Posts tagged ‘Clarence Thomas’

July 9, 2014

Say What, Harry?

by lewwaters

Sen. Reid doesn’t seem to be alone in viewing Justice Thomas now as a “White Man.” Senate Democrats Take on Supreme Court’s ‘White Men’ Over Contraception Ruling

Why is it Democrats can’t get through the day without playing the Race Card?

February 3, 2011

More Left-Wing Love & Civility

by lewwaters

Somehow, such comments directed towards Clarence Thomas, an African-American, aren’t racist.

January 22, 2011

Soros Funded Group Calls for Investigation of Supreme Court Justices

by lewwaters

For some time now we have sat back and seen when liberals don’t get their way through favorable legislation, they turn to the federal courts for favorable rulings from mostly sympathetic justices that end up issuing rulings that in essence “legislate from the bench.”

We can now see what the new tactic is when they fail to gain the desired legislation from the bench that they are used to getting, call upon a liberal Justice Department to “investigate” Supreme Court Justices they target for failing to recuse themselves from proceedings in order to have that decision vacated and gain their favorable ruling.

Our constitution is little more than toilet paper to these people on the left.

At issue here is the well-known liberal group, Common Cause, heavily funded by liberal Billionaire George Soros group Open Society Institute and the Tides Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Carnegie Corporation doesn’t like that they lost the case last year that stripped some elements of McCain-Feingold, allowing corporations to become more involved in political campaigns.

read more »

June 24, 2010

R-71 Names Can Be Made Public, Supreme Court Rules

by lewwaters

By an 8 to 1 decision, Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that names and signatures of petitions, such as Washington State R-71 measure, can be made available to the public.

Seattle Times: Supreme Court rules petition signatures public; Ref. 71 names not immediately available

Gay Activists had sought the names and addresses of those who signed the petition seeking to place Washington’s Domestic Partnership bill, also known as “Everything Except Marriage” before the voters in an effort to prevent it from being implemented.

The measure failed and the Domestic Partnership went forward.

Gay Activists had stated they wished to have the names, addresses and signatures of petition signers to ensure no names were wrongfully placed upon the petition, but also to be able to “reach out and discuss with signers their having signed the petition.”

I am stunned that conservative justices, Samuel Alito and John Roberts agreed with this ruling as the obvious intent, as happened in California after their Proposition 8 passed, is to harass and intimidate signers of petitions activist groups may target.

The court left open the possibility of those opposed to making the names, addresses and signatures of signers public seeking and gaining an exemption in this particular case in a lower federal court due to such harassment and intimidation as has been seen in California.

In his dissent with the Supreme Court Majority Decision, Justice Thomas stated,

“Indeed, if the evidence relating to Proposition 8 is not sufficient to obtain an as-applied exemption in this case, one may wonder whether that vehicle provides any meaningful protection for the First Amendment rights of persons who circulate and sign referendum and initiative petitions.”

Justice Thomas also explained on his dissent,

“Just as ‘confidence in the integrity of our electoral processes is essential to the functioning of our participatory democracy,’ Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U. S. 1, 4 (2006) (per curiam), so too is citizen participation in those processes, which necessarily entails political speech and association under the First Amendment. In my view, compelled disclosure of signed referendum and initiative petitions1 under the Washington Public Records Act (PRA), Wash. Rev. Code §42.56.001, et seq. (2008), severely burdens those rights and chills citizen participation in the referendum process. Given those burdens, I would hold that Washington’s decision to subject all referendum petitions to public disclosure is unconstitutional because there will always be a less restrictive means by which Washington can vindicate its stated interest in preserving the integrity of its referendum process.”

Gay Activists who sought to make the names, addresses and signatures of signers available on a public searchable website have stated,

“the public has a right to know who signed petitions in the interests of transparency and since citizens who do so are acting as quasi-legislators.”

The thought that their signing petitions can also be made public and expose them to the very same backlash tactics they desire to use against any who don’t cave in to their whims obviously escapes them.

Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna, who enjoyed wide support in his joining other states in suing over the recently passed National Healthcare Reform, aka Obamacare, has successfully fought and won this case against Washington Citizens.

In my opinion, he also just shot himself in the foot in regards to future goals of becoming Washington State Governor, if he has any such goal.

Our freedom of speech in the nation is being ever so gradually limited and restricted.

Caving in to Political Activists who’s history and stated goals is to intimidate and harass those who disagree with them has the potential to further remove the average citizen from participation in governing the land.

While I am confident the exemption stated above will be granted, the assault on our freedoms and the democratic process will not end there. We must remain ever guardful to retain and hopefully, regain some lost freedoms and liberties.

February 27, 2010

AG McKenna, Uphold Washington Citizens ‘Right To Anonymous Speech’

by lewwaters

As previously covered on Clark County Conservative, the case to release all of the names, addresses and signatures of those who signed the petition to place R-71, a citizen initiated resolution to place the bill SB 5688, enhancements to domestic partnerships, on the ballot has made it to the United States Supreme Court.

See Supreme Court Will Hear R-71 Petition Case and Columbian Urges Supreme Court to Listen to AG McKenna on R-71 Signers.

Given recent events spurred by Democrats in our legislature and Governor Gregoire not only supporting, but signing those measures into law, Attorney General McKenna should immediately withdraw any challenge and keep petition signatures hidden.

I am making this call due in part to the efforts of Democrats to write into law SB 6754, a law that would make signatures of those who sign citizen petitions part of the public record.

Republican State Senator Don Benton, who recently announced his intent to run against Senator Patty Murray for the U.S. Senate, spoke in opposition to SB 6754 saying,

“The majority voted the other night to not publish the votes legislators take in the voter’s pamphlet, which was wrong. Now they want to publicize the names of citizens who sign an initiative. This is clearly an attempt to intimidate citizens to keep them from exercising their constitutional rights.”

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas spoke similar words in a partial dissenting opinion when the Supreme Court struck down some provisions of the campaign finance law.

Justice Thomas said,

“Political speech is entitled to robust protection under the First Amendment…. Congress may not abridge the ‘right to anonymous speech’ based on the ‘simple interest in providing voters with additional relevant information’.”

Justice Thomas, after listing several instances of how activist in opposition to California’s Proposition 8 used such information obtained from their public records to harass, intimidate and threaten supporters of Prop 8 continued,

“The success of such intimidation tactics has apparently spawned a cottage industry that uses forcibly disclosed donor information to pre-empt citizens’ exercise of their First Amendment rights,” adding, “These instances of retaliation sufficiently demonstrate why this Court should invalidate mandatory disclosure and reporting requirements.”

SB 6754 passed the Senate and remains in the House.

The other reason I make this call for AG McKenna to withdraw the state’s challenge to the R-71 case from before the Supreme Court and concede to Justice Thomas’s words is Democrat’s passage and Governor Gregoire signing into law the suspension of I-960, a citizen initiative that placed restrictions on raising taxes requiring a 2/3 majority vote for such increases and for Governor Gregoire not vetoing the very portion Senator Benton mentioned above, keeping legislators names out of the voters guide that voted to increase such taxes.

SB 6130 was signed into law by Gregoire as passed, in spite of Republicans efforts to preserve our “right to know.”

Senator Benton hand delivered a letter to the governor from Republicans that said in part,

“If you cannot veto all of ESSB 6130, I respectfully request that you veto section three of the bill. In doing so you would preserve the peoples right to an advisory vote on tax increases passed by the Legislature. I believe that the citizens have a right to know about legislative actions that increase taxes and that we would do well to listen to their response in the form of an advisory vote.”

He reminded the governor,

“People have the right to know how legislators vote. That’s why they approved Initiative 960 in the first place – they want sunshine on their government.”

His plea fell on deaf ears.

In an election year Democrats are on shaky ground nationwide, voters are being assaulted with the prospect of state sanctioned intimidation tactics should they support a citizen initiative some activist group dislikes by our names, addresses and signatures being made public.

At the same time, Democrat officials have chosen to keep their names private should they vote to further plunge the state into bankruptcy by voting to increase taxes during such dire economic times we face currently, 14.3% unemployment in Clark County alone.

This flies in the face of a free and open society and is something I’d imagine hearing in such countries as Venezuela or Cuba, not America or Washington State.

Senator Benton said in opposition to SB 6754,

“What we are witnessing are actions to destroy democracy and our constitution. When you stomp on the will of the people by acting in the dark of the night to restrict their rights just because you don’t agree with their decisions, what else can it be called but an all-out assault on the people’s right to determine how they are governed?”

Mr. McKenna, in light of the actions of our legislators, don’t citizens also have a ‘right to anonymous speech’ if legislators seize for themselves a right to anonymity for votes that carry the potential of harming citizens?

I urge you to petition the Supreme Court to uphold our ‘right to anonymous speech.’

January 25, 2010

Columbian Urges Supreme Court to Listen to AG McKenna on R-71 Signers

by lewwaters

It’s not very often that we see our local paper, the Columbian promoting or in agreement with a Republican. Usually, if they are, the Republican is either a left-leaning Republican, a RINO or is mistakenly supporting a position that will further the countries rush to socialism.

Such is the case I see in the January 25, 2010 editorial, In Our View, Jan. 25: Identify the Signers, supporting the release of the names, addresses and signatures of all who signed the petition that placed R-71, a citizen referendum to bring the Domestic Partnership law before voters, on last Novembers ballot.

Even before the election was held, gay activists were calling for releasing the names, addresses and signatures of the petition signers to them so they could place the information on searchable web pages, ostensibly to “contact and educate” people who disagree with the gay agenda.

Traditional Marriage Foes Try To Intimidate Washington Voters

A clear example of the intent is displayed by disturbed gay activist, John Bisceglia at Supreme Court Will Hear R-71 Petition Case

Ignoring, or perhaps looking forward to, the intimidation tactics gay activists claim they will be making once they have the signers personal information, the Columbian Editorial says,

“Washingtonians have two Republicans working feverishly to protect the public’s right to know how its government works. Secretary of State Sam Reed has repeated his vow to “defend Washington citizens’ strong desire for transparency, openness and accountability in government, and the public’s belief that our state and local public documents must be available for public inspection.”

“And the man who will lead that defense, literally, is Attorney General Rob McKenna, who will argue the case before the high court. We hope McKenna is as successful in this effort as he was a couple of years ago when he convinced the Supreme Court to approve (by a 7-2 vote) Washington state’s top two primary.”

It is no stretch for me to claim that these are two “Republicans” with a very shaky position in future support with many Republicans in Washington State.

Gay activists twist the intent of anonymity of the signers of petitions to facilitate their intent of intimidation and apparently Columbian editors support that tactic.

Missed by all is the recent partially dissenting opinion issued by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in the Court ruling overturning portions of the campaign finance laws. Although Justice Thomas’ opinion isn’t directly addressing the pending R-71 case, his words have relevancy to it. In that 6-page opinion he wrote,

“Congress may not abridge the “right to anonymous speech” based on the “ ‘simple interest in providing voters with additional relevant information,’ ” id., at 276 (quoting McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U. S. 334, 348(1995)).”
======================================
“Some opponents of Proposition 8 compiled this information and created Web sites with maps showing the locations of homes or businesses of Proposition 8 supporters. Many supporters (or their customers) suffered property damage, or threats of physical violence or death, as a result.”
======================================
“The success of such intimidation tactics has apparently spawned a cottage industry that uses forcibly disclosed donor information to pre-empt citizens’ exercise of their First Amendment rights.”
======================================
“These instances of retaliation sufficiently demonstrate why this Court should invalidate mandatory disclosure and reporting requirements. But amici present evidence of yet another reason to do so—the threat of retaliation from elected officials. As amici’s submissions make clear, this threat extends far beyond a single ballot proposition in California.”
======================================
“Irony aside, the Court’s promise that as-applied challenges will adequately protect speech is a hollow assurance. Now more than ever, §§201 and 311 will chill protected speech because—as California voters can attest—‘the advent of the Internet’ enables ‘prompt disclosure of expenditures,’ which ‘provide[s]’ political opponents ‘with the information needed’ to intimidate and retaliate against their foes.”

You needn’t be an attorney or constitutional scholar to see the farsightedness and wisdom in Justice Thomas’ words. Allowing gay activists access to such information to be made available as they wish opens the door to preventing citizen involvement in government.

Democrat, Republican or Independent, once such tactics become acceptable, as they will, what citizen will be able to feel safe exercising their “right to anonymous speech” as what group would refrain from using underhanded tactics used against them?

Whether intentionally or not, the Columbian is actually encouraging LESS citizen involvement in government at a time we see our freedoms and liberties slowly being chipped away.

Strangely silent is the Columbian on identifying legislators that pack bills with earmarks, as they were last year on investigating and revealing any documents on the Brian Baird alleged death threat story, but they wish ordinary citizens who may support an issue they oppose to be given to gay activists for purpose of intimidation.

Should they succeed in threatening citizens from participating in government by such acts of public intimidation, will it be too far away that we will see similar tactics imposed on how we vote?

The Columbian continues to face financial difficulties and such positions designed to take more rights from citizens from will not bring their finances back into the black.

Speculation around the state is that Attorney General Rob McKenna has designs on running for governor in the future.

If he does it may have to be as a Democrat as Republican support for McKenna has been drying up with such positions as this in direct opposition to Republican Party values.

Wake up, citizens. We are being sold a bill of goods in a gilded package that just moves us towards more a socialistic dictatorship.