Latest baseball scores, trades, talk, ideas, opinions, and standings

Archive for the ‘Supreme Court’ Category

>Why Do Liberal Judges Forget The Constitution?


By Don White

John Kaile

“For the second time in two years, the United States Supreme Court has upheld the right of Americans to own guns. And for the second time the ruling was 5 – 4, when it should have been 9 – 0. OK, maybe 8 – 1 (Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a lost cause). The ruling in the case of McDonald vs. Chicago has clearly revealed why liberal judges should never be allowed to sit on the bench.” 

Don White’s take on this is that when they swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States:

  •  They had two fingers crossed behind them. They knew they would not keep the Constitutional provision that allows Americans to keep and hold guns – the Second Amendment. They are out-and-out liars.
  • They are softies. For some reason they equate killing by maniacs and criminals using guns as something they can stop from behind the bench.
  • They don’t know that guns don’t kill, people do.
  • They believe all is well in the world and that Americans will never have to defend their country from an invading force, such as al-Qaeda, Mexican drug gangs, our own criminals, or from those wanting to take away our other freedoms.
  • They don’t own a gun and don’t want others to own guns, either.
  • Their dads never took them hunting, never taught them gun safety and the purpose of guns.
  • They didn’t serve in the military.
  • They lied and cheated to get their law degrees, so they don’t understand the Constitution.
I could say all or any of these are reasons for men in black robes being hard on gun owners. But in reality they belong to a cult – a group of liberals who have decided it would be better for Americans to let government take care of them. So why let American patriots have guns? They don’t believe we’ll ever have to defend this country again. And they certainly don’t believe in history, our history of using small guns and rifles to defeat the greatest army and navy in the world, Great Britain, and obtain our freedom, liberty and our basic human rights. 

I don’t know, you tell me. 

>Huffington Post Is Creating Fiction That Scalia will Approve ObamaCare


Sam Stein

Justice Scalia, Not Kennedy, Eyed As Key Vote In Support Of Health Care

First Posted: 02/ 3/11 05:53 PM Updated: 02/ 4/11 08:09 AM

WASHINGTON — Observers of the legal drama surrounding President Obama’s health care reform legislation have reached two broad conclusions: that it will ultimately be ruled on by the Supreme Court, and that Justice Anthony Kennedy will be the deciding vote.
The Supreme Court will, most likely, be the venue that finalizes or submarines the Affordable Care Act. On Thursday, Virginia’s attorney general formally requested that the justices bypass an initial appellate review and take up the case on an expedited basis.
But legal scholars and defenders of the bill are increasingly convinced that another court member, not Kennedy, will play the critical role. And the name tantalizingly floated, often in private conversation with health care advocates, is Antonin Scalia.
An unapologetic constructionist, Justice Scalia doesn’t strike the pose of philosophical champion for Obama’s signature legislation. But his opinion in the 2005 case of Gonzales v. Raich has led to speculation that he could begrudgingly okay the underlying principles of the individual mandate — the legally-contested provision at the heart of the bill.
In a separate concurrence to Raich’s majority decision — which held that Congress could criminalize the production of homegrown marijuana even in states that approved of its medical use — Scalia made what is widely regarded as one of the Court’s broadest interpretations of Congress’ ability to regulate commerce. Not only did the legislative branch have the “power to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce,” he wrote; it had the power to extend itself into “those measures necessary to make the interstate regulation effective.”

>Federal Court Rules Health Care Bill Unconstitutional, but NY Times Reports That Obama Can Ignore That Ruling Because The Supreme Court Might Review The Case – Hogwash!

> link “pig iron” to

   I am an attorney and beg to differ with your conclusion that despite a federal judge ruling against the entire ObamaCare bill that it stays in effect until it is appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. That is definitely not the law of the land. The judge has handed down a ruling that states all parts of the bill are unconstitutional. 
   And have you thought of the possibility that the Supreme Court will refuse to hear this case? Also, in that case the ruling in Florida would rule over anything Eric Holder or Barak Obama might say and try to do. When a law is under a court ruling declaring it unconstitutional the law is specific. Until and unless it is ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court it is unconstitutional and that could take a year to resolve, or it could refuse to hear the case, which is quite common with this court. End of report. Any attempt by the Obama administration to disavow or ignore the ruling would be in violation of the court ruling and could land Mr. Holder et al in jail for contempt of court. A president is not all powerful. He cannot, with impunity, ignore a court order of this magnitude. 
   When a Federal Judge brings a ruling it is improper civil procedure for him to, as you suggest, “stay his opinion pending appeal.” That is improper civil procedure and if you persist in reporting this lie you are guilty of a gross misrepresentation and false reporting, which has been done time and time again by the New York Times in the last fifty years. There was a time when you could rely on the infallibility of The NY Times, but not any longer. It has become a political tool of the left. 

   The court ruled and the ruling is final until overturned. Which part of the American jurisprudence system  don’t you people understand? Get your own legal counsel involved immediately and have them give you a legal opinion before you continue on your errant ways of misleading the public, I would expect you would print a retraction immediately.
   Apparently, the Obama Administration believes it is above the law. The law in this country is made by three branches of government and can be overruled as unconstitutional at any time by a Federal or Supreme Court Judge. One or the other, it is the same, 
Until or unless the Federal Judge’s ruling of unconstitutionality is overturned. the current status is that there is no law.  To resurrect it requires a formal appeal to the Supreme court and a favorable ruling on that appeal. Until then, the law is suspended, null and void, and Obama and Holder and their people likewise should suspend all efforts to continue as if it was still the law of the land. 
They knew their Health Care Bill was suspect from the get-go, yet they acted as if it was the law – which is irrational – and went onward and upward with their insanity, misleading the public and making plans as if this would never receive judicial review.
Donald M. White, JD, Orlando, FL
Windermere, Florida 34786

From: News Alert
To: dusanotes@YAHOO.COM
Sent: Mon, January 31, 2011 3:26:30 PM
Subject: News Alert: Federal Judge Rules Health Care Law Violates Constitution

Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Mon, January 31, 2011 — 3:25 PM ET

Federal Judge Rules Health Care Law Violates Constitution

A federal judge in Pensacola, Fla., ruled that the entire
health care overhaul enacted last year was void because one
provision, requiring nearly all Americans to obtain health
insurance, was unconstitutional.

A previous decision in a Virginia case found that the mandate
provision was unconstitutional, but did not say that it
necessarily affected the whole law’s validity. In two other
cases tried so far, the law passed muster.

As in the Virginia case, the judge in Pensacola stayed his
decision pending an appeal, which could take more than a year
to decide, so the law remains in effect for now.

Read More:

About This E-Mail
You received this message because you are signed up to receive breaking news
alerts from

>Are Kagan’s Decisions To Not Hear Cases Legitimate Or Political?


Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan – Missing in Action?

By: David A. Patten
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has decided to step down from participating in nearly half of the 51 cases the court has agreed to review this term because of potential conflicts of interest.

The news that Kagan will bow out of an unexpectedly large number of cases sent attorneys and legal scholars scrambling as the first day of the court’s new term began Monday. Observers are trying to determine how major case law could be affected by not having a ninth justice on the bench for as many of the 25 cases that the court has agreed to hear so far this year.

The court is expected to agree to hear another 25 to 35 cases this term, and it is possible that Kagan will recuse herself from some of those cases as well.

To read the entire Newsmax story, click onto:

>Sotomayor’s Tenure Is A Life Sentence For America

Oh, Baloney, Judge Sotomayor!

By Don White
In an AP story about a Senate Judiciary panel questioning the next female Judge of the Supreme Court, Judge Sonja Sotomayor denied bias in her ‘wise Latina’ remarks. To that I would like to say, it’s just more Puetro Rican and “Chicago Kaupunki,” or more mildly, it’s out and out “baloney!”

She has started off just as Barak Obama started off, lying to the public. What’s worse, it constitutes lying to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee entrusted in approving her for lifetime duty in the highest court of the land, the Supreme Court.

Even that statement is not correct. She may quit before she dies if she likes. And I would prefer she made her tenure short. She is a smart Latina judge who is bound to apply the weight of her votes to build up the Latin American community, not the entire citizenry of the United States. But she will swear to live according to the law, that is rule independently but by a strict adherence to the Constitution, but she won’t. But once she’s in, she won’t be impeached, even if she deserves to be — not by the current Democrat-dominate Senate.

America has been given a life sentence with this biased woman.

The AP said Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor firmly denied racial bias Tuesday at her Senate confirmation hearing and said an oft-criticized remark about her Hispanic heritage affecting judicial decisions was a rhetorical device gone awry.

“Gone awry?” Since when do the utterances of intelligent people, people with law dregrees and many years as judge behind her, “go awry?”

She said what she meant, and she meant what she said. It’s as simple as that. Yet the blind-as-bat senators on that panel can’t find fault in her? Are they afraid of offending their Latin constituents? I believe so. How about their being afraid of offending the major of Americans, the white and black contingency?

If Senators are afraid of the Latin vote and vote her in for that reason, they themselves should be impeached for failing to live up to their senate oath, that is to live up to the oath as it was during Lincoln’s tenure during the Civil War. I will print the entire article regarding this in a forthcoming or new blog.

>Getting America Right By Rulling Against Sotomayor

>By Don White
I blogged about the Sotomayor reversal in my blog, “Madoff Gets 150 Years, Sotomayor Overturned,”Political Disconnect this morning. Please click over to that story when you finish this one.

If you believe as I do, that qualification should be the only criteria for promoting anyone, then you should like what the Supreme Court did today. They overturned a Sotomayor ruling in Appeals Court that would have made a mockery out of a city’s promotion policies. Had the Supreme Court not have overturned this Latina from Porto Rico today, the very person who would be a Supreme Court jurist, people in similar positions in municipality jobs across the nation could not count on competence as the sole criteria for promotion.

Democrats, those far left people who lack logic and reason, wanted the fiction which we should abolish called Affirmative Action to rule the day. It did not, and maybe it has gone a long way toward forever burying the notion that black men should be given job preferences simply because they’re black.

If I were Jewish or Mormon, I would not be given rights others don’t have, that is to get a job I’m not qualified for just because there is a long history in America and in the world of religious discrimination against these two religions. Affirmative Action has run its course. When were civil rights given to Blacks. It started following the Civil War when they were freeded in about 1865, almost 150 years ago. The Civil Rights law of the sixties put another nail into the coffin of discrimination, and that was over 40 years ago.

Even blacks who have accomplished things in this country look at Affirmative Action as a millstone placed on the shoulders of black people. It doesn’t help black people, it gives them a crutch. Judge Sotomayor was not qualified to get into an Ivy League university because of her IQ, SAT scores, and high school performance. But due to Affirmative Action, she was preferred above better qualified students of other races to receive a superior education.

That kind of reverse discrimination has got to stop! And it appears the Supreme Court has driven a small nail into that coffin, too.

Whether it will end there is uncertain, given the fact President Obama has a chance during the next while to put a majority of liberals on the court, and that could change everything. If he can’t ruin America one way, he will do it another way.

>Reverse Discrimination: About Time For Some Justice and Sonja Sotomayor Won’t Bring That

>Reverse discrimination is what Sonja Sotomayor is about.

She discriminated over those dozen or so white (one Latin) firemen who passed all the tests for administrative promotions and were refused. This is outrageous and, alone, should be cause for the U.S. Senate to reject this Obama nominee.

When the firemen went into Judge Sotomayor’s appeals court, she turned them down because there weren’t any black men in that group.

That’s reverse discrimination of the worst kind. When people are prepared, pass a test, and meet every requirement including having the necessary time in position, they should get the promotion regardless of skin color. Most blacks agree with that statement. Discrimination is not the job of the court.

It’s been too long since the Civil War for the U.S. to still be discriminating against white folks just to salve the injustices of the past. All of those people have long since passed on, and you can’t take care of them in their graves.

How long must we put up with this kind of injustice? Well, Barak Obama believes we white people haven’t suffered long enough because now he’s nominated a Latino who is going to rule just as he would if he were on the Supreme Court. George Will wrote about this nominee, Sonja Sotomayor, in this morning’s Washington Post. I wrote a comment, which I’m including below along with several other comments.


dusanotes wrote:
Will’s third graph stops me cold. In their search for how the nominee will rule, Senators must discuss her desire to interpret the Constitution – strictly or loosely – and I think we know that answer.That must include jurisprudential unless we’re no longer a common law country. Doesn’t precedent mean anything? What are senators supposed to do, ask her how the Yankees did last night? No judge should be approved who is there to write new law.Congress does that. To merely judge by asking yourself what’s right and letting the law play catch up is wrong. May as well restrict nominees to members of the clergy. Sotomayor already thinks the High Court’s job is “policy making.”
5/27/2009 8:48:22 AM

Csmith5 wrote:
Yes George Will is a conservative, but he calls it like it is. When Bush nominated Harriett Myers for the SC, he wrote:

I wonder if we will read any op-eds from liberals criticizing Sotomayor’s judical activism or racism from the bench. Doubt it!!! Also, since some of you posters believe the U.S. is no longer a white christian country, can white males get away with making racist comments and use our status as a minority to get away with it, like so many other minorities have in the past? Can we receive some affirmative action? Me personally, I would love the opportunity to become an 8(a) business.

5/27/2009 8:46:37 AM

Georgia10 wrote:
At one time I thought that George Will’s historical references were meaningful. They were certainly amusing diversions. But now it clear that these are just a writer’s technique for avoiding inconvenient facts (for example, Judge Sotomayor’s exceedingly moderate record overall or God forbid, climate change) that might cause an intellectually honest writer to reach different conclusions. Mr. Will you have become sadly irrelevant. Perhaps it is time to concentrate solely on baseball.
5/27/2009 8:46:09 AM

jaysit wrote:
Not unexpectedly, Will shrieks on about “identity” justice, as if “identity politics” only raises its head when minorities or women are involved, and that somehow white men exist in a realm where only pure rule of reason applies. Poppycock. Will lives in a world where to be white is to be the normative, and where everything else is the exotic suspect (in Will’s own bubble, that normative is further restricted to”conservative white male). Is it no wonder that he makes the foolish “what-if” comparison between Sottomayor and Alito. I would reckon that Samuel Alito would need no reason to articulate that his decision-making stems in part from his perspective as a white male (a conservative, Christian with a capital “C,” white male no less). Why would he when Will and much of American society see that as the normative standard? Sottomayor’s only sin here is that of honesty. She knows that ethnicity, gender, race, experience, socio-economic background and, yes, religion affect the way we view the world. Its a pity that Will can’t accept that his own background and sum of his own experiences color his own perspective too. He’d also be advised to look at the record of Scalia who, in spite of the textualist babble he wraps himself in, brings the reasoning and sense of justice of a conservative, Catholic, white male. There is nothing wrong per se to this reality. However, its time that Will and his ilk recognize that they too are perpetrators of the same crimes they accuse others who aren’t of their “tribe.”
5/27/2009 8:45:20 AM

“Take a moment to explain why white men are the problem?”

With pleasure.

Because for 240+ years up to and including today, old rich white men have owned the vast majority of resources, both in America and abroad. That’s who made the decisions regarding those resources, and more importantly, created the power structures – those I mentioned and others – to preserve those power structures. It was rich white men who have, for the last 500 years at least, plundered the rest of the world including this country. That’s an irrefutable fact. Ask a Native American…if you can find one, that is. Ask an unemployed African American male descended from stolen slave labor who can’t get a job because he has a non-violent felony drug conviction on his record. Ask a poor white person who owns the factory from which he just got laid off. Ask anyone other than a rich white man above his or her experience in America, and I guarantee you the stories you hear are not what you learned in class or see in the so-called “liberal” media.

I also have no guilt. I’m descended from a signer of the Declaration of Independence (Dr. Benjamin Rush of Philadelphia), Scots-Irish hillbillies of Appalachia, and German and Irish immigrants who mined the coal, farmed the food, drove the trucks, fought the wars, fixed and built the mansions, roads and railroads that allowed rich white men to be where they are today.

It’s not guilt upon which my opinions and observations are founded. It’s the vivid 250-year experience of my ancestors and extended family – and the millions of others just like it – that has brought me to my conclusions. It’s reading history, and not just that presented by rich white men’s power structures. It’s getting out and seeing the rest of the world and listening to what people other than the white moneyed elite think about America and what it means to be American.

Turn off Rush, Hannity and Faux News and open your eyes to the 90% of history and reality you’re willingly disregarding so as to avoid testing the hypotheses that someone else has spoon-fed to you in order to preserve his/her their power and privilege. Leave the comfort of your upper-class suburban/exurban enclave or gated community and get out there to see with your own eyes what has happened and is happening in this country and why.

In other words, wake up.

5/27/2009 8:44:04 AM

Tell us, Mr. Will: Do your GOP talking points arrive each morning with a check? Or are you on a monthly Repuglican stipend?
5/27/2009 8:42:01 AM

George Will, you forget that the conservative justices never side with the individual over the corporation or the defendent over the prosecutor – never. Isn’t this just a different side of the same coin you are accusing the liberals of? I am not a journalist so I only have a personel interest in the truth – you however should have a public responsibility for the truth – a responsibility you seem to ignore consistently. Your truth seems one-sided and only black and white. No grey allowed or desired. It is this authoritarian absolutism that has caused conservatives to be thought of as intellectually bankrupt. If you are unable to understand why it is important for a supreme court nominee to have experiences outside yours then you are as devoid of any true reasoning. Your little history lessons are amusing, do the same research on the reasons for Sotomayor’s ruling in the 2nd circuit (precedence), report it factually and apologize for your misleading all of your readers.

Look into the context of Sotomayor’s “racial” speech with as much zeal as you looked into your history lesson and you may find that a quote taken out of context is misleading your readers.

I love your work on baseball and you are a wonderful historian but it seems to me you have let your conservative beliefs and priveledged upbringing blind you to seeing both sides of issues.

5/27/2009 8:33:44 AM

swanieaz wrote:
Now, if only you would pull the wool from over your eyes.

That wool, is your biased, bigoted, pejorative, condescending way you write – if you call it that!

Go back to jeans ! ! !


5/27/2009 8:33:43 AM

razzl wrote:
Ho hum, another day, another attempt to write an essay around some esoteric old-school movement conservative’s doctrinaire point. If movement conservatives were never willing to admit the validity of taking measures to relieve discrimination against racial, ethnic, or religious minorities when such discrimination was demonstrably systematic and crushing, then why should we worry about Will’s timeline for ending antidiscrimination measures? Those who fended off correcting the wrongs of the past are not at the head of the line to be listened to in the future…
5/27/2009 8:32:37 AM

jsc173 wrote:
Let’s face it. The Democrat party decided years ago that the most reliable, consistent approach to changing policy was control of the federal judiciary.

Presidents can only rule for 8 years. Members of Congress and Senators can rule indefinitely but run the risk of being fired every 2 to 6 years.

Judges, however, are there for life and salting the judiciary with judges who have a predisposition (uh, some would call it a bias) to view certain issues in a manner that runs counter to current judicial opinion can result in change over time.

The legislative process is now too slow and too burdened with back scratching, earmarking and other nasty little unpleasantries.

It’s so much easier to be able to control a handful of important appellate court seats, especially the Supreme Court, if you want to advance your political views.

5/27/2009 8:30:30 AM

Bugs222 wrote:
Will parrots standard GOPosaur talking points. As if the decisions rendered by white guys on the Supreme Court are somehow “objective” and not informed by their life experience. Well, here’s one white dude who is DELIGHTED with Obama’s pick of Sotomayor.
5/27/2009 8:30:14 AM

wdjrel wrote:
This kind of identity based appointment is exactly what I expected from Obama. He is an ACLU Democrat. All the words they use, like the rule of law, is double speak. They are interested only in getting even. I don’t even understand why they go to law school since their goal is to destroy the constitution and replace it with themselves.
5/27/2009 8:29:14 AM

Is it that big of a deal for us to have a few women on the court, and a few more people with dark skin? Are white conservative men the only humans who can dispense justice in this nation?
5/27/2009 8:25:37 AM

klcscott wrote:
“…and members of a particular category can be represented — understood, empathized with — only by persons of the same identity.”

Of course, to support this preconception, Mr. Will must ignore that in the same speech, Ms. Sotomayer went on to say:

“We should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group.”

In all fairness, I don’t think George is being so much dishonest, as he is just being lazy, again.

5/27/2009 8:22:33 AM

jjhare wrote:
Weak sauce, Will. What happened to deferring to the Presidents’ wisdom on these decisions? Wasn’t that the whole “elections have consequences” bit?
5/27/2009 8:20:47 AM

longbow651 wrote:
Americanitis wrote:

People like George Will make me laugh. He – like other conservative white males his age – thinks that the country belongs to white christian men of capital….”


A little reverse bigotry from a guilt ridden member of the majority. You seem to have the problem worked out to your satisfaction. I agree the corporate and government minds are not up to par but what I have problem with is your rationale for the reasons. Take a moment to explain why white men are the problem?

5/27/2009 8:19:01 AM

Psalm9_17 wrote:
Why do conservative judges always have to swear that they are unbiased, yet liberal judges while openly biased and praised for it in the mainstream media? Never trust the mainstream liberal media and the judges they support.
5/27/2009 8:18:44 AM

pihto999 wrote:
ull disclosure – I’m a 31-year-old white male. And I for one think that old white men like George have screwed up America quite enough, thank you very much.


Maybe you need to look around, countries not govened by white males. Like Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Kim of North Korea, Chavez of Venezuela. What are other better choices in you racist book?
5/27/2009 8:16:51 AM

pihto999 wrote:
Listen to libtards! They keep talking about what ethnic and religious background the Justices have, NOT how they judge or what their judicial convictions are! Thanks for proving WIll’s point :


And like conventional liberals, she embraces identity politics, including the idea of categorical representation: A person is what his or her race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual preference is, and members of a particular category can be represented — understood, empathized with — only by persons of the same identity


So much for colorblind society! Libs are patronizing racists
5/27/2009 8:11:35 AM

On the surface, Sotomayer looks like an excellent choice; she has great credentials and experiences. However, if the Supreme Court overturns her decision in the New Haven firefighters case for the reasons stated in this article, then Sotomayer is a dangerous activist making social policy from the bench and then it is no wonder that Obama selected her. This needs further investigation but in the end, it is highly unlikely she will be blocked from appoinment. the Reubicans don’t have the votes. Also, the Republicans don’t want to alienate the Hispanic community, ost of whom will not care about Sotomayer’s social activism compared to getting an hispanic on the Supreme Court.
5/27/2009 8:09:08 AM