Filed under: Bureaucracy, History, Law, Politics, The Constitution, The United States | Tags: Presidential nominations, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, U.S.Supreme Court
The Professional Democrats are panicking. They are deeply afraid that President Trump might offer a replacement for the late Justice Ruth Ginsberg, Justice Ginsberg supposedly issued a request before she died that she not be replaced until after the election, but that’s not something she gets to choose. The Professional Democratic Celebrities are out in full voice demanding that her wishes be honored. Which is nonsense. The President of the United States has the duty to replace the Justice.
Perhaps I should explain my language choices here. I speak of Professional Democrats, by which I mean those who have no other profession than being an elected Democrat or an appointed Democrat. What their other experience or job in life occurred before they became an office-holder has no bearing on anything, they are now a guaranteed Democrat vote. Others may have had some other career as a farmer, an academic, a lawyer and that experience validates their advancement to professional status, and their knowledge of their particular field contributes to their government status.
We also have Professional Celebrities. A celebrity is someone whose name is known, and because their name is known, an article in the press may get your attention. The designation of “celebrity” mostly just gathers up those who have good press agents, though these days the media itself acts as press agent. Having a “celebrity” comment on your idea gives it a slight boost in potential readership. Jane Fonda comes to mind. She is capitalizing heavily on her celebrity status these days. I know she is the daughter of Henry Fonda who was a celebrated actor. She has apparently been in some movies herself, but I have never seen one. nor would have any wish to. I remember that in the time of protests against the Vietnam War she went to Hanoi and sat on a cannon to celebrate her protest, and I scratched her off any potential list of anything at that time. She is now a professional Democrat.
Just who President Trump will nominate is unknown. I hope there will not be any kind of echo of the disgraceful behavior of the Professional Democrats in the confirmation hearings for Justice Kavanaugh. Their politics should not matter as much as their understanding of the Constitution, and the reasons for the solutions to the cases that come before the Court. Clarence Thomas has been a great Justice, some others I might mention, not so much.
I believe I have read that President Trump has a good list of excellent potential candidates.It’s their minds and knowledge that matter, not today’s politics. Unfortunately hot-button issues are apt to get in the way, like abortion and trans-gender politics, that we know about and others yet to come.
Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Economy, Election 2012, Freedom, Politics, Progressivism, Statism, The United States | Tags: Citizens United Decision, Freedom of Speech, U.S.Supreme Court
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Democrats do not like disagreement, so the Supreme Court’s 2010 “Citizens United” decision which knocked down curbs on companies’ political donations that fuel political free speech, is something they really hate. During the Supreme Court’s hearing, an Obama-appointed lawyer said the law could be used to ban political movies or books. The court’s five to four decision brought howls of protest from Democrats, who get a larger proportion of their donations from unions and professionals, but not so much from corporations
Corporations still cannot donate directly to candidates, but they can donate to political action committees (PACs).
Attempting to distract attention from the Republican convention where multitudes of speakers were disagreeing with his policies, President Barack Obama tried to regain the limelight with a call for a constitutional amendment to amend the free-speech rights of wealthy people and corporations. Thy hypocrisy here is breathtaking. Democrats excoriate the Libertarian Koch brothers who head Koch Industries, yet make no mention of George Soros and the Democracy Alliance, and welcome the funds public sector unions extract from their membership.
“I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United. … Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change,” Obama said during 4:30 p.m. EST online event.
The publicity-grabbing gambit complements his campaign-theme portrayal of himself as the defender of middle-class Americans, and Gov. Mitt Romney as the champion of wealthy, job-exporting plutocrats.
Those “super PACs “fundamentally threaten to overwhelm the political process over the long run and drown out the voice of ordinary citizens,” he claimed, as many of his 2008 Wall Street Donors are supporting Mitt Romney.
Filed under: Capitalism, Domestic Policy, Health Care, Law, The Constitution | Tags: Affordable Care Act, Chief Justice John Roberts, U.S.Supreme Court
—The very idea that we sit on the edge of our seats, eyes toward Washington DC, waiting on the deliberations and dispositions of nine mortals to tell us how much of our liberty we get to retain is preposterous. —Dave Carter, Ricochet
—The Supreme Court ruled that ObamaCare’s individual mandate is not constitutional under the Commerce Power, which was how Congress framed the mandate to avoid a political backlash from calling it a tax. Congress and the president swore up and down that the mandate was not a tax. Yet the Court upheld the mandate as a valid use of that disavowed taxing power. What Congress said the individual mandate is, the Court said is not constitutional. What Congress said the mandate is not, the Court ruled is constitutional. Everybody got that?
Where does that leave us?
- The Supreme Court just enacted a law that Congress never would have passed.
- The Court just told Congress it is okay to lie to the people to avoid political accountability.
—Michael F.Cannon, CATO
— We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders. We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions.”
—Chief Justice Roberts from the decision, for the majority
—Today’s decision validates our claim that a Congressional power to compel that all Americans engage in commerce was a constitutional bridge too far. By rewriting the law to make it a ‘tax,’ the Court has now thrown ObamaCare into the political process where the People will decide whether this so-called ‘tax’ will stand. And the People will also decide whether future Supreme Court nominees will pledge to enforce the Constitution’s restrictions on the power of Congress.
— Senator Mitch McConnell
—Salvaging the idea that Congress did have the power to try to expand health care to virtually all Americans, the Supreme Court on Monday upheld the constitutionality of the crucial – and most controversial — feature of the Affordable Care Act. By a vote of 5-4, however, the Court did not sustain it as a command for Americans to buy insurance, but as a tax if they don’t. That is the way Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., was willing to vote for it, and his view prevailed. The other Justices split 4-4, with four wanting to uphold it as a mandate, and four opposed to it in any form.
—Randy Barnett, Georgetown Law
American Elephants 