Posts Tagged ‘ U.S. Supreme Court ’

US Supreme Court refuses to hear argument against Kagan

English: Justice Elena Kagan in the Justices' ...

In his year-end report, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “I have complete confidence in the capability of my colleagues to determine when recusal is warranted.  They are jurists of exceptional integrity and experience whose character and fitness have been examined through a rigorous appointment and confirmation process.”

Unfortunately, I suspect he is wrong.  I believe Justice Kagan is a plant.  She was placed on the court for the sole purpose of ruling on this case.  If I am correct, it would necessitate that she is not, as the Chief Justice wrote, “of exceptional integrity.”

I received this email today from Grassfire Nation and I’m posting it here.  It supplements and updates my essay on Elena Kagan from last November.

From the Desk of:
Steve Elliott, Grassfire Nation
On Monday, the Supreme Court refused to hear oral arguments on 
whether Justice Elena Kagan should recuse herself from the
ObamaCare lawsuit.

This was no surprise. The Supreme Court is the most isolated 
and powerful branch of government. Despite the overwhelming 
evidence indicating that Kagan should recuse herself, the
Court has refused to take any action.

Let’s review the facts…

The Judicial Crisis Network (JCN) has carefully documented 
Kagan’s work on behalf of ObamaCare while she served as 
Obama’s Solicitor General.

Continue reading

Surprise! Kagan will be an Activist Judge

Jun 29 2010 U.S. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan testifies during second day of her U.S. Senate confirmation hearings in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, June 29, 2010. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS CRIME LAW HEADSHOT)  Content © 2010 Reuters All rights reserved.I haven’t written too much about the President’s latest Supreme Court nominee because it seems rather pointless.  The Socialists Democrats have an iron grip on Washington and until an angry public can boot as many of them out as possible in November, they will continue to tear away at the fabric of the Constitution with the persistence of Genghis Khan.

It is important that they do this because the only way to ensure their agenda out-lives them is to stack the Supreme Court with as many activist judges as they possibly can.  We can hope only the liberal Judges leave the Court before Obama leaves the presidency.  So far so good.

The confirmation hearings are interesting because these Senators arrived on day one with their minds solidly decided.  Elena Kagan would have to confess to murder to change a single mind, even then I bet she could squeeze out more than a few a yea votes.

The genius of the drafters [of the Constitution] was — was to draft those so that they could be applied to new conditions, to new circumstances, to changes in the world. –Elena Kagan June 29, 2010

Continue reading

Obama Flunked High School Civics

Bret Baier spars with the an Muhammed Ali-like President Obama

I’ve asked it before and I’m asking it again, why is it that anytime someone says, “let me be perfectly clear,” they proceed to be anything but. In the above interview, Obama reminded me of Muhammad Ali as he verbally danced like a butterfly around questions and attempted to sting like a bee by excoriating Baier for interrupting his long-winded attempts not to answer the questions.

The most amazing moment came, though, when the President flatly admitted that he doesn’t care how Congress passes the health bill as long as they do.  President Obama told Bret Baier of Fox News, “I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or Senate.  What I can tell you is that the vote that’s taken in the House will be a vote for health care reform.  And if people vote yes, whatever form that takes, that is going to be a vote for health care reform.  And I don’t think we should pretend otherwise.” In the parlance of the web, WTF?!  So what is he saying?  I believe he’s saying, it doesn’t matter how they pass it, as long as I get to use that new pen I bought for the signing. He sounds to me like someone who didn’t pay attention in civics class.

Slaughter House Rules

When I first heard talk of the so-called “Slaughter Solution” I scoffed.  Really?  Even Nancy Pelosi knows you cannot subvert the Constitution.  Certainly, the President would refuse to sign an illegally passed law.  I could not image any Administration openly supporting the passage of a law that had not been properly voted upon.  The House and Senate bills are not the same bill.  The Senate rewrote and substantially changed the House bill.  According to tradition and my understanding of the Constitution the house must vote upon the Senate version of the bill.

As I listened to the debate I was heavily impacted by the Republican references to Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution.  It was so obvious this tactic was unconstitutional.  However, I notice the quoted text was always abbreviated (as indicated by ellipses.)  The researcher I am, I decided to reread the Constitution.  Wouldn’t it be ignorant to based my opinion on an excerpt?  But hey, most Americans base their opinions on far less – ask any liberal and they tell you what they “feel” is right.

The Constitution Assumes Democracy

Unfortunately, this is where I piss off my conservative friends, but please keep reading, then research it and convince me I’m wrong or that there is a better Article upon which to base a Constitutional challenge.

Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

This article appears to be talking primarily about overriding a Presidential veto.  I reread the entire Constitution excluding amendments to find any clear language regarding bills where the Senate substantially changes a House bill.  Clearly, over time Congress has established a long history of messing with bills and reconciling the versions into a new bill which is then passed by both houses.  But such procedures are not specifically spelled out in the Constitution.  It seems the details of how to originate a bill and pass a bill is largely left up to Congress.  When it says, “Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States,” it does not even mention their having voted on that bill.

Scary omission as we have always assumed they vote.  Today, we have Congress run by ideologues, who comb through the Constitution looking for loopholes and what they can get away with.  I believe the founding fathers took it for granted that common sense would rule Congressional procedure. They assumed any bill presented to the President was the same bill voted for by both houses of Congress, but the fact is, they forgot to spell it out for the idiots of the future. Oops.

The good news may be that the long-standing tradition of both houses voting on the same bill may sway the Supreme Court to nullify the health care law.  The bad news is that Article I, Section 5 reads, “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings…” and this will likely be the basis for Pelosi’s defense.

If Republicans were in the majority and the Slaughter Solution were even discussed, the press would be circling like sharks, insinuation dictatorship, ect.  It might have even been nicknamed the “Final Solution.” Instead today we see editorials and sycophants in the MSM defending it and claiming it’s commonly done.  To that I must exclaim, BULLSHIT.

This is an affront to American political tradition, democracy, and freedom.  If we let them get away with this, there will be no bound to how far they will go the next time!

The Idiot quote of the Year

Comes from Nancy Pelosi.

“We have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it”

%d bloggers like this: