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

Advertisements

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.

Analysis

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

MEDICAID

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.

SEVERABILITY

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?

Kagan Confirmed Supreme Court – Vote Count tally Breakdown 63-37

Final count: 63-37. Five Republicans and one Democrat defected.

111th Congress: Senate Vote #229 (Aug 5, 2010)
Confirming Elena Kagan of Massachusetts, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the U.S.
Number: Senate Vote #229 in 2010 [primary source: senate.gov]
Date: Aug 5, 2010 3:30PM
Result: Nomination Confirmed
  Totals Democrats Republicans Independents All Votes
     
Needed To Win
Yea: 63 (63%)
   
56 5 2
Nay: 37 (37%)   1 36 0
Present: 0 (0%)   0 0 0
Not Voting: 0 (0%)   0 0 0
Required: Simple Majority of 100 votes (=51 votes)

(Vacancies in Congress will affect vote totals.)

More information: Aye versus Yea Explained

Vote Details

Cartogram

Standard Projection

Horizontal bars indicate the two senators from a state voted differently.

Cartograms give an equal area in an image to an equal number of votes by distorting the image. Senate vote cartograms are shown with each state stretched or shrunk so that the states each take up an equal area because each state has two votes. For House votes, it is each congressional district which is stretched or shrunk.

Vote

State

Representative

Alabama
Nay AL Sessions, Jefferson [R]
Nay AL Shelby, Richard [R]
Alaska
Yea AK Begich, Mark [D]
Nay AK Murkowski, Lisa [R]
Arizona
Nay AZ Kyl, Jon [R]
Nay AZ McCain, John [R]
Arkansas
Yea AR Lincoln, Blanche [D]
Yea AR Pryor, Mark [D]
California
Yea CA Boxer, Barbara [D]
Yea CA Feinstein, Dianne [D]
Colorado
Yea CO Bennet, Michael [D]
Yea CO Udall, Mark [D]
Connecticut
Yea CT Dodd, Christopher [D]
Yea CT Lieberman, Joseph [I]
Delaware
Yea DE Carper, Thomas [D]
Yea DE Kaufman, Edward [D]
Florida
Nay FL LeMieux, George [R]
Yea FL Nelson, Bill [D]
Georgia
Nay GA Chambliss, Saxby [R]
Nay GA Isakson, John [R]
Hawaii
Yea HI Akaka, Daniel [D]
Yea HI Inouye, Daniel [D]
Idaho
Nay ID Crapo, Michael [R]
Nay ID Risch, James [R]
Illinois
Yea IL Burris, Roland [D]
Yea IL Durbin, Richard [D]
Indiana
Yea IN Bayh, Evan [D]
Yea IN Lugar, Richard [R]
Iowa
Nay IA Grassley, Charles [R]
Yea IA Harkin, Thomas [D]
Kansas
Nay KS Brownback, Samuel [R]
Nay KS Roberts, Pat [R]
Kentucky
Nay KY Bunning, Jim [R]
Nay KY McConnell, Mitch [R]
Louisiana
Yea LA Landrieu, Mary [D]
Nay LA Vitter, David [R]
Maine
Yea ME Collins, Susan [R]
Yea ME Snowe, Olympia [R]
Maryland
Yea MD Cardin, Benjamin [D]
Yea MD Mikulski, Barbara [D]
Massachusetts
Nay MA Brown, Scott [R]
Yea MA Kerry, John [D]
Michigan
Yea MI Levin, Carl [D]
Yea MI Stabenow, Debbie Ann [D]
Minnesota
Yea MN Franken, Al [D]
Yea MN Klobuchar, Amy [D]
Mississippi
Nay MS Cochran, Thad [R]
Nay MS Wicker, Roger [R]
Missouri
Nay MO Bond, Christopher [R]
Yea MO McCaskill, Claire [D]
Montana
Yea MT Baucus, Max [D]
Yea MT Tester, Jon [D]
Nebraska
Nay NE Johanns, Mike [R]
Nay NE Nelson, Ben [D]
Nevada
Nay NV Ensign, John [R]
Yea NV Reid, Harry [D]
New Hampshire
Yea NH Gregg, Judd [R]
Yea NH Shaheen, Jeanne [D]
New Jersey
Yea NJ Lautenberg, Frank [D]
Yea NJ Menendez, Robert [D]
New Mexico
Yea NM Bingaman, Jeff [D]
Yea NM Udall, Tom [D]
New York
Yea NY Gillibrand, Kirsten [D]
Yea NY Schumer, Charles [D]
North Carolina
Nay NC Burr, Richard [R]
Yea NC Hagan, Kay [D]
North Dakota
Yea ND Conrad, Kent [D]
Yea ND Dorgan, Byron [D]
Ohio
Yea OH Brown, Sherrod [D]
Nay OH Voinovich, George [R]
Oklahoma
Nay OK Coburn, Thomas [R]
Nay OK Inhofe, James [R]
Oregon
Yea OR Merkley, Jeff [D]
Yea OR Wyden, Ron [D]
Pennsylvania
Yea PA Casey, Robert [D]
Yea PA Specter, Arlen [D]
Rhode Island
Yea RI Reed, John [D]
Yea RI Whitehouse, Sheldon [D]
South Carolina
Nay SC DeMint, Jim [R]
Yea SC Graham, Lindsey [R]
South Dakota
Yea SD Johnson, Tim [D]
Nay SD Thune, John [R]
Tennessee
Nay TN Alexander, Lamar [R]
Nay TN Corker, Bob [R]
Texas
Nay TX Cornyn, John [R]
Nay TX Hutchison, Kay [R]
Utah
Nay UT Bennett, Robert [R]
Nay UT Hatch, Orrin [R]
Vermont
Yea VT Leahy, Patrick [D]
Yea VT Sanders, Bernard [I]
Virginia
Yea VA Warner, Mark [D]
Yea VA Webb, Jim [D]
Washington
Yea WA Cantwell, Maria [D]
Yea WA Murray, Patty [D]
West Virginia
Yea WV Goodwin, Carte [D]
Yea WV Rockefeller, John [D]
Wisconsin
Yea WI Feingold, Russell [D]
Yea WI Kohl, Herbert [D]
Wyoming
Nay WY Barrasso, John [R]
Nay WY Enzi, Michael [R]
 

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2010-229

Leahy Blames GOP for Kagan’s Lack of Judicial Experience

Well, if Republicans turned her down for a D.C. Circuit Court position, why in the world are they supporting her now for the Supreme Court, may I be so rude to ask??

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D.-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, blamed Republicans for criticizing her lack of judicial experience because “they are themselves responsible.”



“President Clinton nominated her to the D.C. Circuit in 1999 and it was Senate Republicans who refused to consider her nomination,” Leahy said in his remarks on the Senate floor. “Had they done so, she would have more than 10 years of judicial experience.”

“Leahy would be an experienced doctor, if he spent the last 10 years in surgery, but doesn’t mean I’m gonna let him operate on me,” a senior GOP aide said in response to Leahy’s statement.

 “[Chief Justice John] Roberts and [Justice Samuel] Alito, on the other hand, were steeped in the law over many years as lawyers and judges. That’s who they were. That’s their skill. That was their craft. That was their business. They understood it. It showed. Ms. Kagan did not show that,” said Sessions, ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.



More at Human Events

Supreme Court takes into account “International Opinion”?

No one is mentioning the tidbit buried in the supreme court decision yesterday. A post over at Volokh has a review of  a SCOTUS decision that should make our concern with Kagan even more worrisome. Hard to believe she will not be in lockstep with the liberals. The world court is mere a nanosecond away once we take into account the  Kennedy’s statement:

 “But “‘[t]he climate of international opinion concerning the acceptability of a particular punishment’” is also “‘not irrelevant.’”

So holds the Court, by a 6–3 vote, in Graham v. Florida. Hope to have more later today, when I’ve read the opinions, but here’s one item that’s likely to be quite controversial: The majority opinion (Justice Kennedy writing for the four liberals and himself) has a subsection near the end that begins,

There is support for our conclusion in the fact that, in continuing to impose life without parole sentences on juveniles who did not commit homicide, the United States adheres to a sentencing practice rejected the world over.This observation does not control our decision. The judgments of other nations and the international community are not dispositive as to the meaning of the Eighth Amendment. But “‘[t]he climate of international opinion concerning the acceptability of a particular punishment’” is also “‘not irrelevant.’”

http://volokh.com/2010/05/17/life-without-parole-sentence-for-minor-offender-unconstitutional-when-the-crime-is-not-homicide/

%d bloggers like this: