SCOTUS Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg outs herself as a Democratic political hack...

We already knew this, but I am surprised she came out in the open in such a brazen manner. 

Via The Hill: 

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is doubling down on her criticism of Donald Trump, this time by calling him “a faker” who must release his tax returns.
“How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns?" Ginsburg said late Monday, according to CNN. "The press seems to be very gentle with him on that.
“Every other presidential candidate has turned over tax returns,” she said.
Ginsburg also criticized Trump, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, for having no consistency and for saying whatever comes into his head at any moment. 
"He really has an ego," she said. 
“I think he has gotten so much free publicity. At first I thought it was funny. To think that there’s a possibility that he could be president.”
Ginsburg said last Friday that Trump’s possible presidency would leave “everything up for grabs” on the nation’s highest court.
Keep reading…

Harry Reid Flashback: Senate Has No Duty to Vote on Nominees (Video)

Hypocrisy, thy name is Harry Reid.

Flashback to 1992: Joe Biden says President Bush should not name a nominee until after the November election

Sen. Joe Biden in 1992 says President Bush should "not name a nominee until after the November election..." #SCOTUShttps://t.co/setQGLzePt

— CSPAN (@cspan) February 22, 2016

The RINO stampede to allow Obama to name another liberal to the Supreme Court has began...

What are the voters thinking when they elect these Democrats posing as Republicans? 

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said Wednesday that he doesn't think Republican senators should filibuster President Obama's Supreme Court nominee.
“I don't think we should filibuster Supreme Court nominees or any judicial nominees," he told CNN's Wolf Blitzer Wednesday.
Under a filibuster, 60 votes would be required to clear procedural hurdles ahead of a final confirmation vote.
At the same time, Hatch, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said in the interview that he would support whatever decision made by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the panel’s chairman.
He suggested that if Grassley so chooses, he could close down a debate over who should succeed Justice Antonin Scalia, who died on Saturday.
"All it would take is for Sen. Grassley to just say, ‘Look, we're not going to confirm anybody this year. The reason we're not going to confirm is because we value the court, we don't want it to be in this political atmosphere,’” Hatch said.
Hatch’s comments add to the mixed signals sent by Republicans over their strategy for handling an Obama nominee.

If the term "the State" can be interpreted to mean "the Federal government," the 10th Amendment now reserves all powers to the Federal Government

Here is how Chief Justice John Roberts and five other SCOTUS Judges have rewritten the 10th Amendment to our Constitution.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States Federal Government respectively,  period or to the people.

Supremes to rule on gay marriage...

 Do you remember when gay meant happy? I do. SCOTUS is going to rule if there is a constitutional right to gay marriage. There isn't, but I believe it is a states issue. If they want to allow it, I am OK with that.  If you believe the constitution guarantees a right to gay marriage, you have to believe the people who wrote the Constitution supported gay marriage or they accidentally wrote in the right due to stupidity. Neither of those scenarios are true. This is the same as abortion. SCOTUS found the right, but it is not based on the Constitution. If you read the Roe vs. Wade decision, the word Constitution only comes up once.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Setting the stage for a potentially historic ruling, the Supreme Court announced Friday it will decide whether same-sex couples have a right to marry everywhere in America under the Constitution.

The justices will take up gay-rights cases that ask them to overturn bans in four states and declare for the entire nation that people can marry the partners of their choice, regardless of gender. The cases will be argued in April, and a decision is expected by late June.

Proponents of same-sex marriage said they expect the court to settle the matter once and for all with a decision that invalidates state provisions that define marriage as between a man and a woman.

Unlikely: SCOTUS Chief Justice Roberts says law, not politics, drives Supreme Court's rulings

If anyone thinks Robert's Obamacare vote was based on law, not politics, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell them.  John Roberts can't be this stupid. I must surmise he is being disingenuous.

LINCOLN — While political partisanship flourishes in the halls of Congress, it has no place in the chambers of the U.S. Supreme Court, the chief justice said Friday in remarks to Nebraska law students.
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. said he worries that the partisan rancor of the age has skewed the public understanding of the court’s role in government. During a 55-­minute talk at the University of Nebraska College of Law, he stressed that the rule of law, rather than politics, drives the court’s decisions.

“We are not Democrats and Republicans in how we go about it,” he told an audience of 500, as estimated by university officials. “In nine years, I’ve never seen any sort of political issue like that arise between us.”

SCOTUS give two narrowly defined wins to the good guys...

Per @scotusblog, The Court recognizes a category of "partial public employees" that cannot be required to contribute union bargaining fees.
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) June 30, 2014

Another narrow victory. "Closely held corporations" (whatever that is) cannot be compelled to provide contraception coverage under RFRA.
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) June 30, 2014

SCOTUS gets one right. Your smartphone is private and requires a warrent.

Unanimous...

WASHINGTON —- Cellphones and smartphones generally cannot be searched by police without a warrant during arrests, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday in a major victory for privacy rights.

Ruling on two cases from California and Massachusetts, the justices acknowledged both a right to privacy and a need to investigate crimes. But they came down squarely on the side of privacy rights.

"Modern cellphones, as a category, implicate privacy concerns far beyond those implicated by the search of a cigarette pack, a wallet or a purse," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court.

"We cannot deny that our decision today will have an impact on the ability of law enforcement to combat crime," he said. "Privacy comes at a cost."

Nancy Pelosi Whines About SCOTUS Ruling Against Affirmative Action In College Admissions

Put your big girl panties on Nancy. Affirmative action is becoming a thing of history books. I suspect historians will judge it harshly.

Today's #SCOTUS decision is another regrettable step to rig the political process against efforts to constitutionally advance diversity.
— Nancy Pelosi (@NancyPelosi) April 22, 2014

Amusing: SCOTUS Justice Scalia rips Obama a new one during Illegal Recess Appointments oral arguments…

Loving it...

Via TPM:

Justice Antonin Scalia on Monday tore into President Barack Obama’s use of recess appointments to staff government agencies when the Senate is unofficially on recess.
During oral arguments, Scalia shot back at an argument by U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli that the Constitution’s recess appointments clause is ambiguous enough to validate Obama’s temporary appointments.
“It’s been assumed to be ambiguous by self-interested presidents,” Scalia said, to “oohs” and laughs in the court room.
Scalia argued emphatically that the text of the Constitution does not permit presidents to appoint individuals to government agencies during pro forma sessions — when the Senate technically gavels in and out to fulfill a constitutional requirement, but does not conduct any business. He suggested the power ought to be restricted to official recesses.
“Let’s assume I think the text is clearly against you,” the Reagan-appointed justice told Verrilli during a lengthy back-and-forth early in the arguments, saying a president would have to “ignore the Constitution” to justify recess appointments during pro forma sessions.
Keep on reading…

Speaker celebrates 50 years since MLK "I have a dream" speech by comparing conservative SCOTUS Justices to KKK...

"Today there are no white sheets, but there are judges in black robes in the U.S. Supreme Court striking down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, opening the floodgates in many states to pass more voter ID laws... with the goal of ensuring we never see a black man elected to the president, or woman, of the United states of America."

Interesting: You may have been beat at a violent video game by a Supreme Court Justice...

Supreme Court justices played violent video games as research for  2010 case concerning California's ban on the sale of violent video games to minors.

From the Associated Press:

Kagan said the justices often turn to their clerks, who are much younger, to help them understand new technologies.
But they also try to learn on their own. In one case, involving violent video games the first year she was on the court, justices who had never played the games before dove in and gave them a try, Kagan said.
“It was kind of hilarious,” she said.
She didn’t say which games they played.

I wonder which game they played? My guess is this:

Keep an eye on the Supreme Court this week...

Four major cases will be handed down at the Supreme Court this week.

The justices take the bench today to issue the first of 11 decisions before their nine-month term ends. The court is considering limiting university affirmative action, striking down a core part of the landmark Voting Rights Act, invalidating a federal law that defines marriage as an opposite-sex union, and overturning California’s ban on gay weddings.

  

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering limiting university affirmative action, striking down a core part of the landmark Voting Rights Act, invalidating a federal law that defines marriage as an opposite-sex union, and overturning California's ban on gay weddings. Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg 

The result may be a turning point in a debate over equality that has raged since the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. While the cases offer paths for the justices to avoid the central constitutional questions, the disputes also give them an opportunity to rewrite the nation’s civil rights laws.

“In the court’s modern history, I don’t think there has ever been one week with so much at stake,” said Tom Goldstein, a Supreme Court lawyer whose Scotusblog website tracks the court and is sponsored by Bloomberg Law. “We have four pending cases that may be cited for at least a century.”

Asinine: Obama administration argues SCOTUS building is a First Amendment free zone...

You just can't make stuff this stupid up. This story is about a man who was arrested for wearing a jacket with non vulgar words on it. He is now suing. 

The U.S. Department of Justice claims that former Marine Fitzgerald Scott deserved to be arrested inside the U.S. Supreme Court building last year for wearing a jacket with the words “Occupy Everything."

According to Wired.com, the Obama administration made that claim in a legal filing in response to a lawsuit brought by Scott, who is suing for $1 million in damages for his January 2012 arrest (video below).

While Scott claims he was protected by the First Amendment, the U.S. Department of Justice claims that the U.S. Supreme Court building’s public interior is a "First Amendment-free zone."

 If Obama and Holder had their way, the whole country would be a First Amendment free zone for anyone who disagreed with them.

Change: 51 percent of Republicans have an unfavorable opinion of the Supreme Court

Chief Justice Roberts fails...

Via NJ:

Democrats have a slightly-improved view of the Court: 64 percent view it favorably, compared to 52 percent in April. But the Court's standing among Republicans has plummeted, accounting for the overall decline.

Now, 51 percent of Republicans have an unfavorable opinion of the Court, while just 38 percent have a favorable opinion. In April, 56 percent of Republicans viewed the Court favorably.

The percentage of independents who view the Supreme Court unfavorably ticked up, from 31 percent in April to 38 percent now. But the percentage who have a favorable opinion in the recent survey, 51 percent, is unchanged from April.

The poll was conducted June 28-July 9, beginning the night of the Court's decision to uphold most of the Obama administration's Affordable Care Act.

Public opinion about the health care law has only changed slightly since the Court's decision, the poll shows. Now, 47 percent approve of the law, while 43 percent disapprove. That is slightly better than in a Pew poll from earlier in June, when 43 percent approve and 48 percent disapproved.

Confirmed: SCOTUS Obamacare ruling makes voters less likely to vote for Obama

Via Weekly Standard:

The latest Quinnipiac poll shows that — by a 15-point margin — the Supreme Court’s Obamacare ruling makes voters less likely, rather than more likely, to cast their vote for President Obama. Twenty-seven percent of registered voters say that the ruling makes them “less likely” to vote for Obama, while only 12 percent say that it makes them “more likely” to do so. Only 9 percent of independents say that they are “more likely” to vote for Obama because of the ruling, compared to 27 percent who are “less likely.”

Keep on reading…

Obvious: Public Opinion of the Supreme Court Turns More Negative After Obamacare Ruling

Chief Justice Roberts caved to pressure from Obama and sided with he liberals in a 5-4 upholding of Obamacare. He wrote what must be the flimsiest decision ever by a Supreme Court Justice. He argues the government can't punish you with a penalty for inaction, but they can punish you with a tax. He then rewrote the penalty in Obamacare as a tax to help the Democrats out. Some have tried to defend him by claiming this was an attempt to uphold the reputation of the court as apolitical in the eyes of Americans. This Rasmussen Poll shows that strategy is complete failure.

Public opinion of the Supreme Court has grown more negative since the highly publicized ruling on the president’s health care law was released. A growing number now believe that the high court is too liberal and that justices pursue their own agenda rather than acting impartially.

A week ago,  36% said the court was doing a good or an excellent job. That’s down to 33% today. However, the big change is a rise in negative perceptions. Today, 28% say the Supreme Court is doing a poor job. That’s up 11 points over the past week.

The new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, conducted on Friday and Saturday following the court ruling, finds that 56% believe justices pursue their own political agenda rather than generally remain impartial. That’s up five points from a week ago. Just half as many -- 27% -- believe the justices remain impartial. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

The very small silver lining in the SCOTUS Obamacare decision

Lots of pundits are trying to put some lipstick on this pig of a ruling. They claim it will help Romney get elected and reign in the abuse of the Commerce Clause. At the end of the day, this ruling is still a disaster for those who oppose government intrusion into our healthcare system. The mandate and most of the rest of the law are still in place. Also, the decision kicked open the door for a whole new way for our government to impose their will on citizens subjects serfs. You can now be charged a tax for failing to eat broccoli or failing to buy a Chevy Volt. There is no way to put lipstick on that pig. The very small silver lining in the SCOTUS Obamacare decision is since the Obamacare mandate is a tax, it can be undone through the budget reconciliation process in the Senate. The irony of undoing the key part of this abomination with the same procedural trick Democrats used to pass it is sweet irony.

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that Obamacare’s health insurance mandate is in fact a tax levied on those who do not purchase insurance, Senate Republicans will look to repeal the full law through the budget reconciliation process.

Reconciliation was used to push Obamacare through the Senate in 2009. Generally reserved strictly for budget-related measures, it eliminates the possibility of a filibuster, meaning Republicans would only need 51 votes to repeal that portion of the law – or even the full law itself.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) seemed open to that approach during a speech at The Heritage Foundation shortly after the Supreme Court handed down its decision. The court’s ruling “does present some options for us” to pursue more unconventional options for repeal, DeMint said. He mentioned reconciliation as a potential avenue.

A senior Senate Republican aide involved in the repeal effort later confirmed to Scribe that the GOP will use the budget reconciliation process in an attempt to repeal the full law, not just the portion requiring all Americans purchase health insurance.

The other small benefit is Obama can't force states to expand their Medicare program to cover 15 million low income individuals.  They will be forced into the insurance pools and face premiums and copay's.

Obamacare Mandate Stands: We are now subjects of the federal government

Chief Justice Roberts joins the 4 liberal members of the court and rules the Obamacare mandate to purchase insurance can stay, but is is really a tax, not a penalty. The rest of the law was upheld with some minor objections to the state medicaid provision. We are no longer citizens of this once great country. We are now it's subjects. If the federal government can force you to buy a private product, they can do anything. Our Constitution is now a worthless historical artifact in a museum. We have been betrayed by the Supreme Court. Is treason too strong a word?

Via FOX News:

The Supreme Court has upheld the centerpiece of President Obama's health care overhaul, in effect allowing the law to survive. 

In a 5-4 decision unveiled Thursday, the court ruled as constitutional the so-called individual mandate requiring most Americans to obtain health insurance starting in 2014.
The ruling is a victory for the president, ensuring for now that his signature domestic policy achievement remains intact. 

It also ensures that the law will play a prominent role in the general election campaign, as Republican candidate Mitt Romney vows to repeal the law if elected.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who was appointed during a Republican administration, joined the four left-leaning justices on the bench in making the decision.