Supreme Court to Hear Case on Obama's Disputed NLRB Appointments

WashingtonExaminer.com:

The Supreme Court on Monday is set to hear a bitter dispute between Republicans and the White House over whether President Obama exceeded his authority when appointing members to the National Labor Relations Board during a congressional recess. 

The justices' decision could cast a legal cloud over hundreds of rulings by the board, which resolves complaints of unfair labor practices and conducts elections for labor union representation. 

The case, NLRB v. Noel Canning, centers around recess appointments Obama made to the labor board. In January 2012, Obama appointed three members to the board when the Senate was on break. Presidents can circumvent required Senate approval if the chamber is on recess, a move Obama deemed necessary because of repeated GOP blocks of his nominations to the panel. 

Republicans worried the Obama appointees had a pro-union bias. But the White House said the GOP block was done solely for political reasons. 

Then in February 2012 the NLRB ruled against Noel Canning (part of Noel Corp.), of Yakima, Wash., in a dispute with the Teamsters union. The company, aided by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, challenged the decision, arguing that the president's January appointments to the NLRB were invalid and thus the board didn't have the necessary quorum to resolve its dispute. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in favor of Canning, saying Obama violated the law when he bypassed the Senate. The court said recess appointments are constitutional only if the vacancies and appointments occur in between official sessions of Congress. 

The NLRB appealed, and the Supreme Court took up the case. 

If the high court rules against the labor board, a minimum of 100 NRLB decisions -- and possibly more -- made by the recess-appointed members could be deemed invalid.

RELATED: Supreme Court justices call into question Obama's recess appointment power

Supreme Court Halts "Gay Marriage" in Utah Pending Appeal

WaPo.com:

The Supreme Court halted same-sex marriages in Utah on Monday, returning to center stage the question of whether there is a constitutional right to marry that states may not withhold from gays and lesbians.

The court’s two-sentence order stayed a decision from a federal judge in Salt Lake City that had cleared the way for same-sex marriages. About 1,000 such weddings were performed in the 17 days that followed — unions that the state’s attorney general said are now in “legal limbo.”

Monday’s order, with no recorded dissents, gave no reasoning for granting the stay and no clues about how the justices may ultimately decide the issue.

It was only six months ago that the court gave major victories to gay rights advocates in its first full consideration of same-sex marriage, including requiring the federal government to recognize such unions performed in states where they are legal.

But a flurry of legal challenges filed around the country since then could mean that the court will be called upon sooner rather than later to decide the fundamental question it sidestepped: whether state bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.

Monday’s order indicated that the justices want lower courts to weigh in on the legal issue before giving what might seem to be even implied approval of the federal judge’s decision that the bans cannot stand. Without emergency action, the justices would not consider the issue in the court’s current term, which ends in June.

RELATED:  Supreme Court puts stay on same-sex marriage in Utah

Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to Obamacare’s Contraceptive Mandate

Mediaite.com:

On Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court announced that it would take up a challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive coverage mandates on the grounds that it could violate the First Amendment to the Constitution’s guaranteed religious freedoms. Lower courts have issued split decisions on the issue, forcing the nation’s highest court to finally resolve the mandate’s constitutionality.

The case has been brought by Hobby Lobby, a crafts chain with approximately 13,000 employees. The chain’s owners, the Green family, claim that forcing them to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees violates their religious beliefs. 

“The Green family has no moral objection to the use of 16 of 20 preventive contraceptives required in the mandate but it says it cannot provide or pay for four of the drugs including Plan B and Ella, the so-called morning-after pill and the week-after pill,” ABC News reports. “The Greens belief is that human life begins when sperm fertilize an egg and that it is immoral for them to facilitate any act that causes the death of a human embryo.”

In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that the individual mandate requiring individuals to purchase health insurance could survive so long as the penalty applied to those who do not comply with the mandate was construed as a tax.

RELATED:  Uh oh: Another ObamaCare “success” story turns sour for White House

Public Prayer Goes Before Supreme Court

Townhall.com:

The United States Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday on the constitutionality of prayer before public meetings. 

Town of Greece v. Galloway pits two challengers, one an atheist and the other a Jew, against the Upstate New York town of Greece. The two women claim the invocations violate the First Amendment for two independent yet mutually reinforcing reasons: 

“It puts coercive pressure on citizens to participate in the prayers, and those prayers are sectarian rather than inclusive.” 

In other words, these women claim the town is aligning itself with a particular religion and forcing it on those present in the meetings. A lower court ruled the prayers unconstitutionally endorsed Christianity due to unique Christian references such “the Holy Spirit’ and “Jesus.” 

The argument seems shoddy at best, considering the town does not regulate the content and accepts volunteers from any religion to lead the invocations. 

A 30-year-old precedent founded in Marsh v. Chambers upholds prayer prior to public meetings. Delivering the Opinion of the Court, Chief Justice Burger explained that historical contextualization:

“sheds light not only on what the draftsmen intended the Establishment Clause to mean, but also on how they thought that Clause applied to the practice authorized by the First Congress--their actions reveal their intent.”

Legislative prayer dates to the First Congress in 1789. While it is faulty logic to appeal to tradition for validity, it is safe to presume, as Burger reasoned, that the Founders' intention in the First Amendment was not to demand a secular public square.

RELATED:  Pastor loses bus driving job for praying with students

Pennsylvania Fights To Prohibit 'Gay' Marriage

WashingtonTimes.com:

In a bellwether case for states trying to preserve gay-marriage bans in a fast-shifting legal landscape, Pennsylvania officials are arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision this summer and the Obama administration’s approach should not undercut the state’s ability to enforce its own marriage laws.

State officials said in a legal brief filed this week that Gov. Tom Corbett, a Republican, and the state’s health secretary should be dropped as defendants in a federal case filed in July by nearly two dozen state residents over the gay-marriage ban, arguing that state officials are immune to being sued in federal court without their consent.

Pennsylvania is one of 37 states where gay marriage remains illegal, but it has been the target of multiple legal challenges to its statute as the only state in the Northeast that doesn’t allow either gay marriage or same-sex civil unions. Gay-marriage activists have filed federal lawsuits in states including Pennsylvania, Virginia and North Carolina, believing federal judges would be more sympathetic to gay marriage and more willing to overturn state prohibitions.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in June on gay marriage did not find a constitutional right to same-sex nuptials and did not mandate that individual states must allow or recognize same-sex marriages, attorney William H. Lamb argued on behalf of Mr. Corbett and Pennsylvania Secretary of Health Michael Wolf. Mr. Lamb asked that all claims against Mr. Corbett and Mr. Wolf be dismissed.

All parties in the lawsuit, known as Whitewood v. Corbett, are scheduled to meet Wednesday with U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III to discuss the case.

Pennsylvania is one of 19 states where gay-rights activists are suing to legalize same-sex marriage. Battles are underway in states with voter-passed constitutional amendments barring same-sex marriage, such as Arkansas and Virginia, as well as states that outlaw gay marriage only by statute, such as Illinois and West Virginia.

Many lawsuits were filed this summer after the Supreme Court struck down the section of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that said only marriages of one man and one woman could be recognized by the federal government.

In Pennsylvania, Mr. Corbett and Mr. Wolf are responding to a lawsuit filed by 10 gay couples, two children and a lesbian widow who are seeking to overturn Pennsylvania’s state amendment in favor of traditional marriage, also enacted in 1996.

RELATED: Chris Christie Appeals Gay Marriage Ruling To Higher Court

Politiks As Usual: In The News 10/7/13

Chemical Weapons Experts In Syria Begin Dismantling Assad's Stockpile

Sarah Palin, Football & Lonegan Equals Tea Party Victory!

California’s New Feudalism Benefits a Few at the Expense of the Multitude

Supreme Court Term Begins With Contentious Topics

CNN: Journalism Students Get News From CBS, MSNBC, NBC, NPR, NYT and Jon Stewart

Chris Matthews: Reagan Was A Better President Than Obama

It’s Obvious Why People Don’t Trust ObamaCare

Media Matters Tries to Torpedo Reporter's Matthew Shepard Book

Boehner: Votes Not There For 'Clean' Debt Limit Bill 

The Death of the Hillary Movies

Ted Cruz ‘Long-winded,’ But Wendy Davis a ‘Folk Hero’ 

Obama: Yeah, I’d Think About Changing the Redskins’ Name if I Owned The Team

Chris Christie Blasts Supreme Court For Striking Down DOMA: ‘Another Example Of Judicial Supremacy’

Hey, good for him. Conservatives around the country better start rallying around this guy if they ever want another GOP POTUS:

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie scoffed at the Supreme Court’s decision on Wednesday to declare the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. During his regular “Ask the Governor” appearance on New Jersey 101.5 on Wednesday, Christie blasted what he characterized as the Court exercising “judicial supremacy” in overriding an act of Congress.


“I don’t think the ruling was appropriate,” Christie said of the Court’s decision to strike down DOMA. “I think it was wrong.”

Christie said that the Court’s method of ruling in this case is indicative of a problem he thinks is a prevalent feature of the New Jersey Supreme Court. He attacked the U.S. Supreme Court for substituting “their own judgment for the judgment of a Republican Congress and a Democratic President.”

“I thought that Justice [Anthony] Kennedy’s opinion was, in many respects, incredibly insulting to those people, 340-some members of Congress who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, and Bill Clinton,” Christie opined.

He basically said that the only reason to pass that bill was to demean people. That’s heck of a thing to say about Bill Clinton and about the Republican Congress back in the ‘90s. And it’s just another example of judicial supremacy, rather than having the government run by the people we actually vote for.

Christie said he opposes gay marriage and has made it clear that he believes marriage exists only between a man and a woman. Christie vetoed a bill passed by the state legislature that would have made same-sex marriage legal in the Garden State, but insisted he would not object to a referendum being put to the state’s voters. 

Christie blasted the legislature for blocking a gay marriage referendum but instead supporting a public vote on a minimum wage increase. Christie accused the legislature of playing “politics” with the issue of gay marriage. 

“That’s important enough to put on the ballot. But gay marriage is not,” Christie said summarizing the legislature’s position. “That’s something the people should decide, but not whether same-sex marriage should happen in New Jersey.”

RELATED:  Michele Bachmann: DOMA, Propositon 8 Rulings 'Attacked Our Constitution'

Supreme Court Strikes Down Traditional Marriage: Another Victory For Barack Obama and His Godless, White, Liberal Agenda

It's no secret that Barack Obama's agenda as POTUS is run by Godless, rich and powerful, white liberals hellbent on destroying all tenets of Christianity. Today, their Godless agenda scored a major victory in getting swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy to side with 4 far-Left members of the Supreme Court and redefine marriage:

In a big day for gay-rights advocates, the Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down a federal provision denying benefits to legally married gay couples and issued a separate ruling that paves the way for same-sex marriages to resume in California. 

Cheers erupted on the steps of the high court, as the rulings were handed down. The latter decision did not speak to the constitutionality of gay marriage bans in California, or in the country as a whole. The court avoided a broad ruling, and rather, determined that the defenders of California's Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage did not have the standing to appeal lower court rulings against the ban. 

As a result, California is likely to allow same-sex marriages to resume in a matter of weeks. Gov. Jerry Brown has already set that process in motion. 

The more sweeping decision, though, came in relation to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which the court said was unconstitutional and effectively gutted by ruling against a provision that denied benefits to legally married gay couples. 

The 5-4 ruling -- a major victory for gay-rights advocates -- means those same-sex couples would be eligible for federal benefits. President Obama, who applauded the decision, directed his administration to review "all relevant federal statutes" to comply with the ruling.  

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion. 

"DOMA divests married same-sex couples of the duties and responsibilities that are an essential part of married life and that they in most cases would be honored to accept were DOMA not in force," he wrote.

Kennedy wrote that the law "places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage." 

RELATED: The State V. God

Supreme Court Strikes Down Part of Voting Rights Act

Don't believe the hype. While white liberals and their messengers in the mainstream media will deem this SCOTUS decision as "RACIST!!!", the truth is that not only did "history not end in 1965", but it's the Left's own ignorance towards widespread voter fraud (all in the name of making sure blacks continue to vote overwhelmingly Democrat) that partly served as the lightning rod for this case being heard by SCOTUS in the first place:

In a landmark 5-4 decision today, the Supreme Court struck down a section of the Voting Rights Act that designated that the Act applied only to certain parts of the United States. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion. 

Section 5 of the VRA dictated that state and local governments in the United States would have to get approval from the federal Department of Justice to change their election laws. Section 4 of the VRA contains the formula that determined which parts of the United States that Section 5 applies to. It was Section 4 of the VRA that the Supreme Court struck down today, which means that Section 5 will go unenforced until Congress can come up with an alternative formula for determining which governments must receive approval for election law changes. 

Notably, Chief Justice Roberts' opinion leaves the possibility that Congress can come up with a legally sound formula that would still limit the Section 5 requirements to only some parts of the United States - but that Section 4 is currently constitutionally unacceptable.

Professor William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection pulled out the key part of Chief Justice Roberts' opinion:

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 employed extraordinary measures to address an extraordinary problem. Section 5 of the Act required States to obtain federal permission before enacting any law related to voting—a drastic departure from basic principles of federalism. And §4 of the Act applied that requirement only to some States—an equally dramatic departure from the principle that all States enjoy equal sovereignty. This was strong medicine, but Congress determined it was needed to address entrenched racial discrimination in voting, “an insidious and pervasive evil which had been perpetuated in certain parts of our country through unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitution.” South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301, 309 (1966). As we explained in upholding the law, “exceptional conditions can justify legislative measures not otherwise appropriate.” Id., at 334. Reflecting the unprecedented nature of these measures, they were scheduled to expire after five years. See Voting Rights Act of 1965, §4(a), 79 Stat. 438.

Nearly 50 years later, they are still in effect; indeed, they have been made more stringent, and are now scheduled to last until 2031. There is no denying, however, that the conditions that originally justified these measures no longer characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions….

At the same time, voting discrimination still exists; no one doubts that. The question is whether the Act’s extraordinary measures, including its disparate treatment of the States, continue to satisfy constitutional requirements.

RELATED:  Breaking: Supreme Court strikes down part of Voting Rights Act

Politiks As Usual: In The News 12/10/12

Obama, Boehner Meet About Fiscal Cliff and Agree -- Not To Say Much

Sandy Victim Accuses FEMA Representative of Discrimination

Supreme Court to Review Gay Marriage

‘Study’ Claims Fox News Viewers Have Average IQ of 80

Newt Gingrich: Yeah, If Hillary Runs in 2016 Republicans Will Lose

Murder, the Chicago Way

CBO: Feds Borrowing $4.8 billion Per Day in FY 2013, So Far

Gay Mafia Objects to Reparative Therapy Proponent on Dr. Oz Show

Honest Barry? Media Hype Comparisons of Obama to Lincoln

George Will: 'Opposition To Gay Marriage Is Dying - It's Old People' 

The 'Polyamorous' Pour Out 'Polyoutrage' on Dan Savage

What's The Truth About the Unemployment Numbers?

Religiously Unaffiliated’ Voting Bloc Helped Propel Obama To Victory

Politiks As Usual: In The News 10/29/12

National Polls vs. Ohio Polls: They Can’t Both Be Right

Why Is Obama So Nasty and Vulgar?

Creepy: Children Sing Obama's Negative Messaging in New Ad

High Court Weighs New Look at Voting Rights Law

The 'New Normal' Christianity?

Gallup: Obama's Job Approval Drops 7 Points in 3 Days

USA Today Surprised Chick-Fil-A Didn’t Suffer from ‘PR Nightmare’

AP Writers Claim Their 'Poll' Shows 'Majority Harbor Prejudice Against Blacks'

Hume: Mainstream Media ‘Remarkably Reticent’ to Pursue Benghazi Cover-Up, Burden Has ‘Fallen’ Onto Fox News

President Obama Leads Romney in Early Voting, Axelrod Says

Letter to Obama: Stop Attack on Ministries to Ex-‘Gays’

Clinton Asked for More Security in Benghazi, Obama Said No

Politiks As Usual: In The News 10/1/12

Election Raises Stakes For Possible Supreme Court Vacancies

Some Illegal Immigrants May Get Drivers Licenses Under New California Law

The Media's Net Full Of Red Herrings

US Military Deaths In Afghanistan Hit 2,000

Romney Facing Make-or-Break Week With First Debate, Key Jobs Data

MSNBC's Toure Argues Put 2008 Aside; Only Re-electing Obama in 2012 Will Prove America Isn't Racist

And the Emmy-Winner is … Liberal Politics!

Liberal Websites Bash Steven Crowder for Not Having Pre-Marital Sex

Katie Couric Voted ‘The Worst Reporter in History of Man’

Meet Nickelodeon's Trash-Mouthed Misogynist Jason Biggs

Paul Ryan Calls For Eric Holder's Resignation Over Fast and Furious

As Race Stands, Obama Within Reach Of Second Term

WE ARE THE 91%: Only 9% of Americans Cooperate with Pollsters

Outrage: Obama Administration Want To Give Egypt $450 Million In Aid

In Libya, Security Was Lax Before Attack That Killed U.S. Ambassador, Officials Say

Fox News Watch Marvel At Media’s Promotion Of Justice Roberts From ‘Right Wing Goon’ To ‘Hero’

Mediaite.com:

By far the biggest story of this week was the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the constitutionality of fining individuals for not having health insurance, a move that Justice John Roberts wrote fell under the taxing authority of Congress. On Fox News Watch today, the panel noted that his decision to side with the more liberal justices appeared to change the tone of liberals in the media when referring to him, who now saw him as a “hero” for what he wrote.


Jim Pinkerton joked that the turnabout by the media in warming up to Justice Roberts had been dubbed by “some wiseguy in DC” the “Greenhouse Effect”– namely, Linda Greenhouse, whose writing “moved the courts in her direction.” He also joked that a week ago, Justice Roberts was a “right-wing goon,” to which host Jon Scott interjected to point out how Chris Matthews reacted– going from claiming Justice Roberts could be “compared to a Civil War-era supreme court judge who upheld the Dred Scott Slave Act” to “a hero.”


“Here the bias is so obvious,” Judith Miller replied, noting that at least the “legal media see his reasoning as specious and his about-face as, well, an about-face.” Kirsten Powers, on the other hand, took a look at the way conservative media reacted– namely, “very, very angry.” he agreed it was “historic” and “a big victory for Obama,” but didn’t see Justice Roberts as siding with conservatives, given that “his reasoning was completely different than theirs.” Richard Grenell agreed, explaining that Justice Roberts had now “saddled ‘the President’ with a terrible scalet T… he has to go into the campaign season with the label of a taxer.”


As for Mitt Romney and the election, Miller expressed some surprise that Romney had not “taken advantage of the moment,” though “he did talk about the elements that he would have in his plan.” Pinkerton thought the President was not in the best position given the decision. People “oppose Obamacare as a thing, and if he spends the next five months defending it, that’s a bad thing,” he concluded. 

RELATED: Krauthammer To Hannity: Roberts Was Protecting The Court’s ‘Reputation’ With Health Care Decision

Liberals Can Thank George W. Bush For Passing Obamacare

Funny how this worked out. Justice John Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee, sides with the liberal faction of SCOTUS and passes the Affordable Care Act (aka "Obamacare"). While the initial reaction is to state what a "huge victory" this is for Obama, considering that the individual mandate passed as a tax rather than under the commerce clause (which is what Democrats wanted) when people start reading and understanding exactly how this thing passed, critics, pundits and pols (including Barry) alike may start to feel different about this decision in a day or two. Then too is the fact that Obamacare, due to its intrusive intricacies on personal choice, was never popular with most Americans in the first place...but now it's the law of the land:

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld nearly all of President Obama's health care overhaul, in a landmark ruling that will have sweeping consequences for the economy, the election and America's health care system. 
In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled as constitutional the so-called individual mandate requiring most Americans to obtain health insurance starting in 2014. 

The ruling is a victory for the president, ensuring for now that his signature domestic policy achievement remains mostly intact. It also ensures that the law will play a prominent role in the general election campaign, as Republican candidate Mitt Romney vows to repeal the law if elected.

Obama is expected to speak publicly about the ruling later in the day. 

Chief Justice John Roberts, who was appointed during a Republican administration, joined the four left-leaning justices on the bench in crafting the majority decision. 

"The Affordable Health Care Act survives largely unscathed," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of those justices, declared at the end of the reading, claiming the "setbacks" going forward will be "temporary blips, not permanent obstructions." 

The ruling relied on a technical explanation of how the individual mandate could be categorized. Roberts, in the opinion, said the mandate could not be upheld under the Constitution's Commerce Clause. However, it could be upheld under the government's power to tax. 

"The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part  The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause," Roberts wrote. "That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax."

Roberts stressed that the decision does not speak to the merits of the law. "We do not consider whether the act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the nation's elected leaders," he said. 

The ruling did rein in one element of the law -- the expansion of Medicaid across the country to take in millions of low-income Americans. The opinion allows Washington to offer more funding to states to expand the program, but says the federal government cannot penalize states for not participating in the new program by withholding existing Medicaid funds.

RELATED: Mandate upheld: what now?

Liberal Writer E.J. Dionne Would Like Justice Scalia To Resign For Having Too Many Opinions

Wish he'd resign or just die is how most liberals think about the great Justice Scalia:

Perennial liberal thorn-in-the-side Justice Antonin Scalia has gone too far with this “having opinions about legal matters” thing that totally defies his job description, according to Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne today. Justice Scalia, the staunch originalist whose dissents have made his name an indelible one in the Court’s history, mentioned the President’s executive policy on immigration after the Arizona decision, while noting that the state had one of the biggest illegal immigration problems in the court. This, Dionne writes, would make him “a heck of a columnist and blogger,” but an “arrogant” and, he implies, dangerous Supreme Court Justice. 

“So often, Scalia has chosen to ignore the obligation of a Supreme Court justice to be, and appear to be, impartial. He’s turned “judicial restraint” into an oxymoronic phrase,” Dionne writes, citing as an example the Justice’s bench statement on the executive policy on immigration released recently. “Obama’s move had nothing to do with the case in question. Scalia just wanted you to know where he stood,” he suggests, though, solely by the virtue of quoting the bench statement itself, manages to contradict himself in the next sentence. In that statement, Justice Scalia says, “Arizona bears the brunt of the country’s illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem, and indeed have recently shown that they are simply unwilling to do so.” 

“Cue the tea party rally applause,” Dionne writes snidely, after the Justice making a legal point about the power of states versus the federal government. What Dionne leaves out of his argument on how issues that can be used in the public arena to dredge up political support should, for some reason, be exempt from discussion on the Court is that this argument is to be found right in the majority opinion for this case– an opinion that Dionne seems not to have much of a problem with, given he hasn’t called for Justice Anthony Kennedy‘s head. “Statistics alone do not capture the full extent of Arizona’s concerns,” Justice Kennedy wrote in his opinion. “Phoenix is a major city of the United States, yet signs along an interstate highway 30 miles to the south warn the public to stay away. One reads, ‘DANGER– PUBLIC WARNING — TRAVEL NOT RECOMMENTED [sic].’” Why doesn’t Justice Kennedy get tea party applause and the boot for that? 

Partially because this is not Dionne’s only grievance. He also takes a strong moral stand against Justice Scalia for hunting: 

“Recall a 2004 incident. Three weeks after the Supreme Court announced it would hear a case over whether the White House needed to turn over documents from an energy task force that Dick Cheney had headed, Scalia went off on Air Force Two for a duck-hunting trip with the vice president. 

Scalia scoffed at the idea that he should recuse himself. “My recusal is required if . . . my ‘impartiality might reasonably be questioned,’ ” he wrote in a 21-page memo. Well, yes. But there was no cause for worry, Scalia explained, since he never hunted with Cheney “in the same blind or had other opportunity for private conversation.” 

Don’t you feel better? And can you just imagine what the right wing would have said if Vice President Biden had a case before the court and went duck hunting with Justice Elena Kagan?” 

There is a lot to scoff at in these three paragraphs– for one, the fact that Dionne spends half of the article mocking the tea party before using their hypothetical reaction to an act by Justice Kagan as evidence against Justice Scalia’s wild and crazy behavior. And another, the fact that the first thing every American law student learns on their first day of class is that Justice Scalia is one of the more social characters on the Court. His “best friend” that he often goes on opera adventures with is Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which doesn’t seem to disturb Dionne much– nor does the fact that Justice Scalia took Justice Kagan on one of those outrageous hunting trips, as well. And, of course, there is a bit of a problem with making the point that this week definitively proved Justice Scalia needed to leave the bench and then citing evidence for this brand new argument from… 2004. 

Generally, most calls for people to resign who are not being investigated by the FBI or Congress are chuckle-worthy slow news day fodder, and this is likely no different. It is true that with Justice Scalia gone, a powerful and often just barely not political voice that caused many a left-winger distress would go silent, which Dionne appears to believe is a good thing. But if the best he can do is point out that Justice Scalia has opinions when he is being paid by taxpayers to write opinions and that his social life involved outings with people in power almost a decade ago, the master of colorful dissents has nothing to worry about anytime soon.

RELATED:  The Court’s Arizona ruling has set the stage for immigration reform

Barack Obama Threatens Supreme Court

Conservatives have long known that Barack Obama is a severe narcissist, with an ego so huge that it'd make Beyonce blush. But the nerve to threaten the 9 justices within the Supreme Court if they don't declare Obamacare constitutional? Unbelievable, but only if you haven't been paying attention to Barry's head get bigger and bigger since he surprisingly won the presidential election in 2008. After all this this isn't the first time The One has tried to intimidate SCOTUS and it probably won't be the last:

There was something rather unsettling in President Obama’s preemptive strike on the Supreme Court at Monday’s news conference.


“I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench is judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,” Obama said. “Well, here’s a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that, and not take that step.”


To be clear, I believe the individual mandate is both good policy and sound law, well within Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause. I think overturning the mandate would be bad not only for the country but for the court itself. Especially in the wake of Bush v. Gore and Citizens United, it would look like a political act to have the five Republican-appointed justices voting to strike down the law and the four Democratic appointees voting to uphold it.


That unfortunate outcome would risk dragging the court down to the partisan level of a Congress that passed the law without a single Republican vote. As much as the public dislikes the individual mandate, a party-line split would not be a healthy outcome for public confidence in the court’s integrity.


And yet, Obama’s assault on “an unelected group of people” stopped me cold. Because, as the former constitutional law professor certainly understands, it is the essence of our governmental system to vest in the court the ultimate power to decide the meaning of the constitution. Even if, as the president said, it means overturning “a duly constituted and passed law.”


Of course, acts of Congress are entitled to judicial deference and a presumption of constitutionality. The decision to declare a statute unconstitutional, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in 1927, is “the gravest and most delicate duty that this court is called on to perform.”


But the president went too far in asserting that it “would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step” for the court to overturn “a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” That’s what courts have done since Marbury v. Madison. The size of the congressional majority is of no constitutional significance. We give the ultimate authority to decide constitutional questions to “a group of unelected people” precisely to insulate them from public opinion.


I would lament a ruling striking down the individual mandate, but I would not denounce it as conservative justices run amok. Listening to the arguments and reading the transcript, the justices struck me as a group wrestling with a legitimate, even difficult, constitutional question. For the president to imply that the only explanation for a constitutional conclusion contrary to his own would be out-of-control conservative justices does the court a disservice.


Worse, the president’s critique, and in particular the reference to “unelected” judges, buys into an unfortunate and largely unwarranted conservative critique of judicial power. We want our judges unelected. We want them to have the final constitutional say. The president should be arguing for a second term to prevent the court from tipping in an even more conservative direction, not channeling tired critiques from the right about activist judges legislating from the bench.

RELATED: GOP senator accuses Obama of threatening the Supreme Court

Politiks As Usual: 4/2/12

Top Obama Campaign Donor Accused Of Fraud

Obama Doubling Down On His Leftist Radicalism

Chris Christie: I'd Be Much More Ready in 2016

Liberals Prepare To Vilify The Supreme Court If They Don't Get Their Way

The Crusade Against Faith

Goal of Al Gore’s Current TV? ‘Compete with MSNBC from the Left’

ABC Not Sure Whether Death Threats In Trayvon Martin Aftermath 'Going Too Far'

Judge Tosses Blog Suit Against Huff Post

Mitt Romney Scores Endorsement From Paul Ryan

Keith Olbermann Complained To Current That Car Service Drivers ‘Smelled, Talked To Him’

Sarah Palin To Co-host 'Today' Show As Ratings Battle Heats Up

If The Health Law Falls, What's Next?

Why You Played Lottery Despite Odds

Rep. Steve King: Losing Health Care Battle In Supreme Court Could Help Obama’s Re-Election

I agree and I'm surprised that more conservatives haven't spoken about this interesting little tidbit. If the Supreme Court strikes down ObamaCare, what could the GOP candidate for President say about a corrupt and controversial legislative move that no longer exists?:

Steve King, a Republican congressman from Iowa, expressed concern on Wednesday about the effect the Supreme Court’s heath care decision would have on President Obama‘s re-election effort. Contrary to what many may think, King said if the court declared the Affordable Care Act to be unconstitutional, the decision would help the president win a second term.


At a news conference, King said:


“If the Supreme Court should find this unconstitutional, which I believe is the appropriate decision, then we still need to repeal Obamacare to follow through on that. But I think then that there is more risk that President Obama will be reelected because people will think they are protected from this egregious reach into our freedom.”


The court instead rules the legislation is constitutional, King said, “then I believe President Obama will not be reelected because [voters] will understand that they have to vote him out of office to repeal it.”


Regardless, if decided it’s unconstitutional, the decision would be a huge blow to a cause the Obama administration championed and fought incredibly hard for.

RELATED: Supreme Court and health care law: state sovereignty at stake

Supreme Court: Miranda Rights Don’t Have To Be Read To Prisoners

A victory for anyone whose ever been a victim to a crime. And to think even Elena Kagan saw the common sense in this decision:

The Supreme Court said Tuesday investigators don’t have to read Miranda rights to inmates during jailhouse interrogations about crimes unrelated to their current incarceration.


The high court, on a 6-3 vote, overturned a federal appeals court decision throwing out prison inmate Randall Lee Fields’ conviction, saying Fields was not in “custody’’ as defined by Miranda and therefore did not have to have his rights read to him.


“Imprisonment alone is not enough to create a custodial situation within the meaning of Miranda,’’ Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the court’s majority opinion.


Three justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, dissented and said the court’s decision would limit the rights of prisoners.


“Today, for people already in prison, the court finds it adequate for the police to say: `You are free to terminate this interrogation and return to your cell,’’’ Ginsburg said in her dissent. “Such a statement is no substitute for one ensuring that an individual is aware of his rights.’’


Miranda rights come from a 1966 decision that involved police questioning of Ernesto Miranda in a rape and kidnapping case in Phoenix. It required officers to tell suspects they have the right to remain silent and to have a lawyer represent them, even if they can’t afford one.


Previous court rulings have required Miranda warnings before police interrogations for people who are in custody, which is defined as when a reasonable person would think he cannot end the questioning and leave.


Fields was serving a 45-day sentence in prison on disorderly conduct charges when a jail guard and sheriff’s deputies from Lenawee County, Mich., removed him from his cell and took him to a conference room. The deputies, after telling him several times he was free to leave at any time, then questioned him for seven hours about allegations that he had sexually assaulted a minor. Fields eventually confessed and was charged and convicted of criminal sexual assault.


Fields was then sentenced to 10 to 15 years in prison but appealed the use of his confession, saying that he was never given his Miranda rights on the sexual assault charges.


On appeal, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati threw out his confession and conviction, ruling that it is required that police read inmates their Miranda rights anytime they are isolated from the rest of the inmates in situations where they would be likely to incriminate themselves.


The Supreme Court overturned that ruling.


“Not all restraints on freedom of movement amount to custody for purposes of Miranda,’’ Alito said.

Lefty Ex-Governor Eliot Spitzer Bucks Liberal Orthodoxy, Says 'Citizens United Was Correct'

DailyCaller.com:

Friday on HBO during “Real Time with Bill Maher,” former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer broke with liberal tradition, saying the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was the right call.


Spitzer explained, as he has before, that the Court’s decision is consistent with with the First Amendment.


“Now, having said that, Bill, we rarely disagree. I am with the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union] on this one. I think as a First Amendment principle, Citizens United was correct.”


He told Maher that there is no distinction between some shows on the airwaves — all owned by corporations — and a company’s participation in politics through paid advertising.


“Your show is owned by a corporation,” Spitzer said to Maher. “You have a First Amendment right. And so I don’t know how you distinguish between the New York Times editorial page, The Rachel Maddow Show, George [Stephanopoulos]‘s show — all owned by corporations.”


“The First Amendment,” he reminded Maher, says government “shall pass no law abridging the right of speech.”


“Doesn’t say by anybody. It says speech. I don’t care whose speech it is. The ACLU agrees with me, and Larry Lessig, great academic, on this. So this is a more textured issue. It has done horrific things to politics. But as a First Amendment issue, it’s a much more complicated issue.”

RELATED: McCain Blasts GOP Super PACs, Calls Supreme Court Ignorant For Citizens United Decision