On Friday, the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Gay marriage …
A decision that should have been made by individual states was determined by the SCOTUS. Nine unelected individuals in black robes made social law and ruled in favor of Gay marriage with a 5-4 decision.
Personally, I could care less what one does in the confines of their relationships when it comes to whether one is gay or heterosexual, but please spare me the nonsense that “Love” won. Spare me the BS. What does love have to do with a pice of paper? There are plenty of individuals who are in relationships outside of wedlock who are not Gay who love each other. Anyone who thinks they need a piece of paper issued by a State to say they they have love in their relationship knows nothing what love is and only has an agenda. Note what was said above, the State issues the marriage license, not the federal government so please tell me where the SCOTUS even has standing to rule on this issue. Exactly what ever happened to the State’s 10th Amendment rights? Case in point, who do you get a marriage license from and what are the rules and guidelines that they are issued under, the federal government or the State you reside in?
The Politico has 10 key quotes from the Supreme Court’s gay marriage decision. All Americans, especially those who are today celebrating this SCOTUS ruling, because if you celebrate a ruling that has nothing to do with the Constitution, you don’t get to complain when a ruling goes against you for the same reason.
“If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.” – Chief Justice John Roberts, in his dissent.
So in other words, the very document that is the basis of the United States means nothing anymore and all that matters is how people feel, including individuals on the Supreme Court who have a social agenda.
The SCOTUS Reject Free Speech Appeal over Cinco de Mayo School Dispute Filed by 3 Students at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, CA
The Supreme Court of Mexico rejected Cinco de Mayo school dispute appeal … T0o bad it was the Supreme Court of the United States … What happened to the Country I grew up in?
Reuters reports that the SCOTUS rejected the on Monday appeal and left in tact a lower courts ruling that school officials in California did not violate the free speech rights of students by demanding they remove T-shirts bearing images of the United States flag at an event celebrating the Mexican holiday of Cinco de Mayo. REALLY? So a school can tell American students in America to remove their American flag shirts because it would cause an incident at an American school. Honestly, what the “F” happened to this once great nation? Justice isn’t just blind at the SCOTUS, it also appears to be stupid.
Just curious, who thinks that the SCOTUS would have decided 180 degrees different if the school officials had asked the Mexican students to take off their shirts with the Mexican flag on it so not to insight a riot? Or if it were black students who were made to take off shirts that might cause an incident? Or if Gay-Lesbian students were forced to take off their rainbow shirts for fear of causing an incident? I think we all know the answer.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday left intact an appeals court ruling that school officials in California did not violate the free speech rights of students by demanding they remove T-shirts bearing images of the U.S. flag at an event celebrating the Mexican holiday of Cinco de Mayo.
The court declined to hear an appeal filed by three students at Live Oak High School in the town of Morgan Hill, south of San Francisco. School staff at the May 5, 2010, event told several students their clothing could cause an incident. Two chose to leave for home after refusing to turn their shirts inside out.
The school had been experiencing gang-related tensions and racially charged altercations between white and Hispanic students at the time. School officials said they feared the imposition of American patriotic imagery by some students at an event where other students were celebrating their pride in their Mexican heritage would incite fights between the two groups.
What part that this is America doesn’t the Supreme Court quite not get? Only in America is it considered a bad thing to wear something patriotic. This is just pathetic. Unlike in Mexico, citizens are supposed to have rights in the United States. Supreme Court, that means all citizens, including white Americans.
Just so everyone understands, Cinca de Mayo is not Mexico’s Independence Day, it celebrates the defeat of the French army during the Battle of Puebla in Mexico on May 5, 1862. Mexico’s Independence Day is on Dieciséis de Septiembre, but that doesn’t quite have the same ring does it? However let’s get real, today Cinco de Mayo has become more of an American holiday than a Mexican one giving folks the excuse to suck down some Margaritas and some cervezas like Negra Modelo, Dos Equis, Tecate or Corona.
Finally, I have something in common with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg …
Remember when Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was caught on camera dozing off during Barack Obama’s SOTU? Ginsberg was seen nodding off about 20 minutes into Obama’s 59-minute speech of bovine scatology. It turns out she was not just sleepy and bored from Obama’s blathering, the 81 year old Justice admitted she wasn’t “100% sober”. YOU GOTTA LOVE IT!!! Hey Justice Ginsberg do not worry, most of America cannot listen to this president without being drunk as well.
As a matter of fact, we have drinking parties during Obama’s SOTU’s to be able to get through them. Obama said, “I” or “me” … DRINK! Obama just provided another give a way and called it free … DRINK! What other way could you listen to Obama lecture and lie for nearly an hour without being hammered?
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg admitted that she wasn’t “100 percent sober” when she dozed off during President Barack Obama’s State of the Union this year.
“The audience for the most part is awake, because they’re bobbing up and down, and we sit there, stone-faced, sober judges. But we’re not, at least I wasn’t, 100 percent sober,” Ginsburg told an audience at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., Thursday night.
“Because before we went to the State of the Union, Justice Kennedy brought in … it was an Opus something or other, very fine California wine, and I vowed this year, just sparkling water, stay away from the wine, but in the end, the dinner was so delicious, it needed wine,” Ginsburg said. “So I got a call when I came home from one of my granddaughters and she said, ‘Bubbe, you were sleeping at the State of the Union!”
SCOTUS Decision Day on Hobby Lobby Challenging ObamaCare’s Contraception Mandate … Major Decision Just Hours Away (Update: Hobby Lobby Wins 5-4 Over Obamacare)
1st Amendment and Freedom of Religion at stake this morning at the SCOTUS …
It is decision day for The Supreme Court of the United States on the issue before them of Holly Lobby challenging the Obamacare contraception mandate. Holly Lobby, the for-profit businesses is challenging the requirement in the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) that employers cover contraception for women at no extra charge among a range of preventive benefits in employee health plans. As the National Journal reports, SCOTUS won’t strike down Obamacare’s contraception mandate completely because that is not what the two companies, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties, have asked of the Court. They haven’t asked the justices to ax the entire policy; however, a ruling for the law’s challengers could still render the policy toothless for millions of women.
The court meets for a final time Monday to release decisions in its two remaining cases before the justices take off for the summer.
The most contentious is that brought by Oklahoma City-based Hobby Lobby and a furniture maker in Pennsylvania. The for-profit businesses have challenged the requirement in the Affordable Care Act that employers cover contraception for women at no extra charge among a range of preventive benefits in employee health plans. It is the first major challenge to ObamaCare to come before the court since the justices upheld the law’s individual requirement to buy health insurance two years ago.
Supporters of Hobby Lobby cite a few factors potentially leaning in their favor, including the tone of oral arguments in March and a unanimous decision last week finding President Obama overreached in making recess appointments to a labor board.
“Absolutely, we win — we are very confident after oral argument in March that we will prevail in this case,” Hannah Smith, senior counsel for The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents Hobby Lobby, told Fox News. She suggested this, too, is a case of government “overreach.”
CNN – Jonathan Turley, Professor of Law at George Washington University discusses the ramification of today’s SCOTUS decision.
I predict 6-3 in favor of Hobby Lobby. Then again, this SCOTUS has disappointed me before.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the major opinion and said, it was difficult to distinguish between closely held corporations and the people who own them. The religious liberty law was not intended to discriminate “against men and women who wish to run their businesses as for-profit corporations in the manner required by their religious beliefs.”
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled that owners of private companies can object on religious grounds to a provision of President Barack Obama’s healthcare law that requires employers to provide insurance covering birth control for women.
The decision, which applies only to a small number of family or other closely-held companies, means an estimated several thousand women whose health insurance comes via such companies may have to obtain certain forms of birth control coverage elsewhere.
In a 5-4 vote along ideological lines, the justices said the companies can seek an exemption from the so-called birth control mandate of the law known as Obamacare. The companies in the case said they did not object to all birth control but certain methods they said were tantamount to abortion, which they oppose for religious reasons.
In their last decision of the nine-month term, the justices ruled for the first time that for-profit companies can make claims under a 1993 federal law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that was enacted to protect religious liberty.
Democrats go mental over the decision and threaten to respond to SCOTUS decision. But wait, isn’t it now law of the land? Isn’t that what Democrats, including Obama, say when the GOP tries to end Obamacare?
US Supreme Court Sets Aside $3.4 Million Verdict for Child Porn Victim … SCOTUS Says: May Claim Damages from Every Person Caught with Illegal Images
The case was Paroline vs. United States:
The SCOTUS has setaside a$3.4 million verdict again a Texas man named Doyle Paroline. The 5-4 decision upholds part of the Violence Against Women Act which calls for restitution to victims of child pornography, but it has some up with a compromise position on how to set the monetary amount. The SCOTUS majority opinion says those who possess the child porn images must pay something because they have contributed to the abuse. In essence, the Court ruled that a federal district court judge must calculate how much to assess against Paroline personally. The WAPO points out that the 5-4 decision was not the typical SCOTUS left-right split, which although the opinions were based on different rationals, at least issues like child porn are dealt with not along political lines.
Victims of child pornography whose images of sexual abuse have circulated on the Internet may claim damages from every person caught with illegal images, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.
But justices rejected the idea that a single person who possesses such images may be assessed the full amount due to the victim, setting aside a $3.4-million verdict against a Texas man in a favor of a woman whose childhood rape was photographed and widely circulated on the Internet.
The 5-4 decision upholds part of the Violence Against Women Act which calls for restitution to victims of child pornography, but it adopts a middle-ground position on how to set the amount. It said those who possess the images must pay something because they have contributed to the abuse.
“It makes sense to spread the payment among a larger number of offenders in amounts more closely in proportion to their respective causal roles and their own circumstances,” said Justice Anthony Kennedy. “This would serve the twin goals of helping the victim achieve eventual restitution for all of her child pornography losses and impressing upon offenders the fact that child pornography crimes, even simple possession, affect real victims.”
His opinion in Paroline vs. United States leaves it to federal judges to decide on the proper amount in each case.
The case began when a young women using the name “Amy” learned the photos of her sexual abuse as an 8 year old child were circulating on the Internet. Sadly, it was her uncle, Eugene Zebroski, that was her abuser. Initially, a federal judge refused to order Paroline to pay restitution because there was no proof his offense caused or contributed to Amy’s abuse. However, a federal appeals court in New Orleans would overturn that decision and ruled for Amy and said Paroline was responsible for paying the full amount she had sought, a total of $3.4 million.
Paroline was among an estimated 71,000 people worldwide who viewed the attacks.
The full decisions can be read HERE.
Much, much more at the SCOTUS Blog, Opinion analysis: Dividing the duty to pay for child porn.
Each individual — among hundreds and maybe thousands — found guilty of keeping and looking at images of a child being sexually abused must pay the victim something more than a “trivial” sum, but none of them can be required to pay for all that the victim has lost, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday in a five-to-four decision.
The ruling in the case of Paroline v. United States, settling a dispute among lower courts on a mandatory law of restitution to victims of child pornography, refused to establish a specific formula for allocating the financial blame, telling federal trial judges to “do their best,” with a few suggestions for starting points. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion.
So you thought you could hide from Obamacare, this insidious law will eventually affect every American one was or another … Resistance is Futile.
Possibly coming to a restaurant you frequent, customers asked to help foot the bill for Obamacare healthcare increases and the not-so Affordable Healthcare Act … Gator’s Dockside, a Florida restaurant chain, is adding a 1% ACA surcharge to all of their patron’s bills in order to help pay for their increase in healthcare charges for their full time employees. Just curious, if it is so affordable, why do businesses need to further place a burden on their patrons to pay more, while receiving nothing more in return? Signs welcoming customers at the door read “The costs associated with ACA compliance could ultimately close our doors.”
click on pic to enlarge
Several restaurants in a Florida chain are asking customers to help foot the bill for Obamacare.
Diners at eight Gator’s Dockside casual eateries are finding a 1% Affordable Care Act surcharge on their tabs, which comes to 15 cents on a typical $15 lunch tab. Signs on the door and at tables alert diners to the fee, which is also listed separately on the bill.
The Gator Group’s full-time hourly employees won’t actually receive health insurance until December. But the company said it implemented the surcharge now because of the compliance costs it’s facing ahead of the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate kicking in in 2015.
“The costs associated with ACA compliance could ultimately close our doors,” the sign reads. “Instead of raising prices on our products to generate the additional revenue needed to cover the costs of ACA compliance, certain Gator’s Dockside locations have implemented a 1% surcharge on all food and beverage purchases only.”
The Borg Obamacare … Resistance is Futile
We are reminded by the Heritage Foundation that other restaurants in California have done the same and added ACA surcharges to their bills.
What do you think happens when a new tax is forced upon a business by the feds, it gets passed on to the customer. Remember, the SCOTUS deemed Obamacare constitutional because it was a tax, even though Obama originally said to the American people that it was not. What is going to happen in the future when we find out that Obamacare is more costly than previously projected? Restaurants will have a much greater surcharge than 1%.
Liberal & Obama Supporter Attorney Jonathan Turley Says Expansion of Barack Obama’s Presidential Powers Threatens Liberty
WOW, IF THIS DOES NOT WAKE PEOPLE UP, NOTHING WILL … LIB ATTY AND OBAMA SUPPORTER BLASTS OBAMA’S ACTIONS
Last night on ‘The Kelly Files,’ Jonathan Turley, a liberal Constitutional attorney and Obama supporter said a mouthful last night with regards to the imperial president, Barack Obama’s “unilateral” and Unconstitutional actions. Turley stated, “I’m afraid this is beginning to border on a cult of personality for people on the left” and Well, you know, a system in which a single individual is allowed to rewrite legislation or ignore legislation is a system that borders on authoritarianism.”
This is a must watch interview and remember, this is coming from a lib. Turley is basically describing … “TYRANNY”.
KELLY: Let me ask you about this because in that soundbite we played before we went to commercial, you said the framers would be horrified because everything they did was to create balance between the branches of government and we’ve lost that.
TURLEY: Well, I’m afraid it’s quite serious because the framers created a system that was designed to avoid one principle thing, the concentration of power in any one branch. Because that balancing between these branches in this fixed orbit is what not only gives stability to our system but it protects us against authoritarian power, it protects civil liberties from abuse.
And what we’ve been seeing is the shift of gravity within that system in a very dangerous way that makes it unstable, and I think that’s what the president is doing. I think that we’ve become a nation of enablers. We are turning a blind eye to a fundamental change in our system. I think many people will come to loathe that they remained silent during this period.
KELLY: We heard a lot of objections when President Bush expanded the powers of the presidency from the left and from the media. They haven’t been raising the same objections now that we have a Democrat in The White House. And you say they do so at their own peril.
TURLEY: I’m afraid this is beginning to border on a cult of personality for people on the left. I happen to agree with many of President Obama’s policies, but in our system it is often as important how you do something as what you do.
And I think that many people will look back at this period in history and see nothing but confusion as to why people remained so silent when the president asserted these types of unilateral actions. You have a president who is claiming the right to basically rewrite or ignore or negate federal laws. That is a dangerous thing. It has nothing to do with the policies; it has to do with politics.
KELLY: Why is it so dangerous? What’ so bad that will come of this?
TURLEY: Well, you know, a system in which a single individual is allowed to rewrite legislation or ignore legislation is a system that borders on authoritarianism. I don’t believe that we are that system yet. But we cannot ignore that we’re beginning to ignore a system that is a pretense of democracy if a president is allowed to take a law and just simply say, ‘I’m going to ignore this,’ or, ‘I’m going to shift funds that weren’t appropriated by Congress into this area.’
The president’s State of the Union indicated this type of unilateralism that he has adopted as a policy. Now, many people view that as somehow empowering. In my view, it’s dangerous, that is what he is suggesting is to essentially put our system off line. This is not the first time that convenience has become the enemy of principle. But we’ve never seen it to this extent.
KELLY: What is supposed to be done about it? You know, I know in your testimony before Congress you cited Ben Franklin who believed that the other branches would work in their own self interest to try to reign in a president who got drunk on his own power, or however you want to put it. You know, Congress doesn’t have — they can withdrawal money, they can move to impeach, they can file lawsuits –which they’ve done — I mean, what are they supposed to do?
TURLEY: Part of the problem really rests with the federal courts. For the last two decades, federal courts have been engaged in a policy of avoidance. They are not getting involved when the executive branch exceeds its powers, they’re just leaving it up to the branches. And often they say Congress has the power of the purse, Congress can simply restrict funds.
But one of the complaints against President Obama is that very clearly dedicated funds in areas like healthcare, have been just shifted by the White House unilaterally to different areas. And the courts have adopted this avoidance policy.
I am astonished by the degree of passivity in Congress, particularly by Democrats. You know, I first came to Congress when I was a young page and there were people that fiercely believed in the institution. It didn’t matter what party held the White House. But what we’re seeing now is the usurpation of authority that’s unprecedented in this country.
Barack Obama Asks Supreme Court To Allow Warrantless Cellphone Searches … The Hell with the 4th Amendment
Isn’t this special, Barack Obama asks the US Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches. So much for the US Constitution and the 4th Amendment under this imperial president. Jammie Wearing Fool asks, remember when they said if we voted for Mitt Romney our freedom and liberties would be further eroded? It appears that they were correct in an convoluted Saul Alinsky kind of way.
From the WAPO:
If the police arrest you, do they need a warrant to rifle through your cellphone? Courts have been split on the question. Last week the Obama administration asked the Supreme Court to resolve the issue and rule that the Fourth Amendment allows warrantless cellphone searches.
In 2007, the police arrested a Massachusetts man who appeared to be selling crack cocaine from his car. The cops seized his cellphone and noticed that it was receiving calls from “My House.” They opened the phone to determine the number for “My House.” That led them to the man’s home, where the police found drugs, cash and guns.
The defendant was convicted, but on appeal he argued that accessing the information on his cellphone without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Earlier this year, the First Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the man’s argument, ruling that the police should have gotten a warrant before accessing any information on the man’s phone.
The Obama Administration disagrees. In a petition filed earlier this month asking the Supreme Court to hear the case, the government argues that the First Circuit’s ruling conflicts with the rulings of several other appeals courts, as well as with earlier Supreme Court cases. Those earlier cases have given the police broad discretion to search possessions on the person of an arrested suspect, including notebooks, calendars and pagers. The government contends that a cellphone is no different than any other object a suspect might be carrying.
As Weasel Zippers opines, He’s just lucky his name isn’t George W. Bush.
- They struck down as unconstitutional a key part of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that denies federal benefits to same-sex couples who are legally married
Daily Commentary – Friday, June 28, 2013 Download
- In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court OK’s DNA testing saying DNA identification of arrestees is a reasonable search that can be considered part of a routine booking procedure
Daily Commentary – Tuesday, June 3, 2013 Download