Some Belated Thoughts on Dobbs

This post might not be timely any longer as the Dodds decision was rendered months ago. I've had this sitting in my tabs since then. I wanted to sit on it for a bit. Let the initial reactions sort of ebb. 

Anyone who has a heartbeat knew that the Dobbs decision, either direction, was going to be an emotional event. When the draft opinion was leaked, it was very obvious that the left was going to go nuts. If fact, they did go nuts. How often do you hear about a possible assassination attempt on a Justice? And this was before the actual decision was rendered. In some corners of interwebs there were several who predicted of high levels of violence once the actual decision was official was released. This was the case initially, bit the violence and rhetoric has tapered off a bit.

Matthews Is An Idiot

Video from Mediate.com

I can’t understand how anyone who is supposed to be smart enough to be on TV to commentate on events can really be this stupid.

But the more I think about it the more the realization burns through that it really isn’t stupidity on his part that makes him say things like this. It is the people his is talking to. Matthews can say things like this knowing full well that no one in his audience will bother to check the truth of the charges he is making. Actually, he is playing it smart.

Does he bother to mention that the framers of the Constitution put mechanisms in place to get rid of slavery? While he does mention the 13 Amendment, he discusses it like it was done to overcome the mistakes of the Founding Fathers, rather than using the amendment process, which founders put in the Constitution for just such a situation.

Of course, there is no way he would mention that it was the democrats who tried to filibuster the Civil Rights Amendments. Nor would he bother to mention that Republicans were to ones to lead the charge to get the Amendments passed in the first place. And would he mention that it was a Republican President who wrote the Emancipation Proclamation that actually freed the slaves. And lest we forget, it was democrats who wrote nearly all of the Jim Crow laws that essentially put blacks back on the plantations.

But Matthews can say all of these things because he knows that the VERY few people who watch him will not bother to check his statements. They will blindly believe whatever he says and take it as gospel that it was Republicans/Conservatives who are/were the racists.

Our Nation at the Brink

For those who care one wit about the direction this nation is currently taking, this is a must read. Director Blue perfectly encapsulates the kind of thug government Obama heads and total disregard of the Constitution he not only encourages but insists upon.

I know that we have an election upcoming and Republicans and conservatives are kind of fighting over who our nominee should be. But please let me say that whether Gingrich, Romney or Santorum become the nominee, please VOTE. Once the nominee has been established we need to unite. This nation cannot afford another four more years under the thumb of the Obama administration.

Think about this: if Obama gets four more years there is a better than real good chance that he will get to select two and possibly three Justices to the SCOTUS. Can you imagine a court filled with Kagen’s? Think about that for a minute. You can forget about state’s rights. You can forget about the 2nd Amendment. You can forget about religious freedom.

Calls for Kagan, Thomas to Recuse

In an earlier post regarding the SCOTUS finally placing Obama Care on the docket, I mentioned there are two justices that should consider recusing themselves from this debate as they had a hand in shaping the bill. I must back-track slightly. Apparently, Justice Sotomayer was really not a part of the debate. I think she might have had a ruling at some point but I can’t seem to locate it. But that alone should not disqualify her as most of the Justices sitting on the SCOTUS have ruled, in lower courts, on matters that have come before the Supreme Court.

Of course, there is a call from the left that Justice Thomas should recuse himself from the arguments because his wife was involved with a lobbying group that is opposed to Obama Care and later started her own lobbying firm. Apparently, the efforts began early this year when it looked likely that the bill was headed to the SCOTUS.

Seventy-four House Democrats, led by New York Rep. Anthony Weiner (pre Wiener-Gate), sent a letter to Justice Clarence Thomas Wednesday (9 Feb, 2011) calling him to sit out deliberations on the Affordable Care Act because of his wife’s ties to a lobbying group that opposes the health care law.

“The appearance of a c conflict of interests merits recusal under federal law,” the letter said. “From what we have already seen, the line between your impartiality and you and your wife’s financial stake in the overturn of the healthcare reform is blurred.” (Source: ABC News)

Of course, this letter did not request that Justice Kegan recuse herself from the hearings even though it had been a point of questioning during her confirmation hearings. If they had really wanted to send a statement to Justice Thomas the letter could have mentioned that Justice Ginsburg has also been involved with cases where her husband has had a financial stake and, to their disappointment, she didn’t step aside.

As for the monetary gain, I do think this might be worth exploring, but not as much as the stake that Justice Kagan might have with the bill. As evidenced by the recently released e-mails, Justice Kagan was a huge supporter of the bill. “I hear they have the votes Larry!! Simply amazing.” Based on those simple words in an email she has already clearly played her hand. Of course she won’t set aside, but maybe she doesn’t need to attend the arguments since she has already clearly stated her position. Maybe there will be a softball game.

If you think she'll step aside don’t hold your breath, you’ll turn blue.

SCOTUS To Review Obama Care

Not sure if this is good or bad news, but the SCOTUS has decided to rule on Obama Care in 2012.

The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear challenges to President Barack Obama’s health care reform law – but it’s not all clear that the court will decide anything soon.

Although the court set the stage for an epic, five-and-a-half-hour oral argument in the midst of the 2012 presidential race, it also signaled that it could punt a decision on the individual mandate until 2014. In accepting the challenges to the law, the court said it would devote an hour of the argument to the effect of the Anti-Injunction Act – a law that, in the view of some courts, could prohibit a ruling on the individual mandate until the mandate goes into effect in 2014. (Source: Politico)

While on one hand I really look forward to getting a ruling on this bill that is most likely unconstitutional, I have concerns. Two members of the Court should most likely recues themselves as Justices Sotomayor and Kagan both had a hand in engineering the bill. While those two Obama appointees didn’t really shift the balance of the court, those they replaced didn’t have a dog in the Health Care fight and might have actually ruled on the side of the bill being unconstitutional.

Of course, the biggest concern is Justice Kennedy. He is considered more on the conservative side of the court, but has thrown an occasional curveball. Essentially, he is the swing vote.

As Obama’s signature piece of legislation for President Obama, popular opinion says the SCOTUS’s decision could make or break his run for a second term. I have a slightly different view. If the court rules against Obama, then I think we can put a fork in his campaign and call it done (as in over). If the court rules in his favor, I really don’t think, as some believe, that it will clear the path for his second term. Personally, I think there is better than good chance that if the court rules in his favor, it will cause a significant ground swell that will really turn the tide against his reelection. The Health Care bill is already quite unpopular as evidenced by the pounding democrats took in 2010 and if the individual mandate is ruled constitutional, I really do think Obama will be even more Jimmy Carteresque than he is now.

But I could be wrong. Obama might still have some of that magic he had in 2008 when he overtook the presumed nominee, Hilary Clinton, then pounding John McCain in the election. The guy does have a way with words, even if those words are written for him and projected on a tele-prompter. Plus he has something many of the Republican nominees don’t have, and that is an ability to energize his base. If the 2012 turnout is lackluster, that energy could overcome a lot.

If you one of the many who wants to see Obama gone in 2012, please make sure that you get your butt to the polls, even if the nominee is (yuck) Romney.

Court Favors Obama Care

To me, this decision is just dang scary. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the most controversial part of Obama, the mandate that basically forces people to purchase health care, as constitutional.

What makes this so worrisome for me is the now the door is open to a completely repressive government telling you what you can and cannot do. Congress could conceivably use the Commerce Clause to mandate anything they wish. Even going as far as overturning other amendments. You want to purchase a gun? No, sorry, you already have one. You want to purchase a bag of M&Ms? Don’t think so because you had a candy bar last week. You want to drive your car to visit your parents? Nope, we, the federal government, deem it is better that you ride the train or bus.

Libs Cry Racist Yet Again

Over the course of the last couple of years the left wing media has tried to paint those folks who could be labeled as birthers as racists. Jim Corsi, who writes for World Net Daily, has written a book titled Where’s the Birth Certificate? The Case That Barack Obama Is Not Eligible to Be President.  In this book he make several arguments that Obama is not eligible to be President due to (take your pick), a grand conspiracy, his father not being a US citizen, and/or his mother being too young to pass citizenship on to Barack Obama.

Personally, I think this whole birther issue is a load of horse-hockey.  The long form, after finally being released, has proven Obama’s citizenship. Or sure, there are a few items that the birthers have latched on to such as a watermark, or an out of sequence numbering. But it really all boils down to is conspiracy of this magnitude couldn’t possibility be pulled off, except in the movies.

Slow Erosion of Our Rights

Over the course of the past many years I have come to despise the term “For your own good” or the alternative “for the collective good”. Yesterday, Patrice Lewis of Rural Revolution wrote a column for World Net Daily (as she does every weekend) titled “Serfdom: Coming soon to a country near you”. In her column she highlights how the people of England have slowly had their rights whittled away by a government who thinks they know better (let me rephrase that: by a government who knows they know better).  As she gets deeper into the column she laments how the pinching of rights here in this country could be precursor of things to come. While she doesn’t come right out and say it, I firmly believe many of the restrictions and laws set into place in England and here fall under the banner of “for your own good”.

English history is very long and lustrous. At one time they were the rulers of a very large portion of the known world. India, chunks of China, a large swath of Southwest Asia, Africa, and of course, North America north of the Rio Grande. If one is willing to read about the history of the time they had possession of all these colonies you will see there is a very strong undercurrent of “We need to rule you because we know better”. During the time of the Empire the ruling party was the monarchy, a very select group of people descended from royalty, a very small group of ruling elite.  As the 20th century came to pass and the Empire began to pass, England moved away from the Royals as the ruling class and became a democracy of sorts. One thing did not change though. These people were still part of a small group of elites, educated at places like Oxford and Cambridge. Another thing they had in common with the royals was the very distinct feeling of being much smarter than the general population at large. This new class of elected ruling elite very much felt the masses needed their well-educated guidance to show them the proper way forward. So even though the leadership of the nation had passed from the Royals to the elected officials the mantra of “We need to rule you because we know better” did not change.

SCOTUS Denies Early Review of Obama Care Case

The SCOTUS has declined to hear early the Obama Care case from Virginia. Those who are opposed to Obama care on constitutional grounds wanted to have the case heard as quickly as possible so funding actions could be stopped.  Based on the research that I have done it seems this would have been unprecedented given that the Obama care case has not yet wound its way through the lower courts. There have been cases of the SCOTUS hearing a case quickly, but in those cases, the rulings had already been made or cases heard at the required lower levels. In these instances the requests for certiorari were made to move the case to the front of the SCOTUS docket so as to avoid the usual two year delay.  For any lawyers out there, please provide any corrections to any mistakes I might have made.

Obama and Gun Rights, the Evidence is not so Good

On Glenn Beck tonight he discussed the Obama Administrations plans for gun control over the next couple of years. During the discussion he put up a quote regarding how to best get more gun control. The quote discussed better background checks and mental health issues.  The one thing that caught my eye was the statement (paraphrased) efforts should also focus on those who have no need to legitimately own a gun. That caused me to sit back for a moment. Once you eliminate the felons and criminals, and the mentally ill folks from owning and possessing guns what else is there? Who are the folks who have no need to legitimately own a gun?

Well, based on how he and some of his cabinet members and other advisors feel about guns and their desire to either highly control them or eliminate them altogether I fear those who have no legitimate need for guns would be the rest of us, at least in their minds. If they get the opportunity to change the laws, we will the ones who don't have a legitimate reason to own a gun. Obama has, in the past, stated he supports bans on right to carry for everyone except police officers.

SCOTUS Rules in Favor for Westboro

“I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death you right to say it”

Don’t know who this quote belongs to but events at the SCOTUS today pretty much sums it up.  The Westboro Baptist Church has a right to say what they want and where they want, despite it being as vile as one can imagine.  In what might be a considered a rare event in an ideologically divided SCOTUS, they voted 8-1 in favor of the church. Alito was the only dissenting justice.

Most of you already know the Westboro Baptist Church is infamous for protesting at the funnels of our soldiers killed in battle. They say vile things such as their death are because God hates gays and America supports gays. According to the SCOTUS this falls under the banner of free speech, protected by the First Amendment.

Is Collective Bargaining A Right?

Among all the things that bother me about all these protest going on right now, starting in Wisconsin, is the term “collective bargaining rights”.  I just don’t see the ability to bargain as a right. Free speech, a free press, no discrimination in voting, and others outlined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are what I’d call rights. 

I think a better term would be “collective bargaining privileges”.  When you boil it down, that is what it is, a privilege, granted by the taxpayer and government. There is nothing in the US Constitution that grants you the right to a job or to collective bargain. It is true there are laws on the books that protect folks and organizations that are unionized, but these laws do not grant rights.

 At the state, and to a lesser extent, and federal level this privilege has been abused. Whenever a group can hold a government hostage in an attempt to get more of the taxpayer’s money that would qualify as abuse in my book.  FDR had it right when he said, “The very nature and purposes of government make it impossible for…officials…to bind the employer…The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives…”  In other words, you work for the taxpayer, not General Motors or US Steel.

The Government has a Right to Regulate Your Mental Activity

A must read on the recent decision in a Washington DC District that has upheld the constitutionality of Obama Care.  Before you read the analysis, it might be a good idea for you to read Judge Keesler’s decision paper.  This will arm you with the knowledge necessary to fully understand the analysis.

The analysis at the link provided above does a decent job of cutting to basics and also outlining a couple in interesting points.  The one that jumped out at me when I read the analysis was the point on mental activity.

When I read through the decision the first time, I was a little floored that a judge was basically saying that the federal government had a right to regulate your decision-making process. I am not a lawyer so I don’t always understand the intricacies of the law, but I can read. To me, the Commerce Clause in the Constitution is quite clear. The government can regulate activity, but now this judge is saying the government can regulate inactivity, which in her mind is actually activity because your mental process (thinking) is actually making a decision, which is an activity and subject to federal laws and regulations.

Local Washington State News

Here are a few stories from around the local (Washington State) area from the Seattle PI and the Seattle Times (occasionally I throw on a link to Crosscut, a kind of funky Seattle news site).

Gas Guzzler Tax

WA State resident may have to pay higher licensing fees if they own what is deemed as a “gas guzzler”. State legislators are floating ideas that could possibly increase the price drivers pay at the pump, or to register a vehicle, especially if that vehicle is larger. The extra taxes would go to support already heavily subsidized mass transit in King and Pierce counties.

Health Care Ruling, Some More Info

Unless you were living in a cave the last couple of days, you are aware that a Florida District Court Judge has ruled the entire health care law unconstitutional when he ruled in favor of a suit brought by 26 states, with Florida in the lead.

Last night on Fox News, Greta interviewed several of the Attorneys General of the states involved with the suit.  One of the themes that Greta latched onto during the latter part of her interviews was her feeling that the Supreme Court should be able to take on this case in a matter of a few months.  The normal process during cases heard by the SCOTUS is for it to run through an appeals process and then get listed on the SCOTUS case docket.  This can take a few years. The figure bandied about last night was 2-4 years.  But there are exceptions. Rule 11 of the Supreme Court basically says that a lower court ruling can bypass the appeals process “upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court”.  Both sides would have to agree to this step.