Warm Southern Breeze

"… there is no such thing as nothing."

Posts Tagged ‘Antonin Scalia’

Perversions of Justice & Twisted Interpretations of Our Constitution by Activist Judges

Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Saturday, November 10, 2012

Once, upon a time (in my lifetime), there was little to no need for $uch $pending as we recently witnessed in the November 2012 General Election.

Formerly, Pre$ident$ and Congre$$ were elected without much money.

Now, due in large part to Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in - Faith, Religion, Goodness - What is the Soul of a man?, - Lost In Space: TOTALLY Discombobulated, - My Hometown is the sweetest place I know, - Politics... that "dirty" little "game" that first begins in the home. | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Dope-Sniffing Dogs (and their Law Enforcement owners) get their day in the United States Supreme Court

Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Wednesday, October 31, 2012

The so-called “conservative,” or Republican justices are showing their true colors.

Welcome to their police state.

Drug-Sniffing Dogs Have Their Day in Court as Justices Hear 2 Arguments

By
October 31, 2012

WASHINGTON — In back-to-back arguments about drug-sniffing dogs, the Supreme Court on Wednesday seemed open to limiting their use outside homes but not near cars.

The first argument concerned Franky, a chocolate Labrador retriever who detected the smell of marijuana outside a Florida house. The police obtained a warrant to search the house based on Franky’s signal, and they found a marijuana-growing operation inside.

The court’s four liberal justices all asked questions that were skeptical of allowing dogs to sniff around near homes without probable cause. They were joined by one of the court’s conservatives, Justice Antonin Scalia, who sometimes staked out positions more protective of homeowners’ privacy than the lawyer for the defendant in the case.

The Supreme Court has said the privacy of the home is at the core of what is protected by the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches. Justice Scalia is the author of the majority opinions in both a 5-to-4 decision in 2001 limiting the use of thermal-imaging technology to peer into homes and a unanimous ruling in January, on varying rationales, limiting the use of GPS tracking devices on cars.

Justice Scalia’s opinion in the second case was based on Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in - Did they REALLY say that?, - Lost In Space: TOTALLY Discombobulated, - Read 'em and weep: The Daily News | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The New Radicals: Republicans and their Activist Supreme Court

Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Sunday, September 23, 2012

“The signature of the Roberts Court has been its willingness, even its eagerness, to overturn the work of legislatures. Brandishing a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, the Court has either struck down or raised questions about virtually every state and local gun-control law in the nation. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, decided earlier this year, the Court gutted the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law in service of a legal theory that contradicts about a century of law at the Court.”

Precedent and Prologue

Comment
by Jeffrey Toobin, December 6, 2010

New Yorker _talkcmmntillus_p233

Bush v Gore was the beginning of Republicans’ use of Judicial Activism

Momentous Supreme Court cases tend to move quickly into the slipstream of the Court’s history. In the first ten years after Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 decision that ended the doctrine of separate but equal in public education, the Justices cited the case more than twenty-five times. In the ten years after Roe v. Wade, the abortion-rights decision of 1973, there were more than sixty-five references to that landmark. This month marks ten years since the Court, by a vote of five-to-four, terminated the election of 2000 and delivered the Presidency to George W. Bush. Over that decade, the Justices have provided a verdict of sorts on Bush v. Gore by the number of times they have cited it: zero.

Both sides had their reasons for consigning the decision to history and leaving it there. In his concession speech on the day after the decision, Al Gore said simply, “It’s time for me to go.” He meant it, and he left politics for a life of entrepreneurship and good works. George W. Bush, for his part, found little reason to dwell on the controversial nature of his ascension to office, and in his memoir, “Decision Points,” he devotes less than a page to the Supreme Court decision. (“My first response was relief,” he writes of his reaction.) In public appearances, Antonin Scalia, a member of the majority in Bush v. Gore, regularly offers this message to people who question him about the decision: “Get over it!”

Even at the time, Bush v. Gore was treated as a kind of novelty item, a one-off decision that applied only to the peculiar facts then before the Justices. The majority itself seemed to want it that way. In the most famous sentence from the decision, the Justices wrote, “Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.” (Unlike most weighty decisions, Bush v. Gore had no single author and was delineated “per curiam,” or by the Court, a designation the Justices usually reserve for minor cases.) In light of all these admonitions to leave the case be, might getting over it be the best advice?

Actually, no. To return briefly to the distant world of chads, hanging and otherwise, it’s worth recalling what Bush v. Gore was about. The pervasive uncertainty about the results of the election in Florida—at the time, Bush led by five hundred and thirty-seven votes out of nearly six million cast—prompted the Florida courts, interpreting Florida election law, to order a statewide recount of all undervotes and overvotes; that is, ballots that indicated no Presidential preference or more than one. (Chads were the tiny paper rectangles that voters were supposed to push through punch-card ballots.) That recount had already begun on Saturday, December 9th, when five Justices—Scalia, William H. Rehnquist, Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas—issued a stay, barring the Florida authorities from continuing their labors. Three days later, the same five issued the per-curiam decision that stopped the recount once and for all.

What made the decision in Bush v. Gore so startling was that it was the work of Justices who were considered, to greater or lesser extents, judicial conservatives. On many occasions, these Justices had said Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in - Lost In Space: TOTALLY Discombobulated, - Politics... that "dirty" little "game" that first begins in the home. | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

University of Notre Dame Students Petition Administration to Drop Birth Control Mandate Lawsuit

Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Sunday, August 5, 2012

“She should have died hereafter;
“There would have been a time for such a word.
“To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
“Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
“To the last syllable of recorded time,
“And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
“The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
“Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
“That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
“And then is heard no more: it is a tale
“Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
“Signifying nothing.
(Enter a Messenger)
“Thou comest to use thy tongue; thy story quickly.”

-Spoken by Macbeth; Act 5, Scene 5

University Of Notre Dame Students Petition Administration To Drop Birth Control Mandate Lawsuit Against Feds


tyler.kingkade@huffingtonpost.com

Posted: 08/01/2012 6:45 pm Updated: 08/01/2012 6:48 pm

At first, Kathryn Pogin was simply writing a personal letter to the Rev. John Jenkins, C.S.C., the president of the University of Notre Dame.

It was a response to his announcement the school would sue the federal government over the requirement that health insurance plans, including those provided by Notre Dame to faculty, staff and students, cover birth control and contraception without co-pays. The university claimed that the mandate would require it to violate Catholic teachings.

But when Pogin, a Notre Dame Ph.D. student in philosophy, showed the letter to Benjamin Rossi and a couple of other friends, they decided to Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in - Did they REALLY say that?, - Faith, Religion, Goodness - What is the Soul of a man? | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Alabama State Senator Scott “aborigines” Beason: “When their children grow up and get the chance to vote, they vote for Democrats.”

Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Monday, June 18, 2012

Garbage like this infuriates me to no end.

What kind of garbage am I referring to?

I’m referring to the kind of racist garbage that has been HB56 – the state’s lazy attempt to “do something” about illegal immigration.

And just for the record, it is my considered opinion that Alabama State Senator Scott Beason is a lazy, incompetent, racist who is so lazy that he wouldn’t even pick up a bucket to pick vegetables when one was thrust toward him by an Alabama farmer who stood to lose millions in a crop that HB56 forbade him to hire migrant farm workers. (Alabama tomato farmer Leroy Smith, Chad Smith’s father, challenged Beason to pick a bucket full of tomatoes and experience the labor-intensive work. Beason declined but promised to see what could be done to help farmers while still trying to keep illegal immigrants out of Alabama. Smith threw down the bucket he offered Beason and said, “There, I figured it would be like that.” {There you have it. Scott Beason is a man too Goddamn lazy to put in an honest, hard day’s labor. What a worthless, shit eating, son-of-a-bitch. ed.})

Migrant farm workers have been, and continue to be an integral part of this nation’s agricultural production.

Alabama’s version of Arizona’s immigration law was written by xenophobic Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who, in his legal/political career has written laws that have consistently been struck down after judicial scrutiny & review, as well as having come under fire within his own profession by complaints of racism by University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law as far back as 2003.

To give the man his due, however, he is a very hard-working man, and was involved with honor society, debate team, forensics, student council, spirit club and intramurals while at Harvard, where he graduated in 1988. Having won a Marshall Scholarship from the British government, he attended Oxford and completed a Ph.D. in political science in 1992. He then was accepted at Yale Law School, where he taught political science to undergraduates and won a Prize Teaching Fellowship in 1994.

But then, I suppose, some might consider Adolph Hitler a hard-working man.

In 2001, he was awarded a prestigious White House fellowship, and reported for duty at the Department of Justice (DOJ) on Sept. 1. Ten days later, the United States suffered the worst-ever terrorist attack on American soil. Though he was not a specialist in immigration law or policy, Kobach became Attorney General John Ashcroft’s chief advisor on immigration and border security.

Interestingly, in 2002 Kobach reduced the number of Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) judges from 19 to 11, which many believe was significantly responsible for creating a significant backlog of immigration hearings.

By 2005, so much criticism had been leveled at the DOJ’s purported “streamlining” and at what appeared to be “a pattern of biased and incoherent decisions” that DOJ started proposing to boost the number of judges and to mandate full opinions instead of one-line decisions, effectively reversing Kobach’s efforts.

The Strange Career of Juan Crow

Opinion By DIANE McWHORTER Published: June 16, 2012
 THE depth of my alienation from home hit me last January, when Alabama shut out Louisiana State for the college football championship. Even in the familiar afterglow of ’Bama’s second title in three years, I had to ask myself, Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in - Did they REALLY say that?, - Faith, Religion, Goodness - What is the Soul of a man?, - Read 'em and weep: The Daily News | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Day 3: SCOTUS hears final PPACA case arguments

Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Wednesday, March 28, 2012

It’s not looking good for the petitioners.

And to give Mr. Paul D. Clement his props, he has a phenomenal presentation, and has a wonderful presence, has a very rapidly keen response to the Justices questions. He is definitely on top of his game. However, as good as his performance may be, it is my opinion that his arguments will not sway the court.

Mr. Clement was formerly Solicitor General of the United States 2004-2008.

The Court heard arguments today, Wednesday, March 28, 2012, on the Severability issue and Medicaid issue of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act cases.

QUESTION PRESENTED:

1. Does Congress Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in - Did they REALLY say that?, - Faith, Religion, Goodness - What is the Soul of a man?, - Politics... that "dirty" little "game" that first begins in the home., - Read 'em and weep: The Daily News | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Day 2: SCOTUS hears PPACA argument

Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Tuesday, March 27, 2012

As I’m writing, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has concluded Day 2 of oral argument in the unprecedented three days of arguments on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).

Hear the oral argument Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in - Did they REALLY say that?, - Faith, Religion, Goodness - What is the Soul of a man?, - Politics... that "dirty" little "game" that first begins in the home. | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

 
%d bloggers like this: