Archive for the 'SCOTUS' Category

Apr 29 2008

Today’s SCOTUS Voter Fraud ruling is a victory for common sense, and a slap in Obama’s face

Published by Karl under SCOTUS, obama, voting

I blogged about this this morning, but the real scope of the ruling is just now being fleshed out, and a few things have occurred to me.

First of all, as I said earlier, this is a complete victory for common sense.  It just makes simple sense that if voting is the precious right and responsibility we think it is, it should be protected and cherished, and one facet of that is to ensure that only those eligible are allowed to vote, lest the franchise be corrupted by people who are not.

Some say that is exclusionary, but the fact is that voter criteria exists to protect the validity of the votes of all.   Protecting it by what seems to be the simplest method, checking ID, is a complete no brainer.

And yet there are the critics who decry this as unfair, as disenfranchising people, and targeted to eliminate minorities, also know as the race card.

Hog wash. 

They claim fraud is a myth, and that there is no compelling reason to protect against it.  Sure.  There is also no compelling reason your care will be stolen, so feel free to leave the keys in.

Locks and laws serve the same purpose:  To protect against criminals.  Voter fraud laws close the door on the easy loopholes and make it less likely. And in doing so they once again show how valuable the right to vote is, such that we want to be sure "you" are really "you" before you cast your vote.

The requirements are not a burden.  Since when is it odd to expect people to be able to prove their identity?

The ACLU opposes such laws which frankly puzzles me, though I admit it is hardly a shock.  They often take a contrary position to civil rights and common sense.

Note to the ACLU:  Committing a crime is not a right.  Look it up.

4 responses so far

Apr 28 2008

SCOTUS rules: Voter ID laws are constitutional

Published by Karl under SCOTUS, voting

Told ya so.  Now, watch as the world comes unglued and the liberals implode that actual accountability is a part of voting.

 Via AP:

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.

In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana’s strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to prevent fraud.

It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush. But the voter ID ruling lacked the conservative-liberal split that marked the 2000 case.

The law “is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting ‘the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,’” Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy. Stevens was a dissenter in Bush v. Gore in 2000.

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also agreed with the outcome, but wrote separately.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented, just as they did in 2000.

More than 20 states require some form of identification at the polls. Courts have upheld voter ID laws in Arizona, Georgia and Michigan, but struck down Missouri’s. Monday’s decision comes a week before Indiana’s presidential primary.

The decision also could spur efforts to pass similar laws in other states.

About freakin time.

Sister Toldjah notes:

The opinions can be read here. As expected, the usual corners are crying foul, believing “harassment” and “disenfranchisement” are just around the corner for poor and elderly Dem voters. How dare voters have to show proof of identity, even when they’re no longer with us!

Michelle Malkin remembers:

You may recall that the woman who challenged the voter ID law in Indiana was, um, fraudulently registered to vote in two states.

2 responses so far

Jul 03 2006

Due Process wins: SCOTUS issues stay in MT Soledad case

Published by Karl under ACLU, Idiots, SCOTUS, intolerence

Ignoring the merits of the case or defense, the fact is that our courts have an appeals process, and the city should be allowed to continue its appeal unhampered by the lower courts.

Since the Judge who ordered the cross removed refused to issue a stay pending appeal, that forced several State and Federal Court appeals which finally ended up at the SCOTUS.

And a stay has been issued by the SCOTUS.  

Now the city can pursue its appeal without a $5000 a day penalty looming over their head. 

Again, the merits aside, the city deserve the chance to utilize their legal resources to appeal this decision, even as the petitioner can appeal.  And there is no harm or danger in the interim, so issuing a stay was reasonable.  The lower court's refusal to allow that reeks of bias. 

Disagree?  Show me the compelling necessity to remove a cross that has stood unchallanged for decades.  Show me the harm. Show me where the public benefit overrides due process in this case.  Show me how anyone suffers an injury if it stands for a while longer as the court matters are resolved.  There is none, this was just judicial bullying.

High court intervenes in fight over cross

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court intervened Monday to save a large cross on city property in southern California.

A lower court judge had ordered the city of San Diego to remove the cross or be fined $5,000 a day.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, acting for the high court, issued a stay while supporters of the cross continue their legal fight.

Lawyers for San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial said in an appeal that they wanted to avoid the "destruction of this national treasure." And attorneys for the city said the cross was part of a broader memorial that was important to the community.

The 29-foot cross, on San Diego property, sits atop Mount Soledad. A judge declared it was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

The cross, which has been in place for decades, was contested by Philip Paulson, a Vietnam veteran and atheist.

2 responses so far

Jun 24 2006

OTA weekend- SCOTUS Round Up

Published by Karl under OTA, SCOTUS

Today is my daughter's sweet 16 birthday, so I will be rather occupied.  It happens to coincide with the warmest weekend in several months, so it should be a fun day. 

Feel free to open track this all weekend.  I will be back to blog later.

While you do so, here is a SCOTUS case round up, just for fun.

Enjoy your weekend! 

*****************************

List of Major High Court Cases

Some Supreme Court cases still to be decided and the issues involved:

GUANTANAMO TRIALS: Whether President Bush has overstepped his authority with military war-crimes trials for foreigners held at the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

TEXAS REDISTRICTING: Whether to throw out all or part of a 2003 congressional map promoted by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

INSANITY: Whether to strike down Arizona's insanity defense law, in an appeal brought on behalf of a schizophrenic teenager who killed a police officer.

CAMPAIGN FINANCE: If Vermont and other states can limit how much money is contributed and spent in political campaigns.

FOREIGN SUSPECTS: If two foreigners convicted of violent crimes in the United States have to be given new trials because police did not tell them they could seek legal help from their countries' governments, as required by a 1969 treaty.

INMATE NEWSPAPERS: Whether states can keep troublesome inmates from reading most ewspapers and magazines.

DEATH PENALTY: Whether Kansas' death penalty law is constitutional.

LAWYERS: Whether criminal defendants who can afford a lawyer get to pick their own.

---

In some of the cases resolved this term, the court:

ASSISTED SUICIDE: Upheld on a 6-3 vote Oregon's one-of-a-kind assisted-suicide law.

CAMPUS RECRUITERS: Ruled unanimously that the government can withhold funding from colleges that won't open their campuses to military recruiters because of the Pentagon's policy on gays.

DEATH PENALTY: Ruled 9-0 that condemned inmates can file special federal court claims that the chemicals used in executions cause unconstitutionally cruel pain; Ruled 5-3 that a Tennessee death row inmate could use new evidence to try to get his conviction overturned.

2 responses so far

Jun 20 2006

Is the resolve to keep abortion legal weakening? Apparently…But not where you think.

Published by Karl under Abortion, SCOTUS

Ever since the SCOTUS nominations we have been hearing the liberals grumble about the anticipated reversal of Roe v Wade.  While I have blogged previously why I do not think a reversal of Roe is imminent, the nay sayers have painted lurid tales of back room abortions and grim visions of young girls braving disgusting conditions to avoid bearing the child of a rapist. 

Ted Kennedy even managed to make abortion a part of the Immigration debate and the English language debate, a hat trick in political terms by lumping 3 separate issues into one.

The truth is they could be right.  I know in the case of late term abortion the public sentiment is strongly opposed to it, as well as in the cases involving parental notification.  That one I can understand.  It seems fairly ignorant that a girl in this state, for example, can get an abortion without permission or notification of her parents, but cannot get her ears pierced without a signed consent and a parent in attendance.

The law banning abortion that was passed in South Dakota back in March is being closely watched, and is obviously considered to be the Abortion Litmus Test of the new court.  Will they uphold the venerable Roe Wade decision?  Or will they lift a finger to stare decisis and overturn it? 

To be fair, Roe Wade is by almost all evaluations a terrible decision, but even the bad has the power of precedent now.  But, also to be fair, stare decisis is also a lousy excuse to keep a law on the books.  To fall back on "stand by that which is decided" is nice, but how many people today would be happy falling back on stare decisis when Dred Scott is considered?  The decision to overturn a ruling is a cautious one, but not without possibility or reversal, or even a feeling of necessity to do so.

So why did I bore you with all that?

Well keeping all that considered, did you know that the Lousiana Legislature has just passed a law banning all abortions, except in the case of the life of the mother?  This includes rape and incest. 

One response so far

May 31 2006

Whistle blower ruling: a blow to free speech or a call for responsibility?

Published by Karl under MSM, SCOTUS, civil rights, free speech

The SCOTUS, in a divided ruling laid down limitations to the claims of whistleblowers in a decision that affects millions of government employees.

Justices Set Limits on Public Employees' Speech Rights

The Supreme Court declared today, in a ruling affecting millions of government employees, that the Constitution does not always protect their free-speech rights for what they say on the job.

In a 5-to-4 decision, the court held that public employees' free-speech rights are protected when they speak out as citizens on matters of public concern, but not when they speak out in the course of their official duties.

"We hold that when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the court.

In writing the decision that reversed the Ninth Circuit today, Justice Kennedy noted that the Supreme Court has made it clear in previous rulings "that public employees do not surrender all their First Amendment rights by reason of their employment." On the other hand, he wrote, "When a citizen enters government service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom."

That last paragraph speaks to a core principle that will may have far reaching effects, because I am wondering if this might have a bearing on anonymous leaks to the press, such as Mary McCathy, formerly of the CIA.

Granted if the allegations are true, she is already guilty of violation of her confidentiality agreements.  What makes me ponder this is that some of her defenders are trying to defend her under the blanket of free speech protection.  At American Daily they recount this:

On the Fox News Sunday morning program, Left-leaning pundit Juan Williams looked like he was having an acid flashback as he insisted that Mary McCarthy’s release of classified information to reporter Dana Priest was all about McCarthy’s First Amendment rights to free speech and her efforts to get out the “truth” to the press.

One response so far

May 12 2006

Prayer in School ok in Seattle, as long as it’s Muslim?

Published by Karl under ACLU, SCOTUS, Schools, civil rights

That seems to be the subtle lesson that will be taught in Seattle.

I seem to recall even asking for a moment of silence for any religious person to observe their faith has been soundly opposed pretty much every time it goes out the gate

Some highlights from the ACLU:

The moment of silence won, when the SCOTUS refused to hear the ACLU's complaint in 2001

But then again there is this from this March:

Complaint challenges moment of silence in schools

An atheist couple whose children attend a Carrollton-Farmers Branch elementary school have filed a complaint in federal district court arguing that the state's mandated moment of silence in public schools is unconstitutional. 

David and Shannon Croft named the school district and Gov. Rick Perry in their complaint, filed Friday. In it, they say one of their children was told by a teacher to be quiet because the minute is a "time for prayer."

Kathy Walt, spokeswoman for the governor, said state law clearly gives children the freedom to do what they wish with the moment of silence.

The law, passed in 2003, allows children to "reflect, pray, meditate or engage in any other silent activities" for one minute after the American and Texas pledges at the beginning of each school day.

3 responses so far

Mar 16 2006

Eminent Domain vs Churches in Long Beach

Published by Karl under SCOTUS, Stupid Laws

(Minor correction, there is only one church in Long Beach, and 7 churches elsewhere undergoing similar treatment.- LSU)

Last year the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in the Kelo decision determined that the city of New London Connecticut could seize property under eminent domain to allow construction as a part of an economic development.  The Court found that the increased tax revenue and jobs constituted public good, the standard normally required.  The meaning was very clear, since a luxury condo has a higher per square foot value then an ordinary housing track, then the government can seize the homes and reap the tax windfall.

People were aghast, because the fear was that government now had a blank check to take anything they wanted. 

At the time I was fairly angry, and wondered how far this would go.  I even went as far as to wonder if could someday be used against churches, because they have no real tax advantage to the city, whereas many of them sit upon prime real estate that I am sure many cities are eying most greedily.  My friends dismissed my dears as alarmist, certain that religious freedom would be upheld.

I hate to be right again.

Last year the Supreme Court issued a wildly unpopular decision that enabled governments to seize property for no other reason than economic development. A recent New York Times article, which has been archived, says that almost every state legislature in the country is advancing bills or constitutional amendments to limit the spread of this ruling. Despite the tenuous legal state that the ruling (Kelo v. New London) is in, a Long Beach government is using it to replace a church with an apartment complex. Sigh.

The Long Beach, California Redevelopment Agency voted 6-0 March 13 to condemn the Filipino Baptist Fellowship’s church building, ostensibly because it does not produce enough economic benefit for the city.

No responses yet

Mar 08 2006

Abortion: Right, Choice or none of the above?

Published by Karl under Abortion, Bill of rights, Politics, SCOTUS


There is much ado over the subject of abortion this week. First, the news that South Dakota has signed into law legislation banning abortion in the state, unless the mother's life is threatened:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186961,00.html SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — Gov. Mike Rounds signed legislation Monday banning nearly all abortions in South Dakota, setting up a court fight aimed at challenging the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

Planned Parenthood, which operates the state's only abortion clinic, in Sioux Falls, has pledged to challenge the measure in court.

Rounds issued a written statement saying he expects the law will be tied up in court for years and will not take effect unless the U.S. Supreme Court upholds it.

So one could legitimately ask, what's the point? Why create a law you know will be challenged? I think the average answer will be "to get the SCOTUS to overturn Roe v Wade", and that could a possible reason.

One thing overlooked though is that this issue is not just about a woman's right to choose, though the leftists will certainly say that. They will coach it as a freedom issue because they know that makes the matter easier to defend on a constitutional level. The right will argue the life of the child, but they too are using the moral repugnance of taking a life as their talking point.

In both cases, I am sure that for most of them, their beliefs are sincere, but even so, they are completely overlooking a larger issue.

The real issue at stake is State's rights. Can a state like South Dakota operate in separate sovereignty from the Federal Government and dictate the laws in its own land? I don't expect too many people to acknowledge that, they will focus in on the removal of choice and the life of the child.

I would note to them that the ban does not eliminate choice; it only limits availability and location. SD has 6 adjacent states; the farthest any resident has to go to get their on demand abortion out of state is about 150 miles or so.  So for all the shouting, the pro-choice people still have choice, and the pro-life people have not saved lives.

No responses yet

Nov 01 2005

What was he thinking?

Published by Karl under Bush, SCOTUS

Ok, I feel better. The Bush administration has finally focused and moved on from what I have to describe as a period of gross stupidity. In the past weeks I have not been able to figure out what Bush was thinking.
First we had the Miers nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). Now at first glance the possibility of a non judge being on the court was attractive to me. Historically, the court has done so many times in the past, including the notable late Judge Rehnquist. And honestly, the elitism displayed by the Federal Judges is normally fairly repugnant, so an outsider would have been rather refreshing.
But as I read about her, it seemed she was really a crony appointee more then anything else, which is totally sad. Sure, we all know presidents appoint their pals to positions, so do all politicians of note. The desire to surround yourself with trusted allies is very comforting, and frankly necessary. But the SCOTUS is another animal altogether. It relies on a level of partisan and personal impartiality that is unparalleled. The justices that make up the SCOTUS must be free of entanglements, and someone sitting behind the scenes of Bush doors would be an easy target for conflict of interest. Maybe some of the other justices have similar conflicts, I really cannot say for sure as I am not a SCOTUS scholar. The left can say what they want about her, considering one of their own suggested her to Bush in the first place. But when the right rose up against her, for reasons I still don't completely follow, I just didn't know what to think. A battle seemed ready to burst, not in the Judical committee, but in the Republican ranks. But in an act that both showed her integrity and actually proved her disqualification, she withdrew her nomination, and in effect recused herself from the Judicial Nominee hearings, fearing some (Democrats) would use them to gain information about her actions as Whitehouse Counsel. In that capacity she was privy to a lot of information that would have not been fun to have vetted in a public forum. She justified her withdrawal stating she had to protect confidentiality and lawyer client privilege.
It was the right choice, because let me tell ya folks, they would have wrung out anything they could have in spades. Oh, and please don't froth in righteous indignation Republicans, had the parties been reversed the Republicans would have been just as blood thirsty.
But the real point here is that her recusal is proof she could not place her actions and relationship to the president at arms length. Having a SCOTUS Justice recusing herself during deliberations and hearings on the High Court would have been foolish at the least. Then there was the media pounding he took over the press conference with soldiers that most media claims was staged. According to a report issued by a soldier ( http://tinyurl.com/83a5n) who was in it, it was not, but the media has all but ignored that rebuttal. I encourage you to read the other side of that story. But I digress Ok, lets be honest about a couple things. Bush has made a lot of efforts to use optimism to turn public tide and boost morale. The Mission Accomplished banner is a prime example. While technically accurate, it became the focus point of the left's desire to brand him a liar. The primary goal was not finished, just one facet. Congratulations were premature. His administration, as most do, has constantly showed a positive spin to the realities; and that is not really a bad thing, but if carried to far leads to faulty expectations and overconfidence. But I have to admit the timing of this question and answer session and the all but obvious choreography made this a foolish endeavor. A better forum could have been used that would not have looked so controlled, so scripted, even though a participant insists it was not. And while I firmly believe most town hall meetings are similarly "handled", they at least have an appearance of spontaneity. Bush, in my opinion, lost majorly when he stopped fighting the Social Security battle. Sure, privitization may not have been the answer, but the question "is Social Security in trouble" still has the same answer: YES. Maybe his initial idea was not the best, but it could have been the basis for a bipartisan effort to fix the problem. FWIW the Democrats disgust me when they claim there is no crisis. There is. And I hope someone steps up to fix it. Bush gave up the battle, and in that he disappoints me and many of his partisan followers
Now Bush has made two steps to restore the right to the belief he is still conservative, and still in charge. First, he nominated Judge Alito to the SCOTUS, one that virtually guarantees to bring the fight back to the Senate where it belongs (filibuster baby, yea!), and he has proposed a long overdue overhaul of the income tax system. Concerning Alito, I will look at his record and make a decision on whether he is good or not. A liberal friend has forwarded a petition being circulated against him, presumably for being too anti abortion. I don't know if that is true or not. See tomorrows blog maybe. The tax proposal is welcome though, as that system is terribly in need of changing, though I remain skeptical that he will stay the course. Remember Social Security? But it is nice to see Washington finally heading for the full combat, guns blazing, no holds barred, free fire zone, totally entrenched take no prisoners battle for the Supreme Court that all the media, the pundits and the American people have been waiting for since Judge Bork failed and Clarence Thomas succeeded. I can see NPR, the DNC and NOW firing up their talking points to oppose him, while the RNC and Right to Life are likewise sharpening their swords. And the media, the literary vultures they are, are circling the fray, patiently waiting for the first blood to be spilled. And the Tax plan assures us of long speeches, contradictory talking points and committees and hearings galore. This is what American politics is all about: Partisan gridlock and dissension!
Finally things are heading back to normal for DC.

No responses yet

  • Advertisers






    Mailing List


    Sign up to be notified of new posts

    What People are saying about LSU


    “Good blog from a new reader." ~ Lars Larson, Syndicated Talk Radio Host

    "I really was blown away by the depth of your writing -- do you write for a living? If not, why not? Count me among YOUR fans." ~ Melanie Morgan, Syndicated Talk Radio Host

    "One of the best Northwest Blogs" ~ Bryan Suits, Radio Talk Show Host KFI 640am

    "Not trying to blow smoke up your butt, but you turn a nice phrase - even though we often disagree!" ~ Ken Schram, Northwest Radio and Television Commentator

    New blog recommendation: ST reader Karl’s blog Leaning Straight Up ~ Sister Toldjah, Nationally recognized blogger

    "It’s a well-written blog and it was enjoying to read through."
    ~ Jon Fredkove, Strategic Name Development







  • Site Stats



  • Syndications