Judicial Activism Run Amok

California was at the forefront of the state proposition idea. The thinking being it was easier to get public questions on a ballot and it also allowed the state to decide some important issues--issues the state legislature would never take up. The first major vote was the passage of Prop 13, which put a limit on property tax increases of no greater than 1% of assessed value. The passage of it shook the nation and horrified state and municipal elected officials. The passage was argued up to the US Supreme Court where it was ruled constitutional.

In further years, many controversial propositions were voted on and many legal cases were brought by the losers. The most notorious was Prop 187, which would have blocked all services to illegal aliens. It passed 59%-41% and every county voted for it except three in the Bay Area. An injunction was almost immediately imposed against it and Democratic governor Gray Davis ended up letting it drop, so it never went anywhere.

No major proposition that was voted for and passed has ever been overturned by a federal appeals court...until today when the Ninth Circus did what they do best and overstepped their legal authority once again:

In the nation’s most closely watched gay rights case, the Ninth Circuit Court divided 2-1 on Tuesday and struck down “Proposition 8,” the ban on same-sex marriage adopted by California voters in November 2008. The panel majority did not uphold a broad right of gay couples to wed, saying it was enough for now to rule that it was unconstitutional to take away a right to marry only for one minority group, when everyone had the right before. The 128-page ruling can be read here.

The panel unanimously ruled that the sponsors of Proposition 8 had a legal right to be in the appeals court to challenge a federal District judge’s ruling in 2010 striking down the ballot measure, but it also rejected the sponsors’ plea to wipe out that ruling on the theory that the trial judge had a conflict of interest because he is gay and is in a long-term relationship with another man.

The majority summed up its ruling this way: “By using their initiative power to target a minority group and withdraw a right that it possessed, without a legitimate reason for doing so, the people of California violated the Equal Protection Clause [of the federal Constitution]. We hold Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional on this ground.”

In essence, the 9th Circus pissed on the people of California who, given the opportunity to vote on the issue, said no to gay marriage. The uber-liberal judges didn't like that because like all liberals, they know better than us peons who didn't earn a law degree. They are the real arbiters and they decide who and who should not be able to decide major social and political issues.

Honestly, I'm agnostic on this issue. If two dudes want to get married, it doesn't affect me even a little bit. As long as the rules are the same and one of the them has to pay up in a divorce, I'm not really concerned. It seems trifling to get worked up about when Obama is spending the nation into oblivion.

But with that said; it was indeed voted on and gay marriage advocates lost fair and square. As with everything liberals lose though, they can't take the fact that very few people actually agree with them and they hate losing so they are going to force it down our throats...er, bad choice of words...make us deal with whether we like it or not.

I'm guessing that Chief Justice Roberts and SCOTUS will take a different view and once again overturn the most rebuked appellate court in the US..

Sane People Win One in Healthcare Fight

It's a small but hopefully first victory against the bill that will simultaneously destroy the economy and the best healthcare system in the world:

This just in: Virginia federal judge Henry Hudson on Monday ruled that he’ll let the state of Virginia’s challenge to the landmark health care law passed in March go forward, at least for the time being. Click here for the early Reuters story; here for the 32-page opinion.

The Department of Health and Human Services had moved to dismiss the lawsuit, which was filed in March (click here for the complaint), shortly after the passage of the law. But Judge Hudson on Monday denied the motion.

The ruling represents a setback that will force the Obama administration to mount a lengthy legal defense of the law. The suit, filed by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (pictured), alleges that the law’s requirement that its residents have health insurance violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

And how did the Nobama administration respond? By comparing the bill and the court challenge in historical terms right up with the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. Note Ms. Cutter doesn't say that it wasn't Republicans who challenged those two pieces of legislation but Democrats led by Al Gore, Sr. and Clinton mentor William Fulbright...but I digress.

The healthcare bill was rammed through using sleazy tactics, bribes, hidden costs we are no where near counting up and all while giving the majority of Americans the finger. We don't want it but according to the "intellectuals" in power, we aren't smart enough to know just how great this is for us.

The GOP has to make this topic 1, 1A and 1B the entire fall. Make the Dems wallow in their choices and squirm at every opportunity just like last year. Make Steny Hoyer eat his words about the Tea Party having "run its course".

Hopefully it comes down to Justices Alito, Thomas, Roberts, Scalia and Stevens shutting the door on this monstrosity once and for all.

It's On: Souter to Retire

Associate Justice David Souter is retiring from the Supreme Court:

President Obama's to-do list just got a bit longer. Supreme Court justice David Souter has told the White House he wants to retire.

The former New Hampshire Attorney General was appointed to the court in 1990 by the first President Bush.

"He recognizes the proper role of judges in upholding the democratic choices of the people through their elected representatives with constitutional constraints," President George H.W. Bush said on July 23, 1990.

He was appointed by a Republican, but David Souter was a moderate and sided with more liberal justices on a number of cases, including the "Bush vs Gore" election recount dispute in 2000.

He was a reliable liberal vote in spite of the fact that George H.W. Bush nominated him when he had the opportunity to appoint another Scalia-type.

So now Obama has the chance to remake the court and with Justices Ginsburg and Stevens probably ready to retire soon, his choices will indeed shape the direction of the court for the foreseeable future. While conservative stalwarts Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito will be there (hopefully) for years, it may well come down to replacing the liberals unless Obama can win another term than all bets are off.

Who will Obama pick?

Possible nominees who have been mentioned as being on a theoretical short list include Elena Kagan, the current solicitor general who represents the government before the Supreme Court; Sonia Sotomayor, a Hispanic judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; and Diane Wood, a federal judge in Chicago who taught at the University of Chicago at the same time future President Barack Obama was teaching constitutional law there.

I'm guessing they would all be Ginsburg clones.

Mumia Abu-Jamal Still Guilty as Hell

The Supreme Court has decided not to grant a new trial for the man who murdered Philly police officer Daniel Faulkner in 1981:

The Supreme Court said Monday it will not take up Abu-Jamal's claims that prosecutors improperly excluded blacks from the jury that convicted him of murdering Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia upheld Abu-Jamal's conviction but held his death sentence invalid. The appeals court said it would not second-guess state court rulings rejecting Abu-Jamal's claims of bias in the composition of the jury.

The high court considered only the conviction. The state has separately asked the court to reinstate the death sentence, but the justices have not acted on that request.

The French will think us so barbaric as they named a street after the scumbag. Well, maybe Obama can apologize for this too since his whole trip has been putting down America and praising the Europeans anyway.

Mumia deserves to fry and the sooner the better. His cold-blooded shooting of Danny Faulkner was cowardly but the international attention and support he has received by lefty idiots like Mike Farrell, Harry Belafonte and Ed Asner has been downright repulsive.

This is a battle that has been going on for far too long and has too end soon. For the sake of Maureen Faulkner--Danny's widow--I hope it does.

Background on the case here. Bio on Danny here. Ed and PJ-Wearing Fool have more.

Supreme Court to Hear "Reverse Discrimination" Case

The US Supreme Court will hear arguments over a lawsuit brought by firefighters who were passed over for promotion because of "diversity" rules:

The US Supreme Court has agreed to take up a potential major reverse discrimination case examining the use of race as a factor in government hiring.

The announcement came Friday afternoon after the justices' private conference earlier in the day. The case will likely be argued in April.

It stems from a 2004 lawsuit filed by white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., who say they passed an exam for a job promotion only to have the test results thrown out because no African-American candidate received a high enough score to also be considered for promotion.

City officials said they wanted to add diversity to management ranks within the fire department. They made special efforts to design a test process that would reduce any bias that might disadvantage minority candidates.

But when no blacks and only two Hispanic applicants qualified for consideration for the management jobs, the city decided to scrap the entire test.

Seventeen white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter who passed the test sued, claiming the city violated their constitutional right to equal treatment. They also charged that the city violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by discriminating against them solely because they weren't black.

It's about time this was finally debated publicly. For years, whites with greater qualifications were routinely passed over for promotions and jobs simply because of the color of their skin. In short, they were discriminated against, which is unconstitutional any way you look at it.

In a way, these archaic policies have contributed to a workforce that is less productive than the optimum because the great firm of this nation were so worried about government-mandated diversification and the threat of lawsuits that they would hire less-qualified candidates to fill positions while higher qualified candidates were turned away. White, some Hispanic and Asian job seekers and students were left with little recourse or means to air their grievances and the laws enacted actually drove a wedge between races instead of fostering racial harmony in the workplace.

Add to that the fact that anytime someone spoke out against quotas, they were immediately deemed a racist; even if they were, in fact, black. I probably will be labeled racist just for writing this post.

What's needed is a little historical perspective on how these laws came to be enacted in the first place.

President Nixon issued executive orders that required government contractors to meet certain racial quotas in hiring in an effort to increase minority participation. The goals were admirable and worked to the extent that they did increase the minority middle class throughout the nation. Similar programs were soon developed for college admissions and nearly every other government and private entity.

But as with many government policies, the law of unintended consequences kicked in and a backlash against those who received preferences by those who were hurt by them occurred. Add to that the fact that higher qualified candidates were routinely denied employment or promotions simply because they were not of a certain ethnic origin and we end up where we are today. Furthermore, as with most government programs, there was no expiration date written in so they remain in perpetuity, or until they are rescinded or ruled unconstitutional.

Which brings us to the present; we are on the cusp of inaugurating the first African-American president and African-Americans as a racial class have made great strides in nearly every facet of American life. Is it finally time to eliminate racial quotas? Is it now time to do away with discriminatory laws that require businesses to hire based solely on race and not ability?

Previous court cases have not yet decided the issue and it will interesting to see the opinions issued by the Roberts court.

Justice Scalia says Gore to Blame for 2000 Election Debacle

Antonin Scalia is being toasted tonight in Libertarian and Conservative circles for his brilliant defense of the 2nd Amendment that was released today.

However, that's not the only noteworthy things he's opined on. He recently had this to say to the Telegraph:

"Richard Nixon, when he lost to [John F.] Kennedy thought that the election had been stolen in Chicago, which was very likely true with the system at the time," Justice Antonin Scalia told The Telegraph.

"But he did not even think about bringing a court challenge. That was his prerogative. So you know if you don't like it, don't blame it on me.

"I didn't bring it into the courts. Mr Gore brought it into the courts.

"So if you don't like the courts getting involved talk to Mr Gore."

Justice Scalia insisted that his controversial decision, along with four other justices, to stop votes being recounted in Florida because the method was unconstitutional and it was too late to consider other options was "absolutely right".

Nice Tony, rip that scab off and pour some salt on it, plus it was released just after the Heller decision this afternoon. He shoots, he scores!

Gore was wrong to contest that election and he tried every single way of cheating he could and still came up short. He should have done the manly thing and conceded while wishing Bush well. Instead he let it linger and the time it took to settle out was time Bush lost setting up crucial players in his administration, especially the national security people.

Protecting the 2nd Amendment in Heller Decision

Aside from overturning Roe v. Wade, Conservatives have pined for a clarification of the 2nd Amendment more than any other action from the Supreme Court. Today, we got it:

The U.S. Supreme Court Thursday, in a 5-4 ruling, for the first time in U.S. history declared the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution contains a specific right to individual gun ownership and rejected Washington, D.C., handgun restrictions, which were the strictest in the nation.

"There seems to us no doubt on the basis of both text and history that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the 64-page majority ruling. "This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment."

I agree with what Rush said about it being pretty damn scary that four justices interpret the Constitution completely wrong as the 2nd Amendment is about as clear as any of the amendments.

The decision made clear that the right to keep and bear arms is an eternal right as envisioned by the men who wrote it. The Supreme Court (well at least a majority) interpreted the Constitution as is their job under the separation of powers unlike Roe V. Wade where SCOTUS made law and overstepped their bounds into the realm of the legislative branch.

Glenn Reynolds has a bunch of links as does Hot Air. They are smarter and Glenn is a law professor so read what they've written.

Pic at right via Justice Talking.

Supreme Court Rulings Will Rile Libs

We haven't received word yet on the decision in the DC gun ban but things got off to a roaring start today when SCOTUS ruled that punitive damages in the Exxon Valdez oil spill were excessive:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Wednesday cut the $2.5 billion punitive damages award in the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster to $500 million.

The court ruled that victims of the worst oil spill in U.S. history may collect punitive damages from Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM), but not as much as a federal appeals court determined.

Justice David Souter wrote for the court that punitive damages may not exceed what the company already paid to compensate victims for economic losses, about $500 million compensation.

The lower court cut the punitive damages from $5 billion and now it's reduced even further. Exxon has spent billions cleaning up and compensating those who were effected. The huge punitive claim was way too high for the damage inflicted. Environmentalist's were hoping that Exxon would get squeezed hard just to teach Big Oil a lesson. Sorry, it didn't happen although $500 million ain't chump change.

It appears this is going to be a day to forget for liberals and the Supreme Court.

The Slow Decline of America

Today the Supreme Court ruled that terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay have the right to a trial--in other words, habeus rights.

I'm no lawyer and don't even play one on this blog but it seems this was a highly misguided decision. The men held at Gitmo wore no uniform, thus represented no nation-state. They are a modified militia containing men of numerous nationalities who had one goal, kill US citizens and military men and women.

Who were the dissenters? You can guess pretty easily--Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito (thank you George H. W. Bush for David Souter.

The Dems are trumpeting this as a victory against Bush. Too bad they don't understand that it a victory for terrorists and a defeat for American national security. I hope that none of their children are in the building attacked in the next terror attack. Perhaps they can take time out of their celebrating and ask one of the parents, wives or husbands who lost a loved one on 9/11 how they feel about it.

Anyway, the US is sitting on our hands when it comes to being energy independent based on unproven environmental claims, we are allowing illegal aliens to bleed us dry by taking jobs and services and now we will allow the likes of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to play the martyr role in our courts. John Paul Steven, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the others in the majority gave American rights to non-Americans. Perhaps they can help out Mark Steyn.

The decline continues and will accelerate if Obama takes office.

News and Notes

New posts below.

Some interesting stuff from around the web.

Via Posthumous Luger, Rachel Ray appears to be sporting the latest in lib fashion--a kaffiyeh--in a Dunkin Donuts ad on their site. I'm sure members of Hamas would just love to sit down with Rachel and share a cup of coffee and an egg and bacon breakfast sandwich.

The Supreme Court says that US money is discriminatory toward blind folks. It makes sense I guess.

Boeing vandalism caused by disgruntled worker evidently.

Hillary supporters can't get enough of that Fox News. Man, what a weird campaign this has been.