Shelby County, Alabama: The Specifics and Voting Rights
The Shelby County case was officially initiated in April 2010, but the real story begins in the 1980s. Then, it what is known as the Dillard case, several blacks challenged the method of at-large elections for county commissioners in Alabama. Shelby County was not an original defendant, but eventually became one. The lower court found that Alabama would often resort to the at-large method to | Read More »
Ground Zero in Voting Rights- Shelby County, AL: The Background
To understand this issue, we need to go back in time because this issue and this case most definitely pertains to the reality of 2012 versus the reality of the early 1960s. Inevitably, like the gay marriage issue, there are charges of “racism” and “bigotry” injected into the argument. Already, groups like the ACLU and NAACP are viewing this case as “potentially setting civil rights | Read More »
An Appeal to a Higher Court
In the wake of the Supreme Court decision on the so-called “Affordable Care Act,” the House will once again take up the imperative of repealing it. But the Supreme Court decision has much more dire implications for our nation and its cherished freedoms than merely affirming the government takeover of our health care. In reaching its conclusion, the Court obliterated a fundamental distinction | Read More »
The Fate of Proposition 8
This is the fourth and final in a series of articles regarding the gay marriage issue that will likely be taken up by the Supreme Court in the new term beginning in October. There have been some rather intense comments along the way. Obviously, beliefs and opinions run high on both sides of this issue. Should Section 3 of DOMA prevail, there is no doubt | Read More »
If DOMA Survives, Then What?
Working on the assumption that Section 3 of DOMA survives before the Supreme Court because the Court will determine it satisfies rational basis scrutiny, what then? Obviously, Section 3- the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman for federal purposes- is the framework as concerns the federal government that holds together the remainder of the law. As stated in previous entries, | Read More »
The Supreme Court Term in Review
The 2011-2012 US Supreme Court is now history and will forever be known for its ruling in the Obamacare cases. There is no shortage of analysis and punditry regarding this complicated case and there will be for some time. However, the Court decided over 70 cases again this term and some have wide-reaching effects on all Americans. If one thing stands out that distinguishes this | Read More »
Duplicitous! John Roberts, The Gift of George W. Bush that Keeps on Giving
Duplicitous! John Roberts Chief Justice Supreme Court The Gift of George W. Bush that Just Keeps on Giving! By Scott Rohter, July 2012 We knew as conservatives that there was going to be a lot of time between the filing of the first legal challenge to Obama Care, and the time when all of the separate court cases would be consolidated into on, and that one | Read More »
Gay Marriage and Equal Protection
All legislation generally creates classifications that work to the advantage or the disadvantage of certain people. For example, 20-year olds can drive; 12-year-olds cannot. You can legally drink at 21, but not at 16. An indigent single parent is entitled to government financial aid, but millionaires are not. And so on. The Equal Protection Clause does not mean that government must treat everyone equally, only | Read More »
Supremely Political: Did Roberts Pen BOTH Opinions?
By Matt Rooney | Cross-posted at SaveJersey.com The ObamaCare backstory gets worse all the time, Save Jerseyans. We can never really know what happened in chambers. That said, emerging anonymous accounts seem to comport with what we can plainly observe about this repugnant capitulation to unconstitutional, unrestrained big government by Chief Justice John Roberts. It was supremely political. Be assured, I’m not leveling this charge simply | Read More »
Tags: Affordable Care Act
, Barack Obama
, Chief Justice
, Commerce Clause
, John Roberts
, Supreme Court
, taxing power
Romney accepts ObamaTax decision: Calls Obama out for broken tax pledge
Mitt Romney tells CBS News chief political correspondent Jan Crawford, that he accepts the Supreme Court’s decision that President Obama’s individual mandate is “a tax.” In the Crawford interview Romney said there is no way around the Court’s decision: “I said that I agreed with the dissent, and the dissent made it very clear that they felt it was unconstitutional. But the dissent lost – | Read More »
Get Ready for Mandatory Gym Membership, America!
By Matt Rooney | Cross-posted at SaveJersey.com Thanks to Chief Justice Roberts’s ObamaCare decision, Save Jerseyans, it may no longer matter how broadly the Commerce Clause is construed by jurists, scholars and legislators. As of last Thursday, the U.S. Congress can regulate interstate commerce by imposing “taxes” on both acts and omissions via the suddenly-unrestrained federal taxing power. The real difference in layman’s terms? Until now, | Read More »
The FINAL ROUND!
Breaks over……The Final Round? The Despondent Correspondent Jim Gschwind, PHD Sorry for the “break”, but I knew things would work themselves out with my dear readers and the political scene and I was right. Plus, I deserved the time to take care of my failing frail ex-airborne body and enjoy time with my family prior to what I perceive as our conservative “final round”. | Read More »
Your Country Needs You!
*The Supreme Court’s ruling on ObamaCare was definitely not what Conservatives were hoping for. ObamaCare is unconstitutional and even morally wrong in many of its provisions, and even though our Court has ruled it constitutional, I don’t believe it is beneficial if we continue to bask in the disappointment we felt on Thursday (and still feel today). I say this because we have no way | Read More »
There is no silver lining: Justice Roberts’ despicable Obamacare decision
In March of 1937, in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish erstwhile conservative Justice Owen Roberts suddenly began voting to support New Deal legislation. His change of heart was the beginning of what became known as “The switch in time that saved nine.” His sudden reversal was in direct response to FDR’s threat to pack the Court in the face of the Court’s resistance to | Read More »
“Absurd”… “Internally Contradictory”.
It’s a tax… it’s a penalty… no, wait…it’s a tax. Chief Justice John Roberts turned the Constitution and the Supreme Court on its head with a not-quite-coherent opinion in which he managed a tortured interpretation of the Obamacare Act, which was clearly intended to save the most detested piece of legislation since prohibition. The temptation to jump on my keyboard as soon as I heard | Read More »