Posts tagged ‘Supreme Court’

October 7, 2018

Okay, Who Left the Safe Spaces Doors Open?

by lewwaters

After weeks of contentious bickering, last minutes sexual allegations no one could corroborate and much wailing and gnashing of teeth, Brett Kavanaugh was finally confirmed to be our latest Associate Justice to the Supreme Court by a narrow 50 to 48 vote, largely along party lines.

I have to state that in all of my 70 years, this was the most pathetic display of underhanded, unnecessary and outrageous conduct on the part of Democrats I can recall.

read more »

September 27, 2018

Sen. Lindsey Graham on Fire

by lewwaters

It’s great to finally see a Republican grow a pair of balls and call this sham for what it is!

Brett Kavanaugh hit the nail on the head earlier on when he stated “advise and consent has been replaced by search and destroy.”

February 28, 2013

I-1053 Ruled Unconstitutional

by lewwaters

Sure to please Jim Moeller, he has successfully invalidated voters votes

I-1053 Unconstitutional

Undoubtedly 49th Legislative District Representative Jim ‘da taxman’ Moeller is dancing on the floor of the house this morning at this stunning slap down of voters in Washington State that have voted 5 times to require a 2/3 majority vote in order for the legislature to increase taxes.

read more »

June 28, 2012

Supreme Court Dishonors Veterans: Upholds Stolen Valor Act as Unconstitutional

by lewwaters

As if the Supreme Court ruling upholding Obamacare as constitutional, mandating America citizens be forced to purchase health insurance, they slapped the honor of Veterans who have fought for and defended the freedoms and liberties of American citizens since our founding.

In yet another stunningly surprise ruling, the court ruled in a 6 to 3 decision that “the government does not have the power to punish people for making false claims regarding military service or honors.”

The government has the right to force Americans to purchase expensive health insurance or be fined, but cannot prosecute those who lie and steal the valor of honorable Veterans by falsely claiming receiving Medals of Valor awarded to Heroes for conspicuous gallantry in battle?

Free speech advocates are praising the decision, but since when does free speech give anyone a right to steal the valor of true Heroes?

We have long acknowledged that free speech has its limits, such as yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.

read more »

June 28, 2012

Supreme Court Decides for Socialism and Against the American People

by lewwaters

Ruth Bader Ginsberg was right just days ago when she said the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare would come as a big surprise to many people. Today’s announcement that the government is free to mandate private citizens purchase health insurance or be fined by the government totally shocked well over half of the American people who have consistently called for this ‘Obamanation’ to be repealed.

Even more surprising was seeing that Chief Justice John Roberts was the swing vote in the 5 to 4 decision that just handed the government total power to just mandate whatever they desire the people to do and we must comply? Isn’t that something more along the lines of Cuba, Venezuela or the former Soviet Union?

Most telling in the decision is Justice Roberts reasoning he wrote in the majority decision of the “individual mandate requiring people to have health insurance is valid as a tax, even though it is impermissible under the Constitution’s commerce clause.”

Yes, requiring us to buy health insurance is unconstitutional, but since it is a tax, it is now constitutional to tax us if we do not comply and buy health insurance.

read more »

June 27, 2012

Preemptive Fearmongering on SCOTUS Obamacare Decision

by lewwaters

Tomorrow is the big day, the United States Supreme Court will announce their decision on the lawsuits filed by several states over Barack Obama’s signature legislation rammed through by a lame duck congress, Obamacare. Or, as Democrats prefer to falsely label it, the Affordable Care Act, the one former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi famously said we would have to pass in order to see what was in it.

No one knows yet which way the high court will decide on whether the federal government can force citizens into buying a product they may not desire.

The pollsters have been busy, though, polling Americans on what they want to see from the Court. According to the Houston Chronicle,

“Only 10% of Americans expect Supreme Court to uphold all of ObamaCare.”

“33 percent — say they expect the court to uphold portions of the law but strike down the requirement that Americans either buy insurance or pay a fine, the poll finds.”

“18 percent believe that the court will strike down the entire law and send Congress back to the drawing board.”

read more »

November 4, 2011

STOLEN VALOR ACT “RIGHT TO LIE” CASE IN SUPREME COURT

by lewwaters

By Rees Lloyd,

The U.S. Supreme Court has voted to grant review and decide the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act (18 U.S. Code Sec. 704) in the case of the fake “Medal of Honor recipient,” fake “Marine,” fake “American Legion member,” former Tri-County Water Board politician in Southern California, and current incarcerated felon on conviction for fraud, Xavier Alvarez. (U.S. vs. Xavier Alvarez, USSC No. 11-210)

Alvarez brazenly boasted publicly that he was a former Marine and Medal of Honor recipient to boost his career as a minor Democratic Party politician, and decked himself out in a fake Army (not Marine) dress uniform with a chest full of medals which he didn’t earn — because he never served a day. (Alvarez’ medal-bedecked photo appears in a California Bar Journal story on his case at: http://www.calbarjournal.com/November2011/TopHeadlines/TH1.aspx)

Alvarez, exposed by a real former Marine, Melissa Campbell, assisted by American Legion Post 79 and District 21, and by legendary broadcast journalist and WWII Marine the-late George Putnam, a member of Post 79(see below), pleaded guilty in federal court to violation of the Stolen Valor Act, which imposes criminal penalties for false claims of receipt of the Medal of Honor or other medals of valor by imposters.

read more »

March 2, 2011

Okay to Protest Funerals, But Not Okay to Speak Freely Before City Council?

by lewwaters

I have to say that I am not only shocked, but very disappointed in the Supreme Court Decision granting the Westboro assholes the ‘right’ to protest funerals of our fallen heroes and disrespect families and loved ones in their moment of grief. That conservative justices Scalia, Thomas and Roberts agree disappoints me even more.

By a decision of 8 to 1 the Supreme Court rules First Amendment protects church’s right to picket funerals, granting those inbred slime from Topeka, Kansas the ‘right’ to disrupt the funerals of fallen Military heroes, trampling over loved ones right to a moment of personal grief and sorrow.

I couldn’t disagree more with the Supreme Court over this. Such decisions may be legal, but that doesn’t mean they are just.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, concerning the Westboro inbreds’ actions, “is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible. But government cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.”

Really? But I can be brought up on hate speech allegations for uttering the word “faggot” to a gay or worse yet, using the inciteful ‘N-word’ towards a Black person? But the scum from Kansas can disrupt funerals with signs and chants of “God hates fags” and that is protected?

read more »

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 »

December 13, 2010

Shopping in Texas

by lewwaters

Supreme Court Justice Breyer’s rewrite of history would not be accepted down in Texas

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.

October 7, 2009

Mojave War Memorial, JFK Eternal Flame & The Law Of Unintended Consequences

by lewwaters

mojave-cross-photo02
JFK Eternal Flame

Long ago, Veterans of World War One suffering from the effects of mustard gas they had inhaled and to recover from physical and psychological injuries sustained, migrated to California’s Mojave Desert and its dry climate. They formed a local chapter of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and in 1934 Death Valley Post 2884 erected a simple wooden cross on what is known as “sunrise rock” as it reminded them of a “doughboy” out in the middle of nowhere in what was to become the Mojave National Preserve.

The simple Memorial bore a small plaque reading, “Erected in Memory of the Dead of All Wars.”

Over the years members died off as they aged until the last survivor of VFW Post that erected the Memorial, John Riley Bembry also passed away in 1984. In 1983, Bembry asked fellow Desert Dweller, Henry Sandoz to repair and maintain the simple Memorial as it had been destroyed due to being vandalized.

In 1986 it was vandalized again with some gravesites in the area being disturbed. Sandoz, adhering to his promise to Bembry rebuilt the Memorial one more time out of pipe this time filled with concrete to discourage further vandalized.

The plaque commemorating the Memorial was never replaced.

Bembry, with no known religious affiliation, obviously saw the cross as much more than just a religious symbol. As explained to me by a learned friend,

“The Cross manifestly has a religious aspect. But, equally manifestly, it conveys a secular meaning — the meaning of selfless service and sacrifice for others, and is so understood. Universally. Beyond language barriers. In fact, there is not other symbol so universally recognized as representing selfless service and sacrifice for others, including the ultimate sacrifice of one’s life. That is how it is understood at veterans memorials, and why it is the symbol so often chosen to honor the war dead.”

Today, after being vandalized numerous times, the simple Memorial in the middle of nowhere faces total destruction if the ACLU and Frank Buono, a retired Ranger who once worked at the Mojave Preserve prevails before the US Supreme Court, after a decade long battle seeking the destruction of a 75 year-old Memorial to those who paid the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our nation.

Rising out of an incident in 1999 when a Buddhist Monk was denied permission to erect a Stupa, a Buddhist holy monument filled with Buddhist relics and other holy objects.

From the link we read of Stupa’s,

“A stupa is the most sacred monument found in all of the ancient Buddhist countries. Unique amongst all forms of sacred architecture, it is the quintessential symbol of enlightenment. Stupas are filled with sacred images, mantras and the relics of holy beings. The foundation, symmetry, orientation and contents of the stupa create incredible power to those who even look upon it. It has the potential to transcend the limitations of language to activate enlightened knowledge.”

A far cry from a simple Memorial dedicated to those who lost their lives defending our country.

Perhaps disagreeing with the denial of the Stupa for the Buddhist, Buono, upon retirement from the Park Service, immediately went to the ACLU who contacted the National Park Service “formally requesting removal” of the Memorial.

What strikes me is that neither Buono or the ACLU on his behalf, have fought for the Buddhist to be granted permission to build his Stupa, but only the destruction of a long-standing War Memorial is sought. This suit being brought under the so-called Establishment Clause to “protect the religious rights of all.”

Being misled in my opinion, some members of the Jewish War Veterans, the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council and the Muslim American Veterans Association on the basis of the Memorial being in the shape of a Cross, believing it denies recognition of their service.

I am left wondering if they are equally offended at the sight of our Second Highest Award for Valor, the Distinguished Service Cross or if any of their members have refused receipt of the award due to it being a Cross also?

Over four million other Veterans, members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, The American Legion, The Military Order of the Purple Heart, VFW of California, and American Ex-Prisoners of War, stand together in support of preserving our War Memorials as constructed.

A congressional land swap, returning the 1 acre of land the Memorial is located on in exchange for 5 acres elsewhere in the Preserve did not satisfy Buno or the ACLU and they filed suit to have that overturned. That alone shows me the only satisfactory solution to the ACLU and Buono is total destruction of the Memorial.

Should they succeed, there is an aspect of life all too often ignored, the Law of Unintended Consequence, which states that any purposeful action will produce some unanticipated or unintended consequences.

The ACLU has stated they have no desire to have crosses and such removed from gravesites in cemeteries such as Arlington National Cemetery since they allow numerous religious symbols on graves within the cemetery.

Although I have little confidence in such guarantees from the ACLU I’ll take them at their word for now, in regards to crosses on headstones. But, only for now as I do not trust the ACLU since they have shown a penchant for attacking anything remotely resembling a Christian symbol on public property.

My gut tells me that in time, headstones with Christian Crosses won’t be safe either.

Nor will numerous public memorials to War Veterans across America as several contain either crosses or some other symbol that can be associated with Christianity, whether any religious significance was intended or not.

One such symbol stands in front of the grave of our 35th President, John F. Kennedy, struck down by an assassin’s bullet November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas. At the request of his wife, Jacqueline, an “eternal flame” was placed in front of his gravesite.

Eternal flames have an old history dating back to early Christianity and other religions as well.

Kennedy, a Democrat, is revered by many of those on the left who support destruction of such War Memorials as is currently under fire in the Mojave National Preserve.

I doubt any of them see any religious significance in such an eternal flame, just as visiting Veterans and those who honor fallen Veterans do not visit the Mojave War Memorial for religious significance.

Yet, with the ACLU’s continuing push for removing any symbol someone associates with Christianity and claims offense at, the law of unintended consequences could very well come back on the left as someone claims offense at the historical religious significance of the eternal flame on the President Kennedy’s grave and wins a Court Case to extinguish it.

Actions have consequences and all too often they aren’t what was expected.