FEC decision would end witch hunt of Drudge

(Hat tip: KimR) - The Federal Election Commission, which has toyed with regulating internet new sites that have a political edge, is being urged to extend what amounts to a "Drudge Report exemption" to a developing political and marketing news site. Read more at the Washington Examiner Read More......

AT: Hey kids! Let's impeach the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court!

AMERICAN THINKER, 10/23/2010 by Rick Moran - I suppose we're going to have to make allowances for Congressman Peter DeFazio. After all, he is from fruit and nutcake country in Oregon. And he's been in Washington for 11 terms, which is enough to drive even the most levelheaded among us into a mental institution.

But this is just bat guano crazy:

With Democrats increasingly outraged over the Supreme Court's Citizen United decision that allowed unlimited corporate spending in elections -- a change conservatives have been more successful at taking advantage of -- a Democratic congressman is raising the prospect of impeaching the Supreme Court's chief justice over the issue."I mean, the Supreme Court has done a tremendous disservice to the United States of America," Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) told The Huffington Post on Tuesday. "They have done more to undermine our democracy with their Citizens United decision than all of the Republican operatives in the world in this campaign. They've opened the floodgates, and personally, I'm investigating articles of impeachment against Justice Roberts for perjuring during his Senate hearings, where he said he wouldn't be a judicial activist, and he wouldn't overturn precedents."

If we impeached every justice who fudged their views in confirmation hearings, they could turn the Supreme Court building into a much needed parking garage.

And you could easily make the case that it was McCain-Feingold that upset precedent and that the Roberts court was re-establishing the long held point of law that money in politics is a matter of free speech and worthy of First Amendment protections.

No wonder they call this "The Silly Season" in politics. Read More......

Alito plans to skip next State of the Union

PATRIOT UPDATE - After Obama diss, Alito plans to skip next State of the Union

When Supreme Court justices enter the House of Representatives in their black robes for the president's next State of the Union address, Samuel Alito does not plan to be among them. The justice said the annual speech to Congress has become very political and awkward for the justices, who he says are expected to sit "like the proverbial potted plant." Of course, Alito did not remain impassive at the most recent State of the Union speech by President Barack Obama. He reacted to Obama's unusual rebuke of the court for its decision in a campaign finance case by shaking his head and mouthing the words "not true." The 60-year-old justice, an appointee of President George W. Bush, acknowledged with a smile that his colleagues "who are more disciplined refrain from manifesting any emotion or opinion whatsoever."

Source: AP News Read More......

VERY LATE NEWS: SCOTUS Decisions

Pacific Legal Foundation: Press Release

SACRAMENTO, CA; June 28, 2007: Today Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) hailed the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions, announced this morning, to strike down public schools’ use of race in student assignments.

The Supreme Court decided that policies in Seattle and in Jefferson County, Kentucky, that use race in determining what public school a child may attend are patently unconstitutional.

PLF is amicus and part of petitioners’ legal teams for both student-assignment cases – Seattle and Kentucky – decided by the United States Supreme Court today. PLF Principal Attorney Sharon Browne assisted the attorney for the mother in the Kentucky case at oral argument, sitting second chair, and PLF attorneys participated in every phase of the Seattle case including the oral argument when the Seattle case was before the Washington Supreme Court.

“These are the most important decisions on the use of race since Brown v. Board of Education,” said Sharon Browne, PLF Principal Attorney. “Schools across our country must get the message loud and clear – our young people should not be assigned to a school based on the color of their skin.”

“With these decisions, an estimated 1,000 school districts around the country that are sending the wrong message about race to kids will have to stop,” Browne said. “The High Court has decided correctly that children must not be stereotyped by the color of their skin, but rather treated as individuals. They deserve equal opportunities to prepare them for life’s challenges.”

Ms. Browne and PLF have led the effort to enforce California’s antidiscrimination Proposition 209 for more than a decade. Proposition 209 prohibits government agencies – including public schools – from using race in making decisions. PLF also litigates nationally in opposition to race- and sex-based quotas in public education and government programs.

PLF has successfully litigated to end racial quotas in one Southern California school district, and is currently suing the Los Angeles Unified School District, the nation’s second-largest school district, and the Berkeley, California, school district.

The cases that the Supreme Court decided today are Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District, 05-908, and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 05-915.

About Pacific Legal Foundation
Pacific Legal Foundation is the oldest and largest public interest legal organization dedicated to property rights, limited government, and a balanced approach to environmental protection.

Read More......