Justice Robert was a big disappointment on ObamaCare and Justice Scalia’s comments on the Second Amendment are unbelievable.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia outraged conservatives with his remarks on gun control and the Second Amendment this morning in a Fox News interview with Chris Wallace.
Scalia stated that the court may issue gun control rulings in the future due to “precedent” indicating that within the context of the 18th century the Framers of the Constitution allowed for local restrictions on guns and bans on certain types of weapons.
Conservatives immediately cried foul.
In the comment section of the story as reported by The Blaze, conservative reaction to Scalia’s remarks ranged from stunned to outraged.
I think the lifetime tenure of U.S. Supreme Court Justices should really be examined by the Congress and the states. I realize there would need to be a Constitutional Amendment, but it is sorely needed.
Justices serving for life become isolated and are not held accountable to the voters from which their power is derived.
Besides the obvious SEIU union thuggery during the Obamacare debate, I see on today’s morning Obama News (NBC television) that the Obama Justice Department and Congress are ramping up the investigation of Karl Rove and Harriet Miers. Allegedly they were involved during the Bush Administration in the politicization of the United States Attorneys – particulary the firing of such in New Mexico.
Hello – the United States Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. Remember when Bill Clinton assumed the Presidency and on day one he fired ALL of the United States Attorneys?
I find it particularly interesting that in the Obama Administration Justice Department, the Black Panthers are receiving a “free ride” and that hater Karl Rove receives so much attention.
Is there any wonder why President Obama is sinking like a stone in the Presidential approval polls?
Looks like Judge Sonia Sotomayor has chosen her words poorly MANY TIMES. What great White House spin vetting, eh?
Her repeated use of the phrases “wise Latina woman” and “wise woman” would appear to undermine the Obama administration’s assertions that the statement was simply a poor choice of words. After details of the 1994 speech circulated before the questionnaire’s release, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, emerged from his private meeting with Sotomayor and expressed new concerns about the nominee’s “identity politics.”
Judge Sotomayor will have alot of explaining to do now with regards to racial and sexual preferences. Her speeches, writings, cases and life will be gone through with a fine-toothed comb.
During her confirmation hearings she will have to clearly articulate/prove that she is unbiased and will apply justice for all Americans – not just “Wise” “Latina” or “Women” ones.
Remember that some have maintained that it is Sotomayor’s supporters that may indeed “SPIN” her out of a job on the United States Supreme Court.
But, words DO matter.
President Barack Obama on Friday personally sought to deflect criticism about Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, who finds herself under intensifying scrutiny for saying in 2001 that a female Hispanic judge would often reach a better decision than a white male judge.
“I’m sure she would have restated it,” Obama flatly told NBC News, without indicating how he knew that.
The quote in question from Sotomayor has emerged as a rallying call for conservative critics who fear she will offer opinions from the bench based less on the rule of law and more on her life experience, ethnicity and gender. That debate is likely to play a central role in her Senate confirmation process.
Said Sotomayor in 2001: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
After three days of suggesting that reporters and critics should not dwell on one sentence from a speech, the White House had a different message Friday.
“I think if she had the speech to do all over again, I think she’d change that word,” presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters.
I am actually taken aback from the White House rushing to Judge Sotomayor’s defense. Her nomination appeared to be heading toward an easy confirmation with Republicans treading carefully around the issues of her Hispanic race and affirmative action.
Perhaps the White House noticed some softness in her polling.
Quinnipiac polling reports, “American voters approve 54 â€“ 24 percent, with 22 percent undecided, of President Barack Obamaâ€™s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court.”
I have no illusions that Sotomayor will not be approved by a majority of the Senate, barring some earth-shattering revelations, but doesn’t that 54 percent seem a little low? Obama’s job approval is in the mid-50s to the mid-60s; wouldn’t one expect that if you’re an Obama fan, you’re pretty much on board with the pick? Are there any pockets of Obama supporters who are wary or disappointed with this selection?
Flap’s antennae have now been raised.
Will some scandal drop this weekend?
Technorati Tags: Sonia Sotomayor
Judge Sonia Sotomayor speaking at Duke University Law School in 2005 – Appeals Court where Policy is Made
With Judge Sonia Sotomayor already facing questions over her 60 percent reversal rate, the Supreme Court could dump another problem into her lap next month if, as many legal analysts predict, the court overturns one of her rulings upholding a race-based employment decision.
Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed, providing a potent line of attack raised by opponents Tuesday after President Obama announced he will nominate the 54-year-old Hispanic woman to the high court.
“Her high reversal rate alone should be enough for us to pause and take a good look at her record. Frankly, it is the Senates duty to do so,” said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.
Judge Sotomayor will likely be confirmed by the U.S. Senate but make no mistake – She is a left-wing activist judge who will “MAKE LAW” from the bench.
Elections have consequences and the GOP will have the opportunity to use this appointment to campaign for more GOP Senators that would temper any further Obama appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Technorati Tags: Sonia Sotomayor
U.S. Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor (L) steps up to speak after U.S. President Barack Obama announced her as his choice of nomination for the Supreme Court justice, to replace retiring Justice David Souter in the East Room at the White House, May 26, 2009President Obama has made his first United States Supreme Court appointment.
President Barack Obama named federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor as the nation’s first Hispanic Supreme Court justice on Tuesday, praising her as “an inspiring woman” with both the intellect and compassion to interpret the Constitution wisely.
Obama said Sotomayor has more experience as a judge than any current member of the high court had when nominated, adding she has earned the “respect of colleagues on the bench,” the admiration of lawyers who appear in her court and “the adoration of her clerks.”
Elections have consequences and left-wing President Obama has chosen a left-wing appeals court judge for the highest court in the nation.
Unless there is a scandal, the Democrats have the votes to confirm her and the GOP will be hard pressed to oppose her nomination. All that is left to the GOP is a filibuster and the likelyhood of that happening is NIL.
But, Obama while he was in the Senate voted to filibuster Justice Alito saying their are NO rules. Maybe there will be some GOP payback here.
And, in order for the nomination to emerge from the Senate Judiciary Committee, there will need to be one GOP Senator to vote for her. The most automatic vote for Sotomayor would have been Senator Arlen Specter but he is no longer a Republican.
The Senate Democrats will spin Sotomayor as a moderate but she is not. However, she is replacing another left-leaning justice (Souter) so the balance of the court will be the same.
Stay tuned as the vetting process begins and don’t be surprised when her left-wing radical opinions see the light of day.
Supreme Court Justice David Souter speaks during a dedication ceremony at the State Supreme Courthouse in Concord, N.H, July 9, 2008Of course, Justice David Souter who was appointed by Republican President H.W. Bush and who has surprisingly aligned himself with the left-wing cabal on the U.S. Supreme Court decided to retire when a Democrat President, Barack Obama was elected.
NPR has learned that Supreme Court Justice David Souter is planning to retire at the end of the current court term.
The vacancy will give President Obama his first chance to name a member of the high court and begin to shape its future direction.
At 69, Souter is nowhere near the oldest member of the court. In fact he is in the younger half of the court’s age range with five justices older and just three younger. So far as anyone knows, he is in good health. But he has made clear to friends for some time that he wanted to leave Washington, a city he has never liked, and return to his native New Hampshire. Now, according to reliable sources he has decided to take the plunge and has informed the White House of his decision.
Factors in his decision no doubt include the election of President Obama, who would be more likely to appoint a successor attuned to the principles Souter has followed as a moderate-to-liberal member of the court’s more liberal bloc over the past two decades.
In addition, Souter was apparently satisfied than neither the court’s oldest member, 89-year-old John Paul Stevens, nor its lone woman, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who had cancer surgery over the winter, wanted to retire at the end of this term. Not wanting to cause a second vacancy, Souter apparently had waited to learn his colleague’s plans before deciding his own.
Justice Souter was a disappointment to conservatives and the fall-out over his choice by the first President Bush divided conservatives in his re-election bid which he lost to Bill Clinton.
Flap cannot help but think that this retirement, announced conveniently after Senator Arlen Specter’s switch to the Democrat Party is a poke in both President Bushs’ eyes and the GOP.
The philosophical balance of the court will most likely not change with President Obama’s appointment of a successor. By the way, with the Democrat super majority in the United States Senate, the GOP will have NO ability to give any meaningful advice and consent anyway.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, second left, stands with US Congress members Representative Jane Harman, left, Senator Jon Kyl, center, Representative Elton Gallegly, second right, and Senator Sam Brownback, during their meeting at the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, in Jerusalem, Monday, Feb. 18, 2008This bill which outlawed “animal crush” videos was overturned last year by a federal appeals court and was sponsored by Flap’s Congressman, Elton Gallegly. The United Sates Supreme Court today granted review of the case and will do so in the Fall Term of the court.
The Supreme Court will consider reviving a federal law banning the sale of images of animal cruelty. A federal appeals court said the law illegally restricts this form of free speech.
The justices said Monday that they will look at the decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia that also overturned the conviction of Robert Stevens of Pittsville, Va. In 2005, Stevens was convicted and sentenced to 37 months in prison for selling videos of pit bull fights.
The appeals court described one video as including a “gruesome depiction of a pit bull attacking the lower jaw of a domestic farm pig.”
The government says it has a “compelling interest in protecting animals from wanton acts of cruelty.”
The Humane Society of the United States, backing the government, says that the 1999 law played a critical role in stopping the spread of so-called crush videos that show women crushing to death small animals, often with their bare feet or high-heeled shoes.
The case will be argued in the fall.
The United States Supreme Court will decide whether there should be a new exception to the First amendment to apply to the portrayals of animal cruelty.
The new First Amendment case the Justices will be hearing next fall or winter involves the constitutionality of a 1999 federal law, passed by Congress in an attempt to curb animal cruelty. The en banc Third Circuit Court struck down the law as written, thus barring its use in any case no matter what the specific facts.
Although the law has been in effect for ten years, it was used for the first time to prosecute Robert J. Stevens of Pittsville, Va., for selling videotapes of fighting among dogs of the Pit Bull breed. He was convicted of three counts of violating the 1999 law, and was sentenced to 37 months in prison.
In nullifying the law, the Circuit Court refused to create a new exception to the First Amendment to apply to portrayals of animal cruelty. It noted that the Supreme Court â€œlast declared an entire category of speech unprotectedâ€ by the Amendment in 1982 (in New York v. Ferber, involving child pornography). The Circuit Court rejected a government argument that the depiction of animal cruelty was analogous to the depiction of child pornography.
In taking the case on to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department argued that the 1999 law is narrow in scope, applying only to a â€œparticularly harmful class of speech,â€ only when that is done for commercial gain, and only when the particular depiction has â€œno serious societal value.â€
It may be a close call for the court, but Flap does not really see any societal value in permitting animal cruelty or “animal crush” videos. As long as the decision is narrow, there should be no danger to our constitutionally protected free speech.
Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada)Harry Reid just now discovers that Chief Justice John Roberts is a conservative. So, Reid calls him a LIAR.
This ain’t going to help Reid’s run for re-election in 2010 where the Nevada economy is suffering big time.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg speaks to students at New England Law School in Boston Friday, March 13, 2009. Ginsburg said advice and camaraderie from her fellow justices have helped her in her fight against pancreatic cancer. The 75-year-old had surgery last month to remove a small malignant tumor but returned to the bench without missing a day of work.United States Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg hinted today that there may be soon a vacancy on the nation’s highest court.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told law students there could be an opening on the Supreme Court soon but didn’t hint at who might be leaving.
Ginsburg spoke Friday at New England Law’s annual “Law Day.”
In a question-and-answer session, she said the nine justices only take pictures together when a new member is added. She said: “We haven’t had any of those for some time, but surely we will soon.”
Of course, it depends upon the definition of soon. But, Justice Ginsburg is recovering from pancreatic cancer, undergoing chemotherapy and could possibly be contemplating retirement. She is 75.
Politically, Ginsburg one of the most left-leaning Justices could be reassured that President Obama could appoint and obtain confirmation from another committed “Traveller” since the Democrat Party enjoys a near veto proof majority in the United States Senate. This could change in 2010 – so a window of opportunity may exist now.