Tag: SCOTUS

The 18th amendment was repealed, but the court's power grab was not.

Entire article HERE

Of course said nuttiness joined by what we might have expected to see; a particular "wise Latina woman" making a mockery of equal protection under the law. A fascinating read of the first day's hearing on the case reveals even liberal biases will not paint the 2006 referendum result as an unconstitutional achievement.

"Arguing that a referendum that bans racial discrimination and preferences is itself a violation of the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause was always a stretch. Neal Katyal, a former solicitor general in the Clinton administration told USA Today that the lower court ruling striking down the referendum was  "an indefensible decision."  The liberal Slate writer Emily Bazelon called Schuette "the affirmative action case liberals deserve to lose."  And the Obama administration, which intervened in last term's affirmative action case of Fisher v. University of Texas, did not participate in the Schuette case."

Also revealed; the percentage changes mentioned in yesterday's post appearing to be more of a 'census guidelines' effect, and cannot be completely attributed to actual numbers of minorities attending the school. (given the President of the university promised to break the law anyhow, should we be surprised?) The numbers as noted by Michigan solicitor general John Bursch, revealed the changes as expected from a 30 school study are not different than what the actual percentages showed.

And I did mention the self designation of Sonya Sotomayer.  Her commentary should not really be of any great surprise, yet reveals that elections do indeed have consequence.

"It's always wonderful for minorities that they finally get in, they finally have children and now you're going to do away [with] that preference for them.  It seems the game posts keep changing every few years for minorities."

Sadly, its being sold from the equivalent of sniper on a clock tower using a scope that reaches the entire country.  We are all targets if a "wise Latina Woman" wishes it.

Statement by Gary Glenn, president, American Family Association of Michigan:

Michigan's Marriage Protection Amendment remains in place, and marriage in Michigan remains only between one man and one woman, at least until the next lawyer in a black robe decides he has the power to overturn the vote of millions of Michigan citizens, including the two-thirds of black voters and two-thirds of union households who voted in favor of that amendment.

We regret that the court upheld the decision of one openly homosexual judge to overturn the vote of millions of California voters, including 70 percent of black voters in that state, to define marriage as only between one man and one woman.

We also regret the court's opinion on the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which was enacted with overwhelming bipartisan majorities and signed into law by President Clinton.  Five unelected lawyers purport to overturn the vote of hundreds of the people's elected representatives in Congress and the White House.

This Wednesday refocuses our attention on House watching, looking for signs of Bolger and company rolling over for Gov Snydholm wanting his Exchange.

"There's a push, obviously, to set up an exchange There is a separate push - if we don't set one up - that we start some of the planning process," Adler said. "And then there is a lot of pressure to delay things a little longer. We are receiving a lot of feedback with a lot of different ideas."

As a county commissioner, last year I voted with the prevailing side for Grand Traverse County to NOT contribute funds to the local fireworks displays on independence day.  While a couple of those who wanted to do so cried "unpatriotic", the decision was that we would not use taxpayer funds for the light and noise show so often associated with July 4 activities.

It really wasn't that difficult.

Don't get me wrong.  I like fireworks too.  and of course the cost was minimal.  A few thousand dollars to help subsidize an operation that had been somewhat disrupted by a change in a local veterans organization that was till then handling the project's financials, doesn't seem like a great burden.  However, added to it were the contributions from local townships, and other govt agencies, all of which must first take from the citizens by force, to make such generous entertainment available.   The local non profit which brought it before our board, had considerable means to make its own contributions, yet had not even pledged a single penny to the affair at that point.

Why bother when government will foot the bill, right?  The taxpayers will be only paying pennies.  What great entertainment!  Caesar, keep us happy!!!

Next thing we might be funding would be large venue amphitheaters with large carnivore elements.

In the end however, some business owners (along with a few of those govt agencies) decided to step up to the plate.  Sponsorships rolled in, and July 4th festivities were saved!

If nothing else, today's SCOTUS decision drives home the importance of locally electing the MOST CONSERVATIVE and CONSTITUTIONALLY minded politicians.  Its the only way to ensure this type of madness cannot continue to be placed in front of us.

"Buh .. buh .. but John Roberts is a conservative!" you say.

Yeah go figure.  Maybe there was a reason. Maybe Roberts had a stroke.  Maybe he was subjected to excessive gamma radiation.  His junk was being held hostage with a clamp? Anything. Any reason.

In the end, it doesn't matter.  

The 5-4 decision on the mandate was just that; 5 to 4.  It was a majority of the court that shouldn't exist. Roberts was joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan, who should never have been allowed to sit on the court in the first place.  Kagan, in fact, as solicitor general for the Obama administration formerly arguing FOR Obamacare should have recused herself.

The Michigan Supreme Court COULD have gone to the lefties.  It COULD have gone to those who think the constitution is a "living, breathing, document." It could have even lost some of its federalist nature AFTER the election when Maura Corrigan took on a new career as the head of DHS.  Certainly we were lucky that the election turned out as it did, and that even the replacement of Corrigan was a constitutionalist.

Because at any given point in the last year we could have found ourselves with a laughing stock and dangerous ally of the enemies of liberty.  

It could have become populated by those too much like the Indiana Supreme court.  Particularly when they spout such nonsense as:

"We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Nowadays, an aggrieved arrestee has means unavailable at common law for redress against unlawful police action."

What follows is my best effort to effectively blend the most widely circulated versions of the original article; I only hope that I do justice to the original work.