Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Supreme Court’ Category

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a gambler. 🙂 Encouraged to retire in the latter half of the Obama administration, Ginsburg wanted an extra year or three on the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) bench; and why should she deny herself that when Hillary Rodham Clinton was practically the next anointed President. So of course, she placed that bet; hang on and let Hillary name her replacement. It was a perfect cake eating and having scenario. 🙂

But a funny thing happened on the way to retirement. Hillary aint President. Now what? Hope for impeachment (a leftist pipe dream)? Last time I looked the POTUS succession line was about five or six GOP deep. Maybe try to hang on for another four years? That might work; but what if that next election doesn’t pan out either… eight is entirely different; eight is a long, long time.

Me? I find the predicament quite humorous. 🙂 When your enemies are gnashing teeth and rending garments it makes for good theater. And I’ve always been a big fan of karma (when she’s not biting me on the ass).

I bring this up only because I recently read a proposal from conservative news CEO Chris Ruddy (Newsmax.com). Ruddy has suggested Trump extend an olive branch to the left; a deal if you may. He thinks that President Donald Trump should offer that deal to Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Retire now… and he will nominate… Judge Merrick Garland (President Barack Obama’s last nominee) to replace her.

I can’t say I’m in favor of the plan, but I can’t same I’m against it either. I’ve keep inching from one side to the over, more often than not against it.

Pro:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (the least qualified member of the SCOTUS) will no longer be on the SCOTUS.

Con:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be replaced by a slightly less not qualified judge.

Side Note: Anyone who believes in a living Constitution is not qualified to be a judge (or to hold any appointed or elected office).

Pro:
You’re replacing an ultra-leftist jurist with a moderate.

Con:
A moderate is just someone who pauses in the center… before turning left.

Pro:
It’s always the moral thing to do to seek common ground, to seek compromise, to extend the olive branch to your opposition.

Con:
The left has and never will reciprocate. The olive branch will get you NOTHING in return (besides Ginsburg gone). And if you think you’re going to get something; you sure as ^%$# better get your end first, have it in writing, or have a means to ensure the terms are met.

When it comes down to it, it’s a gamble. Issues at hand mean literally life or death for tens of thousands… religious liberty or further persecution… free speech… gun rights… issues core to the fabric of a healthy (or sick) republic. You’re giving up the possibility of a major shift (in the right direction) in the SCOTUS for a little insurance that we will only trot to hell vs sprint. I just can’t make that deal… If we’re taking the country to hell, let’s do it at a dead (leftist) run… OR… turn around. I’m really not interested in anything in the middle (the trotting option).

Sure, there’s that nagging feeling of should we make a deal. Are we repeating the mistake of a proud old woman? And consider that our odds aren’t near as good as hers were…

Read Full Post »

Crime - Search and Seizure - DNA BarsThe Supreme Court just ruled (6/3/2013) that it is constitutional to take a DNA sample from someone under arrest. (Not convicted, but under arrest). The basically equated the process to no more intrusive than photographing or fingerprinting.

The majority who found in favor of the practice are: Samuel A. Alito, Clarence Thomas, & Chief Justice John G. Roberts (conservative), Stephen G. Breyer (leftist), and Anthony Kennedy (moderate/nuts)

Dissenting justices were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburn, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan (leftist) and Antonin Scalia (conservative).

Initial Reaction:
My initial reaction is that as the majority tried to define the practice I have no problem with it. BUT I also recognize (as Scalia does) that this is a genie being released from a bottle that we will never be properly controlled. It is just one more of many genies recently released that does not bode well for the future of privacy or freedom.

Some Clarity:
First know this. Once the DNA sample is taken (with a cheek swab), that’s it. You will from that point on be considered a suspect in every criminal case involving DNA. You’re DNA will be compared with the DNA of every rape kit, and/or crime scene sample.

A conviction of a crime is not what is required for you to become permanent and un-revocable participant in this database. Reasonable suspicion “for a serious offense” is all that is required. Which begs the question, did the majority actually give a legal definition to the term “serious offense”. If not… I assure you any and all booking procedures will fit that definition somewhere.

The actual case that resulted in the ruling involved a man arrested for “second-degree assault”. His DNA was take during booking for that arrest (before conviction) and then run through a national DNA database of crime scene connected DNA. A match was found linking the suspect to an unresolved rape six years earlier. Based on this evidence the suspect was charged and convicted of the rape.

Crime - Swab Cheek for DNA

Majority Agreement:
The majority said that “taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”

I agree, it is no more intrusive than fingerprinting, and as facial recognition software advances not much different than a photograph. Even today as you walk down the streets or enter a venue; cameras are taking your picture and software is comparing your face to the composites of wanted criminals. That technology will only be expanding.

And fingerprinting? It has been used mainly for the same type of comparisons, using the same type of databases for decades now. Technically, I don’t see a difference.

Dissenting Agreement:
Justice Scalia said for the descent “Today’s judgment will, to be sure, have the beneficial effect of solving more crimes. Then again, so would the taking of DNA samples from anyone who flies on an airplane.” (TexasLynn: or for that matter, why not just take a sample at birth from this point forward.)

Crime - Search and Seizure - Dorthy and Toto, Wizard of OzThe Genie:
Expansion of Data Collection: While various laws may currently restrict DNA swabbing to the severity of the crime; these restraints are sure to be watered-down and legally tested. John Roberts who voted with the majority acknowledged that when he hypothetically wondered why they couldn’t be applied to a simple traffic stop.

I predict we will reach a point that an officer will pull over a motorist and his computer will instruct him that a DNA profile is not on file for the driver and to make an effort to acquire one. You’ll get off with a warning in exchange for a field applied cheek swab.

Trust in Government: We are placing a lot of trust in our police and government at many levels to properly collect and use this information. As a conservative I’m justifiably lacking in trust right now. (See the IRS as proof my paranoia is justified).

While the Feds are definitely untrustworthy, do I trust the local guys to get it right? Nope. Just search (Google or Bing) “Houston Crime Lab Scandal” and you can find decades of mismanagement and abject incompetence. There were cases where lab workers were just too lazy to perform the actual test and just filled out the paperwork as if they did. They just assumed a match.

To reduce the bias and incompetence factors, redundant checks and balances must be implemented. I just don’t see that happening.

Private Access: This is only partially related; but eventually DNA profiles will be a private industry. You’re insurance, your possible employment (or lack there-of) will be influenced by the DNA data companies buy and/or acquire about you. It’s coming… unless our elected officials do something to curb the abuse. So in other words it’s coming… Ohh brave new world!

Read Full Post »

So I have an immense garden I share with my neighbors. We grow all kinds of flowers and vegetables; and it’s great.

Now, I’m in charge of the garden because… because… I want to be. I’m that type-A take charge kind of guy. Yeah, the neighbors help but mostly by doing what I tell them. I really, really, like that system.

But then there’s this bug issue. We (my neighbors and I) have discovered lots of bugs in our garden. Now I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking them bugs are bad we need to get rid of them and that’s where you would be wrong. Some bugs are actually beneficial to a garden; ladybugs for example, and we not only want them but encourage them. But the bad bugs, they’re a problem.

Now, my policy is “No bad bugs.” I written it down on official stationary, posted signs, made speeches about the bad bugs. I’ve made it very, very clear I will do everything in my power to get rid of the bad bugs; everything short of taking action. Oh, sure, I do have to toss a few out here and there for appearances, but overall… I don’t really look for the bad bugs. I don’t document which are good and which are bad. I just make my position clear and leave the bugs alone.

Why no actual action on the bad bugs? Well, between you and me it’s because… there are no bad bugs. I mean ALL bugs have their uses; it’s just some bugs are useful for supporting my power and agenda (I taught ’em to vote), and some are good for the garden.

Unfortunately, some time ago, one of my dumb-ass neighbors told his family to at least try and identify the bad bugs. He told them that if they found a bug to give me the opportunity to declare it good or bad; and to give me the opportunity to deal with it. Like I have time (or inclination) for that crap.

I tried to bully this neighbor, but this guy just won’t get with the program. Then I discovered that trying to set this neighbor straight has kind-of pissed off other neighbors. So now we’ve called a big neighborhood garden meeting. I had hoped this was my chance to get this guy and his family to stay the hell out of my bug policing business. But the garden board is asking stupid questions like “How is he usurping your authority, by helping you do what you say you want to do.”

Hello! He’s trying to make me do it on his terms! He’s trying to make me do it when I may not be ready… if ever! On a side note, have you ever tried to defend something that is premised on a lie? It isn’t easy!

Disclaimer: Any similarity between this and other circumstances of other events is purely coincidental.
Disclaimer: No, I’m not equating people to bugs. Spare me the faux outrage, and if it’s real outrage I still don’t give a #%$%*!

Read Full Post »

The U.S. Constitution. 5 out of 9 U.S. Supreme Court justices still recommend (and adhere to) it.

I love to study the left. It’s kind of like Dian Fossey studying the gorillas in the mist… without the caring or respect. I can’t help but wonder how they get away with certain behaviors; not just within society, but within their own minds and souls. How do they get it past their own sense of shame?

The most fascinating of these abilities is their use of “Obi-Wan Minus the Force”. Read about that here… “Not the Global Warming Liars You are Looking For”.

Then there’s the lying to cover up you true feelings. This is a bit more understandable. It’s a bit more common in human nature and a survival instinct. You want to be accepted for whatever reason within a group, so you lie to fit in or at least not be ostracized. The only problem is this works just fine with individuals but is harder to pull off as a group. The reason is simple. Every now and then one of the group thinks there among trusted friends or one of the group gets a little tipsy and spills the beans. With liberals, it happens all the time.

It happened with Obama in San Francisco when he was explaining to his kind of people the mentality of the peasants in the small towns of fly-over country. “They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” That was never meant for the peasants to hear…

A recent case in point… Liberals hate the Constitution of the United States of America. Yeah, I know, hate is probably too strong a word for some of them… but at best they think it is antiquated and should be revised and/or interpreted to fit this new enlightened era we live in.

This is in direct contrast to conservatives AND much of the voting public who see the U.S. Constitution as a timeless document, that has seen us through 200 years of peace and prosperity; a document as relevant today as the day it was pinned.

Liberals can’t come out and say this… it hurts election chances. They must pretend to revere the Constitution as they do the flag, or the pledge of allegiance. If only the peasants could see how antiquated all this patriotism is…

Recently the New York Times decided it was time to try and nudge the peasants along. Maybe some of this reverence for the Constitution could be torn down. The article stated that the U.S. Constitution isn’t used as a model anymore when other countries are writing founding documents. It just doesn’t guarantee the rights that the world takes for granted in these more enlightened days.

A Professor Law from the New York University Law Review sited lots of reasons not to use the U.S. Constitution. He cited the old fogies on our Supreme Court having the gall to interpret the Constitution according to its original meaning as sending a signal that it is of little use today. He compared it to Windows 3.1 in a Windows 7 world. He said there are “newer”, “sexier”, “more powerful” constitutions to choose from out there today.

What a moron? This is the kind of professors we have today in the likes of New York University?

Of course that’s not all, recently Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in Egypt (in early Feb. 2012), smeared our founding document by saying, “I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.” She cited several other recent documents that would better fit the times.

What it comes down to is this. The left thinks the U.S. constitution is a very flawed document. That is why they try to tear it down. That is why they try to weaken it by declaring it a “living” document”. That is why they depend on their judges to read into it things that are not there. If they had their way, they would replace it with something completely different; a foundation of “rights” and guarantees to food, shelter, medical care, abortion on demand, free marriage, all provided by an unfettered federal government. They would do away with that pesky 2nd Amendment enjoyed by rednecks and other buffoons. That is what their actions would be if they had a choice.

And it also comes down to this… the left can’t be honest about what they would like to do; what they would do if they thought they could get away with it. They must pretend to respect and even revere the Constitution; while chipping away at it with activist judges, and subversive New York Times articles quoting unqualified Supreme Court Judges and morons from Ivy League ivory towers.

Read Full Post »