Tag: United States Supreme Court

The real problem with the Gay marriage issue

I have said before that the issue of Gay marriage should be a state by state decision, and that those state decisions ought to be respected by both sides. And, in theory, such a state of affairs would work out well. Ah, but you see, the driving forces behind the Gay marriage push, do not want to live and let live. They will never be satisfied with true equality, their definition of equality being far removed from the actual definition, they will use this issue to force others to bow to them. Donald Douglas declares that the war on religion, yes ALL religion, not just Christianity, is under way, and links to this piece at All the Right Snark

As Ben Shapiro wrote today at Breitbart, this ruling by the Supreme Court has opened the door to the IRS revoking tax-exempt status to any church that would refuse to permit two homosexuals to hold their “wedding” within its walls.

Don’t think that will happen?

Think again.

As it is, homosexual couples are suing bakeries, florists and other businesses for refusing to provide them with the trappings of their upcoming nuptials.

You don’t think homosexual couples won’t pursue lawsuits against churches for refusing to “marry” them?


Come on.

We’re living in Obama’s America — where in the name of “fairness” it’s open season on anyone you don’t like.

And if you think that the “Take that bitches” crowd will be respectful of those who disagree on religious grounds with homosexuals “marrying,” then, think again.

The United States Supreme Court didn’t nullify an unconstitutional law yesterday. They nullified the will of the people. The nullified the Separation of Powers. They nullified the religious freedom in this country.

Five unelected individuals in a nation of over three hundred million just paved the way for state-approved HATRED against anyone who recognizes marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Five unelected individuals believe that opposition to homosexual “marriage” is motivated by frothing-at-the-mouth hatred. Therefore, supporters of homosexual “marriage” can go to town!!

That lays it out pretty well. As I said, I would be fine with live and let live, but the Gay marriage activists are not OK with that. They despise religion, again ALL religion, and will not stop until everyone is forced to support gay marriage. This is not about equality, or rights. What of the rights of the florist, caterer, or photographer to say no to doing a Gay wedding? And yes, eventually, churches and other houses of worship will be targeted if they say no to having a gay wedding in their sanctuary.

So, it is with regret that I say to those Gays and Lesbians who really JUST want equality, and who do not wish to force anything on any business or church, that they have allowed haters and totalitarians to take over their cause. It is sad because, I have nothing against Gay people, frankly, you could scarcely find anyone who cares less about what people do in their bedrooms than me. But, I cannot abide activists destroying the religious freedoms, and the rights of businesses. If you want equality then great, but if you want to steamroll freedom of thought, then  I do not say no, I say HELL NO!


Pro 2nd Amendment Rally in DC May 25th

Nice Deb has the scoop. It would be great to get as many folks as possible. And remember tomorrow, at every state capitol

On January 19, thousands of 2nd Americans from every state rallied at their state capitols to show their support for the 2nd Amendment and send a message to Congress. The MSM pretty much ignored the huge numbers, so now it’s time for  round two:

2nd Amendment events that will be taking place in every U.S. state capitol city on Friday, February 8, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. This is a critical time to show our support for the 2nd Amendment and opposition to currently proposed legislation.

Of course I have to work, but, if you can, get out there and show your support for our liberty. And again, May 25th, at The mall in DC

Another 2nd Amendment rally has been organized for May 25 in Washington DC:

Calling all Gun Owners and Patriots you are cordially invited to attend the first 2nd Amendment rally at The National Mall in Washington D.C. on Saturday May 25th 2013 at Noon Eastern Time (Tentatively Pending Sponsors).  We are hoping to attract up to 10 Million Gun Owners/Patriots  to the National Mall for a rally to show our support for the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution is the part of theUnited States Bill of Rights that protects and insures the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Once we have secured the venue we will confirm the date and time. This is a grass roots endeavor so any national celebrities that would like to help please contact us at the e-mail address below.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.

Gee, I wonder how much doctoring of video MSNBS will engage in after that rally.

More bloggers roast Roberts

Bob Belvedere lays it on Roberts, who KNEW better

John Roberts, however, is not a Leftist drone, yet he obviously has acted in a way that brands him as a Useful Idiot and Dupe of the Left. He may think he pulled a fast one or that he’s preserving the integrity of the SCOTUS, but the Left is laughing at him behind his robed back and celebrating their capture of another Right Wing Dupe. This decision will not restore the image of The Court. In fact, it sends a message that the Chief Justice is willing to sacrifice The Constitution for the sake of a facade — the political image of SCOTUS in the public’s mind — and this will, perhaps fatally, damage the reputation of the SCOTUS in the eyes of the Right — the only group that respects The Court and it’s place in The American Experiment. If, however, Roberts believes what he wrote, then one cannot be blamed if he questions the mental health of the Chief Justice.

By stating that the Congress has an unlimited power to tax, Chief Justice Roberts and the Leftist Justices have declared that The Constitution does not mean what it says and that the Congress need not concern itself with enumerated powers when it comes to using the taxing power, which, as many wise men have pointed out over the centuries, is the power to destroy.

BC has some great comments Rush made today

Donald Douglas has two posts up, one trying to salvage some credibility for Roberts, sorry I am not buying it, not at all, but it is worth the read. The other raises the question. Did Roberts change his votes due to some type of pressure?

Gateway Pundit notes that Romney donations went ballistic after Roberts rewrote Obamacare to save it and has a great cartoon as well 

Governor Romney raised over $4 million in twenty hours following the Obamacaretax ruling yesterday by the Supreme Court.
The Hill reported, via Free Republic:

Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign has raised $4.2 million since the Supreme Court ruled President Obama’s healthcare law is constitutional.

Romney started raising funds immediately after the decision, and in a post on Twitter his campaign spokeswoman said he had raised $4.2 million from 42,000 donations.

“Fundraising update for #FullRepeal: 42k+ donations, $4.2 million raised online for @MittRomney since #scotus decision,” tweeted spokeswoman Andrea Saul.

Romney responded to the ruling by renewing his pledge to repeal the Affordable Care Act known as “Obamacare.”

He wrote in a fundraising email to supporters on Thursday: “Today, the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare. But regardless of what the Court said about the constitutionality of the law, Obamacare is bad medicine, it is bad policy, and when I’m president, the bad news of Obamacare will be over.”

One thing can be said of this, that fire in the American people’s hearts against big government is hotter than ever! NOW, this election is about the economy AND Obamacare, AND high taxes, and all of those added together equals a very bad November for Democrats!

Aww, Axelrod wept when Obamacare passed…

Imagine how many boxes of tissues he will need after Thursday when the SCOTUS rejects that individual mandate.

Via Mediaite:

David Axelrod, senior adviser for Barack Obama‘s re-election campaign, spoke with New York magazine reporter and frequent Morning Joe panelist John Heilemann at 92Y, telling Heilemann that he had a “big cry” over the passage of President Obama’s health care law.

“I have a child with a chronic illness,” he shared. “I was one of those people who almost went bankrupt. She was seven months old and she started having seizures. I was making 35, 38 thousand dollars a year and her medications weren’t covered by her insurance and we couldn’t get her other insurance because she had a pre-existing condition. So I was paying eight to ten thousand dollars out of pocket for medications a year.”

Who wants to bet that if Obamacare stands, the situation above would be worse?

Quinn Hyler: Obama’s Abominations

Great piece at the Spectatorf

The recent litany of Obama’s odiousness begins with his growing, unambiguous war against traditional Christianity. He has now left no room for any pretense otherwise to be believed. Right on the heels of a unanimous Supreme Court, including his own two appointees, smacking down his administration’s attempt to kill the “ministerial exemption” for employment practices of faith-based institutions, an unchastened Obama has decided that even faith-based organizations must provide insurance that covers contraception — even including abortifacients.

This is not just a narrow policy disagreement; it is, as Bishop David A. Zubik of Pittsburgh wrote, the president’s way of saying “To Hell With You” to people of faith — “To hell with your religious beliefs. To hell with your religious liberty. To hell with your freedom of conscience.” Zubik continued: “This is government by fiat that attacks the rights of everyone — not only Catholics; not only people of all religion. At no other time in memory or history has there been such a governmental intrusion on freedom not only with regard to religion, but evenacross-the-board with all citizens.”

Obama’s broadsides, plural, against religious liberty are only a part of his radical transgressions against the U.S. Constitution. Conservatives are rightly up in arms about Obama’s illegal recess appointments. Obamacare, of course, contains several anti-Constitutional abominations, including the “individual mandate” and the Independent Payment Advisory Board. Meanwhile, his administration is flagrantly violating precedent by trying to force explicit hiring quotas on the Fire Department of New York, in a case in which a key amicus brief was filed on January 24 at the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Go read it all, Hillyer raises some excellent points, and reminds us that this next election is crucial if we ever hope to salvage our Republic. Obama’s promises of “fundamental change” were not rhetoric, it is, and frankly has been terribly apparent that he wishes to leave America completely unrecognizable from the principles that founded it.

shameless, amoral, ideological hack of mediocre skill at best.

Smitty is right that does seem to sum up every Obama appointee, and, sadly the president himself Eric Holder, Mr. Fast and Furious himself, and Elena Kagan, who apparently is not even considering recusing herself when the Supreme Court rules on Obamacare, even though she cheered its passage

Should a justice who participated in ObamaCare’s creation recuse herself from the court’s review of that law? Of course. But then a nominee who lies in confirmation hearings shouldn’t be on the court anyway.

If Justice Elena Kagan were a person of character, she would sit out the Supreme Court’s hearing of the challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

But during her confirmation hearings in June of last year, she indicated she would not. And since this Monday, when the court announced it would take the case, she has done nothing to suggest she will recuse herself after all. Nor has the court made any statement about her recusal, a convention it usually follows when a justice takes himself or herself off a case.

Here are the facts on Kagan: She was the administration’s solicitor general when ObamaCare became law last year. She has acknowledged that she was at a meeting in which state litigation against ObamaCare was discussed, though she said she was not involved in any legal responses concerning the states’ litigation.

We also know that Kagan enthusiastically supported ObamaCare. This is made clear in emails released last week by the Justice Department.

“I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing,” Kagan wrote on the day ObamaCare passed the House in an email to Laurence Tribe, the Harvard law professor who was working at that time in the Obama Justice Department.

On the same day that note was sent, an associate attorney general emailed Justice Department lawyers to organize a health care litigation meeting. A Kagan deputy later emailed her suggesting that she attend.

Yet, apparently she sees no issue with her ruling on a law she helped create? Hell, why not just let Pelosi or Reid decide, or Obama himself? This is a travesty, and makes a mockery of our constitution and our founding principles. Just like most the manner in which this abomination of a bill was passed in the first place. And, frankly, this type of chicanery suits this administration to a T!

We should not be surprised at this, not in the least. This president has thumbed his nose repeatedly at the constitution, and the will of the people. Lots more at The Other McCain, where Smitty offers this summation of this bunch of Neo-Marxist rabble that seemingly holds everything great about liberty, and about America, in utter contempt.

From all appearances, pretty much everyone appointed by BHO is a shameless, amoral, ideological hack of mediocre skill at best. In the case of ObamaCare, there doesn’t seem to be any obvious way to get enough lift under that pig to make it fly. The discussion, I’m guessing, will revolve around how to reject ObamaCare narrowly enough that the ground remains un-laid for the next obvious step: realizing that the SCOTUS under FDR beclowned itself by not rejecting the New Deal. Progressives have cherished 10th Amendment violations to protect, you see. Commie morons.

Step back though, and let’s consider a post-Progressive era. For surely this noise cannot continue. How in the world do we restore faith and transparency in our institutions after BHO, Holder, and Kagan? We’ve got a collection of people in higher office that don’t seem to understand anything, anything at all, except power. What do we do about that?

Is voting these clowns out, on its own, enough? Or do they leave enough residue of abuse, enough tradition of disregard, even rejection, of the Enlightenment principles that inform our founding documents that this administration completes the ‘mission kill’ of our Constitution by Progressivism?

That’s a hard thought, coming as it does in a context of economic ruin. However, as with calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme, the sooner we face fact that the effect of Progressivism has been an Article V amendment of the Constitution via ‘settled law’, the sooner we can set about unwinding the evil the Progressives wrought.

Why Elena Kagan SHOULD recuse herself from SCOTUS decision on Obamacare

To be blunt, she was a cheerleader for it! There is no way in Hell she should be ruling on this

we already know Elena Kagan huddled with the White House to help craft the legal defense for Obamacare just five months prior to being sworn in as a Supreme Court justice.

A case for recusal doesn’t get much more clear-cut than this. Don’t hold your breath though waiting for Kagan to recuse herself when the Obamacare challenge lands in the Supreme Court; this is exactly why Obama nominated her.

(CNSNews.com) – On Sunday, March 21, 2010, the day the House of Representatives passed President Barack Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan and famed Supreme Court litigator and Harvard Law Prof. Laurence Tribe, who was then serving in the Justice Department, had an email exchange in which they discussed the pending health-care vote, according to documents the Department of Justice released late Wednesday to the Media Research Center, CNSNews.com’s parent organization, and to Judicial Watch.

“I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing,” Kagan said to Tribe in one of the emails.

The Justice Department released a new batch of emails on Wednesday evening as its latest response to Freedom of Information Act requests filed by CNSNews.com and Judicial Watch. Both organizations filed federal lawsuits against DOJ after the department did not initially respond to the requests. CNSNews.com originally filed its FOIA request on May 25, 2010–before Elena Kagan’s June 2010 Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

It is  a joke that this Neo-Marxist was even considered for the highest court, but if she chooses NOT recusing herself? But do not be surprised if she does not recuse herself, I do not believe that she has any respect for our Constitution.

The Left has never respected freedom of speech

And this story out of Arkansas just reminds us that power hungry Statists will not stop

This story sounds like something you would hear out of China, not the United States. In Gould, Arkansas the city council is planning to pass an ordinance that forbids any group from forming or gathering that will discuss city matters without first getting city council approval – a clear violation of the First Amendment.

They mayor is dead set against it but it appears from the video that they can override him:

Absolute tyranny, every one of these miscreants should be thrown out of office at once! We forget that often times, the most direct threats to our liberty come from city councils and county commissions

Video here

And of course, the war on lemonade stands continues

Donald Trump on private property rights

Any fool still drinking that Trump Koo-Aid? If so have a look at this

In 2005, the Supreme Court handed down one of its worst decisions ever in a case known as Kelo v. New London. In that case,  the Supreme Court (on which current Chief Justice John Roberts did not yet serve) affirmed the right of the City of New London, Connecticut to seize the houses of about sixty residents of a neighborhood in New London, and turn the land on which they sat over to a private developer who had promised to develop a shopping center and high rise condominiums that would bring more revenues to the cash starved city.

Ms. Kelo, a middle class single woman who owned “a little pink house,” one of the sixty condemned, sued the City of New London. She wanted to keep her house. She didn’t understand why the City of New London had a right to steal it from her in order to enrich a private developer. The Supreme Court  disagreed with her. They ruled that the City of New London could, in fact, steal her house, and the houses of her neighbors.

After the ruling, the City of New London purchased the little pink house from Ms. Kelo, and sold it for $1 to a preservationist who moved it off the development property. The other houses were purchased and demolished. The development, however, never panned out. Today, where Ms. Kelo’s house and neighborhood once stood, an empty field filled with trash and broken glass now stands, a testament to the over-reaching arrogance of the state, as affirmed by the United States Supreme Court.

What is Donald Trump’s opinion of this travesty?

In a July 2005 interview with Neil Cavuto on Fox News, he publicly stated that he was 100% in favor of the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the City of New London to take Ms. Kelo’s house.

“But I happen to agree with it [the Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London] 100 percent, not that I would want to use it. But the fact is, if you have a person living in an area that’s not even necessarily a good area, and government, whether it’s local or whatever, government wants to build a tremendous economic development, where a lot of people are going to be put to work and make area that’s not good into a good area, and move the person that’s living there into a better place — now, I know it might not be their choice — but move the person to a better place and yet create thousands upon thousands of jobs and beautification and lots of other things, I think it happens to be good.”

So, to remind you, Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts, also known as the Supreme Court Justices with brains, voted AGAINST this abomination of a ruling.

So, I ask, how is it that Trump is a Conservative?

H/T Milton Wolf