Lindsey Graham: Communist Enabler

Via the Ass. Press:

WASHINGTON – Pushing toward an election-year Supreme Court confirmation vote, a polarized Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday approved Elena Kagan to be the fourth female justice. Just one Republican joined Democrats to approve Kagan's nomination and send it to the full Senate, where she's expected to win confirmation within weeks.

"Elena Kagan will be confirmed," predicted Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the Judiciary chairman. "She will go on the U.S. Supreme Court."

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., broke with his party to cast the sole GOP "yes" vote on President Obama's nominee to succeed Justice John Paul Stevens, who retired in June. The vote was 13-6.

"What's in Elena Kagan's heart is that of a good person who adopts a philosophy I disagree with," Graham said. "She will serve this nation honorably, and it would not have been someone I would have chosen, but the person who did choose, President Obama, I think chose wisely."

At the White House, Obama hailed the vote as a "bipartisan affirmation of her strong performance" in confirmation hearings, and said Kagan would be "a fair and impartial" justice who understands the impact of Supreme Court decisions on everyday people's lives.

He called on the Senate to confirm her before Congress takes a monthlong summer break starting August 7 — a deadline Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he looks forward to meeting.

Strategists on both sides expect a few more Republicans to back Kagan in the full Senate, where Democrats have more than enough votes to confirm her.

Several Republicans believed to be potential supporters of Kagan's said in brief interviews Tuesday that they had yet to decide whether to back her. They include Sens. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and Olympia Snowe of Maine.

But Kagan is likely to win fewer GOP supporters than Obama's first high court pick, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in part because of the heightened political pressures facing senators little more than 100 days out from midterm election contests.

Most Republicans are against Kagan, arguing that she would put her political views ahead of the law. They point to what they call her liberal agenda and on such issues as abortion and gun rights, and have chastised her for the decision as dean of Harvard Law School to bar military recruiters from the campus career services office because of the policy against openly gay soldiers.

"She has deeply held liberal, progressive views," said Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the Judiciary panel. As a justice, he said, Kagan "will not be the objective, impartial arbiter and settler of disputes, but someone who would use the opportunity to redefine words to advance an agenda that's not in the court's role to advance."

Democrats praised Kagan, the 50-year-old who has served as the Obama administration's solicitor general, calling her a highly qualified glass ceiling-shattering nominee who could bring consensus to an ideologically divided court.

"It becomes more and more apparent that we need a return to the center and a justice who will urge moderation and who will push for consensus. Elena Kagan's record gives me confidence that she could be just such a voice," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

If confirmed, Kagan would be the fourth woman to serve on the court and her swearing-in would mark the first time that three women have served together on the nine-member Supreme Court.

The debate over her nomination has unfolded against a highly partisan backdrop, at a time when Republicans are focused on making sharp distinctions between themselves and Obama, whose approval ratings are sagging.

"It's a tough political environment out there," noted Graham.

Republicans have been quicker to announce their opposition to Kagan than they were last year to Sotomayor. Graham is the only Republican so far to say he'll vote "yes."

Democrats attributed the difference to political considerations by the GOP.

"Sadly, it appears election-year politics may deprive her of the vote total that her nomination deserves," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

Politically active conservative groups are pressuring GOP senators to oppose Kagan's nomination. The National Rifle Association is urging a "no" vote or a filibuster to block Kagan outright, saying she's hostile to the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, and has warned that it will downgrade supporters in candidate ratings that are circulated to millions of gun-owning voters.

The Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion rights group, wrote to senators Monday urging opposition based on Kagan's actions as a Clinton administration official to resist a broad ban on a procedure opponents call partial-birth abortion.

The group pointed to Kagan's intervention with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in the mid-1990s to prevent the professional group from issuing a flat statement saying the controversial procedure was never medically necessary. Notes and documents released by Clinton's presidential library last month show that Kagan suggested the group qualify that position — which she wrote would be a "disaster " — by saying that the method is sometimes best or most appropriate to preserve the mother's health.

"(A) willingness to bend medical facts to support an ideological point of view is inconsistent with the temperament required of a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court," wrote Marjorie Dannenfelser, the group's president.

Aren't you people in South Carolina just peachy proud that one of your two U.S. senators voted to put a justice on the SCOTUS that thinks it is perfectly okay for the federal government to ban books?

I bet George Soros had an orgasm when he got the news.

Sucks to be you, I guess.

SCOTUS Upholds 2nd Amendment - Barely

The ruling was 5-4 in favor. What concerns me is that four of the nine justices sitting on the highest court in the land are all reading, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"  and seeing something else.

This one was a little too close for comfort.

Make that way too close.

Kagan the Kommie Gun Grabber

Via Bloomberg.com:

Elena Kagan said as a U.S. Supreme Court law clerk in 1987 that she was “not sympathetic” toward a man who contended that his constitutional rights were violated when he was convicted for carrying an unlicensed pistol.

Kagan, whom President Barack Obama nominated to the high court this week, made the comment to Justice Thurgood Marshall, urging him in a one-paragraph memo to vote against hearing the District of Columbia man’s appeal.

The man’s “sole contention is that the District of Columbia’s firearms statutes violate his constitutional right to ‘keep and bear arms,’” Kagan wrote. “I’m not sympathetic.”

You can read the entire article here at this link.

Hmm. She is a devout socialist, and isn't too fond of freedom of speech, either.

This woman has absolutely no business sitting on the highest court in the land.

Government Theft, SCOTUS Approved

Back in June of 2005, we of the freedom-oriented American disposition watched in horror as our so-called "conservative" Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) essentially flushed our time-honored private property rights down the proverbial toilet, when they ruled in a now infamous 5-4 decision (Kelo vs. New London) that local governments could take your property by force for pretty much any reason they wished, which flies in the face of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution.

Now I recognize that eminent domain is necessary up to a point, as Right-of-Ways need to be obtained for roads, highways, power lines and other utility easements, along with other things intended for public use, as set fourth in the 5th Amendment. As long as the original property owner is compensated at fair market value, I have no real problem with it.

However, the Kelo decision paved the way for local governments to seize privately owned property for private use, meaning that if some developer decided he wanted part or all of your land for a shopping center, skating rink, or condo complex, they could now go to your local elected officials and have your property condemned, and then sold to the developer by force at whatever price the government decided was appropriate.

In essence, this ruling gave local governments a license to steal.

This hideous decision should have had American's fat, over-fed asses flying off the couch and hitting the streets in mass protest, but I guess there were just too many American Idol reruns to watch, as well as the latest celebrity gossip to be gleaned from Entertainment Tonight. Besides, as we all know, when it comes to government's abuse of power, well, that only happens to the other guy.

Nevertheless, being that most all politics are indeed local, there was just enough of a stink raised across America that many state legislatures moved to restrict the abilities of local governments to swipe the private property of their state's hapless citizens. Apparently that isn't going to help in the sad case of Jay and Stephanie Burkholder.

Via the Roanoke Times:

Court approves seizure of property for Carilion's Riverside Center

By Laurence Hammack | The Roanoke Times

After refusing to sell their land to make way for Carilion Clinic’s sprawling medical complex, Jay and Stephanie Burkholder will now have the 3-acre commercial tract taken from them in a forced legal sale.

Condemnation of the land by the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority does not violate Virginia’s eminent domain laws, Circuit Court Judge William Broadhurst ruled.

The decision marks the first time property has been seized for the Riverside Center, a gleaming business park and medical school being constructed where a mill and other aging industries once operated along Jefferson Street and Reserve Avenue.

After Carilion and the city announced plans for the project a decade ago, most of the businesses sold out to the development authority and were demolished to make way for the complex. But the Burkholders, who own the land where Surfaces operates a flooring business, held out.

The Burkholders refused an offer from the authority that they said was too low, then challenged the condemnation of their land in a two-year legal battle that followed.

In a decision dated Thursday, Broadhurst ruled that the redevelopment authority properly found that the area surrounding the Burkholders’ land was blighted, and thus subject to condemnation.

A jury will now be impaneled to determine a fair price for the property, which the authority will pay to the Burkholders.

Perhaps someday sanity will return to our nation's highest court, and the hideous Kelo decision will be overturned on constitutional grounds. Yet even if it is ultimately reversed, I wonder just how many of our fellow citizens will have had their property stolen and given over to a developer for yet another strip mall or movie theater in the interim.

As an aside, I know many among us are now counting on the so-called conservative SCOTUS to eventually strike down most or even all of the blatantly unconstitutional laws that have passed over the last year, and particularly those that have come about since Jan. 20, 2009.

I hope people will keep in mind that this is essentially the same court that decided government has more of a right to your property than you do.

Given that until Kelo, private property rights were considered sacrosanct by most, I wouldn't get my hopes up that they are going to enforce our Constitution anywhere else, either.

Here We Go Again

With another Christmas season just around the corner, the God, country and freedom-haters are once again gearing up to try and stamp Christ out of Christmas. They will, of course, fail miserably, but that isn't going to prevent them from trying:

John Satawa's family has displayed a nativity scene on a street median in Warren, Mich., virtually every Christmas season since 1945, but following an intimidating letter sent by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, Satawa's county has put stop to the 63-year-old tradition.

The Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation proclaims its purpose in the letter to the Road Commission of Macomb County was to "protect the fundamental constitutional principle of separation of church and state."

But Satawa contends there's nothing unconstitutional about his privately owned and maintained Christmas display. With the help of the Thomas More Law Center, Satawa has filed a case in U.S. district court asking the judge to declare the county's crèche rejection unconstitutional instead and order officials to permit its display.

But in December of 2008, the Freedom from Religion Foundation sent the county a complaint letter.

It read, in part, "When the county displays this manger scene, which depicts the legendary birth of Jesus Christ, it places in imprimatur of the Macomb County government behind the Christian religious doctrine. This excludes citizens who are not Christian – Jews, Native American religion practitioners, animists, etc., as well as the significant and growing population that is not religious at all."

But Satawa contends there's nothing unconstitutional about his privately owned and maintained Christmas display. With the help of the Thomas More Law Center, Satawa has filed a case in U.S. district court asking the judge to declare the county's crèche rejection unconstitutional instead and order officials to permit its display.

You will find the entire WorldNetDaily story here.

I fully expect Mr. Satawa will prevail in this matter, given past Supreme Court rulings. I just find it sad, and not a little infuriating, that an American citizen has to go the trouble and expense of going to court to assert his constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression.

I also condemn the unfortunate action taken by the Road Commission of Macomb County for their having spinelessly caved in to the Freedom from Religion Foundation, apparently without bothering to educate themselves as to the relevant laws involved.

This unfortunate affair is a reminder to all of us as to just how fragile our hard-won freedoms and liberties truly are, and that we must remain vigilant at all times, lest we wake up one morning only to realize we have lost them forever.

McCain Decides Against Sotomayor

As I noted previously, Sen. John McCain was somewhat befuddled as to whether or not he was going to cast his Senate vote to confirm a racist gun-grabber for a seat on the SCOTUS.

He apparently has decided to vote no:



What I find difficult to understand is, what exactly was it that took him so long to make up his mind?

Of course, Sotomayor is going to easily slide right into a seat on the SCOTUS, as the Senate is currently controlled by a party that has all but forgotten the highest law in the nation, but I would prefer that no republicans, not even RINOs like McCain, vote to help put her there.

Nice to see that at least one RINO got this one right.

McCain Undecided on Sotomayor?

Gee, what a surprise:

Sen. John McCain says he is still on the fence when it comes to voting for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

McCain says he is examining Sotomayor's record as an appeals court judge to decide whether she understands the limits to judicial power. He voted against her when she was nominated to the appeals court.

A Senate vote is expected this week.

You can read the rest of the Newsmax.com blurb here.

As a freedom- loving Ammurrican, I am having a really hard time understanding what there is to be undecided about when it comes to this racist, gun-grabbing, constitutionally challenged SCOTUS nominee.

To me, it's really quite simple:

Just say no.