[FoxNews.com]
Published March 26, 2013

Several Supreme Court justices indicated they might lean toward issuing a narrow ruling on gay marriage during a landmark hearing Tuesday on California’s same-sex marriage ban, even as lawyers for the plaintiffs argued for legalizing the unions nationally.The case heard Tuesday, the first of two gay-marriage cases the high court is weighing this week, centered on California’s Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage but could have national implications. If the justices choose to rule broadly, they could overturn Prop 8 and in doing so invalidate every other restriction on gay marriage in the country.But the justices suggested Tuesday they could decide the case without issuing a ruling that ripples through all 50 states.Several justices, including some liberals who seemed open to gay marriage, raised doubts Tuesday that the case was properly before them. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the potentially decisive vote on a closely divided court, suggested that the court could dismiss the case with no ruling at all.
Such an outcome would almost certainly allow gay marriages to resume in California but would have no impact elsewhere.Click to listen to the Supreme Court arguments in the Prop 8 case
.
Kennedy said he feared the court would go into “uncharted waters” if it embraced arguments advanced by gay marriage supporters. But lawyer Theodore Olson, representing two same-sex couples, said that the court similarly ventured into the unknown in 1967 when it struck down bans on interracial marriage in 16 states.
Kennedy challenged the accuracy of that comment by noting that other countries had had interracial marriages for hundreds of years.
There was no majority apparent for any particular outcome and many doubts expressed about the arguments advanced by lawyers for the opponents of gay marriage in California, by the supporters and by the Obama administration, which is in favor of same-sex marriage rights.
Chief Justice John Roberts told Olson that it seemed supporters of gay marriage were trying to change the meaning of the word “marriage” by including same-sex couples.
Lawyers representing supporters of the California ban known as Proposition 8 argued that the court should not override the democratic process and impose a judicial solution that would redefine marriage in the some 40 states that do not allow same-sex couples to wed.
The case attracted high interest. Spectators were waiting in line since Thursday for the chance at being in the room while the two sides try to sway the court.
By ruling broadly, the court could overturn every state constitutional provision and law banning same-sex marriages. Or, they could set back the gay marriage movement by upholding California’s ban and continuing to leave the issue up to the states. By choosing the middle route, though, the justices could dismiss the case — a move likely to let gay marriages resume in California, with no impact anywhere else.
The case before the high court came together four years ago when the two couples agreed to be the named plaintiffs and become the public faces of a well-funded, high-profile effort to challenge Proposition 8 in the courts.
The fight began in 2004 when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered city officials to issue marriage licenses. Six months later, the state Supreme Court invalidated the same-sex unions. Less than four years later, however, the same state court overturned California’s prohibition on same-sex unions.
Then, in the same election that put President Obama in the White House in 2008, California voters approved Proposition 8, undoing the court ruling and defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
The ballot measure halted same-sex unions in California. Roughly 18,000 couples were wed in the nearly five months that same-sex marriage was legal and those marriages remain valid in California.
The high-profile case has brought together two one-time Supreme Court opponents. Republican Theodore Olson and Democrat David Boies are leading the legal team representing the same-sex couples.
They argued against each other in the Bush v. Gore case that settled the disputed 2000 presidential election in favor of George W. Bush. Opposing them is Charles Cooper, Olson’s onetime colleague at the Justice Department in the Reagan administration.
On Wednesday the court will consider a provision that defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of deciding who can receive a range of federal benefits, as part of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.
The arguments come at a time of changing views on the issue. Support for gay marriage is becoming a mainstream Democratic position and the issue is causing a sharp divide among Republicans.
The issue has created fault lines within the Republican Party, as some prominent members drop their opposition to same-sex marriage while others stiffen it.
Gary Bauer, president of American Values, told “Fox News Sunday” that proponents of gay marriage are effectively asking “for unelected judges to deny the people of the states the right to decide what marriage is in their state.”
Bauer said he would prefer that every state bar gay marriage. But, acknowledging that’s not likely, he said the court should let the states decide.
However Nicolle Wallace, a former adviser to former President George W. Bush and to the 2008 McCain campaign, said those arguing against Prop 8 are in fact using a “conservative legal argument.”
“They will basically lay out the conservative case that there is not any place in the Constitution that allows for a different set of rules for a different class of people,” she told “Fox News Sunday.” “There’s also a moral imperative here. If you believe, if you value and treasure and revere the institution of marriage, then you should want every family unit to be really wrapped in marriage.”
Top Democrats who previously opposed same-sex marriage — and had taken the more moderate position of supporting civil unions — have in recent months and years shifted course. President Obama announced his support for gay marriage in the months leading up to the presidential election. Hillary Clinton also recently followed suit.
But Republicans have also been crossing to the pro-gay marriage side. Wallace is among dozens of Republicans who filed a brief in the Supreme Court case arguing for Prop 8 to be overturned. And Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, publicly reversed his position on the issue after his son came out as gay.
The position shifts, though, do not signal a party-wide change of heart. Many Republicans would still prefer the issue be left up to the states and are encouraging the high court justices to rule narrowly.
“They would be far better off to decide these two cases on the narrowest possible grounds,” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Sunday. A sweeping decision against gay marriage, he said, would be a “huge mistake” that would “undermine respect for the judiciary.”
Americans as a whole are likewise divided. A Fox News poll released Thursday showed 49 percent of voters favor legalizing gay marriage, while 46 percent oppose it.
That marks a shift since the question was first asked in 2003 — when 32 percent said gay marriage should be legal, and 58 percent opposed it.
Support for gay marriage has grown the most among Democrats, and self-described moderates and independents. Still, support for gay marriage rose by 10 points among Republicans over the past decade, according to the Fox News polling.
Gay marriage has been approved in nine states — Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington — and the District of Columbia. But 31 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. North Carolina was the most recent example last May.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Like this:
Like Loading...
March 26, 2013 | Categories: Government, New Media News, Private Sector (Free Enterprise), Constitution, Politics, Media Corruption, Radical Liberal Progressive Left, Liberals Big Spending and Taxes, National Debt, Progressives pushing for Marxism/Socialism, Deficit, Corruption, International Politics, Manufactured Crisis, Economic Terrorism, Politically Intentioned Crisis, Liberal Scare Tactics, United States Court System | Tags: corruption, politics, SCOTUS, gay marriage, same sex marriage, Justice Kennedy, Supreme Court arguments, California Prop 8 case, uncharted waters, Theodore Olson, interracial marriage, progressives vying for power, same sex couples, gay marriage in california | Leave A Comment »
[American Spectator]
By David Catron on 11.30.12 @ 6:10AM
The “Affordable Care Act” might die a death of a thousand legal cuts.
Last June, upon learning that the Supreme Court had ruled Obamacare’s individual mandate constitutional, many observers were forced to concur with the Dickens character who opined, “If the law supposes that… the law is an ass.” Yet, the increasing number of anti-PPACA lawsuits that have been receiving serious attention from the courts suggests that the legal system may not be as irrational as it seemed when Chief Justice John Roberts began braying from the bench on June 28. If this seems Pollyannaish, consider the fate of McCain-Feingold.
(more…)
Like this:
Like Loading...
December 2, 2012 | Categories: America's Freedoms, America's National Security, Class Warfare, Cloward and Piven Strategy, Congress, Constitutional Responsibilities, Consumer Issues, Corruption, Corruption in Government, Deficit, Education, Elections Politics, Freedom Justice and Liberty, Government, Government Appointments, Healthcare, Individual Rights and Freedoms, Learn from History, Liberals Big Spending and Taxes, Media Corruption, National Debt, New Media News, Political Incompetence, Politics, POTUS Deception, POTUS Elibility Issue, Progressives pushing for Marxism/Socialism, Radical Liberal Progressive Left, Rejecting Political Correctess, Religious Freedoms, The Economy, UNION Corruption, UNIONS ACORN and SEIU, United States Court System | Tags: Affordable Care Act, Bad decision by Justice Roberts, BCRA, First Amendment, government, John Roberts, Lawsuits, McCain-Feingold, Obamacare, politics, PPACA, religion, SCOTUS | Leave A Comment »
[FoxNews.com]
Associated Press
Published November 26, 2012

The Supreme Court has revived a Christian college’s challenge to President Obama’s health care overhaul.
The court on Monday ordered the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., to consider the claim by Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., that Obama’s health care law violates the school’s religious freedoms.
A federal district judge rejected Liberty’s claims, and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the lawsuit was premature and never dealt with the substance of the school’s arguments. The Supreme Court upheld the health care law in June.
The justices used lawsuits filed by 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business to uphold the health care law by a 5-4 vote, then rejected all other pending appeals, including Liberty’s.
The school made a new filing with the court over the summer to argue that its claims should be fully evaluated in light of the high court decision. The administration said it did not oppose Liberty’s request.
(more…)
Like this:
Like Loading...
November 26, 2012 | Categories: Agency Regulation, America's Freedoms, Constitution, Constitutional Rights, Elections Politics, Employer Uncertainty, Excessive Government Spending, Freedom Justice and Liberty, Government, Government Regulations, Individual Rights, Individual Rights and Freedoms, New Media News, Politics, POTUS Deception, Progressives pushing for Marxism/Socialism, Radical Liberal Progressive Left, Religion, Religious Freedoms, Tea Party Conservatives, The Economy, Unemployment, United States Court System | Tags: Christian college challenge, Federal Appeals Court, First Amendment, government, health care challenge, health care law, Liberty University, Lynchburg, mandate, NFIB, politics, SCOTUS, US 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, VA | Leave A Comment »
[Mediaite.com]
The Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act was about a bazillion years ago. However, some people are still angry about it. Shockingly (SHOCKINGLY!!!), the man who once wrote a book called “Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America“ is one of them. That man, of course, is conservative radio host Mark Levin. Levin is furious at the recent CBS News report that Chief Justice John Roberts may have been swayed by the media. Levin is so furious at this kind of media tomfoolery that he went on Fox News (where’s he’s appeared a few times the past couple days) and called for Roberts to lose his job.
Shockingly (SHOCKINGLY!!!), it would appear that some media pressure is better than others.
Levin called in to talk to Megyn Kelly to lash out at Roberts and the Supreme Court. He began by mocking conservatives who were attempting to see a “silver lining” in the ruling, claiming that they were “blinded by their silliness.” He then argued that it was time to instate term limits for federal judges.
“What we lack, Megyn, in too many public officials — and that would included judges and justices, not all but too many — is virtue, integrity, prudence. And, over time, they become cynical, they become deceitful, and their view of our constitutional system collapses. And one way to try to address this is to ensure that there’s more opportunity for other great people, brilliant lawyers, judges, and so forth to step up to the plate and have an honest opportunity to participate in the governance of this country.”
(more…)
Like this:
Like Loading...
July 3, 2012 | Categories: 2012 Election, America's Freedoms, Balanced Budget, Congress: Inquiries & Committees, Constitution, Corruption, Corruption in Government, Deficit, Due Process of Law, Economic Security, Economic Terrorism, Education, Election 2012, Elections Politics, Excessive Government Spending, Government, Housing Crisis, Individual Rights, Learn from History, Liberals Big Spending and Taxes, Manufactured Crisis, National Debt, National Security, New Media News, Politically Intentioned Crisis, Politics, POTUS Deception, POTUS Elibility Issue, Progressives pushing for Marxism/Socialism, Tea Party Conservatives, TEA Taxed Enough Already, The Economy, United States Court System | Tags: Conservative Talk Show Host, current-events, FoxNews, Justice Roberts, Mark Levin, Mediaite, Megyn Kelly, politics, SCOTUS, term limits for Justices | Leave A Comment »
[Newsbusters.org]
By: John Bates| June 25, 2012 | 16:50
As the ObamaCare decision looms large on the horizon, the Left is doing their best to
defame the Supreme Court in anticipation of a defeat of the president signature legislative accomplishment.In the past two days, liberal journalists
Michael Tomasky and
James Fallows have published histrionic tirades at their respective publications, the Daily Beast/Newsweek and The Atlantic.
Like this:
Like Loading...
June 25, 2012 | Categories: 2012 Election, America's Freedoms, America's National Security, Class Warfare, Cloward and Piven Strategy, Congress, Congress: Inquiries & Committees, Constitution, Constitutional Responsibilities, Corruption, Corruption in Government, Deficit, Economic Security, Economic Terrorism, Education, Election 2012, Elections Politics, Electorate, Employer Uncertainty, Excessive Government Spending, Fuel Prices, Government, Government Regulations, Immigration, Jobs, Learn from History, Liberal Scare Tactics, Liberals Big Spending and Taxes, Manufactured Crisis, Media Corruption, Most Americans Reject Socialism, National Debt, National Security, New Media News, Political Incompetence, Politically Intentioned Crisis, Politics, POTUS Deception, POTUS Elibility Issue, Progressives pushing for Marxism/Socialism, Radical Liberal Progressive Left, Redistribution of Wealth, Rights of States, Scandals, TEA Taxed Enough Already, The Economy, Undermining Constitution, Unemployment, UNION Corruption, United States Court System, War on Terror | Tags: AZ immigration law, climate, defame the Supreme Court, john bates, liberal journalists, Obamacare, politics, president signature, SB-1070, SCOTUS | Leave A Comment »
American [Spectator.org]
By Ross Kaminsky on 3.30.12 @ 6:10AM Posted April 1, 2012
Obamacare, politics, and the modern Supreme Court.
And in my hour of darkness
She is standing right in front of me
Speaking words of wisdom, let it be
Democratic political strategist and organizer Robert Creamer claims that overturning Obamacare would make the Supreme Court the “most activist [and] partisan in modern history.”
Radical leftist MSNBC host Rachel Maddow says that the Obamacare decision “may as much be a referendum on the Supreme Court and whether or not the Roberts court is so conservatively politicized that it will make a decision to hurt the President, rather than sticking closely to precedent here.”
(more…)
Like this:
Like Loading...
April 1, 2012 | Categories: 2012 Election, Agency Regulation, America's Freedoms, Congress, Constitutional Responsibilities, Corruption, Corruption in Government, Economic Security, Economic Terrorism, Election 2012, Elections Politics, Freedom Justice and Liberty, Government, Individual Rights and Freedoms, Liberals Big Spending and Taxes, Manufactured Crisis, National Debt, National Security, New Media News, Politically Intentioned Crisis, Politics, Progressives pushing for Marxism/Socialism, Radical Liberal Progressive Left, Redistribution of Wealth | Tags: "Let it Be", American Spectator, de facto nationalization, decision in June, do what is right, health care, health insurance industry, MSNBC, Obamacare, political, politics, PPACA, Rachel Maddow, referendum on Obama, Robert Creamer, ross kaminsky, SCOTUS | 2 Comments »
[HotAir.com]
posted at 1:55 pm on November 16, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
Under ObamaCare, the IRS becomes the arbiter of health-insurance acceptability. Now Barack Obama needs the IRS to rescue ObamaCare entirely, thanks to a massive legislative defect that the President has no hope of rectifying in the new Congress. Thanks to sloppy legislative work, the PPACA’s subsidies to taxpayers won’t apply in states that refuse to create exchanges — which means that the states have a clear mechanism to block ObamaCare’s implementation.
That is, unless the IRS just bypasses Congress and corrects the law:
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act offers “premium assistance”—tax credits and subsidies—to households purchasing coverage through new health-insurance exchanges. This assistance was designed to hide a portion of the law’s cost to individuals by reducing the premium hikes that individuals will face after ObamaCare goes into effect in 2014. (If consumers face the law’s full cost, support for repeal will grow.)
The law encourages states to create health-insurance exchanges, but it permits Washington to create them if states decline. So far, only 17 states have passed legislation to create an exchange.
(more…)
Like this:
Like Loading...
November 16, 2011 | Categories: 2012 Election, Agency Regulation, America's Freedoms, Americans Reject Sharia and Islamic Supremacism, Class Warfare, Cloward and Piven Strategy, Congress, Congress: Inquiries & Committees, Constitution, Constitutional Responsibilities, Consumer Issues, Corruption, Corruption in Government, Deficit, Economic Security, Economic Terrorism, Elections Politics, Employer Uncertainty, Government, Government Regulations, Healthcare, House of Representatives, Jobs, Liberals Big Spending and Taxes, Manufactured Crisis, Media Corruption, National Debt, National Security, New Media News, Political Incompetence, Politically Intentioned Crisis, Politics, POTUS Deception, POTUS Elibility Issue, Progressives pushing for Marxism/Socialism, Redistribution of Wealth, Scandals, Senate, TEA Taxed Enough Already, The Economy, Treason, Unemployment, UNIONS ACORN and SEIU | Tags: Americans reject Socialism, BAD LAW, circumvent Congress, congressional end-around, Constitution, corruption, Culture of Corruption, Democrats, economy, Ed Morrissey, fix 'Obamacare Glitch', IRS, Marxists in the White House, MUST BE REPEALED, Obama, Obamacare defect, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, politics, PPACA, SCOTUS, socialized health care, Supreme Court, unconstitutional | Leave A Comment »
Weinergate and Sarah Palin have dominated this space the last couple of days, but another story with major media implications is that Jill Abramson will replace Bill Keller as the New York Times executive editor beginning September 6th. The headlines have been boasting that Abramson is the Times‘ first female boss since the paper’s inception, but this shake-up is hardly progressive: Abramson was raised in New York, is Harvard educated, has little new media expertise (if any), and has a long history of liberal bias in her reports. She’s a daughter of the old, biased, liberal MSM.
The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto was quick to point out this incredible excerpt from the NYT article announcing the change:
Ms. Abramson said that as a born-and-raised New Yorker, she considered being named editor of The Times to be like “ascending to Valhalla.”
“In my house growing up, The Times substituted for religion,” she said. “If The Times said it, it was the absolute truth.“
Scary.
Taranto then goes on to demonstrate that Abramson has a history of “trying to tear down” the Times‘ competitors, most notably Fox News.
Newsbusters, which has documented dozens of examples of liberal bias in Abramson’s past, focused a post on Abramson’s support of Anita Hill, the one-time Clarence Thomas colleague who bears major responsibility for the fiasco that was Thomas’s SCOTUS confirmation hearings.
(more…)
Like this:
Like Loading...
June 3, 2011 | Categories: 2012 Election, Agency Regulation, America's Freedoms, Americans Reject Sharia and Islamic Supremacism, Cloward and Piven Strategy, Constitution, Constitutional Rights, Corruption, Corruption in Government, Deficit, Economic Security, Elections Politics, Excessive Government Spending, Fuel Prices, Government, Government Regulations, Healthcare, Jobs, Liberals Big Spending and Taxes, Media Corruption, Most Americans Reject Socialism, National Debt, National Security, New Media News, Political Contests, Political Incompetence, Politics, POTUS Elibility Issue, Progressives pushing for Marxism/Socialism, Propaganda, Radical Liberal Progressive Left, Redistribution of Wealth, Religious Freedoms, Smaller Government, The Economy, Undermining Constitution, UNIONS ACORN and SEIU | Tags: America Against Government Healthcare, Anita Hill, Barack Obama, big government, Congress, Culture of Corruption, James Taranto, Jill Abramson, liberal hacks, Marxists in the White House, Most Americans Reject Socialism, New York Times, SCOTUS, Socialist agenda, Wall Street Journal, WSJ | Leave A Comment »
HotAir.com
Not that this should come as much of a surprise, but the Supreme Court ruled moments ago that it would not stop the US military from enforcing “don’t ask, don’t tell” while appeals of a district court decision proceed:
The Supreme Court is refusing to block enforcement of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military while a federal appeals court considers the issue.
The court on Friday denied a request from the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group, to step into the ongoing federal court review of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” The Obama administration urged the high court not to get involved at this point.
As I wrote when the 9th Circuit applied an injunction that prevented the court’s ruling on DADT constitutionality from being enforced, a later reversal could have deep ramifications for all concerned. Service members who revealed their orientation might put themselves in position for expulsion if the Supreme Court eventually overturned the ruling. The military would have had a monumental headache in dealing with openly gay recruits who enlisted during that period of time if DADT was upheld — and without any action from Congress, the Pentagon would have been legally obligated to enforce those consequences.
(more…)
Like this:
Like Loading...
November 12, 2010 | Categories: America's Freedoms, Armed Forces, Corruption in Government, Elections Politics, Family Values, Government, Government Regulations, Individual Rights and Freedoms, Judiciary, Most Americans Reject Socialism, New Media News, Progressives pushing for Marxism/Socialism, War on Terror | Tags: America Rejects Obama, Constitution, Court refused to stop enforcement, DADT, politics, SCOTUS, weak president | Leave A Comment »
FoxNews.com
Published September 13, 2010

In this June 3, 2007, file photo, a crowd gathers during a rally in support of Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta in front of City Hall in Hazleton, Pa. (AP Photo)
The town of Hazleton, Pa., is threatening a Supreme Court showdown after a panel of judges last week threw out its restrictions against hiring and renting to illegal immigrants, a decision supporters say gives Washington a free pass to ignore its enforcement responsibilities.
Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta, who has championed his city’s crackdown in the face of persistent legal challenges, told Fox News on Monday that the federal appeals court ruling was a “blow” to cities trying to shield themselves from the “drain” of illegal immigration.
“The problem is that the federal government refuses to regulate the immigration problems that we’re having in Hazleton and yet tells us that we can’t defend ourselves,” he said.
(more…)
Like this:
Like Loading...
September 13, 2010 | Categories: America's Freedoms, Corruption in Government, Elections Politics, Government Regulations, Jobs, Media Corruption, Most Americans Reject Socialism, National Security, New Media News, Politics, Rights of States, TEA Taxed Enough Already, The Economy, Undermining Constitution, War on Terror | Tags: 3rd Circuit Court, ACLU, Barletta, Congress, Hazelton law, illegal alien fraud votes, illegal immigrants, immigration rulling, Pennsylvania City, politics, SCOTUS, Supreme Court battle, threat, unlawful entry into USA | Leave A Comment »
Posted Aug 5th 2010 at 12:52 pm
by Publius

WASHINGTON (AP) – The Senate has confirmed Elena Kagan as the 112th justice and fourth woman to serve on the Supreme Court.The vote was 63-37 for President Barack Obama’s nominee to succeed retired Justice John Paul Stevens.
Five Republicans joined all but one Democrat and the Senate’s two independents to support Kagan. In a rarely practiced ritual reserved for the most historic votes, senators sat at their desks and stood to cast their votes with “ayes” and “nays.”
Kagan isn’t expected to alter the ideological balance of the court, where Stevens was considered a leader of the liberals.
Read the full article here.

Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | Tweet this | 
Like this:
Like Loading...
August 5, 2010 | Categories: Abortion & Pro-Life, America's Freedoms, Constitution, Corruption in Government, Elections Politics, Healthcare, Judiciary, Media Corruption, Most Americans Reject Socialism, New Media News, Politics | Tags: Elena Kagan, Justice/Legal, SCOTUS, Supreme Court | Leave A Comment »
Liveshots – FoxNews.com
August 2, 2010 – 5:32 PM | by: Lee Ross

The final debate on Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court will start Tuesday according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
It was widely assumed that Kagan’s nomination would hit the Senate floor this week, the last before the senators break for their summer recess, but the exact timing was unknown until Reid made the announcement Monday afternoon.
Kagan’s nomination has generated intense debate and scrutiny but hardly anyone in official Washington thinks the nominee will be denied a seat on the Supreme Court.As of Monday, 24 senators have publically announced their intention to vote against Kagan–all Republicans except for Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., who announced his opposition to the 50 year old last week.
“Her lack of a judicial record makes it difficult for me to discount the concerns raised by Nebraskans, or to reach a level of comfort that these concerns are unfounded,” Nelson said. Kagan is the former dean of the Harvard Law School and now serves as U.S. Solicitor General. She has never been a judge and if confirmed would become the only member of the high court to have never worn a judicial robe.
(more…)
Like this:
Like Loading...
August 2, 2010 | Categories: Congress: Inquiries & Committees, Constitution, Corruption in Government, Government, Media Corruption, Most Americans Reject Socialism, New Media News | Tags: controversial nominee, Kagan socialist background, no judiciary experience, nominee up for vote, SCOTUS, Senate floor Tuesday | Leave A Comment »

Note to the Supreme Court, FBI, CIA and perhaps INTERPOL. “Renegade” must be removed for the sake of our republic. Since this has never happened in the history of our nation, we the people must trust in God first, then in those who still have some honor and integrity to make the right moves to remove “Renegade” from his position. NOW IS THE TIME! (July 21, 2010; Editor Comment)
OBAMA MUST STAND UP NOW OR STEP DOWN (Was never eligible to be President)
By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
October 29, 2008; REPOST, JULY 21, 2010
NewsWithViews.com
America is facing potentially the gravest constitutional crisis in her history. Barack Obama must either stand up in a public forum and prove, with conclusive documentary evidence, that he is “a natural born Citizen” of the United States who has not renounced his American citizenship—or he must step down as the Democratic Party’s candidate for President of the United States—preferably before the election is held, and in any event before the Electoral College meets. Because, pursuant to the Constitution, only “a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). And Obama clearly was not “a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution.”
CLICK HERE TO WATCH A YOUTUBE VIDEO THAT REVEALS THE TRUTH.
Whether the evidence will show that Obama is, or is not, “a natural born Citizen” who has never renounced his American citizenship is an open question. The arguments on both sides are as yet speculative. But Obama’s stubborn refusal to provide what he claims is “his own” country with conclusive proof on that score compels the presumption that he knows, or at least strongly suspects, that no sufficient evidence in his favor exists. After all, he is not being pressed to solve a problem in quantum physics that is “above his pay grade,” but only asked to provide the public with the original copy of some official record that establishes his citizenship. The vast majority of Americans could easily do so. Why will Obama not dispel the doubts about his eligibility—unless he can not?
Now that Obama’s citizenship has been seriously questioned, the burden of proof rests squarely on his shoulders. The “burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States * * * is upon those making the claim.” Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640, 653 (1948). And if each of the General Government’s powers must be proven (not simply presumed) to exist, then every requirement that the Constitution sets for any individual’s exercise of those powers must also be proven (not simply presumed) to be fully satisfied before that individual may exercise any of those powers. The Constitution’s command that “[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen * * * shall be eligible to the Office of President” is an absolute prohibition against the exercise of each and every Presidential power by certain unqualified individuals. Actually (not simply presumptively or speculatively) being “a natural born Citizen” is the condition precedent sine qua non for avoiding this prohibition. Therefore, anyone who claims eligibility for “the Office of President” must, when credibly challenged, establish his qualifications in this regard with sufficient evidence.
In disposing of the lawsuit Berg v. Obama, which squarely presents the question of Obama’s true citizenship, the presiding judge complained that Berg “would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary in living memory.” This is exceptionally thin hogwash. A proper judicial inquiry into Obama’s eligibility for “the Office of President” will not deny his supporters a “right” to vote for him—rather, it will determine whether they have any such “right” at all. For, just as Obama’s “right” to stand for election to “the Office of President” is contingent upon his being “a natural born Citizen,” so too are the “rights” of his partisans to vote for him contingent upon whether he is even eligible for that “Office.”
If Obama is ineligible, then no one can claim any “right” to vote for him. Indeed, in that case every American who does vote has a constitutional duty to vote against him.
(more…)
Like this:
Like Loading...
July 22, 2010 | Categories: America's Freedoms, Constitution, Corruption in Government, Elections Politics, Most Americans Reject Socialism, National Security, New Media News, Politics | Tags: Born in Kenya, CIA, consequences now, Constitution, FBI, In God We Trust, Indonesian citizen, ineligible to be POTUS, Interpol, multiple lawsuits, must be removed from office, Philip Berg v. Obama, SCOTUS, Secret Service, unchecked executive power, usurper | 1 Comment »
As Elena Kagan attempts to sail through a confirmation process to take her first job as a judge on the nation’s highest court, National Review’s Shannen Coffin discovers one of the reasons why the Clinton Library seemed determined to keep records of her previous work quiet. The issue of partial-birth abortion had raged during the Clinton years, with the President ultimately vetoing a measure by Congress to ban the procedure, but Nebraska banned it on their own. In order to defeat that law, Kagan manipulated a report by a panel from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists to fool the Supreme Court into thinking that doctors had supported the idea that it was a medically necessary procedure, when in fact ACOG couldn’t specify a single set of circumstances where it would save the life of the mother:
There is no better example of this distortion of science than the language the United States Supreme Court cited in striking down Nebraska’s ban on partial-birth abortion in 2000. This language purported to come from a “select panel” of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), a supposedly nonpartisan physicians’ group. ACOG declared that the partial-birth-abortion procedure “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.” The Court relied on the ACOG statement as a key example of medical opinion supporting the abortion method.
(more…)
Like this:
Like Loading...
June 29, 2010 | Categories: America's Freedoms, Congress: Inquiries & Committees, Constitution, Government, Most Americans Reject Socialism, Politics | Tags: abortion, ACOG, Elena Kagan, Kagan hiding extreme liberal, National Review, nominee, progressive left, SCOTUS, Senate confirmation hearing | Leave A Comment »
CWNews Posted Comments