Swing Voters Hold Key To United States Future

GOP Voters Did NOT Want A Second Helping Of Trump

And, in their estimation, Trump v2.0, i.e., Trump 2024, is 100% OUT OF THE QUESTION.

Comments from the focus group referenced in the article linked below illustrate the GREAT NEED for our nation to be focused upon PROGRESS & CHANGE.

Regardless of anyone’s opinion, or any nation’s actions, catastrophic, or otherwise, tomorrow will happen.

It’s inevitable.

PROGRESS WILL OCCUR.

BUT, we could all do something to PREVENT bad things from happening, and should. We should improve conditions for our residents and humanity, rather than to allow them to suffer by negligence and neglect.

And yet, whether we do, or don’t, the sun will still rise.

Time marches on.

Recall the adage,

“If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always gotten.”

That quote is by Dr. Jessie Potter, PhD (1922-1994), Founder/Director, National Institute for Human Relationships, Oak Lawn, Illinois; faculty member University of Illinois Medical School, Northwestern University Medical School, who was featured speaker at the Friday opening of the seventh annual Woman to Woman Conference, in an article entitled “Search For Quality Called Key To Life” by Tom Ahern, published in “The Milwaukee Sentinel” of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on 24 October 1981; the quote appearing on Page 5, Column 5.

In my estimation, and in the estimation of that focus group’s members, America and American policy – domestic, and international – has REGRESSED, rather than progressed.

Progress supposes improvement. It’s like progressing from 3rd Grade to 4th Grade, or beyond. Progress implies a journey, and ALWAYS supposes improvement — getting from “Point A” to “Point B,” and beyond.

Like the primarily-Republican voters in this focus group, I too, have voted FOR candidates who were neither my first, nor best, choice. Sometimes, you vote for “the devil you know,” rather than “the devil you don’t know.”

I voted for Hillary, though I utterly loathed her for various reasons; besides being a proverbial “lightning rod” for controversy and division, rather than unity, another one being that she demonstrably screwed Bernie, and though what she did was not illegal, it was exceedingly unethical, and that she did it in secret, was very telling about her character. Had she not done that, Bernie would have most likely been the Democratic party‘s nominee – NO ONE ELSE had crowds the size of his – NO ONE.

But, because she had governmental experience, and was the nominee, I held my nose and voted FOR her. Similarly, I voted FOR Biden, though again, I much rather preferred Bernie, because I thought and hoped that Biden would essentially be a “yes man” to the party’s Progressive ideas. And quite frankly, I don’t think he’s ever demonstrated effective LEADERSHIP with ideas.

BIDEN is a conciliator, and after the previous administration, our nation was very ready for significant “conciliation.”

“Boring government” can be a good thing, per se — at least insofar as what it’s compared to in the immediately preceding administration.

Bold new ideas are not Biden’s forte. That’s Bernie’s bailiwick. And, as we all know, sometimes, “you gotta’ go along, to get along.”

We’re not even a year — 8 months 13 days, or; 36 weeks 3 days, or; 255 calendar days – into this administration, and yet, the prognosticators, pundits, and political soothsayers are busy at work. In my way of thinking, that demonstrates a deep longing for CHANGE. Not change from the GOP, but fundamental, wholesale CHANGE in governmental operations, i.e., PROGRESS.

Do we need change in our nation?

You bet your sweet bippy we do!

The colloquialism “politicians are like diapers on babies; both need changing regularly” is not mere hyperbole, it is true.

Consider our income tax system.

No one genuinely “likes” paying taxes – has anyone, ever? Even though it’s a patriotic duty, I don’t think so. But in your and my lifetime, the graduated income tax system in our nation has been highly compressed (there are now fewer brackets than ever), and the top rate for the highest income earners (multi-millionaires & multi-billionaires) has been so significantly reduced, that the net effect is a so-called “flat tax,” in which everyone – the wealthy and the impoverished – pays the same percentage rate, regardless. That’s an inherently unjust system, simply because the wealthy and the impoverished pay the same price for a gallon of milk, or loaf of bread. It just takes a BIGGER BITE out of the poor man’s paycheck, than it does the wealthy… who probably owns the farm –and– the bakery –and– the store that sells it.

It simply boggles my mind to know that Jeff Bezos, by FAR the world’s wealthiest man -and- his corporation Amazon, PAID NO INCOME TAX LAST YEAR… or, the year before, or the year before that. And he wasn’t the only one, not by a long shot. Elon Musk and Warren Buffett are also on that list of shame. Men whose names are practically household words, like Bill Gates, Rupert Murdoch and Mark Zuckerberg all come to mind. They too, paid little, if any, personal income tax compared to the Average American. To my way of thinking, that’s just plain wrong. Maybe you think differently.

What angers me particularly, is that,

Partisan Hacks Abound

One would NOT mention something if it were NOT part of the equation.

It’d be like mentioning Tostitos at a cake-baking contest, the theory of relativity to 3rd Graders, a taco soup recipe to Chinese citizens in Shenzhen, or the merits of a ’57 Chevy during discussion of a cardiac surgical procedure. TOTALLY out of place.

The very fact that SHE — Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett — mentioned it, is sufficient.

“My goal today is to convince you that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks.”

— Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Sunday, 12 September 2021, at the McConnell Center, University of Louisville, KY, a venue created by Kentucky Republican Senator Mitch McConnell

Similarly, one would NOT need to be convinced if a thing, saying, or claim had utterly no credibility. It’d be like claiming (falsely) that “the sun rises in the west.” Any casual observer can plainly see that the sun appears to “rise” in the east, because of the Earth’s rotation upon its axis. That is to say, Earth spins in an “easterly” direction.

But, what else could be said about a court that INCREASINGLY issues “emergency” rulings, colloquially known as the “Shadow Docket,” WITHOUT proceedings, WITHOUT hearing ANY argument?

That tactic DENIES citizens their Constitutional RIGHT TO BE HEARD IN AN OPEN & PUBLIC COURT OF LAW.

NO ONE BUT she brought up that topic.

So, yeah… Amy Coney “I’m not a partisan hack” Barrett,

Anti-Censorship Laws DO NOT Apply To Private Enterprise

For all the hoopla being raised by Banana Republicans parading as GOP types, including the Loser in Chief, about the decision Twitter made to cut him (and others) off from their private non-governmental service, and who are calling it “censorship,” the United States Supreme Court has some news for you:

Censorship laws DO NOT apply to the Private Sector.

Period.

If you don’t like it, take it up with those who decided it: KAVANAUGH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, ALITO, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.

The case was Argued February 25, 2019 — Decided June 17, 2019, and named Manhattan Community Access Corp. et al. v. Halleck et al.

In a Certiorari to The United States Court Of Appeals For The Second Circuit, No. 17–1702, the court ruled that “The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment prohibits only governmental, not private, abridgment of speech,” and held that MNN (private nonprofit corporation, petitioner Manhattan Neighborhood Network (MNN)) was not a state actor subject to the First Amendment.

The court wrote further, that, “A private entity may qualify as a state actor when, as relevant here, the entity exercises “powers traditionally exclusively re-served to the State.” The precedent for that decision was rendered in the case Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U. S. 345, 352.

“The Court has stressed that “very few” functions fall into that category. Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U. S. 149, 158.”

In the decision, the court wrote in part that,

“Under the state-action doctrine as it has been articulated and applied by our precedents, we conclude that operation of public access channels on a cable system is not a traditional, exclusive public function. Moreover, a private entity such as MNN who opens its property for speech by others is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor. In operating the public access channels, MNN is a private actor, not a state actor, and MNN therefore is not subject to First Amendment constraints on its editorial discretion. We reverse in relevant part the judgment of the Second Circuit, and we remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

The background facts of the case which formed the basis of the suit are fairly straight-forward, and reads as follows:

“DeeDee Halleck and Jesus Papoleto Melendez produced public access programming in Manhattan. They made a film about MNN’s alleged neglect of the East Harlem community. Halleck submitted the film to MNN for airing on MNN’s public access channels, and MNN later televised the film. Afterwards, MNN fielded multiple complaints about the film’s content. In response, MNN temporarily suspended Halleck from using the public access channels. Halleck and Melendez soon became embroiled in another dispute with MNN staff. In the wake of that dispute, MNN ultimately suspended Halleck and Melendez from all MNN services and facilities. Halleck and Melendez then sued MNN, among other parties, in Federal District Court. The two producers claimed that MNN violated their First Amendment free-speech rights when MNN restricted their access to the public access channels because of the content of their film.

“MNN moved to dismiss the producers’ First Amendment claim on the ground that MNN is not a state actor and therefore is not subject to First Amendment restrictions on its editorial discretion. The District Court agreed with MNN and dismissed the producers’ First Amendment claim.

“The Second Circuit reversed in relevant part. 882 F. 3d 300, 308 (2018). In the majority opinion authored by Judge Newman and joined by Judge Lohier, the court stated that the public access channels in Manhattan are a public forum for purposes of the First Amendment. Reasoning that “public forums are usually operated by governments,” the court concluded that MNN is a state actor subject to First Amendment constraints. Id., at 306–307. Judge Lohier added a concurring opinion, explaining that MNN also qualifies as a state actor for the independent reason that “New York City delegated to MNN the traditionally public function of administering and regulating speech in the public forum of Manhattan’s public access channels.” Id., at 309.

“Judge Jacobs dissented in relevant part, opining that MNN is not a state actor. He reasoned that a private entity’s operation of an open forum for speakers does not render the host entity a state actor. Judge Jacobs further stated that the operation of public access channels is not a traditional, exclusive public function.

“We granted certiorari to resolve disagreement among the Courts of Appeals on the question whether private operators of public access cable channels are state actors subject to the First Amendment. 586 U. S. __ (2018). Compare 882 F. 3d 300 (case below), with Wilcher v. Akron, 498 F. 3d 516 (CA6 2007); and Alliance for Community Media v. FCC, 56 F. 3d 105 (CADC 1995).”

Certiorari [pronounced “sir-sha-rar-ee”] is a writ [a written order issued by a court] seeking review of a lower court decision by a higher court.

The court wrote also that,

How To Be Selfish During The COVID Pandemic

Wear a mask.

Yes, it’s just that simple.

None of this “I ain’t gonna’ wear a mask and you can’t make me, ‘cuz this is ‘Murka and we have FREEDOM!” kind of malarkey.

No, that simply won’t do.

Look out for A-number-one – yourself.

It’s like saying, wear gloves when you go outside, because it’s -30º below zero Fahrenheit. Protect yourself. Gloves only protect the person wearing them.

You see, even though we do have liberties – as good ol’ Justice Samuel Alito – a Bush II-appointed Supreme Court Judge who has been on the court since a 58–42 vote of Senate approval on January 31, 2006 – we also have limits. But Justice Alito doesn’t think so, and, has said as much.

Most recently, Justice Alito addressed the Federalist Society’s 2020 Annual National Lawyers Convention – which, despite its name, opposes a strong federal government – and since their 1982 inception, have been bit-by-bit-piece-by-piece tearing down and destroying the Federal government under guise of promoting personal liberties and freedom.

It was the Supreme Jurists who gave We the People the nefariously infamous and disastrous rulings in:
• Citizens United v Federal Election Commission – essentially ruling that money is free speech;
• McCutchen v Federal Election Commission – essentially allowing unlimited money to be contributed to candidates/politicians, and;
• Shelby County, Alabama v Holder – essentially gutting the Voting Rights act by removing sections 4(b) and 5, which were its “heart and lungs,” whereupon the decision, many states enacted restrictive voting laws.

There are others, of course, but those three are perhaps the most notorious during the oversight of Chief Justice John Roberts.

And that was all in the name of “originalism” and “textualism,” the preferred interpretive modality of The Federalist Society.

So, it should come as no surprise that Alito – a longtime member of the Federalist Society, who said “I have been a member for many years,” and by his own admission has attended every annual meeting for the past 14 years – would sacrifice the greater good upon the altar of “originalism” to the god of individual liberty.

Where in our nation is the sense of shared sacrifice for the greater, common good? That some obviously think that they simply MUST have “freedom” to do whatever they want, when they want, where they want, without regard for anyone else is anathema and contrary to the very idea of a “united” states – e pluribus unum – though many, one. And of course, now, we’re paying for it. For if you’re gonna’ dance, you gotta’ pay the piper. And we’re dancing like mad. But the greatest problem is, eventually, there’s nobody to dance with, and the piper gets sick and dies.

But hey… “You danced like hell, didn’t you!?!,” read no headstone ever.

Of course, the members would recite a quote often misattributed to Benjamin Franklin, though historical researchers tell us that the phrase was

It’s NOT Illegal For Weirdos To Serve

It’s a good thing that American Presidents don’t nominate weirdos or extremists for the Supreme Court.

Amy Coney Barrett as Hannibal Lector, the psychotic, psychopathic weirdo in the movie series “Silence of the Lambs.”

People who have 7 kids – adopted, or not – are certainly outside the norm.

As is forbidding the use of birth control – and that’s almost exclusively a religious matter.

And now that businesses can have religion, which god do they worship – Mammon? Was it the Commerce Clause that Jesus died for? Or, was it people?

But after all, “businesses are people, my friend.”

And since money is free speech, what’s next?

To be frank, being outside the norm is not illegal in the United States.

It’s not illegal to be a weirdo.

Goodness knows, there are plenty of them in all 50 states.

Belonging to a weird religious cult shouldn’t disqualify one for service – at least according to the Constitution, which has a renown “no religious test” clause.

I mean, we could have, and there is no legal compunction forbidding, Moonies to serve us in our government – any government, federal, state, or local – and, that’s perfectly A-okay according to the Constitution – as it should be.

People who believe the Earth is flat could serve us in government – and while there’s not a “no scientific test” clause in our Constitution, I would imagine that most reasonable people would agree that, like the Moonies, those who believe the Earth is flat are weirdos, and extremists.

People who believe in alchemy – the fraudulent and disproven notion that gold can be made from lead, various ores, or things that do not contain elemental gold – could be elected, or appointed, and serve us in our government.

Why, even those who have belonged to the Ku Klux Klan have served on the Supreme Court – Hugo Black, an Alabamian.

And the virulently infamous racist George C. Wallace was elected as Alabama’s governor FOUR times.

Stranger things have happened.

May they never happen again.

---

theguardian.com

Revealed: Ex-members of Amy Coney Barrett faith group tell of trauma and sexual abuse

by Stephanie Kirchgaessner, in Washington, D.C.
Wednesday 21 Oct 2020, 0500 EDT
Last modified on Wednesday 21 Oct 2020, 2337 EDT

---

Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the supreme court has prompted former members of her secretive faith group, the People of Praise, to come forward and share stories about emotional trauma and – in at least one case – sexual abuse they claim to have suffered at the hands of members of the Christian group.

In the wake of the allegations, the Guardian has learned that the charismatic Christian organization, which is based in Indiana, has hired the law firm of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan to conduct an “independent investigation” into sexual abuse claims on behalf of People of Praise.

The historic sexual abuse allegations and claims of emotional trauma do not pertain specifically to Barrett, who has been a lifelong member of the charismatic group, or her family.

But some former members who spoke to the Guardian said they were deeply concerned that too little was understood about the “community” of People of Praise ahead of Barrett’s expected confirmation by the Senate next week, after which she will hold the seat formerly held by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Two people familiar with the matter say that more than two dozen former members of the faith group, many of whom say they felt “triggered” by Barrett’s nomination, are participating in a support group to discuss how the faith group affected their lives.

“The basic premise of everything at the People of Praise was that the devil controlled everything outside of the community, and you were ‘walking out from under the umbrella of protection’ if you ever left,” said one former member who called herself Esther, who had to join the group as a child but then left the organization. “I was OK with it being in a tiny little corner of Indiana, because a lot of weird stuff happens in tiny little corners in this country. But it’s just unfathomable to me – I can’t even explain just how unfathomable it is – that you would have a supreme court justice who is a card-carrying member of this community.”

Barrett was not asked about her involvement in People of Praise during her confirmation hearings last week, and has never included her involvement with the group in Senate disclosure forms, but has in the past emphasized that her religious faith as a devout Catholic would not interfere with her impartiality.

People of Praise is rooted in the rise of charismatic Christian communities in the late 1960s and 1970s, which

“The Notorious RBG” – A Very Short Story

The Supreme Court, and the legal profession in general, are steeped in tradition – perhaps even more so than the United States Senate.

If you’ve ever heard any of the oral arguments before the nation’s highest court, you’ve likely heard the opening remark, “Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the court.”

However, if you’ve never heard an oral argument, you’re fortunate to be living in this age, because oral arguments in the nation’s highest court are recorded and archived for posterity sake. Audio recordings of the arguments may be found

“My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg, SCOTUS Justice

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1933-2020), aka “The Notorious R.B.G.,” has died.

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/18/100306972/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-champion-of-gender-equality-dies-at-87

May she rest in peace, and her memory be blessed.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1933-2020)

---

Now, on to the matter at hand.

It’s time to study history once again.

The so-called “McConnell Rule,” which was actually no rule at all, but a political ploy by the Republican Senate Majority Leader from Kentucky, should be considered.

After all, turn about it fair play, and paybacks are hell.

But, before we continue in detail, NPR, which first reported the story of Justice Ginsburg’s death, wrote this:

“Just days before her death,
as her strength waned,
Ginsburg dictated this statement to her granddaughter Clara Spera:

“My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”

Justice Ginsburg was referring to comments that McConnell made following the unexpected death of SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia, while on a hunting trip in Texas on February 13, 2016.

And I mean to refer specifically to those comments.

Scalia’s body wasn’t even proverbially cold yet, and preparations for disposition of his mortal remains, and burial hadn’t even begun to be made, and the noxious Senator from Kentucky was already shooting off his mouth.

Right and Left Wing Agree: Term Limit Supreme Court Justices

October 26, 2016; South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg

What if I told you that, as things now stand, there’s not a nickel’s worth of difference between the Democrats and Republicans?

Surveying the political landscape, the policy matters that invariably find their way into political discourse are eerily similar.

For example, South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, a candidate for the Democratic party’s presidential nominee, in an interview with Cosmopolitan magazine October 24, 2019, said of the Supreme Court that,

“Another approach would be to have term limits. You know, Supreme Court justices, they used to just retire like everybody else. But now, we have these strange scenarios of people clinging, almost seeming to cling on for dear life because they want to make sure that they leave the bench under the right presidency. And this would help deal with that issue. Someone suggested that we rotate judges on and off the appellate bench.”

Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion from before he was on the SCOTUS was quoted in National Review November 24, 2019, that,

“Chief Justice John Roberts (appointed by George W. Bush) and Justice Stephen Breyer (appointed by Bill Clinton) have both indicated support for the idea. In a 1983 memo written when he served in the Reagan White House, Roberts wrote: “Setting a term of, say, 15 years would ensure that federal judges would not lose all touch with reality through decades of ivory tower existence.”

Superficially, one might say that “Mayor Pete,” as he’s known, and “Mr. Chief Justice,” as CJ Roberts is known, are

The SCOTUS gets FUCT – but not FCUK – for a day.

And based upon the outcome, we could get fuct for a lifetime.

Think about it…

Only 5ive people decide the fate of a nation with very nearly 329,000,000 people – which is the 3rd most populous nation on Earth.

5ive.

Just 5ive Justices, that is, who are appointed to life-time jobs – which, when first written, was NOT in the clause which states in Article III Section 1. that “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.”

When the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) was formed by the Constitution in Article III, and after the first U.S. Census was taken in 1790, there were found to be 3,929,214 people in this land.

Fast forward 230 years.

In 2017, New York City’s estimated population was 8,622,698.
Los Angeles’ estimate was 3,999,759.

Chicago’s was 2,716,450.
Houston’s was 2,312,717.

Phoenix’ was 1,626,078.
Philadelphia was 1,580,863.
San Antonio was 1,511,946.

San Diego was 1,419,516.
Dallas was 1,341,075.
San Jose was 1,035,317.

So perhaps you’re beginning to get the point – and now you

Is Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore Sexually Repressed?

“…it’s about sexual preference.”

In an interview  broadcast Thursday morning, February 12, 2015, with CNN’s “New Day” co-host Chris Cuomo, Alabama State Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore FINALLY told the truth.

In his view, Marriage Equality under the law in Alabama is NOT the issue under discussion.

When pressed by host Cuomo, Moore said, “It’s about sexual preference overcoming an institution which has existed in our state, in our United States, for centuries, and I think it’s wrong.”

Alabama Supreme Court Chief Jester Roy Moore

Clearly, Chief Jester Moore doesn’t “prefer” those with Same Sex Attraction, and by his own confession, seeks to intrude upon their private lives. That is, he seeks to tell others what they should (or should not) do in their own privacy. Why he has such an excessive interest in them is indeed quizzical, if not outright disturbing.

There continues to be a disturbing dichotomy in Alabama law, which,

History Looks Forward: SCOTUS Chief Justice John G. Roberts Appointment No Accident

It wasn’t by accident that George W. Bush nominated John Roberts as SCOTUS Chief Justice, because he’s the SECOND YOUNGEST of ALL the Justices (Elena Kagan b.4/28/1960 is younger than John Roberts b.1/27/1955 by 5 years, 3 months, 3 days), and his influence could be felt for perhaps 40+ years. At his appointment, John G. Roberts was aged 48 years, only 4 years older than the First Chief Justice, John Jay (served 1789-1795), who was aged 44 years when he took the oath of office.

FYI, the youngest Associate Justice was Joseph Story (served 1811-1845), who was aged 32 years when he took the oath of office.

The longest serving Associate Justice was William O. Douglas who served 36 years, 7 months, and 8 days from 1939 to 1975.

The longest serving Chief Justice was Chief Justice John Marshall who served 34 years, 5 months and 11 days from 1801 to 1835.

The average number of years that Justices have served is 16.

However… the average tenure of a Supreme Court Justice from 1789 through 1970 was 14.9 years.

For those Justices who have

South Carolina BBQ Restaurant Chain Refuses to Serve Blacks Claiming Religious Objection

SC Restaurant Owner Refuses To Serve Blacks, Cites Religious Beliefs

July 2, 2014
By Manny Schewitz

In South Carolina, a BBQ restaurant owner (Maurice’s Piggy Park BBQ) claimed that he was within his rights to refuse service to blacks based on his religious beliefs. In the case brought before the Supreme Court, Maurice Bessinger stated that his religion required him to keep black people from eating in his restaurant, although he was perfectly OK with taking their money, so long as they ordered their food to-go.

The attorney representing the petitioners suing Piggie Park also addressed in court the “First Amendment religious privilege claim that petitioner asserted that his religion required him” to deny service to black customers.

“I’m just a fair man. I want to be known as a hard-working, Christian man that loves God and wants to further (God’s) work throughout the world as I have been doing throughout the last 25 years.” (Source)

And now for you who actually took the time to read the story instead of basing your outrage solely off a headline before sharing with an ALL CAPS blurb of “SEE? I TOLD YOU THE SOUTH WAS FULL OF RACISTS!!!”, this case was

It’s all about the money… says Hobby Lobby Store Lawyer Paul D. Clement to SCOTUS.

Here, all along, we’ve been made to believe that Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. – a privately held firm headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, which boasts themselves “as a major private corporation in Forbes and Fortunes list of America‘s largest private companies,” – objects on religious grounds (even though their owners are Protestant) to providing insurance coverage to their employees, which insurance includes coverage for female contraceptives.

Here is their attorney – Paul D. Clement, himself the 43d former Solicitor General of the United States – arguing their case:

Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
Docket Number: 13-354
Date Argued: 03/25/14

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts Blasts Congressional Budget Impasse: Condemns “Fiscal Cliff”

This is the complete text of the Supreme Court’s Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary.

The document itself is available as a PDF document via: http://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2012year-endreport.pdf

Page breaks and page numbers are annotated at the bottom of the page enumerated beginning with page 2.

Note: The links provided in this version are NOT part of the original version.

—

EMBARGOED until 6 p.m. E.S.T. December 31, 2012 (No wires, no broadcasts, no Internet until 6 p.m. E.S.T.)

For further information, contact the Public Information Office 202-479-3211

2012 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary

Imagine a young seaman, two hundred years ago, standing night watch at the rail of an American frigate. Just one generation removed from the war for independence, he finds his Nation once again squaring off in battle with Great Britain, the world’s preeminent sea power. The sailor has ample reason to be anxious. Britain’s Royal Navy includes 115 ships of the line and 126 frigates, while the United States Navy consists of only 17 vessels. Perhaps the seaman musters confidence from the name of his ship: USS Constitution.

Named by President Washington himself, the Constitution was one of six frigates Congress authorized in 1794 to bolster the fledging United States Navy. The name was apt. The ship’s designer, Joshua Humphreys, drew on venerable Old World principles and New World ingenuity to engineer a nautical vessel uniquely suited to the country’s needs. Like the Framers, Humphreys produced an American original. He fashioned a ship long on keel but tight of beam. Constructed from frontier timber and copper bolts

forged by Paul Revere, the Constitution was durable but economical, nimble yet powerful. Christened with a bottle of madeira—the favorite beverage of future Chief Justice John Marshall— she launched on October 21, 1797.

During her early years, the Constitution patrolled the eastern seaboard and saw action in the Caribbean and along the Barbary Coast. But she became the stuff of legends two hundred years ago, at the outbreak of the War of 1812. Called into battle off the coast of Nova Scotia on August 19, the Constitution engaged and decisively defeated the British warship HMS Guerriere. The American ship’s sturdy oak hull repelled the Guerriere’s 18-pound cannon balls, earning her the nickname “Old Ironsides.” Four months later, the Constitution repeated the feat off the coast of Brazil. On December 29, she traded broadsides with HMS Java and reduced the British ship to an unsalvageable wreck.

The War of 1812 was fought over a wide field of battle. Measured against the whole war effort, the Constitution’s unexpected victories did not play a decisive role in the outcome of the conflict. But facing long odds, she did her part and did it well. The triumphs of Old Ironsides boosted America’s sagging morale during the early days of the war. Her exploits were celebrated in the paintings of Thomas Birch, the poetry of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr., and the prose of James Fenimore Cooper. Through

The New Radicals: Republicans and their Activist Supreme Court

“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

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

Yes, it’s perfectly legal to lie to police.

Doubtless, at one time or another, many of us have read or heard of individuals being charged with “lying to police,” “giving false information to a Law Enforcement Officer,” or any of the other numerous charges which go by similar names.

Initially, the Miranda v Arizona case made it clear that according to our Constitution, one had no compunction or legal requirement to speak with police. What that illustrates is refusal, not dishonesty. However, the recent Supreme Court ruling in the Stolen Valor Act case reinforced the notion that, unless one is under oath, lying – blatant dishonesty – is perfectly legal. Here’s how.

The “Stolen Valor Act of 2005” (Public Law 109-437) sought to

Americans Love/Hate “ObamaCare”

Does that surprise anyone?

People don’t like being told what to do.

They naturally buck against any system – no matter who or what – that tells them what to do, or how to do it. And yet, we know that civil society abides by rules and regulation which govern every aspect of our lives from the cradle to the grave. We must abide by rules as we grow. In fact, we’re introduced to regulation and rules by our parents who punish us when we disobey them. To hear “NO! Don’t do this, do that this way,” are all common in childhood.

But hopefully, we outgrow childhood and transition through that elongated period of pseudo-adulthood called the “teenage years,” and successfully become responsible adults, and abide by laws, rules, regulations galore… ranging from civic laws, to employer policy, procedure and more. And then, we make more laws, rules, regulations, policy and procedures. It’s a never-ending cycle.

The gist of all, is that by following rules and regulations, we demonstrate personal responsibility, and accountability to others. And rarely is that ever an impediment to progress, or a harm to our neighbor.

So naturally, when we hear or see of someone having a knee-jerk reaction to anything, we can almost immediately discount most – if not all – of what they say, simply because of their radical overreaction. And so it is with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), which is often misnomered as “ObamaCare.”

The PPACA actually contains more policy and regulation of Big Health Insurance companies‘ egregious practices than it does anything else.

For example,

• It is now illegal for Health Insurance Companies (HICs) to deny coverage based upon “pre-existing conditions” for children and adults.

• It is now illegal for HICs to charge women more for health insurance than they do men.

• It is now illegal for HICs to refuse payment for services rendered by physicians, hospitals or pharmacies simply because the insured person inadvertently forgot to dot an “i” or cross a “t” on an application.

• It is now illegal for HICs to use the majority of healthcare insurance premiums to pay for overhead expenses including executive compensation, stockholder payout, overhead office expenses, advertising, or any other expense UNRELATED to the delivery of healthcare. Now, they must use 80% of premiums to pay for healthcare.

• It is now illegal to deny family coverage for a child simply once they reached aged 18. HICs are now required to continue coverage to children up to age 26 if they are still enrolled in school.

Page 6 from “Assuring Affordable Healthcare for All Americans,” by Stuart M. Butler, Ph.D., The Heritage Foundation, 1989, ISSN 0272-1155

 

—

Most Americans oppose health law but like provisions

(Reuters) – Most Americans oppose President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform even though they strongly support most of its provisions, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Sunday, with the Supreme Court set to rule within days on whether the law should stand.

Fifty-six percent of people are

A Look at Job Creation -OR- How To Make Someone Say Anything… including the President

Over the past couple of days, I’ve been thinking about truth, truth-telling, falsehoods, lying and other machinations of language by and through which we communicate.

Interestingly, I’ve also though of where those items may have intersections of law, law violation, duty, freedom, rights and civic responsibility.

As an illustration, or imaginary case in point, if a police officer asks you a question, a person is most often and typically required to tell the truth. That is, they are required to answer honestly. There are various penalties associated with lying to a Law Enforcement Officer (LEO), which vary state to state, and in various localities.

Here’s something more specific, however. Number one, you don’t have to talk. That’s guaranteed by our Fifth Amendment. And even if there is no possibility of self-incrimination (that is to say, you are not accused of any wrong doing), a person still has no legal requirement to speak.

However, if they do speak, they must

The Irony of the Death: The first nails in the coffin of DOMA were all done by Republicans.

The stinking irony of the whole matter is that the folks who are primarily responsible for the federal death of DOMA is that…

they’re REPUBLICAN.

So who’re your hypocrites?

Who’re your radicals now?

—

In Defense of Marriage

Editorial
Published: June 2, 2012

The federal appeals court ruling last week that struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act did not say whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, but the decision sets the stage for what will almost certainly be a Supreme Court showdown over the unfair treatment of gay people and their families.

The ruling on Thursday by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, based in Boston, marked the first time a federal appellate court had ruled against the 1996 law, which excludes same-sex couples from federal benefits accorded heterosexual married couples. (like being allowed to filed joint tax returns and to receive Social Security survivor payments).

The case was heard by two judges nominated by Republican presidents and one Democratic nominee. It involved married couples in Massachusetts, which is among the handful of states where gay couples may lawfully wed. The marriage law was being defended by lawyers hired by the Republican majority in the House after the Obama administration finally acknowledged that it was unconstitutional and decided to stop defending it in court.

The panel’s key finding was that there was no “demonstrated connection” between the law’s hurtful treatment of same-sex couples and “its asserted goal of strengthening the bonds and benefits” of heterosexual marriage. It also said another rationale for the law — that it preserves scarce federal resources — was simply not true.

We were disappointed that the panel declined to

Tilting with the wind? Is the SCOTUS driving America back to Jim Crow?

As I’ve said before, some folks often say they want to “take America back.”

Problem is, they never tell you how far back they wanna’ go.

Before Civil Rights?

Before Suffrage?

While you may not be a religious person, there is a lesson in the Scripture that addresses “going back” – and we all know we CAN’T go back, it’s impossible.

The book of Ecclesiastes, chapter 7, verse 10 says, “Don’t ask, “Why were things better in the old days than they are now?” It isn’t wisdom that leads you to ask this!” (GWT)

We can’t go back in our childhood, we cant’ go back to yesterday, yesteryear or back in time in any way. We all move forward. We are meant for FORWARD travel. It should seem obvious from even natural observation.

That’s why we have eyes in the FRONT of our face, rather than in the rear.

—

Retired federal judge blasts direction of U.S. Supreme Court

Published: Sunday, May 20, 2012, 5:45 PM
Updated: Monday, May 21, 2012, 7:05 AM
By Thomas Spencer — The Birmingham News

BIRMINGHAM, Alabama — Once a guardian of civil rights, the U.S. Supreme Court has been rolling back those protections, said retired U.S. District Judge U.W. Clemon this evening, delivering the keynote address at the 2012 Law Enforcement and Civil Rights Conference presented by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute.

Clemon, who in 1980 became the first black federal judge in Alabama, said since the 1986 appointment of William Rehnquist as chief justice, Supreme Court rulings have gutted the core of landmark decisions such as Brown v. the Board of Education, the landmark ruling that declared school segregation to be illegal. The Voting Rights Act, Clemon said, “has almost been interpreted out of existence.

“With the rise of the Rehnquist court, our wall against the flood became the flood itself. We have seen, in the past quarter century, civil rights on the scaffold.”

The conference,

Sure, money is power. But, is it also liberty and freedom? Or, is it a tool?

As Bob Dylan sang some years ago, “The times, they are a-changin’.” Our laws should reflect those changes while adhering to the values ensconced in our Constitution. In essence, the argument is about freedom – freedom from the large corporations that supply “content” via the Internet. As well, openness and honesty – popularly termed as transparency – should be the hallmark of all dealings, by government and enterprise.

In short, what we’re encountering in this age, in this era, is an almost unprecedented and wholesale onslaught of money and the power that comes with it. It is, in essence, a corrupting influence. It is, in essence, a type of bribery – and bribery is itself, a form of theft. Bribery is a form of theft because it takes away, removes, or forbids resources from going where they ought, or rightfully should. In this case, it robs freedom from the people. Not only does it usurp their decision-making capacity, it is a blatant announcement and condemnation of freedom, because it says that the rich, the wealthy have freedom, while the poor and disenfranchised have none.

If – as the Supreme Court has declared – money is the equivalent of free speech, and neither cannot, nor should not be limited, what freedom does the poor man have? Again, if money is equated with free speech (that is, our First Amendment rights), the poor man has none. And that, my dear readers, is but one reason why such a ruling is not only ANTI-Constitutional, but is antithesis of freedom.

Making a further case, our nation’s specie – that is, the currency and coinage – is the property of the United States government. It is NOT private property. Money is a thing used to represent something else. So again, I ask rhetorically… in such instances, and in this case, what does it represent?
—

Google Says “It’s Our Web”–and they bought it fair and square

April 23, 2012 Chris Castle

Who can forget then-candidate Ronald Reagan’s classic line at the 1980 New Hampshire candidate’s debate:  “I’m paying for this microphone!”  And Google probably is wishing that whichever Ivy League idiot thought of rebranding their anti-SOPA campaign site with the double entendre “It’s Our Web” had not been quite so…uh..transparent…about it all.

President Obama had dinner with technology moguls February 17, 2011 in California’s “Silicon Valley” at the home of John Doerr, venture capitalist and partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, in Woodside, California. Flanking the president are (L) the late Steve Jobs, Founder/CEO of Apple Computer, and (R) Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of FaceBook. Also present are:Cisco CEO John Chambers, Google CEO Eric Schmidt, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, Oracle CEO Larry Ellison, Twitter CEO Dick Costolo and Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz. Art Levinson, chairman and former CEO of Genentech, is on the Apple board of directors, and was also present. White House press secretary Jay Carney said after the dinner President Obama exchanged ideas with the business leaders “so we can work as partners to promote growth and create good jobs in the United States,” and discussed research and development spending proposals with the CEOs. (Official White House photo by Pete Souza)

Because it certainly is “their web” and they bought it fair and square according to

News: Mitt Romney to attempt to buy November General Election

Among political observers of all stripe, there is broad consensus that the ruling handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, will continue to negatively affect the political process.

Some years ago I held that the only way to completely eliminate the corrupting influence of money in our political process was to allow donations – even in unlimited amounts as Super PACs do – and to place all funds in one pool, and divide the funds equally among all candidates. By so doing, candidates and incumbents would not have to be concerned with raising money for election campaigns. In essence, what we have now is a perpetual campaigning process in which elected officials continuously attend functions where money is raised, and in some cases transferred personally. Many of them have publicly expressed great distress at the time it takes away from their ability to govern and to perform the duties and responsibilities for which they were elected.

In essence, what we would have is a public/private partnership pool, which could have the best of both worlds.

Candidates could

Day 2: SCOTUS hears PPACA argument

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

“1921 slaying of Catholic priest gets renewed interest”

Some weeks back, my deacon had shared with us about this horrific tragedy. The long and short of it is that the Ku Klux Klan in Alabama had masterminded the murder of a Catholic priest in Birmingham whom solemnized a wedding.

Journalist Greg Garrison’s story is compelling.

“BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (RNS) The 1921 murder of the Rev. James E. Coyle on the front porch of his rectory was no ordinary slaying. Involved were the anti-Catholic Ku Klux Klan, a future Supreme Court justice and a preacher’s daughter who secretly married a Puerto Rican.

In her book “Rising Road: A True Tale of Love, Race and Religion in America,” Ohio State University law professor Sharon Davies digs deep into the Coyle’s murder—and the dark chapter of anti-Catholicism in American history.

“There are so many things about this story that are really compelling,” said Davies, who stumbled across the case while doing research for a law journal article. “When I found it, I was absolutely captivated by it. This story needed to be told. We can’t afford to forget this.”

The murder trial was historic partly because future U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black defended the accused killer, Edwin R. Stephenson, a Methodist minister and member of the Ku Klux Klan.”

The Klan paid the legal expenses for Stephenson, who was acquitted by a jury that included several Klan members, including the jury foreman, Davies said.

“The Klan held enormously successful fundraising drives across Alabama to raise money for the defense,” Davies said. “They portrayed it as a Methodist minister father who shot a Catholic priest trying to steal his daughter away from her religion, to seduce his daughter into the Catholic Church.”

Stephenson, who conducted weddings at the Jefferson County Courthouse, was accused of gunning down Coyle after becoming irate over Coyle officiating at the marriage of Stephenson’s daughter, Ruth, to a Puerto Rican, Pedro Gussman.

The recent release of Davies’ book comes at the same time as a documentary highlighting the case made by Irish filmmaker Pat Shine, Coyle’s grandnephew.

As defense attorney, Black had Gussman summoned into the courtroom and questioned him about his curly hair and skin color. Lights were dimmed in the courtroom so the darkness of Gussman’s complexion would be accentuated, said an Oct. 20, 1921, newspaper account of the final day of the trial. Black won the acquittal.

“That really does illustrate, beautifully and awfully, the lengths that this future Supreme Court justice was willing to go to in defense of a killer,” Davies said. “It only worked because it exploited the bigotries of the day, anti-Catholicism and racism.”

Black joined the Klan 18 months after the trial, Davies said. He was a U.S. senator from Alabama from 1927 to 1937, and served on the U.S. Supreme Count until his death in 1971, gradually becoming one of the court’s most liberal members.

After the acquittal, Stephenson once again was a regular at the courthouse, conducting marriages. “For awhile after the trial, he was a hero,” Davies said. “He was the Klan’s champion, celebrated at Klan initiation ceremonies.”

But Stephenson never reconciled with his daughter, who divorced Gussman, moved to Chicago and died of tuberculosis in 1931 at age 28. “She was their only child,” Davies said. “I’m sure that was a grievous wound for them.”

Gussman was killed on Valentine’s Day 1934 in a hit-and-run accident steps away from where Coyle was killed, in front of St. Paul’s Cathedral. “They never found the person who hit him,” Davies said.

People don’t grasp today the level of anti-Catholic bigotry that was rampant in America at the time of Coyle’s slaying, Davies said.

State lawmakers enacted the Alabama Convent Inspection law in 1919 to authorize officials without a warrant to search convents to see whether any person found inside the convent was being “involuntarily confined” or “unlawfully held,” Davies said.

“My students laugh,” Davies said. “They can’t believe these laws existed. State legislatures were convinced they needed these laws to protect against the Catholic threat.”

There was a fear that Protestant girls would be kidnapped, forced to become Catholic nuns and held against their will, Davies said.

The Coyle case played into those fears because Ruth, as an independent-minded 18-year-old, had converted to Catholicism against her father’s will. Coyle fought the Klan’s attacks on Catholics, and federal officials at one point warned Coyle’s bishop that Coyle had been the target of death threats, Davies said.

“There were threats to burn the church to the ground,” she said. “This was a time when lectures and sermons were routinely given from pulpits … that spewed anti-Catholicism.”

The racist impulses exploited by the young defense attorney were later curbed by Supreme Court decisions in which Black played a key role during his 34 years on the Supreme Court. He joined unanimous opinions in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision that outlawed school segregation, and the 1967 Loving vs. Virginia case that overturned Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage.

“It’s a good thing to remember where he began,” Davies said. “It gives us a greater appreciation for where he ended up. It reflected the movement of the nation.”

(Greg Garrison writes for The Birmingham News.)

“1921 slaying of Catholic priest gets renewed interest”.
May 27, 2010

Goodfellas: Robert DeNiro, Ray Liotta, Hugo Black, Joe Pesci, Mama, Daddy, Jesus

Though it was nominated for several categories, only One Oscar emerged from the 1990 Martin Scorsese-directed film Goodfellas, which is the internal award those in the film and motion picture production industry give themselves. Joe Pesci, playing the character Tommy DeVito, won the Oscar for Best Actor in a Supporting Role in Goodfellas.

Robert DeNiro, whom played the Irish character James “Jimmy” Conway, and Ray Liotta, whom played Irish-Italian protagonist Henry Hill, and Paul Sorvino, whom played the character of the local Lucchese family mob boss Paul Cicero, neither won any such acclaim or coveted award.

Based on the book and screenplay by Nicholas Pileggi, the story circulates around the fictitious character Henry Hill, whom as a 1955 youth began his life of crime, first with skipping school to park cars for nefarious Lucchese mob family members in his Brooklyn, New York City neighborhood, and gradually progressing into a full-fledged mobster.

Desiring a life of crime, Henry Hill understands becoming a “made man,” is a difficult obstacle he must overcome to become a full-fledged member of the Lucchese crime family. Yet his criminal mentor Jimmy Conway, whom is Paul Cicero’s close associate, can neither become a “made man,” because of his Irish heritage.

With Paul Cicero’s blessing, Jimmy Conway puts Henry Hill and Tommy DeVito together, and they become fast friends, and criminal compatriots.

As the story develops the characters, Henry meets and falls in love with Karen Friedman, described as a “no-nonsense Jewish girl,” and they eventually marry and have children.

Throughout the film, the strength and close-knit nature of the criminal companions and their families is demonstrated. The men work their various criminal enterprises together, their wives shop together, their children attend school and play with each other, and their families visit, dine and vacation together. The men are in constant contact with each other, and so are their wives and children. The strength of their bond is observed as a natural by-product of their consistent fellowship.

Eventually, Henry Hill cultivates a mistress named

The best government money can buy

Overturning a nearly-century-long trend of limiting BIG BUCK$ from BIG BU$INE$$ and UNION$ to influence elections, the Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) overturned