A 45 year old Chicagoan's observations and commentary on top news, pop culture and an accounting of the Obama Regime and their 'statist' power grab from my unabashed, right leaning/conservative point of view..
This is our culture; fight for it. This is our flag; pick it up. This is our country; take it back. –Tom Tancredo
"Obama will turn the entire US into the south side of Chicago" - Chicago Ray
God Bless America...
Coming from Buffalo Grove IL, 20 miles NW of King Richard Daley's
Fiefdom AKA Chicago,Illinois,USA the land of the free because of the brave..
Here's one of my first posts and observations on a then potential Obama presidency in Feb 07/ I'm no prophet believe you me..... it was all common sense far too many today simply 'lack',
George Mason explained, “(T)o disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” Noah Webster elaborated: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed
These people have incredible video of illegals, Armed terrorists, you name it invading the country each second of every day..
If I were a victim of crime in Chicago since Daley's illegal gun ban took place I'd be on the phone this morning filing a lawsuit holding the city responsible for the crime for disarming citizens and thus emboldening criminals who would normally think twice knowing their intended victims could be legally armed.
Not under Daley, so now that the SCOTUS has struck it down, Daley should be struck down.
And just in time as we noted Saturday at the other blog, 13 people shot here in Chicago in one single night.!!
This means the 2nd amendment has been affirmed to cover ALL 50 STATES and ANY CITY within those states which comes down in 5-4 vote, and of course the liberals on the court stick with Daley's 'illegal side of the fence' in the ruling as they are on most issues.
By the way today is John Paul Stevens' last day.
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court struck down Chicago's ban on hand guns today and extended the reach of the 2nd Amendment as a nationwide protection against laws that infringe the "right to keep and bear arms."
The 5-4 decision voids the 1982 ordinance, one of the nation's strictest, which barred city residents from having handguns for their own use, even at home. The ruling has both local and national implications.
Two years ago, the high court ruled in a case from Washington, D.C. that the 2nd Amendment protects the rights of individuals to have a gun for self-defense. Since the District is a federal city and not a state, the court did not decide then whether the 2nd Amendment could be used to challenge other municipal ordinances or state laws.
In today's decision, the court said the constitutional protection of the 2nd Amendment extends to city and state laws, not just federal measures.
Gun-rights advocates have been closely following the Chicago case. They said a victory for the 2nd Amendment would clear the way for constitutional challenges to restrictions on firearms to be heard in federal courts nationwide.
The ruling against Chicago's ban had been widely anticipated.
AS if we needed a SCOTUS decision to verify that helping terrorists is illegal if not outright treason?
I guess this means just about every BDS infected liberal will be facing some sort of prosecution for aiding and abetting the enemy during a time of war during the entire Bush administration, as their 'Anti Bush' rhetoric which was often parroted 'word for word' by the enemy in newspapers and video reports throughout the wars would confirm, if anyone in this administration cared.
Since they obviously don't, one thing it most certainly should do, is close down just about every Muslim "aid" organization in the U.S. as 'providers of material support' for terrorists, starting first and foremost with the Council on American-Islamic Relations better known by it's acronym CAIR and anything related to Hamas.
Especially do gooder "aid flotillas".
___________________
From Fox News's Live Shots
Over the objections of three justices, the Supreme Court has upheld a federal law prohibiting American citizens from providing "material support or resources" to foreign terror groups. The 6-3 majority opinion from Chief Justice John Roberts is a victory for the government’s efforts to fight terrorist organizations.
"It is not difficult to conclude, as Congress did, that the taint of [terrorist's] violent activities is so great that working in coordination with them or at their command legitimizes and furthers their terrorist means,” Roberts wrote. “Moreover, material support meant to promote peaceable, lawful conduct can be diverted to advance terrorism in multiple ways."
A group called the Humanitarian Law Project sought to provide legal training and political advocacy for a pair of groups designated by the State Department as foreign terrorist organizations. Monday’s ruling says that support is illegal because "...all contributions to foreign terrorist organizations--even those for seemingly benign purposes--further those groups' terrorist activities."
The Humanitarian Law Project claimed the law violated its First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly. The Court’s ruling said that was not the case.
Justice Stephen Breyer took the unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench, something that is rarely done and often only when a justice feels particularly strong about the outcome of the decision. Breyer said he could not agree with the Court’s conclusion that “the Constitution permits the Government to prosecute the plaintiffs criminally for engaging in coordinated teaching and advocacy furthering the designated organizations' lawful political objectives." Breyer was joined in dissent by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.
Certainly a conservative didn't do this now would they? So it looks as though the latest ruling allowing the cross to stand was obviously overruled by some selfish and Godless lowlife who decided if they don't like the Cross no one will like i
Again a characteristic found in about 99% of today's modern loon liberal. Case in point?
For all we know the Muslim born Obama had his henchmen cut it down in the middle of the night just like Obama's buddy King Richard sabotaged the runways on Meigs field when no one else would agree with him back a ways you can read here.
The two vandalizing events sure sound like they came from the same playbook don't they?
That would be " When the court doesn't side with you, make your own rules" ..... another well known and often executed liberal trait we saw the dems exercise to implement Obamacare. Scum.
Authorities say a 7-foot-tall cross in the Mojave Desert that sparked a U.S. Supreme Court dispute has been stolen.
The National Park Service says someone cut the bolts holding down the metal-pipe cross and made off with it late Sunday or early Monday.
Veterans groups say they're outraged at what they consider the desecration of a symbol that was erected in 1934 by the Veterans of Foreign Wars to honor World War I dead.
The cross was challenged by critics who say a religious symbol shouldn't be allowed on public land but the U.S. Supreme Court last month refused to order it removed.
Indeed it does and this is everything that Obama said he wasn't, that being the same old politics of old because this is "patronage" at it's worst
First, she has no paper trail. She’s never been a judge or had to publicly discuss her beliefs on controversial issues.
While a highly accomplished woman with many achievements, she's qualified then to be a Supreme Court justice how, again? This is nothing but paying back and old Harvard Score with the ol' secret Harvard Law handshake.
This one quote from a post I read says it all about this woman's disdain for the US militrary which should preclude here validation as a concensus builder on a high court. Are you kidding me ?
"Elena Kagan’s most notable foray into public life was kicking military recruiters off of Harvard’s campus."Daily Caller here...
Fox's Greg Jarrett asks Obama's Valerie Jarrett why she's qualified and she tells him... (eyes roll)
<
President Obama’s nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan reveals the kind of Supreme Court that the president wants for America. It’s one that will fulfill his far-left agenda.
Elena Kagan is an interesting pick for the Supreme Court. She graduated from Princeton and Harvard Law School. She clerked for Abner Mikva on the D.C. Circuit federal appeals court, then Thurgood Marshall on the Supreme Court. She served in the White House Counsel’s office, then a law professor, and then dean of Harvard Law School. Finally, in 2009 she became the federal government’s Supreme Court lawyer as U.S. solicitor general.
But those aren’t the reasons Barack Obama picked her for the Supreme Court.
First, she has no paper trail. She’s never been a judge or had to publicly discuss her beliefs on controversial issues.
That is unless he keels over before the actual day comes, then it'll be "breaking news"
The retirement of anyone 90 years old can hardly be heralded as "breaking news" like "everything" is on Fox, one thing I do hate about that network is how every story is "breaking news" from show to show.
This guy was the disappointment appointment of president Ford so what can you say? Big disappointment would be an understatement.
While his retirement's been expected now for what, 25 years, it does amplify exactly what was at stake in the last election, and how the election of Obama will haunt the nation for generations to come. That those who "stayed home" to "punish" the republicans on election day cost America the only chance it may ever have had to overturn or return Roe V Wade to the states where it belongs in the first place, instead it's now so ingrained they're trying to make people like you and I who are against abortions pay for the damn things too.
So "whoop di do" as Archie Bunker used to say...we're just going to trade a turncoat for a certain far left bleeding heart liberal who will help drive the final stakes through the heart of the America of old that we long to see a return to, which I'll translate for the dumb as dirt of the lefties out there claiming it's racially based:
"it means a return to a "stand tall democratic republic which has a moral compass and won't live beyond it's means for an entitlement none of us are entitled to" and keeping us from sinking further into the socialist nanny state abyss that it's now officially become. And I'm actually physically disabled, so if I don't want it, who exactly does?"
I went looking for an archie "Whoopty Do" clip to add up there, but instead I found this classic dem bashing gem, and if you watch it you would swear Archie is talking about today, but instead is talking about the First dead weight Jimmah, the peanut farming, Jew hating disgrace from Plaines, Georgia.
Please watch it.
It's unreal how accurate or one could say unchanged the argument is.
It's the same old shit different day with these dems and they finally found a generation dumb enough and lazy enough to fall for this crap they've been selling since Wilson left office.
Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens retiring
latimes.com: "Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, the court's oldest member and leader of its liberal bloc, he is retiring. President Barack Obama now has his second high court opening to fill.
Stevens said Friday he will step down when the court finishes its work for the summer in late June or early July. He said he hopes his successor is confirmed 'well in advance of the commencement of the court's next term.'
His announcement had been hinted at for months. It comes 11 days before his 90th birthday.
Stevens began signaling a possible retirement last summer when he hired just one of his usual complement of four law clerks for the next court term. He acknowledged in several interviews that he was contemplating stepping down and would certainly do so during Obama's presidency.
The timing of his announcement leaves ample time for the White House to settle on a successor and Senate Democrats, who control 59 votes, to conduct confirmation hearings and a vote. Republicans have not ruled out an attempt to delay confirmation.
The leading candidates to replace Stevens are Solicitor General Elena Kagan, 49, and federal appellate Judges Merrick Garland, 57, and Diane Wood, 59."
SCOTUS Justice John Paul Stevens retiring - NOT Breaking News!
The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it.
H. L. Mencken
I don't know if this is such a great idea as it will flood the campaigns with more money, just when we're out here trying to remove the brutal corruption from the system. It applies to all sides which can only lead to a arms race only with cash between candidates as limitations on 3rd party groups are lifted for the most part with this decision.
It might however help conservatives counterbalance all the money confiscated from Union employees in the form of dues that pipeline right into the DNC for the most part.
"The decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, removes limits on independent expenditures that are not coordinated with candidates' campaigns."
This is a result of a lawsuit about a movie put together ironically by a Dave Bossie From Citizens United, about Hillary Clinton for the past election, and will allow more free speech than less, unfortunately during a campaign that comes at a high price, and look what money was able to do in the last election, get a not even one term senator, with most of his experience in community organizing at a local level, president.
Supreme Court rolls back campaign cash limits
Supreme Court- msnbc.com: "WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns.
By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for their own campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states." more
Supreme Court rolls back campaign cash limits - McCain Feingold Partially Struck Down
The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it.
H. L. Mencken
I can't believe NBC covered this and mostly down the middle today as the Supreme Court looks at the Salazar Vs Bono Cross case from the Mojave Desert courtesy the 9th Circuit loons.....a case brought by none other than the ACLU on behalf of one guy.....one that really shouldn't be seeing the time of day much less take the time of every level of the court system because of one Atheist basically.....
A simple cross on the top of an obscure hill in memory of fallen soldiers that belongs to the VFW...this is nothing more than a case to open the floodgates for banning Christmas Trees and other religious symbols our founders would be absolutely militant about defending right to the end.
I've searched pretty good and have been unable to yet locate any kind of news on how this hearing actually went today, the following is all that is found on the Official Supreme Court Blog
Salazar v. Buono: The cross in the desert (Argument Preview) | SCOTUSblog: "The Supreme Court will hear argument at 10 a.m. Wednesday in Salazar v. Buono (08-472). U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan, in her second argument in her new post, will represent the government and Interior Secretary Ken L. Salazar, as well as others.
Peter J. Eliasberg of Los Angeles, the managing attorney for the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, will be making his first Supreme Court argument, representing Frank Buono, the challenger to the Christian cross that stands in the Mojave National Preserve in California." much more background here...
This Cross Situation In The Middle Of The Mohave Desert is Angering..
The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it.
H. L. Mencken
Another "Hysterical Hisorical Moment" in American history as the MSM will remind us on behalf of Obama and crew, as it's a pretty much a done deal here mid afternoon, mostly as expected as these senators are still voting...... but the 50 needed for confirmation threshold has already been met...more to come as this goes on through the afternoon...
One bonus is no Obama / Sotomayor until next Tuesday, essentially replacing Justice David Souter who was appointed famously as a "thought to be conservative" by Bush 41, and almost immediately joined the dark side for most of the remaining duration of his term.
Sonia Sotomayor, is and will be the first Hispanic-American to serve on the Supreme Court
She may not look the part, but Judge Sotomayor is about 5 times more radical than Souter, so the change will be felt, if not now most certainly later on and her rulings will be controversial for years to come...until the US becomes the USSR that is.
"Rick Moran If you've been watching the Sotomayor confirmation hearing, you have probably been struck by the sheer number of malapropisms uttered by the nominee.
John McCormack at The Weekly Standard blog noticed too:
Ed Whelan writes:
Judge Sotomayor says 'eminent' when she means 'imminent,' 'providence' instead of 'province,' 'story of knowledge' instead of 'store of knowledge,' and so on. Does the fact that she is a Latina immunize her from attention to that sort of (admittedly not uncommon) foible?"
Interesting question.....I say no, even "hell" no. the rest is here\
Also on this subject here's a video of her butchering her sentences and meanings put together by Allahpundit From Hot Air, cited in the American Thinker post above but further down than I excepted, and a choice Sotomayor quote:
"each time I see a split infinitive, an inconsistent tense structure or the unnecessary use of the passive voice, I blister."
Now, I'm no English major nor do I pretend to be, so for me to criticize others' lack of perfect grammar and poor use of communicating skills would be rude and condescending, but then again, making fun in this particular instance is a different thing in my opinion..
You ask why and I say one reason being I myself happen to be an educated Graphic Designing, self made casual commentary writer and blogger, and the person being mocked in for some goofy mixing up similar words known as a malapropism wants to be a Supreme Court Justice and even I cringed while hearing some of this.
It reminds me of using words out of context and that's not good, for someone of this stature.
So if you and I know the difference between saying "eminent" when we mean "imminent," "and stuff like that we learned in high school and college, then she should too I would hope...... especially after such an illustrious education at high powered Universities and decades spent as a judge....... No?
She should in my world and hopefully yours too, and although she's a fine woman and highly accomplished beyond me and many others, but the very very very best person for the job?
I happen to think not...
American Thinker Blog: If a Republican had said it...Sotomayor Malapropisms
The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it.
H. L. Mencken
As if we would expect her to say anything less while sitting in this room being grilled by some well intentioned senators, some glory searchers and some outright criminals while hoping to be confirmed for a lifetime appointment to a job in her case which she could conceivably hold for the next 40 years?
This is an important nomination like all these ar,e and although this woman is highly accomplished if not the most in the past 100 years in some people's opinions, she's also a pretty radical addition to the court, but she'll just be replacing another one for the most part in David Souter.
I'll have to hear much more than a bunch of mostly "in the bag" liberals and some not always persuasive conservatives treating her like Paula Abdul treats just about every contestant on American Idol, as that's about all I'm hearing while listening to her being gently questioned and outright adored by some of these people in the background, along with some commentary from Rush while churning out some work here myself today to add some comedy to the picture
Sotomayor denies bias in 'wise Latina' remark:"(AP) - Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor firmly denied racial bias Tuesday at her Senate confirmation hearing and said an oft-criticized remark about her Hispanic heritage affecting judicial decisions was a rhetorical device gone awry.
An attempted play on words 'fell flat' in a speech in 2001, Sotomayor"
"It was bad because it left an impression that I believed that life experiences commanded a result in a case, but that's clearly not what I do as a judge," Sotomayor said. Sessions, the senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee, sounded unconvinced.
"As a judge who has taken this oath, I am very troubled that you would repeatedly over a decade or more make statements" like the one in 2001, he said.
On her first day of questioning, Sotomayor stopped just shy of saying that the right to abortion was settled law, said she would bring no preconceived notions to the high court on gun rights and explained a ruling recently overturned in the case of white New Haven, Conn., firefighters.
Republicans questioned Sotomayor closely, sometimes challenging her answers, on the second day of hearings. However, Democrats command a strong majority in the Senate as well as on the committee, and there appeared little or no doubt about her eventual confirmation as the first Hispanic to sit on the high court.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the committee chairman, told reporters Sotomayor would be confirmed and added, "I'm convinced it will not be a party-line vote."
During the questioning, Sotomayor leaned into the table in front of her and spoke deliberately. She used her hands to reinforce her words, raising and lowering them to the table with palms flat and fingers extended. She scribbled notes to herself as senators spoke and bobbed her head to underscore her statements in reply.
On an issue faced by all high court nominees, Sotomayor said the Constitution contains a right to privacy, a forerunner of the right to abortion that the high court first outlined in its 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.
Questioned by Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., she said the right to abortion is "the Supreme Court's settled interpretation of what the core holding is," as affirmed in a separate 1992 ruling.
The issue of abortion rights has been central to Supreme Court confirmation fights for two decades or more, and with her statement Sotomayor came close to saying the issue was settled law but stopped short of that flat declaration.
Moments later, in response to a question by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, she said, "All precedents of the Supreme Court I consider settled law subject to" a great deal of deference but not absolute.
Asked by Leahy about cases involving gun rights, Sotomayor's response was more akin to a candidate's than a nominee for the high court.
"Like, you, I understand how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans," she said. "In fact, one of my godchildren is a member of the NRA and I have friends who hunt," she said, adding she would have an open mind.
Sotomayor found common cause with Republicans on one issue.
When Hatch condemned the liberal group People for The American Way for its criticism of a New Haven, Conn., firefighter who figures in a key court case, Sotomayor said such action was "reprehensible" and nothing she would tolerate.
The committee schedule called for Sotomayor to field questions for hours as senators took 30-minute turns. Democrats were protective, occasionally offering her opportunities to counter her critics.
Kohl noted, for example, that in 17 years as a trial and appeals court judge, Sotomayor had rarely been overturned by the Supreme Court.
And he asked her sympathetically about an appeals court ruling that she joined that was recently reversed by the high court, in a case involving white firefighters in New Haven, Conn. He noted it was a 5-4 decision, and said, "Do you agree it was a close case and could have been decided one way or the other."
She replied, "To the extent that reasonable minds can differ on any case, that's true."
Leahy was the first to ask about the "wise Latina" comment that has sparked so much controversy.
"I want to state upfront, unequivocally and without doubt: I do not believe that any racial, ethnic or gender group has an advantage in sound judging," Sotomayor said. "I do believe that every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge, regardless of their background or life experiences."
Leahy also raised the recent case about New Haven firefighters, in which the Supreme Court said white firefighters were wronged when the city threw out the results of a promotion exam because too few minorities did well.
She said the appeals court reached its decision because of precedent at the Supreme Court and at least one circuit court of appeals. But she said the ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court on the basis of a different standard.
She said she would "absolutely" have reached a different result in light of the Supreme Court's reversal.
President Barack Obama nominated Sotomayor to replace Justice David Souter, who retired last month.
While Souter was appointed by a Republican, President George H.W. Bush, he frequently sided with the court's liberal bloc on controversial issues such as abortion and affirmative action.
As a result, if confirmed, Sotomayor appears unlikely to alter the court's balance of power on those issues. ___
Just getting underway now with blowhard Patrick Leahy already turning her into Mother Teresa although she is a high achieving person without a doubt, these hearings will certainly be interesting how the republicans challenge her record without being called racists by all the liberal media and blogs.
Something of which may keep most of them from mounting any kind of serious objections to her confirmation which will likely seal their fates in 2010 for some and 2012 for others, and for all we know, all these dems and republicans who act like this is for real could have likely had dinner last night and already know what the outcome of this potential dog and pony show will be.
Then again these can sometimes turn into outright entertainment as when Anita Hill took the country by storm likely in my opinion lying her ass off about Clarence Thomas, with some outrageous claims that people still talk about and sometimes mock going on 20 years later.
One of the top republicans we have worth a damn in the room for this are Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, who is speaking right now and quite eloquently nat 9:21 am cdt, and you can watch it here if at work at CSPAN as well as FOX or CNN, which would be only ones I would bother to watch..
Others will be Orrin Hatch, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C, John Cornyn R-TX and a few others....thanfully, one who would have likely singing the praises of Sotomayor finally went to the other side a few months ago, obviously meaning Benedict Arlen Specter, so at least we won't have to suffer through wondering "what the hell he was thinking?" moments like conservatives did every time he opened his mouth at one of these things, of which he attended many over his time as a supposed republican senator..
Glenn Thrush - POLITICO.com:Sonia Sotomayor still speaks with her elderly mom, who’s retired in Florida, “every day.”
She’s a “doting” aunt to three of her brother’s children and an “attentive godmother to five more.”
And did you know she was a “fearless and effective prosecutor” and anti-child-pornography crusader widely credited “with saving baseball”?
These biographical gems come from the official, 200-plus-page White House playbook distributed to Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats tasked with defending President Barack Obama’s SCOTUS nominee during this week’s confirmation hearings. What emerges from the document is a streamlined, no-drama strategy modeled on the flawless performance of Chief Justice John Roberts back in 2005. Roberts bedeviled Democrats by deflecting questions about his judicial philosophy with the law school equivalent of Greenspan-speak, the art of saying virtually nothing in the most expansive language possible.
“Roberts is our gold standard,” conceded one Democratic aide.
The document emphasizes three major talking points:
1. Sotomayor has an inspiring, only-in-America personal narrative, rising from a single-parent Puerto Rican home in the South Bronx to the apex of U.S. jurisprudence.
2. She’s been a tough, law-and-order jurist and prosecutor absolutely adored by cops and other lawyers.
3. She respects precedent, has adopted a pragmatic legal approach and has more federal bench experience than any other high court nominee over the past 70 years.
“We want to make it the boringest hearings ever,” said a senior Democratic Senate aide. "
This is quite frightening to say the least coming from a so called compassionate liberal, and says an awful lot about the liberal mindset and worldview that treats life as an afterthought, with it's elites like SCOTUS Justice Ginsburg who intended abortions to rid the poor communities across the country and world of undesirables.
Here were her exact words according to this news this morning
Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of.
So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion.
Her words not mine
Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables:In an astonishing admission, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it "populations that we don't want to have too many of." Her remarks, set to be published in the New York Times Magazine this Sunday but viewable online now, came in an in-depth interview with Emily Bazelon titled, "The Place of Women on the Court."
The 16-year veteran of the high court was asked if she were a lawyer again, what would she "want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda."
Abortionists admit killing babies, call it 'absolute evil.' Get the culture-war classic 'The Marketing of Evil' – autographed – $4.95 today only!
Ginsburg responded:
Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don't know why this hasn't been said more often.
Question: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?
Ginsburg: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae – in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of.
So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion.Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn't really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong. story continued
Looks like she'll be left out of the lefty reindeer games and particularly hoops with Hussein while she heals after tripping at the airport, and not acid tripping but Dork tripping.
Read more about this nominee and her upcoming maiden hearing in front of congress at Maggie's Notebook by clicking here
Supreme Court Nominee Fractures Ankle - :"WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House says Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has broken her ankle after an airport stumble in New York City.
Sotomayor fractured her right ankle Monday morning at New York's LaGuardia Airport before boarding a shuttle to Washington for an afternoon of meetings with senators.
She'll keep her six appointments on Capitol Hill Monday despite the injury, which has her walking with crutches, the White House said.
The judge has kept up a busy schedule in Washington as the White House presses for her quick confirmation.
She even stopped at the White House before heading to the hospital for an x-ray"
Supreme Court Nominee Not So Nimble, Fractures Ankle
The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it.
H. L. Mencken
The more we find out as we delve into this woman's past they less we like her and the more questions need to be asked of her when she appears in front of the Senate to be confirmed. A confirmation soon to be fastracked through congress you can bet, particularly before a real effective counter resistance can be mounted against her and her radical Hispanic ideals.
Like for instance her membership to the radical Anti American organization who's intentions are to exploit our porous borders to passively retake the southwest United States through weak border control. A radical "pro-illegal immigration lobbying organization that supports racist groups calling for the secession of the western United States as a Hispanic-only homeland."
Poising themselves to then take back the states they feel were stolen from them by the US and Obama you can bet won't be doing anything worthwhile to stop this objective from their agenda being met, especially if they have their very own mole, Sotomayer, seated right on the US Supreme court.
Then we come to her radical statements made in regards to our second amendment you can see and read below in the article excerpted from CNS news where she's already logged opposition from the bench in this regard basically stating that:
states do not have to obey the Second Amendment’s commandment that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Also ruling
Sotomayor, however, said that even though the Heller decision held that the right to keep and bear arms was a natural right--and therefore could not be justly denied to a law-abiding citizen by any government, federal, state or local--the Second Circuit was still bound by the 1886 case, because Heller only dealt indirectly with the issue before her court.
Read more about Sotomayor below
Sonia Sotomayor 'La Raza member': "As President Obama's Supreme Court nominee comes under heavy fire for allegedly being a 'racist,' Judge Sonia Sotomayor is listed as a member of the National Council of La Raza, a group that's promoted driver's licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local and state police.
According the American Bar Association, Sotomayor is a member of the NCLR, which bills itself as the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the U.S.
Meaning 'the Race,' La Raza also has connections to groups that advocate the separation of several southwestern states from the rest of America.
Over the past two days, Sotomayor has been heavily criticized for her racially charged statement: 'I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.'
The remark was actually made during a 2001 speech at the University of California's Berkeley School of Law. The lecture was published the following year in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal. continued here
Sotomayor Ruled That States Do Not Have to Obey Second Amendment (CNSNews.com) – Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor ruled in January 2009 that states do not have to obey the Second Amendment’s commandment that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.n Maloney v. Cuomo, Sotomayor signed an opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that said the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having their right to keep and bear arms restricted by state governments.
The opinion said that the Second Amendment only restricted the federal government from infringing on an individual's right to keep and bear arms. As justification for this position, the opinion cited the 1886 Supreme Court case of Presser v. Illinois. “It is settled law, however, that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right,” said the opinion. Quoting Presser, the court said, “it is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.”
The Maloney v. Cuomo case involved James Maloney, who had been arrested for possessing a pair of nunchuks. New York law prohibits the possession of nunchuks, even though they are often used in martial arts training and demonstrations.
The meaning of the Second Amendment has rarely been addressed by the Supreme Court. But in the 2008 case of Heller v. District of Columbia, the high court said that the right to keep and bear arms was a natural right of all Americans and that the Second Amendment guaranteed that right to everyone.
The Second Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled, “guarantee(s) the right of the individual to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.’”
“There seems to us no doubt,” the Supreme Court said, “that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.”
Sotomayor, however, said that even though the Heller decision held that the right to keep and bear arms was a natural right--and therefore could not be justly denied to a law-abiding citizen by any government, federal, state or local--the Second Circuit was still bound by the 1886 case, because Heller only dealt indirectly with the issue before her court.
Sonia Sotomayor A 'La Raza member', Also Says States Need Not Obey 2nd Amendment
The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it.
H. L. Mencken
Always thought these two Grinch's looked exactly alike as Bush Sr appointed David Souter back in 1990 as an unexpected move up after appointing him 5 months earlier to the US court of apeals... He obviously went on to play the role of the "grinch who stole the conservative court " during his miserable reign as a tool for the left on the SCOTUS"
Good riddance to this leftward prick on the right
The makeup of the court won't change as this man has been a disappointment to conservatives since his appointment, so now we better get ready for the most radical supreme court justice the country has ever seen, soon to be joined by others no doubt during the Obama NeoMarxist Chairmanship.
A real rainbow coalition of left loons will be stacked on the court Kennedy Stevens, Breyer and Ginsberg likely becoming a left column to crumble to be replaced on the present court so we're looking at a 5 to 4 split on the liberal side.
This is the price for all those conservatives who stayed home on election day because John McCain was too liberal for them so pull the trigger, so it looks like as a result we'll see at least another 30-50 million babies aborted over the next ten to twenty years. Assuring all liberals and likely all the rest of mankind a nice hot spot in hell someday, for both they committing the abortions and us allowing them to get away with it.
Supreme Court Justice Souter To Retire :
NPR: "NPR.org, April 30, 2009 · NPR has learned that Supreme Court Justice David Souter is planning to retire at the end of the court's current term.
The court has completed hearing oral arguments for the year and will be issuing rulings and opinions until the end of June.
Souter is expected to remain on the bench until a successor has been chosen and confirmed, which may or may not be accomplished before the court reconvenes in October.
At 69, Souter is nowhere near the oldest member of the court, but he has made clear to friends for some time now that he wanted to leave Washington, a city he has never liked, and to return to his native New Hampshire."
Some true liberals who Obama is likely looking at to throw up to a lifetime appointment which will be a black woman in my opinion, particularly if the Loud, boisterous and racist Congressional Black Caucas has their way, although some are even counting Her Thighness Shrillary Clinton in the mix if you can believe that abortion of a choice.
Among those who might make the list of replacements: incoming solicitor general Elena Kagan, formerly the dean of the Harvard Law School, Cass Sunstein, a brilliant constitutional law prof who now works at Obama's Office of Management and Budget, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, appellate judge Diane Wood, and Leah Ward Sears, the chief justice of Georgia's Supreme Court. A dark horse might be Judge Nicholas Garaufis of the Eastern District of New York.
Abortion Safe For Another 20 years. Bush 1 Turncoat Souter Retires
The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it.
H. L. Mencken
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner or may be authorized or licensed for publication at this site only. Permission to copy, republish or reproduce such material must be obtained from the original copyright owner
PHOTOSHOP STUFF.....When the photoshops appear on this site they either have my name on them becuase I made them or tweaked an original in which case I link to the original by clicking the pic. Please take all you want, that's why they're here, just leave the name as is like I do, and I would be eternally grateful.
Ask and I'll tweak it for your site if you need it...
More here
Never Forgive.....
In Memory Of Our Fallen
The land of the free because of the brave.....
We remember they and their loved ones' immeasurable sacrifices each and every day on this blog and in life each day.
If I were a victim of crime in Chicago since Daley's illegal gun ban took place I'd be on the phone this morning filing a lawsuit holding the city responsible for the crime for disarming citizens and thus emboldening criminals who would normally think twice knowing their intended victims could be legally armed.
