Posted on

Senator Joe Pennachio : Democrat Party has become: taken over by extremists, pushing aside the constitutional and traditional values that we have shared for generations

Joe Pennachio is the Republican Senator from the 26th District

Trenton NJ, The recent Washington circus involving the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court crystallized what the Democrat Party has become: taken over by extremists, pushing aside the constitutional and traditional values that we have shared for generations. These Democrats attempted to destroy a good man, and in the process, also blew themselves up.
Lewis Carol and Saul Alinsky writing together could not have concocted a more bizarre effort on the Democrats’ part. Any pretense of jurisprudence; moral or civil decorum went out the window. The list of offenses to common decency is exhaustive: The 11th hour release of unsubstantiated and uncorroborated accusations by Dr. Ford; the subsequent illegal leaking of those allegations by Senator Diane Feinstein’s office; and Senator Hirono’s statement that men should “shut up.” Let’s not forget Senator Cory Booker’s so-called “Spartacus moment,” where our very own U.S. Senator had the gall to state that whoever supports Kavanaugh is “complicit in evil.”

Continue reading Senator Joe Pennachio : Democrat Party has become: taken over by extremists, pushing aside the constitutional and traditional values that we have shared for generations

Posted on

What Scalia Taught Us

Scalia-800x420

Paul J. Larkin Jr. / February 13, 2016

COMMENTARY BY

Paul J. Larkin Jr.

Paul J. Larkin Jr. directs The Heritage Foundation’s project to counter abuse of the criminal law, particularly at the federal level, as senior legal research fellow in the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Read his research.

Antonin Gregory Scalia has died. For some, it is the painful loss of a husband or father. For those who knew him, it is the loss of a good friend. For law students, it is the loss of a justice who wrote opinions with rigorous analysis, clarity of expression, and at times an acerbic wit.

For conservatives, it is the loss of a standard-bearer and icon. For liberals, it is the loss of an opponent who always fought hard but fair.

For those who never had the opportunity to know him, it is the loss of one of our greatest legal minds, of a judge and justice who had made, and will continue to make, legal history. And to those who were privileged to know him, it is the loss of a wonderful human being.

More than 100 men and women have been justices of the Supreme Court. All decided the outcome of individual cases and made small changes in the law.

Few changed its course.

Some—such as Joseph Story, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Hugo Black, Earl Warren, William Brennan, and William Rehnquist—will be remembered for moving the Supreme Court in one direction or another.

They launched the court into its existence as an institution. They addressed some of the most important issues that can arise under our Constitution—issues involving the separation of powers, freedom of speech and religion, the integrity of the criminal justice process, and the relationship between government and the nation. They established the Supreme Court—rightly or wrongly—as one of the most powerful institutions in our nation. Their tenure still has a powerful effect today.

But even fewer justices changed the course of the law. John Marshall was one. Antonin Scalia was another.

Scalia taught us that the law matters, that the law is the written word, and that the written word takes its meaning from how history understands it, not what we wish it might mean.

For him, the law was a tablet whose meaning could be discerned by focusing on the meaning of the words it contained, rather than by asking ourselves what we want it to mean. The latter, he said, was the stuff of politics, not law, and he drew a line in the sand between the two.

He maintained that view of a judge’s role even when it was unfashionable to hold that belief because it may lead to outcomes we may not like. But he believed that it was his duty to uphold the rule of law, because only that rule separated us from the many nations on the Earth governed by the rule of might.

Robert F. Kennedy once said that the privilege of public service carried with it the opportunity to bend history.

Not only did Antonin Scalia bend it; he turned it in a different direction. We will be forever grateful to him for that. Requiescat in pace.

http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/13/what-scalia-taught-us/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRovsqnAZKXonjHpfsX56eUoX6C0lMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4AScJlNK%2BTFAwTG5toziV8R7jHKM1t0sEQWBHm

 

Posted on

The Supreme Court Vs. Eric Holder

13850315124_523382756e_k-1260x650

The Supreme Court Vs. Eric Holder

John Fund / Hans von Spakovsky / @HvonSpakovsky / July 13, 2014 

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative.

If Eric Holder were a baseball player, he’d have been benched long ago — if not kicked off the team. His batting average before the Supreme Court is abysmal, losing again and again in his efforts to undermine the Constitution.

This term featured four big strike downs.

First was Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, in which the Supremes tossed out ObamaCare’s contraceptive abortion mandate and upheld the First Amendment rights of several family-owned businesses to make their living in conformance with their religious beliefs.

Although the government was not party to another case, Harris v. Quinn, the Justice Department filed an amicus brief on the side of Illinois and the SEIU, arguing that unwilling home health-care workers could be forced into unions (and made to pay compulsory dues) simply because their services are paid for through Medicaid.

Fortunately, the Court ruled against Illinois’s heavy-handed attempt to help bolster its political allies, public sector unions.

On June 26, in National Labor Relations Board v. Canning, all nine Justices ruled that President Obama’s “recess” appointments to the NLRB violated the Constitution.

Not only did Obama’s own judicial appointees vote against him (including his former solicitor general), but the majority opinion was written by Stephen Breyer, a liberal stalwart of the Court.

The Administration also lost United State v. Wurie, in which the Holder Justice Department claimed that the police and federal authorities did not need a search warrant to seize all of the information stored in the cellphone of someone who had been arrested.

Once again, the administration lost all nine justices.

The basic invasion of privacy and violation of Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful searches and seizures represented by the administration’s position is in line with its frightening view of governmental power over its citizens.

Canning and Wurie are only the latest losses of the administration in which all nine Supreme Court justices ruled against the government.

In fact, there have been 20 such cases during this administration — and even more if you include cases in which the administration filed an amicus brief, such as in McCullen v. Coakley, the free-speech case that was handed down the same day as the recess appointments case.

The Obama administration filed an amicus brief in that case supporting the Massachusetts law in question and helped argue the case before the Supreme Court.

But all nine justices found the Massachusetts law, which created a 35-foot “buffer” zone around abortion clinics, violated the First Amendment by restricting speech in public areas “that have historically been open to the public for speech activities.”

It is no surprise that the administration supported a law that restricted the voice of pro-life supporters.

That is in accord with its general attack on the political speech and activities of disfavored conservative advocacy organizations through the IRS and other government agencies. The positions taken by this administration in the other 9-to-0 cases are just as overbroad.

In 2012’s Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC, DOJ displayed an open hostility to religious freedom by claiming that the federal government had the right, as the Supreme Court termed it, to “interfere” in a church’s employment decisions on the hiring and firing of its ministers and religious teachers.

The Supreme Court was clearly astounded at the arguments being made by the Justice Department and unanimously rejected it.

In Sackett v. EPA, the administration tried to prevent a family from defending itself in court and contesting a punitive order from EPA bureaucrats imposing a fine of $75,000 a day for trying to develop a lot in a residential neighborhood which the EPA considered a wetland. The administration lost.

In US v. Jones, just like in the Riley/Wurie cases, the administration claimed that law enforcement could attach a GPS device to your car without a warrant or even any suspicion of criminal activity.

The Court unanimously rejected this position and, in a concurring opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the administration was trying to invade “privacy interests long afforded, and undoubtedly entitled to, Fourth Amendment protection.”

Typically, the Justice Department does very well before the Supreme Court. Holder has made that a losing record.

That’s because, as legal scholar Ilya Shapiro says, the administration has “relied on outlandish legal theories that pushed a constitutional interpretation of extreme federal power.”

Holder and Obama have argued that we as Americans don’t have the right to free speech, the right to privacy, the right to due process or the freedom of religion.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court has become the last defense for those who still believe in those rights.

Originally posted on the New York Post.

Posted on

The Supreme Court Just Dealt a Devastating Blow to Public Unions

leninstatue1

The Supreme Court Just Dealt a Devastating Blow to Public Unions
By Sam Baker andEmma Roller
June 30, 2014

The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision on Monday that mandatory public union dues violate some members’ First Amendment rights.

The case, Harris v. Quinn, involves Pamela Harris, a home-caregiver in Illinois who takes care of her disabled son. Harris is among home caregivers who have decided not to unionize through the Service Employees International Union, opting instead to bargain directly with the Medicaid recipients who decide how much money to allocate to their caregivers.

The case posed a challenge to so-called “fair-play fees,” which allow unions to collect dues from employees who aren’t in the union but who still benefit from the bargains unions strike with employers.

In the case of public-sector unions, though, the employer is the government. And for that reason, the challengers in Harris argued, the unions’ collective bargaining is inherently a political activity—unions are essentially lobbying the government.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/the-supreme-court-just-dealt-a-devastating-blow-to-public-unions-20140630

Posted on

Rigged ‘science’ The Supreme Court swallows faked global warming data

Al_Gore_wideweb__430x286,0

Global Warming Hoax, from the man who claimed to have discovered the Internet Al Gore

Rigged ‘science’ The Supreme Court swallows faked global warming data

A fractured Supreme Court on Monday largely upheld the Environmental Protection Agency’s radical rule designed to shut down the power plants that produce the most affordable electricity. The justices continue to accept the EPA’s labeling of carbon dioxide as a “pollutant.” This harmless gas, the agency insists, is melting the planet.

Only the brave deny man’s responsibility for super-heating the globe in precincts where the wise and wonderful (just ask them) gather to reassure each other than they know best. “We know the trends,” President Obama told the graduates at the University of California at Irvine the other day. “The 18 warmest years on record have all happened since you graduates were born.”

The charts and graphs devised by NASA and the government’s other science agencies back up the president’s words. And well they should, because the charts, like the “science,” were faked.

The “Steven Goddard Real Science” blog compares the raw U.S. temperature records from the Energy Department’s United States Historical Climatology Network to the “final” processed figures, to demonstrate how the historical data have been “corrected,” using computer modeling.

The modifications made to the past temperature record had the effect of cooling the 20th century, which makes temperatures over the last 14 years appear much warmer by comparison. Such changes don’t square with history, which shows the decade of the 1930s the hottest on record. The Dust Bowl storms were so severe they sent clouds of debris from Texas and Oklahoma to the East Coast, even darkening the skies over the U.S. Capitol one day in 1934.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/23/editorial-rigged-science/#ixzz361PKqGMz