Posts Tagged ‘Supreme Court’
Enjoy a few of Justice Clarence Thomas’s thoughts during some rare public remarks.
Senior Associate Justice Antonin Scalia has died while on a hunting trip in Texas, apparently of natural causes. For thirty years this Reagan appointee staunchly defended the Constitution, and thereby, We the People.
He was both witty and charming, and unlike His Oneness, understood and gloried in the fact that the Constitution was expressly designed to ensure the rights of citizens against the government. Read anything he wrote in any decision and compare it to the best ever produced by Obama appointees Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. You will be stunned at the the difference between the scholarly, logical, even witty, reasoning of Scalia versus the puerile displays of emotions and personal moral posing of the latter two justices.
I can only imagine what sort of anti-Constitutional jurist Obama will appoint this time around. What a disaster looms before us.
UP)DATE: Sen. Mitch McConnell says, quite properly, that no replacement should be confirmed until after the election. Notwithstanding Ed Whelan’s informative post on the historical aspects of the precedents, or lack thereof in this case, His Oneness will no doubt try, and whine pathetically the entire time while using the situation to make as much political hay as possible. I suspect he will try to claim that Congress is in recess, whether it is or not, which he has tried before.
This is HUGE! The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the 27 states and various companies and business groups who sued to stop the regulations under the administration’s Clean Power Plan from going into effect while the legality of the plan is litigated. I had not been hopeful for this result when the U.S. Appeals Court ruled against them, but perhaps the judicial system is beginning to wake up and remember its real job.
His Oneness planned to get the crippling regulations in effect and let the case spend years in litigation while he put the coal industry out of business and made energy as expensive as he promised he would.
The Supreme Court, for a change, has reached the correct decision in blocking a racially discriminatory election in Hawaii.
Basically, certain interests in Hawaii are attempting to set up a new government representing the “colonized” native Hawaiians. They do not view American sovereignty as legitimate. Only “native” Hawaiians would be allowed to register and vote, which is what makes it racially discriminatory. Of course, the Obama administration took their side and filed a brief supporting the election, arguing that even though Congress has never authorized a new government on Hawaii comprised of the native race, the state should be allowed to establish one.
So His Oneness declares that states have to take the Syrian refugees, but Hawaii can discriminate on racial grounds and it’s perfectly fine. He has tumbled from utter hypocrisy to total insanity.
When I heard what the ruling was, my first thought was that words no longer held any real meaning, and that a law is no longer a law. Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito hold a similar view according to their scathing dissent.
I will have more to say on this execrable decision after studying it over the weekend.
Even Justices Sotomayor and Kagan got this one right by joining in a decision that when shareholders sue a corporation for making false statements of opinion in filings, they must establish that the statements were knowingly false. That seems plain common sense to me, but it is a direct blow to the trial lawyers’ lobby, an important Democratic support group, and one which has increasingly used such lawsuits as a means of legal extortion.
I myself have owned stock in a corporation which was attacked in this manner, and it was costly to the company, and thus to shareholders, not merely in the expense of fighting the suit, but also because it held up a large business deal.
I am always reminded that people obtain law degrees for one of three reasons: 1) because they love the law and wish to seek justice; 2) they see it as a means to become wealthy; or 3) they wish to learn how to subvert the law. The last option is what drove both the Clintons and the Obamas. None of them have any respect for the law or the Constitution on which it is based, nor do they have any for the dignity of the office of the Presidency. They are merely tools in their arsenals of corruption.
Raise your hand if you’re surprised that wholly unqualified Supreme Court Justice Kagan made reference to Dr. Seuss during a case before the court. Of course, His Oneness selected her because she was Latina, reliably progressive, and can not imagine anything the federal government does being classified as overreach.