Tag: Supreme court

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.

Benjamin Post - Court Decision Leaves Questions on Michigan

The Conservative Canvas - The Supreme Court

The Conservative Perspective - Time Has Run out

The Minority Report - Windsor and Hollingsworth's Silver Lining

The Voice Of One Crying Out In Suburbia - If you want to dance with Caesar, remember that Caesar calls the tune

Originally mentioned here on RightMichigan, this issue has other aspectsd that need to be discussed.  Demonstrating the jackboot mentality that infests the cranium of big government types, State Rep Wayne Schmidt R-104 along with Fred Durhal Jr., Thomas F. Stallworth III, Brian Banks, Michael D. McCready, Woodrow Stanley, Henry Yanez, Scott Dianda have decided they want to automate oppression with HB4763. Adding to the other ways in which those who implicitly trust that government will NEVER abuse its power of force, these legislators and the man who never met a government expansion he didn't like, explain it as empowering to local communities.

"local governments should be given control over whether they want to use this kind of technology in their communities."

The constitution has something to say already with regards to this legislation.

What about this amendment to the motor vehicle code that is proposed in this poorly thought out power grab?:

(5) A complaint signed by a police officer shall be treated as made under oath if the violation alleged in the complaint is A civil offense described in section 752 and if the complaint contains the following statement immediately above the date and signature of the police officer:

"I declare under the penalties of perjury that the statements Above are true to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief.".

Its saying "to the best of my knowledge you are indeed guilty, unless you can prove otherwise", and allowing the same latitude that is currently only available with crimes that have occurred or were committed in the signing officer's presence.

Is that such a good idea?

Is that not what the supreme court is being asked to validate? In the case before our Nation's highest court, the justices are being asked to determine whether California's 2008 Proposition 8 as enacted by voters is constitutional.  They are being asked to either affirm or deny the decision of United States District Court Judge Vaughn Walker,  who overturned it on August 4, 2010; his argument being a violation of both the Due Process clause, and Equal Protections clause of the 14th amendment.

A inaccurate understanding of the 14th amendment if ever there was one.

Due Process guarantees a process under which something might be taken.  It allows the imposed upon person or class to prepare a defense or answer to actions being used to deprive an individual, or group, a particular thing.  It also requires law to be sufficiently understandable or substantive.

The award is given to 3 or 4 each year, with a 'Grand Defender' being chosen from those, and announced during the annual constitution celebration event in Acme MI. This year's event is Sept 15.  The award reads:

"Has been recognized by the Constitution Celebration Committee and membership as a person of  indefatigable character,  who abides by the laws of our country, and defends with vigor, the principles of its founding by lawful means.

This persons' actions have had a positive impact on the community, and have promoted a better understanding of our founding documents through writings or actions and has shown  a willingness to resist usurpation of the rights granted by our Constitution.                    

This defender specifically represented his community as a 2nd amendment advocate, not when it was convenient, but as infringement by other authority was being advanced. He supported the United States Constitution through outreach and strength, with unfailing dedication towards preserving tradition for our children and beyond."

This video provides a pretty good explanation WHY this Sheriff was chosen.

We thank him.

I hope the Democrats in Michigan are happy with their replacement of a (inaccurately portrayed) sleeping judge, with one who probably thought we all were. [sleeping] Today's Punditry includes:

• Michigan Lawyers Weekly Blog - Pandering to the press'? C'mon, now
  
• Crains -Contenders To Replace Hathaway
  
• Jonathan Turley -  .. Agency Accused Her Of "Blatant and Brazen Violations"
  
• Kenneth A - Silent Fraud
  
• Republican Michigander - Hathaway Resigns Snyder Will Appoint Supreme Court Justice

Governor Rick Snyder will have a few good folks to choose from on January 21st.

And with the retirement of Justice Diane Hathaway, many might think the obvious choice would be to go with the selection Republicans made in 2012 during their state convention to run for the office.  However, it should be noted that Colleen Obrien Couldn't even beat a candidate with NO TRIAL experience.  A good suggestion with regard to that? Forget it.

We can do better.

There is one more chance to do the right thing for Michigan, with both experience and a sense of following the rules:

"Our Judges Must Faithfully Apply Our Constitution And Plain Language Of Our Statutes. It Is Our Only Hope Of Defending Freedom And Ordered Liberty." - Judge Jane Markey"

This is indeed a great opportunity, and as I am sure the political machinery is in full operation, the choice should be very clear and without argument.  For the proper role of the court to be protected and advanced, there is only one choice that would provide a quality justice for Michigan, and also give the rule of law bench a better chance in the following election cycle.  And one candidate fits the profile needed to restore integrity to the office.