CALIFORNIA: SCOTUS’ Decision To Hear Friedrichs Case Has Unions In A Tizzy

On June 30^th, the Supreme Court decided to hear Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association et al, a case that could seriously change the way the public employee unions (PEUs) do business. If the plaintiffs are victorious, teachers, nurses, sanitation workers, etc. would be able to work without the financial burden of paying union dues. The responses to the Court’s decision from the teachers unions and their friends have ranged from silly to contradictory to blatantly dishonest.

In a rare event, leaders of the NEA, AFT, CTA, AFSCME and SEIU released a joint statement explaining that worker freedom would be a catastrophe for the Republic. Clutching their hankies, they told us that, “big corporations and the wealthy few are rewriting the rules in their favor, knocking American families and our entire economy off-balance.” And then, with an obvious attempt at eliciting a gasp, “…the Supreme Court has chosen to take a case that threatens the fundamental promise of America.” (Perhaps the labor bosses misunderstood the wording of the preamble to the Constitution, “In order to form a more perfect union….” No, this was not an attempt to organize workers.) While the U.S. is not without its problems, removing forced unionism will hardly dent the “fundamental promise of America.”

The California Federation of Teachers, which typically is at the forefront of any class warfare sorties, didn’t disappoint. The union claims on its website that the activity of union foes “has resulted in a sharp decline in median wages for working people and the decline of the middle class alongside the increasing concentration of income and wealth in the hands of the one per cent.” But wait a minute – the unions are the most potent political force in the country today and have been for a while. According to Open Secrets, between 1989-2014, the much maligned one-percenter Koch Brothers ranked 59^th in political donations behind 18 different unions. The National Education Association was #4 at $53,594,488 and the American Federation of Teachers was 12^that $36,713,325, while the Kochs spent a measly $18,083,948 during that time period. Also, as Mike Antonucci reports, the two national teachers unions, NEA and AFT, spend more on politics than AT&T, Goldman Sachs, Wal-Mart, Microsoft, General Electric, Chevron, Pfizer, Morgan Stanley, Lockheed Martin, FedEx, Boeing, Merrill Lynch, Exxon Mobil, Lehman Brothers, and the Walt Disney Corporation, combined.”

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading....

TIME FOR THE STATES TO DECLARE INDEPENDENCE FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

“Take this Supreme Court decision and shove it.”

A new Rasmussen Poll indicates that a growing number of Americans want state governments to tell the Supreme Court to get out of the business of rewriting laws and telling American citizens how to live their lives.

In a new poll, Rasmussen reported the percentage of Americans who want states to tell the Supreme Court it does not have the power to rewrite the Affordable Care Act or force sovereign states to authorize gay marriages has increased from 24 percent to 33 percent after last week’s Constitution-defying decisions by the court.

A closer look at the poll results indicates that popular sentiment for state defiance of the federal government extends beyond just the Supreme Court’s latest decisions.

“Only 20% [of likely voters] now consider the federal government a protector of individual liberty,” the Rasmussen Poll finds. “Sixty percent (60 %) see the government as a threat to individual liberty instead,” it adds.

“Take this regulation and shove it,” and “take this grant and shove it,” are two additional battle cries which appear to resonate with a growing popular sentiment, especially in “flyover country,” those 38 states outside the dozen in which President Obama won more than 56.2 percent of the vote in 2012.

(In descending order of support for Obama, those twelve states are: Hawaii, Vermont, New York, Rhode Island, Maryland, Massachusetts, California, Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois, and Maine. Arguably, three additional states where President Obama won between 54 percent and 56.2 percent of the vote in 2012 could be added to this list: Washington, Oregon, and Michigan.)

One hundred and fifty years after the end of the Civil War, it is becoming increasingly clear that there are two Americas—one where the principles of constitutionally limited government and individual liberty are still revered, the other where statism and the trampling of individual rights are on the rise.

The Tea Party movement arose in 2009 to restore those principles of constitutionally-limited government. But despite electoral victories that placed Republicans in control of the House of Representatives in 2010, and the Senate in 2014, it is undeniable that the Republican establishment those elections empowered is instead aligned with the forces of statism.

The majority of the members of the Supreme Court itself are also clearly part of the “elitist” camp of anti-constitutionalists. As Breitbart’s Thomas Williams noted, and Justice Scalia himself pointed out in his scathing dissent in the gay marriage decision, not a single member of the nine member court is of the Protestant faith. Not a single member has graduated from a law school other than Harvard, Yale, or Columbia. Nor has a single member done anything other than practice some version of corporate law with “big law” firms, sit on a federal court, work for the federal government, or work in left-wing academia.

With the entire apparatus of the federal government now aligned against constitutionally limited government, some traditionalists have given themselves over to despair and defeatism. That negative view, however, fails to understand the solution provided to usurpations of power by the central government found within the Constitution itself, with origins in the Declaration of Independence, whose signing on July 4, 1776 we celebrate today.

As Rasmussen Reports noted, “The Declaration of Independence, the foundational document that Americans honor on the Fourth of July, says that governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed, but just 25% believe that to be true of the federal government today.”

Even more significantly, however, the recent Supreme Court decisions are a complete rejection of the concepts of state sovereignty articulated in the 10th amendment, the last element of the Bill of Rights, the promise of whose passage by the First Congress was key to the ratification of the Constitution.

The 10th amendment, ratified along with the other nine amendments of the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791, reads as follows:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The concept of popular resistance to the unconstitutional encroachment of the federal government on the rights of individuals and states has been gaining momentum over the past several years.

Conservative radio host Mark Levin, for instance, has advocated on behalf of an Article V Convention of the States to propose new amendments to the Constitution for ratification by the states that would limit federal powers.

Conservative author and intellectual leader Charles Murray has also advocated for a type of civil disobedience to resist unlawful federal regulations through the use of well funded legal challenges to the most egregious of those regulations.

Both concepts have merit, but ultimately lack the power and effective counter-attack available through the simple mechanism offered by the 10th amendment—widespread resistance to federal overreaches by the state governments themselves.

Bolder, constitutionally based resistance at the state level, is a practical and viable remedy, one that already has broad popular support among conservatives.

As Rasmussen Reports noted:

[T]he voters who feel strongest about overriding the federal courts – Republicans and conservatives – are those who traditionally have been the most supportive of the Constitution and separation of powers. During the Obama years, however, these voters have become increasingly suspicious and even hostile toward the federal government.

Fifty percent (50%) of GOP voters now believe states should have the right to ignore federal court rulings, compared to just 22% of Democrats and 30% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Interestingly, this represents a noticeable rise in support among all three groups.

Fifty percent (50%) of conservative voters share this view, but just 27% of moderates and 15% of liberals agree.

Widespread resistance at the state level, however, will require two elements: strong governors and strong state legislatures willing to vigorously assert their 10th amendment rights.

At the local level, we’ve already seen the first indications that a movement may be afoot. In Tennessee, for example, the entire Decatur County Clerk’s Office resigned rather than enforce the recent gay marriage decision announced by the Supreme Court.

Isolated pockets of resistance are springing up around the country.

And yet, even among “The Great 38 States”—flyover country where President Obama either lost or won less than 56.2 percent of the vote in the 2012 election—leadership at the executive level is lacking.

The next electoral battle for the preservation of the constitutional republic will be fought not only for the highest office of the executive branch in 2016—it will also be fought in the gubernatorial races of those “Great 38 States” where the vast majority of voters still believe in America, and still believe in constitutionally limited government.

Freedom of the individual states from the usurpations of the federal government does not mean secession from the constitutional republic. It is, instead, the surest realistic mechanism that remains to preserve the constitutional republic.

By limiting the role of the federal government to the exercise of that very narrow set of specifically “enumerated powers” ascribed to it in the Constitution, state governments can guarantee that our constitutional republic will continue to flourish for generations to come.

The alternative is a constitutional republic in name only, a dystopian oligarchy where words have no meaning, right is wrong, good is bad, truth is deception, and the rule of law is invented anew each day by the ruling class of federal royalty.

As for that dirty dozen of liberal blue states, like California, New York, and Massachusetts? Let them continue on their path of reckless spending and experience the fate of modern Greece.

Meanwhile, the rest of us can continue to choose liberty.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading.....

SECRET WHITE HOUSE GAY WEDDING REVEALED

AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

Before the White House was bathed in rainbow light to celebrate the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize gay marriage nationwide, a secret gay wedding was conducted in the building by former Obama speechwriter Jon Lovett.

Lovett, who worked for Obama during his first term, reveals that he used his White House privileges to sneak in a pair of gay men under the guise of giving them a tour, then performed a wedding ceremony in the Rose Garden without the knowledge of the president.

“We were very nervous. They were nervous because they were getting married. I was nervous because I snuck into my boss’ house to perform a wedding against his wishes in his backyard,” he said. “You can say what you will about the first same-sex marriage at the White House, at the very least, it was quite rude.”

Lovett revealed the secret wedding of “Justin” and “Steve” during an Aspen Ideas festival feature of “The Moth Radio Hour” podcast over the weekend, according to Mike Allen’s Playbook. The episode has not yet aired publicly.

After the ceremony, Lovett says the gay men “kissed modestly” and he filed the paperwork with the address 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue – the official evidence that the ceremony took place.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading.....

TIME FOR THE STATES TO DECLARE INDEPENDENCE FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

“Take this Supreme Court decision and shove it.”

A new Rasmussen Poll indicates that a growing number of Americans want state governments to tell the Supreme Court to get out of the business of rewriting laws and telling American citizens how to live their lives.

In a new poll, Rasmussen reported the percentage of Americans who want states to tell the Supreme Court it does not have the power to rewrite the Affordable Care Act or force sovereign states to authorize gay marriages has increased from 24 percent to 33 percent after last week’s Constitution-defying decisions by the court.

A closer look at the poll results indicates that popular sentiment for state defiance of the federal government extends beyond just the Supreme Court’s latest decisions.

“Only 20% [of likely voters] now consider the federal government a protector of individual liberty,” the Rasmussen Poll finds. “Sixty percent (60 %) see the government as a threat to individual liberty instead,” it adds.

“Take this regulation and shove it,” and “take this grant and shove it,” are two additional battle cries which appear to resonate with a growing popular sentiment, especially in “flyover country,” those 38 states outside the dozen in which President Obama won more than 56.2 percent of the vote in 2012.

(In descending order of support for Obama, those twelve states are: Hawaii, Vermont, New York, Rhode Island, Maryland, Massachusetts, California, Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois, and Maine. Arguably, three additional states where President Obama won between 54 percent and 56.2 percent of the vote in 2012 could be added to this list: Washington, Oregon, and Michigan.)

One hundred and fifty years after the end of the Civil War, it is becoming increasingly clear that there are two Americas—one where the principles of constitutionally limited government and individual liberty are still revered, the other where statism and the trampling of individual rights are on the rise.

The Tea Party movement arose in 2009 to restore those principles of constitutionally-limited government. But despite electoral victories that placed Republicans in control of the House of Representatives in 2010, and the Senate in 2014, it is undeniable that the Republican establishment those elections empowered is instead aligned with the forces of statism.

The majority of the members of the Supreme Court itself are also clearly part of the “elitist” camp of anti-constitutionalists. As Breitbart’s Thomas Williams noted, and Justice Scalia himself pointed out in his scathing dissent in the gay marriage decision, not a single member of the nine member court is of the Protestant faith. Not a single member has graduated from a law school other than Harvard, Yale, or Columbia. Nor has a single member done anything other than practice some version of corporate law with “big law” firms, sit on a federal court, work for the federal government, or work in left-wing academia.

With the entire apparatus of the federal government now aligned against constitutionally limited government, some traditionalists have given themselves over to despair and defeatism. That negative view, however, fails to understand the solution provided to usurpations of power by the central government found within the Constitution itself, with origins in the Declaration of Independence, whose signing on July 4, 1776 we celebrate today.

As Rasmussen Reports noted, “The Declaration of Independence, the foundational document that Americans honor on the Fourth of July, says that governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed, but just 25% believe that to be true of the federal government today.”

Even more significantly, however, the recent Supreme Court decisions are a complete rejection of the concepts of state sovereignty articulated in the 10th amendment, the last element of the Bill of Rights, the promise of whose passage by the First Congress was key to the ratification of the Constitution.

The 10th amendment, ratified along with the other nine amendments of the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791, reads as follows:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The concept of popular resistance to the unconstitutional encroachment of the federal government on the rights of individuals and states has been gaining momentum over the past several years.

Conservative radio host Mark Levin, for instance, has advocated on behalf of an Article V Convention of the States to propose new amendments to the Constitution for ratification by the states that would limit federal powers.

Conservative author and intellectual leader Charles Murray has also advocated for a type of civil disobedience to resist unlawful federal regulations through the use of well funded legal challenges to the most egregious of those regulations.

Both concepts have merit, but ultimately lack the power and effective counter-attack available through the simple mechanism offered by the 10th amendment—widespread resistance to federal overreaches by the state governments themselves.

Bolder, constitutionally based resistance at the state level, is a practical and viable remedy, one that already has broad popular support among conservatives.

As Rasmussen Reports noted:

[T]he voters who feel strongest about overriding the federal courts – Republicans and conservatives – are those who traditionally have been the most supportive of the Constitution and separation of powers. During the Obama years, however, these voters have become increasingly suspicious and even hostile toward the federal government.

Fifty percent (50%) of GOP voters now believe states should have the right to ignore federal court rulings, compared to just 22% of Democrats and 30% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Interestingly, this represents a noticeable rise in support among all three groups.

Fifty percent (50%) of conservative voters share this view, but just 27% of moderates and 15% of liberals agree.

Widespread resistance at the state level, however, will require two elements: strong governors and strong state legislatures willing to vigorously assert their 10th amendment rights.

At the local level, we’ve already seen the first indications that a movement may be afoot. In Tennessee, for example, the entire Decatur County Clerk’s Office resigned rather than enforce the recent gay marriage decision announced by the Supreme Court.

Isolated pockets of resistance are springing up around the country.

And yet, even among “The Great 38 States”—flyover country where President Obama either lost or won less than 56.2 percent of the vote in the 2012 election—leadership at the executive level is lacking.

The next electoral battle for the preservation of the constitutional republic will be fought not only for the highest office of the executive branch in 2016—it will also be fought in the gubernatorial races of those “Great 38 States” where the vast majority of voters still believe in America, and still believe in constitutionally limited government.

Freedom of the individual states from the usurpations of the federal government does not mean secession from the constitutional republic. It is, instead, the surest realistic mechanism that remains to preserve the constitutional republic.

By limiting the role of the federal government to the exercise of that very narrow set of specifically “enumerated powers” ascribed to it in the Constitution, state governments can guarantee that our constitutional republic will continue to flourish for generations to come.

The alternative is a constitutional republic in name only, a dystopian oligarchy where words have no meaning, right is wrong, good is bad, truth is deception, and the rule of law is invented anew each day by the ruling class of federal royalty.

As for that dirty dozen of liberal blue states, like California, New York, and Massachusetts? Let them continue on their path of reckless spending and experience the fate of modern Greece.

Meanwhile, the rest of us can continue to choose liberty.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading....

CALIFORNIA: Will Union Members Stay if Friedrichs Wins Case against CTA?

The United States Supreme Court announcement that it will consider the Friedrichs vs. California Teachers Association case next fall produced handwringing and dire predictions that this could result in the end of public unions. Those who make those statements must think that the public unions are not offering representation that their members want. If the court sides with teacher Rebecca Friedrichs who opposes mandatory union dues, mandatory dues would end but voluntary union dues can continue. If the union does what the members want they will continue to get support.

David Savage’s article in the Los Angeles Times, which covers the circumstances around the case well, quotes Friedrichs, “I don’t have a voice or vote in the union, and I’m opposed to forced fees and forced unionism.”

Friedrichs and other teachers involved in the lawsuit do not approve of positions the union takes and object to their dues paid into the CTA treasury for positions with which they disagree. While teachers can opt out of dues directed to the union for political purposes, many have argued that the line is blurred between the union’s political activities and work-related representation.

Not wanting to pay money for issues with which one disagrees is a reasonable position. Thomas Jefferson wrote, “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions, which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.”

While this bit of wisdom appeared in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom the sentiment can clearly apply to the protesting teachers situation.

If the case is successful – something that is far from certain – there is no telling how many union members will call it quits. CTA is certainly concerned with the outcome. Last year, CTA prepared a working paper titled, “Not if, but when: Living in a World without Fair Share.” The document predicted loss of revenue and membership if the system titled “Fair Share” requiring mandatory dues was overturned by a court.

In such a circumstance, members would have a choice on whether to support the union. Then the union will have to prove its worth to members.

Originally posted on Fox and Hounds Daily.

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading.....

The GOP Congress refuses to use the power it has

Instead of wailing and bemoaning the imperial edicts issued this past week by the Supreme Court on Obamacare, housing discrimination, and gay marriage, the Republican-controlled Congress would do better to exercise its constitutional authority and fight back.  Here is one way.

Few powers given to the Congress are more clearly defined, and yet more rarely exercised, than its power to strip the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, of jurisdiction over almost any subject matter Congress chooses.  It is a mystery why the Republican leadership is so timid and weak in submitting to the clearly unconstitutional decisions handed down on a regular basis by the high court.

Article III, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution expressly states (emphasis added):

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

This means exactly what it says: the Supreme Court (and by implication, the lesser federal courts) can be stripped from hearing and deciding any issue at all, save only those few issues granted to its original jurisdiction in the language above.  Cases in which “a state shall be party” is strictly limited to those controversies between two or more states, or between a state and citizens of another state, or between a state and foreigners (Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 [1821]).

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading.....

JASON RILEY: The Supreme Court’s Disastrous Misreading of the Fair Housing Act

Wall Street Journal —A decision endorsing ‘disparate impact’ analysis will turn a law meant to prohibit discrimination into a vehicle for race-conscious housing decisions.

Last week, on the day before the Supreme Court blessed a legal doctrine that equates racial disparities with racial discrimination, the New York Times published an op-ed that illustrated the potential ramifications of the court’s wrongheaded ruling.

The op-ed, “Is Special Education Racist?,” was written by professors of education Paul Morgan and George Farkas. They argued that the overrepresentation of black children receiving special-education services was best explained by factors other than racial bias. Black children…

Via: Universal Journal Review

Continue Reading....

After 'gratifying' week, Obama sees long to-do list in time left

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - It did not match the week of his wedding or the weeks his daughters were born, but President Barack Obama acknowledged on Tuesday that last week was a particularly momentous one for him.

The Supreme Court legalized gay marriage and upheld his signature healthcare law, and Congress passed legislation critical to a Pacific trade pact Obama wants to finalize before leaving office in January 2017.

"I might see if we can make next week even better," quipped Obama, who has about 18 months left in his presidency.

What's next? Obama told reporters he hopes to next work with Congress on an infrastructure funding package and on reforming the criminal justice system.

"The list is long and my instructions to my team and my instructions to myself have always been that we are going to squeeze every last ounce of progress that we can make ... as long as I have the privilege of holding this office," Obama said at a news conference.

Obama began work on his to-do list on Tuesday, unveiling a plan to make more U.S. workers eligible for overtime pay.

He also tried to marshal business and labor to pressure Congress to renew the charter for the U.S. Export-Import Bank.

Via: Yahoo News

Continue Reading....

What Actually Comes Next

Less than forty-eight hours after King Anthony sovereignly provided new theology for our secular, civil religion, the left is now publicly calling for the abolition of tax-exempt status for religious non-profits and churches.

It will come. It has to come. If gay marriage is a fundamental right under the equal protection clause, it is going to trump a lot of the first amendment. As Chief Justice Roberts noted, King Anthony’s theology precludes “free exercise” of religion.

But all of this is down the road a few years. Let me tell you what is going to happen first.

Silence.

A newspaper in Pennsylvania has declared it will no longer allow letters to the editor opposed to gay marriage because it is a fundamental right.

BuzzFeed declared that, in its editorial position, there is no position other than support for gay marriage.

Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, banned all apps from its store that display the Confederate flag. That had to be walked back a bit, but there you have it.

The Los Angeles Times refuses to run letters pointing out that global warming is a scam.

And now, Apple and Facebook are set to develop news platforms that will have a human curator, instead of a computer algorithm. Twitter, likewise, is engaging humans on trending news topics, etc. It is only a matter of time because Google works its algorithm magic to drive down links to those who oppose the new cultural agenda.

So we will see orthodox Christian voices disappear from most news channels. The left are master propagandists. One of the chief tricks of the propagandist is to convince you that you are all alone. Everyone else thinks otherwise. So an Apple that celebrates gay rights and bans what it thinks is hate is only one step from prohibiting a Russell Moore piece through its news service.

Facebook can devalue conservatives and shut them down.

Twitter can declare support for traditional marriage to be hate and turn off accounts, mine included.

Newspapers, radio stations, and television networks who long ago embraced the idea that people are born gay despite ample evidence to the contrary in most (but not all) cases, will reach further. If you are a talk radio show host who supports traditional marriage, get ready for your parent company to tell you that is no longer allowed. After all, it is a fundamental right.

A CNN that was celebratory on its twitter feed after the gay marriage ruling can hardly be expected to allow on any pundit who dissents without treating that person as a contemptible bigot. MSNBC will run news stories on the rise in hate groups that, no doubt, the Southern Poverty Law Center will list. That list will include all orthodox Christian churches.

The left has worked very hard to control information. They will now work extra hard to push conservatives forcibly into a ghetto of thought. The overarching goal will be to convince you that no one agrees with you and there are no voices echoing you.

Just remember, you are not alone.

Via: Red State

Continue Reading....

The EPA's big land grab

(Getty Images)

The EPA just finalized one of the biggest land grabs in American history.

Under the Clean Water Rule, all "tributaries" will be categorically regulated by the federal government. Tributaries — which quite literally mean anything with a bed, banks and an "ordinary high water mark" — are now under federal control. Not my words; the Environment Protection Agency's (EPA). This includes ditches and less.

Under the same rule, the word "adjacent" is stretched from the Supreme Court's definition of actually "abutting" what most Americans regard as a real water of the United States to anything "neighboring," "contiguous," or "bordering" a real water, terms which are again stretched to include whole floodplains and riparian areas. Floodplains are typically based on a 100-year flood, but a separate regulation would stretch that to a 500-year flood.

And, finally, under the rule, the EPA cynically throws in a catch-all "significant nexus" test meant as a shout out to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion in Rapanos v. United States when, in fact, the EPA's rule makes a mockery of Kennedy's opinion and of no fewer than three Supreme Court rulings.

Under the three approaches, no land or "water" is beyond the reach of the federal government, never mind the traditional understanding of private property or state and local control of land use.

Farmers, ranchers, dairymen and others, on and off the farm, are in a widespread panic with the finalization of this rule because not only does it allow the EPA onto their land, but it throws the gate wide open to environmental group-led citizen lawsuits that promise to carry the rule's reach beyond what even the EPA had envisioned. That is because even though the EPA may have intended to show some restraint in the exercise of its new found powers, the rule itself is virtually boundless and citizen suits are controlled only by the rule. This rule carries with it fines under the law to the tune of $37,500 per day, but comes with absolutely no clarity for farmers as to what side of the law they are now on.

I started work as an legislative assistant covering agriculture for Sen. John Tower (R) of Texas back in 1971 before serving nearly 20 years in Congress, and I have never seen a bigger land grab by the federal government than the Clean Water Rule.

Like Tower, and like most Texans serving in Congress today, I was consistently ranked as one of the most conservative members in Congress. And that is why it appalls me that instead of libertarian groups announcing that their No. 1 objective is to overturn this rule and protect the private property rights of every American citizen — which is at the very heart of a free society — these groups were reported on June 24 in The Washington Post as saying that their No. 1 objective is, of all things, killing U.S. sugar policy.

Via: The Hill

Continue Reading....

Supreme Court will re-hear Texas affirmative action

The Supreme Court said Monday it will dive back into the fight over the use of race in admissions at the University of Texas, a decision that presages tighter limits on affirmative action in higher education.

The justices said they will hear for a second time the case of a white woman who was denied admission to the university's flagship Austin campus.

The conservative-leaning federal appeals court in New Orleans has twice upheld the university's admissions process, including in a ruling last year that followed a Supreme Court order to reconsider the woman's case.

The case began in 2008 when Abigail Fisher, who is white, was denied admission to the University of Texas's flagship Austin campus because she did not graduate in the top 10 percent of her high school class -- the criterion for 75 percent of the school's admissions. The university also passed her over for a position among the remaining 25 percent, which is reserved for special scholarships and people who meet a formula for personal achievement that includes race as a factor.

The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2013. But rather than issue a landmark decision on affirmative action, it voted 7-1 to tell a lower appeals court to take another look at Fisher's lawsuit. That meant the university's admissions policies remained unchanged.

Last year, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals again upheld the university's admissions policy. Fisher is a graduate of Louisiana State University.

Justice Elena Kagan is not taking part in the case. She sat out the first round as well, presumably because of her work on the case when she served in the Justice Department before joining the court.

The case, Fisher v. University of Texas, 14-981, will be argued in the fall.

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Obama Goes Grey in Last Week Tonight‘s ‘End of Obamacare’ Montage

To commemorate the Supreme Court of the United States’ Obamacare decision last Thursday, Last Week Tonight put together a nearly two-minute collection of clips featuring people predicting Obamacare’s end. Titled “Five Years of People Prematurely Declaring the End of Obamacare,” the short montage does two things rather wonderfully:

1. It sums up all of the negative reactions to the Affordable Care Act since its signing into law in 2010.
2. It demonstrates just how much grayer President Obama‘s hair has become in the past five years.

To top it off, the president’s official address of the SCOTUS decision isn’t actually the final clip. That distinction belongs to MSNBC, whose guest is asked, “Is the fight against Obamacare from Republicans over now?” His answer? “My short answer would be no.”

Via: Mediaite

Continue Reading....

Ted Olson: ‘Not Illegal’ for Bakery to Refuse to Take Part in Gay Wedding Under SCOTUS Ruling

(CNSNews.com) – Former Solicitor General Ted Olson told “Fox News Sunday” that it is “not illegal” for a bakery for instance to refuse to participate in a gay wedding under last week’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.

“It's not illegal under this ruling,” Olson said in response to Fox News host Chris Wallace’s question about how the ruling will affect religious freedom.

“There's the question – and it became hot this spring – of religious freedom. Can the proverbial baker or photographer who is selling his services openly, can he refuse to participate in a same-sex marriage because he or she believes that it violates their religious freedom or is that now illegal under this rule?” Wallace asked.

“There may be laws, statutes that cover it, but a bakery, if you walk into a bakery on the street and want to buy a pie or a doughnut or something like that, the bakery under federal law can't discriminate against you on the basis of your race or your religion. So, if there are laws that cover that kind of discrimination that might be illegal,” said Olson.

“It's different than someone being asked to participate in a wedding, to perform a wedding, to sing in a wedding, to participate and be a wedding planner, something like that. People have the right to refuse personal services with respect to things like that on a religious basis,” he said.

“I think some of that dispute is overblown and the courts have been dealing with that kind of an issue for many, many years with respect to religious rights and racial discrimination and discrimination on the basis of gender for a long time,” Olson added.

Olson successfully represented George W. Bush in the Supreme Court case Bush v. Gore that ended the recount of the 2000 presidential election and eventually served as Bush’s solicitor general. He is also a same-sex marriage advocate.

Olson compared Friday’s Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges to the Loving. V. Virginia, the Supreme Court decision that legalized interracial marriage in 1967.

“Fourteen times the Supreme Court of the United States held that marriage is a fundamental right, including the right to interracial marriage in 1967,” said Olson. “They didn't call it the right to interracial marriage. They called it the right to marriage. They described it as a right to liberty, privacy, association, of being a part of this country, being a part of the relationship that matters most to most people in this country and to be a part of our community.

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading....