novatownhall blog

Where you are held accountable for your convictions and record

Browsing Posts in Judiciary

Yes, the left is going bonkers for Ginsberg’s “blistering” dissent from the Supreme Court majority’s ruling in Burwell v Hobby Lobby.

Let’s take those “8 Best Lines” seriatim:

Ginsburg wrote that her five male colleagues, “in a decision of startling breadth,” would allow corporations to opt out of almost any law that they find “incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

The first thing to note is that Dana Liebelson does not consider Justice Breyer male. Interesting. Maybe she knows something we don’t.

But be that as it may, if such laws are incompatible with sincerely held religious beliefs, then they are clearly in violation of the First Amendment unless they protect the rights of others, and should be overturned by the Court. But then, the requirement from which Hobby Lobby and Conestoga won relief is NOT A LAW. It is merely a REGULATION written by a nameless bureaucrat. Also, the regulation does not protect anyone’s rights — the employees of these companies can still obtain the abortifacients they desire.

The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage.

Those women obviously have jobs, or this would not be an issue. Therefore, they can pay for them themselves.

Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community.

Irrelevant — they can go work for someone else if they do not like their employer’s benefits package.

Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby’s or Conestoga’s plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman’s autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults.

In which case, it should be her autonomous PAYMENT, too. If you want to choose the tune, you can choose to pay the piper.

It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month’s full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage.

No, it really doesn’t “bear note”. If one cannot afford an IUD, one can choose to use other forms of birth control. Or, choose not to have vaginal sex.

Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision.

Sure. Why not? Again — if you don’t like it, get another job.

Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be ‘perceived as favoring one religion over another,’ the very ‘risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.

Well, that’s easy — just approve them all. Duh.

The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield.

No — it is the legislature (in passing the law in the first place) that planted the mines, and the executive branch (in writing such heinous regulations) that is going for a stroll therein. They deserve to have it blow up in their faces.

The Supremes yesterday heard oral arguments in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning.

In short, the Constitution gives the President the Power to fill Vacancies “that may happen during the Recess of the Senate”:

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. (Article II, Section 2)

The vacancies in question did NOT happen during a Recess of the Senate, so the recess appointments were unconstitutional.

That past presidents have made similar appointments is irrelevant to the case.  That no-one challenged this unconstitutional practice merely means they wanted their side to be able to do it, too.  By restoring the Recess Appointment power to its proper scope, perhaps presidents will nominate palatable nominees and maybe actually seek the advise of the Senate before asking its consent.

I think the SCOTUS got this ruling both right and wrong. You can’t exert extra binding laws, on top of federal laws, if you are a state. By the same token, states have no powers when federal law is deficient. In comes the Constitution for clarification yet it is ignored with its intent.

I picked this article purposefully for the context, opinion and comments. It highlights every place you need to go. Place close attention to “oath” (which “yes” or “no” is neither) and the dissenting comments of Thomas and Alito. Then pick your side. I think it interesting that the ruling comes right before immigration reform is about completed in the Senate. The “free for all” in the U.S. is about to take on a whole new look.

No, not Dianna Ross and the girls, the other Supremes. There is a good opinion piece from an individual who seems to have the credentials but mostly states exactly what I believe, so he can’t be all bad. The opinion piece deals with the high court NOT deciding on social issues which are not inclusive of the Constitution (Roe was another blunder) but which belong solely to the States. With this I cannot disagree. It appears the only reason these suits are brought up into litigation is a “feel good” factor. Feeling good seems to be the driver for most things in this day and age. The Constitutional “catch-all” appears to be under the heading of equality for all. Things will never be equal for all nor should they ever be. States having differences as do most countries. The object is to find the one that best fits your needs and lifestyle instead of trying to inflict your sense of uniformity on everyone through litigation. I would be miffed if the outcome was any different then this man predicts. We’ll soon see.

The Supreme Court ruling today on Obamacare is a first in many ways, but the most critical one will probably be overlooked by most people. In the decision, for the first time ever, the Supreme Court has overturned it’s own decision in the same decision.

That’s right, in this decision, the Supremes first rule that the penalty for not buying health insurance is not a tax, so the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply and they can rule on it. Then they overturn themselves and say that it is a tax, not a penalty, so it is constitutional.

I guess it depends on what the meaning of is is.

Addendum: I must say that National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, in the unprecedented move of overruling itself, can only be compared to Helvering v. Davis, which relied on the “precedent” set in Stewart Machine Co. v. Davis, which the Court ruled on the same day!

Since this seemed rather banal and obvious to me, I did not post on it earlier.  However, the Lies of the Left must be answered.

The background is that a candidate for judgeship who is a practicing homosexual was voted down.  The Washington Post makes this erroneous comparison of him versus other candidates who were chosen:

RICHMOND — Guns, gays and organized labor.Three outspoken champions of these hot-button issues in Virginia were on the list of people the General Assembly planned to appoint as judges this week.

The gun-rights guy, a former Republican state delegate who has pushed for lifting restrictions on concealed weapons in public buildings, got his judgeship. So did the pro-union Democrat, another former delegate, whose grandfather organized coal miners in Southwest Virginia.

But not the Richmond prosecutor who challenged the military’s now-defunct “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, has advocated for gay marriage and is raising twins with his partner.

The comparison is erroneous because the two who won were not advocating for immorality, nor were they openly engaging in such immorality and demanding that people accept it as “normal.”

It is not about his being gay, but about his actionsBeing gay is no more immoral that being straight.  Having homosexual relations, however, is as immoral as committing adultery or incest.  I would not want a judge who openly sleeps with another man’s wife, and demands that we accept that as “normal.”  Neither would I want a judge who “married” his own sister, and demands that we accept that as “normal.”

This lawyers life is based on immorality, and he should not be a judge.  I thank God for giving our elected officials the strength to resist the politically correct immorality.

And while we’re at it, kudos to North Carolina for their newly-adopted Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex unions.

It took some time for the original 13 states to ratify the Constitution.  They all had different amendments and rights proposals.  They all agreed on the final outcome WITH states rights in mind–those powers not directly delegated to the US government.  Since that time we have had rescinded habeas cprpus twice; invaded sovereign states without cause; created illegal entitlements; condoned murder as well as other issues.

DOMA was passed by Congress and signed into law by Clinton.  It is a law and not an Amendment.  It is defensible because it hasn’t been deemed unconstitutional…..until Obama.  Without trial or discussion it was automatically deemed INdefensible.  Remember, passed by Congress.  As a precedence, California passed Proposition 8.  How did they do it?  By the only way it could happen and be ironclad.  They had the PEOPLE decide by vote and created the law……the will of the people….  Now the federal government-judiciary-has deemed it UNconstitutional because of how the justices read “the living Constitution.

Obama has dictated mandated that ALL religious groups and organizations will abide by and provide any type of contraception to women AND have it fee free.  The 1st Amendment just got crushed and the Puritans should have stayed in Anglo Europe.  How did this happen being UNconstitutional and all?  The problem lies here.  That is SCOTUS Justice Ginsburg just waking from her nap talking about other constitutions being better than ours.  BETTER because ours is the oldest working constitution.  That means where others have failed, we keep ticking on BECAUSE of the constitution and despite what justices and politicians try to do TO it.

What you have read above are nothing but examples to strike at this point:  when does the Constitution count and what happened to the power of the states and the people?  I have said this before and everyone gets upset and THINKS the best course of action is the ballot box.  Ron Paul is correct in his understanding of our rights being trampled and diminished…continually.  It ain’t getting better and it ain’t being stopped.  The non-violent way to say ” I’ve had enough! ” is to have the state put on the ballot to opt out of the US Constitution or even out of the US.  Gaining independence is what this nation was founded on and the Constitution was created to cradle that cause forward.  We are losing our freedoms and need to stop the blood loss here and now.  If you wait, it can only get worse with time. Mark my words.  Freedom has a price and American Express Platinum can’t even buy it now.