The election is done, the winner has been decided and some turmoil remains but things will settle down. The Liberal establishment will soon come to grips that their Golden Goose had laid a rotten egg.
Hillary Clinton’s followers learned that her golden crown of precious gems was nothing more than gold plated tin and cut glass inserts.
The Supreme Court will now have Justices that believe in the Constitution and what the Founding Fathers meant when it was written. Our Second Amendment rights are now under more protection with the Socialists out of power and packing their bags for destinations unknown.
The retention of power in the House and Senate insures that UN mandates and treaties such as Agenda 21 will never be approved and if they in the UN continue to try and surpress our Constitution and Bill of Rights, may find us removing ourselves completely from their interference.
Washington DC will now be wiped clean of Muslim influence, the FBI, Homeland Security, Attorney General’s Office and much more will be filled with those who will uphold the law and bring integrity back to those office’s.
The Muslim in Chief has not only lost his party in this election but has lost even more face with world leaders, he is not only a lame duck president, he is a dead duck with world leaders, he not only lost face but lost what little power and sway he had with them.
The time is here to heal the wounds and work together.
LET’S MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
A lot of people have brought up the fact that they won’t vote for Trump if he’s the eventual nominee. Let’s put something in perspective.
Justice Scalia’s seat is vacant. Ginsberg is 82 years old, Kennedy is 79, Breyer is 77, and Thomas is 67. Nowadays, the data shows that the average age of a Supreme Court retirement or death occurs after 75.
These are 5 vacancies that will likely come up over the next 4-8 years. The next President will have the power to potentially create a 7-2 Supreme Court skewed in their ideology.
Think about that… 7-2. If the next President appoints 5 young justices, it will guarantee control of the Supreme Court for an entire generation. And 7-2 decisions will hold up much more over time than 5-4 decisions which are seemed to be lacking in mandate.
Hillary has made it clear she will use the Supreme Court to go after the 2nd Amendment. She has literally said that the Supreme Court was wrong in its Heller decision stating that the Court should overturn and remove the individual right to keep and bear arms. Period.
Everyone saying that they won’t vote for one candidate or the other if they are the GOP nominee, please realize this. If Hillary Clinton wins and gets to make these appointments, you likely will never see another Conservative victory at the Supreme Court level for the rest of your life. Ever.
If you are a Conservative, a vote for anyone but a GOP nominee, whomever that will be, is a vote for Hillary Clinton…. Think about it, or we’re all SCREWED!
In a move meant to openly defy U.S. Senate Republicans, President Barack Obama has nominated a judge to fill Justice Antonin Scalia’s open Supreme Court seat.
And Obama’s pick appears to be no friend of the Second Amendment or private gun ownership rights.
At a morning press conference in the White House Rose Garden on Wednesday, Obama formally announced his nomination of federal appeals court judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.
The pick sets up a confrontation with Republicans leaders, who say they will refuse to consider his nomination in an election year.
Garland, 63, is the chief judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a court whose influence over federal policy and national security matters has made it a proving ground for potential Supreme Court justices.
He would replace conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who died unexpectedly last month, leaving behind a bitter election-year fight over the future of the court.
Garland will be a hard sell to the Republicans that control the Senate, which must confirm any nominee, because of Garland’s opposition to the Second Amendment.
According to The National Review, “Garland has a long record, and, among other things, it leads to the conclusion that he would vote to reverse one of Justice Scalia’s most important opinions, D.C. vs. Heller, which affirmed that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms.”
In 2007, Garland supported upholding a Washington, DC gun law that was called the most restrictive in the nation. The law, eventually struck down, banned private ownership of handguns and wouldn’t let citizens even keep them in their homes.
Garland also supported other restrictive gun control measures during the Clinton administration.
“Garland thought all of these regulations were legal, which tells us two things,” the National Review wrote. “First, it tells us that he has a very liberal view of gun rights, since he apparently wanted to undo a key court victory protecting them. Second, it tells us that he’s willing to uphold executive actions that violate the rights of gun owners.”
GOP leaders want to leave the Supreme Court choice to the next president, denying Obama a chance to alter the ideological balance of the court before he leaves office next January. Republicans contend that a confirmation fight in an election year would be too politicized.
June is always an exciting month for law geeks and political junkies. It’s the month when the U.S. Supreme Court typically issues opinions on some of the most controversial disputes of the day. This June will be no different, with high-profile decisions expected on abortion protests, Obamacare’s contraception mandate, and the president’s recess appointment power. Yet one of the lingering mysteries of this past Supreme Court term lies in a matter the justices seemingly refuse to rule on: What happened to the Second Amendment?
Signs of this were clear on Monday, when the court in a 5–4 ruling upheld a major gun control law, the federal ban on “straw” purchasing without so much as mentioning the Second Amendment. Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan reasoned that the background checks gun dealers are required to perform before selling someone a firearm would be “virtually repeal[ed]” if anyone could go in and buy a gun for someone else, while saying it was for him. In the dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia accused the majority of misreading federal law, which he said was not intended to prohibit straw purchasing at all.
The justices’ failure to consider the Second Amendment was in part due to how the case was framed. The law wasn’t challenged as an infringement of the constitutional right to bear arms. The issue was one of statutory interpretation. Yet judges often look to background principles in deciding whether to read a statute broadly (as Kagan did) or narrowly (as Scalia did). One might have expected the values and concerns enshrined in the Second Amendment to at least make an appearance, if not a star turn. When the justices ignore the Second Amendment when construing a major gun control law, one suspects it isn’t merely an oversight.
Were the justices having second thoughts about the Second Amendment? One thing is certain: There were very strong reasons for the court to take a Second Amendment case this term. The court’s previous decisions left open two major questions: Does the Second Amendment protect the right of people to carry guns in public? And what test should courts use generally to determine the constitutionality of gun restrictions?
These questions have bedeviled the lower courts over the past few years, with judges all across the country offering contradictory answers. One federal appeals court held that police can exercise broad discretion over who can carry a gun in public, while another held the opposite. Some courts have adopted a test for Second Amendment cases that gives lawmakers considerable leeway to enact gun laws, while others have insisted on a more strict scrutiny. In some ways, the current Supreme Court jurisprudence on guns raised as many questions as it answered.
Such disagreement in the lower courts is usually the best predictor of whether the Supreme Court takes a case. The justices understand the nation’s need for uniformity, especially when it comes to individual rights. This term, however, the justices weren’t inclined to sort out any such inconsistencies involving the Second Amendment. Indeed, when expressly invited to wade in, they balked.
Über Supreme Court advocate Paul Clement, at the top of the shortlist of high-court nominees should the GOP recapture the White House in 2016, tried to goad the justices into taking a Second Amendment case. In a brief he filed on behalf of the National Rifle Association in the gun dealer case, Clement argued that the lower courts have engaged in a “pervasive pattern of stubborn resistance to this Court’s holdings” in the earlier gun cases. This language evoked the notorious “massive resistance” of Southern states to the court’s school desegregation decisions. Like the NAACP before him, he and the NRA were looking for the court to issue a clear, strong command to lower courts to read the Second Amendment broadly.
No thanks, said the court, declining to take the case. Indeed, the NRA may have been this term’s biggest loser. Not only did the court refuse to hear Clement’s case and another brought by the nation’s leading gun rights group, but it also rejected the NRA’s position outright in the straw-purchaser case just decided. In March, the court held in another case that a law banning guns to people convicted of misdemeanor crimes of “domestic violence” applied to those convicted of domestic “assault,” even if it was unclear that the assault involved violent force. Although the NRA didn’t take an official position in that case, many in its leadership were surely unhappy to see another Supreme Court ruling broadly reading a gun control law to reduce access to guns.
NRA disappointment might well turn into despair after Monday’s ruling, as Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court’s swing vote on the Second Amendment and so many other issues, sided with gun control advocates and the court’s liberal wing. It’s long been suspected that Kennedy signed on to the earlier Second Amendment rulings by the court only after language was inserted allowing for reasonable restrictions on guns. But the question has lingered: How far would Kennedy allow gun control to go?
That question might well have been on the minds of the other justices when they voted not to hear a Second Amendment case this year. With four justices likely in favor of broad Second Amendment rights and another four likely opposed, the scope of the right to bear arms turns on Kennedy. His views may have been sufficiently unclear that neither side wanted to take a risk of a landmark decision coming out the wrong way.
If, however, this term is any indication, Kennedy seems increasingly less likely to be a solid vote for expansive Second Amendment rights. Indeed, twice this term he voted for expansive readings of gun control laws instead. For the NRA, so used to winning in statehouses around the country, this can’t be good news. After this term, the NRA may be hoping that the Second Amendment stays out of the Supreme Court for a good, long while.
The Supreme Court on Friday will vote behind closed doors to accept three Second Amendment cases that could further define how minors, and adults, are allowed to carry a gun outside of their own homes.
The question posed by the NRA in the first case is, “Whether a nationwide, class-based, categorical ban on meaningful access to the quintessential means to exercise the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense can be reconciled with the Second Amendment, the equal protection guarantee, and this Court’s precedents.”
The main questions posed by the NRA in the second case are 1) if the Second Amendment right to bear arms includes the right to bear arms in public, 2) if responsible 18-to-20-year-olds can bear arms, and 3) if 18-to-20-year-olds can bear arms in public.
As Constitution Daily contributor Lyle Denniston wrote for us two weeks ago, in an analysis of the case basics, the “two cases [are] testing whether the federal government and the states can restrict the rights of minors to possess a gun outside the home.” But the NRA also wants a Court ruling on if “the Second Amendment right to bear arms for self-defense in case of confrontation includes the right to bear arms in public.”
Denniston said that one of the reasons the Supreme Court could take the cases “is that, in both, the federal appeals court came very close to creating an entirely new category of individuals ineligible to ‘bear’ arms, merely because of their age.”
In both of the decisions at issue, the appeals court said it was “likely” that they were not protected at all under the Second Amendment, or under the separate parts of the Constitution that guarantee all individuals equal legal rights.
And a third case was added to the February 21 conference two weeks ago, Lane v. Holder, which is being mounted by the Second Amendment Foundation.
The question in the Lane case is, “Whether consumers have standing to challenge the constitutionality of laws regulating the sale of firearms.”
The Lane case confronts the issue of gun purchasers having a right to sue to challenge federal gun laws that restrict their options of buying guns from dealers in different states.
Since the Supreme Court issued its ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago in 2010, it hasn’t accepted new cases about the rights of gun owners. The McDonald case extended the decision in the 2008 Heller decisions to the states.
In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and it struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home.
The Court’s acceptance of any of the three gun cases would be significant, and the cases probably wouldn’t be heard until its next term starts in October 2014. (The Court could say as soon as today or on Monday if it will grant the cases for arguments.)
It is request to the Court in the McCraw case, the NRA’s counsel claims that lower courts have deliberately stalled in following the Court’s decisions in Heller and McDonald.
“This massive judicial resistance to implementing this Court’s Second Amendment decisions is particularly acute in challenges to laws restricting the right to carry a firearm in public,” the petition says. “This case presents a prime example of this de facto rejection of Heller and McDonald by lower courts.”
And same claim is made in the NRA v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms case.
“Jurisdictions have engaged in massive resistance to the clear import of those landmark decisions, and the lower federal courts, long out of the habit of taking the Second Amendment seriously, have largely facilitated the resistance,” counsel claims in that petition
In the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the Lane case, the Justice Department is arguing that a Supreme Court review isn’t warranted. The state of Texas also wants their case denied by the Court and it is questioning the NRA’s standing in the case.
SAN FRANCISCO – A divided federal appeals court on Thursday struck down California’s concealed weapons rules, saying they violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
By a 2-1 vote, the three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said California was wrong to require applicants to show good cause to receive a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
“The right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense,” Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain wrote for the majority.
Judge Sidney Thomas dissented, writing that the good cause requirement limited the number of people carrying concealed handguns in public to those legitimately in need.
“It limits the risk to public safety by reducing the number of guns in public circulation, but allows those who will most likely need to defend themselves in public to carry a handgun,” Thomas wrote.
Awarding concealed weapon permits is the responsibility of each of California’s 58 counties. Officials are required to follow the state rules requiring applicants to show good cause and moral character.
The San Francisco-based appeals court said those requirements were too strict and ran afoul of a 5-4 landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2008 that struck down a Washington, D.C., handgun ban and said law-abiding citizens are allowed to have handguns in their home for self-defense.
The appeals court on Thursday reinstated a lawsuit filed in 2009 by Edward Peruta, who challenged San Diego County’s denial of a concealed weapons permit.
The ruling on Thursday also disagreed with three other federal appeals courts that have upheld permit rules similar to the one in California.
The U.S. Supreme Court often takes cases when federal appeals courts issue conflicting rulings.
Received this by email..have not researched it yet, but it does make sense.
THIS MUST GO VIRAL TO EVERY AMERICAN , HERE IS THE TRUTH OF THE SUPREME COURT ABOUT OBAMA CARE…PASS IT ALONG AND KEEP A COPY OF THIS FOR YOURSELF
People of The USA .We are being played as fools. Chief Justice Roberts did not say obamacare was constitutional..read his RULING ..He said that the mandate was NOT Constitutional and that the ONLY WAY THAT the federal government could enforce obamacare is to to enforce it as a tax….WELL here is where the obamacare mandate is unconstitutional..Right when Justice Roberts made that ruling THE ACA should have went BACK to congress and should have been VOTED ON BY EACH MEMBER OF CONGRESS AS A TAX .. IT WAS NOT .. The House did not pass obamacare as a tax..they said that it was NOT a tax..DO NOT BE FOOLS PEOPLE .. OBAMACARE IS ILLEGAL ..ALSO THE ACA Originated in the SENATE and a Tax cannot originate in the Senate..PLUS..OBAMA has unlawfully changed the law by giving exemptions ..HE CANNOT DO THIS ..He is an Alinskyite Radical revolutionary and his lap dog Main Stream media Knows the Alinsky rules and is REPEATING THE LIE over and over and over again so it becomes the new reality.. JUST BECAUSE YOU HEAR SOMETHING ON THE NEWS DOES NOT MAKE IT ACCURATE .. They are trying so hard to make us all believe that Obamacare is legal AND IT IS NOT LEGAL…Take the IRS to court if THEY try to garnish your bank account when you OPT-OUT ..go to (generation opportunity.org) AND (cchfreedom.org) There will be a chance for class action lawsuits against the Federal Government but we cannot take them to court until they try to tax us for not having health insurance . PLEASE SHARE THIS
As the nation nears the fiscal cliff, President Barack Obama has ended the pay freeze on federal employees — giving workers, ranging from Vice President Joe Biden to members of Congress and the Supreme Court, a raise.
Obama signed the executive order on Thursday, The Weekly Standard reports. The increases take effect in late March.
Citing recessionary factors and budgetary concerns, Obama instituted the pay freeze in 2010.
Under the new guidelines, for instance, Biden’s salary will jump from $225,521 last year to $231,900 next year.
Members of Congress, from the House and Senate, also will receive a slight raise — from $174,000 to 174,900.
And the majority and minority leaders in both chambers will see their salaries rise to $194.400.
The salary for the Speaker of the House, currently the Ohio Republican John Boehner, will increase to $224,600.
In addition, the pay for the members of the U.S. Supreme Court also will rise, with Chief Justice John Roberts receiving $223,500, and associate justices being paid $213,900.
It’s back to court for Barack Obama and his advisers who are fighting for their state-run Obamacare rules and regulations.
The U.S. Supreme Court today ordered a lower appeals court to review concerns raised by Liberty University that Congress simply didn’t have the power it needed to force employers to provide federally mandated insurance – or require them to pay for abortion-related services for employees.
“Today’s ruling breaths new life into our challenge to Obamacare. Our fight against Obamacare is far from over,” he said. “Congress exceeded its power by forcing every employer to provide federally mandated insurance. But even more shocking is the abortion mandate, which collides with religious freedom and the rights of conscience.”
The case on behalf of the school and individuals Michele Waddell and JoAnne Merrill asked the Supreme Court to reverse an order from the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which denied a petition for a writ of certiorari.
“Specifically, petitioners request that this court enter an order granting, vacating and remanding the petition because the Fourth Circuit’s determination that the Anti-Injunction Act deprived it of subject matter jurisdiction was overruled by this court in National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius.”
The NFIB case was the decision earlier this year in which the court, hinging on the vote of Chief Justice John Roberts, declared Obamacare a tax – making it the largest tax increase ever for American citizens – and within the authority of Congress.
Liberty Counsel had filed the petition for rehearing because it said the Richmond, Va., appeals court should hear the arguments on the constitutional issues at hand. Liberty Counsel said the action could pave the way for the case to return to the Supreme Court in 2013.
Specifically at issue are the demands from Obama that employers pay for government-listed health care coverages, including abortifacients and other services that Christians and others cannot accept because of their religious beliefs.
The constitutional issue is the First Amendment’s Free Exercise of Religion Clause – and the question is whether the government can order people to violate their faith. Also involved is the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
You know you live in a Country run by idiots if… You can get arrested for expired tags on your car but not for being in the country illegally.
Your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more of our money.
A seven year old boy can be thrown out of school for calling his teacher “cute” but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable.
The Supreme Court of the United States can rule that lower courts cannot display the 10 Commandments in their courtroom, while sitting in front of a display of the 10 Commandments.
Children are forcibly removed from parents who appropriately discipline them while children of “underprivileged” drug addicts are left to rot in filth infested cesspools of a “home”.
Hard work and success are rewarded with higher taxes and government intrusion, while slothful, lazy behavior is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid, subsidized housing, and free cell phones.
The government’s plan for getting people back to work is to provide 99 weeks of unemployment checks (to not work).
Being self-sufficient is considered a threat to the government.
Politicians think that stripping away the amendments to the constitution is really protecting the rights of the people.
The rights of the Government come before the rights of the individual.
You can write a post like this just by reading the news headlines.
You pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big screen TV while your neighbor defaults on his mortgage (while buying i-phones, TV’s and new cars) and the government forgives his debt and reduces his mortgage (with your tax dollars).
Being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you “safe”.
You have to have your parents signature to go on a school field trip but not to get an abortion.
An 80 year old woman can be stripped searched by the TSA but a Muslim woman in a burka is only subject to having her neck and head searched.
Using the “N” word is considered “hate speech” but writing and singing songs about raping women and killing cops is considered “art”.