Tagged: supreme court Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • just a conservative girl 6:50 PM on 06/25/2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , minority vote, , , supreme court, voting rights act   

    Race Baiters and the Voting Rights Act 

    The Supreme Court released its decision on Shelby County V. Holder.  This case dealt with only one section of the Voting Rights Act; section 4.  This section used data from the 1960’s in order to decide which states/counties/districts have shown acts of discrimination in allowing minorities to vote, ever.

    There is no denying that in sections in the country the ability for minorities to vote was made almost impossible.  In many cases, those areas are in the south.  But the question in front of the court was does the federal government still have the right to micro manage every aspect of how voting procedures are done in all these areas of the country close to 50 years later.  They answered no.  Chief Justice Roberts said that times have changed and the law must change with those times.

    I am not going to sit here and deny that racism exists, it most certainly does.  We have heard recent stories about churches in the deep south refusing to marry inter-racial couples.  But the other side to that coin is that in many of the areas that this section covered have minority voters registered at equitable numbers of their populations.

    Now we have all the racebaiters out in force today saying that minorities will be again denied the right to register and vote.  Where is the proof of that?  Many areas of the south have black representatives at all levels of government.  Is that automatically going to stop simply because one small provision of the act needs to be adjusted?  It is simply ridiculous.  But Jesse Jackson usually is.

    Herein lies the problem.  We are not in 1964 anymore.  Times have changed and the congress was warned years ago that this provisions needed to be updated, not just rubber stamped to continue for an additional 25 years.  This section actually forced the areas it covered to get permission from The Department of Justice if they needed to do something as simple as change a voting location 25 feet away.  How exactly is that going to effect minorities from voting?  If a white person can get 25 feet so can anyone else.

    In one recent instance, one small town wanted to take the party affiliation off the ballot on local elections.  The Department of Justice said that was going to disenfranchise black voters.  All it was going to do was make people actually research who was running instead of seeing a letter after their name and voting based on that.  Since it was a very small town, most people most likely knew them anyway.  But it didn’t stop the federal government from sticking their nose into business that had nothing to do with them.

    Congress should have acted on this years ago.  Why won’t they?  They are afraid of being labeled racist simply because they admit that many areas of the country no longer discriminate when it comes voting.  The democrats don’t get to hold onto they are the champions of minorities and the republicans don’t want to get called names.  So what do they do?  They simply act like nothing has changed in 5 decades.  We all know that it has.

    Many on the left are talking about the voting rights act has been gutted.  No such thing is true.  What we really have seen here is that voting rights act has been successful and it is a law that has done what it was supposed to do (the law was always supposed to be a temporary one until things leveled out) and we should be celebrating that.  There may very well still be areas of the country where problems exist.  Lets figure out where those areas are and write laws that make sense.  If this is still such a problem, it should be no problem being able to prove it.

    But of course that will make the likes of Jesse Jackson less relevant.  We wouldn’t want that would we?

  • just a conservative girl 12:31 PM on 06/03/2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , dna, , , , supreme court   

    Government Now Allowed to Take DNA without Warrant 

    The Supreme Court today ruled that it is perfectly acceptable for the police to take your DNA without a warrant.  Oh my.  

     In 2009 a man named Alonzo King was taken under arrest and charged with assault, during this arrest the police took a swab and matched his DNA to an unsolved rape.  Mr. King was not taken under arrest for the rape, nor was he believed to be involved at the time of the arrest.  He was charged, prosecuted, and found guilty of the rape.  His attorney’s filed an appeal under the fourth amendment of illegal search and seizure.  

     The court has decided that DNA swabs are no different than taking a photograph and fingerprints.  It is only a source of identification.  Really?  Giving the government bodily fluids is just another source of making an ID?  

     Scalia joined with the more liberal wing of the court and said this in his dissent:

     “The Fourth Amendment forbids searching a person for evidence of a crime when there is no basis for believing the person is guilty of the crime or is in possession of incriminating evidence,” Scalia said. “That prohibition is categorical and without exception; it lies at the very heart of the Fourth Amendment.”

    But my favorite has to be:

    “I hope that the Maryland officials who read the Court’s opinion do not take it seriously,”

    Doesn’t those on the court understand how this can be abused?  Now, it seems pretty obvious that King is indeed a rapist.  I have zero sympathy for him, zero.  But he isn’t really the point.  These cases are always about something bigger than person who brought the case.  When he was arrested, there doesn’t seem to be that there was evidence he was guilty of committing this rape.  So why would they have right to take his DNA?  The entire point of our justice system is the presumption of innocence.  By automatically taking DNA swabs of every person who is arrested we have forgone that presumption and walking towards something that will no longer resemble our justice system.  

     What is so odd is that it seems that the deciding vote came from Justice Stephen Breyer.  Strange bed fellows indeed.  

     But sadly we have gotten to the point in this country that the government’s desires and needs are now over taking our rights.  This government was built on the rights of the individual being paramount.  That seems to no longer exist.  


  • just a conservative girl 3:24 PM on 06/19/2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: connolly, judicial review, supreme court   

    Ah, The Virginia 11th Can Be So Proud – Congressman Gerry Connolly is an Idiot 

    Congressman Connolly gave an interview with Politico.  The video is titled SCOTUS Most Partisan since 1930’s.  Really?

    Lets take a look at the decisions that they released yesterday.

    Williams V. Illinois

    Majority: Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, and Breyer

    Dissenting: Thomas, Kagan, Scalia, Ginsberg  (Sotomayor did not vote, therefore it concludes with the lower courts ruling)

    Christopher V. SmithKline Beecham

    Majority: Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas

    Dissenting: Kagan, Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Breyer

    Salazar V. Navajo

    Majority: Sotomayor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Kagan

    Dissenting: Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito

    Pattawatomi Indians V. Patchak

    Majority: Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Kagan, Ginsberg, Breyer

    Dissenting: Sotomayor

    Several opinions this year have been 9-0.  Including the over-reach by the EPA, and a case involving religion.

    By the looks of these cases it is obvious that they are really partisan, isn’t it?  After all Alito and Ginsburg have so much in common.

    If you don’t want to put yourself through the horror of listening to his entire interview, just go here to see what else he said about judicial review.  You’ll love it.

    • fuzislippers 2:47 PM on 06/22/2012 Permalink | Reply

      I’m so sorry this guy’s your rep. He’s a drooling idiot.

      • just a conservative girl 5:31 PM on 06/22/2012 Permalink | Reply

        Yes, yes he is. What is really sad is the district next to this one is even worse. Just ask Smitty over at The Other McCain.

  • just a conservative girl 8:37 AM on 04/04/2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , judicial activism, school house rock, supreme court   

    Hey Chuckie, Since the Pictures Didn’t Work Try This: 

    Senator Chuck Schumer has jumped on Obama’s bandwagon of the activist court when it comes to Obamacare.  The picture (see below post) didn’t seem to do the trick.  So here is a video that was produced for elementary school students.  If they are able to get it, maybe you can too.

  • just a conservative girl 9:33 PM on 04/03/2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , separation of powers, supreme court   

    A Little Study Guide for Our Constitutional Professor President 

    We made this real easy.  Look at the picture, and it will show you how the framers set up the government.  It is called separation of powers.  Really, not that hard.

  • just a conservative girl 3:13 PM on 04/02/2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , supreme court   

    Quote of the Day – President Obama Edition Part 7 

    Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress.
    And I would like to remind conservative commentators that for years what we have heard is that the biggest problem is judicial activism and that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.

    President Obama on Supreme Court deciding the fate of Obamacare.

    Where to begin with this?

    Where in the constitution does it say that the federal government has the power to force citizens to buy a product?

    Judicial activism is when the courts give power to the government it doesn’t have.  Not when it rightfully limits it.

    What dream world is this man living in that he thinks Obamacare was passed by a “strong majority”?  If it were so strong why did they have to twist arms and give what in reality comes to bribes to pass the darn thing?  I guess those are just details.

    • fuzislippers 3:27 PM on 04/02/2012 Permalink | Reply

      [quote]Judicial activism is when the courts give power to the government it doesn’t have. Not when it rightfully limits it.[/quote]


    • signpainterguy 4:59 PM on 04/02/2012 Permalink | Reply

      Seems to me the justices Zero appointed, unelected officials, were appointed by him expressly to be “activists” and basically, legislate from the bench and do precisely what he doesn`t want now. In his dream world, Utopia (capitol city – Nirvanna), liberal elites can have their cake and eat it too !

  • just a conservative girl 8:03 PM on 01/09/2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , justice alito, , supreme court   

    Quote of the Day – Justice Alito Edition 

    “You think maybe there is a little drainage problem in part of your lot, so you start to build the house and then you get an order from the EPA which says: ‘You have filled in wetlands, so you can’t build your house; remove the fill, put in all kinds of plants; and now you have to let us on your premises whenever we want to, you have to turn over to us all sorts of documents, and for every day that you don’t do all this you are accumulating a potential fine of $75,000. And by the way, there is no way you can go to court to challenge our determination that this is a wetlands until such time as we choose to sue you.”

    Justice Alito questioning the federal government on EPA regulations.

    • SignPainterGuy 8:33 PM on 01/09/2012 Permalink | Reply

      The EPA is one of the first gooberment agencies that should be dismantled; forbidden ever to exist again. They perhaps HAD a mission of real concern, but now exist only to advance a radical green agenda and take away people`s personal property rights !

      • just a conservative girl 9:54 PM on 01/09/2012 Permalink | Reply

        Personally, I would get rid of Education first. But EPA is up there. I am not even sure I would get rid of it, but I would limit it’s power. I mean really, you just have to do what they say or they fine you thousands of dollars. It sounds like they will get slapped down on this one.

  • Jill 7:24 AM on 06/30/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , supreme court   

    Kagan made up “science” to support partial birth abortion? 

    Well, that’s sure how it looks. Let’s hope someone holds her feet to the fire for an explanation of this very damning paper trail.

    Read all of Shannen Coffin’s NRO piece. Excerpts:

    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.

    Years later, when President Bush signed a federal partial-birth-abortion ban (something President Clinton had vetoed), the ACOG official policy statement was front and center in the attack on the legislation. U.S. District Court Judge Richard Kopf, one of the three federal judges that issued orders enjoining the federal ban (later overturned by the Supreme Court), devoted more than 15 pages of his lengthy opinion to ACOG’s policy statement and the integrity of the process that led to it.

    Like the Supreme Court majority in the prior dispute over the Nebraska ban, Judge Kopf asserted that the ACOG policy statement was entitled to judicial deference because it was the result of an inscrutable collaborative process among expert medical professionals. “Before and during the task force meeting,” he concluded, “neither ACOG nor the task force members conversed with other individuals or organizations, including congressmen and doctors who provided congressional testimony, concerning the topics addressed” in the ACOG statement.

    In other words, what medical science has pronounced, let no court dare question. The problem is that the critical language of the ACOG statement was not drafted by scientists and doctors. Rather, it was inserted into ACOG’s policy statement at the suggestion of then–Clinton White House policy adviser Elena Kagan.

    The task force’s initial draft statement did not include the statement that the controversial abortion procedure “might be” the best method “in a particular circumstance.” Instead, it said that the select ACOG panel “could identify no circumstances under which this procedure . . . would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.”

    Partial birth abortion is never needed to save the life of the mother, and Kagan and the ACOG knew it. But that finding was not acceptable. Unlimited abortion is the goal. So, it appears, Kagan took pen in hand to adjust the science:

    Upon receiving the task force’s draft statement, Kagan noted in another internal memorandum [PDF] that the draft ACOG formulation “would be a disaster — not the less so (in fact, the more so) because ACOG continues to oppose the legislation.” Any expression of doubt by a leading medical body about the efficacy of the procedure would severely undermine the case against the ban.

    So Kagan set about solving the problem. Her notes, produced by the White House to the Senate Judiciary Committee, show that she herself drafted the critical language hedging ACOG’s position. On a document [PDF] captioned “Suggested Options” — which she apparently faxed to the legislative director at ACOG — Kagan proposed that ACOG include the following language: “An intact D&X [the medical term for the procedure], however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.”

    Kagan’s language was copied verbatim by the ACOG executive board into its final statement, where it then became one of the greatest evidentiary hurdles faced by Justice Department lawyers (of whom I was one) in defending the federal ban. (Kagan’s role was never disclosed to the courts.) The judicial battles that followed led to two Supreme Court opinions, several trials, and countless felled trees. Now we learn that language purporting to be the judgment of an independent body of medical experts devoted to the care and treatment of pregnant women and their children was, in the end, nothing more than the political scrawling of a White House appointee.

    Bottom line:

    Miss Kagan’s decision to override a scientific finding with her own calculated distortion in order to protect access to the most despicable of abortion procedures seriously twisted the judicial process. One must question whether her nomination to the Court would have the same effect.

    John Hinderaker:

    This statement was obviously false. The federal courts were victimized by a gross deception and a perversion of both the scientific process and the judicial process, carried out, the evidence appears to show, by Elena Kagan.

    Ms. Kagan has a great deal of explaining to do. Unless she can come up with an innocent explanation for these documents, she should not be confirmed.

    So simpatico with her president, with whom she shares a penchant for partial birth abortions and an unscrupulous ends-justify-the-means approach to using the courts to push a radical, and radically unpopular, social agenda.

    Thanks in great part to Kagan’s apparent fabrication, all state laws banning partial birth abortions were struck down in 2000. No one knows how many children might be alive now if it weren’t for Kagan’s alleged falsification. Accurate data on partial birth abortions is hard to come by; there are many reasons why a doctor might not want to own up to performing this diabolical “procedure.” But low estimates put the number of victims at somewhere between 650 and 2200 babies terminated annually before the ban. I don’t know how many were killed in states that had a ban in place before the 2000 decision. But would it be going too far to say, if these charges are true, Kagan lied, babies died?

    And let’s not forget to give some credit to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists for selling their souls on this one. Truly despicable.

    Someone needs to thoroughly interrogate Kagan on these documents and the part she played in legalizing and expanding the practice of partial birth abortion.

    ETA: Yuval Levin:

    What’s described in these memos is easily the most serious and flagrant violation of the boundary between scientific expertise and politics I have ever encountered. A White House official formulating a substantive policy position for a supposedly impartial physicians’ group, and a position at odds with what that group’s own policy committee had actually concluded?  You have to wonder where all the defenders of science—those intrepid guardians of the freedom of inquiry who throughout the Bush years wailed about the supposed politicization of scientific research and expertise—are now. If the Bush White House (in which I served as a domestic policy staffer) had ever done anything even close to this it would have been declared a monumental scandal, and rightly so.

    Cross-posted at P&P.

    • pjMom 8:37 AM on 06/30/2010 Permalink | Reply

      End this theater. Filibuster her NOW.

    • fuzislippers 12:17 PM on 06/30/2010 Permalink | Reply

      She is evil, I’ve been saying it all along. She is not only unethical, but she’s absolutely a progressive socialist with, as you note, its ends justify the means philosophy. She will uphold the unconstitutional ObamaCare, and if the DOJ hadn’t dropped the voter intimidation Black Panther case, she would have supported their “right” to intimidate voters. She is all about “social justice,” which by its own adherents’ definition is unjust.

      I’m with pjMom, filibuster her now. We can hope then that BO would nominate someone in their 70s who won’t sit on the SCOTUS for some 40 years, “gently massaging” the Constitution into something it is not, never was, and never should be.

      • fuzislippers 12:46 PM on 06/30/2010 Permalink | Reply

        Let’s also not forget that she says her experience working in the Executive branch and with the Legislative branch has taught her that the Supreme Court should “give deference to Congress.” In other words, whatever laws-no matter how unconstitutional or unjust–Congress enacts should be upheld. Or something.

        The Supreme Court was not set up to rubber stamp whatever loser policies come out of the Executive branch or unconstitutional laws come out of Congress. Just the opposite. It’s supposed to check their power, and its members are supposed to be outside political influence (that’s why they are appointed, not elected). Everything about this woman screams that she’s going to be not only an activist judge but will actually collude with Congress (progressive Congresses like this one, anyway) to undermine and make obsolete the Constitution of the this great nation. She’s evil.

        Here’s the link to the “deference” comment, the single most shocking and horrifying thing she could have said given the way that our government is constructed: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j6T2gYt9yVCzGFhXskrudIaKDzVgD9GL6LVG0

    • Jill 3:06 PM on 06/30/2010 Permalink | Reply

      My 13 yr old daughter: “How about giving deference to the Constitution?”

    • nicedeb 11:52 PM on 06/30/2010 Permalink | Reply

      That’s a sharp 13 yr old you have there, Jill.

  • backyardconservative 10:42 AM on 05/19/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , supreme court   

    Fighting Kagan Crucial to Fighting ObamaCare 

    Tony Blankley makes the argument. The liberals have stacked the deck after politicizing the Supreme Court nomination process, heads I win tails you lose:

    But — and this is paramount — because liberal justices tend to seek to undermine the clear intent of the Constitution while conservative justices try to hold the line, the result is an inexorable march toward undermining the Constitution, with conservative appointments functioning as mere temporary holding actions.

    The Constitution itself is at stake–conservatives need to go on offense and fight for it.

    How does the right to privacy in Roe v. Wade square with ObamaCare?

    Our bodies ourselves? Anything to say, Ms. Kagan?

    More. Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe.

    • rubyslipperblog 11:59 AM on 05/19/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Dems seem to have cornered the market on the heads I win, tails you lose mindset these days. I can see why she should be opposed but I have a hard time seeing Obama nominating someone who is going to be even neutral on ObamaCare. I think she is going to be in over her head on the Court just as Obama is in over his head with the Presidency.

      • backyardconservative 1:07 PM on 05/19/2010 Permalink | Reply

        Well, I agree with you, I think she will be in over her head. She sure got twisted up in her presentation to them for the govt. on the Citizens United case–a liberal against free speech? (well, we know the truth)


        But she’ll still have a vote. I would like to tie this up for months. And I do think she needs to answer some tough questions. Because these are tough questions and her (presumed) positions are contradictory.

        • rubyslipperblog 6:51 PM on 05/19/2010 Permalink | Reply

          I see your point, tying this up for months could put it into midterms. Her own position on the Court has been one that demands tough questioning. Why should she escape without meeting that requirement? At a minimum, I wouldn’t be surprised if she withered under tough questioning. There is no huge surge of public support for her confirmation either.

    • fuzislippers 1:56 PM on 05/19/2010 Permalink | Reply

      We really do need to start pushing back. We’ve just sort of shrugged and gone along with a lot of things to “keep the peace” or not to be accused of [fill in the blank], but it’s not helped us at all. At all.

    • Quite Rightly 4:23 PM on 05/19/2010 Permalink | Reply

      I agree. This should be a hard fight and the Dems should have to struggle every step of the way.

      I am tired of getting stuck with with obaminations because Congress wants a quick vote so they can go on vacation. It’s what the Senate did with Obamacare and what they are planning on doing with Kagan.

  • Sherry 6:07 PM on 05/18/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , supreme court   

    Ha Ha! Now We Can Talk About… 

    This is what qualifies as intellectual heft. I don’t hear the right getting their undies in a wad about Kagan’s proclivities but have a “Devout” Catholic on the Court and even though he’s been there since Reagan, that’s something to talk about and you know it’s just scary.


    Asking is this normal for the Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to have nine children? Mind you, he’s been on the court since 1986 but hey, it’s hilarious to point at the man who sits on the highest court and laugh at him and his wife for their personal witness of their faith.

    If you google Antonin Scalia, you’ll find chortles from the left over the examining of he and his wife having 9 children…because such a thing makes him unfathomable to those who wish to mock a justice for his faith and family to advance their own agendas. Nice tolerance folks. Way to make us see that gosh, we should all love you for all your open-mindedness and higher understanding of what’s what.

    Having 9 of my own, I can tell you, you are always hearing opening and closing arguments. You must sift through countless renditions of life to hear something of what actually happened and you have to trust your own judgement sufficiently to apply your values as you render a verdict.

    But giggle giggle giggle, “it’s not normal.” Reading the responses felt like hearing twittering adolescents on a party line.

    Seeing as there are only 9 in total at any time, the Supreme Court is not a Photoshop of America, it’s supposed to be the highest court with the finest minds; or doesn’t that teaching at the University of Chicago after graduating from Harvard Law Degree that he has count for something?

    Oh, I forgot, all academic weight is negated by the moniker Conservative and those 9 kids according to the Liberal Handbook for allowing people to hold positions of power.  Must remember to pick one of those manifestos up….

    • backyardconservative 7:28 PM on 05/18/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Who is more in touch? Scalia or MIchael Kinsley. Or Elena ivory tower Kagan for that matter.

      Is Kinsley trying to change the subject from those on his own side who want to “out” Kagan for political reasons. Whether she’s gay or not. Like Andrew Sullivan, who will, I’m sure, soon go back to attacking Sarah Palin’s Trig-hahaha how hilarious.

    • LarryD 8:25 PM on 05/18/2010 Permalink | Reply

      I’m not sure of the ages of his kids, but just wait until they’re all eligible to vote…and then when they start having kids….stupid liberals are aborting and contracepting themselves out of existence. And they want everyone else to do the same.

      • Jill 5:30 AM on 05/19/2010 Permalink | Reply

        Michael Kinsley is a contemptible weasel for inviting these kinds of comments.

        • Sherry 9:35 AM on 05/19/2010 Permalink | Reply

          That is what my problem is; it may have been Satire to illustrate the stupidity of discussing Kagan’s sexuality when what matters is her capacity as a judicial candidate but it subjected people (Scalia’s wife and children) to unnecessary and ugly scorn and vitriol as a means of proving what point exactly? I know. My ox gored too, but if you’re not going to get mad when your ox is gored, when exactly should you get upset?

  • Jill 10:20 AM on 05/14/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , , supreme court   

    Three impossible things before breakfast 

    It’s official: the world has gone topsy-turvy.

    1)  Attorney General Eric Holder has questioned the constitutionality of Arizona’s immigration law and said it  “has the possibility of leading to racial profiling.” But he hasn’t read it.

    See Glenn Reynolds.

    2) The NY Times has been barred, by the White House, from speaking to Elena Kagan’s brother.

    The New York Times received permission on Tuesday from Hunter College High School in Manhattan, Elena Kagan’s alma mater, to observe a constitutional law class there taught by her brother Irving. We thought it would be intriguing to watch the give and take between Mr. Kagan, who is known as a passionate and interactive educator, and his students on his first day back after witnessing his sister’s nomination in Washington.

    Mr. Kagan, who is also a Hunter alumnus, did not have a problem with the idea, a school spokeswoman said, but she added that all media requests now had to be given final approval by the White House. The times were tentatively set: there was either an 8:52 a.m. class or a 9:36 a.m. class on Wednesday. “I thought it would have been great,” said the spokeswoman, Meredith Halpern.

    But when presented with the idea, the White House balked.

    Joshua Earnest, a White House spokesman, said that the administration was “uncomfortable with the idea at this time.” [. . .]

    A formal proposal has been submitted to the White House, which the administration requested. They asked that it outline the intent and goal of the article in significant detail.

    Wouldn’t it be interesting if Kagan’s brother, or cousin, also suddenly mum, chose to go over the head of their White House minders and talk to the press anyway?

    3)  There’s a bill before Congress that will mandate tracking the body mass index of all children, ages 2 – 18.

    The Healthy Choices Act–introduced by Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.), a member of the House Ways and Means Committee–would establish and fund a wide range of programs and regulations aimed at reducing obesity rates by such means as putting nutritional labels on the front of food products, subsidizing businesses that provide fresh fruits and vegetables, and collecting BMI measurements of patients and counseling those that are overweight or obese.

    Choice has become the dirtiest of dirty words. But Big Brother is only trying to make our lives easier:

    At a press conference last week to announce the introduction of the bill, Kind emphasized it would help “busy American families.”

    “Making the healthy choice the easy choice for our families is essential to ensuring our quality of life,” Kind said. “I am pleased to work on legislation that helps provide the opportunities that meet the needs of busy American families.”


    RedState’s Dan McLaughlin comments:

    Let’s leave aside the many methodological problems with BMI as a measurement of obesity (such as the fact that muscular, athletic males are almost always classed as obese). The bill requires federal taxpayers to lay out yet more money to create yet another intrusive apparatus for tracking and storing information that, for example, your 16 year old daughter might regard as rather personal . . . .

    Read the rest.


    Is your child’s BMI the government’s business?

    Hiding the decline on the childhood obesity rate

    The audacity of anti-obesity

    Does this health plan make me look fat?

    • nicedeb 4:12 PM on 05/14/2010 Permalink | Reply

      I’m confused…why does the NYTs need the WH’s permission to do a story? What the heck?

      • Sherry 6:27 PM on 05/14/2010 Permalink | Reply

        If I were the New York Post, I’d be so sending all my staff to cover this story if only to get the scoop. Why should anyone subscribe if everything is the same and no actual news gets covered?

      • iainswife 12:52 PM on 05/17/2010 Permalink | Reply

        This is so stupid. I am baffled that anyone with two braincells to rub together hasn’t figured out what an enormous hoax Obama and his administration are.

        • fuzislippers 1:17 PM on 05/18/2010 Permalink | Reply

          What I don’t get and simply can’t wrap my mind around is how high BO’s numbers are. What is wrong with people?

  • Jill 7:07 AM on 05/13/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , supreme court   

    Kagan on judicial activism: “A thing of glory” 

    From George Neumayr’s must-read on Elena Kagan’s view of the Constitution:

    Quoting Marshall with approval in her law review eulogy, she makes it clear that she considers the phony living Constitution to be a glorious substitute for the real one. Hence, the Constitution now “contains a great deal to be proud of,” as Marshall put it. Michelle Obama couldn’t have said it better. For the first time in his life, Thurgood Marshall was proud of his Constitution: “[B]ut the credit does not belong to the Framers. It belongs to those who refused to acquiesce in outdated notions of ‘liberty,’ ‘justice,’ and ‘equality,’ and who strived to better them,” Kagan quotes him as saying.

    As if any reader could have missed Marshall’s egotistical claim, Kagan punctuates it with the praise: “The credit, in other words, belongs to people like Justice Marshall.” Kagan called his baldly unconstitutional view of the Supreme Court’s role a “thing of glory.”

    Tens of millions of unborn babies have died under this “thing of glory.” America is turning into a mindless, Godless, socialist mess because of this “thing of glory.” Yet these out-of-control narcissists still claim a monopoly on justice and wise government. They alone will protect the “despised and disadvantaged,” which Marshall invented out of thin air as the court’s mandate.

    Read the rest.

  • nosheepleshere 11:28 PM on 04/30/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Clarence Thomas, supreme court   

    The Maximum Of Hatred For A Minimum Of Reason 

    For the record, Eleanor Holmes Norton is a delegate to Congress representing the District of Columbia.  In her position, she is able to serve on and vote with committees and may speak from the floor of the House of Representatives.  She may not vote on final passage of any legislation because she is not a full member of Congress.

    Why is this woman on my radar screen?

    Bret Baier reported the other night that she made a shocking comment about Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as she predicted that Fearless Reader would not pick a black judge to fill the seat of retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.  She said, “We’re not sure this president is ever going to nominate another African-American to the court. [Barack Obama]’s African-American. We’ve got someone who proposes to be African-American on the court.”

    As the Supreme Court’s lone black member, Justice Thomas’ votes against affirmative action and other policies important to the black community have angered liberal African-Americans.

    Norton is in charge of tracking judicial nominations for the black caucus. The caucus is still examining nominees and probably will not recommend anyone before the president announces his pick. Norton voiced concern Obama had “boxed himself in” by sticking to a timetable that would have the new justice in place by the time the court begins its term in October.

    Of the ten or so candidates that the president is thought to be considering, the reported frontrunners are Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Diane Wood and Judge Merrick Garland. “None of them are unacceptable,” Norton said.

    Her shocking insult seems to suggest that someone cannot be a true African-American if they are conservative.

    Horace Cooper of the black leadership network Project 21 believes “Ms. Holmes Norton should be ashamed. This is precisely the type of offensive rhetoric that keeps us Americans divided along race lines. If David Duke had said that retiring Justice Stevens ‘proposes to be white’ because of his rulings — she would be the first to denounce him.”

    Justice Thomas was raised in Pin Point, Georgia, a poor black town without a sewage system or paved roads. His father was a farm worker and his mother was a domestic worker who spoke Gullah as a first language.

    While liberals were quick to celebrate the life of Justice Sotomayor for growing up in the projects and achieving so much in her life, they appear unwilling to credit Thomas with his own amazing and difficult life, including being left homeless as a child.

    Norton’s offensive rhetoric is not the first to be hurled at this honorable man.  On November 5, 2005, BlackCommentator.com [I am deliberately NOT linking the site] called Thomas an Uncle Tom, a race traitor, a minstrel, a self-hater and a Sambo.  The piece eviscerates Thomas further by depicting him on the front cover of Emerge magazine as “Uncle Thomas:  Lawn Jockey for the Far Right”.

    This kind of contempt goes beyond the pale.

    Writing for American Thinker, Lloyd Marcus, Unhyphenated American, singer/songwriter, entertainer, author, artist and Tea Party Patriot offered this perspective on Black Racism:

    “I never dreamed that we blacks would need to be liberated from ourselves. Like all humans, blacks are extremely diverse in their talents, tastes, and desires. We must stop allowing ourselves to be manipulated and intimidated into collectively voting for Democrats in order to keep Sharpton, Jackson, and the NAACP employed.”

    “Though our ancestors came to America on slave ships, we blacks are extremely blessed to be born in the greatest nation on the planet. It is time we let go of the past. Yes, I know this will infuriate and shock some of you (race profiteers), but it is true. Black overseers and liberals must stop exploiting America’s past sins and viewing America from a 1950 point of view. For the sake of our children, blacks must see America for what it truly is today: a wonderful country where if the Obama Administration would simply get out of the way, anyone with an idea, a dream, and a willingness to work can succeed. It is time to end “groupthink” and black racism and celebrate individuality and independence.”

    Read more at No Sheeples Here.

    • Quite Rightly 10:58 AM on 05/01/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Norton’s comment that Justice Thomas “proposes to be African American” is yet another extremely painful example that facts are nothing but impediments to the Democrat world view. The knee-jerk reaction of Democrats to any impediments to whatever plan the wind has blown them is to attack. They’ll never figure out that we live in a world of inescapable realities, which is why their policies are dangerous not only to themselves but to any people affected by those policies.

  • backyardconservative 7:40 PM on 04/28/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , supreme court   

    if a religious display carries other meaning 

    Crosses are OK in public. A historic decision by the Supreme Court which gives history a role in preserving religious freedom in America. How appropriate, since it was the founding impetus.

    A cross in the desert, where few see it, protected all the same, all the more, commemorating those who gave their lives for our freedom.

    The Bible is one of the great books. They even taught it as a mainstay of English literature at Harvard. I don’t know if they still do. I didn’t take it, but my agnostic English major roommate did, to understand and appreciate Biblical references.

    The spirit of America gains from this decision on the letter of the law.

    P.S. In contrast, China.

    • Quite Rightly 6:44 AM on 04/29/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Another narrow win, a 5-4 vote. Justice Kennedy wrote, “The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm. A cross by the side of a public highway marking, for instance, the place where a state trooper perished need not be taken as a statement of governmental support for sectarian beliefs. The Constitution does not oblige government to avoid any public acknowledgment of religion’s role in society.”

      Maybe the courts are realizing that they’ve gone too far by removing references to Christianity and American history from the public sphere, or maybe they are reacting to public opinion.

      Question. This case goes back to the lower court now, so they can reconsider their decision. Does this mean that it has to remain covered until that decision is reached? It’s been covered for 10 years.

    • backyardconservative 7:52 AM on 04/29/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Hopefully the lower court will act quickly.

      I’m not a lawyer. Maybe public pressure will cause them to lift the cover before the final decision, at least push for a quick one.

  • Mary Sue 8:30 PM on 04/15/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Justice Breyer, supreme court   

    Justice Breyer Expects Many Cases From a Law of 2400 Pages 

    CNN buries the lede in this article titled, “2 justices discuss next nominee to high court.” Justice Breyer and Thomas do discuss qualities they hope to see in a potential nominee to the high court but the real news is buried at the bottom of the post quoting Justice Breyer in response to a question about the light caseload enjoyed by the Court:

    Breyer predicted to House lawmakers the recent, massive health care reform law passed by Congress will someday reach his court.

    “Now you, I gather, have passed a law with 2,400 pages,” he told panel members, referring to the health care bill. “If you had passed a law with 2,400 pages it probably has a lot of words. And I would predict as a test of the theory that three or four years today no one is every going to ask us again why we have so few cases.”

    Breyer had been asked why the Supreme Court’s caseload had been relatively light in recent years. The 71-year-old justice explained his colleagues usually only accepts cases where lower courts have disagreed over a particular issue, giving the Supreme Court a chance to offer the final word. A Democratic White House and Congress promoting and passing laws may now have a greater chance of being overturned in coming years by federal courts that have a majority of Republican appointees. Six of the nine current justices on the Supreme Court were named by GOP presidents.

    In that vein, Breyer offered a humorous “reality check” on court challenges, citing the example used by the renowned French writer Michel de Montaigne in 1584.

    “This king, he wrote, was so stupid he thought by writing a lot of laws he was going to reduce the number of lawyers because he’s explained everything,” said Breyer. “Doesn’t the king know every word in a bill is the subject for an argument in court in a decision?

    Video available here for those who are interested. I find Breyer’s unprompted comments to be extraordinary and the reference to Michel de Montaigne was the piece de resistance. Any thoughts?

    • Jill 5:56 AM on 04/16/2010 Permalink | Reply

      That’s very interesting. Is he hinting that the bill is unconstitutional on multiple grounds?

      Passing the Senate bill, a messy rough draft, was a brutish power grab to get a foot in the door, no matter how crudely. These clods in Congress can’t pretend they were trying to write good law. They really disgust me.

      • rubyslipperblog 10:19 AM on 04/16/2010 Permalink | Reply

        I don’t know whether he suggests the law might be unconstitutional on multiple grounds or that he expects lower courts to disagree on interpretations perhaps. I would expect some combination but you are exactly right there can be no pretense that anything of this magnitude is going to prove to be good law. They barely knew what they wrote themselves. Look at all the problems that have come to light in this short time since it has passed.

Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc