SCOTUS: Citizenship no longer matters when voting

June 29, 2015

In deciding to deny the petition for certiorari in the key election case Kobach, et al. v. Election Assistance Commission, (background here) the United States Supreme Court has summarily decided that citizenship is of no consequence in voting in U.S. elections.

At issue was the question of whether Arizona and Kansas could require voters to prove their citizenship when registering to vote with what has become known as the “federal form.” The form pertains to state and federal elections. Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach led the suit against the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), on an appeal of the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court decision.


SCOTUS rules in two cases affecting Arizona

June 29, 2015

Liberals on SCOTUS thwarted in abolishing death penalty, rule against AZ legislature

Arizona’s application of lethal injection holds, based on today’s Supreme Court ruling in Glossip v. Gross, an Oklahoma case brought by inmates challenging the drug protocol. Lethal injection opponents cited an execution they referred to as “botched.”

The 5-4 decision, was supported by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito, who wrote the opinion.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor a death penalty opponent, theatrically stated that the use of the drug midazolam leaves the prisoners “exposed to what may well be the chemical equivalent of being burned at the stake.”  Sotomayor neglected to call attention to the victims of the criminals whose crimes were heinous enough to be worthy of the death penalty.

The Arizona Legislature was dealt an unfortunate blow in the case Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission . At issue was whether an unelected “Independent” Commission should infringe on the Arizona Legislature’s ability to draw redistricting boundaries. The Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision sided with the appointed commission‘s authority. 

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote the opinion for the majority, in which Justice Anthony Kennedy joined with the liberals. Chief Justice John Roberts dissented, as did Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

In his dissent, Roberts said that majority’s position “has no basis in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution, and it contradicts precedents from both Congress and this Court.”


Governmental jumble as SCOTUS Justices legislate

June 28, 2015

Speculation on opinions pointless since liberal justices vote as a bloc

Americans, as young students have been taught that the U.S. Constitution provides a separation of powers via three distinct branches of government. The Legislative branch makes laws, the Executive branch carries them out, and the Judicial branch evaluates them.

Our Founders created a Constitution with an ingenious and intricate system of checks and balances to guard the people’s liberty against combinations of government power. It structured the Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary separate and wholly independent, yet coordinated for proper operation, with safeguards to prevent usurpations of power.

The Tenth Amendment clearly delineates the separation of powers —- creating a federal government with enumerated and limited powers, designed to keep government as close to the people as possible. 

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

James Madison stressed the necessity to reserve all possible authority in the states and people saying, “The powers delegated by the Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

With these thoughts as background, take time today to enlighten yourself by reading Andrew C. McCarthy’s heard-hitting assessment of the past week’s U.S. Supreme Court actions. Then brace yourself for those still to come on Monday.

McCarthy’s insightful article, printed in National Review, is titled: “Let’s Drop the Charade: The Supreme Court Is a Political Branch, Not a Judicial One.”

Background: Arizona Senator John McCain voted to confirm liberals Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer to the Supreme Court. McCain and Kyl joined the group of 36 GOP senators and one Democrat in opposing Elena Kagan’s nomination to the high court. The Huffington Post has the statements each of the senators gave as their reason.


Obamacare upheld: Justice Scalia redubs it SCOTUScare

June 25, 2015

Supreme Court takes massive swipe at freedom

States’ Rights took a massive hit as Chief Justice John Roberts again voted with his liberal colleagues in support of the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare.

In the case King v. Burwell, Roberts writing the majority opinion stated, “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them.”

Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee was the disappointing key vote to uphold the law in 2012. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who dissented in 2012, voted with the leftist majority today.

Justice Antonin Scalia, summarizing his dissent from the bench, correctly asserted, “We should start calling this law SCOTUScare,” using the acronym for the Supreme Court of the United States. Scalia accused his colleagues of twice stepping in to save the law from what he considered worthy challenges.

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas joined Scalia in the dissent, as they did in 2012. Joining Chief Justice John Roberts were the newly convinced Anthony Kennedy along with Associate Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.

 The Supreme Court Decision is available here.


Fed. Judge’s illegal lunacy: Admits biases affect judgment

June 21, 2015

Fox News reports on the order issued by Chief Judge Theodore A. McKee of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.  McKee instructed U.S. officials to intercept a 34-year-old mother and her 12-year-old daughter on a plane Friday and immediately return them to the United States. The pair, in the United States illegally, were being deported to their native Guatemala.

“If the government is unable to intercept Petitioners at the airport, they must locate Petitioners in Guatemala and return them to the United States as quickly as possible,” Judge McKee wrote in his June 19 order.

The fact that the “Petitioners” are in the United States illegally is of no consequence to Judge McKee, nominated to the federal bench by Bill Clinton in March 1994.  McKee was confirmed June 8, 1994 by a voice vote, rather than the usual roll call, so there is no record of which senators voted “yea” or “nay.”

The Third Circuit, based in Philadelphia, has appellate jurisdiction over the Districts of Delaware and New Jersey, and the Eastern, Middle and Western Districts of Pennsylvania. It also has appellate jurisdiction over the District Court of the Virgin Islands.

In this 1:30 minute video clip, McKee discusses biases and concludes with this thought: “How in the world can we say that those [our] biases don’t affect our judgments?”

And all along Americans foolishly believed it was adherence to the law.


SCOTUS’ unanimous decision against Gilbert (AZ)

June 19, 2015

Decisive victory for free speech

In an unusual unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court decisively affirmed Thursday that the government cannot play favorites when it comes to free speech. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys represented an Arizona church in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, a case involving restrictions on temporary signs that provided the vehicle for the justices to reaffirm and clarify that the government cannot single out one form of speech over another based on how worthy the government thinks it is. Read more here.

Scottsdale-based Alliance Defending Freedom won a decisive U.S. Supreme Court victory on behalf of 82-year-old Pastor Clyde Reed, his wife Ann —- and all Americans. We owe them a debt of gratitude.

The case was argued January 12, 2015 and decided June 18, 2015. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court.


SCOTUS uses politically incorrect term “alien”

June 15, 2015

Bravo!

KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE, ET AL. v. DIN

Argued February 23, 2015 — Decided June 15, 2015 — Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion. Justices Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy concurred.  Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the dissent.

Fauzia Din petitioned to have her husband, Kanishka Be­rashk, a resident citizen of Afghanistan and former civil servant in the Taliban regime, classified as an “immediate relative” entitled to priority immigration status.

Din came to the U.S. as a refugee in 2000, and became a naturalized citizen in 2007. She filed a petition to have Kanishka Berashk, whom she married in 2006, classified as her immediate relative.

The court refers to the husband as an “unadmitted and nonresident alien,” with no right of entry into the United States, and no cause of action to press in furtherance of his claim for admission.

Seeing Red AZ covered the politically correct language usage handed down from on high at the Associated Press, by the Senior VP and Executive Editor on April 3, 2012. We compared the new Stylebook mandates to George Orwell’s Newspeak in the book “1984” in our post, “ Winston Smith: Alive and well at Associated Press.”

It’s reassuring to know the U.S. Supreme Court still understands the meaning of words.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 370 other followers