Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Supreme Court’

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 say 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 nearly as good as hers were…

Read Full Post »

The death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is a terrible blow to the conservative movement and the foundering nation. Just how bad the setback is remains to be seen. We’ll know more in the coming weeks and months. Unfortunately the damage control is in the hands of… the GOP Senate… or more specifically, the $#@%less GOP Senate.

Political sabers are already rattling. Obama says he’ll nominate a replacement in due time. Some in the Senate say he shouldn’t or that his nominee is DOA.

2015 02 15 - Death of Scalia

I think the declaration of the nominee being DOA is a mistake. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think the nominee actually being DOA is a mistake; just the articulation of the fact.

Obama has the legal authority and prerogative to nominate a replacement justice. He should use his best judgment in deciding whether or not to do so and in his choice if he does. The Senate has the legal authority and prerogative to advise and finally consent on any nominee put forth. The body of the Senate should use it’s best judgment in doing both.

As for as the vote that may take place I would agree with one Senator (one with balls ) who stated…

“We should not confirm any Obama nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances. They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not . . .”

“This is just a prologue considering the constitutional harm and dramatic departures that are in store if those few are joined by one more ideological ally. We have to, in my judgment, stick by the precepts that I’ve elaborated. I will do everything in my power to prevent one more ideological ally from joining Sotomayor and Kagan on the court.”

Read Full Post »

Gay - Bert and Ernie - New YorkerOctober 13, 2014… (9 months ago)
RW: The only way I see GOP winning major elections is with a “freedom” platform, which I expect to see articulated further by Rand Paul and others on the small-L libertarian side of the GOP. Basically, “let the states decide, I wash my hands of it.” That will satisfy most social liberals, and piss off most social conservatives.

TexasLynn: I don’t see how you think this is an option. The left has made it very clear that they will not accept that compromise (states decide). To prove my point. Despite everything Texas has done… gay marriage will be legal in this state by the end of 2015. And the great citizens of Texas will have no say in the matter.


The Broad Path We Have Chosen:
Of course, I haven’t been concerned with the GOP winning for some time. The GOP “winning” has proven not to mean a whole lot… I moved on from that failed strategy some time ago, I’m even “evolving” away from my opinion on the need (or good it will do) to split conservatives away from the GOP and form a third party…

As for our current situation, you can’t say I didn’t see it coming, and not that it was that hard. Any fool could have seen it (even ten or twenty years ago).

So with that in mind, let me share what I now see coming. If you think the world burning will stop or even pause here (with gay marriage) you are sadly mistaken. Next… trans-gender and polygamy… and soon after… adjusting the conditions and age of consent… and… trans-species coupled with animal rights (meaning ALL the rights humans have). And these are just the visible perversion on the horizon. I suspect I am utterly incapable of even imagining the deviance the god of this world has planned for the faithful.

Evolution of Man - Leftist

This nation is well beyond the point of any concern for human decency, or even the secular rule of law on which it was founded. The Republic is lost no less than the Titanic ten minutes after hitting the iceberg (even though it took hours for the ship to actually sink).

Our Last Option, A Lifeboat:
And if the Republic is lost, what can we (the sane) do? I used to think that we needed a 3rd Party, that conservatives needed to abandon the GOP; but it’s clear that was really never going to work; even if it did happen. We’re too far gone. Saving everyone is no longer an option and to try is foolish.

Texas - Secede - AmicableTexas - Secede - Amicable EnoughI can think of only one (sane) thing to do. Leave the fools behind and find a lifeboat as quickly as possible.

And let us christen that lifeboat “Texas”. So I would call upon those who see and know, those who are ‘sick and tired of being sick and tired’, to come to Texas. Let us separate ourselves from the hubris of a lost ship in the darkness.

Let us begin with a non-binding state resolution. The only purpose being, planting that seed in the minds of the citizens of this great state.

Let us begin the dialog with the accursed (left/north/socialist) concerning an amicable separation. They hate us so much they may say “Don’t let Oklahoma hit you in the ass on the way out”. (See here and here for example…) What does it hurt to explore that possibility?

Let us start the process and see where it goes and what options we have (pleasant, amicable, … or not).

Texas! Secede or Die!

Texas - Secede or Die

Read Full Post »

Concept - DiscriminationThe Once Diverse Meaning of Discriminating:
Discrimination wasn’t always a word with the total negative connotation it has today. We can say thanks to the lefts Ministry of Truth for that. Once when someone was “discriminating”, they had “good taste” and/or “character”. Who your friends are, who you do business with, who you are willing to associate with says something about who you are. Guess what? Who you exclude from your association says something about who you are too. Be that something good or bad, shouldn’t we at least have the right to make that choice? The left says… “No”; sometimes correctly in the case of race and sometimes not in the case of homosexuality. It really comes down to choice, morality and where that line is drawn.

Golden Calf - ScienceThe god of Science:
The left, of course, justifies this by stating (falsely) that homosexuality is genetic… completely genetic… god/nature made me this way… I had no control over this… it’s just like race… This is of course religious belief disguised as science. The left (and sodomites themselves) want this to be true, so they have their god, “Science”, decree it to be so. Anyone who uses actual science to refute this is branded a heretic.

Science (not the god) may confirm that there is a genetic component to homosexuality, but that also infers other factors which give credence to choice. The lefts arguments fall apart if choice is in the equation at all. Equating sodomy to race no longer applies. Some blacks are aware of this and justifiably outraged by the comparison.

So the world (the left) builds its house on the sands of appearance and half-truths and seek to remake the world and those in it in their image.

Examples of Being Discriminating:
Should a pet store have the right to refuse service to individuals it deems will be abusive to the animals they sell? Can they elect not to sell a puppy to someone who admits they plan to eat it? Or is that culturally and racially insensitive? Can pet store owners elect not to sell to perverts or are they being judgmental?

Should a Jewish (or Muslim) deli be forced to prepare and serve ham sandwiches (or a whole roasted pig) to gentile gatherings?

Should a black business be forced cater, photograph, or decorate for a Neo Nazi or Klan event? Or should they be free, in good conscience to tell those seeking their services to “get bent” which translates into “please take your business elsewhere”?

While I would hope the answer to the above questions are self-evident; in this day and age, I’m not so sure anymore. While a majority of Americans could easily and quickly come to the right conclusions above, they lack the logic and empathy to apply the same basic human rights to a most hated of groups among them, Christians. Today, treading upon fundamental and sacred rights of that hated group is the social and political norm.

Christian Persecution

Christian Persecution

The Approaching Storm:
We Christians had better get used to it. Because it’s going to get worse… a lot worse… and soon. Individuals and business will soon face bankruptcy and jail if they dare live by their faith. Churches will be punished and persecuted (beginning with their tax-exempt status) if they refuse to teach homosexuality as normal and moral…

Of course individuals and companies should be free to discriminate (yes, discriminate) against individuals they find morally objectionable and/or against their religious beliefs. It is a basic and core tenet of the First Amendment (freedom of religion AND association clauses). But the precepts of our Constitution and the freedoms it confirms is alien and offensive to the secular left who will sacrifice them on an altar of political correctness.

A Christian business (caterer, florist, bakery, photographer, etc…) should not be forced to provide services to people engaged in abhorrent (from their religious perspective) behavior; especially when the service they are being compelled to participate in has religious overtones.

Of course we immediately think of homosexuals and weddings. But who would disagree that religious people and businesses have the right to refuse and not participate in services of pagans, wiccans, polygamists, etc? We’re not asking that these idiots be branded, marked, or even beheaded (as would occur in countries practicing the “religion of peace”). We’re just asking you to go do your thing and leave us the #$@% alone!

But that’s not going to happen. Want to preach that homosexuality is a sin? Get ready to be fined or go to jail. Get ready to be silenced. Want to exclude gay weddings from your church? Get ready to lose your tax exempt status or worse. But it’s not as if we should be surprised, Christ and the apostles warned us of the world and what it would do to us for His sake. We are not commanded to win (He did that), just to try, just to run the good race.

And make no mistake about it; this is a worldly attack on Christians and Christians only… else you would see the same issues brought against the businesses owned by practitioners of “religion of peace” (see video below). You will not see this for two reasons. 1) Islam is not as hated by the left as Christianity is AND 2) Islam has made it very clear what it thinks about sodomites and heretics and what it is willing to do to them. The left has got that message loud and clear. The worst leftist can expect from a Christian is honest disagreement and an attempt to legally secure the rights leftist seek to take away. They have courageously deduced it better to attack the “hater” who won’t make his point by cutting off your head…

Political - Republican - White Flag - SurrenderThe Lost Cultural War:
The Cultural War has been lost (or won from the lefts perspective) and now all that is left to be done is to deliver a coup de grâce to the wounded and dying conservatives that still struggle. That’s pretty well what’s happening with the attacks on Religious Freedom laws in Indiana and Arkansas.

It’s both sad and scary that the only barrier between us (conservatives & Christians) and the fascist left (led by the LGBT gestapo) are a bunch of eunuchs that make up the Republican Party. Indiana Gov. Mike Pence and Republicans legislators threw up the white flag within hours of being attacked.

Briefly it looked like Arkansas, led by Gov. Asa Hutchinson would do the right thing, but after a quick phone call from Wal-Mart, he backpedaled pretty quickly. The bottom line (at Wal-Mart & state governments), does not sound policy make.

Meanwhile, there has been no pretense (not even from Republicans) that religious people have rights not to be compelled to participate in homosexual events. We’ve lost so much ground within country and the Republican Party, no one will even take to the field of battle/debate on our behalf. The left instead puts forth that if you are not willing to serve everybody (and by that they mean if you do not acquiesce to their beliefs 100%) then you are not entitled to even be in business, not even entitled to make a living.

Supreme Court - Gay IssuesThe Lost Rule of Law:
The whole issue of gay marriage is about to be settled (in the affirmative) by the U.S. Supreme Court where over 300 Republicans signed an amicus (friend of the court) brief in support of homosexual wedding being made legal nationally. “Among the signatories are 23 current and former Republicans members of the House of Representatives and Senate and seven current and former Governors… including Sens. Susan Collins and Mark Kirk, Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman. Other notables include former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal and billionaire GOP mega-donor David Koch.”

This issue is the ultimate proof that the Republican Party never has and never will be part of the solution. On all issues (moral and fiscal) they surrender and advocate for a slower march to hell. But alas, we reached the point of no return years ago. To paraphrase a great leftist “What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?”.

The answer of course is none, except that these Republicans can rest assured that when the losers are put against the wall… they… will be last. I only regret, I won’t be around to see it. The leftist can rest assured that when the nut-ball Islamics behead the heretics, they will be last (after paying jizya for a few years). I really regret, I’ll miss that. 🙂


Video: See Stephen Crowder go and do what leftist homosexuals would not dare…

Read Full Post »

Political - Left - Class WarfareIn his latest attack of the Koch Brothers, Harry Reid said the following.

“The decisions by the Supreme Court have left the American people with the status quo in which one side’s billionaires are pitted against the other side’s billionaires. Except one side doesn’t have any* billionaires.”

Setting aside this is just more of the same old class warfare play run by the left again and again… the statement is categorically false.

To name a few just off the top of my head: George Soros, Tom Seyer, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Fidel Castro… 🙂

As I stated in a previous postings comment section…

One indication of the absurdity and of just how good the leftist spin of the MSM (Main Stream Media) is concerning the money behind politics…. If asked, much of the public would name the Koch Brothers as the #1 political contributors in the nation. They’re not. They’re not even in the top ten; and barely make the top 50, being somewhere in the mid-40s. A large majority of those ahead of them are… wait for it… leftist and Democrat. A majority of the top ten… are… wait for it… unions; who pretty well split their money evenly between the GOP and Democrats… … 🙂 [Bwa ha ha]… just kidding practically all goes to Democrats. Overall, unions beat the Koch Bros by a margin of about 15 to 1.

For the left, it’s all about appearances… Harry Reid is just repeating the same lie over, and over, and over, Ad Nauseam. He knows it’s a lie, but he’s still following the script, following the plan. And I admit, that game plan largely works for them. Their system depends on an uninformed public and that is practically the definition of America today. It’s also one of the many reasons the Republic is doomed.

*Note: When the obvious exaggeration, gaffe, or lie was exposed the Dems immediately went into spin mode and claimed, that Reid said “many” not “any”. Having listened to the remarks… that is clearly not true.

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 »

Political - Liberal - Gay Marriage Support SymbolSome time ago, the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare; which is really very scary. To think that the federal government has the power to force you to buy something is unfathomable. And this was upheld because a justice decided that the “fine” imposed if you don’t buy is really a tax that the writers of the law said wasn’t a tax (before they decided it was when they discovered they were on shaky legal grounds).

But that’s not what this blog post is about. It is about the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) now being heard by the same Supreme Court today (2/27/2013). I was surprised by the Obamacare ruling. I doubt that will repeat itself on this one.

I had a small inkling of hope; but I’ve come to realize that DOMA will be struck down paving the way for homosexual marriage in this nation; which in turn will pave the way for polygamy (eventually) and then on to other eroding of our social fabric.

I have to thank Cal Thomas who really squashed that last lingering hope in me. I say that tongue-in-cheek but a recent column of his really laid it on the line. Of course DOMA will be struck down.

“It doesn’t take a prophet to see where this is headed. A nation that legalizes abortion and applies no stigma to cohabitation and out-of-wedlock births is not about to suddenly discover the moral courage to say ‘no’ to same-sex marriage.

IF, AS I suspect, the Supreme Court strikes down DOMA, it will be the inevitable result of an increasing number of Americans abandoning the Source of morality and goodness. As Calvin Coolidge said of our Declaration of Independence, ‘We cannot continue to enjoy the result if we neglect and abandon the cause.'” — Cal Thomas

What do we expect the decline and fall of a nation/society to look like?

US-JUSTICE-GAY-MARRIAGE

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »