feel that no matter what we say, no matter how much medical evidence we provide, that we will never change the other side’s minds. For others, perhaps the topic is too personal, or upsetting to discuss. Maybe some feel that until we get a Supreme Court decision reversing Roe V Wade, we are pretty much stuck in limbo.

I spent a lot of hours debating the issue of abortion on political forums years before I started writing columns in 1996. Then I spent many of my columns debating the same issue. When I started blogging in 2008, I still focused on the issue a lot. It seems I have written and posted about it less and less, yet, I am still as passionately against abortion on demand as ever. I am still as appalled as ever by the evil deeds that Planned Parenthood facilitates every day. It is sickening that these leeches get tax payer dollars. Several states have tried to stop funding for Planned Parenthood, including my state of Texas. Team Obama, of course, is dead set against states exercising their sovereignty on the issue. If Obamacare survives and becomes law, abortion “rights” will be a big part of it.

The oddest thing, to me, is that the Left mocks the Right as not believing in science. Now that claim is absurd, but even more inane is that the Left refuses allow any science into this debate. For me it is simple. The entire issue should come down to one thing, whether or not a human being is killed by abortion. Medical science provides a very clear answer to the question, and that answer is something Planned parenthood does not want to let women know about. This is why they rail against laws requiring the mother have an ultrasound before getting an abortion. 

The claims from the Left is that ultrasounds are invasive, and amount to rape would be laughable if they were not being used to defend the industry of infanticide that Planned Parenthood is knee-deep in. Planned Parenthood opposes these laws because these laws would fully inform the mother to be. As much as the Left loves to use the pro-choice line, informed choices are the very last thing they want women making. Like I said before depravity is bad, but celebrating it and profiting from it? Evil!

Team Obama to Supreme Court: You strike down Obamacare and we might have to push grandma off a cliff

The Lonely Conservative links this story where Ben Shapiro lays out what Team Obama is up to, to me, it is more than just playing politics it amounts to intimidation, thuggery, and the Chicago way

The Obama administration warned the Supreme Court this week via papers filed with the Court that if Obamacare is struck down, there will be an “extraordinary disruption” in Medicare. Medicare was not discussed during the Supreme Court arguments, since it was not a Constitutional issue. This is a practical argument, not a legal one; it’s the Obama administration applying pressure to the Supremes.

But that’s what the Obama administration does – they focus on the politics of the situation rather than on the legalities. If they can’t win on the law, they figure, they’ll push the Court to act via “empathy,” President Obama’s favorite legal standard. And if they lose, they’ll blame the Court for destroying Medicare.

And they will blame those dastardly Republicans too. Sure, part of this is politics as usual, you know, the type of thing Obama vowed to end back in 2008. But part of it is an attempt to intimidate the justices too. And that is deplorable.

As a side note here, if what the Obama administration says is true, then who should get the blame? Not the Republicans, who opposed this bastard of a bill all the way. Not the Tea Party, and not the Supreme Court either. No, the blame would lie at the feet of the Democrats who shoved this through. They knew this would end up in the Supreme Court. They had to know it stood a really good chance of being voided there. So, if they passed a bill that would end in this type of “extraordinary disruption” in  Medicare, then the blame is theirs and theirs alone!

Let us hope that Team Romney is smart enough to make that case to the people!

Do you ever wonder how some people got their job?

I know I do, it seems that stupidity and incompetence are pre-requisites for certain jobs,especially jobs that should require a bit of brains. Apparently, these traits are also important if you are a Supreme Court Justice named Sonia Sotomayor as well. American Thinker’s Jason Lee looks at the justice’s shocking cluelessness

The liberal Supreme Court justices have demonstrated profound and shocking ignorance of the American health care system.  Here’s one of the most jarring examples:

“What percentage of the American people who took their son or daughter to an emergency room and that child was turned away because the parent didn’t have insurance,” asked Sotomayor, “… do you think there’s a large percentage of the American population that would stand for the death of that child — (who) had an allergic reaction and a simple shot would have saved the child?”

I have a precise answer for Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

The percentage of American people who took their son or daughter to an emergency room and were turned away because the parent didn’t have insurance is exactly zero.

No person, whether American or not, is ever turned away from an emergency room for lack of health insurance. Ever.

This simply does not happen.

Here’s why:

1.  It’s illegal.  

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment under their own informed consent, after stabilization, or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.

Shouldn’t this woman be aware of the law? But,maybe of greater concern is that the question she posed has nothing, at all, to do with the constitutionality, of the Affordable Health Care Act.  It would seem that Sotomayor is willing to cast her decision based not on the Constitution, but on whether or not the bill in question might be “good”. Sorry, but that should not enter into a justices decision. Only one thing should, and in this case that one question is this. Does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to compel Americans to buy a certain product.

Malkin: Ginsburg Coached Pro-Obamacare Lawyer

How very interesting, via Breitbart

Vodpod videos no longer available.

The Audacity of Obama

Team Obama’s ObamaCare brief is, well, full of audacity, and unmitigated gall, and frankly, loads of absolute BS! Smitty has the argument, and commentary that sums up the absurdity of it

Via the WaPoo:

Lawmakers decided that requiring health insurance was the best solution “after years of careful consideration and after a vigorous national debate,” Verrilli told the court.
“That was a policy choice the Constitution entrusts the democratically accountable branches to make, and the court should respect it.”

Donald B. Verrilli Jr., you Orewllian crapflooder. Lawmakers decided this after ‘years of careful consideration’? Princess Pelosi and crew did the Judas Priest impression without even reading the Mike Foxtrot. Oh, you probably meant the consideration they gave their stock portfolios. And vigorous national debate? A plurality still think Obamacare should be repealed. No amount of Orwellian suppositories can substitute for liberty, Verrilli.

Bravo Smitty, bravo. I do not know how the SCOTUS will rule on the abomination that is ObamaCare. With four Left leaning justices and four who have an actual grasp of the Constitution it will likely come down to Anthony Kennedy, the wild card on the Court, and who the Hell knows how he will rule on nay given case.

Rick Perry has ideas on how to reform government

Jill has some of his ideas

Rick Perry proposes radical reforms of our corrupt, bloated, nightmare of a government. Some of his ideas:
Cut congressional pay in half and repeal the rules that prevent members of Congress from holding real jobs in their home states and communities.

Criminalize insider trading by members of Congress.

Until a Balanced Budget Amendment is ratified by the states, support cutting Congressional pay in half if Congress fails to propose a long-term balanced budget. Freeze federal civilian hiring and salaries until the budget is balanced.

Veto any bill that places a new, unfunded mandate on states,local communities, or schools.

Here are some more

  • Work with Congress to pass legislation requiring a 2/3s majority to pass any increase in taxes.
  • End Life-time Appointments to the Supreme Court
  • End lifetime appointments of federal judges by instituting an 18-year term limit. This would have to apply prospectively (eg. not to current Supreme Court judges) and require a Constitutional Amendment.
  • Issue an immediate moratorium on all pending federal regulations, order a full audit of every regulation passed since 2008 and repeal any regulation that is not affordable, effective and appropriate.
  • Support legislation to automatically sunset federal regulations unless Congress votes to renew them.
  • Develop an online, searchable database of all federal regulations currently in force.
  • Work with Congress to dismantle, reform, and restructure wasteful, overbearing, and redundant federal agencies:
  • The Department of Commerce, Department of Education and the Department of Energy would be completely eliminated. Essential duties – such as DoE’s Nuclear Security Administration, would be transferred to other agencies.
  • The Department of Homeland Security (including the Transportation Security Administration, which would be privatized) and the Environmental Protection Agency would be restructured and reformed entirely.

Privatizing DHS and the TSA? EXCELLENT!

Jill also links the full video of Glenn Beck’s interview with Perry. Some very good stuff! Perry has some rock solid ideas, including returning Congress to a PART-TIME basis!

Fact is that no other candidate is calling for these reforms are they? I keep telling everyone that Perry IS the most Conservative guy in the race. I say that because he is!

Listen to the video, and pass these planned reforms around folks. And please ignore those who are in a rush to anoint Romney, or Newt we deserve a better nominee, and Perry is exactly that!

Lastly, here is Perry’s speech last night announcing his plans.

Thank you Mr. Sowell

If you want unvarnished truth, go ask a wise man. A man like Thomas Sowell for example

Someone at long last has had the courage to tell the plain, honest truth about race.

After mobs of young blacks rampaged through Philadelphia committing violence — as similar mobs have rampaged through Chicago, Denver, Milwaukee and other places — Philadelphia’s black mayor, Michael A. Nutter, ordered a police crackdown and lashed out at the whole lifestyle of those who did such things.

“Pull up your pants and buy a belt ’cause no one wants to see your underwear or the crack of your butt,” he said. “If you walk into somebody’s office with your hair uncombed and a pick in the back, and your shoes untied, and your pants half down, tattoos up and down your arms and on your neck, and you wonder why somebody won’t hire you? They don’t hire you ’cause you look like you’re crazy,” the mayor said. He added: “You have damaged your own race.”

While this might seem like it is just plain common sense, what Mayor Nutter said undermines a whole vision of the world that has brought fame, fortune and power to race hustlers in politics, the media and academia. Any racial disparities in hiring can only be due to racism and discrimination, according to the prevailing vision, which reaches from street corner demagogues to the august chambers of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Just to identify the rioters and looters as black is a radical departure, when mayors, police chiefs and the media in other cities report on these outbreaks of violence without mentioning the race of those who are doing these things. The Chicago Tribune even made excuses for failing to mention race when reporting on violent attacks by blacks on whites in Chicago.

Such excuses might make sense if the same politicians and media talking heads were not constantly mentioning race when denouncing the fact that a disproportionate number of young black men are being sent to prison.

The prevailing social dogma is that disparities in outcomes between races can only be due to disparities in how these races are treated. In other words, there cannot possibly be any differences in behavior.

Go read the rest, it is very good. If only our political leaders were as wise as Sowell.

Obama vs the First Amendment

Elect a pro-union Marxist thug and see what you get? Hope? No! Change? No! Marxist disregard for privacy and free speech? YEP!

In what the White House calls a push for transparency, a pending executive order would require companies doing business with the federal government to disclose political contributions to independent groups, but would not place the same requirement on public employee unions or federal grant recipients that typically donate to Democrats.

Entitled the “Disclosure of Political Spending By Government Contractors,” the order would implement parts of the DISCLOSE Act, which failed to get through Congress last year. The legislation sought to restrict campaign speech after the landmark Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upheld the right of corporations and unions to donate to campaigns.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney confirmed Monday that work is underway on the draft order, and linked the move to President Obama’s stated commitment to transparency.

Transparency? What a joke, no president has been less transparent than Obama. And this is about protecting his union buddies while keeping an eye on  the political contributions of private companies.

And, again, we see Obama trying to push his agenda down our throats, this failed in Congress. The Supreme Court ruled, and Obama sees this as a way to get around the high court’s ruling. This is not an act of a man who respects our Constitution, or the will of the people. This is the act of a man who sees himself more a dictator than as a servant of the people!

And you thought you had a bad day?

Trust me, your day likely beats this poor bastards day! H.T A Trainwreck in Maxwell

Police in Maryland are on the hunt for the perpetrator of what appears to be an April Fools’ Day prank that left a man glued to a toilet at a Wal-Mart store. If caught, the jokester who doused the seat with glue at the Elkton Wal-Mart on March 31 could face second-degree assault charges, said Lt. Matthew Donnelly of the Elkton Police Department.

Police, along with the Singerly Fire Co. and the Cecil County paramedics, were called to the scene at about 7 p.m.

There, they found the 48-year-old victim, who called for help after realizing the sticky situation he was in when he tried — and failed — to stand up and leave the superstore’s restroom, Donnelly said.

It took responders 15 minutes to remove the victim from the stall, but they were unable to disconnect the toilet seat from his body, Donnelly said.

Instead, the victim was taken to Union Hospital of Cecil County, where the seat was detached. He left with only minor injuries to his buttocks, Donnelly said.

I like to play pranks, but some things, just are not funny!

Yes, indeed our rights are fading away

Robert lays it out for all to see

Across this nation our 2nd amendment rights have been taken. Our rights to bear arms which were written in the bill of rights to PROTECT WE THE PEOPLE from tyranny of government, have been neutered. We can’t (In some states) possess AUTOMATIC firearms. We can’t have magazines over 10 rounds, we must “Register” our firearms with the government, we must wait ten days for the okay from Government before we can get a firearm. We can not carry the firearm loaded on our person without big brothers acceptance.. The list goes on.

Some of the laws that have been passed in certain states make sense to some. To me, I’d just as soon see EVERYONE carrying a gun. The playing field would be more level than it is now. The questions seems to be “Why do you need a gun?” or “Why do you need a magazine that holds that many bullets?” or Why do you need to carry a gun?” these questions are ridiculous on their face but they are the very questions being asked by the grabbers.

And Again! Another federal judge nixes ObamaCare

Yes it will ultimately get to the SCOTUS BUT, getting as many of these decisions as we can cannot hurt. As Ace says BANG.

“Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void”

This is the 20 something state lawsuit that was argued in the Northern District of Florida federal court.

Via Gabriel...here’s the PDF of the decision.

From the decision:

It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting — as was done in the Act — that compelling the actual transaction is itself “commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce” [see Act § 1501(a)(1)], it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted. It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.

In the final analysis, this Act has been analogized to a finely crafted watch, and that seems to fit. It has approximately 450 separate pieces, but one essential piece (the individual mandate) is defective and must be removed. It cannot function as originally designed. There are simply too many moving parts in the Act and too many provisions dependent (directly and indirectly) on the individual mandate and other health insurance provisions — which, as noted, were the chief engines that drove the entire legislative effort — for me to try and dissect out the proper from the improper, and the able-to-stand-alone from the unable-to-stand-alone. Such a quasi-legislative undertaking would be particularly inappropriate in light of the fact that any statute that might conceivably be left over after this analysis is complete would plainly not serve Congress’ main purpose and primary objective in passing the Act. The statute is, after all, called “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” not “The Abstinence Education and Bone Marrow Density Testing Act.” The Act, like a defectively designed watch, needs to be redesigned and reconstructed by the watchmaker.

Loads more at the link and at Althouse

Elena Kagan supports only SAFE executions!

If you wanted to offer a description of STOOPIT! this would suffice I think.

The newest member of the Supreme Court is in the minority in backing a stay of execution over questions about the safety of a drug to be used in a lethal injection. Shortly after the stay was overturned Tuesday, Arizona executed Jeffrey Landrigan.

Yep, you read that correctly! I think I have fond the Marxist Moron for today!