So, SCOTUS finds that Obamacare is NOT a mandate, but instead, it’s actually a tax!
In fact, it’s now the biggest tax increase in U.S. history!
With that, the hatch has been sealed and we are all being whisked away to our doom:
What a crock!
A 5-4 ruling in favor of Obamacare is pathetic when it is so clear that Obamacare was highly unconstitutional. Just furthers my resolve to get all the commies out of office before another Supreme Court Justice retires or kicks the bucket.
Of course it isn’t. After all, her job as Obama’s Solicitor General was to cover and kiss Obama’s ass, and now that Obama has maneuvered her into the Supreme Court, she’s just doing the job she was hired to do. If she was really serious about her role as a Supreme Court Justice, she would have recused herself from the Healthcare Deform proceedings:
Kagan on Switch from Obama’s Solicitor to Justice: ‘Sometimes I Think the Job Doesn’t Really Change at All’
By Terence P. Jeffrey
April 16, 2012
(CNSNews.com) – Speaking at the Newseum in Washington, D.C., last week, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan said in describing her move from solicitor general to Supreme Court justice that “sometimes I think that the job doesn’t really change at all.”
As solicitor general, Kagan’s job was to advocate the Obama administration’s position in cases brought to the Supreme Court.
“So, sometimes I think that the job doesn’t really change at all–that as solicitor general my life was spent trying to persuade 9 people and now it’s just trying to persuade 8 people,” said Kagan.
Kagan made the remark Wednesday at a forum celebrating the 30th Anniversary of the nomination of retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. (O’Connor became the first women to serve on the Supreme Court in 1982 after she was nominated by President Ronald Reagan and confirmed by the Senate.) Kagan spoke at the forum on a panel that included O’Connor and fellow justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.
Newseum CEO James C. Duff, who formerly served as a counselor and administrative assistant to the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist and as director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, moderated the panel.
At one point in the discussion, Duff asked Kagan, who has served a year and a half on the high court, if there were “still challenges” for her in adjusting to the job.
“Oh, every day is a challenge,” said Kagan. “But, you know, for me, I had never been a judge before, and just figuring out the mechanics of the job. You know, I have these four clerks, what do I do with them? What is the best process for drafting an opinion? When do I read the briefs? Do I read them the day before, the week before?
“So, all those things which I think most of my colleagues have just sort of figured what processes worked for them—I was very much last year, and continuing, to sort of do trial and error and experiment a little bit and figure out what works for me,” said Kagan.
Duff then asked Kagan: “[S]erving as solicitor general, did you find that helpful and useful?”
“Yeah, hugely helpful,” said Kagan.
“You know, because you’re just kind of looking at the court from somewhat different vantage point, but really spending all your time thinking about those 9 people and what they are doing,” said Kagan.
“So, sometimes I think that the job doesn’t really change at all,” said Kagan, “that as solicitor general my life was spent trying to persuade 9 people and now it’s just trying to persuade 8 people.”
Erick Erickson does a good job this morning of putting things in perspective concerning the Supreme Court and the Left’s madness; So, I thought I’d share a snippet of it with you all and then link on over to his website so you can read the whole thing:
Sinners In the Hands of Anthony Kennedy
The left cries foul as the right uses the federal courts to do as the left has done for years.
Posted by Erick Erickson – RedState.com
Yesterday the left descended into madness. The madness came early in the day. It happened shortly after 10 o’clock in the morning. Justice Anthony Kennedy opened his mouth and uttered his first question on the issue of the individual mandate. He asked, “Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?” The question, the second asked yesterday morning, bothered the left.
As the clock approached 11, Kennedy spoke again, sending shockwaves through the legal community. He stated matter of factly,
the reason this is concerning, is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. In the law of torts our tradition, our law, has been that you don’t have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The blind man is walking in front of a car and you do not have a duty to stop him absent some relation between you. And there is some severe moral criticisms of that rule, but that’s generally the rule.
And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way.
It was the quote heard round the world. It is what the tea party movement, libertarians, conservatives, and so many private citizens have been saying. It was an expression of what every legal scholar on television has pooh-poohed as the troglodyte rhetoric of plebeians not educated enough to understand their own founding compact.
That Justice Kennedy expressed something so obvious to so many Americans that so many well educated legal analysts have mocked for two years as an outmoded view of the constitution put forward only by hicks, rubes, and the racist middle class tea partiers not cool enough to defecate on police cars like the Occupy Wall Street hipsters should deeply, deeply trouble every radio station, newspaper, and television news network along with the American people.
Just how out of touch are the people the news media relies on as legal experts used to help form both their and their audiences’ opinions? More so, is it not abundantly obvious that legal experts let their own partisanship shape their opinions?
All of this, however, overshadows a more important issue — how the hell did a constitutional, democratic republic come to depend on the whims of one man in a black robe who nobody ever elected to anything?
Two years ago, Jan Crawford of CBS News noted the President, in his State of the Union, deviating from modern precedent in those speeches to lash out at the United States Supreme Court.
Mr. Obama, for the first time in modern history, took a direct shot at the Supreme Court in his State of the Union address, when he slammed the justices for their recent campaign finance reform decision. Six of them looked on — including the author of the opinion, key swing vote Anthony Kennedy — while Democrats jumped up to whoop and holler.
Shortly thereafter the Democrats, without a single Republican vote, passed Obamacare.
That Justice Kennedy yesterday raised a point that has been raised by so many non-lawyers is irrelevant to how the Supreme Court rules. All that is relevant is the President’s insult two years ago. Why?
[…]
CLICK HERE to continue reading this over at RedState.com
She then goes on to suggest Egyptians should closely examine the Constitutions of Canada and South Africa, along with the European Convention on Human Rights treaty, when formulating their own Constitution; heck, anything after WWII, just NOT the U.S. Constitution!
Gee, I don’t recall seeing any of those documents upholding the rights of citizens to bear arms…
Of course, it’s not all that surprising since the decrepit little termagant, Ginsburg, has always hated the U.S. Constitution. That’s why she continually cites international laws for her legal opinions whenever she doesn’t like what the U.S. Constitution has to say.
Anyway, listening to Ginsburg speak is like watching paint dry, so I have included transcript excerpts for those of you who wish to avoid the video:
http://www.memritv.org/embedded_player/index.php?clip_id=3295
Following are excerpts from an interview with US Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which aired on Al-Hayat TV on January 30, 2012.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: It is a very inspiring time – that you have overthrown a dictator, and that you are striving to achieve a genuine democracy. So I think people in the United States are hoping that this transition will work, and that there will genuinely be a government of, by, and for the people.
[…]
I met with the head of the elections commission. I think that the first step has gone well, and that elections have been held for the lower house that everyone has considered to be free and fair. So that’s one milestone, and the next will be the drafting of a constitution.
I can’t speak about what the Egyptian experience should be, because I’m operating under a rather old constitution. The United States, in comparison to Egypt, is a very new nation, and yet we have the oldest written constitution still in force in the world.
That’s because it’s such a great Constitution, Ms. Ginsburg!
[…]
Let me say first that a constitution, as important as it is, will mean nothing unless the people are yearning for liberty and freedom. If the people don’t care, then the best constitution in the world won’t make any difference. So the spirit of liberty has to be in the population, and then the constitution – first, it should safeguard basic fundamental human rights, like our First Amendment, the right to speak freely, and to publish freely, without the government as a censor.
What? No Freedom of Religion? I’m pretty sure the Greek Orthodox Church would appreciate a little freedom of religion, Ms. Ginsburg.
[…]
You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone one since the end of World War II. I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary… It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution – Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?
[…]
And, we ALL thank God you weren’t the one drafting Our Constitution, Ms. Ginsburg.
If you have nothing to hide, then why all the stonewalling, Mr. withHolder?
GOP questions ‘two-month gap’ in Kagan’s health care involvement
By Stephen Dinan – The Washington Times
The top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee said Thursday that the Obama administration is fueling speculation about Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan’s impartiality because it won’t turn over documents detailing her role in crafting the legal strategy to defend the health care law while she was serving in the administration.
Rep. Lamar Smith, the committee chairman, told Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. that emails show Justice Kagan took an interest in the case in January 2010, when she was solicitor general, and he demanded to know what role she played between then and March 2010, when Mr. Obama tapped her to sit on the high court.
“The issue is, how involved was she in health care discussions between Jan. 8 and March 5? Just as President Nixon had an 18½-minute gap, does Ms. Kagan have a two-month gap?” Mr. Smith, Texas Republican, said.
Conservative groups have called for Justice Kagan to recuse herself from ruling on the case challenging the constitutionality of Mr. Obama’s health care law, which the Supreme Court last month said it will consider next year.
Mr. Smith has requested a fuller explanation of Justice Kagan’s role. He said the Justice Department had denied his request but never cited any legal privilege to withhold information.
First they came for the hackers, and I said nothing. Then, they came for the drug users, and I said nothing. Then they came for the bloggers…
This is absolutely crazy! If you think we’re not hurtling at breakneck speeds towards a fascist totalitarian police state, think again!:
Supreme Court gives police a new entryway into homes
The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision in a Kentucky case, says police officers who loudly knock on a door in search of illegal drugs and then hear sounds suggesting evidence is being destroyed may break down the door and enter without a search warrant.
By David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times – via Chicago Tribune
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday gave police more leeway to break into residences in search of illegal drugs.
The justices in an 8-1 decision said officers who loudly knock on a door and then hear sounds suggesting evidence is being destroyed may break down the door and enter without a search warrant.
Think about that for a moment: The police can now break your door down if you are merely sitting there on the throne doing your daily business when they come a’knocking and you decide to flush the toilet in the process of cleaning yourself up to answer the door! And, what exactly constitutes “sounds suggesting evidence is being destroyed?” A shuffle? A cough? What? Very nebulous indeed! I mean, what if you, like me, like to walk around the house in your boxer shorts all day long and whenever someone knocks on the door, you have to rustle around a little to grab some pants and throw them on? Is that rustling noise now a go-ahead signal for cops to break down your door?
Residents who “attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame” when police burst in, said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.
Again I ask, what exactly constitutes sounds suggesting evidence is being destroyed? The police are going to use any excuse they can to violate your 4th Amendment rights. It’s not their fault; they have a job to do and will use any “gray areas” and legal means necessary to accomplish that job. But, the Supreme Court giving police the green light to break down your door if they “think” they hear evidence being destroyed is beyond insane—it’s straight out of Nazi Germany!
Don’t blame me when innocent homeowners start shooting and killing “intruders” breaking down their doors only to find out, much to their chagrin, that it was just the po-po doing their jobs—blame the United States Supreme Court Justices!
In a lone dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she feared the ruling in a Kentucky case will give police an easy way to ignore the 4th Amendment. “Police officers may not knock, listen and then break the door down,” she said, without violating the 4th Amendment.
Crap! I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I actually agree with her “high”ness on this one!
In the past, the court has said police usually may not enter a home unless they have a search warrant or the permission of the owner. As Alito said, “The 4th Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house.”
Uh, yeah…It’s more like a squiggly dotted line now, wouldn’t you say, Mr. Justice Alito?
One exception to that rule involves an emergency, such as screams coming from a house. Police may also pursue a fleeing suspect who enters a residence. Police were attempting to do that in the Kentucky case, but they entered the wrong apartment, raising the issue of what is permissible in situations where police have reason to believe evidence is being destroyed.
It began when police in Lexington, Ky., were following a suspect who allegedly had sold crack cocaine to an informer and then walked into an apartment building. They did not see which apartment he entered, but when they smelled marijuana smoke come from one of the apartments, they wrongly assumed he had gone into that one. They pounded on the door and called “Police. Police. Police,” and heard the sounds of people moving.
At this, the officers announced they were coming in, and they broke down the door. They found Hollis King smoking marijuana, and put him under arrest. They also found powder cocaine. King was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to 11 years in prison.
[…]
Alito said the police conduct in this case “was entirely lawful,” and they were justified in breaking down the door to prevent the destruction of the evidence.
“When law enforcement officers who are not armed with a warrant knock on a door, they do no more than any private citizen may do,” he wrote. A resident need not respond, he added. But the sounds of people moving and perhaps toilets being flushed could justify police entering without a warrant, he added.
Oh, you’re saying that private citizens may now break down my door and “lawfully” enter my residence if they hear me flushing the toilet? Give me a friggin’ break! You know what I do to “private citizens” who break down my door? I shoot them!
“Destruction of evidence issues probably occur most frequently in drug cases because drugs may be easily destroyed by flushing down a toilet,” he added.
[…]
Ginsburg, however, said the court’s approach “arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the 4th Amendment’s warrant requirement in drug cases.” She said the police did not face a “genuine emergency” and should not have been allowed to enter the apartment without a warrant.
Again, I can’t believe I’m saying this, but her “high”ness is absolutely correct on this one!
Mrs. Bulldog and I were discussing this issue just this past week and came up with a solution which would uphold the 1st Amendment, yet curtail the activities of the Westboro Baptists: Remove any police presence from affected military funerals and just let the mourners (who most likely will have a few battle-hardened soldiers in their midst) take matters into their own hands. Put the fear of God into the Westboros, as it were, and make them think twice about their chosen strategy.
As an added bonus, affected mourners can always sue the Westboros for having incited any riots that might break out. Problem solved!
Yup, like I learned the hard way when I was younger; you have the right to free speech, but you better be willing to live with the potentially painful consequences if someone doesn’t like what you’re saying:
Westboro nut cases owe the Founding Fathers one
Commentary: Rally round the First Amendment even in the face of hate mongering
CHICAGO (MarketWatch) — For a little church in Kansas, it has an awfully big mouth. But as repugnant as what its members spout is, the government has no place in shutting their pie holes.
The Supreme Court didn’t put it exactly that way Wednesday when it upheld an appeals courts ruling that overturned a big monetary judgment against Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan. But the sentiment of the 8-1 decision amounts to the same thing.
The foresighted folks who wrote our Constitution didn’t make any distinctions about the type of speech they were protecting when they added the First Amendment. They just said Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
That broad principal worked out well for the church members of Westboro. Despite their despicable tactics of picketing the funerals of military members in order to spew their nonsense that God is punishing the U.S. for “the sin of homosexuality,” the Constitution, and the Court, says they can go right on spewing and don’t have to pay $10.9 million in lawsuit damages.
And we should revel in that decision. We don’t have to like the message, or think much more of the messengers than we would of toadstools, but we sure have to like the fact that we are free to say what we think, thanks to the First Amendment.
That bit of our heritage was a brazen statement about the promise, and the pig sty, that is democracy — that only a completely open society, tolerant of all views, would thrive. And it sure does get messy in that sty, as we’ve seen not just in this case but in everything from the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords to statehouse budget-cut protests.
So thank you, Westboro Baptist Church, for reminding us again what we value in this country, which is not you. We’d exercise our rights to come down to Topeka and picket your sorry little establishment, but you’re just not worth it.
Excellent news! Justice Scalia is an “originalist,” meaning that he interprets the U.S. Constitution as it was understood by Our Founders.
It’s just a shame that the constitution has been shredded to such an extent by the communist progressives in schools and government that it actually had to come to this:
Congress to be schooled
By: CNN’s Gabriella Schwarz
(CNN) – Constitutional 101 is coming to Congress by way of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia when he leads the first constitutional conservative seminar for members of Congress in late January.
Justice Scalia will lead the first session of the series created by Republican Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, according to Bachmann spokesman Doug Sachtleben.
He said the series is a response to conservative messages delivered during the midterm elections that called for the return to constitutional principles.
Go Tea Party!
The bi-monthly seminars are part of the Tea Party caucus – a group Bachmann helped launch – and will “bring up principles that are already familiar to the members,” including the bill of rights and role of government, Sachtleben said.
Bachmann was an avid campaigner during the 2010 elections, enjoying the support of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and raising her national profile.
In an interview on Lou Dobbs’ radio show, Bachmann compared the classes to sports practices.
“We’re going to practice every week, if you will, our craft, which is studying and learning the Declaration, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights,” Bachmann said. “We’ll have a speaker, we’ll have questions and answers, we’ll wrap our minds around this magnificent document.”
Kathy Arberg, the Supreme Court’s public information officer confirmed Scalia accepted the invitation and said he will speak about “Separation of Powers.”
Given the Supreme Court’s track record of dismissing cases when it comes to the public’s concern over Obama’s “Natural Born” status, let us hope that this is not another harbinger of things to come:
U.S. Supreme Court rejects health care reform case
Posted On: Nov. 08, 2010
WASHINGTON (Bloomberg)—The U.S. Supreme Court refused to revive a challenge to President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, leaving intact a ruling that said a California man and interest group filed their lawsuit prematurely.
The case marks the first time the high court has been called on to act on the health care law, which is also being challenged by 20 states in two lawsuits.
In rejecting the appeal, the justices dropped a hint that all nine of them will take part if they ultimately consider the law’s constitutionality. Two associate justices whose participation has been the subject of discussion—Elena Kagan and Clarence Thomas—both took part in today’s action.
Justice Kagan, who served as Mr. Obama’s top courtroom lawyer before he appointed her to the Supreme Court, was pressed by Republican senators considering her nomination this year to say whether she would disqualify herself from disputes over the health care law.
She said in a written response to questions that she played no role in formulating the administration’s legal defense, though the litigation was briefly mentioned at least at one meeting she attended.
Justice Thomas’s role became an issue because of the work of his wife, Virginia, a political activist whose name had appeared on a memo declaring the measure “unconstitutional.” The group she founded, Liberty Central, last month said her name had been added to the memo by mistake. Liberty Central also removed a position paper questioning the measure’s validity from its website.
State suits filed in Virginia and Florida claim the health care measure, which requires all U.S. residents to either obtain insurance or pay a penalty, exceeds Congress’s constitutional authority.
In the appeal rejected today, Steve Baldwin and the California-based Pacific Justice Institute asked the justices to take the unusual step of hearing an appeal directly from a federal trial court, bypassing the appeals court level.
The case is Baldwin vs. 10-369.
Welcome to the madhouse:
Supreme Court Justice Breyer Open to Banning Koran Burning
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 – Kristinn – Free Republic
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has expressed a willingness to ban protesters from burning the Koran as the modern day equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater.
The Supreme Court has ruled burning the American flag in protest is protected speech under the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Breyer spoke to George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s Good Morning America today:
But Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer told me on “GMA” that he’s not prepared to conclude that — in the internet age — the First Amendment condones Koran burning.
“Holmes said it doesn’t mean you can shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater,” Breyer told me. “Well, what is it? Why? Because people will be trampled to death. And what is the crowded theater today? What is the being trampled to death?”
Breyer is promoting his new book, Making Our Democracy Work.
Breyer was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1994 by President Bill Clinton.
AWARDS:
Fearless Blogger Award
To subscribe to our RSS Feed, Click on the above Image
Reuters Fox News Breitbart WND – US
doctorbulldog
Ronin
Doctor Bulldog & Ronin 
Opinionated Infidels