You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘US Supreme Court’ tag.

President William Howard Taft went on to be appointed to the US Supreme Court, and served as the Chief Justice.

So the idea of the current occupant of the White House ending up wearing the robe of the Justice’s isn’t that far-fetched. One could easily see, should Hillary Clinton run and be elected as our next President, her appointing Barack Obama to the bench when a vacancy occurs.

JAMES offers a different scenario, and perhaps one a bit scarier.

Imagine a seat opens on the US Supreme Court due to the retirement of any one of the Justices before November 2016. Barack Obama has to nominate someone to fill that seat. Our “Narcissist in Chief” can think of NO ONE more qualified than Barack H. Obama. He nominates himself and is confirmed, leaving Biden’s lifelong dream of being POTUS fulfilled, even if only for a short time. Add to that, if this were to occur in the near future, that a “President Biden” would need to nominate a Vice President…… Hillary Clinton.

All of this should give everyone pause, in light of the President’s apparent lack of following the law. Let us hope that there are no vacancies any time soon at the Court.

From Bloomberg:

Republicans won a nice victory in the Florida special congressional election yesterday, which the more gullible and/or excitable pundits are already overhyping. But via e-mail today, I received a reminder that Democrats should be rooting for an audience of two to be similarly over-interpreting the results: Supreme Court Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. If the justices previously believed it a safe bet that they would be replaced by mainstream liberal justices when they retire, perhaps now they’ll realize their only reasonable course of action is to retire this spring, pending confirmed replacements.

What Ginsburg and Breyer want, of course, is up to them. If their goal is to serve on the court as long as possible, then they should stay. Both, I should note, seem to be at the top of their games. Breyer, 75, and Ginsburg, who will turn 81 this week, might have a dozen or more years to go.

for full article: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-03-12/will-justices-ginsburg-and-breyer-head-for-the-exit?cmpid=yhoo

It is official. Barack Hussein Obama II has taken the oath of office for the “4th” time, thus beginning his second term to, as he tweeted, “finish what he started”!

To that end, may we at JAMES take this date in history, and wish the nine Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States good health and long lives. May they yearn to continue their legal jurisprudence throughout the next four years, and beyond. And should the urge for retirement at an age “younger” than Justice John Paul Stevens chose (92?), may it be the Honorable Justice Breyer or Ginsberg that choose that avenue.

And perhaps, as age and wisdom comes to the “Latina” Justice, or Justice Kagan, may they not follow the leftist liberal ideology, but come to an understanding of our conservatism.

God Bless the United States, as we will need it to survive the agenda of this President in the days ahead.

from Brietbart:

The Obama administration warned the Supreme Court this week via papers filed with the Court that if Obamacare is struck down, there will be an “extraordinary disruption” in Medicare. Medicare was not discussed during the Supreme Court arguments, since it was not a Constitutional issue. This is a practical argument, not a legal one; it’s the Obama administration applying pressure to the Supremes.

 

 

But that’s what the Obama administration does – they focus on the politics of the situation rather than on the legalities. If they can’t win on the law, they figure, they’ll push the Court to act via “empathy,” President Obama’s favorite legal standard. And if they lose, they’ll blame the Court for destroying Medicare.

 

 

It’s a win-win for the Obama administration: if the Court strikes down Obamacare, Obama will blame the Court for harming Medicare. If the Court upholds Obamacare to prevent an “extraordinary disruption” in Medicare, Obama gets what he wants.

 

 

The simple fact is that the “disruption in Medicare” argument could have been made during oral arguments (particularly the section on severability). It wasn’t. Instead, the Obama administration waits until now to “quietly” inform the Supremes, according to the Associated Press. This is politics, pure and simple.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/04/Obama-to-Supremes-Dont-You-Dare

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/04/mcconnell-to-obama-back-off-scotus-119717.html

“The President crossed a dangerous line this week. And anyone who cares about liberty needs to call him out on it. The independence of the Court must be defended. Regardless of how the justices decide this case, they’re answerable, above all, to the Constitution they swore to uphold. The fact that this President does not appear to feel similarly constrained to respect their independence doesn’t change that one bit.”

So respectfully, I would suggest the President back off. “

“Let the Court do its work. Let our system work the way it was intended. The stability of our system and our laws and our very government depends on it. And the duties of the Presidency demand it.”

The Irony: A Law Professor who was taught by Barack Obama then served as a Law Clerk for Judge Smith of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals:

From Brietbart:

Prof. Thom Lambert of the University of Missouri Law School has responded with alarm to President Barack Obama’s attack on the Supreme Court and the power of judicial review by recalling his own days as Obama’s student at the University of Chicago.

Lambert, who writes for the “Truth on the Market” blog, not only studied under Obama, but also clerked for the federal judge who issued an order yesterday demanding that the Department of Justice clarify whether the government believed courts had the power to overturn constitutional laws.

Lambert wrote:

Thus, a Wall Street Journal editorial queried this about the President who “famously taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago”:  “[D]id he somehow not teach the historic case of Marbury v. Madison?”

I actually know the answer to that question.  It’s no (well, technically yes…he didn’t).  President Obama taught “Con Law III” at Chicago.  Judicial review, federalism, the separation of powers — the old “structural Constitution” stuff — is covered in “Con Law I” (or at least it was when I was a student).  Con Law III covers the Fourteenth Amendment.  (Oddly enough, Prof. Obama didn’t seem too concerned about “an unelected group of people” overturning a “duly constituted and passed law” when we were discussing all those famous Fourteenth Amendment cases – Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut, Romer v. Evans, etc.)  Of course, even a Con Law professor focusing on the Bill of Rights should know that the principle of judicial review has been alive and well since 1803, so I still feel like my educational credentials have been tarnished a bit by the President’s “unprecedented, extraordinary” remarks.

Lambert added: “Fortunately…[t]his morning, the judge for whom I clerked, Judge Jerry E. Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, called the President’s bluff….I must say, I’m pretty dang proud of Judge Smith right now.  And I’m really looking forward to reading that three-page, single-spaced letter.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/04/Former-Obama-Student-Obamas-Ignorance-of-Constitution-Embarrassing

     The “ticker” at the bottom of the news channel caught my eye so fast as it rolled yesterday. Then the news station broadcast the story.

     The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, in Houston, TX, asked the federal government’s attorney to provide the Court with a “3 page single spaced” answer as to the position of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice (and thus the White House) as to whether they believe that the courts have the  authority of judicial review by the Constitution.

      As reported:

  During oral arguments in Houston in a separate challenge to another aspect of the federal health care law, U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jerry Smith said Obama’s comments troubled a number of people who have read them as a challenge to the authority of federal courts.

I’m referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect, I’m sure you’ve heard about them, that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed unelected judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed, he was referring of course to Obamacare, to what he termed a broad consensus and majorities in both houses of Congress,” Smith told Dana Kaersvang, an attorney with the Justice Department in Washington, D.C.

       The Obama team has been trying to downplay the poor performance of the Solicitor General during the oral arguments on the ObamaCare legislation before the Supreme Court last week. But the President, in an apparent attempt to rile up the base, commented this week that it would be “unprecedented” for the Court to overturn a law passed by the elected officials by a massive majority (Note- ObamaCare passed the House by only 7 votes). For a ConLaw lawyer and professor to make such a statement fkys in the face of their teachings, and completely ignores the longstanding Court decision of Marbury v. Madison, a case that is among the first studied in any law school’s ConLaw I class.

       Since every speech the President makes these days are campaign speeches (disguised as policy speeches), will he permit the DOJ to contradict his statements. If the DOJ fails to respond to the 5th Circuit by noon on Thursday, how will Judge Smith react?

       Let’s get the buttered popcorn ready!!

Obama’s constitutional disregard
By Sen. Mike Lee | 3/27/12 @ 9:36 PM EST

As a senator, I’ve sworn an oath to the Constitution. Complying is not always convenient. Sometimes it means voting against legislation that includes policies I support. Other times, it requires standing up for our nation’s founding principles — even if it’s unpopular.

The Constitution itself is not a document of convenience. It specifies an onerous process — bicameralism and presentment — to pass legislation. It imposes a system of checks and balances among the branches. Perhaps most important, it limits the types of power the federal government can exercise.

In the words of James Madison, the father of our founding document: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite.”

This basic limitation on federal powers is inconvenient for national politicians, who often seek to advance their agenda by any means. Nowhere is this more evident than with “Obamacare.”

President Barack Obama began work on a national health care plan soon after his election. Health care involves a complex set of markets already regulated by the states — and Obama found it difficult to reach his desired policy outcome using only the legitimate legislative tools available. In particular, the president found it impossible to control certain aspects of the health insurance market without an ability to control how people act within that market.

This was not the first time that federal officials had contemplated mandating how individuals participate in the marketplace. In hundreds of previous laws, such mandates could have been useful shortcuts to accomplish desired objectives. But this extraordinary exercise of coercion by the federal government was considered illegitimate and constitutionally impermissible.

Accordingly, our national leaders have never attempted to tell individuals whether and how to engage in the marketplace. Even as the size and scope of the federal government exploded after the New Deal, and Congress began to claim exceptionally broad powers, it always limited itself to regulating economic activities in which people are already engaged — rather than requiring individual economic action.

So the individual mandate of “Obamacare” represents an extraordinary departure. By seeking to compel individuals to enter into specific commercial activity in the first place, the president and the Democratic Congress disregarded any semblance of congressional restraint. They recklessly exceeded federal constitutional authority and attempted to exercise a power the Constitution reserves to the states.

As inconvenient as constitutional limits may seem, individual liberty requires that they be respected. In fact, it is precisely when temptation is greatest to disregard constitutional structures to achieve some national policy outcome that our Constitution’s limits must be enforced. As the Supreme Court once explained, though the Constitution’s restrictions may at times appear “formalistic” and may prohibit measures that are “the product of the era’s perceived necessity,” our founding document wisely “protects us from our own best intentions … so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day.”

I trust that the current justices recognize this truth — and don’t allow the president illegitimate exercise of federal power to stand.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) serves on the Judiciary Committee.

http://mobile.politico.com/story.cfm?id=74536&cat=topnews

Subject: Charley Reese’s final column

A very interesting column..  Be sure to Read the Poem at the end.

Charley Reese’s final column for the Orlando Sentinel…He has been a
journalist for 49 years.  He is retiring and this is HIS LAST COLUMN.

Be sure to read the Tax List at the end.

This is about as clear and easy to understand as it can be. The
article below is completely neutral, neither anti-republican or
democrat.  Charlie Reese, a retired reporter for the Orlando Sentinel,
has hit the nail directly on the head, defining clearly who it is that
in the final analysis must assume responsibility for the judgments
made that impact each one of us every day.  It’s a short but good
read.  Worth the time.  Worth remembering!

                                545 vs. 300,000,000 People    -By Charlie
Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and
then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are
against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation
and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The President does.

You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on
appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don’t write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don’t set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don’t control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme
Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are
directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the
domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that
problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its
Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally
chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason.
They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a
senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing.
I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash.
The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what
the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s responsibility to
determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that
what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con
regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive
amount of gall.  No normal human being would have the gall of a
Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating
deficits. The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the
Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole
responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and
approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House?
John Boehner. He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow
House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want.
If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they
agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot
replace 545 people who stand convicted — by present facts — of
incompetence and irresponsibility. I can’t think of a single domestic
problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you
fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the
federal  government, then it must follow that what exists is what they
want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it’s because they
want them in  Iraq and Afghanistan ….

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement
plan not available to the people, it’s because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they
hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and
advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to
regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let
them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical
forces like “the economy,” “inflation,” or “politics” that prevent
them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they  alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are
their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees…

We should vote all of  them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando  Sentinel  Newspaper.

What you do with this article now that you have read it… is up to you.
This might be funny if it weren’t so  true.
Be sure to read all the way to the end:

                               Tax his land,
                               Tax his bed,
                               Tax the table,
                               At which he’s fed.

                               Tax his tractor,
                               Tax his mule,
                               Teach him taxes
                               Are the rule.

                               Tax his work,
                               Tax his pay,
                               He works for
                               peanuts anyway!

                               Tax his cow,
                               Tax his goat,
                               Tax his pants,
                               Tax his coat.

                               Tax his ties,
                               Tax his shirt,
                               Tax his work,
                               Tax his dirt.

                               Tax his tobacco,
                               Tax his drink,
                               Tax him if he
                               Tries to think.

                               Tax his cigars,
                               Tax his beers,
                               If he cries
                               Tax his tears.

                               Tax his car,
                               Tax his gas,
                               Find other ways
                               To tax his ass.

                               Tax all he has
                               Then let him know
                               That you won’t be done
                               Till he has no dough.

                               When he screams and hollers;
                               Then tax him some more,
                               Tax him till
                               He’s good and sore.

                               Then tax his coffin,
                               Tax his grave,
                               Tax the sod in
                               Which he’s laid…

                               Put these words
                               Upon his tomb,
                               ‘Taxes drove me
                               to my doom…’

                               When he’s gone,
                               Do not relax,
                               Its time to apply
                               The inheritance tax.

                               Accounts Receivable Tax
                               Building Permit Tax
                               CDL license Tax
                               Cigarette Tax
                               Corporate Income Tax
                               Dog License Tax
                               Excise Taxes
                               Federal Income Tax
                               Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
                               Fishing License Tax
                               Food License Tax
                               Fuel Permit Tax
                               Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per
gallon)
                               Gross Receipts Tax
                               Hunting License Tax
                               Inheritance Tax
                               Inventory Tax
                               IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax
on top of tax)
                               Liquor Tax
                               Luxury Taxes
                               Marriage License Tax
                               Medicare Tax
                               Personal Property Tax
                               Property Tax
                               Real Estate Tax
                               Service Charge Tax
                               Social Security Tax
                               Road Usage Tax
                               Recreational Vehicle Tax
                               Sales Tax
                               School Tax
                               State Income Tax
                               State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
                               Telephone Federal Excise Tax
                               Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
                               Telephone Federal, State and Local
Surcharge Taxes
                               Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
                               Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges
Tax
                                Telephone    State   and Local Tax
                               Telephone Usage Charge Tax
                               Utility Taxes
                               Vehicle License Registration Tax
                               Vehicle Sales Tax
                               Watercraft Registration Tax
                               Well Permit Tax
                               Workers Compensation Tax

STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, & our nation was the
most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in
the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

     What in the heck happened?  Can you spell ‘politicians?’

I hope this goes around THE USA at least 545 times!!!  YOU can help it
get there!!!

                                         GO AHEAD. . ..  BE AN AMERICAN!!!

     With 26 states signed on to the lawsuit, Federal Judge Vinson in Florida has ordered the government to file an expedited appeal, wthin 7 days, either to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, or directly to the US Supreme Court.

     This order was given after a clarification of his prior ruling was requested.

JAMES on Twitter