Archive for June 29th, 2009

The Supreme Court handed a victory Monday to a group of white firefighters charging racial discrimination, while also giving some fodder to critics of President Barack Obama’s pending nominee for the high court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a court split 5-4 along ideological lines, reversed an appeals court ruling Sotomayor joined last year that rejected a claim that the City of New Haven, Conn., discriminated against white firefighters  by throwing out a promotional exam after all the African-American firefighters who took it scored too poorly to be promoted.

“Whatever the City’s ultimate aim — however well intentioned or benevolent it might have seemed — the City made its employment decision because of race. The City rejected the test results solely because the higher scoring candidates were white,” Kennedy wrote on behalf of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Kennedy said that allowing the city’s conduct would establish “a de facto quota system” where test results could be discarded whenever a particular racial group didn’t achieve the average score. link

This should serve as a signal to congress to carefully scrutinize Sotomayor’s previous rulings during her upcoming SCOTUS nomination hearings. Considering her past anti-2nd amendment statements, as well as her racially charged comments and misguided rulings, she is clearly not the kind of person we need sitting on the highest court in the land. We need SCOTUS judges who will rule based on the original intent our founding fathers articulated so carefully in the constitution.

The last thing we need is someone who sees the constitution as malleable and who is willing to rewrite our most sacred documents based on racial agendas and misguided ideology.

The law would exempt from federal regulation all guns, ammunition, and accessories that are made, sold, and kept within the state — provided they are stamped with the words “Made in Montana.”

The idea is that since the federal government justifies its regulations using the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, it has no authority to regulate intrastate trade in firearms. The text of the bill cites the Ninth and 10th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution which guarantee “to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.” It also cites the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and its own constitution which “clearly secures to Montana citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Montana citizens to keep and bear arms.”

Similar attempts to challenge the federal government on other issues have prompted armed federal raids and less-than-favorable outcomes in court. The state of California legalized medical marijuana that was grown and kept within the state, but in 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that since marijuana in California is indistinguishable from marijuana grown elsewhere, the federal government had the authority to regulate both. The firearms in question would be distinguishable from out-of-state guns because of the required stamp, so how the court would rule is still uncertain. link

The states need more bills such as this, to push back against the ever increasing control and regulation of states by the federal government. It appears federalism is alive and well in Montana. Hopefully, we will see many states, in addition to Texas who has similar legislation in the works,  follow suit.

It’s time for the states to take back some of our ever eroding rights.

Under a recently-introduced bill, H.R. 1966, bloggers would face up to two years in prison if they “harass” public figures by criticizing them in a “severe, repeated, and hostile” manner, and thereby cause them “substantial emotional distress.”

U.C.L.A. Law Professor Eugene Volokh, the author of a First Amendment treatise, has concluded that the bill is unconstitutional. I agree, as I explain here. As a federal appeals court noted in DeJohn v. Temple University (2008), “there is no harassment exception to the First Amendment’s free speech clause.” Speech that causes emotional distress can be protected,as the Supreme Court made clear in barring a lawsuit by Jerry Falwell over an offensive parody. link Bill (HR 1966)

Fascism is coming faster than you think.

Don’t you love the way the bill begins with notion of “Protecting the children”?

Does anyone really believe this bill won’t be used to silence free speech.

This bill’s main sponsor is the radical liberal fascist Congress Woman “Linda Sanchez” (hope my “opinion” doesn’t cause her any “emotional distress”). Here are the names of others who support and cosponsored this horrendous and unacceptable assault on free speech.

  • Democrat Marcy Kaptur
  • Democrat Raúl Grijalva
  • Democrat Phil Hare
  • Democrat John Yarmuth
  • Democrat Lucille Roybal-Allard
  • Democrat Lois Capps
  • Democrat Timothy H. Bishop
  • Democrat Bruce Braley
  • Democrat Brian Higgins
  • Democrat William Lacy Clay
  • Democrat John Sarbanes
  • Democrat Danny Davis
  • Democrat Joe Courtney
  • Democrat Mark Kirk

Anyone see a pattern here?

Liberal fascism at it’s best!!

A coalition of US progressive groups unveiled Monday a 82-million-dollar campaign to boost President Barack Obama’s plans to overhaul the ailing healthcare system.

Campaign for America’s Future has galvanized some 1,000 organizations with a total of 30 million members through Health Care for America Now. link

Yeah, I’m sure it’s not going to cost the taxpayers much. I hear we’re getting a tax cut.

Americans want it all when it comes to health care – brilliant doctors, cutting-edge treatments, easy access to care and insurance coverage that pays all the bills.

Those in the business of health care want it all, too: big profit margins, hefty salaries paid to those at the top and happy shareholders.

The truth is Americans might not be able to have it all when it comes to health care – not without major changes. Not in the long run. Not without jeopardizing the federal budget and the health of the nation’s economy. This country is on track to spend $2.5 trillion on health care this year and $5.2 trillion by 2020, which would consume 21 percent of the country’s economic resources.

That expense is simply unaffordable for individual Americans, employers offering insurance coverage and taxpayers footing the bill for government coverage.

n December 2008, the Congressional Budget Office released an evaluation of 115 health-care proposals to determine potential cost and savings of each. For example, imposing excise taxes on soda and increasing taxes on alcohol could generate more than $100 billion over 10 years – with perhaps the added health benefit of discouraging people from over-indulging.

But that’s a relative pittance when annual costs are measured in trillions. This country can’t nickel and dime its way to a steady source of revenue to fund health care. Significant tax changes must be considered.

A May 20 report from the Senate Finance Committee offered lawmakers some options for changing the tax code to help finance reform.

On the table are changes to health-related tax breaks that result in nearly $200 billion in uncollected revenue by the government each year. These tax breaks account for more than 17 percent of all federal tax breaks, “larger than capital gains and dividend tax breaks, retirement security and housing, among others,” according to the report. link

So, we will have a privately owned health industry under the control of, and ran by, the government … you know, like the financial industry and the car companies.

That my friends, is pure fascism!!

A totalitarian philosophy of government that glorifies the state and nation and assigns to the state control over every aspect of national life. The name was first used by the party started by Benito Mussolini

The economic system inaugurated by the Fascist regime of Benito Mussolini in Italy. Although the Italian system was based upon unlimited government control of economic life, it still preserved the framework of capitalism, along with legislation to set up guilds, or associations, of employees and employers to administer various sectors of the national economy. These were represented in the national council of corporations. The corporations were generally weighted by the state in favor of the wealthy classes.

“Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.”

Yep, we call them czars, labor unions and “special interest groups”.

You ever noticed how it can be difficult to see changes when they occur slowly, say over 200 years or so…