NOVATOWNHALL

A very frightening Rasmussen poll says that, “60% of Voters Say Supreme Court Should Base Rulings on Constitution.”

What the H-E-double-hockey-sticks do the other 40% think the Supreme Court should base its rulings on?  That 40% must be Democrats.

Sometimes, bad is just bad. Shooting up a church, for instance. Anyone arguing there is a political angle on this which should be taken seriously is missing the forest for the trees.

Politicizing evil, in the grand scheme of things, diminishes it. Nobody even mildly respectable from the left or right would even stoop to argue the righteousness of murder - in a church no less.

David Waters makes the case well in the Post:

Obviously, there was a lot more going on inside the Knoxville shooter’s head, heart and soul than hatred of liberals. Police said his ex-wife once was a member of that church, that he was having trouble finding a job, and that his food stamps had been cut.

Angry, hateful and deranged people kill Amish school girls and Virginia college students and shoppers at a Nebraska mall. They kill Christians, Jews and Muslims, atheists and humanists, conservative and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, unitarians and trinitarians.

But there’s a whole lotta ugly out there, coming at us from a never-ending parade of stupid. It doesn’t need any encouragement.

“Encouragement” in my view consists in redefining deviancy as politics, which even the intelligent among us are prone to do. Blaming this blog for a shooting in Tennessee, for instance. It just goes to show how twisted people’s perceptions can get.

[Guest post by Nan of American Daughter]

While our entire nation feels the blight of illegal immigration, the severest impact occurs in the states along our border with Mexico. So the San Diego Minutemen organized with a mission “to demand maximum border security and immigration enforcement both locally and at the national level.”

As one of their activities, they “adopted” Interstate 5, near the Border Patrol’s San Clemente checkpoint. Under the Adopt-A-Highway Program, businesses and other organizations can provide financial support for trash collection and beautification along a segment of main highway, in return for one “recognition” sign along that stretch of road. This picture shows Jeff Schwilk, founder of the San Diego Minutemen, standing under their sign.

As geography would have it, their sign was in an ideal position to be seen by illegal aliens sneaking into the United States from the southern border along the Interstate 5 corridor. So the militant advocacy groups supporting illegal immigration pressured the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) to remove the sign, citing “safety concerns.” Cowed by the powerful Latino Caucus, CALTRANS caved and removed the sign to a sparsely travelled stretch of California 52 — that is, from a busy Interstate to a remote state road.

The San Diego Minutemen sued in federal court, on the basis that their free speech rights had been violated. As their attorney, they selected Howard Kaloogian, a former California state legislator and an accomplished activist who had led the successful effort to recall former California governor Gray Davis. Last month, a federal judge ruled in their favor, and directed CALTRANS to restore the sign to its former position.

Yesterday, the sign was put back up in the original location. In a prepared statement, Jeff Schwilk said:

Twenty-eight days after a Federal Judge ruled that Caltrans did “irreparable harm” to the Constitutional rights of the San Diego Minutemen by unlawfully revoking our legal adopt-a-highway permit, thereby squelching our free speech, Caltrans finally put our sign back up….

Congratulations to these folk are in order, and to all the citizens in battles large and small across the country, who expend their own time and resources to preserve the rights that our founding fathers fought for. Our federal government should be fighting these battles for us, but since it has “dropped the ball” on matters of illegal immigration, it falls to ordinary citizens to preserve our country.

In an earlier post, I lament the impending demise of “Western Civilization.”  Gadfly “Sanity” suggests that, to keep that from happening, we should, “commit to freedom (yay SCOTUS!).”  I can only assume that he was referring to the SCOTUS  decision to allow Gitmo detainees to file habeas corpus writs in federal court.

Viscerally, I do not like the decision.  As far as I’m concerned, terrorists have no rights.  The problem is, who are the terrorists?  Is there no chance at all that someone at Gitmo is wrongly imprisoned?  That is the whole point of a habeas petition.  When a soldier is captured in uniform, it is clear that he is a soldier of the enemy.  But without a uniform…?

The problem is, where are the witnesses?  Are we going to call soldiers back from Iraq and Afghanistan to testify?  Well, Congress is going to have to go back to work and answer that question.  Even so, we are not fighting WWII-style, in which soldiers did only one tour of duty.  We rotate our soldiers now, and they can testify when they are home.

So while I do not really like the decision, I think it is the right one.

You will have to forgive me for this.  I usually don’t have links because I don’t know HOW to link.  I also refuse to violate term agreements by reproducing without permission.  So, as usual, this is a “seek and ye shall find” article unless one of my brave brethern want to pony up with an edit HERE! 

Todays Post-anything has a banner headline: “California Supreme Court Strikes Bans on Same-Sex Marraige”.  Now you may think this another piece on homosexuality but really, Jonathan, it is not.  This is purely the subversion of power by our political “leaders” holding office.

“The 4-3 ruling opened the way for the nation’s most populous state to join Massachusetts in allowing partners of the same sex to marry.  The court’s order becomes final in 30 days, and it told county clerks and registrars to prepare.

Marraige is a “basic civil right” guaranteed to all Californians, “whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples,” Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote in a 121-page ruling.”

I will agree with his statement here.  ANYTHING in California is a basic civil right for those people.  This is the part that gets me:

“Before (read that word carefully…..BEFORE…) the ruling, a conservative coalition submitted more than 1 MILLION signatures to place a constitutional (state) amendment banning same-sex marraige on the November ballot.

…..from California’s Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed legislation that would have allowed same-sex marraiges.  “I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling,” (and this is when he should have shut-up but NO-O-O-O-O-O) he said in a statement. “…I WILL NOT (3 very important words) support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”

Understand this.  The court upholds the constitution as they interpret its meaning (and this is California) which is what courts do.  The correct procedure for changing the constitution is being followed by having a vote for an amendment to this document.  This is the people’s will.  This is what changes  the law that the courts are now obligied to honor and follow.  And this knucklehead that wants to be the first foreign-born President of these here United States (yes, he had to pass the immigrants test-must have graded on a curve) is willing to NULLIFY the will of the people and SUBVERT the mechanisms of the office.  If nothing else, this is why you NEVER, EVER marry a liberal.  I think it will be shown that Arnold is WAY out-of-bounds here for having a lack of knowledge as well as just crapping on this counrty.  Another case for secession in my book. 

This article in the local paper of record reminds why the U.S. Supreme Court is about to provide the hottest popular discussion of judicial issues in years:

So hot, that court administrators already have agreed to release audiotapes of the seminal Second Amendment case, practically the moment the justices adjourn after what promises to be a lively debate about what the Founding Fathers were thinking more than 200 years ago with respect to the rights of individual Americans to possess firearms.

A lot of people who don’t follow the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) on a regular basis will be paying extraordinarily close attention to DC v Heller because the Court’s decision will have an impact on firearms laws throughout the country. If you live in Virginia, you are mighty interested in whether you can accidentally take a wrong turn off the GW Parkway with a gun in the car and not commit a felony. If you live in DC or New Jersey or a number of other states, you are interested in whether you might eventually be allowed to defend yourself with the same level of force the criminals have.

The NRA and other 2nd Amendment advocacy organizations will be promoting the news on this issue heavily, which will resonate around the country.

But perhaps the most immediate beneficiary of the controversy which begins next week will be John McCain, the Republican nominee for president. Because no matter how or whether the Supreme Court rules, voters will be reminded of the Supreme Court’s significance.

By extension, they will be reminded of the president’s significance in offering Supreme Court nominations in the case of vacancies, which could very well be two during the next president’s term in office.

As friend and NVTH visitor G. Stone reminded me, if you are thinking of working against McCain, be sure to think about the types of Supreme Court justices a President Obama or Clinton would offer up. Although McCain is not the best public official on the 2nd Amendment by a long shot (a refrain that would apply to him on a large number of issues) he is head and shoulders above the two Democrats.

This advice is what influenced me to mostly shut up about the presidential election this year and lay off my budding Lou Dobbs hagiography. In my case, “supporting John McCain” means “not running John McCain into the ground at every possible chance,” so the SCOTUS issue made me a “supporter.” Plus providing occasional links like this.

And obviously, on a host of other vital issues that could come up before the Supreme Court, among this troika of presidential candidates the best hope for nominating good judges - however dubious it may be - is definitely John McCain.

If the McCain camp is smart, they will be publicizing the heck out of the Supreme Court’s DC v Heller proceedings and all related media stories beginning approximately now.

Regardless of which way the democrats decide, it looks very much like McCain will be the Republican. I’d rather have a true conservative, but is he “good enough” on a large enough set of issues?

I visited his website, and looked at some of the issues:

Abortion — he says he believes Roe v. Wade was wrong, and does not believe the courts should rule by judicial fiat. — a plus

2nd Amendment — signed the Congressional Amicus brief that asks the court to let the lower court ruling stand (the right to bear arms is an individual right). a plus

Health care — seems to support a nationalization of health care. a minus

Taxes — seems to have a principle of low taxes, but has a lot of programs that would require taxes. semi-neutral.

Iraq — believes we can “win” whatever that means, but it would require additional forces. Not sure what to do with this. neutral

“human dignity” (his website’s words, not mine). He seems to have reasonably conservative ideas (protection of children from porn, stem cell research should not be government funded, marriage is “one man, one woman”. I’d have to give him a plus.

Defense (not immigration) — strong on military. a plus

Immigration — too conciliatory to those already here illegal. a minus

Environment — appears to have bought into global warming as a fact rather than a theory that is hotly (pun intended) debated. a minus

Overall, he is just better than worse (he has an overall plus of one issue).