Maybe John Roberts did us a favor by saving ObamaCare

DAN CALABRESE - By leaving it for Congress to dismantle, the Chief Justice ultimately set the stage for a better solution. --I'm not going to lie to you. I was as mad as anyone at Chief Justice Roberts when he - not once but twice - saved ObamaCare by engaging in legal gymnastics to avoid finding it unconstitutional - which it clearly was. First he pretended individual mandate fine was a tax, even after the Obama Administration had explicitly said it was not while trying to sell it to the public. Then he ignored clear language about who had to run the exchanges in order for them to be eligible for subsidies. --The other conservative Justices (even Anthony Kennedy) were ready to throw out the entire law on the grounds that it exceeded the authority of Congress...

Read more at Herman Cain

Read More......

Obama's 'Disparate Impact' Witch Hunt Vs. Banks Gets Surprise Court Blessing

IBD: Last week the Supreme Court gave the White House license to water down, if not destroy, virtually every standard dealing with housing. There's nothing stopping its push for affirmative-action lending and zoning. --In a shocking 5-4 decision, the high bench ruled that housing- and lending-discrimination lawsuits based on no proof other than statistics showing different outcomes by minority groups are within the bounds of civil-rights law. --It agreed with housing-rights zealots that zoning and underwriting policies that have a harmful effect — or disparate impact — on minorities are illegal, even if that harm is unintentional.

Read More at Investor's Business Daily Read More......

Religious leaders defy U.S. government: We stand with Bible

Prominent Christian and Jewish leaders are warning the U.S. Supreme Court justices in a full-page ad in major newspapers that they will not honor any decision that violates the “biblical understanding of marriage as solely the union of one man and one woman.” --The statement by the leaders — who include Franklin Graham, James Dobson, Frank Pavone, Don Wildmon, Jerry Boykin, Alveda King and Alan Keyes — appears in a full-page ad in the Washington Post, USA Today and other papers.

Read more at WND Read More......

As Supreme Court Debates, 2016 Presidential Hopefuls Define Marriage Views

The national debate over same-sex marriage has landed back in the Supreme Court, but few major presidential candidates routinely put the issue on the front burner. ✧ Among more than a dozen possible Republican hopefuls, only three spoke out forcefully in recent days on their belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. ✧ The three—Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas—appeared determined to underline their defense of traditional marriage.

Read more at The Daily Signal
Related:
Bobby Jindal: I’m Holding Firm Against Gay Marriage (op-ed, New York Times, 4/23/15)
Ryan T. Anderson’s Instant Analysis of Supreme Court’s Same-Sex Marriage Case (video, The Daily Signal, 4/28/15)
Don’t Silence the 50 Million Who Voted for One Man-One Woman Marriage, The Daily Signal, 4/27/15 (Hat tip: Stella) Read More......

Victory! A Win for Constitutional Separation of Powers

Prefacing the introduction of todays' I Spy Radio guest, Shannon Goessling, Executive Director and Chief Legal Counsel for Southeastern Legal Foundation, Karla Davenport writes,

This week has been a great week to be an American. It started with the exciting ruling by the Supreme Court that slapped down the EPA and Obama administration's abuse of executive power. Long-time listeners of I Spy have been following this EPA lawsuit for nearly four years. At stake was the complete overreach of the Executive branches desire to regulate CO2 gas by rewriting the Clean Air Act without Congressional approval. Had the Supreme Court not struck this down, it would have continued to allow this president, or any future president, to simply rewrite laws. How big of a win was this? By Wednesday, Speaker John Boehner found his spine and announced plans to sue the Obama administration.

And then on Thursday, in a stunning 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court again slapped down the administration's abuse of power by ruling he did not have the authority to declare, king-like, when the Senate was in recess. Could this be the start of the other branches reasserting their own power?

Tune in this week to hear how big of a victory this was and what was at stake had they lost, how this opens the door to other actions, and a reminder that success happens by hard-fought steps and the iron determination to never, ever give up. Share in the victory not just of the Southeastern Legal Foundation's triumph but of the goose-bumps-inducing thrill of our system--finally!--working the way it ought.

Busy on Saturday or Sunday? Not a problem. Monday, after the show airs, you can go to our webpage www.ispyradio.com and download it from our “latest shows” page.

Read More......

Freedom for Religion, Not From It

Today the U.S. Supreme Court once again affirmed that the so-called “wall of separation” that exists between church and state is not quite the edifice that liberals would like it to be. In Town of Greece v. Galloway, the court ruled today that a village in upstate New York did not violate the First Amendment in allowing members of clergy to begin town board meetings with prayers, some of which were explicitly sectarian (and usually Christian) rather than ecumenical. The narrow vote along the usual 5-4 conservative/liberal lines is bound to incite many on the left to express fears about the court trying to turn the U.S. into a “Christian nation.”

Read more about the Town of Greece v. Galloway decision at Commentary Read More......

In a 7-2 decision SCOTUS strikes down Arizona's voter ID requirement

Excerpts - While the court was clear in stating that states cannot add additional identification requirements to the federal forms on their own, it was also clear that the same actions can be taken by state governments if they get the approval of the federal government and the federal courts. ✧ Arizona can ask the federal government to include the extra documents as a state-specific requirement, Scalia said, and take any decision made by the government on that request back to court. Other states have already done so, Scalia said. ✧ The Election Assistance Commission "recently approved a state-specific instruction for Louisiana requiring applicants who lack a Louisiana driver's license, ID card or Social Security number to attach additional documentation to the completed federal form," Scalia said. ✧ Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from the court's ruling. Read more: Fox News Read More......

RS: Marriage as Purposeful Institution

RED STATE, by Ryan T. Anderson
When a baby is born, a mother always is nearby. The question is whether a father will be involved in the life of that child and, if so, for how long. ✧ Marriage increases the odds that a man will be committed to both the children that he helps create and to the woman with whom he does so. ✧ The recent oral arguments at the Supreme Court highlighted this and other key questions about redefining marriage as we’ve always understood it in America. That is, marriage is the union of a man and woman as husband and wife to provide any children of that union with a father and a mother. Read more including thoughts from the justices at Red State... Read More......

Rasmussen: Even if it survives the court, the health care law is doomed

Polster, Scott Rasmussen finds that "...it's the belief held by most Americans that competition will do more than government regulation to reduce the cost of health care." Read more at the Examiner... 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......

Will there be a Supreme Court vs. Obama smackdown?

EXAMINER.COM, 7/9/2010 by Anthony G. Martin (Hat tip: Stella Gunether via email) - According to sources who watch the inner workings of the federal government, a smackdown of Barack Obama by the U.S. Supreme Court may be inevitable.

Ever since Obama assumed the office of President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues. Critics have complained that much if not all of Obama's major initiatives run headlong into Constitutional roadblocks on the power of the federal government.

Obama certainly did not help himself in the eyes of the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address early in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during the time of an election. Read more at the Examiner...

(AP Photo/Keith Srakocic). Chief Justice John Roberts, U.S. Supreme Court. Read More......

Senate Confirms Supreme Court Nominee Kagan

WALL STREET JOURNAL, 8/5/2010 by Naftali Bendavid - WASHINGTON—The Senate on Thursday confirmed Elena Kagan on a 63-37 vote to become an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, with a handful of Republicans joining almost all Democrats in making her the fourth woman to serve on the high court. ∴ When the court's new term starts in October, Ms. Kagan, 50, will join Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor to make up the first three-woman bloc in the court's history. Read more at WSJ... Read More......

Urge Your Senators to Oppose Kagen's Supreme Court Confirmation

NRA (Via email), 8/1/2010 - "The nomination of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court will be decided next week, when the Senate casts the final vote on her confirmation. ∴ The NRA has announced our strong opposition to Ms. Kagan, due to her long record of antagonism toward the Second Amendment. Based on that record, it is very likely that as a Supreme Court Justice, Kagan would join the Court's minority that just last month issued dissenting opinions claiming the Second Amendment does not guarantee a fundamental right to keep and bear arms. ∴ Elena Kagan represents the second time President Obama has nominated a person to the Court who aggressively opposes our right to keep and bear arms. Her confirmation would pose a direct threat to our rights for decades. ∴ Every vote in the Senate is crucial on this issue. Please take a few minutes and contact your Senators and respectfully ask them to filibuster and oppose Kagan's confirmation." Oregon's U.S. Senators:

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D) - DC (202) 224-3753, Salem (503) 362-8102
Sen. Ron Wyden (D) - DC (202) 224-5244, Salem (503) 589-4555

Read More......

Supreme Court affirms fundamental right to bear arms

WASHINGTON POST, 06/29/2010 by Robert Barnes and Dan Eggen - The Second Amendment provides Americans a fundamental right to bear arms that cannot be violated by state and local governments, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a long-sought victory for gun rights advocates. ∴ The 5 to 4 decision does not strike down any gun-control laws, nor does it elaborate on what kind of laws would offend the Constitution. One justice predicted that an "avalanche" of lawsuits would be filed across the country asking federal judges to define the boundaries of gun ownership and government regulation. ∴ But Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who wrote the opinion for the court's dominant conservatives, said: "It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty." Read more at the Washington Post...

Yea! --bc

Related:
Hearings began Monday for the confirmation of Elana Kegan to the Supreme Court. (Reuters) Read More......

Obama names Kagan for Supreme Court

FOX News, 5/10/2010 - President Obama's nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, was never a judge but still made decisions likely to draw fire — like banning military recruiters from Harvard Law, calling Socialist demise 'sad.' Read Kagan's Paper Trail at FOX...

Photo from Wikipedia Read More......

Obama's Supreme Court Appointee can turn up the heat...

From the Benton Co. Republicans Newsletter, 5/9/2010: OBAMA’S SUPREME COURT APPOINTEE CAN TURN UP THE HEAT ON OUR CONSTITUTION

As you read this, President Obama is interviewing candidates to replace Justice Stevens on the U.S. Supreme Court. ∴ We do not doubt that he will choose a 21st Century Constitutionalist (who wants to change our Constitution to be a “living, breathing document” that bears no resemblance to our current Constitution), and we will move ever closer to a government by appointed judges, rather than elected representatives. ∴ Stephen Markman, former Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court and Assistant Attorney General under President Ronald Reagan is now a distinguished professor of constitutional law at Hillsdale College. ∴ In the April “Imprimis” Markman warns us:

1. By 2030 the U.S. Constitution may not bear any resemblance to the Framers’ Constitution of 1787 that has guided our nation for two centuries and has rendered it the freest, most prosperous and most creative nation in the history of the world.
   
   
2. Proponent of a “21st century constitution” or “living constitution” aim to transform our nation’s supreme law beyond recognition—and with a minimum of public attention and debate. (We’ll be too distracted by all the crises the media bombards us with every day).
   
   
3. The overarching theme that 21st century constitutionalists are driving for is to replace our system of republican government, in which our Constitution is largely focused to minimize the likelihood of abuse of power. In its place they want a system of judicial government, in which major policy outcomes are increasingly determined by federal judges. Oh, we’ll still have elections, but the legislature will not have the power to make the big decisions. That will be left to the appointed court justices.
   
   
4. The new constitution would compel specific outcomes. The important decisions would increasingly be undertaken by courts, especially by federal courts. Example: the California courts are already making the important decisions, instead of the millions of voters in the state. Racial quotas, social services funding, and immigration policy in California have been routinely overturned by single judges acting in the name of the Constitution—not the Framers’ Constitution, but a “constitution for our times,” a “living constitution, resembling, sadly, the constitutions of failed and despotic nations across the globe.

TO BE CONTINUED... Read More......

The President's comments about the Supreme Court decision

(Via email) 1/27/2010 by J. Sinclair - Last week the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibited all corporate political spending. ∴ The Court did not touch 2 U.S.C. Section 441e - note the "e" - which prohibits foreign corporations from making contributions or donations of money or anything else of value to any federal, state, or local election or any political party, or any campaign ad. That part of the Code is still valid. ∴ But in the State of the Union address tonight, the president ridiculed the Supreme Court's decision, saying it "open[ed] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities." ∴ That is NOT what the Supreme Court did, and the president surely knew better. When this *&!# happens, we must call it for what it is, or the people will continue to be deceived (as they were in yesterday's vote in Oregon). ∴ Here, then, is my response: if he didn't know, he's incompetent. If he did know, he's a liar. Read More......

SCOTUS reverses federal campaign finance laws

FOXNews.com, 1/21/2010 - In a stunning reversal of the nation's federal campaign finance laws, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Thursday that free-speech rights permit groups like corporations and labor unions to directly spend on political campaigns, prompting the White House to pledge "forceful" action to undercut the decision. Read more at FOX... Read More......

SCOTUS to Hear Second Amendment Case: McDonald v. Chicago

NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert Vol. 16, No. 39, 10/02/09 - NRA applauds the Supreme Court's recent decision to hear the landmark Second Amendment case of McDonald v. Chicago. The case will address the application of the Second Amendment to the states through either the Due Process clause or the Privileges or Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case has major implications for the legality of restrictive gun laws not only in Chicago, but also in other cities across the United States. The decision to hear the case, which will be argued early next year, gives Second Amendment advocates across America hope that this fundamental freedom will not be infringed by unreasonable state and local laws. Read more at NRA's Instutute for Legislative Action... Read More......

Rep. Linda Flores: SCOTUS Gun Case

Oregon Catalyst, March 18, 2008
PRESS RELEASE from State Representative Linda Flores

U.S. Supreme Court Gun Case Could Impact Oregon

(Salem) The U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments today on the strictest gun ban in the country, and the outcome could have implications here in Oregon. “Whatever the decision by the high court, it could be the most significant Second Amendment case in our nation’s history,” said State Representative Linda Flores (R-Clackamas). She and State Representative Kim Thatcher (R-Keizer, Newberg, St. Paul) put their names on a brief supporting a challenge to Washington, D.C.’s 32-year old ban on handguns.

The pair joined 120 other women legislators from across the country on a special amicus brief filed by the National Rifle Association. The brief reads in part, “the District’s current prohibition against handguns and immediately serviceable firearms in the home effectively eliminates a woman’s ability to defend her very life and those of her children against violent attack.”
“Oregonians have always been very protective of their second amendments rights,” noted Thatcher. “However, I fear if the high court doesn’t rule in our favor, opponents of gun owner rights will be out in full force trying to change Oregon law.”

This is only the second time in the past 70 years that a firearms case has reached the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1976 the District of Columbia outlawed handguns, carrying firearms within the home and possession of a loaded or operable firearm. A security guard named Dick Heller challenged the law, claiming it violated his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. He won at the lower court level but the city appealed. A decision by the Supreme Court could come as early as this summer.

Representatives Flores and Thatcher have both served on the House Judiciary Committee and have both sponsored legislation in recent years to preserve gun owner rights in Oregon. END

Visit Oregon Catalyst to read or add COMMENTS on Rep. Flores' stand. Read More......