So, the Калифорния legislature passed a bill restricting government surveillance with drones. Gov. “Moonbeam” Brown vetoed it.
Check out the stupidity:
Brown said in a statement that the bill appears to be too narrow and could go beyond what the state and federal constitutions would prohibit.
“There are undoubtedly circumstances where a warrant is appropriate,” he wrote. “The bill’s exceptions, however, appear to be too narrow and could impose requirements beyond what is required by either the 4th Amendment or the privacy provisions in the California Constitution.”
Uh, Guvn’r, if the bill didn’t put tighter restrictions on your misuse of drones than the U.S. and Калифорния Constitutions require, there would be NO DAMNED POINT TO THE BILL AT ALL.
Nice quote above from my good friend William Adama…
This article (click here to read it), written by a retired Lt Colonel whose son was killed by police, makes a good case on why we really need to rethink how law enforcement engages the public. They have a useful and necessary job to do, but the author points out that LE has simply become too militarized. He writes:
Our country is simply not paying enough attention to the terrible lack of accountability of police departments and the way it affects all of us—regardless of race or ethnicity. Because if a blond-haired, blue-eyed boy — that was my son, Michael — can be shot in the head under a street light with his hands cuffed behind his back, in front of five eyewitnesses (including his mother and sister), and his father was a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who flew in three wars for his country — that’s me — and I still couldn’t get anything done about it, then Joe the plumber and Javier the roofer aren’t going to be able to do anything about it either.
While we certainly do not want to throw the baby out with the bath water on this, many of us believe that it is time to re-evaluate law enforcement as it interacts with free society. This should certainly not be viewed as an indictment against all police officers – the vast majority of them are fine and honorable community servants. But like any career, it must be evaluated and changed in keeping with our times. (As a side note, perhaps it would help a bit if our elected ‘elite’ would stop passing so many laws that need to be “enforced”)
I personally do not want to see law enforcement officers with .50 caliber machine guns mounted on turrets and other military hardware rolling on our streets. We only need to see these types of weapons in our communities if we are under attack by some outside invasion force. As we continue our unfortunate descent into a low trust society I fear that we will only see the polar opposite of my wishes.
I recognize that law enforcement is a very stressful job, but those who chose it did so willingly. And just as we expect teachers, doctors, pilots and others to do their jobs in a professional manner at all times, we should have the same expectation of law enforcement. Law enforcement keeps the law just like we’re supposed to do. Law enforcement does not rule the people.
Read the Lt Colonel’s entire article here.
Oh, yes, the time is long overdue to have term limits on Congress and judges. Why would we only limit the Executive Branch without having the same constraints on the Legislative and Judicial branches? Why indeed. It appears that the need of limits is really making its case known in these modern times. You see, politics is a “scratch your back, you scratch mine” type of forum. Unfortunately, bias does not belong in any of these branches and when the party trumps the people, the system is surely broken. Case in point is the recent decision on subsidies for ObamaCare sign-ups.
It appears that two conflicting court decisions are at issue: the U.S. District Court (just below the Supreme Court) where a 2-1 decision was handed down stating that subsidies could only be given through state exchanges. By the way; this court had 4 Obama judge appointments placed after Harry Reid invoked the nuclear option in the Senate. The other court, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ( which is supposedly equal to the District Court ) held that the subsides could be granted by HealthCare.gov. What the 4th based there opinion (why would they have an opinion and not a sound ruling?) on is that Congress (read Dems ONLY) had the INTENT to make subsides available for all. Unfortunately, that is not what the law READS.
Here is my beef. We are no longer a nation ruled BY LAW. We have become a nation ruled by the intent of someone’s opinion of how they interpret the meaning of someone else’s thought. Words use to have meaning but, if you read this site enough, you will realize that Dems/liberals don’t use definitive definitions but, rather, however something should be interpreted at the time (which seems to change as constantly as wind direction). So it appears that all branches of government have been corrupted and no longer seem to function as their assigned duties prescribe. An old joke: “What do you call 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?” Answer: “A good start!” Don’t get me wrong; lawyers were a needed and noble profession once. Anymore it is a stepping stone for self glorification. It has become corrupted in too many ways and lawyers are ever mindful of side-stepping the rule of law and perverting it. This isn’t the entire profession but a good portion of it. It seems that those same lawyers become judges…..with political ideology and leanings, where law is NOW being made instead of interpreted AS WRITTEN. There is no separation of powers anymore because we no longer have checks and balances as established by the Constitution. Since lawyers won’t clean up their own house, term limits, review boards for misconduct and dismissals are our next line of defense.
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.
Of course as many of you have heard, our new Attorney General, Mark Herring, has announced that he will work to overturn the Virginia state law banning same sex marriages.
I have stated here on this board in the comments that I feel that rather than the states continuing to attempt to define “marriage” (which is becoming more legally amorphous) they should simply get out of the business of “marriage” altogether and allow individual couples or even groups to define it for themselves, according to their religion and whatever god they believe in (or don’t believe in). The states should only concern themselves with the contracts between the parties for the purpose of distributing property in the event of the death of one or both parties and/or dissolution of the contract (i.e., “divorce”).
Same sex marriage will at some point (probably relatively soon) be declared to be legal in all 50 states via incorporation. The next legal challenge will be polyamory, and using the same logic as gay marriage, I foresee no legal restriction on that either. Traditional marriage advocates can scream all they want about the issue, but the toothpaste can not be put back into the tube. So the best way to move forward is for the state to get out of the business of blessing marriages.
Now it appears that a state lawmaker in Oklahoma is proposing a bill to do just that. This first round will probably not be successful, but I predict that it will happen – probably in a Southern state – after some national debate on the matter. Once it happens in one state, many others will follow suit.
I am amazed that the ACLU rep, quoted in the article actually disagreed with this potential proposal. That is strange because it seems like a win-win to me. Those who want to define marriage as they see fit (same sex, polygamous, polyandrous, or whatever) can do so while those with traditional views on marriage can also continue to preach what they believe as well. Both can follow their own beliefs without the blessing or the curse of the government. Private differences will no longer be policy disputes and no one is enforcing their moral views on the other.
It’s the only way forward.