For conservatives who revere the constitutional separation of powers, it’s an understatement to say this Ronald Reagan appointee has been a disappointment.
Considered a “swing vote” on the court, he often swings the wrong way. He’s something of a switch-hitter – sometimes swinging right and sometimes swinging left depending on who’s pitching.
But he made a statement earlier this month that was somewhat encouraging.
To Save Traditional Marriage, End State Involvement in Marriage (Bingo)
Townhall.com ^ | March 20, 2013 | Ben Shapiro
Posted on Wednesday, March 20, 2013 8:57:00 AM by Kaslin
Within the next few months, Justice Anthony Kennedy will likely rule that same-sex marriage is mandated by the Constitution of the United States. The ruling will offend both common sense and Constitutional law. But it will nonetheless become the law of the land.
With it, states will be forced to recognize same-sex marriages; same-sex marriage will enter the public school lexicon; religious institutions will be forced to recognize same-sex marriages or lose their tax-exempt status.
Supreme Court to conference on Obama eligibility today
Coach is Right ^ | 2/15/13 | Suzanne Eovaldi
Posted on Friday, February 15, 2013 12:09:12 PM by Oldpuppymax
Today, February 15, 2013, Attorney Orly Taitz brings her request to move the Obama eligibility challenge from conference to the oral hearing stage at the US Supreme Court. She is moving forward in spite of the fact that four African-American Supreme Court clerks refused to allow Taitz to see the signature of Justice Anthony Kennedy who denied her petition originally. “But I resubmitted to Justice Roberts, and he sent it to the conference,” Taitz said. (1)
The California attorney is asking “…how do we know that he (Kennedy) ever saw the brief?” In no uncertain terms clerk James Baldin told me that “I (Taitz) [was] not allowed to see the signature.” This denial of her right to see Kennedy’s signature “does not make any sense.” Perhaps her…
Supreme Court to Review Case on Obama’s Forged Documents… “As of this writing, major news networks such as ABC, Fox News, CBS, and NBC have yet to report on the high court’s decision to review Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to hold political office in the United States or any of its territories. …”
Supreme Court to Review Case on Obama’s Forged Documents
Liberty Beacon ^ | 30JAN13 | Liberty Beacon Staff
Posted on Saturday, February 02, 2013 4:58:04 PM by OzarkSailor
As of this writing, major news networks such as ABC, Fox News, CBS, and NBC have yet to report on the high court’s decision to review Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to hold political office in the United States or any of its territories. The case is identified as Edward Noonan, et al., v. Deborah Bowen, California Secretary of State.
On Feb. 15, all nine justices will gather in conference to review whether Obama used forged government documents and fake identification in order to get elected as commander-in-chief. Edward Noonan, et al., contend that if Obama had been ineligible to run in 2008, other Democratic candidates should have replaced him on the presidential ballot. Additionally, electoral votes from states such as California that went towards Obama should have been deemed null and void.
(“IF Barack Hussein Obama is permitted to take the oath of office in the face of the documentation offered in the books cited above and the clear language of the U.S. Constitution, it will mark the end of the efficacy of law in America…..”) ~ Warning Signs: Why Obama Should Not Be Allowed to Take the Oath of Office Again
…..This goes way beyond stuffing ballot boxes to steal an election. It is fraud that nullifies the Constitutional requirements–the laws– governing who may hold the highest office in the land.
We must also ask why there has been the failure or refusal of many elements of the nation’s judicial system to respond to the law suits, often declaring that the parties filing them have “no standing” before the courts to allege that Obama has defrauded Americans in order to be elected.
Prison Planet.com » Confirmed – Chief Justice Roberts switched sides on Affordable Care Act Supreme Court decision
Insider sources have revealed that Chief Justice John Roberts indeed flip-flopped his previous position by deciding at the last minute to affirm the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. Jan Crawford, Chief Political and Legal Correspondent at CBS News reports that two unnamed sources familiar with the details of the proceedings have come forward with claims that Chief Justice Roberts caved to eleventh-hour pressures urging support for the ACA, despite having earlier opposed key portions of the legislation.
For John Roberts, it is Palm Sunday.
Out of relief and gratitude for his having saved Obamacare, he is being compared to John Marshall and Oliver Wendell Holmes.
Liberal commentators are burbling that his act of statesmanship has shown us the way to the sunny uplands of a new consensus.
If only Republicans will follow Roberts’ bold and brave example, and agree to new revenues, the dark days of partisan acrimony and tea party intransigence could be behind us.
Yet imagine if Justice Stephen Breyer had crossed over from the liberal bench to join Antonin Scalia, Sam Alito, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy in striking down Obamacare. Those hailing John Roberts for his independence would be giving Breyer a public caning for desertion of principle.
Why did Roberts do it? Why did this respected conservative uphold what still seems to be a dictatorial seizure of power – to order every citizen to buy health insurance or be punished and fined?
Congress can do this, wrote Roberts, because even if President Obama and his solicitor general insist the fine is not a tax, we can call it a tax:
“If a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning that does not do so. … If the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.”
Roberts is saying that if Congress, to stimulate the economy, orders every middle-class American to buy a new car or face a $5,000 fine, such a mandate is within its power.
Now, Congress can indeed offer tax credits for buying a new car. But if a man would prefer to bank his money and not buy a new car, can Congress order him to buy one – and fine him if he refuses?
Roberts has just said that Congress has that power.
Clearly, the chief justice was searching for a way not to declare the individual mandate unconstitutional. But to do so, he had to go through the tortured reasoning of redefining as a tax what its author and its chief advocates have repeatedly insisted is not a tax.
RUSH: Okay. Look, let’s cut to the chase here, folks. The reason that I’m nervous with all this speculation that Chief Justice Roberts “caved” and who “got to him” and who intimated him is simple.
The reason I’m having trouble with this is that I don’t think that’s what happened. I believe I mentioned earlier this week (it might have been yesterday or the day before) that I had been warned years ago. I was in a conversation about justices on the court and how they respond to public pressure in the Washington Post Style Section.
The Liars Have Triumphed… (“The lesson here is—don’t play around with socialism. You cannot win. It kills its host country every time.”)
By Alan Caruba Thursday, June 28, 2012
It also is a reminder that the Supreme Court is a political entity and a human one. Only the Justices who dissented from the majority decision on Obamacare were willing to take the heat. The majority ruled that the individual mandate under the commerce clause was unconstitutional, but gave Obamacare life as a tax.
Did Justice Roberts trade votes with Justice Kennedy in the Arizona decision handed down Monday? I certainly hope so, for he would have struck a blow for constitutional conservatism. I will explain:
Every ten years, after the U.S. Census releases its latest population reports, most of the 50 states begin the complicated process of drawing new election districts. As you might expect, partisan bickering and maneuvering inevitably distort things. So a decade ago, Arizona voters decided to end the partisanship by removing the redistricting process from the state legislature and placing it in the hands of an independent commission. Last year, the new commission, consisting of two Democrats, two Republicans, and a nonpartisan chair, got to work on its first set of maps after the 2010 census.
Unfortunately, the results were anything but nonpartisan. The independent chair sided consistently with the two Democrats, essentially giving them control over the makeup of the congressional and state legislative maps. Lawsuits were launched, along with a push by Arizona’s Republican governor, Jan Brewer, to impeach the chair. The new maps, if let stand, “could reshape the state’s political landscape” in the Democrats’ favor, the Arizona Republic reported. Already, state lawmakers are looking at doing away with the commission or significantly changing it.
Arizona isn’t alone. In many states, including those where reformers had tried to make the process less political, redistricting has already determined the outcome of this year’s races for Congress and state legislature. In part, blame naivety for the reformers’ failure: redistricting isn’t easily drained of partisanship. But federal election law—especially the Voting Rights Act, which mandates a certain amount of legal gerrymandering to reach preferred racial outcomes—shares some of the blame. Though some states are inching toward ways of carving out fairer, less politicized electoral maps, reform is slow, and scheming over election districts remains nearly as important as it ever was to politicians’ fortunes, the composition of state legislatures, and even control of the U.S. House of Representatives.
A week ago, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy observed that implementation of the Affordable Care Act stood to “…change the relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very fundamental way.”
Has this former constitutional law instructor no respect for our venerable system of checks and balances? Nah. And why should he?
This court, cosseted behind white marble pillars, out of reach of TV, accountable to no one once they give the last word, is well on its way to becoming the one of the most divisive in modern U.S. history.
It has squandered even the semi-illusion that it is the unbiased, honest guardian of the Constitution. It is run by hacks dressed up in black robes.
The Supreme Court mirrors the setup on Fox News: There are liberals who make arguments, but they are foils, in the background, trying to get in a few words before the commercials. Just as in the Senate’s shameful Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas hearings, the liberals on the court focus on process and the conservatives focus on results. John Roberts Jr.‘s benign beige facade is deceiving; he’s a crimson partisan, simply more cloaked than the ideologically rigid and often venomous Scalia.
Now conservative justices may throw Obama’s hard-won law out of those fine big windows. In 2005, Scalia was endorsing a broad interpretation of the clauses now under scrutiny from the majority.
The entire landscape of Congress’s constitutional powers changed on March 27, 2012, when, very early in the argument over the individual mandate, Justice Anthony Kennedy asked a somewhat shaken Solicitor General Donald Verrilli this simple question: “Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?”
(“Our country is too large to have all its affairs conducted by a single government.”) America’s Supreme Judicial Dictatorship by Thomas DiLorenzo
“The War between the States established . . . this principle, that the federal government is, through its courts, the final judge of its own powers.”
Eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Jeffersonians warned that if the day ever arrived when the central government became the final judge of its own powers, Americans would then live under a tyranny. The government, they believed, would inevitably proclaim that there are in fact no limits to its powers. That day came in 1865 when citizen control over the federal government ended along with the rights of nullification and secession. Not surprisingly, a warmongering, imperialistic megalomaniac like Woodrow Wilson would then celebrate this fact several decades later, as the above quotation attests.
The so-called system of checks and balances is a farce and a fraud; the reality is that all three branches of the federal government work together to conspire against the taxpayers for the benefit of the state and all of its appendages. As Judge Andrew Napalitano wrote in his book, The Constitution in Exile, the Supreme Court failed to rule a single federal law unconstitutional from 1937 to 1995. The Court is essentially a political rubber stamp operation with all of its black-robed ceremony being nothing more than part of the circus that is employed to dupe the public into acquiescing in its dictates.
Since the retirement of Sandra Day O’Connor, Swingin’ Anthony Kennedy has been the swingingest swinger on the Supreme Court, the big Numero Cinco on all those 5–4 white-knuckle nail-biting final scores. So naturally Court observers have been paying close attention to his interventions in the Obamacare oral arguments. So far he doesn’t sound terribly persuaded by the administration’s line:
“The government is saying that the federal government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases, and that changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very fundamental way.” As John Hinderaker wrote at the Powerline blog, “In that last observation, Kennedy seems to be channeling Mark Steyn.”
Which is true. As I wrote in National Review only two or three issues back, “I’ve argued for years in these pages that governmentalized health care fundamentally transforms the relationship between citizen and state in ways that” — and here’s the bit Justice Kennedy isn’t quite on board with yet — “make it all but impossible to have genuinely conservative government ever again.”
So I’m naturally heartened to hear him meeting me halfway. This was one of the highlights of a week that a shell-shocked Jeffrey Toobin, crawling out from under the rubble of the solicitor general’s presentation, told CNN viewers was “a train wreck” for the government’s case.
And yet, and yet . . . If you incline to the view that Obamacare is a transformative act, isn’t there something slightly pitiful about the fact that the liberties of over 300 million people hinge on the somewhat whimsical leanings of just one man?
JUSTICE SCALIA: ….And we’ve held in two cases that something that was reasonably adapted was not proper [the necessary and proper wording of the Commerce Clause] because it violated the sovereignty of the States, which was implicit in the constitutional structure.
The argument here is that it may be necessary, but it’s not proper because it violates an equally evident principle in the Constitution, which is that the Federal Government is not supposed to be a government that has all powers; that it’s supposed to be a government of limited powers.
And that’s what all this questioning has been about. What – what is left? If the government can do this, what else can it not do? [pp. 26-27]JUSTICE SCALIA: An equally evident constitutional principle is the principle that the Federal Government is a government of enumerated powers and that the vast majority of the powers remain in the States and do not belong to the Federal Government…. [pp. 27-28]
Sinners In the Hands of Anthony Kennedy
Red State ^ | March 28, 2012 | Erick Erickson
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2012 6:01:52 AM by Cincinatus‘ Wife
Yesterday the left descended into madness. The madness came early in the day. It happened shortly after 10 o’clock in the morning. Justice Anthony Kennedy opened his mouth and uttered his first question on the issue of the individual mandate. He asked, “Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?” The question, the second asked yesterday morning, bothered the left.
As the clock approached 11, Kennedy spoke again, sending shockwaves through the legal community. He stated matter of factly,
Supreme Court and Obama: Go Chief Justice John Roberts !
email | 11/29/2011 | Dan Hennessy
Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2011 8:43:25 AM by IbJensen
Our Dictator May Be In Deep Trouble…with Chief Justice John Roberts, U.S. Supreme Court.
According to sources who watch the inner workings of the federal government, a smack-down of Barack Obama by the U.S. Supreme Court may be inevitable.
Ever since Obama assumed the office of President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues. Critics have complained that much, if not all of Obama’s major initiatives run headlong into Constitutional roadblocks on the power of the federal government. Obama certainly did not help himself in the eyes of the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address early in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during the time of an election.
The tongue-lashing clearly did not sit well with the Court, as demonstrated by Justice Sam Alito, who publicly shook his head and stated under his breath, ‘That’s not true,’ when Obama told a flat-out lie concerning the Court’s ruling.
Separations of Powers Not: ‘Take Away His Vote’ Dem Congresswoman Wants To Nullify Justice Thomas’ Rulings With ‘Retroactive Recusal’
Twenty House Democrats are demanding a judicial ethics investigation into Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas just as the high court is poised to issue a ruling on the healthcare law that could make or break President Obama’s reelection.
The lawmakers on Thursday asked the U.S. Judicial Conference to formally request that the Department of Justice look into Thomas’s failure to disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars his wife has received from groups that want the healthcare law repealed. Their letter comes after 75 House Democrats in February asked Thomas to recuse himself from the case following reports that he’d failed to report his wife Virginia’s income since he joined the bench in 1991.
“Due to the simplicity of the disclosure requirements, along with Justice Thomas’s high level of legal training and experience, it is reasonable to infer that his failure to disclose his wife’s income for two decades was willful, and the Judicial Conference has a non-discretionary duty to refer this case to the Department of Justice,” the Democrats wrote in the letter, which was spearheaded by Rep. Louise Slaughter (N.Y.), the top Democrat on the House Rules Committee.
The letter comes just a day after the Obama administration and 26 states challenging the Democrats’ healthcare reform law asked the Supreme Court to take up the case, all but assuring that the high court will render a decision by next summer.
Many legal experts believe the court will end up with a split 5-4 ruling on the law — with Justice Anthony Kennedy filling his customary swing-vote role — so pressure on justices to recuse themselves is only expected to increase.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com …
“Is there anything more shameful than the man who lacks the courage to be a coward?” Peter Blaunder
CBS News reported that Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John G. Roberts, Jr., would meet in private with impostor president elect, Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro and so forth, on January 14, 2009:
“At the invitation of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Mr. Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden will pay a protocol visit to the Supreme Court of the United States Wednesday afternoon, the office says….The visit is private; reporters and photographers will not be present.”
I called the media number at the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon. The giddy operator confirmed they expected Obama at any minute!
To say I was floored when I read the news item is an understatement. A ‘ceremonial’ meeting between a president elect and justices of the Supreme Court is somewhat traditional. HOWEVER, in this instance, it’s flat out wrong. Chief Justice Roberts has cases on the docket where Obama is the defendant or is the subject of the litigation. Roberts and the other eight justices have already held two ‘Distribution for Conferences’ on the Donofrio and Wrotnoski cases on Obama’s citizenship ineligibility. They just turned away one of Phil Berg‘s cases a few days ago; that one is still in the Third Circuit. Tomorrow is the fourth case; another from Phil Berg.
On Wednesday, Roberts meets with the man at the heart of that case in private. Two days later, he sits down to discuss the case with the other justices after having a closed door meeting with the defendant! There is still the Lightfoot v Bowen case to be heard in conference, January 23, 2009. Again, Chief Justice Roberts will sit in that private meeting to discuss whether the case should go to oral arguments.
Does anyone see major conflict of interest here? How can Chief Justice Roberts meet with Obama behind closed doors under such circumstances? Even if they just chatted up the weather, it is highly inappropriate in my humble opinion. Roberts should have notified Obama that under the circumstances, he would not be able to meet with him, private or with photogs in attendance. There must be zero appearance of any bias or preference when it comes to judges and justices of the Supreme Court.
…Obama has even identified Chief Justice John Roberts as his number one enemy, that is, apart from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and so on. And it is no accident that the one swing-vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no intention of retiring until ‘Obama is gone.’ .
Apparently, the Court has had enough.The Roberts Court has signaled, in a very subtle manner, of course, that it intends to address the issues about which Obama critics have been screaming to high heaven.
A ruling against Obama on any one of these important issues could potentially cripple the Administration.
Such a thing would be long overdue.
First, there is ObamaCare, which violates the Constitutional principle barring the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase something. And no, this is not the same thing as states requiring drivers to purchase car insurance, as some of the intellectually-impaired claim.The Constitution limits FEDERAL government, not state governments, from such things, and further, not everyone has to drive, and thus, a citizen could opt not to purchase car insurance by simply deciding not to drive a vehicle.In the ObamaCare world, however, no citizen can ‘opt out.’
Second, sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama’s history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President.The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue. This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut, while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii.And that is only the tip of the iceberg.
Third, several cases involving possible criminal activity, conflicts of interest, and pay-for-play cronyism could potentially land many Administration officials, if not Obama himself, in hot water with the Court.Frankly, in the years this writer has observed politics, nothing comes close to comparing with the rampant corruption of this Administration, not even during the Nixon years….
Free RepublicBrowse · Search Pings · Mail News/ActivismTopics · Post ArticleSkip to comments.
…Allahpundit ^ | 2/8/11 | hot airPosted on Tuesday, February 08, 2011 10:44:39 PM by Nachum
One of the most pitiful, relentlessly irritating op-eds about O-Care that I’ve read since our long national nightmare began in summer ’09. To understand what makes it so grating, you need to know that the author, Laurence Tribe, is not only a Harvard Law prof who taught Obama but a bona fide titan of constitutional jurisprudence on the left.
He wrote a famous treatise on the subject and was, in his younger days, a perennial candidate for the Supreme Court when Democrats were in the White House. You might also remember him as the guy who sneered, amusingly, in a letter to Obama that Sotomayor isn’t nearly as smart as she thinks she is, and who endorsed Kagan because he thought she’d be better able to keep Anthony Kennedy from “drifting” towards the right.
You need all of that as background for two reasons.
, per his credentials, you’re expecting an argument for the mandate here that’s novel or unusually penetrating, you’re mistaken. His points about the Commerce Clause and Congress’s taxing power are as pedestrian as it gets, stuff you’ve read in a hundred different permutations from liberals over the past 18 months……..
Excerpt Read more at hotair.com ..
One wonders how Ed Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center managed to get a hold of a private letter sent to President Obama by Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe advising him against nominating Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, but be that as it may, its contents are quite interesting and show just how nakedly political Tribe’s view of a justice really is and also how little he thinks of Sotomayor.
In the May 2009 letter PDF link here, Tribe advises Obama to refrain from choosing Sotomayor because “she’s not nearly as smart as she seems to think she is” and also that she is a “bully” who would would be unable to try to persuade frequent SCOTUS swing vote Anthony Kennedy to a “pragmatically progressive direction,” something that Tribe believes former justice David Souter had managed to do on occasion.Instead of choosing Sotomayor, Tribe advised the newly elected president appoint Elena Kagan, the then-dean of the Harvard law school whom Obama would later nominate to the Court for a different vacancy, because he saw her as being more skilled at swaying Kennedy given her experience “gently but firmly persuading a bunch of prima donnas” at Harvard Law: