You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Justice Samuel Alito’ tag.

     The weather this cold Monday was NEGATIVE 5 in Manchester NH, and the trains weren’t running into NYC because of the cold. Here are a few of the highlights of this Monday:

          **    The Appeals Court in Illinois has ruled that Rahm Emmanuel is NOT QUALIFIED to be on the ballot for Chicago Mayor due to residency issues…. Early voting starts next week for the February 22nd election.

          **   Even as Florida’s newly elected Gov. Rick Scott was in South Florida at the funeral service for two slain officers, gunned down serving a warrant, two more police officers, doing the same thing, were gunned down in St. Petersburg, FL.

          **   A gunman opened fire in a Detroit police precinct last night, injuring at least four officers.

          **  Pro-life groups braved the cold weather in Washington DC today to mark the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, having the March for Life on the National Mall.

          **  Jared Loughner, the accused Tucson tragedy gunman, appeared in court and pled not guilty to charges against him.

          **  Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito will definitely NOT be attending the State of the Union address tomorrow night. Justice Clarence Thomas has routinely refrained from attending the event, and there is rumor that Chief Justice John Roberts will not attend either.

Any others:

From  Right side of Life:

As Professor Bradley A. Smith observes in the National Review Online:

Tonight the president engaged in demogoguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that last week’s Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, “open[ed] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.”

The president’s statement is false.

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making “a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election” under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any “expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication… .”

This is either blithering ignorance of the law, or demogoguery of the worst kind.