Archive for the ‘Supreme Court’ Category

This is welcome news. Let’s hope that this law is permanently blocked.

Military Detention Law Blocked by New York Judge

Opponents of a U.S. law they claim may subject them to indefinite military detention for activities including news reporting and political activism persuaded a federal judge to temporarily block the measure.

U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest in Manhattan yesterday ruled in favor of a group of writers and activists who sued President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and the Defense Department, claiming a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act, signed into law Dec. 31, puts them in fear that they could be arrested and held by U.S. armed forces.

The complaint was filed Jan. 13 by a group including former New York Times reporter Christopher Hedges. The plaintiffs contend a section of the law allows for detention of citizens and permanent residents taken into custody in the U.S. on “suspicion of providing substantial support” to people engaged in hostilities against the U.S., such as al-Qaeda.

“The statute at issue places the public at undue risk of having their speech chilled for the purported protection from al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and ‘associated forces’ – i.e., ‘foreign terrorist organizations,’” Forrest said in an opinion yesterday. “The vagueness of Section 1021 does not allow the average citizen, or even the government itself, to understand with the type of definiteness to which our citizens are entitled, or what conduct comes within its scope.”

via Military Detention Law Blocked by New York Judge – Bloomberg.

So, get caught saying something stupid, try and walk it back with lies. Sounds about par for the course with this Administration.

White House in damage control over Obama Supreme Court remarks

(Reuters) – The White House was forced on the defensive on Wednesday as it sought to explain controversial remarks President Barack Obama made earlier in the week about the Supreme Court’s review of his signature healthcare reform law.

“What he did was make an unremarkable observation about 80 years of Supreme Court history,” Carney told reporters during a White House briefing dominated by the topic.

Obama expressed confidence on Monday that the Court would not take an “unprecedented, extraordinary step” by overturning the law, provoking a storm of protest that he had been inaccurate and was challenging the nation’s top judges in an election year.

The Supreme Court could decide to reject his Affordable Care Act to expand health insurance to millions of Americans, striking down a key achievement of his presidency and potentially harming Obama’s bid for re-election on Nov. 6.

via White House in damage control over Obama Supreme Court remarks | Reuters.

A nice little victory against the overbearing EPA. It’s about time those asshole tree hugging douche bags get reigned in. We need more decisions like this to go against the EPA’s overreaching and abuse.

In fact, if I were king for the day, the EPA would go away…

Hmm, poet and didn’t know it.

U.S. top court backs landowners, limits power of EPA

(Reuters) – The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that landowners can sue to challenge a federal government compliance order under the clean water law, a decision that sides with corporate groups and puts new limits on a key Environmental Protection Agency power.

The justices unanimously rejected the government’s position that individuals or companies must first fail to comply with an EPA order and face potentially costly enforcement action before a court can review the case.

The opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia was a victory for an Idaho couple who challenged a 2007 EPA order that required them to restore a wetland they had filled with dirt and rock as they began to build a new vacation home near Priest Lake. They were also told to stop construction on the home.

The couple, Chantell and Michael Sackett, denied their property had ever contained a wetland and complained they were being forced to comply with an order without a court hearing.

Their appeal drew support from the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Association of Home Builders and General Electric Co, a company that had made a similar challenge to the EPA compliance orders.

via U.S. top court backs landowners, limits power of EPA | Reuters.

The lawlessness of this administration is rampant. Obama has no respect for the law of the land. He violates the Constitution at every turn, and completely ignores the judicial branch of government. He thinks he is above the law.

And the media enables this by not reporting on it.

Media Blackout in Obama Georgia Ballot Eligibility Case

By Cindy Simpson

Last week, I noted that Obama turned his back not just on Arizona’s Governor Jan Brewer, but also on the laws of the State of Georgia. I closed my column, “Georgia Ballot Challenge: Obama Walks on By,” with the observation: “And most of the media has followed along right behind him.”

At the time, I had just witnessed an historic hearing that actually discussed the eligibility of the sitting president of the United States to run for a second term. The president had been subpoenaed to appear, and instead of his attorney respectfully following protocol to have that subpoena recalled, both Obama and his attorney, Michael Jablonski, simply failed to show up at all or offer any defense whatsoever.

Isn’t there a headline in there somewhere?

The hearing proceeded as planned, even though the table for the defense was empty. Attorneys Van Irion and J. Mark Hatfield presented their cases first and offered compelling arguments — not regarding Obama’s birthplace, but rather that the non-U.S. citizenship of Obama’s father precluded Obama’s “natural born” eligibility under the Constitution and existing Supreme Court precedent. Attorney Orly Taitz, however, did present interesting evidence that questioned the validity of Obama’s birth certificate and questions surrounding his Social Security number.

via Articles: Media Blackout in Obama Georgia Ballot Eligibility Case.

This is so prevalent in the MFM that it needs to be posted and rebutted.

It is NOT illegal to film cops! Never has been.

Now the First Circuit has ruled that to be the case. It is NOT illegal to film cops.

Cops have been know to harass people that are filming them and trying to convince them that it is illegal to film them. That is either willful ignorance, or just a straight out lie. I tend to lean towards the latter.

Read the story:

Appeals Court Rules It Is Not Illegal To Film Police

Paul Joseph Watson

Americans still being arrested for recording cops as a consequence of mass hoax

Despite the mass hoax still being promulgated by both the mainstream media and local authorities across America, the First Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that it is not illegal for citizens to videotape police officers when they are on public duty.

“The filming of government officials while on duty is protected by the First Amendment, said the Court,” reports Daily Tech.

“The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles [of protected First Amendment activity].,” said the Court. “Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting the free discussion of governmental affairs,” stated the ruling, adding that this has been the case all along, and that the right to film police officers is not just restricted to the press.

More

This is an excellent article from the Patriot Post. It certainly is something that has crossed my mind a lot as of late.

I worry that America won’t recover from the tyranny that is entrenched in our government.

I still believe in the Constitution and the freedom that America offers, but it seems that we have lost a lot of our freedom, especially in the last 10 years, or so.

Is it time to water the tree of liberty?

The Next American Revolution

By Mark Alexander · Thursday, August 4, 2011

What is the Authority for Rebellion?

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” — Thomas Jefferson(PUBLISHER’S WARNING: The following essay may cause heartburn and knee-jerk reactions, especially in those who are predisposed to “give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety.” But as Benjamin Franklin concluded, they “deserve neither liberty nor safety.” For such feeble souls, Samuel Adams advised, “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!” For those who are not cast among that faint-hearted lot, please read on.)

I receive hundreds of messages every day from Patriots across the nation. For the last three years, one thematic question has emerged with ever-increasing frequency. To paraphrase that question: “What is the authority to rebel against the central government?”

More.

Did anyone really think that this wouldn’t happen? Just another case of liberal jurisprudence that goes against all common sense.

Way to go moron judges.

Here’s the story starting back in 2009:

Federal judges order California to release 43,000 inmates

Federal judges call conditions in the prisons ‘appalling’ and unconstitutional. A reduction plan is due by mid-September.

August 05, 2009|Carol J. Williams

California must shrink the population of its teeming prisons by nearly 43,000 inmates over the next two years to meet constitutional standards, a panel of three federal judges ruled Tuesday, ordering the state to come up with a reduction plan by mid-September.

The order cited Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s own words when he proclaimed a state of emergency in the corrections system in 2006 and warned of substantial risk to prison staff, inmates and the general public, saying “immediate action is necessary to prevent death and harm.”

More

Supreme Court upholds order for California to release 46,000 inmates

May 23, 2011|By James Oliphant | Washington Bureau

The Supreme Court, in a narrow 5-4 decision, has an upheld an injunction by a three-judge panel ordering California to release about 46,000 inmates — more than one-fourth the state prison population — over the next two years to relieve overcrowding.

The decision was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy and backed by the court’s liberal bloc. At issue was whether federal judges had the power to order the release of state prisoners as a necessary means of curing a constitutional violation.

More

Which brings us to this little tidbit.

Computer errors allow violent California prisoners to be released unsupervised

A computer system that lacked key information about inmates factored in the release of an estimated 450 prisoners with a “high risk of violence,” according to the California inspector general.

By Jack Dolan,Los Angeles TimesMay 26, 2011

Reporting from Sacramento — Computer errors prompted California prison officials to mistakenly release an estimated 450 inmates with “a high risk for violence” as unsupervised parolees in a program meant to ease overcrowding, according to the state’s inspector general.

More than 1,000 additional prisoners presenting a high risk of committing drug crimes, property crimes and other offenses were also let out, officials said.

More

Way to go you liberal morons.