The following analysis written by Matthew Vadum is one of the most comprehensive analyses available. At the end I have offered additional links related to the Ninth Circuit's ruling. Vadum writes:
Three unelected federal judges in San Francisco yesterday ordered the Trump administration to continue accepting visitors and would-be immigrants from seven dangerous countries that are incubators of Muslim terrorism.
When President Trump learned his temporary ban on the admission of aliens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen that was put on hold Feb. 3 by Seattle-based Judge James L. Robart would continue in abeyance, he got on Twitter immediately.
At 6:35 p.m. Eastern time he tweeted in all caps: “SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!”
The open-borders crowd doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on. That may be why at a press conference celebrating the outrageous ruling, a member of Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson’s (D) team deployed the phrase “social justice” to justify the decision. “Social justice” is a magical amulet that nullifies anything the Left doesn’t like, including the president’s executive order. Its very invocation is an admission that a cause is illegitimate and un-American.
The Ninth Circuit’s fairy dust-based decision is “an intellectually dishonest piece of work,” said retired Judge Andrew Napolitano.
A group of prominent Christian leaders is issuing a warning to the U.S. Supreme Court. If it makes gay marriage the law of the land, they will not obey.
The news comes as the high court is preparing to make a decision on same-sex marriage.
Two big questions are being considered: First, do same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry? Second, if they do not, must states with marriage bans recognize same-sex marriage licenses from other states?
"As of today, only 11 states have chosen to enact same-sex marriage. But if the Supreme Court says it's a constitutional right, we'll have it in all 50," Brad Jacob, associated professor at the Regent University School of Law, told CBN News.
"That means 39 states will have the will of the people overturned," he said.
In a document titled, "Pledge in Solidarity to Defend Marriage," Christian leaders say they will continue to defend traditional marriage, even if it means civil disobedience.
And yet the advertisers on MSNBC are all major corporate sponsors — as opposed to the advertisers on Fox News, which in large part are smaller businesses, despite the channel's high ratings.
Leftist garbage is saleable and acceptable in a world dominated by conservatives who refuse to fight back. The media portray Fox News and MSNBC as mirror images of one another, but that's clearly false — the lineup of Fox News has nothing like the disgusting material regularly emanating from MSNBC. But Fox News is the channel regularly subjected to boycotts. - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/commentary/ben-shapiro/leftist-garbage-msnbc#sthash.AQdfqajB.dpuf
And yet the advertisers on MSNBC are all major corporate sponsors — as opposed to the advertisers on Fox News, which in large part are smaller businesses, despite the channel's high ratings.
Leftist garbage is saleable and acceptable in a world dominated by conservatives who refuse to fight back. The media portray Fox News and MSNBC as mirror images of one another, but that's clearly false — the lineup of Fox News has nothing like the disgusting material regularly emanating from MSNBC. But Fox News is the channel regularly subjected to boycotts. - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/commentary/ben-shapiro/leftist-garbage-msnbc#sthash.AQdfqajB.dpuf
And yet the advertisers on MSNBC are all major corporate sponsors — as opposed to the advertisers on Fox News, which in large part are smaller businesses, despite the channel's high ratings.
Leftist garbage is saleable and acceptable in a world dominated by conservatives who refuse to fight back. The media portray Fox News and MSNBC as mirror images of one another, but that's clearly false — the lineup of Fox News has nothing like the disgusting material regularly emanating from MSNBC. But Fox News is the channel regularly subjected to boycotts. - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/commentary/ben-shapiro/leftist-garbage-msnbc#sthash.AQdfqajB.dpuf
nd yet the advertisers on MSNBC are all major corporate sponsors — as opposed to the advertisers on Fox News, which in large part are smaller businesses, despite the channel's high ratings.
Leftist garbage is saleable and acceptable in a world dominated by conservatives who refuse to fight back. The media portray Fox News and MSNBC as mirror images of one another, but that's clearly false — the lineup of Fox News has nothing like the disgusting material regularly emanating from MSNBC. But Fox News is the channel regularly subjected to boycotts. - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/commentary/ben-shapiro/leftist-garbage-msnbc#sthash.AQdfqajB.dpuf
nd yet the advertisers on MSNBC are all major corporate sponsors — as opposed to the advertisers on Fox News, which in large part are smaller businesses, despite the channel's high ratings.
Leftist garbage is saleable and acceptable in a world dominated by conservatives who refuse to fight back. The media portray Fox News and MSNBC as mirror images of one another, but that's clearly false — the lineup of Fox News has nothing like the disgusting material regularly emanating from MSNBC. But Fox News is the channel regularly subjected to boycotts. - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/commentary/ben-shapiro/leftist-garbage-msnbc#sthash.AQdfqajB.dpuf
nd yet the advertisers on MSNBC are all major corporate sponsors — as opposed to the advertisers on Fox News, which in large part are smaller businesses, despite the channel's high ratings.
Leftist garbage is saleable and acceptable in a world dominated by conservatives who refuse to fight back. The media portray Fox News and MSNBC as mirror images of one another, but that's clearly false — the lineup of Fox News has nothing like the disgusting material regularly emanating from MSNBC. But Fox News is the channel regularly subjected to boycotts. - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/commentary/ben-shapiro/leftist-garbage-msnbc#sthash.AQdfqajB.dpuf
I consider Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas a great man, and Ken Klukowski's article offers a superb window into Thomas' mind and heart:
When asked last week how he ended upon the Supreme Court of the united States, Justic Clarence Thomas said, 'It was totally Forrest Gump,' in a revealing--and hilarious-on-stage interview at last week's Federalist Society Natinal lawyers Convention.
This full-length interview was a window into the soul of America’s most conservative High Court justice—whose remarks on Gettysburg could not draw a more stark contrast with President Barack Obama.
Thomas was the keynote speaker at last week’s annual gathering of the brightest conservative legal stars in America. He sat down opposite Judge Diane Sykes of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. While constitutional conservatives would love to see Sykes—one of the finest judges in the nation—elevated to the Supreme Court herself one day, most are unaware that before she was a judge, Sykes actually earned a college degree in journalism. And it showed, as she conducted a fascinating interview that showed people a side of Thomas rarely seen by anyone except his close friends.
Sykes took Thomas through his childhood years, where he and his brother were raised in Pin Point, Georgia, until age seven by his mother (his father had abandoned them), until she could no longer provide for them and sent them to Savannah to be raised by their grandparents.
As he discusses in his candid memoir, My Grandfather’s Son, Thomas was raised in extreme poverty, in a house with no running water and only a single electrical light. Yet he considered his life idyllic, not even knowing the standard of living that many Americans enjoyed by comparison.
Speaking of the courts, President Obama is trying to add to his with
one of the most liberal judicial activists the nation has ever seen.
Cornelia "Nina" Pillard, the White House's pick for the second most
powerful court in the country, the D.C. Circuit Court, could be on the
Senate floor for confirmation as early as next week. How dangerous is
Pillard? Ed Whalen of NRO's Bench Memos describes her as "less moderate"
than the most activist liberal in appellate court history. Apart from
calling abstinence education "unconstitutional," the former Deputy
Assistant Attorney General argues that abortion is necessary to help
"free women from historically routine conscription into maternity."
As if her militant feminism wasn't apparent enough, she takes the
opportunity in some of her writings to slam anyone who opposes the
abortion-contraception mandate as "reinforce[ing] broader patterns of
discrimination against women as a class of presumptive breeders."
Just as shocking, Pillard has lashed out at ultrasound technology as
"deceptive" and manipulative. Interestingly enough, the Senate is
considering Pillard's nomination at the same time as Senate Republicans
are circulating a bill to reduce the number of justices on the D.C.
court by three.
Considered by many to be a stepping-stone to the Supreme Court, the D.C.
Circuit Court is routinely criticized for retaining so many judges with
such a light caseload. America can't afford to give a lifetime
appointment to a radical ideologue! Contact your senators and urge them to vote no on Nina Pillard.
Tim Grieve reports in the National Journal: (HT: Drudge)
"Dissenting from this morning's opinion on the Defense of Marriage
Act, Justice Antonin Scalia – as expected – holds nothing back.
In a ripping dissent, Scalia says that Justice Anthony Kennedy and
his colleagues in the majority have resorted to calling opponents of gay
marriage "enemies of the human race."
But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or
humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to
defend the Constitution of the United States is to con- demn, demean, or
humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually
demeans this institution. In the majority's judgment, any resistance to
its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its
high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act
(the majority is sure) with the purpose to "dis- parage," "injure,"
"degrade," "demean," and "humiliate" our fellow human beings, our fellow
citizens, who are homo- sexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act
that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been
unquestioned in our society for most of its existence— indeed, had been
unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human
history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another
for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it
hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.
Scalia says that the court's holding – while limited to the Defense
of Marriage Act – is a sure sign that the majority is willing to declare
gay marriage a constitutional right.
It takes real cheek for today's majority to assure us, as it is
going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal
recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here—when what has
preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority's
moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress's
hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing
that will "confine" the Court's holding is its sense of what it can get
away with.
And, he says, the holding will short circuit the debate over gay marriage that should have been carried out in the states.
In the majority's telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate
your neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated. It
is hard to admit that one's political opponents are not monsters,
especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end
proves more than today's Court can handle. Too bad. A reminder that
disagreement over something so fundamental as marriage can still be
politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier
times was called the judicial temperament. We might have covered
ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that
it was theirs to settle and that we would respect their resolution. We
might have let the People decide.
But that the majority will not do. Some will rejoice in today's
decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a
controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated
both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of
the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better. I
dissent.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty released the following encouraging press release:
For Immediate Release: March 29, 2013 Media Contact: Jeff Gasser, [email protected], (202) 349-7201
WASHINGTON, DC – On Friday, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals granted Hobby Lobby’s petition for en banc hearing, agreeing to place Hobby Lobby’s appeal before the entire court rather than the usual three-judge panel. The full court will consider whether to halt enforcement of the HHS mandate, which forces Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a Christian-owned-and-operated business, to provide and pay for emergency contraceptives, such as the “morning-after pill” and “week-after pill”, in violation of the religious beliefs of its owners, the Green family. The court also announced it will expedite oral arguments, with a hearing date expected soon.
“We are grateful that the court granted Hobby Lobby’s petition,” said Kyle Duncan, General Counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. “Full court review is reserved only for the most serious legal questions. This case asks whether the First Amendment protects everyone’s right to religious freedom, or whether it leaves out religious business owners like the Greens.”
In December, a two-judge panel of the 10th Circuit denied Hobby Lobby’s request to temporarily stop enforcement of the abortion pill mandate. Now, nine 10th Circuit judges will hear Hobby Lobby’s case. Arguments are expected to take place this Spring.
There are now 52 separate lawsuits challenging the HHS mandate, which is a regulation under the Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”). The Becket Fund led the charge against the unconstitutional HHS mandate, and along with Hobby Lobby represents: Wheaton College, East Texas Baptist University, Houston Baptist University, Belmont Abbey College, Colorado Christian University, the Eternal Word Television Network and Ave Maria University.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions—from Anglicans to Zoroastrians. For 18 years itsattorneys are recognized as experts in the field of church-state law. For more information or to arrange an interview with an attorney, please contact Jeff Gasser, Communications Associate, at [email protected], or call 202.349.7201.
Why not? It sounds like a great book to me! Peter Landers writes in the Wall Street JournalLaw Blog,
Justice Antonin Scalia would like people to buy his new book—a
“significant” once-in-a-century work, in his view—but even before that,
he thinks there are two works every American should read.
The two are the “Federalist Papers,” the 1787-88 defense of the
Constitution written mostly by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, and
Alexis de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America,” said the justice in a
weekend appearance at the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group
holding its annual Washington meeting. . .
Later, when asked what books every American should read, he pronounced it a “disgrace” that so few people are familiar with the Federalist Papers.
It’s not good enough to read just the famous installments like No. 48,
in which Madison warned against the legislature “drawing all power into
its impetuous vortex,” Justice Scalia said; one must read the work cover
to cover.
Those still left with time on their hands may wish to purchase
“Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts,” by Justice Scalia and
Bryan A. Garner, a 567-page tome that lists for $49.95.
The justice said his book, described in this July WSJ article by
Jess Bravin, was the first in 100 years comprehensively to gather
common-sense canons for interpreting the words of state and federal
laws. He contrasted it with the touchy-feely methods of his liberal
antagonists.
“You have no idea how crazy modern academic writing is,” he said. “You wouldn’t believe it if it wasn’t in books.”
The Right needs to stop kidding itself that last week’s epic Dolchstoss amounts to anything but a loss: a loss to the country, a loss to the court’s apolitical reputation, and a personal loss for the chief justice, whose legacy now seems permanently sullied.
Spare me the argument that Roberts, with the ghosts of 1937 tramping through his mind, was trying to “preserve the integrity” of the court. His jaw-dropping, intellectually inconsistent, Kafkaesque ruling in the Obamacare case is likely to live in infamy, much like such earlier Supreme turkeys as the Dred Scott decision and Plessy v. Ferguson. In both of those cases, as in this one, the Court took refuge in legal niceties and sophomoric hairsplitting, refusing to acknowledge the greater moral issue and the looming national catastrophe. . . .
Justice Roberts - "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."
Rush Limbaugh - "It's the biggest tax increase in the history of the world... The IRS has just become Barack Obama's domestic army."
(Original post): The FRC's response to the Supreme Court's ruling states the issue forcefully and dramatically: (my bolding)
Family Research Council Legal Counsel Ken Klukowski, J.D., made the following comments:
"The Supreme Court has today given the federal government unlimited authority to use its tax power to require Americans to engage in specific commercial activity. The obvious implication is chilling: Uncle Sam can make you buy anything, at any price, for any reason," said Klukowski. "That's why today, the American dream gave way to a real American nightmare. President Obama's vow about 'fundamentally transforming the United States of America ' was fulfilled. The Supreme Court essentially said it cannot articulate any limiting principle on the power of the federal government.
"By ruling that the law is constitutional, the Supreme Court gave the federal government the power to order private citizens to enter into contracts with private organizations and give those organizations their money. This ruling fundamentally transforms the federal government from one of limited and specified powers in the Constitution to an all-powerful central government with plenary power over every area and aspect of Americans' lives from cradle to grave."
Of the Supreme Court's decision, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following comments:
"Today's Supreme Court decision will do serious harm to American families. Not only is the individual mandate a profound attack on our liberties, but it is only one section among hundreds of provisions in the law that will force taxpayers to fund abortions, violate their conscience rights, and impose a massive tax and debt burden on American families.
"The Obama administration has created, for the first time in American history, new federal regulations that toss aside the constitutional right to religious freedom by forcing religious institutions and employers to pay for abortion-causing drugs, contraceptives and sterilizations.
"It's now time to replace those leaders who disregarded the constitutional limitations of their authority and the deeply held religious beliefs of their constituents, voting for the government takeover of healthcare. We must repeal this abortion-funding health care law and restore the Constitution to its rightful place," concluded Perkins.
Me: The time has come for American citizens to rise up and reclaim their liberty.
The country has a serious problem in Attorney General Eric Holder. We have reached the point where we not only have lost confidence in the Department of Justice, but we have come to fear it. The Right Scoop via The Daley Gator:
These compilations from a variety of sources by the Family Research Council continue to offer interested people a gold mine. A new edition appears every two weeks. Readers will find in each a wealth of information not readily found elsewhere. For previous reviews I've posted, click here. For a complete list of articles from this latest edition, click "continue reading" below.
Meanwhile here's a quote from Hadley Arkes' article on Ave Maria University in south Florida: (my underlining)
But a collision of worlds – and a serious challenge – came out at dinner with a dear friend, an accomplished professor, a graduate of Harvard transplanted from the Northeast. He has two daughters at Ave Maria and he said, when I pressed him, that he wouldn’t send any of his children to Harvard. The new sexual ethic, whether on pornography, promiscuity, abortion, homoeroticism, is so pervasive, touching every aspect of life, that there is little room for those who will not pay homage to that reigning ethic. I do think that it is mainly the schools with a religious character that can offer now real academic freedom and a course of study in the humanities not warped by ideology.
Me: What an extraordinary admission! For "real academic freedom" and a "course of study in the humanities not warped by ideology," it is to religious schools one must go.
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council summarizes:
It was little surprise that President Obama would nominate someone to
the Supreme Court with as limited regard for the U.S. Constitution as
himself. However, the radical political and liberal history of Elena
Kagan should make even the most diehard Leftist take a step back.
The recent Senate hearings helped expose her disgust for traditional
morality, free speech, the military, individual liberty, unborn
children, constitutional fidelity, and all things religious. As a
political appointee to President Clinton, she was so fixated on
protecting partial-birth abortion that she masterminded an effort to
substitute her own opinion for that of two medical groups. Both the
American Medical Association (AMA) and American College of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists (ACOG) said there was virtually no instance in which a
partial-birth abortion was necessary to save a woman's life. When that
statement crossed Kagan's desk, she personally changed it to say that
partial-birth abortion "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in
a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of
the mother."
The political and unscientific opinion inserted by Ms. Kagan into
what was supposed to be an authoritative medical document was then cited
by several judges to strike down restrictions on the horrendous
partial-birth abortion procedure.
Additionally, her pro-homosexual views led her to restrict military
recruitment on Harvard Law School's campus, and, as Solicitor General,
to sabotage the defense of our federal marriage law and of the current
military policy on homosexuals serving openly in the U.S. military. In
these instances, she favored her personal ideology and political
calculations over the law. Without your help, she may spend 30 or
more years doing this same thing as a member of America's most powerful
court. Elena Kagan was unfit to be Solicitor General, and she
definitely doesn't deserve a lifetime promotion to the U.S. Supreme
Court.
Please contact your U.S. Senators today and tell them to oppose Elena
Kagan.
Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan expressed that opinion in the video below (HT: Jonah Goldberg). I watched the Bork confirmation hearings on television. In fact, I videotaped them. I considered Senator Kennedy's behavior utterly shameful and embarrassing. And so with other Democratic senators. If Elena Kagen thinks the hearings "the best thing that ever happened to Constitutional Democracy," she doesn't belong anywhere near the Supreme Court.
Plenty. At least that's how the Family Research Council sees it. I am writing this on Sunday night, and the airwaves are confirming that
Obama will announce her nomination tomorrow. Anticipating this move, the FRC wrote two days ago:
Conservatives know Kagan
as the Harvard Law School Dean who tried to bar the military from
college campuses, an issue she fought all the way to the Supreme Court.
At the time, even Ruth Bader Ginsberg, one of the court's most liberal
justices, couldn't find a way to justify Kagan's position. Her
incredibly hostile view of the military puts Kagan well outside the
American mainstream.
Adding to her resume of hard-Left activism, Kagan
is a passionate supporter of hate crimes laws. People on both sides of
the aisle will be critical of her legal experience--or lack thereof.
Until last year, she had never litigated a case or verdict to trial. To
read more about Kagan, check
out FRC's backgrounder.
Me: I highlighted above that she is an ardent supporter of hate crime laws. I think them odious, an unjustifiable, "politically correct" addenda to ordinary law, and for that reason alone I would oppose her nomination.
Update 5/10/10 - Ed Morrissey: Kagan's performance before the Supreme Court as Solicitor General has not
been particularly impressive.
The Family Research Council is launching The Social Conservative
Review. An e-mail states it will constitute
"a unique summary of news of interest to social conservatives.
The focus of this
comprehensive collation of stories, journal articles,
and op-eds is the intersection of moral concern and public life, the
issues that reflect and shape not only events and legislation, but the
nation's very soul.
FRC will send the Review out twice monthly.
It will feature important
pieces from the country's leading newspapers, magazines, journals and
conservative Web sites. FRC's goal is to help keep you informed -- and
ready to act -- about the policies and proposals, research and reports
that bear directly on life, liberty, family and Christian faith.
Me: I have reproduced the e-mail below, complete with links. It looks to me like a fabulous service.
The Social Conservative Review: The Insider's
Guide to Pro-Family News
Family Research Council's major adult stem cell initiative, "Adult
Stem Cells Saved My Life" ("Stem Cell Research Facts") features compelling video
stories of persons whose lives have been transformed through adult stem
cell implantation. The site also contains leading-edge information on
this dynamic, transformative and entirely ethical type of stem cell
treatment.
I find FRC's Washington Update consistently well-written and well-argued. Here is today's update:
So Help Us God
Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, [we]
must fall with them (Jedediah Morse, 1799). Yesterday, 223 years to
the day after patriots ratified an end the Revolutionary War, a judge in
Wisconsin ruled to reintroduce tyranny in America--this time, from the
bench. In a decision that is rocking our nation to its very core, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb determined that a
national day of prayer--a tradition as old as the country itself--is
unconstitutional. "...[R]ecognizing the importance of prayer to many
people does not mean that the government may enact a statute in support
of it..." With all due respect, the government may do exactly
"AP calls it a 'fight-for-the-little-guy
sensibility;' I call it state-sanctioned prejudice."
Goldberg says:
Obama and the vast majority of Senate
Democrats believe that Lady Justice should peek from under the blindfold
every now and then.
He quotes former Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman who wrote last year:
“I’ve never been sure why
Lady Justice wore a blindfold as part of her permanent wardrobe. Yes,
it’s supposed to be a symbol of impartiality. But it does limit her
vision a bit.” For Goodman, the best judges reject the “myth” of
impartiality.
To which Goldberg responds:
Of course impartial justice is an
abstraction, but it isn’t so much a myth as an ideal. Since we are all
designed from the crooked timber of humanity, we can only approximate
perfect justice.
What I don’t understand is why we should
abandon an ideal simply because it is unattainable. If I can’t be a
perfect husband, should I get a divorce? If an umpire can’t call each
game flawlessly, should he stop trying? Maybe for 95 percent of pitches
the ump should call ’em straight, but for the other 5 percent he should
give the black or gay batters the benefit of the doubt?
He goes on:
In a country this vast, diverse, and
dynamic, any judicial conception of the little guy is bound to confuse
more than it clarifies. . .
Unless the plight of every gay, black, poor, old, or
disabled American is the same, then coming into court favoring a
specific category of human being is nothing more than state-sanctioned
prejudice.
The benefit of the ideal of impartial justice is that
it provides a standard by which judges aren’t asked to rule by
prejudice. We’ll never fully get there, but I don’t think we should stop
trying.
Marco Rubio seeks Florida's Republican senatorial nomination. His position on judges and the constitution is perfect. Be sure to listen to the last half as well as the beginning. It's quite short. Would that all senators had the same perspective.
Attorney General Holder's exchange with Senator
Lindsey Graham yesterday has, quite appropriately, gotten lots of
attention. I want to drill down for a moment, though, on one element
of it. The lawyer's stock in trade is precedent. Whether you're a
prosecutor or any other lawyer faced with a policy question, the first
Here’s what Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine: “Frankly I had thought that at the time [Roe v. Wade]
was decided,” Ginsburg told her interviewer, Emily Bazelon, “there was
concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations
that we don’t want to have too many of.”
Really? What populations would that be? Goldberg wonders, too, and has some ideas. [more . . ]
- Update 5/27/09 - The airwaves and cyberwaves are deluged with commentary on Justice Sotomayor. (Note, for example Michelle Malkin's excellent column). Jonah Goldberg makes a sound, succinct and unanswerable point when he says, [my bolding]
Why make this complicated?
President Obama prefers
Supreme Court justices who will violate their oath of office. And he
hopes Sonia Sotomayor is the right Hispanic woman for the job. Here’s
the oath Supreme Court justices must take:
“I, (name), do
solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without
respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and
that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the
duties incumbent upon me as (title) under the Constitution and laws of
the United States. So help me God.”
Contrast that with Obama’s
insistence that the “quality of empathy, of understanding and
identifying with people’s hopes and struggles” is the key qualification
for a Supreme Court justice. . .
. . . who says conservatives are against judicial empathy? I,
for one, am all for it. I’m for empathy for the party most deserving of
justice before the Supreme Court, within the bounds of the law and
Constitution. If that means siding with a poor black man, great. If
that means siding with a rich white one, that’s great too. The same
holds for gays and gun owners, single mothers and media conglomerates.
We should all rejoice when justices fulfill their oaths and give
everyone a fair hearing, even if that’s now out of fashion in the age
of Obama.
Me: Well said! To argue differently is to be perverse.
Ed Whelan's Bench Memos series on Yale Law School
Dean Harold Koh's jurisprudence of transnationalism is absolutely
essential reading.
Dean Koh has been nominated to be the legal adviser to the Obama State Department. I posted a response
here in the Corner on Saturday to Ted Olson's endorsement of Koh and
intimation that opposition should be construed as an attack on the
nominee's integrity and intellect. As I said, that is most decidedly
not the case.
This is a vitally needed debate about policy: in
particular, about whether the
covenant between the American people and
their government — our very existence as a self-determining nation —
should be eradicated in favor of a post-sovereign arrangement in which
we are ruled by federal judges and unelected international bureaucrats
imposing international law as continuously "evolved" by law professors
and Leftist NGOs.
Here in the Corner, Ed has just posted some
of Dean Koh's astounding views on what he regards as America's
troubling "narcissism" on such fundamental rights as free-speech. The
Bench Memos posts (three so far) can he found here, here, and here.
Washington, D.C. - Today, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins condemned
the decision by the Iowa Supreme Court striking down the state's
Defense of Marriage Act
(DOMA) and forcing same-sex "marriage" on the
state. The ruling in Varnum v. Brien was the fourth in favor of legalizing same-sex "marriage" by a state
high court. California's ruling was overturned by the people at the
ballot box last November; Massachusetts and Connecticut are the only
states which currently give marriage licenses to homosexual couples. "Same-sex
'marriage' continues to be a movement driven by a liberal judicial
elite determined to destroy not only the institution of marriage, but
democracy as well. The casual dismissal of the facts of human biology
and thousands of years of human history, simply to pander to a small
band of social radicals, is bizarre and indefensible," said Tony
Perkins, president of the Family Research Council (FRC).
Perkins
pointed out that while four states have attempted to legalize same-sex
"marriage" through the judicial process, to date none have done so
democratically, while a majority of states have not only defined
marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but have placed that
definition in their state constitution. "We need to remember that the
marriage amendment movement has
Richard
Epstein, professor of law at the University of Chicago and NYU, argues that the
responses of both Bush and Obama to the economic crisis reveal an astonishing
ignorance of bankruptcy law. Peter Robinson quotes Epstein, "When we attempt to bail out failing enterprises,
we take them away from bankruptcy judges, who are experts, and give
them to a collection of congressional individuals who are charitably
called clowns. When you bring commercial decisions to Congress they
become politicized, and politicized decisions become destructive
decisions." [my bolding]
Should a man with a long list of pornographers as clients—and a long,
outspoken record of objecting to attempts to regulate the pornography
industry in order to prevent child sex abuse—be confirmed as deputy attorney general?
For Obama nominee David Ogden, even requiring pornographers to keep
records documenting that their subjects are not underage would “burden
too heavily and infringe too deeply on the right to produce First
Amendment protected material.” Does Obama really want a deputy attorney
general so deeply committed to the right to produce porn?
The Family Research Council adds:
David Ogden, nominated to the high-ranking post of Deputy Attorney General of the United States . As a private attorney, Ogden worked for
the ACLU and filed a brief in the landmark abortion case Planned Parenthood v. Casey that
denied the existence of adverse mental health effects
of abortion on women. Ogden has also been one of the nation's most
prominent porn defense attorneys, representing not only Playboy and
Penthouse, but
also PHE, Inc., the largest distributor of hardcore pornography in the
United States.
And what about these other nominees (FRC):
Thomas Perrelli is Obama's nominee for Associate Attorney
General at the Justice Department. Perrelli won media attention as the
attorney
for Michael Schiavo, the Florida man who defeated
I am filing this in the "hard to believe department." According to Mike Robinson of the Associated Press,
A federal judge [Robert W. Gettleman] has ruled that a state law requiring a moment of
silence in public schools across Illinois is unconstitutional, saying
it crosses the line separating church and state.
"The statute is
a subtle effort to force students at impressionable ages to contemplate
religion," U.S. District Judge Robert W. Gettleman said in his ruling
Wednesday. [more. . .]
Me: Has it come to this?What manner of insanity gripsthe radical left?I am wondering when the sane people of the land will rise up against this madness . . .
- Update: Here's a major, wide-ranging video interview with Rick Warren that many readers will find interesting.
(Original post) A lot of ink has been spilled over the vociferous opposition voiced by homosexual same-sex marriage activists over Obama's selection of evangelical pastor Rick Warren to offer the invocation at Obama's inauguration. In my judgement, Ed Whelan has called it exactly right :
Defenders of marriage
shouldn’t be conned by President-elect Obama’s selection of evangelical
pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the inauguration.
Although Obama claims to be against same-sex marriage, his opposition
to California’s Proposition 8—which overturned the California supreme
court’s invention of a state constitutional right to same-sex
marriage—shows that he is content to acquiesce in judicial
imposition of same-sex marriage. Further, it’s a safe bet that Obama’s
appointees to the Supreme Court will support the invention of a federal
constitutional right to same-sex marriage. (As illustrations, consider
the records of two of the leading contenders for appointment, Harold Koh and Deval Patrick.)
So Obama isn’t
against same-sex marriage. Rather, he’s against incurring the political
costs of being candid about his support for same-sex marriage.On
marriage as on many other issues, Obama, as an ardent supporter of
liberal judicial activism, will look for his judicial appointees to
impose illegitimately the policy preferences of the Left that he
doesn’t have the courage (or foolhardiness) to pursue through the
proper channels of representative government. [my emphases]
(Note: Included in this post - on the extended page - are references to two other articles with links and quotes)
- I wonder if people realize how crucial this election is to the future composition of the Supreme Court? Consider the closeness of the following decisions:
5-4 - Decided to uphold a ban on partial birth abortion.
5-4 - Decided against the death penalty for raping a child under 12.
5-4 - Affirmed the Second Amendment -- does indeed protect an individual's right to own a gun.
5-4 - Rejected efforts to limit access to internet child pornography.
The next president of the United States will appoint at least 2, and maybe 3, Justices in his first term. If he serves 2 terms, it could be 5 Justices -- there are 5 of the 9 on the Court 70 years old or older! Since the trend is to appoint younger and younger Justices, the next president will most likely shape the court for the next 30-40 years! This means we are not voting only for a
"It's outrageous and shameful that the Connecticut Supreme Court took it upon itself to legislate from the bench," said FRC Action President Tony Perkins.
"This radical redefinition of marriage will have severe consequences
for children, families, religious liberties, businesses and every facet
of society as we know it.
"This decision puts marriage at risk all across the nation and
highlights the need for a Marriage Protection Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. It is imperative both Presidential candidates address the
problems created by four activist judges in Connecticut. We call on
Senators John McCain and Barack Obama to explain what they would do as
President addressing the issue of same-sex marriage and articulating
their criteria for ensuring that judges they appoint follow the law of
the land and not legislate from the bench. (more . . .)
-Today the Supreme Court nixed the death penalty for those who rape children. 5-4 decision. This excerpt from Judge Samuel Alito's dissent is well worth reading. Louisiana residents are outraged at the decision. The crime (man rapes his 8 year old step daughter) is described here. Andy McCarthy notes Judge Kennedy's contemptible "judicial conclusion" -“Evolving standards of decency must embrace and express respect for the dignity of the person[.]” Ed Whelan sums it up well:
Kennedy’s 36 pages of insufferable blather amount to little more than a
declaration that the majority doesn’t think that capital punishment is
ever a fair penalty for the rape of a child—"no matter," as Justice
Alito puts it in his dissent, "how young the child, no matter how many
times the child is raped, no matter how many children the perpetrator
rapes, no matter how sadistic the crime, no matter how much physical or
psychological trauma is inflicted, and no matter how heinous the
perpetrator’s prior criminal record may be."
either that he doesn't know what he's talking about - or that he feels
free to exploit the ignorance of audiences that don't know the truth of
the matter.
Hugh Hewitt posts must-read excerpts from interviews related to the Supreme Court's decision, which follows up on his own column. Note also Mark Levin's sober words
It has been the objective of the left-wing bar to fight aspects of this
war in our courtrooms, where it knew it would have a decent chance at
victory. So complete is the Court’s disregard for the Constitution and
even its own precedent now that anything is possible. And what was once
considered inconceivable is now compelled by the Constitution, or so
five justices have ruled. I fear for my country. I really do. And AP,
among others, reports this story as a defeat for “the Bush
administration.” Really? I see it as a defeat for the nation.
John McCain on Friday described the decision by the Supreme Court
to allow Guantánamo Bay prisoners to challenge their detention in US
courts as “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country”.
The
Republican presidential candidate said he agreed with the four
dissenting justices on the nine-member court that foreign fighters held
at the detention camp were not entitled to the rights of US citizens.
He
criticised Barack Obama, his Democratic opponent, for supporting the
decision and said it highlighted the importance of nominating
conservative judges to the Supreme Court.
What Gary Bauer writes, can't be denied. The "aftershocks" of the California Supreme court's legalization of gay marriage will shake up life as we know it way beyond gay marriage itself. Bauer says:
. . . looking beyond the ruling’s most obvious
implication, the redefinition of marriage, the decision foreshadows a
nation in which all citizens will not only be asked to tolerate
same-sex marriage, but be required to promote it.
The find
out where this fight may be headed, ask Crystal Dixon, a former
Associate Vice President of Human Resources at the University of
Toledo, who was fired for writing a letter to the editor expressing her
belief as a black woman that it was inaccurate to compare the
homosexual movement to the civil rights movement. Or ask Jon and Elaine
Huguenin, who were fined $6,000 by the New Mexico Human Rights
Commission for refusing to photograph a homosexual “commitment
ceremony.”
Dennis Boyles pens the story of the incredible pro-abortion machinations taking place in Kansas from the Supreme Court on down. Money and power are involved. Surprised? It's another one of those "hard to believe" stories, that seem to be occurring ever more frequently.
In short, it is alleged that "The state’s largest abortion providers — including Johnson County’s
Planned Parenthood clinic and George Tiller’s infamous
late-term-abortion clinic in Wichita — have not only performed illegal
abortions, they’ve also falsified documents as part of a cover-up." And everyone is going after the prosecutor to shut him up and close the case down.
- Maggie Gallagher discusses the ins and outs and implications. UPDATE: 5/21/08 - Gallagher has further observations that make for important reading.
- Hugh Hewitt weighs in here and here, and says regarding the November referendum to amend the California Constitution (and thus roll back the Supreme Court decision):
I hope every interested citizen in the country, every religious leader
fond of religious liberty, every legislator who takes his or her job
seriously will grasp that the vote on the marriage amendment on the
Califoria ballot is really much much more than just a marriage
amendment and concerns far more than just California law --it is a vote
on who rules, judges or the People, and its result will mark a decisive
beginning of a rollback of judicial imperialism or a capitulation to
the courts on this and on any other issue the courts decide to impose
their will upon.
- The Family Research Council comments:
After a brief period of judicial restraint, California voters watched
in horror this afternoon as judicial activism returned with a vengeance
in
one of the most egregious
** I blogged on Clarence Thomas most recently here. I didn't plan to write much more than that, but then I read Thomas Sowell's piece today and decided I wanted to preserve some of Sowell's observations:
In an era when so many people have neither the time nor the
patience to examine arguments and evidence, critics have tried to
dismiss Clarence Thomas as someone who “sold out” in order to advance
himself.
In reality, he was in far worse financial condition than if he had taken the opposite positions on political issues.
As late as the time of his nomination to the Supreme Court, Clarence
Thomas’s net worth — everything he had accumulated over a lifetime —
was less than various civil-rights “leaders” make in one year. Nobody sells out to the lowest bidder.
The other great myth about Justice Thomas is that he is a lonely and
embittered man, withdrawn from the world, as a result of
Update 10/4/07 - National Review Online posted today an editorial lauding Thomas's work on the bench (citing a recent decision as an example) and concluded " He is one of the best justices — if not the best — on the Court." Update 10/5/07 - Mona Charen sets the record straight vis-a-vis biased, liberal commentators. So also Taranto. On the nature of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings Thomas faced at his confirmation, read here.
** I had computer problems that erased a lengthy post I had written on Clarence Thomas. Instead of trying to recreate the post (I simply don't have the time), I'm going to repost Michelle Malkin's comments (immediately below), plus include a couple other items. From Michelle Malkin:
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas endured ad hominem attacks and
character assassination attempts to an extent that few other public
figures in American life have ever endured. His new book, “My
Grandfather’s Son,” was released today. Finally, on this first Monday
in October, he is getting the respectful hearing from the MSM he
deserves.
We know it can’t last. So, go buy the book and let’s not lose sight, as Eugene Volokh reminds us, of the vicious treatment Justice Thomas has received for daring to defy identity politics and racial groupthink. Liberal racism is as alive as ever.
** Kathryn Jean Lopez's describes Thomas's positive reaction to reading Thomas Sowell's Race and Economics. It resonated with conclusions he had come to himself.
** Kate O'Beirne was at dinner tonight with Clarence Thomas and 20 others. She reported that "The source of his equanimity is no mystery. Justice Thomas brought his favorite prayer, the
George Will gives reasons to shun federal "hate crimes" legislation.
Political entrepreneurship involves devising benefits to excite or mollify niche constituencies. Hence HR 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, which has passed the House, trailing clouds of sanctimony -- lots of members announced their hatred of hate.
Hate-crime laws -- 45 states
already have them; Congress does not mind being duplicative -- mandate
enhanced punishments for crimes committed because of thoughts that
government especially disapproves of. That is, crimes committed because
of, not merely accompanied by, those thoughts. Mind-reading juries are
required to distinguish causation from correlation.
. . . Hate crimes are seven one-hundredths of 1 percent of all crimes, and
60.5 percent of them consist of vandalism (e.g., graffiti) or
intimidation (e.g., verbal abuse). Local law enforcement organizations
favor HR 1592, which promises money. Among the more than 200
organizations supposedly ardent for the bill are
Clarence Thomas has borne some
of the most vitriolic personal attacks in Supreme Court history. But
the persistent stereotypes about his views on the law and subordinate
role on the court are equally offensive--and demonstrably false. An
extensive documentary record shows that Justice Thomas has been a
significant force in shaping the direction and decisions of the court
for the past 15 years.
That's not the standard storyline.
Immediately upon his arrival at the court, Justice Thomas was savaged
by court-watchers as Antonin Scalia's dutiful apprentice, blindly
following his mentor's lead. It's a grossly inaccurate
A historic judicial ruling against intelligent design theory hailed as a "broad, stinging rebuke" and a "masterpiece of wit, scholarship
and clear thinking" actually was "cut and pasted" from a brief by ACLU
lawyers and includes many of their provable errors, contends the
Seattle-based Discovery Institute.
One year ago, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones' 139-page ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover declared unconstitutional a school board policy that required students of a ninth-grade biology class in the Dover Area School District
to hear a one-minute statement that said evolution is a theory and
intelligent design "is an explanation of the origin of life that
differs from Darwin's view."
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has it right:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Deeply controversial issues like
abortion and suicide rights have nothing to do with the Constitution,
and unelected judges too often choose to find new rights at the expense
of the democratic process, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said
Saturday.
Mona Charen notes that C-Span carries a video of a recent dialog between Nadine Strossen of the ACLU and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Both, according to Charen, make the best cases for their points of view. I do not see an easy way to link to the dialog, but if you go to C-Span and look in the video library under "Judiciary/Courts" and check for October 15th, you'll find it. It lasts an hour.
Andrew C. McCarthy points out an undeniable fact concerning the way the Supreme Court does or does not follow precedent.
When it comes to the pieties of
liberal elites and civil-liberties extremists, the current Supreme
Court cares nothing for precedent. In our culture wars, precedent
counts mainly as a rationalization for not reversing Roe v. Wade.
To the contrary, when bourgeois sensibilities are at issue, the Supreme
Court regularly hews to contemporary political correctness. So, for
example, when it ruled in favor of special rights for homosexuals inRomer v. Evans (1996),the Court ignored a flatly contradictory precedent from only a decade before, Bowers v. Hardwick (1986). And only last year, when it held that the death penalty could not be applied to a juvenile in Roper v. Simmons, it blithely explained that it had “evolved” past its antithetical decision only 15 years earlier in Stanford v. Kentucky.
In his March 2006 letter, Dr. James Dobson offers a partial list of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's swing decisions. Wow. Do take a look at the list below. As Dobson put it: "She helped hand down some of the worst decisions in the nation's history."
Here is a portion of the record Justice O'Connor leaves:
O'Connor voted to strike down prayer at graduation ceremonies in Lee v. Weisman. The decision was 5-4.2
O'Connor voted to strike down Nebraska's law criminalizing partial-birth abortion (Stenberg v. Carhart).
That terrible procedure — by which brains were sucked out of
un-anesthetized and often healthy, late-term infants — continues across
the country today. The blood of thousands of these dismembered babies
will forever be on the hands of five justices, with O'Connor providing
the swing vote, 5-4.3 She will live
with the consequences of that ruling until she, and all of us, have to
give an account to the God of the universe whose Word states: "They
shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters . . .
Therefore the LORD was angry with his people and abhorred his
inheritance" (Psalm 106:38, 40, NIV).
O'Connor also voted against unborn babies by upholding the basic premise of Roe v. Wade in the landmark case of Casey v. Planned Parenthood. Again, the decision was 5-4.4 One more vote for life could have saved millions.
This past June, O'Connor voted to prohibit the public display of the Ten Commandments in two separate cases.5
Both decisions were 5-4, with O'Connor serving as the swing vote. In
the first case, she voted to prohibit the display of the Commandments
in a Kentucky courthouse; and in the second, she even opposed the
display of the Ten Commandments when there was no intended religious
significance implied by the monuments.
O'Connor decided against the people of Colorado, who had voted
for a referendum to abolish special rights for homosexuals in their
state constitution. Their wishes were summarily overturned by a 5-4
decision in Romer v. Evans.6 Coloradoans were chastised as bigots by the Supreme Court in that ruling.
We can hope that her replacement, Justice Samuel Alito, will help move the court away from the "judicial tyranny" whereby, as Dr. James Dobson puts it, "unelected and unaccountable justices and judges have grabbed enormous power not authorized by the Constitution."
Mark Levin reports that "Last month, Justice Ginsburg gave a speech in South Africa
defending the Supreme Court's (and her) use of foreign law in
adjudicating cases under our Constitution." His article offers a superb deconstruction of her speech and its arguments. He concludes:
What Ginsburg and other activists don’t appear to realize is that they
are undermining the legitimacy of the judiciary by their refusal to
accept the limited role of judges in our constitutional system.
Those following the Supreme court are aware that, as one article summarized,
"Justices, in some of their most hotly contested
rulings, have looked overseas. Last year, for example, justices barred
the executions of juvenile killers on a 5-4 vote. Justice Anthony M.
Kennedy said then that "it is proper that we acknowledge the
overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death
penalty."
In an angry dissent to
that decision, Justice Antonin Scalia said capital punishment policy
should be set by states, not "the subjective views of five members of
this court and like-minded foreigners."
Ginsburg said, "Critics in Congress and in the media misperceive how
and why U.S. courts refer to foreign and international court
decisions." She said those decisions are used for guidance only.
In addition to which... it's been noted that Justice Ginsburg was recently caught snoozing during oral arguments. Hmmm...
(See below for Judge Scalia's conviction that judges have no corner on morality.)