Showing posts with label SCOTUS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SCOTUS. Show all posts

Thursday, June 28, 2012

The Dream Is Over: SCOTUS Says You're No Longer Free


This is no longer America. You no longer have the opportunity for the American Dream. You, we, me -- we're all slaves now. The Supreme Court of the United States of America has just made it official.

Congress has abandoned you. The executive branch has abandoned you.  SCOTUS has abandoned you. The lapdog media has abandoned you.

I had hopes, coming into today, that SCOTUS would uphold the rule of law, that the President of the United States and his Congresscriminal henchmen (and women) would not be allowed to rule you like king and court. I had hopes that the possibility of the American Dream, though tarnished and bloated by a monolith of ineffectual and overtly socialist federal government (from BOTH parties), could be reclaimed in November.

I no longer have any such hope. Barack Obama swept into office in 2008 with a promise of hope and change, but in reality he's fundamentally changed America -- JUST AS HE SAID HE WOULD -- and that "change" is to effectively dash all hope for any kind of future whatsoever. He will do whatever he must to win in November. The Supreme Court just gave him the most significant boost of his presidency. Even the Stock Market fears the dream is over, tumbling after the SCOTUS decision was announced.

From the SCOTUSblog, while 866,000 people watched the live blog, the ruling came down:
  • In a ruling by turncoat, un-American, and heretoforetobe reviled, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the Court does not reach severability issues, having upheld the mandate 5-4. The Court holds that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, but that doesn't matter because there are five votes for the mandate to be constitutional under the taxing power. "Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it."
  • You CANNOT refuse to pay the tax. The only effect of not complying with the mandate is that you pay the tax. (A tax that Obama himself previously said WASN'T a tax.)
  • Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg makes clear that the vote is 5-4 on sustaining the mandate as a form of tax. Her opinion, for herself and Justices Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagan, joins the key section of Roberts opinion on that point. She would go further and uphold the mandate under the Commerce Clause, which Roberts wouldn't. Her opinion on Commerce does not control.
  • In dissent, Justice William Kennedy, JUSTICE WILLIAM KENNEDY!, wrote: "In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety." It's a vast judicial overreach.
But dissenting opinons don't help you hold onto your freedom. There is no room in this country for freedom anymore. None whatsoever. (The actual majority opinion is here.)

William Jacobson over at Legal Insurrection says we need to fight back at the voting booth.

I recently said the same:

In these spend times we are nearing end times. The center cannot hold. It's already beyond being off axis. 
In the coming 5 months we have a decision to make. Do we let our country die? Do we let our way of life die? Do we let ourselves die? 
Choosing Mitt Romney over Barack Obama is infinitely more palatable than continuing on this path of destruction we follow. We have great sacrifices to make. We will have to retire later than we planned. We will have to expect less government entitlements than we were "promised" when we were forced to give the government our money to fund them. Then more money. And still more money. (Hell, every year we vote to tax ourselves locally for infrastructure projects many of us never see come to life, because often that money is diverted to other expenditures, just like the entitlement taxes we pay.) We will have to make the biggest gut check of our lives. We will have to hold the limbs of the people we elect to take over this monstrosity to more than just a fire; we will have to tie them to a rack and torture them, if necessary, to right this sinking ship.
I've been hearing "let's go to the voting booth and take back this country" all of my adult life. Like many of you, I've voted my conscience, or at least on what I thought was in the best interest of this country to keep it somewhere within the framework of a Constitutional Republic, however ridiculous and misguided an exercise that was.

The fact is, we've allowed 100 Senators, 435 Congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices — 545 human beings out of the 300 million who are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country -- to cajole us, to patronize us, to lie to us, to horrify us, to control us from their sick little pulpits in the District of Criminals.

FIVE-HUNDRED-AND-FORTY-FIVE PEOPLE RULE OVER 300 MILLION.

It's time we stop letting them.

Congress has abandoned you. The executive branch has abandoned you. The Supreme Court has abandoned you. Their watchdogs, the media, have abandoned you.

What are you going to do about it?

I know what I'm going to do: Tear the monolith down by whatever means necessary.

THIS IS WAR.

Also posted at Pat Dollard.

Linked by Barking Moonbat.


*
Share/Save/Bookmark

Friday, May 29, 2009

Reverse Sotomayor-alogy

Imagine if you heard me say:
I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life.
Would you call me a...
  1. Male chauvinist?
  2. Racist?
  3. Conservative fascist wingnut?
I'm betting all three.

So how is it any different from what Sonia Sotomayor, our next member of SCOTUS, once said?

Ah, but she...
  1. Has an amazing story
  2. Is drawing from her experience
  3. Has great empathy
Great stories, life experience, and empathy all being central themes within the Constitution, and impeccable qualities for interpreting it, of course.

Moonbats and their stupid logic.

UPDATE: Obugger, naturally, is sure Sotomayor would restate her comment:
"I think that when she's appearing before the Senate committee, in her confirmation process, I think all this nonsense that is being spewed out will be revealed for what it is," Obama said in the broadcast interview, clearly aware of how ethnicity and gender issues are taking hold in the debate.
That's funny...since Barry hasn't spoken with Sotomayor about her beliefs, he has what we do to go by: Her statements and deeds. As his mouthpiece said the other day, b. Hussein is comfortable with lots about the judge, presumably by telepathy because neither Sotomayor nor TOTUS filled him in:

Presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama did not specifically ask Sotomayor about the right to privacy. The debate over that right has come up in the context of several matters involving the court, including abortion rights.

As a candidate for president, Obama promised that he would not appoint anyone who doesn't believe in the right to privacy.

Pressed on the matter, Gibbs would only answer broadly, saying Obama was very comfortable with her interpretation of the Constitution being similar to his.

Maybe, just maybe, he doesn't believe in the Constitution at all, since the mysticism of empathy is a qualification for jurisprudence divined from the Founders, apparently, by The Diety himself, but not from any sane person's reading of the actual document.

Truth is, Sotomayor doesn't even live up to his word about finding some empathetic person who would, presumably, heal all racial divides with the wave of her gavel:
In addition to making statements about the importance of life experience, Obama has also repeatedly stated that "empathy" is a vital quality that he seeks in judicial nominees. Sotomayor's time on the Second Circuit has given her ample opportunity to demonstrate the role that "empathy" plays in her decision-making.

Most notable is the case of
Ricci v. DeStefano, in which Sotomayor's three-judge panel sided with New Haven, Conn., officials who threw out the results of race-neutral fire department promotional exams because they did not yield enough high scores from African-American firefighters. When no promotions were given as a result, Frank Ricci, a dyslexic white firefighter who came in sixth in the competition for eight lieutenant spots, filed a lawsuit with 19 other firefighters alleging racial discrimination.

Some might feel "empathetic" toward a learning-disabled civil servant who overcame the disadvantage by spending every spare hour studying after he had a friend record his textbooks onto tapes. Better yet, a constitutionalist would find the city's race-conscious criteria to violate the requirements of Equal Protection. But Sotomayor wasn't moved.


Like other liberal activists who assert the importance of empathy, Sotomayor remarkably finds the need to reach into her "heart" only when the litigant's cause aligns with her own. In fact, as Clinton appointee Judge José Cabranes noted with some frustration, Sotomayor's "empathy" with New Haven's position was so relentless that she took unprecedented procedural steps to bury the claims of the firefighters.


In an attempt to prevent effective review, Sotomayor's three-judge panel originally issued a one paragraph summary order affirming the district court's ruling, then withdrew it and issued an unsigned opinion.
In fact, I'll say it right now.

Since b. Hussein appointed such a non-empathetic figure to SCOTUS -- a figure, one would think, who should understand the racial injustice done to Ricci, having been, we're lead to believe, the victim of racial injustice herself -- we have only his actions to go by as well, which lead to the entirely logical conclusion that:

Maybe b. Hussein, too, thinks minorities can do a better job.
*
Share/Save/Bookmark

Thursday, May 28, 2009

"Foreseeable Risk of Substantial Disruption"

Susan Boyle...uh...I mean Sonia Sotomayor, b. Hussein's love-interest for the SCOTUS, once ruled against the free speech of a blogger (a puerile one like me, admittedly):
Sotomayor joined two other judges from the 2nd Circuit in ruling that the student’s off-campus blog remarks created a “foreseeable risk of substantial disruption” at the student’s high school and that the teenager was not entitled to a preliminary injunction reversing a disciplinary action against her.
But...um...isn't that what I do here every day?
*
Share/Save/Bookmark

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Moonbattery About Sotomayor from the Twitterverse

Ya just have to love some of this...

jessiejessup Just because I quote Thoreau doesn't mean I am gonna move to the woods so why does matter Sotomayor quoted a socialist 30 years ago??

SiobhansONgin Yeah um fuck you if you don't like Sonia Sotomayor.....reblip that someone! ♫ http://blip.fm/~74s93

osochic And the J.Lo comparisons have begun :-\ ... "Judge Sotomayor is the new JLo. Justice for Law & Order" - man on the news

Peruchito Sotomayor from the block. great photos of someone who 'made it' http://bit.ly/193nVn

LooseDaCEO They sittn up here trynna take away from Ms.Sotomayor, give the lady her just due people. Need to be worried bout North Korea n those bombs

funky_old_man Republican Party risks further alienation from Hispanics by challenging the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor

mrrowe8 Sotomayor ,come on Repub's u guys got C Thomas in and if there was ever some1 that should of been a no,it was that dude

emilyfirestone Hope Sotomayor turns out to be a lefty Scalia, not some milquetoast willing to go along with election stealing & immigrant bashing.

awake247 Sotomayor, the next Terminator: Part DeSoto, part mayor. Arnold Schwarzenegger, you are on notice, on and off camera.

CTarin86 I want to punch elizabeth hasselbeck for the crap she is spewing about sotomayor. Ugh. She is so stupid!!

WorkWIthIllness RT @DiabetesMine: Sotomayor is 1st Supreme Court Pick with a known chronic illness (survivorship!) - that's big, right?

mousegirl100 Rock it out Sotomayor! Rican power! Catholic high school power! Projects power! South Bronx power! Hell to the yeah!!

TashaDeidre @SuperwomanAK I agree! N-E thing is possible! Obama & Sotomayor R examples of da genius in us all. Dreams come true when U R dedicated.

justinracette To all you conservatives: Shut up about Sotomayor. She's one wicked woman...why can't we get anyone into office without someone complaining?

LiberalTalk Got Ed Schultz on the radio and contemplating gay marriage and Sonia Sotomayor for the US Supreme Court. Thought: marriage is civil.

hoorayforkyle Sotomayor looks to have respect of liberals and conservatives alike. Good choice for Obama to test the waters.

amariamoon24 Mrs. Sotomayor is a very eloquent speaker and a womderful character- hopefully soon Justice Sotomayor

Moltz Something to practice this week: "It's hard to take you seriously when you don't even pronounce her name right. It's SotomayOR." Eye roll.

MikeKStuckey rate the supreme court justices here ... http://tinyurl.com/oog5eh ... so far, sotomayor ranks above all conservatives and she's not in yet

mic_dee The Sotomayor reversal rate meme is nearly as dumb as the fear of superhuman terrorists breaking out of supermaxes.

dafyophi Sonia Sotomayor = fuck yeah. Try and deflect it, GOP. It won't work.

blak_boy i heard Sotomayor and thought, a latino. then, i found saw she was a woman. 2 points for Obama!!

mrrowe8 2 any1 on this Sotomayor thing if u cite race as in ur own ur a fool u r the minority now ,u will b assimilated resistance is futile
*
Share/Save/Bookmark
 
Feed Your ADHD Copyright © 2009 Blogger Template Designed by Bie Blogger Template