The Ford Motor Company is giving its Mustang a unique 50th
These people really need to get a job. (Reuters) — Looking to build on the Occupy Wall Street movement, activists say they’re turning to corporate shareholder meetings this spring to vent their anger over economic disparity in the United States and to promote an assortment of other causes. A group called 99% Power — a
Read the original:
Occupiers Planning To Storm Shareholder Meetings…
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi — the speaker of the House when Obamacare was passed — has an op-ed in the Chicago Tribune highlighting her constitutional confusion. Thinking she has spotted Republican inconsistency, she raps jurisdiction stripping (or “court stripping,” as she calls it) while also hinting the Supreme Court shouldn’t overturn the federal health care law. Nowhere in her column does Pelosi actually grapple with two issues: the fact that Article III, giving Congress the power to regulate the jurisdiction of federal courts, is actually in the Constitution; she does not identify the constitutionally enumerated power that gives federal government the authority mandate the purchase of health insurance or otherwise implement Obamacare. (Pelosi is also oddly silent on the jurisdiction-stripping in federal laws designed to combat terrorism and restrict habeus corpus appeals in death penalty cases.) In most cases, conservatives have backed jurisdiction stripping not to prevent federal courts from counteracting the federal exercise of non-enumerated powers but to prevent the courts from using dubious constitutional theories to impose policies on states that have traditionally been outside the federal purview. The Defense of Marriage Act does not prevent states from choosing to recognize same-sex marriage. Neither does the Marriage Protection Act. John Hostettler, the latter bill’s author and a genuine conservative critic of judicial review, actually voted against the federal marriage amendment. This is not to say that there are no inconsistencies or conservative excesses in criticizing federal courts. But there is no inconsistency is maintaining that the federal courts can rule that certain federal laws conflict with the Constitution while also arguing that if an issue isn’t properly a federal matter, this pertains to the courts as well.
What is free speech? Is it the right to speak out and give money to causes, politicians and push ideas? Is it the ability to keep silent and not support that with which a person disagrees? Or is it the power of a group to force its individual members to fund political causes and candidates they do not support? On April 9, attorneys for the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150
This is a video clip from an interview with Elena Kagan, with an interesting quote that reveals something about her partisan mindset on the court. The clip comes via CNS News, which sets it up this way : Describing her move from serving as President Barack Obama’s solicitor general to serving on the Supreme Court, Justice Elena Kagan said last week that “sometimes I think that the job doesn’t really change at all.” As solicitor general, Kagan’s job was to advocate the Obama administration’s position in cases brought to the Supreme Court. As a justice, Kagan’s job is to judge cases brought to the Supreme Court. The clip is below, and here is the relevant quote: “So, sometimes I think that the job doesn’t really change at all–that as solicitor general my life was spent trying to persuade 9 people and now it’s just trying to persuade 8 people,” said Kagan. I can’t embed the video because (annoyingly) it starts automatically. View it here . The quote gets a laugh from the audience, but the implications aren’t very humorous. When I have seen Deputy District Attorneys become bench officers, they typically do not see the bench as an extension of their previous life as an advocate. While you do see the occasional “D.A. in a robe” — as well as some who bend over backwards to favor the defense — the best take on the role of a neutral umpire, and take that role seriously. They would never say: “I used to try to put the bad guys away. Now it’s no different, except that I actually have the power to do it.” In other words, good judges don’t say: I used to be an advocate, and now I’m the same advocate, except now I have a black robe. But that’s how I hear Kagan’s comment. Maybe she goes on to explain that the role of a judge is very different from that of an advocate — and if that happened, then we have been deceived by a deceptive video edit. But if she doesn’t, it sounds like she sees being a Supreme Court Justice as one vote for the Obama Administration’s priorities. Just four more to go! This is the kind of judge Barack Obama appoints. If you re-elect him, we will get more. P.S. At least she doesn’t eat dogs . ( Sudden change to a flat, level stare. ) That we know of.
See the article here:
Kagan: My Job Is Little Different from When I Was the Solicitor General Arguing for Obama’s Priorities
