Did you know your free speech rights don't apply on the steps of the Supreme Court?

This is just another example of the Washington elite making rules to keep the little people under control.

The Supreme Court is designated as the ultimate protector of constitutional rights, but the guarantee of protest and free speech ends on the steps to the plaza in front of the court’s grand marble temple, a unanimous federal appeals court panel ruled Friday.
Demonstrators are allowed on the sidewalk in front of the court but not any closer to the famous portico promising “Equal Justice Under Law,” three judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided.
The fight over where protesters get to protest has been going on for years.
The appeals court judges upheld a 1949 law that forbids demonstrations on the grounds of the high court, on the premise that protests at the court’s doorstep might lead to the perception that the justices are swayed by vox populi rather than the dictates of the law.

RINO Alert: Sen. Orrin Hatch praises Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts as a “remarkable” and “tremendous” jurist

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has politicized the Supreme Court in a failed effort to avoid politicizing the court. That will be his historical legacy.

Via The Hill:

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) on Thursday praised Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts as a “remarkable” and “tremendous” jurist who wrote a “clever” opinion upholding a key provision of ObamaCare.
“All I can say is that the chief justice is a remarkable judge. He’s a tremendous human being. I have a tremendous confidence in him and I believe in him. I differ with him on this opinion,” Hatch said from the Senate floor. “On the other hand, it is a very clever opinion, and I have to say only a clever judge could have written it as well.”
Roberts authored the 6-3 decision handed down earlier Thursday that upheld federal healthcare insurance subsides under the Affordable Care Act. The ruling is a major victory for the Obama administration

Interesting: The Supremes to hear case arguing #Obamacare law does not allow federal exchange subsidies...

Actually, the law clearly calls out subsidies for state exchanges only. Liberals and their pet jurists have tried to twist this into covering the federally established exchanges after a majority of states refused to set up their own exchange.

Via TPM:

The Supreme Court announced on Friday it will hear a lawsuit that seeks to cripple Obamacare by invalidating federal subsidies for millions of Americans.
In a surprising move, the justices agreed to have the final word on a challenge to the legality of federal subsidies in 36 states which declined to build their own state-run exchanges and handed some or all of the task over to the federal government.
The decision is troubling news for the White House, which wanted to resolve the case in the lower courts so the Supreme Court wouldn't have to weigh in.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case King v. Burwell after the challengers lost before a trial court judge and the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the subsidies. After the 4th Circuit ruling, the plaintiffs recognized they could only win the case at the Supreme Court, and so they appealed directly to the justices.
The plaintiffs allege that the plain text of the Affordable Care Act confines the subsidies to "an Exchange established by the State" but not the federal HealthCare.gov exchange which serves residents of states that didn't build one.
A three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit ruled against the subsidies, but the full court vacated that ruling and plans to re-hear the case next month. Keep on reading...

The Supremes skipped gay marriage, but want to decide on Muslim beards...

Strange priorities...

Via The Washington Examiner: 

The Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared to agree with an Arkansas inmate’s complaint that his religious rights were violated when prison officials refused to let him grow out his beard in accordance with his Muslim beliefs.
It’s the first religious liberty case the court has taken up since its controversial Hobby Lobby decision in June that said businesses can use religious beliefs to opt out of an Affordable Care Act requirement that employers cover birth control for employees.
Inmate Gregory Holt says he should be allowed to grow a half-inch beard, arguing that the prison's grooming policy against beards is discriminatory under the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

Change: Oklahoma House seeks to impeach 5 of 9 state Supreme Court Justices

Two men convicted of heinous crimes against children had the executions stayed by activist judges. The inmates claim lethal injection will cause them physical discomfort. I hope they are right.   

Background 

The issue started out simply enough. Two men, condemned to death, were challenging their executions based on the drug combination used to execute them. One of them had shotgunned a teenage girl and buried her alive, the other had raped and murdered a young child, and they were concerned that the drugs used during the lethal injection process would cause them discomfort. As an aside, because of the political pressure placed on pharmaceutical companies, states using lethal injection are finding it difficult to obtain supplies of the necessary drugs. This has led states to start keeping the names of suppliers confidential and attorneys to start attacking the death penalty based on the drugs being ineffective or insufficiently pain-free.

The House is moving to impeach the five justices who ordered the stay.

I mentioned yesterday that the recent order by the Oklahoma Supreme Court staying an execution had riled members of the legislature and the state’s governor who refused to acknowledge the order. According to media reports that stay has now been lifted however there is an effort underway to impeach the 5 justice majority that ordered the stay (h/t Gavel Grab for the pointer).
HR 1059 has now been introduced and is replicated below. Read more here...

Heroes: SCOTUS Unanimously rules police can't put GPS device on your car without warrant

The police involved in this violation of liberty should now be fired.

(CBS/AP) WASHINGTON — In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that police cannot attach a GPS device to a criminal suspect's car to track their movements without first obtaining a search warrant.

A GPS device had helped authorities link Washington, D.C., nightclub owner Antoine Jones to a suburban house used to stash money and drugs. He was sentenced to life in prison.

A federal appeals court in Washington had overturned Jones' drug conspiracy conviction because police did not have a warrant when they installed a GPS device on his vehicle and then tracked his movements for a month.

The Supreme Court agreed.

Vote Count Error Correction Puts Prosser Up by +7000 Over Big Labor Candidate Kloppenburg

This will make labor unions and liberals squeal. The Wisconsin Supreme Court seat was to be a show of labor union power in the wake of Republicans passing public employee collective bargaining reform. The labor candidate has lost.

(Weekly Standard)- Supreme Court justice David Prosser has picked up more than 7,381 votes in Waukesha County, a conservative county outside of Milwaukee, as part of the statewide canvass following the election for Supreme Court on Tuesday. The total gives Prosser a comfortable lead as the canvass continues Friday.

The error came when Waukesha County clerk Kathy Nickolaus failed to save some 14,000 votes that came from wards in Brookfield before passing the vote total along to the Associated Press. County officials discovered the mistake Wednesday and shared the information with state election officials on Thursday. Prosser won Waukesha County with more than 70 percent of the vote there.

Obama Administration Tells Supreme Court to Stay Away From Obamacare

This is a really stupid move by President Obama. If anything, this will likely make some SCOTUS Justices more eager to take up the case.

(Fox News)- The Obama administration told the Supreme Court on Monday night it should stay away from a high-profile challenge to the 2010 health care law until after a lower court has had a chance to review the case.

Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal wrote, “there is no basis for short-circuiting the normal course of appellate review.” Katyal also says Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s case is problematic because he may lack sufficient standing to challenge the health care law.

Obama in no hurry for Obamacare to reach Supreme Court

Most likely, President Obama is afraid the Supreme Court will overturn his socialistic takeover of American health care. The longer he waits, the more of the law gets deployed. It is very hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube. President Obama may also be secretly hoping a Conservative Justice will be forced to retire and he can add another liberal to the court.

(NewsMax) — A U.S. Supreme Court showdown over President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul may be inevitable. His administration is in no rush for the court to get involved.

The Justice Department yesterday said it will oppose Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s request that the court immediately review the law, which a federal trial judge said was unconstitutional. The administration said the high court should follow its usual practice and first let an appeals court rule on Cuccinelli’s challenge.

The government’s approach would give it a chance to rack up lower court victories and perhaps build popular support for the law before the justices take up the case. It might also set the stage for a Supreme Court ruling only months before the 2012 presidential election.

Supremes Wrestle With Westboro Church Funeral Protests

I am all for freedom of speech and the right to peacefully protest. However, protesting a private funeral is just wrong. As if it could get any worse, the Westboro Baptist Church is protesting the funerals of military personnel who gave their lives protecting American's freedom. You can see the vile and hateful signs they carry in the above picture. I was raised in a Baptist church. I am not sure what religion the members of Westboro Baptist Church are practicing, but it isn't Baptist. Being cruel to grieving families shouldn't be condoned by any Christian or the Supreme Court.

The Miami Herald reported:

The court did not clearly tip its hand during the hour-long oral argument in the case pitting Westboro Baptist Church against a grieving Pennsylvania father. Several justices did, however, hint that the 2006 funeral protest was lawful even if obnoxious.

“Didn’t they stand where the police told them to?” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted at one point, adding that the protest “was with the knowledge and permission of the police.” But to underscore the case’s difficulty, Ginsburg herself later questioned whether the First Amendment should “tolerate” what she termed “exploiting a private person’s grief” for the purpose of getting attention.

Elena Kagan deliberately subverted scientific report to win partial-birth abortion approval

Elena Kagan deliberately subverted a scientific report by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) to win partial-birth abortion approval. The Federal Court case involved Nebraska’s ban on partial-birth abortion in 2000. The ACOG put out what was billed as a non-partisan report that played heavily in the Courts decision to strike down the partial-birth abortion ban. The draft report from the ACOG contained the following statement that was very damaging to partial-birth abortion supporters.

"[A] select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which [the partial-birth] procedure ... would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman."

The allegedly non-partisan ACOG shared this draft statement with the Clinton White House and Elena Kagan, then a deputy assistant to the president for domestic policy, freaked out and wrote her superiors this in a memo (pdf):

Todd Stern just discovered that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is thinking about issuing a statement (attached) that includes the following sentence: "[A] select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which [the partial-birth] procedure ... would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman." This, of course, would be disaster -- not the less so (in fact, the more so) because ACOG continues to oppose the legislation. It is unclear whether ACOG will issue the statement; even if it does not, there is obviously a chance that the draft will become public.

Kagan had a solution. She drafted a suggested revision to the scientific report.

Click image for larger view.


The suggest change reads:

"An intact D&X [the medical term for the procedure], however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman."

The supposedly non-partisan ACOG replaced their scientific opinion with Elena Kagan's political opinion verbatim in the final report.

This language was crucial in the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban. Elena Kagan helped dupe the Supreme court with inaccurate and deceptive scientific information. She is unqualified to join that body.

Supreme Court refuses to Throw ACORN a Lifeline

ACORN may still be nuts, but they won't be nuts with federal funds. The Supreme Court is refusing to throw them a lifeline and overturn an Appeals Court ruling freezing their federal funding.

WASHINGTON (AP) – The Supreme Court has turned down ACORN’s request for help...

The high court on Friday refused to throw out a decision by the federal appellate court in New York City. That court had decided to freeze a judge’s determination that Congress acted unconstitutionally in yanking the group’s funding.

Video: Justice Clarence Thomas admits Supreme Court Evading Eligibility Issue

The excerpt and video are from a House subcommittee hearing Thursday. The exchange is between Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY) and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Thomas seems to admit the Supreme Court is evading the eligibility issue. There is nervous laughter from the crowd.

From WND:

"I'm still waiting for the [court decision] on whether or not a Puerto Rican can run for president of the United States," said Serrano...

"Oh really?" asked Serrano. "So you haven't answered the one about whether I can serve as president, but you answer this one?"

"We're evading that one," answered Thomas, referring to questions of presidential eligibility and prompting laughter in the chamber. "We're giving you another option."

Rasmussen: 69% Say Cities Don’t Have Right To Ban Handguns

The Supreme Court is wrestling with the issue of handgun ownership rights. Some cities, such as Chicago, have banned handguns. The Court will have to decide these two fundamental issues:

Do strict state and local gun control laws violate the constitutional "right to keep and bear arms"? And can an individual's right to own a weapon extend beyond federal jurisdiction?

According to Rasmussen, Americans have already made up their minds. Sixty-nine percent (69%) believe cities don’t have the right to ban handguns.

The Supreme Court is wrestling with a major case questioning whether Chicago’s handgun ban violates the Second Amendment, but 69% of Americans say city governments do not have the right to prevent citizens from owning such guns.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that just 25% of adults think city governments do have that right.

Landmark Kelo v. New London Land Seizure Case Property Now a Vacant Lot

In 2005 the Supreme Court rules 5-4 that local governments could seize private property for nonpublic projects. The landmark care was Kelo v. New London. The town of New London Connecticut wanted to seize Susette Kelo's home for a multimillion-dollar private development. Kelo, and Americans who value property rights, lost that case. The case resulted in an unsuccessful effort to seize Supreme Court Justice David Souter's New Hampshire home by eminent domain and build an inn. The 3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues promised by New London officials have never materialized. The property is now a vacant lot populated by Feral cats and thistle. See above picture.

From AP via Google News:

There are a few signs of life: Feral cats glare at visitors from a miniature jungle of Queen Anne's lace, thistle and goldenrod. Gulls swoop between the lot's towering trees and the adjacent sewage treatment plant.

But what of the promised building boom that was supposed to come wrapped and ribboned with up to 3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues? They are noticeably missing.

Supreme Court Overrules Sotamayor On Ricci Decision

The Supreme Court overrules Sotamayor on Ricci decision today.

According to Breitbrat:

The Supreme Court has ruled that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.

Sotomayor was overturned 60% of the time by the Supreme Court prior to this decision.
I guess being a wise Latina woman didn't help prevent Sotamayor from making a poor judgment in this case.

Robert Bork explains why Judge Sotomayor is a bad Supreme Court candidate

From Newsweek:

His name has become a verb, one so crisp and eloquent that it was added to the Oxford English Dictionary: if you've been blocked from appointment to public office, you've been "borked." The term's namesake is Robert Bork, whose path to the Supreme Court was derailed in 1987 by a hostile Senate. As Sonia Sotomayor braces for the same firing line, Bork, 82, sat down with NEWSWEEK for a rare interview. Excerpts:

President Obama has spoken of empathy as his key standard for choosing judicial nominees. What do you think of that approach?

I don't know exactly what empathy means. I suppose at a minimum it means you want a judge who will depart from the meaning of the constitution when a sympathetic case arises. It does seem to raise a warning that we're talking about a judge who does not follow the law.

And I take it that you don't approve?

You are quite correct.

What are your thoughts about Judge Sotomayor's nomination?

I think it was a bad mistake. Her comments about the wise Latina suggest identity-group jurisprudence. She also has a reputation for bullying counsel. And her record is not particularly distinguished. Far from it. And it is unusual to nominate somebody who states flatly that she was the beneficiary of affirmative action. But I can't believe she will be any worse than some recent white male appointees.

How have you been struck by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito since they were appointed?

My general impression of them is quite good. The justice up there who I most admire is Clarence Thomas. I notice that when he and Scalia differ—it's not that often, but when they do—I tend to agree with Thomas.

Your Foxhole is Safe

The Supreme Court upheld the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military. President Obama promised to change this policy during last years campaign, but in saner times has listened to the Generals who pointed out the military discipline problems that would be caused by allowing openly gay people in the military. From MSNBC:

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court has turned down a challenge to the Defense Department policy forbidding gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, granting a request by the Obama administration.

The court said Monday that it will not hear an appeal from former Army Capt. James Pietrangelo II, who was dismissed under the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

The federal appeals court in Boston earlier threw out a lawsuit filed by Pietrangelo and 11 other veterans. He was the only member of that group who asked the high court to rule that the Clinton-era policy is unconstitutional.

In court papers, the administration said the appeals court ruled correctly in this case when it found that "don't ask, don't tell" is "rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion."

Using the standard Sen. Obama applied to John Roberts, all Republicans and many Democrats should vote no on Sonia Sotomayor

Senator Obama praised SCOTUS nominee John Roberts and said, "There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land." Additionally Sen. Obama said, "It is absolutely clear to me that Judge Roberts truly loves the law. He couldn't have achieved his excellent record as an advocate before the Supreme Court without that passion for the law, and it became apparent to me in our conversation that he does, in fact, deeply respect the basic precepts that go into deciding 95% of the cases that come before the federal court -- adherence to precedence, a certain modesty in reading statutes and constitutional text, a respect for procedural regularity, and an impartiality in presiding over the adversarial system. All of these characteristics make me want to vote for Judge Roberts." After those accolades, Senator Obama voted 'No" on John Roberts confirmation because he disagreed with him 5% of the time. Geez.
From the WSJ:

The following is from then-Sen. Barack Obama's floor statement explaining why he would vote against confirming Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts (September 2005):

. . . [T]he decision with respect to Judge Roberts' nomination has not been an easy one for me to make. As some of you know, I have not only argued cases before appellate courts but for 10 years was a member of the University of Chicago Law School faculty and taught courses in constitutional law. Part of the culture of the University of Chicago Law School faculty is to maintain a sense of collegiality between those people who hold different views. What engenders respect is not the particular outcome that a legal scholar arrives at but, rather, the intellectual rigor and honesty with which he or she arrives at a decision.

Given that background, I am sorely tempted to vote for Judge Roberts based on my study of his resume, his conduct during the hearings, and a conversation I had with him yesterday afternoon. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. Moreover, he seems to have the comportment and the temperament that makes for a good judge. He is humble, he is personally decent, and he appears to be respectful of different points of view.

It is absolutely clear to me that Judge Roberts truly loves the law. He couldn't have achieved his excellent record as an advocate before the Supreme Court without that passion for the law, and it became apparent to me in our conversation that he does, in fact, deeply respect the basic precepts that go into deciding 95% of the cases that come before the federal court -- adherence to precedence, a certain modesty in reading statutes and constitutional text, a respect for procedural regularity, and an impartiality in presiding over the adversarial system. All of these characteristics make me want to vote for Judge Roberts.

The problem I face -- a problem that has been voiced by some of my other colleagues, both those who are voting for Mr. Roberts and those who are voting against Mr. Roberts -- is that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95% of the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95% of the cases -- what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5% of cases that are truly difficult.

In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.

In those 5% of hard cases, the constitutional text will not be directly on point. The language of the statute will not be perfectly clear. Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision. In those circumstances, your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country, or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions, or whether the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce, whether a person who is disabled has the right to be accommodated so they can work alongside those who are nondisabled -- in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart.

Obama picks hispanic female liberal activist for the Supreme Court

Obama has picked, Sonia Sotomayor, a female hispanic liberal activist for the Supreme Court. That just about covers all his base supporters. Why are we not shocked?
From National Review's Bench Memos:

Judge Sotomayor is a liberal judicial activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important that the law as written. She thinks that judges should dictate policy, and that one's sex, race, and ethnicity ought to affect the decisions one renders from the bench.

She reads racial preferences and quotas into the Constitution, even to the point of dishonoring those who preserve our public safety. On September 11, America saw firsthand the vital role of America's firefighters in protecting our citizens. They put their lives on the line for her and the other citizens of New York and the nation. But Judge Sotomayor would sacrifice their claims to fair treatment in employment promotions to racial preferences and quotas. The Supreme Court is now reviewing that decision.

She has an extremely high rate of her decisions being reversed, indicating that she is far more of a liberal activist than even the current liberal activist Supreme Court.