Posts with the tag 'Supreme Court'
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
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
The case where the SC ruled that we can’t execute someone for raping a child:
As a father, I believe there is no more sacred responsibility in American society than that of protecting the innocence of our children. I have spent over twenty-five years in Congress fighting for stronger criminal sentences for those who exploit and harm our children. Today’s Supreme Court ruling is an assault on law enforcement’s efforts to punish these heinous felons for the most despicable crime. That there is a judge anywhere in America who does not believe that the rape of a child represents the most heinous of crimes, which is deserving of the most serious of punishments, is profoundly disturbing.
I have to say that its not particularly disturbing to me - there is a longstanding strain of thought amongst some judges that they really know better than anyone else, so no real surprise that the Supreme Court has ruled itself smarter than the people of Louisiana in this matter. The absurdity of the decision is very clear - unless capital punishment is in and of itself unconstitutional there is no rationale for a court to interfere with the particular reasons a jurisdiction imposes the death penalty as long as the trial and sentencing are in accordance with the United States Constitution. The people of Lousiana have determined that those who rape children put their own lives a jeopardy, and everyone outside Louisiana should just shut their traps about it unless they want to move to Louisiana and, by participating in Louisiana’s politics, work to change the law. But never let it be said that the Court is shy about sticking its nose in where it doesn’t belong.
That said, I’d like to remind everyone that I am an opponent of the death penalty - killing the SOB who raped a child won’t actually help the raped child and by putting the criminal at risk of death for rape we merely, in my view, increase the risk that it will be a rape/murder in order to dispose of the prime witness to the crime. Should such a proposal come up here in Nevada, I would work against it and vote against it - but its none of my particular business what the people of Louisiana decide, just at its none of theirs what we Nevadans decide. America does need a large dose of “mind your own business” education. What I am most disturbed with here is the judicial usurpation of the rights of the States, and the people. We are either free people ruling ourselves, or we are mere automatons carrying out the instructions of our judges - if this SC ruling is allowed to stand, then we will have surrendered another part of our precious right to self government.
This ruling also provides us with another strong reason for voting for John McCain in November - with McCain, we might get to a solid 5 conservative Justices, and thus start having a Court which obeys the Constitution at all times…with Obama, we’ll probably get to a solid 5 liberal Justices who will do the bidding of the kook left in matters of law. The choices in November are quite stark, and this case might end up playing a larger role than most expect at this point in time.
Tags: Death Penalty, John McCain, Supreme Court
June 26th, 2008
But just a bit:
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court upheld criminal penalties Monday for promoting child pornography.
The court, in a 7-2 decision, brushed aside concerns that the law could apply to mainstream movies that depict adolescent sex, classic literature or innocent e-mails that describe pictures of grandchildren.
The ruling upheld part of a 2003 law that also prohibits possession of child porn. It replaced an earlier law against child pornography that the court struck down as unconstitutional…
…Justice David Souter, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dissented. Souter said promotion of images that are not real children engaging in pornography still could be the basis for prosecution under the law. Possession of those images, on the other hand, may not be prosecuted, Souter said.
“I believe that maintaining the First Amendment protection of expression we have previously held to cover fake child pornography requires a limit to the law’s criminalization of pandering proposals,” Souter said.
The bit of common sense was the ruling that child porn is not covered under the rubric of free speech - the reason it was only “a bit” of common sense is that the SC didn’t rule that laws could be made to restrict all pornography…’cause, boys and girls, there wasn’t a man at Bunker Hill, the Alamo, Gettysburg, Argonne, Iwo Jima or anywhere else Americans have fought for liberty who was thinking as he died, “at least my descendents will get to look at dirty pictures”. Pornography ain’t speech - its a prurient way to make a buck off the ruthless exploitation and objectification of human beings, but it isn’t speech…and only a liberal entirely detached from common sense could ever say otherwise. The fact that we, as a society, have said otherwise is a badge of deep shame upon us…because scummy purveyors of smut wanted to make a buck, we’ve enshrined their filth as being fit company with the great literature of the past, and the great political documents of our history.
And there were Souter and Ginsburg, following the idiot tradition of American jurisprudence on free speech - if you needed a reason to vote McCain, there it is. He’s pledged to appoint more Scalias - Obama will appoint more Ginsburgs. Who do you want ruling from the bench?
Tags: Barack Obama, First Amendment Issues, John McCain, pornography, Supreme Court
May 20th, 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
Ably stated by Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University:
John McCain has won the endorsement of some prominent pro-life political leaders. Yet he also has been the cause of some serious headaches for the pro-life movement.
But elections always involve choosing among particular alternatives, rather than insisting on an ideal. And when we look at the alternatives likely in November, it is clear John McCain offers pro-life voters by far the more appealing prospect.
The campaign finance reform legislation McCain sponsored with Sen. Russ Feingold (D., Wis.) has placed serious restrictions on the ability of pro-life groups (and others) to exercise their influence. More important, McCain has voted twice to try to overturn President Bush’s embryonic stem-cell funding policy, thus offering what would amount to a taxpayer-funded incentive for the destruction of human embryos for research. Although he has suggested he may be open to rethinking his view as new science demonstrates alternatives to embryo-destruction, he has so far not reversed himself.
For me and other pro-life voters, these are serious concerns. But we must also consider that McCain’s pro-life record as a whole is very strong. It is not the record of a politician hostile to the pro-life cause or generally unreliable on pro-life issues. He may have been led astray on stem-cell research - but he did co-sponsor Sen. Sam Brownback’s bill prohibiting the creation of embryos by cloning for purposes of research in which they are killed. Contrast his position with those of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Both bitterly oppose the Brownback cloning ban and support the funding of embryo-destroying human cloning with taxpayer dollars.
Likewise on the issue of abortion, there is no comparison between McCain’s history of support for the right to life and Clinton’s and Obama’s implacable opposition to it. While he has never been especially outspoken on abortion-related questions (and is rumored to have sometimes opposed bringing pro-life bills forward), there is no denying that his pro-life voting record is strong and consistent. Indeed, it is one of the best in the Senate.
The next president will name several hundred federal judges, probably including two or more Supreme Court justices. Sen. McCain has pledged to nominate judges who will faithfully interpret the Constitution, not legislate from the bench, and he has made clear that he thinks Justices Roberts and Alito are good models. Sens. Clinton or Obama, by contrast, would be certain - I repeat, certain - to nominate judges and justices who reject this view of the judge’s role, and who are deeply committed to maintaining the regime of judicially mandated abortion on demand.
For social conservatives - such as myself - there really is no question; between McCain and whatever part of HillBama we get, anyone who is pro-life (or, heck, even a moderate pro-choicer) will have to vote for McCain given McCain’s reasonable position on life issues contrasted with the raving, pro-abortion fanaticism we’ll get from a President Hillary or Obama. Remember, not only will both of them seek to put liberal extremists on the bench, but they’ll likely try to tack taxpayer funded abortions on to their various health care proposals. A vote for Hillary or Obama is a vote for the Culture of Death, period. End of story.
A vote for McCain, on the other hand, is a vote for life and hope.
Tags: abortion, embryonic stem cell research, HillBama, John McCain, Supreme Court
March 19th, 2008
Its going to have a larger effect on the outcome, I think, than a lot of people realise:
Washington DC, Jan 22, 2008 (CNA).- The pro-abortion-rights organization and reproductive health provider Planned Parenthood is planning a major effort to elect abortion supporters to Congress and the White House in the 2008 elections, the Wall Street Journal reports.
The organization’s $10 million “One Million Strong” campaign aims to persuade one million voters to vote for abortion-rights candidates.
The group had avoided electoral politics until recently. It endorsed a presidential candidate for the first time in 2004, when it supported Democratic Senator John Kerry. It also supported some Democratic gubernatorial candidates in 2006. “To keep our doors open,” said Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards, “it’s clear that we need to step into the electoral arena.”
Two of the oldest judges on the Supreme Court are abortion supporters. A Republican victor in 2008 could replace them with justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that mandated legalized abortion nationwide. Five of the nine sitting Supreme Court justices are considered to be Roe v. Wade supporters.
In 2008, it very likely is this equation: Elect a Republican, end Roe. And with the end of Roe will come the ability to slowly do away with abortion completely. Not all at once, and not just in a few years - but eventually, God willing, we can end this barbarism and badge of shame upon our nation. Pro-life people realise this, but even more so - it seems - the pro-abortion people realise it. And thus an alleged non-profit like Planned Parenthood (America’s largest abortion provider) is entering the fray - apparantly unworried about any risk to its non-profit status (probably figuring that a Democrat in the White House will keep any legal dogs away - while a GOPer in the White House probably wouldn’t waste time going after PP).
This could become crucial because it will likely come down to just a few States deciding who gets 270 electoral votes - and Democrat, but pro-life, Pennsylvania is just one of the States which might be swayed by the abortion stakes in 2008 (Kerry won PA by about 145,000 votes out of 5.7 million cast…75,000 votes the other way, and it would have gone Republican…PP wants to prevent that from happening). As I’ve been saying, we’re in for a wild political ride in 2008 - and a very nasty campaign. The fact of abortion fanatics at PP getting into the fray just further confirms my prognosis.
Tags: abortion, Planned Parenthood, Supreme Court
January 24th, 2008
