Posts filed under 'Supreme Court'
Joe Biden is rightfully getting flak for claiming he was “shot at” in Iraq when it was actually a mortar fire a few hundred yards away where no one was in danger.
But that level of hypocrisy is nothing new to Biden.
Here is an interesting excerpt from John Kennedy’s closest aide Ted Sorenson discussing his withdrawl as nominee for Directory of the CIA for Jimmy Carter due to lack of Senate confirmation. Despite the ordeal, Sorenson never lost respect for Democrat Committee Chairman, Daniel Inouye.
On the other hand, the prize for political hypocrisy in a town noted for political hypocrisy went to Joe Biden. On my first courtesy call to his office, he could not have been more enthusiastic, supportive, and gracious, calling me “the best appointment Carter has made!”
At the opening of the hearing, he changed both his tune and his tone, stating: “Quite honestly, I’m not sure whether or not Mr Sorenson could be indicted or convicted under the espionage statutes…….whether Mr Sorenson intentionally took advantage of ambiguities in the law or carelessly ignored the law.”
After listening to my statement of defense and withdrawal, he said: “Ted, you are one of the classiest men I have ever run across in my whole life.”
This was an act Biden would repeat many times, famously against Clarence Thomas at his confirmation hearing:
Senator Biden was the first questioner. Instead of the softball questions he’d promised to ask, he threw a beanball straight at my head…
The senator, they found, had wrenched my words out of context. I looked at the text of my speech and saw that the passage he’d read out loud had been immediately followed by two other sentences … The point I’d been making was the opposite of the one that Senator Biden claimed I had made.
Senator Biden’s smooth, insincere promises that he would treat me fairly were nothing but talk.
The next day, Biden expressed a desire to speak with Thomas, so Thomas called the Senator:
The senator said that he was torn over his decision and had actually brought two statements with him to the committee meeting that day, one for me and the other against. He had decided to oppose me. He’d voted to confirm Justice Scalia, he explained, and now regretted it; he thought it was possible that I might turn out like Justice Scalia, so he couldn’t vote for me.
“That’s fine,” I said. “It doesn’t matter to me whether I’m confirmed or not. But I entered this process with a good name, and I want to have it at the end.”
“Judge, I know you don’t believe me,” he replied, “but if any of these last two matters come up, I will be your biggest defender.” (The other matter to which he was referring was the leak of my draft opinion.)
He was right about one thing: I didn’t believe him.
Tags: hypocrisy, Joe Biden
September 3rd, 2008
There’s really no other way to put this:
A quick reading of the measure that will go before San Francisco voters in November to decriminalize prostitution easily could leave you with the misimpression that the measure is an exercise in fairness that demands that prosecutors go after men who abuse prostitutes and implement policies “to reduce institutional violence and discrimination against prostitutes.” A careful reading of the initiative, “Enforcement of Laws Related to Prostitution and Sex Workers,” however, shows a measure that shields child prostitution and traffickers of human beings.
“If I had just heard from the proponents, I would probably vote for it myself,” said the Rev. Glenda Hope, whose San Francisco Network Ministries helped found the Tenderloin AIDS Resource, in the mistaken belief the measure is meant “to protect women.” But as the executive director of SafeHouse, a residential center that helps women get off the streets, Hope knows too much.
…the San Francisco ballot measure completely ignores the prostitution of children. The measure simply states, “Law enforcement agencies shall not allocate any resources for the investigation and prosecution of prostitutes for prostitution.” Astonishingly, there’s no exemption that encourages police to enforce the law for minors.
If the measure passes, the city is likely to become an international haven for pimps who peddle girls and boys, and perverts seeking sex with minors.
And where does that leave Bay Area youth? “They want new and young,” Jasmine, a former teen prostitute from Oakland who now volunteers for the nonprofit SAGE Project, which fights sexual exploitation, explained to me.
Thus the tail end of the sexual revolution - a ballot measure to allow men (and it will be almost exclusively men) to legally procure boys and girls for sexual gratification. When you de-couple sex from marriage and child-rearing, this is precisely what you get as was predicted back in the 60’s when the concepts underlying the sexual revolution first gained a mainstream foothold. This is absolutely no surprise at all - its digusting, but not a surprise. The piece goes on to note that some are expecting the ballot measure to pass rather handily as San Francisco is a “sex-positive” city - meaning, presumptively, that there is so much selfishness and demand for personal gratification that San Francisco may very well cut itself entirley off from civlization and descend to a level of depravity untouched since the worst of Nero.
You see, back when it was first seriously proposed that we de-stigmatize pre- and extra-marital sex and all manner of sexual deviation those who opposed it weren’t just a bunch of squares with sexual hang-ups who just didn’t want anyone having fun. Not, it wasn’t like that at all - the concept was opposed because it was already known what would come of it. It was known - not guessed-at, not theorised over; known. This is because, waaaay back when, Christianity was (among other things, of course) the cure for a society which had allowed sexual licentiousness to descend to such a level that child-bearing and -rearing was considered a burden and personal sexual gratification trumped all, no matter how sterile and un-fulfilling it steadily became. Christianity knew this in 60, 560, 1060, 1560, 1960 and will continue to know it in 2060 - sex is a powerful thing, and unless carefully contained within proper limits this great gift becomes a taskmaster and a means of self-destruction.
And now San Francisco proposes to legalise the worst of it - because people want it and want it now and exactly how they want it and everyone else can go to Hell as far as they are concerned, San Francisco may do this horrible thing. And then we’ll await the inevitible lawsuit, claiming that the right to privacy means that not only San Francisco, but the whole nation must turn a blind eye to the sexual exploitation of youth. How it will come out will remain to be seen - unless, of course, it turns out there is some remaining level of human decency in San Francisco and this terrible, anti-human initiative is defeated.
UPDATE: And the Democrats endorse.
Tags: child abuse, Christianity, Enforcement of Laws Related to Prostitution and Sex Wor, morality, San Francisco
August 17th, 2008
Stop. And. Think.
LAS VEGAS (AP) — Dueling delegations pitting Ron Paul’s Nevada supporters against those of John McCain vow to take their fight to the Republican National Convention.
That’s just one sign that the outsider, Internet-fueled movement led by the feisty Republican congressman from Texas remains afloat in the wake of McCain’s victory in the GOP primaries.
In the libertarian-leaning West, where Paul’s message of distrust of the federal government and ardent individualism played particularly well, there is talk of Republicans straying from McCain. Libertarian candidate Bob Barr has emerged as a favorite alternative for Paul activists, followed by Constitutional Party candidate Chuck Baldwin.
Even if the numbers of such dissenters are small, in tight contests in key Western states they could spoil McCain’s chances, experts say.
"In Nevada, there’s absolutely enough to have an effect on the election," said Chuck Muth, a leading conservative activist in a state in which early polls show McCain and Democratic candidate Barack Obama in a statistical tie.
"I think that you will see not just Libertarians who always vote for the Libertarian candidate but conservative Republicans saying we’ve had it, we’ve had enough and they’re going to go ahead and vote Libertarian," Muth said.
Paul — or "Dr. Paul," as his followers reverently refer to the obstetrician-turned-politician — ran as the Libertarian Party nominee for president in 1988. But this year he carved out a following as an antiestablishment Republican. His campaign won more than 1 million votes and became a catchall for anti-war, anti-government voters and disaffected Republicans.
Now I’m sure you’re thinking that 2008-2012 will be transitional years. Either Obama wins, FUBARs the nation, serves a one-term presidency, and loses in 2012; or McCain wins, FU the nation (but not beyond all recognition); gets old, and we get another shot at 2012. So, you say, either way it’s all good, right?
But there will be three reasons to vote for, and yes, even work to help elect John McCain this go-round: and those reasons are, to put it simply, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, and, oh, did I mention Supreme Court?
John Paul Stevens, 88
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 75
Antonin Scalia, 72
Anthony Kennedy, 71
Stephen Breyer, 69
David Souter, 68
Clarence Thomas, 60
Samuel Alito, 58
John Roberts, 53
There’s no way that Stevens is going to last til 2012, and Ruth Vader Ginsberg will no doubt follow him out the door. Hell, Scalia ain’t getting any younger, either. That leaves two or more openings before 2012. To put it simply, a Barack Obama presidency (not to mention a continuing dem majority in both Houses) will most certainly poison an already-precariously balanced Supreme Court for years to come. An Obama presidency will be the catalyst in a perfect storm that will leave this nation saddled not with liberalism, but with out-and-out socialism for the foreseeable future.
Scorched earth. Is that what you really want? In the process of "sticking it" to the Republican party, you’ll be able to kiss conservatism, and yes, libertarianism goodbye. Put those ideals into a storm shelter, and perhaps take them out in a couple of decades. If we’re still around by then.
So, Paulbots– you still want to "stick it" to the Republicans?
Think hard. Think long and hard before you answer.
Tags: Barack Obama, Conservatism, John McCain, liberalism, libertarianism, Ron Paul, Supreme Court
July 31st, 2008
Normally not a very surprising thing for the presumptive GOP nominee, but given McCain’s strong appeal to independents and disaffected Democrats, the fact that he’s also stirring enthusiasm on the right makes Obama’s task much, much harder:
Conservatives may not be enamored of John McCain, but on subjects that are near and dear to their hearts — legal philosophy and judicial appointments — they are finding a lot to like about the Arizona senator.
Between his campaign trail rhetoric and a stable of legal advisers who are well-regarded in conservative circles, McCain is winning over converts who at one time harbored deep suspicions about his commitment to appointing reliably conservative judges.
.
It’s a surprising turn of events for a candidate who was once booed at the Conservative Political Action Conference and especially for one who played a key role in brokering the “Gang of 14” compromise in 2005, a deal that some conservatives contend undermined the Republicans’ opportunity to ban filibusters against judicial nominees.
This newfound respect is rooted in the widely-held belief that, if elected, McCain will appoint high court justices like George W. Bush appointee Chief Justice John Roberts. Former President George H.W. Bush deeply disappointed conservatives by appointing the liberal-to-moderate David Souter.
“He has attempted to make it clear he’s going to appoint judges with a demonstrated conservative record,” said Robert Alt, deputy director of the Center for Legal and Judicial studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation.
“I think his general approach will be very consistent with [former] President [Ronald] Reagan and President [George W.] Bush,” said Mike Carvin, a former deputy assistant attorney general under Reagan, who argued Bush v. Gore for the Bush campaign.
Added to McCain’s defense of low taxation and genuine efforts to secure greater energy resources, McCain is rapidly putting together a message which can resonate from the right to the center - and while Obama is busily disheartening his kook left base, McCain is now position to dive into the fall campaign with the ability to set the terms of the debate.
Tags: Barack Obama, John McCain
June 29th, 2008
A good decision from the Supreme Court today.
McCain called the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on the D.C. gun ban a “landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom” and said Obama has reversed his positions on guns.
Speaking on his bus before making a stop at Skyline Chili, McCain acknowledged the amicus brief he filed in the case and said he was “pleased with the ruling.” But he said Obama has changed his positions on gun control.
“All I can say it’s one in a long, in a long series in reversals of positions,” McCain said. “In a few days he has gone from opposing nuclear power, to not a proponent, to willing to explore. I fully anticipate — whether it be on his pledge on public financing or his position on the Second Amendment, or any other issues — he is changing his positions. So it’s not surprising.”
UPDATE: The stupid comment of the day:
“I am profoundly disappointed in Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, both of whom assured us of their respect for precedent. With this decision, 70 years of precedent has gone out the window. And I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it.” – Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).
70 years of precedent? How about the 216 years of precedent from the Constitution:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Tags: second amendment, Supreme Court
June 26th, 2008
While he didn’t use those exact words that’s pretty much what he means.
“When applying the law, the role of judges is not to impose their own view as to the best policy choices for society but to faithfully and accurately determine the policy choices already made by the people and embodied in the law,” McCain said. “The judicial role is necessarily limited and one that requires restraint and humility.”
The McCain Web site offers the promise that his “judicial appointees will understand that the federal government was intended to have limited scope, and that federal courts must respect the proper role of local and state governments.”
Obama, meanwhile, has said he wants to appoint judges who have “empathy.”
“We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom,” Obama told a Planned Parenthood conference in Washington, D.C., in 2007 “The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”
Which is just his way of saying he’ll appoint judges who support welfare, abortion, affirmative action quotas and gay marriage.
What’s really sad is that Obama’s desire for judges who follow the Constitution is non existent.
Tags: Barack Obama, judges
June 17th, 2008
A Wall Street Journal editorial via Catholics in the Public Square lays it out:
Miss Jessen is an exquisite example of what antiabortion advocates call a “survivor.” Well into her third trimester of pregnancy, Gianna’s biological mother was injected with a saline solution intended to induce a chemical abortion at a Los Angeles County abortion center. Eighteen hours later, and precious minutes before the abortionist’s arrival, Gianna emerged. Premature and with severe injuries that resulted in cerebral palsy. But alive.
Had the abortionist been present at her birth, Gianna would have been killed, perhaps by suffocation. As it was, a startled nurse called an ambulance, and Gianna was rushed to a nearby hospital, where, weighing just two pounds, she was placed in an incubator, then, months later, in foster care.
Gianna survived then, and thrives now, because, as she told me recently with a laugh, “I guess I don’t die easy.” Which is what the abortionist might have thought as he signed his victim’s birth certificate. Gianna’s medical records state that she was “born during saline abortion.”
As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama twice opposed legislation to define as “persons” babies who survive late-term abortions. Babies like Gianna. Mr. Obama said in a speech on the Illinois Senate floor that he could not accept that babies wholly emerged from their mother’s wombs are “persons,” and thus deserving of equal protection under the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.
A federal version on the same legislation passed the Senate unanimously and with the support of all but 15 members of the House. Gianna was present when President Bush signed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in 2002.
When I asked Gianna to reflect on Mr. Obama’s candidacy, she paused, then said, “I really hope the American people will have their eyes wide open and choose to be discerning. . . . He is extreme, extreme, extreme.”
“Extreme” may not be the impression the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have bought Mr. Obama’s autobiography have been left with. In “The Audacity of Hope,” Mr. Obama’s presidential manifesto, he calls abortion “undeniably difficult,” “a very difficult issue,” “never a good thing” and “a wrenching moral issue.”
He laments his party’s “litmus test” for “orthodoxy” on abortion and other issues, and even admits, “I do not presume to know the answer to that question.” That question being the moral status of the fetus, who he nonetheless concedes has “moral weight.”
Those statements are seriously made but, alas, cannot be taken at all seriously. Mr. Obama has compiled a 100% lifetime “pro-choice” voting record, including votes against any and all restrictions on late-term abortions and parental involvement in teenagers’ abortions.
OBama is, indeed, extreme on the issue of abortion - but the real problem is that this extremism is entirely mainstream in the Democratic party. The article goes on to note that Obama has pledged to sign the so-called “Freedom of Choice Act“, a monstrous bit of pro-death legislation which would undo no only the federal ban on late-term abortions, but also the various common-sense regulations placed on abortion at the State level over the years. This is pro-abortion fanaticism in action, and Obama is hip deep in it.
I cannot take at face value anyone’s claims to care about people if they can’t care about the most helpless amongst us - there is a cold hearted indifference to suffering in the actions of those who work to protect abortion; from those who just use honey-coated words to cover up what it really is, to those who actually seek to ensure that more abortions are peformed. Obama talks a great game about helping the helpless, but when the real helpless have arrived in front of him, he’s slammed the door in their faces, more interested in garnering pro-abortion donations and pro-abortion political support for his blinding ambition to be President of the United States. Abortion is wicked; evil to the core - only the rankest sort of ignorance and cowardice can excuse any support for it; there is just never, ever a valid reason for seeking the termination of an unborn human life.
While many issues will be discussed during this campaign and while abortion won’t register with more than 5% or so as the most vital issue of the election, the central issue or our time has been, is and will be the abortion issue. As long as we permit this barbaric and inhuman practice - a veritible human sacrifice on the altar of the secular god “Selfishness” - just that long will we remain a nation divided against itself, and unsure of its place in the world. Just as we were riven by the stresses of trying to reconcile chattel slavery with our sublime Declaration of Independence so, too, are we riven by the attempts to reconcile cold blooded murder with the right to life our Founders fought and died for. This terrible poison, abortion, must end - and we will not end it by electing as President a man who will talk a lot about how sad abortion is, but who will in practical terms do all he can to advance the cause of abortion in the United States.
In the end, if one has any sense of the sanctity of human life - all life, even that unborn - then John McCain is the only possible candidate for 2008. A man of unscotchable pro-life record and a clear view of the value of life (probably built up by his inhuman treatment at the hands of the North Vietnamese), who is pledged to appoint judges who understand that the US Constitution isn’t a plaything for the latest liberal fads.
Tags: abortion, Barack Obama, culture of death, Culture of Life, Freedom of Choice Act, John McCain
June 15th, 2008
NRO’s The Corner gets this question from a McCain staffer:
Moment of Clarity Time: Given the magnitude of Thursday’s 5-4 Supreme Court decision on Guantanamo detainees, Democrats should all be asked a simple question: Would you have voted with the majority or sided with the minority? Agree or disagree, Senator Obama has taken a stand and welcomes the ruling. Senator McCain opposes the ruling. What about the rest of the Democratic Party? Chairman Dean? The Blue Dogs..? Yea or Nay?
I agree - lets have this out; get everyone on record loud and clear on how they view this decision, and let the voters decide in November which side most reflects the common sense position of the American people. This is what we have elections for, and I’ll be more than happy to abide by the decision of my fellow Americans.
Tags: Barack Obama, Defeaticrats, Gitmo, John McCain, Terrorism
June 14th, 2008
From Canada:
What could Mark Steyn’s punishment look like, if he’s convicted by the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal?
It could look like this order, issued just last week by Alberta’s human rights commission, against a Christian pastor named Rev. Stephen Boission.
The kangaroo court judge in this case is a Tory patronage appointee, a divorce lawyer from Lethbridge named Lori Andreachuk, (pictured at left). That’s her expertise: divorce law. Not constitutional law; not freedom of speech or freedom of religion. And it shows.
Last November, she convicted Boissoin. Last week she ordered her “remedy”.
It is the most revolting order I have ever seen in Canada. Ever.
I’ll excerpt a few lines from her ruling:
In this case, there is no specific individual who can be compensated as there is no direct victim who has come forward…
That’s insane already. No-one was hurt. The complainant was an officious intermeddler, a busybody, the town scold, an anti-Christian activist named Darren Lund who had an axe to grind, and Andreachuk gave it to him.
Dr. Lund, although not a direct victim, did expend considerable time and energy and suffered ridicule and harassment as a result of his complaint. The Panel finds therefore that he is entitled to some compensation.
So a busybody with no standing spends time filing complaints — and gets a tax-free reward for doing so. Oh — and for his “suffering”. Not suffering at the hands of Rev. Boission, but “as a result of his complaint”. People in the community ridiculed Lund for filing the complaint — as they should. And so Andreachuk will get the pastor to pay for that. Why the hell not? Who’s going to stop her? Her political patron, Ed Stelmach?
Mr. Boissoin and [his organization] The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.
There’s a lot there, starting with a small but telling point. Darren Lund is a not a medical doctor. He’s a professor. But Andreachuk refers to him as Dr. Lund. Stephen Boissoin is a pastor. But Andreachuk calls him “Mr. Boissoin”. No “Rev. Boissoin” for her.
But look at the staggering order there. Boissoin can never — ever — communicate anything “disparaging” about gays. It’s a lifetime ban — and it applies to every conceivable medium, including his private e-mails.
But nothing “disparaging”? That means nothing critical.
She didn’t order him not to communicate anything “illegal” or even anything “hateful”. She ordered him to say nothing disparaging. Ever. For the rest of his life.
A divorce lawyer from Lethbridge with a second-rate patronage job just ordered a Canadian pastor to stop communicating to anyone, ever, about gays. Not to stop “hate speech” — whatever that malleable legal definition is. She just told him to shut up, period.
Its from Canada, but this is precisely what the left wants to bring to the United States - and if we don’t stop them, cold, it is whaat they will do. They don’t want the free play of ideas amongst thinking people, but unthinking acceptance of liberal orthodoxy in all matters. In the United States they are handicapped by the First Amendment and a staunch desire for liberty amongst the American people…but if, say, they ever get a solid, leftist majority on the Supreme Court, you just watch them push this sort of thing through via judicial fiat.
Each election matters; each battle matters and as we’re dealing with people who’s concept of freedom is sexual license coupled with slavery in all other matters, we daren’t compromise. Its fight for freedom, or become the mindless robots of liberalism.
Tags: Christianity, Conservatism, gay rights, liberal lies, liberalism, religious liberty
June 8th, 2008
Jonah Goldberg has caught a lot of flack over his book Liberal Facism - but this news report just shows that liberalism is very much fascist, and this is in line with Goldberg’s thesis that it really always has been, in the sense that fascism and liberalism actually advocate the same sorts of programs, and have the same underlying mentality:
Catholic student group at the University of Queensland has been censored and threatened with disaffiliation from the school’s student union because student union leaders believed the group’s “pro-woman” and “pro-pregnancy” campaign took a stand against abortion.
As part of a pregnancy support campaign, the Newman Society at the school displayed a poster and distributed leaflets that bore a photo of an eight-week old fetus in the womb.
According to The Australian, a disciplinary hearing run by the student union’s clubs and societies committee has banned the Newman Society from again displaying the material on a booth outside the student café. The society was placed on 12 months’ probation and must submit all future material to three officials, including the student union president, for approval.
Newman Society secretary Elise Nally, a third-year applied science student, said the union’s action was totalitarian and against free speech.
“I’d like to know what laws we’ve broken,” Nally said. “The union is acting like a dictator.”
Student union president Joshua Young, who is associated with the Liberal Party, described the reasons for the decision.
“I know the Newman Society thinks the union is being heavy handed, but the student union voted in 1993 for free, safe abortion on demand so all women have a genuine choice when faced with unwanted pregnancy,” he said.
A minority of the university’s 30,000 students voted in the 1993 referendum. According to The Australian, Young said the vote was about 1900 in favor of abortion rights, 1400 against, and 200 abstaining.
When asked if the vote precludes other views being advocated in campus debate, Young said “It does.”
15 years ago 6.3% of the students on campus voted in favor of government funded abortion on demand, and according to liberal Joshua Young, this settled the matter forever, because that is in line with liberal ideology, which is always good. If this isn’t fascist thinking, then I don’t know what is.
We see this here in the United States, too - in the demand that people nominated as Supreme Court justices declare themselves opposed to an overturn of Roe, which in spite of being an unconstitutional bastardization of the very concept of law, has now been mortised in time by liberals and acquired the status of holy writ, and it cannot be questioned…because it is in agreement with liberal thinking, which is always good. The problem here is not Young’s opposition to pro-life views, but his insistence that one cannot dissent from the group, which voted in favor of abortion on demand…
Tags: abortion, Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism
May 18th, 2008
It’s such a horrible thing, isn’t it? To have to prove you are who you are in order to vote! How dare anyone ask such a horrible thing!
But seriously, if you believe in honest and fair elections, you should be happy about yesterday’s ruling… But it appears that the Democrats aren’t happy.
Democratic insiders fear that a number of states, particularly in the Midwest and South, will copy the Indiana law now that the Supreme Court has upheld it. “There’s the concern for our side that it can spread, other states can do what Indiana did,” said a Democratic strategist. “You may see a lot more of this now.”
That’s right. A lot more “one person, one vote” will ultimately result from the ruling and a lot of “one person, multiple votes” or “one dead person, one vote” will disappear.
Yesterday’s ruling protects my vote from being cancelled out by a fraudulent vote. The same goes for all of you. I can’t tell you how crazy it made me in recent elections when I’ve voted and I’ve never been asked to prove who I was. I’ve offered to show my ID to poll workers and been refused. There’s just something wrong with that.
Tags: Supreme Court, voter fraud, Voter ID
April 29th, 2008
