The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a bid by North Carolina to reinstate for November’s elections several voting restrictions, including a requirement that people show identification at the polls. So, by virtue of a 4-4 tie in the Supreme Court, the lower court ruling stands.
South Carolina started 4 years ago to require a photo ID to vote, to ensure the integrity of one person, one vote. A right already extended to voters in Florida and 29 other states.
According to the NYT, opponents of the South Carolina election law (all Democrats) their reason to oppose it is . . .
its provisions deliberately “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision” in an effort to depress black turnout at the polls.
The “restrictions” the Democrats contend “target” Blacks are . . .
voters must present photo identification at the polls, even though there is an affidavit alternative for voters without a photo ID.
no same-day registration, registering to vote on Election Day, and
no registering to vote before being old enough (18) to vote
early voting via absentee ballots
The way the Democrats use the justice system to suit their political agenda (as opposed to the Constitution) is obvious. It also shines the light on the fact that they only care for Blacks when it comes to their vote. Something you’ve heard from republicans, including Donald Trump.
Looking behind their whole premise, is that Blacks are incapable of following voting rules. As an American, that bigotry offends me. They also contradict themselves. If 364 days before an election isn’t enough time to register, and early voting via an absentee ballot is not enough time to vote, then how is it that “same day” registration is even an issue?
Bottom line here, what Democrats fear most is a fair voting process that insures the integrity of one person, one vote. And, they’re using Blacks as their vehicle to get them there.
The Supreme Court today handed President Obama a defeat in his executive amnesty (DAPA & DACA) order. Because the court was tied 4-4, the decision of the lower court stands.
It was a victory. But it wasn’t good. What’s not good about it is that it wasn’t an 8-0 decision. This wasn’t an immigration issue. This was a separation of powers issue. And that there were 4 Justices who thought it was OK for the Executive Branch to make law is disastrous.
Article 1 of the Constitution establishes the Legislative Branch. That’s where laws are made. Article 2 of the Constitution establishes the Executive Branch. That’s where laws are enforced. Article 3 of the Constitution establishes the Judicial Branch. That’s where laws are interpreted when the need arises. That’s the way it’s supposed to work.
Imagine what would happen to the country if Obama could pick just one more Justice? It’s over. There is no “sick and tired” clause in the Constitution like Obama seems to think. If he can’t get Congress to pass laws that he likes, that does not give him the power to abuse his power to write a law he wants.
The Founding Fathers were careful to set up these three, separate but equal branches of government. They lived what a tyrannical government was like in the Crown. They also knew that if any two, or all three, branches of government ceased to be separate, where one branch assumed the role of another, that would be the definition of tyranny.
This where we are today. And that’s why the Founding Fathers provided for the Article V Convention of States. That is the safety valve to put the States, the people, back in power when the government turns tyrannical.
Fascinating to watch just what a cover-up looks like. Cover-up combined with a major case of CYA. How’s that go again? If you have nothing to hide, just answer the questions. All of them. This video is a re-enactment of the deposition of Cheryl Mills, who was the a lawyer for both the Clinton’s. Representing Bill Clinton during the impeachment chapter of his presidency, and, was Hillary’s Chief of Staff while she was Sec. of State.
The reason that this is a re-enactment, instead of the real audio/video recording is because the judge, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, has sealed them from the public until such time as he may change his mind. What? Ostensibly it seems, not until after the November election. Here is his order on release of the audio/video public record.
Notice how this judge is obviously making political, not legal, judgements in his decision. And where is the cacophony of media analysis and calls for this judge’s impeachment like we are hearing about the judge who gave a rapist a 6 mo. jail term? Like the judge hearing the Trump U. case is politically tied to his party, his LaRaza affiliated lawyer club, and the La Raza agenda. Something, to be honest, he should recuse himself from that case for. Not because it has anything to do with Trump University, but because he is an advocate for everything that Trump as president wants to stop, where illegal immigration is concerned.
Judge Sullivan is inserting his political beliefs into his legal obligation as a judge. That’s why it is our/your obligation to spread the word about not only Judge Sullivan enabling, but the extent Hillary Clinton’s staffers go to shield her and cover their own butts. When the mainstream media won’t, the alternative media must.
No ‘blind justice’ from this Justice Department. If AG Loretta Lynch’s criteria were income-based, she at least could make a case for leniency. But, typical of this administration, it is race-based.
And, if you disagree with a racial preference application of the law, then you must be a racist. See? So how’s that ‘post-racial’ administration working out?
There is empirical evidence that the ‘reform’ of the type Lynch wants will only exacerbate the crime problem. Typical of liberals like her, they never look at the consequences of their policies beyond their intentions. Also typical is that the “fix” makes matters worse. Worse for the people she portends to help.
This new court “reform” will only exacerbate the crime problem. Studies show ignoring low-level crimes like warrant violations only leads to bigger crimes.
That there is improvement to be made in the criminal justice system is obvious. For example, it makes no sense to levy a fine while at the same time suspending a driver’s license for an offense that had nothing to do with driving. And without transportation, you lose your job, making paying the fine impossible. Creating unemployment, poverty, and government dependence. Is that what we want of our justice system?
Many of the cities with the highest fines, such as Philadelphia, are run by Democrats; and the Justice Department is no piker when it comes to levying fines.
“US attorneys always want fines and restitution amounts in the millions from people who have little chance of ever paying it back,” the department official said.
Liberals are actually to blame for the trend they’re trying to reform. Court fines and fees help pay for all the new costs liberals have added to the system, such as drug counseling and home electronic monitoring. They’ve also pushed judges to assess more fines in lieu of incarceration, especially for drug offenders.
Yet now they claim the whole court fine and bail system is racist.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans upheld a May injunction by a Texas court, dealing a blow to Obama’s plan to circumvent Congress, the only body that can make or change immigration laws.
At the same time, the court affirmed what President Obama said, no less than 22 times. He has no authority to take unilateral action on Immigration.
March 31, 2008: “I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with [the president] trying to … not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President…”
May 19, 2008: “I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States.”
May 5, 2010: “Anybody who tells you … that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn’t been paying attention to how this town works.”
July 1, 2010: “[T]here are those … who have argued passionately that we should … at least ignore the laws on the books… I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair.”
October 14, 2010: “I do have an obligation to make sure that I am following some of the rules. I can’t simply ignore laws that are out there.”
October 25, 2010: “I am president, I am not king. I can’t do these things just by myself. … I can’t just make the laws up by myself.”
March 28, 2011: “America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law.”
April 20, 2011: “I can’t solve this problem by myself. … I can’t do it by myself.”
April 29, 2011: “Some here wish that I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how democracy works”
May 10, 2011: “They wish I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how a democracy works.”
July 25, 2011: “The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. … But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.”
September 28, 2011: “We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it.”
September 20, 2012: “What I’ve always said is, as the head of the executive branch, there’s a limit to what I can do.”
October 16, 2012: “We’re … a nation of laws. … And I’ve done everything that I can on my own.”
January 30, 2013: “I’m not a king. I am the head of the executive branch of government. I’m required to follow the law.”
January 30, 2013: “I’m not a king. You know, my job as the head of the executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law.”
February 14, 2013: “The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States.”
July 16, 2013: “I think that it is very important for us to recognize that the way to solve this problem has to be legislative.”
September 17, 2013: “My job in the executive branch is supposed to be to carry out the laws that are passed. … But if we start broadening that, then essentially I would be ignoring the law…”
November 25, 2013: “The easy way out is to try to yell and pretend like I can do something by violating our laws. … That’s not our tradition.”
March 6, 2014: “And I cannot ignore those laws any more than I could ignore … any of the other laws that are on the books.”
August 6, 2014: “I’m bound by the Constitution; I’m bound by separation of powers.”
The Michael Brown Grand Jury decided that no laws were broken in his shooting death. It’s called justifiable use of deadly force. Yes, such a concept exists.
Now in Ferguson, MO, and other cities around the country, there is lawlessness running amok by people who don’t understand justifiable use of deadly force. They are setting businesses on fire, looting, rampant vandalism, burning cars, and more.
This might have been prevented if President Obama, Atty. General Holder, and Missouri Governor Nixon had not jumped to conclusions about what happened almost immediately after the incident.
They should have taken the incident as a teachable moment of how people are innocent until proven guilty, the role of a Grand Jury in the Justice system, and publicly pushing back on the Jessie Sharptons of the world who were calling for a quick arrest. They did none of that, which only fed into their anxiety.
They did none of that after the Trayvon Martin shooting either. The sooner everyone, not just people who look like Treyvon Martin and Michael Brown, learn that beating on someone could lead to the justifiable use of deadly force, either by a regular civilian or a law enforcement officer, the better the outcome in a civil society.
As the fires burn, Obama’s chickens, are coming home, to roost.
All the information that has been leaking from the Grand Jury investigation concerning Michael Brown’s death seems to be pointing to no indictment. That, under the circumstances, Ferguson, Mo., police officer Darren Wilson acted properly.
The odds that the Jesse Sharpton’s and other race baiters of the world will accept that, if that’s what the decision turns out to be, are slim. There have already been threats of “retaliation” if Wilson is not put on trial. And therein lies the problem with race relations in this country. There’s no leadership from this “post-racial” administration calling for calm, reason, and a primer on law and order, and there should be. Before things get further out of control.
Federal Judge Overturns Virginia’s Ban on Same Sex Marriage
There’s no better example why Progressives put so much emphasis on stacking the courts with fellow travelers who they know will advance the agenda, even if it means ignoring the law and overturning laws created under due process. But this decision goes beyond ignoring the law. This federal judge, Arenda Wright Allen, in striking down Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage, in the first page of her opinion wrote, “Our Constitution declares that ‘all men’ are created equal. Surely this means all of us.”
The low information crowd, like this person (gender of whom is not clear) of course eat this up. No doubt glad that a judge gave them what they wanted, which was the new definition of marriage. Well, it did take a judge. But a judge that has her head up her ass where the law is concerned.
For it is the Declaration of Independence that says “all men are created equal.” That was the document that told King George III to go F himself. That we are no longer subjects of the Crown. And that we, the colonies, are our own keeper.
This case was based around the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. Sorry but, gays are not prevented from getting married as Judge Allen suggests Virginia’s ban on gay marriage says. A gay man can marry any woman (gay or straight) he wants, and a lesbian can marry any man (gay or straight) she wants. In that respect, both straights and gays have the same right to marry and have equal protection to do just that.
Listening to Neal (The Talkmaster) Boortz today on my way to work I happened across the mother lode of this political phenomenon. The filibuster nuclear option. I’ve heard Boortz speak of this before but not until now was I able to capture it (for lack of a written transcript) to share with you.
For years and years, the Liberals and Progressives in the Democrat(ic) party have continually stressed and relied on the courts to thwart, if not enact, public policy that they either don’t agree with or otherwise could not do via the legislative process. In short, they view and use the court system as another branch of the legislature.
Now, after years of every Democrat leader having gone on record against the nuclear option, including all the ones who are now for it, they’re not only for it, they invoked it. So why now? It’s because President Obama’s signature legislation, the government control of health care, Democrats’ ‘wet dream’ legislation since John Dingell Sr. first introduced it 70 years ago, is losing public support as chances for repeal or defunding it become more probable.
Public opinion for the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) is dropping like a stone, not only because of what it is doing to people’s policies, families, and wallets, but the lawlessness in which the President himself is trying to keep the sinking ship from sinking by issuing edicts to insurance companies to add to and take away from the law. It’s all unconstitutional. They must fill the three vacancies in the Federal Court of Appeals in the DC Circuit with judges sympathetic to upholding all challenges to Obamacare and their regulatory over reaching. That’s why they are for the filibuster before they were against it. Most Americans see the ACA as a crisis to America. Democrats in Washington see the repeal or neutering of it as an even greater crisis, requiring the nuclear option.
Putting judges sympathetic to his cause is the only life-line he has left. Moving the United States’ free-market capitalistic economy to a fascist economy, which is what President Obama is all about and what he meant by fundamental change.
The recording of Neal’s rant begins after he explains the characteristics of capitalistic and socialist economic models. The clip begins with the fascist economic model. Boortz explains . . .