Eric Holder strikes again – releases Lynne Stewart who aided first World Trade bomber

Anyone recall  Lynne Stewart? The attorney for the blind sheik who was involved in the first World Trade Tower’s bombing that maimed and killed Americans. So she doesn’t want to die in a strange and loveless place.

Should we be surprised? Recall from a post September, 2009: The U.S. Congress rushes to confirm an Attorney General, Eric Holder, whose law firm we later find out represents seventeen Gitmo Terrorists.

 Where is Eric Holder in all of this? How about THAT –

From the Law firm’s C & B website:

The firm represents 17 Yemeni nationals and one Pakistani citizen held at Guantánamo Bay. The Supreme Court will soon review the D.C. Circuit’s ruling that ordered the dismissal of a number of habeas petitions filed by Guantánamo detainees; some of our clients are petitioners in the Supreme Court case. We expect to play a substantial role in the briefing. We also plan to petition the Supreme Court to hear our Pakistani client’s appeal from the D.C. Circuit’s order dismissing his case. Further, we are pursuing relief in the D.C. Circuit under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 for all of our clients. On a separate front, we filed amicus briefs and coordinated the amicus effort in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in which the Supreme Court in the summer of 2006 invalidated President Bush’s military commissions and in which we have obtained favorable rulings that our clients have rights under the Fifth Amendment and the Geneva Conventions.

A federal judge in Manhattan has granted the “compassionate release” from prison for radical lawyer Lynne Stewart so she can die a free woman.

Stewart, 73, who is four years into a 10-year prison sentence for passing along messages from imprisoned terror mastermind Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman to his followers, has terminal cancer and less than 18 months to live.

The joint filing Tuesday by the Bureau of Prisons and the U.S. Attorney’s office asks Judge John Koeltl to grant her a “compassionate release.” Read more: NY Daily News

Stewart  had said she didn’t want to die in “a strange and loveless place.” Huffington Post

Perhaps this quote from Adams will give pause:

Democracy… while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.
John Adams.


Ted Cruz: DOJ argues that International Treaties can trump Constitution

While we are focused on this major healthcare fiasco, we have to know the administration will keep the minions moving the agenda. Perhaps the most dangerous time since we are so distracted. Ted Cruz snagged this action that Eric Holder and crew have before the Supreme Court. At the end of the post, a comment left at the Washington Examiner. First a refresher on our gal Ginsberg.

Update: Recall Justice Ginsburg has fired the latest salvo in the ongoing debate about the Court’s use of foreign and international law sources in constitutional adjudication.   On Friday, she gave a speech to the International Academy of Comparative Law at American University, entitled “A decent respect to the Opinions of [Human]kind”: The Value of a Comparative Perspective in Constitutional Adjudication.  Not surprisingly given her earlier opinions, Justice Ginsburg comes out strongly in favor of the Court’s use of foreign and international law materials to interpret U.S. law, including the Constitution. Read more

Via Washington Examiner:

“If the administration is right, the treaty power could become a backdoor way for the federal government to do everything from abolishing the death penalty nationwide, to outlawing homeschooling, to dramatically curtailing the states’ rights to regulate abortion,” she told the Washington Examiner.”

Justice Department attorneys are advancing an argument at the Supreme Court that could allow the government to invoke international treaties as a legal basis for policies such as gun control that conflict with the U.S. Constitution, according to Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.

Their argument is that a law implementing an international treaty signed by the U.S. allows the federal government to prosecute a criminal case that would normally be handled by state or local authorities.

That is a dangerous argument, according to Cruz.

“The Constitution created a limited federal government with only specific enumerated powers,” Cruz told the Washington Examiner prior to giving a speech on the issue today at the Heritage Foundation.

“The Supreme Court should not interpret the treaty power in a manner that undermines this bedrock protection of individual liberty,” Cruz said.

In his speech, Cruz said the Justice Department is arguing “an absurd proposition” that “could be used as a backdoor way to undermine” Second Amendment rights, among other things.

Keep reading…


“Perhaps we can get a treaty with the allied countries who were spied upon to impeach Obama and bypass Congress if that is the case.”

Ann Coulter saw the Supreme Roberts train wreck coming

I am too weary to attempt to opine on any “bright side” of the Supreme Court ruling. I will let that for other Conservatives who choose to remain in somewhat of a denial state as to how devastating this was. I hear somehow, just like progressives, there was some sort of higher good in the decision,  Of course, yet to be determined. Four members were prepared to send the whole law into oblivion. A dream come true. 

How is it that Ginsburg got 99 votes for approval by the Senate when up for her nomination? When she was head of the ACLU? As for the GOP, getting Borked again is the fear de jour, so we settle for the unknown.

So the Bunkervites got together last night to commiserate and drown our sorrows over the fact that what is left is that the quality and quantity of our lives will be diminished.  And we did this to ourselves by the pick of John Roberts. Comrade Matrix mentioned that Ann saw this coming. Good, I said, that will be the best I can do for a post tomorrow. So here we go. Thanks Mr. Bush.

Ann Coulter prophesied the coming split between Chief Justice Roberts and conservatives back in 2005, writing that “Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives.”

After pretending to consider various women and minorities for the Supreme Court these past few weeks, President Bush decided to disappoint all the groups he had just ginned up and nominate a white male.

So all we know about him for sure is that he can’t dance and he probably doesn’t know who Jay-Z is. Other than that, he is a blank slate. Tabula rasa. Big zippo. Nada. Oh, yeah … We also know he’s argued cases before the Supreme Court. Big deal; so has Larry Flynt’s attorney.

But unfortunately, other than that that, we don’t know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever.

Since the announcement, court-watchers have been like the old Kremlinologists from Soviet days looking for clues as to what kind of justice Roberts will be.

Coulter titled the post “SOUTER IN ROBERTS’ CLOTHING”  Full Story at Ann Coulter

H/T:Buzz Feed

Rino Romney mute on AZ decision, Mark Levin has lots to say

Rino Romney does his best to obfuscate on any questions regarding yesterday’s Supreme Court decision. He does not address it at any of his campaign stops, but lets his spokesman spin and spin to no end. So forget him as far as getting anywhere on immigration reform. Fortunately, I caught Mark Levin last night.

Mark Levin had an outstanding discussion  on what the Supreme Court did to us in their AZ decision. If you really want to know the Legal ramifications, here is the link to his comments. It is a memorable program as only he can do it, Catch the first couple of minutes and you will be hooked.

Audio replay June 25 of the Mark Levin Show Here

If you do not have time to listen to it all, Right Scoop has this highlight as well as two others..H/T: Right Scoop

‘We now have de facto amnesty’ – Mark Levin on the SCOTUS Arizona Law ruling


Now, as far as our Rino, asked by reporters to describe Romney’s views on the Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. United States, a campaign spokesman went ’round and ’round in circles, saying essentially nothing at all.  A portion of the cringe-worthy transcript:

QUESTION: Is it fair to say that he has no opinion on the Arizona law?

GORKA: “Look, again, I¹ll say it again and again and again for you. The governor understands that states have their own right to craft policies to secure their own borders and to address illegal immigration.”

QUESTION: You’re not answering – what does he think about the policy in Arizona? Is it fair to say he has no opinion? You’re refusing to give us an answer.

Peter Suderman summarized it nicely: “Romney’s position…is perfectly clear: He would have one, and President Obama is wrong.”  That’s not acceptable.  In a Twitter exchange with ABC News’ Rick Klein. Full story and more at Townhall

Supreme Court Obamacare hearing Wed.- are our hopes starting to fade?

What was once looking promising, starting to fade? This is from the the hearing. Follow the Scotus Blog for an update. The argument audio is here. The transcript is here.


The Supreme Court spent 91 minutes Wednesday operating on the assumption that it would strike down the key feature of the new health care law, but may have convinced itself in the end not to do that because of just how hard it would be to decide what to do after that.  A common reaction, across the bench, was that the Justices themselves did not want the onerous task of going through the remainder of the entire 2,700 pages of the law and deciding what to keep and what to throw out, and most seemed to think that should be left to Congress.  They could not come together, however, on just what task they would send across the street for the lawmakers to perform.  The net effect may well have shored up support for the individual insurance mandate itself.

The dilemma could be captured perfectly in two separate comments by Justice Antonin Scalia — first, that it “just couldn’t be right” that all of the myriad provisions of the law unrelated to the mandate had to fall with it, but, later, that if the Court were to strike out the mandate, “then the statute’s gone.”  Much of the lively argument focused on just what role the Court would more properly perform in trying to sort out the consequences of nullifying the requirement that virtually every American have health insurance by the year 2014. Continue reading »

More over at theFoundry:

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard the third day of oral arguments for and against Obamacare’s individual mandate. The day’s discussion mostly revolved around the issue of severability: is the mandate so closely tied with the rest of the law that the court cannot strike it down without invalidating the rest of Obamacare?

 Scotus Blog has this update for Wednesday, March 28


NEW at 1:54 Tom’s second update from the oral argument is here.

NEW at 1:29 Tom’s initial reactions to the first half of the argument are here.

Updated at 1:15 Our on-going round-up of coverage of today’s arguments is here.  Our morning round-up is here.


Lyle’s severability argument recap (to be expanded later this afternoon) is here.

NEW at 1:30 The argument audio is here. The transcript is here.

Tom’s initial report on the whole argument is here.

Amy’s initial report to the first two thirds of the severability argument is here.

Kevin’s initial report on the first half of the severability argument is here.

Will they strike it down completely or not? That is the question.

Supreme Court Ginsburg: Health care law won’t be fast-tracked for review

Yes, the  Supreme Court Progressive who under our present Health Care System allows her to remain here on earth. Apparently she cares little for the rest of us. She has defied the odds with her Pancreatic cancer diagnosis. No doubt she has gotten the very best treatment. At 77, Obamacare would no doubt rule her treatment as not cost-effective for her age.

Ginsburg, the champion of Eugenics, no doubt would just as well see us “translate” sooner rather than later with the death panels. She would have us have less than she. Lets take a ride back and hear her words regarding the need to eliminate the undesirables. “Populations we don’t want too many of”. First the very young…next?

Americans should not expect a case examining the constitutionality of the health care law to be fast-tracked to the Supreme Court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in Lisner Auditorium Thursday night.

Ginsburg, speaking with NPR’s legal correspondent Nina Totenberg, said any legal challenges to the law will have to work themselves up to the nation’s highest court through “the ordinary route.”

The issue has received national attention in the past week since a district court in Florida ruled the law unconstitutional Monday, leaving many speculating that a Supreme Court ruling might be expedited.

“The court itself is a reactive institution,” Ginsburg said. “We don’t decide ‘we better get this or that case sooner rather than later.’” More at GW Hatchet

Obama’s Judge pick of radical Goodwin Liu for 9th circuit dead in the water

Goodwin Liu

Goodwin Liu

I was determined to find some good news today somewhere  in the Ether world. I think I may have found one. I have been dogging this fellow Liu what seems like forever, who was a candidate for the 9th circuit Court of Liberal Loonies out West. We have had a couple of close calls, but looks like he is dead in the water now for the Court. CNS seems rather sanguine about his “possible Supreme Court” nomination, so looks like I will have to keep him in my address book. The idea that he was even nominated should be a chilling reminder that we must remain ever vigilant. Here tis:

Senate Republicans have agreed to let at least 19 of President Barack Obama’s non-controversial judicial nominees win confirmation. Among the four is Goodwin Liu, a law school dean seen as a potential future Supreme Court pick, whose current nomination to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has sparked strong criticism from Republicans.

Liu is a dean at the University of California law school at Berkeley  Supporters and critics alike speak of him as a potential future selection for the Supreme Court by a Democratic president. He also could be the first Supreme Court nominee of Asian-American descent.

Republicans have attacked his nomination from the first.

At his committee confirmation hearing, Sessions Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., noted Liu’s criticism when Samuel Alito was nominated to the Supreme Court by Bush. At the time, Liu said Alito’s vision was an America “where police may shoot and kill an unarmed boy … where federal agents may point guns at ordinary citizens during a raid, even after no sign of resistance … where the FBI may install a camera where you sleep … where a black man may be sentenced to death by an all-white jury for killing a white man, absent … analysis showing discrimination.”

Kyl called those comments “vicious and emotionally and racially charged.”

CNS News

From one of my former trackers:

So a few questions ole Liu didn’t answer? Lets hop on this one.

Given that Liu is only 39 years old and has never been a judge, it could be that his most relevant experience for getting an appointment to one of the nation’s most important courts was his participation in Barack Obama’s “transition team.”

Of course, Liu’s cavalier flaunting of the Constitution’s plain meaning is a big plus for Obama as well.

 Liu wants to “reinvigorate public dialogue about our commitments to mutual aid and distributive justice across a broad range of social goods” and then have the courts recognize “a fundamental right to education or housing or medical care…as an interpretation and consolidation of the values we have gradually internalized as a society.”  In other words, the Constitution and its core American principles of limited government and liberty should be legislated away and then finally swept away by courts.  Goodwin Liu’s desire to “construct, contest, and enact…distributive commitments in our public culture” is a view greatly to be feared in a judicial nominee.

Note to Mr. Liu: If he wants to enforce a “social citizenship tradition”, he might better try to become a judge in France or Sweden.  Our Founders understood the principles in the Constitution as timeless restraints on government due to the inherent nature of people and power, and they would certainly object to a characterization of the document as providing “rights to government assistance.” A lifetime appointment.From  Human Events 

Can it get much worse?

%d bloggers like this: