Title 42 remains in effect

Newsmax reports that The Supreme Court has kept Title 42 (the Trump era illegal immigration restriction) in place while it rules on the status of multiple states challenging the Let's Go Brandon administration's attempt to cancel it.

Roe v. Wade: Well, that just happened

I honestly though the leak was fake, designed to get voter blocks to return to the Democrat party. But apparently Roe v. Wade has just been overturned by the Supreme Court. Via Fox:

The Supreme Court on Friday overturned Roe v. Wade, effectively ending recognition of a constitutional right to abortion and giving individual states the power to allow, limit, or ban the practice altogether.

The ruling came in the court's opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which centered on a Mississippi law that banned abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The Republican-led state of Mississippi asked the Supreme Court to strike down a lower court ruling that stopped the 15-week abortion ban from taking place.

"We end this opinion where we began. Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the court's opinion.

Evidence indicated that today could be the day but I was still doubtful.  Instead, I am pleasantly surprised.

Second Thoughts On Kavanaugh's "Expected" Conservatism

Everyone seemingly is expecting that president Trump's nomination for the Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice Anthony "swing vote" Kennedy, is a slam dunk constructionist win for conservatives.  The Left thinks the sky is falling.  Conservatives from all walks seem to think that this selection merely represents a safe pick, or that the president is trying to mend fences between his populist and conservative supporters and the Republican establishment, or that Kavanaugh was simply 1 of 4 good candidates on the president's short list.  But one need only look back in history to fret that maybe we should be a little worried. Am I worried yet? Yes, a little bit.

I'm not suggesting Brett Kavanaugh was/is a bad choice, but rather that there is no guarantee that he is a great, or even over the long term, a good choice.

Exhibit A: David Souter

In 1990 George H.W. Bush nominated David Souter to the Supreme Court. Not surprisingly his nomination was vehemently opposed by liberal Groups like the National Organization for Women and the NAACP.

And the relatively easy ride this time around for Roberts is not just because he had no significant paper trail. Neither did Souter, as one official from the National Organization for Women Legal Defense and Education Fund testified. But that didn't stop NOW then-President Molly Yard from saying Souter would be "ending freedom for women in this country." He was, the opposition concluded, a most likely vote to overturn Roe v. Wade . He turned out to be a solid liberal vote.

Meanwhile on the right, Souter was supposed to be a home run:

When Souter was nominated, he was as little-known as any nominee could be. He had spent his life in New Hampshire, the last seven years of it on the state Supreme Court, where cases shed no light on any matter of constitutional import. He’d been elevated to the federal bench only six months before George H.W. Bush chose him for the highest court in the land.

His chief asset, in fact, was that, in sharp contrast to Bork, whose writings and opinions were bountiful and provocative, Souter had no paper trail whatsoever. So when White House chief of staff (and former New Hampshire governor) John Sununu proclaimed that Souter would be “a home run for conservatives,” many on the right were convinced.

Souter might represent the prototype for Kavanaugh - a "Yankee Republican", an inside the beltway (at least inside then president Bush's Beltway") guy.  Kavanaugh is a lifetime Wasington D.C. denizen.  You cannot hold that he was born and raised in the swamp as an identifier against the man, but it is fair to suggest it is an indicator.  

The concern then becomes that as Souter drifted to the center and then to the far left in his court decisioning, so too might Kavanaugh.  The markers are there - the left is up in arms, the right sees him as a win, and Kavanaugh is an Establishment, Inside-the-Beltway guy.  Furthermore there is evidence that president Trump was looking for a slam dunk, just as then-president Bush was looking for someone who could not be Borked.  Furthermore, there's evidence that Trump might be trying to bridge the Establishment GOP with his voter base with this pick. In other words, both nominations were to some degree, politically calculated. Is that worrisome? Are the similarities troubling? Yes.

Souter of course is not the only Exhibit, just the most relevant in my opinion.  Sandra Day O'Connor, the outgoing Anthony Kennedy, and even Justice Roberts drifted far to the left of where they started.  Apparently it's the natural fallout of living inside the Beltway, or perhaps  just age.   In any case, a rock-ribbed conservative justice as a starting point is a better place to be if the drift leftward turns out to be inevitable, regardless of the reason for the drift because preserving as much originalist view on the court as possible is important.

Is Kavanaugh the next Souter?  I don't know but like every conservative, I hope not.  I'm just not convinced that the starting point is as solid as it felt with Gorsuch.  One thing is certain though - the howls of outrage from the collective left are not basis enough of a reason to feel confident about the pick.  They've been as wrong about Republican presidential nominations to the Supreme Court as have those same presidents who made weak nominations.  At this point I'm ready to revisit my ardent support for Gorsuch (not out of any specific reason, just a need to do a more detailed personal vetting of my opinion).  President Trump has offered a good track record of conservative accomplishments so far, but we are still in the short term. It will be a lot more obvious 20 years from now how successful president Trump  has been on delivering for conservatives on the economy, jobs border security, law and order and the Supreme Court.  Let's hope it looks as good then as it does now.

Sotomayor vs Obama - the jaded view of it

Given that Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor is Hispanic but is also definitely a very liberal Justice, it came as no real surprise that this news item appeared, to the apparent surprise of many.  The Supreme Court Justice apparently issued a religious challenge to Obamacare.  Is that shocking? Jaded from having watched the American political scene for years, I don't find it hard to see through as nothing more than a political ploy.

The details, via Fox News:

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has put religion at the forefront of the ObamaCare debate by offering a reprieve to some Catholic groups who want to opt out of the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate.

Sotomayor issued the order late Tuesday, one day before major parts of the health care law went into effect.

In her order, Sotomayor said the government is temporarily prevented from enforcing contraceptive coverage requirements against the Denver-based Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged and must respond by 10 a.m. Friday.

The White House responded Wednesday, saying the group isn’t subject to the requirement because it doesn’t apply to self-funded church plans.

The White House said the Justice Department has already made clear the mandate doesn’t apply to such organizations and that it defers to the agency on litigation matters.

And why exactly is this not surprising?  Because given the family and religious values of very many in Hispanic communities, not responding would make Sotomayor look less true to her culture than to the liberal agenda.  This order, clearly deliberately last minute, deliberately narrowly focused and deliberately controvertible in nature is designed to do two things.  Firstly, it is designed to show Sotomayor as an independent Justice, not beholden to the Obama administration, and that her conscience is that of both her heritage and her independent nature.  Sure.  I don't buy it.  Nevertheless she may have garnered some 'street cred' by her action.  Whether that buys her any long term benefit as not a puppet or liberal ideologue is not clear, but it really shouldn't.

Ironically, if you think this decision came as a surprise to the Obama administration I'd be willing to call you naive at a minimum.  Notice the scope of her order?  It applies to something that the administration has already made clear does not fall under the scope of Obamacare.  QED.  Which brings us to the second objective of the order.  It's meant to be overcome.  Because the order does not apply in this case and it provides a clear way in which it circumvented, it is designed to make the administration look like it has a firm grasp on the implications of Obamacare. Yeah, right.  More importantly though, if it points to a workaround for religious institutions, not enamored with Obamacare it just might provide a way for them to give up their resistance to it because they can now manage outside its confines once this issue has been put to rest for them.  Opponent neutralized.

Perhaps that is an overly jaded way to look at this development, but that's what I've come to expect from the cabal in the Obama administration and their adherents beyond the White House lawn - trickery and political machinations.  I don't think I'm wrong for having that view.

No more Obama SCOTUS nominees please

So it begins - the not so subtle liberal attempt to squeeze out Ruth Bader Ginsberg from the Supreme Court before president Obama is gone and the risk of the next president being a Republican means a more likely conservative replacement Supreme Court Justice.  The not so subtle subtext of a Washington Post piece reads as a hint to Ginsberg to 'hit the bricks'.

The puffery of the WaPo piece, designed to flatter Ginsberg, begins almost immediately;

Ginsburg is doing what she always does this time of year. On a respite from one of her passions — the law — she is indulging the others: opera and family. Ginsburg considers the Santa Fe Opera the finest summer opera company in the world. For years, first with her late husband, Marty, and now with her children and grandchildren, she spends a week in Santa Fe, in the foothills of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, and when she returns east she says to herself: “What happened to my sky?”

There are tours of the countryside and hikes in the hills. There is VIP access to the works of Georgia O’Keeffe. There are sumptuous dinners prepared by her daughter, Jane, that last until 2:30 in the morning.

But it not so subtly gives way to the title of the article - stay or go? - with a clear hint that GO is the way to go.

“We need her to stay forever,” says one woman after Ginsburg walked past.

“Or,” her companion replies, “leave right now.”

The article pays lip service to the notion that it's because of her advancing age before laying out the real reason liberals want her gone (and it's not because she's fallen asleep during cases).

There are no set rules for when a justice leaves her lifetime appointment, although for Ginsburg there is no shortage of advice. The first justice nominated by a Democratic president in 26 years when President Bill Clinton chose her, she has been nudged to leave ever since the election of another Democratic president who could choose her replacement.

The court has four consistent liberals, including Ginsburg, and four consistent conservatives, and the justice in the middle, Anthony M. Kennedy, is a Ronald Reagan-nominee who more often than not sides with conservatives. If the court’s membership does not change before the 2016 election, the new president would see a Supreme Court with four of its nine members older than 77, including half of the liberal bloc.

“The reality of the court, and the parties, these days is that Ginsburg ... should know that a justice selected by President Rubio or President Jindal or President Cruz is going to produce a very different nation than one selected by Barack Obama,” wrote political scientist Jonathan Bernstein in The Washington Post. He was not the first.

We should be happy the Clinton appointee is a target of liberals these days. But for conservatives, or any one who prefers an non-interventionist Supreme Court, right now is probably the worst time for her to go.  If there's a chance for her to outlast Obama, we should encourage her to stay on.  Failing that, I say we Bork whoever Obama nominates.  And not in a limp-wristed way the GOP did with Sotomayor or Kagan.

 

Voting Rights Act - Get Over It!

 

So Rep. Sensenbrenner has pledged that the GOP will fix the Voting Rights Act because parts of it were deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.  Isn't that great? Nope, it's complete stupidity.  Here's why.

Via the Washington Post;

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) said Monday that he will attempt to replace, by the end of the year, the portion of the Voting Rights Act that was struck down by the Supreme Court.

Sensenbrenner’s comments came Monday at an event hosted by the Republican National Committee, commemorating the March on Washington.

Sensenbrenner said he wants to fix the law so that it is immune to court challenges.

“The first thing we have to do is take the monkey wrench that the court threw in it, out of the Voting Rights Act, and then use that monkey wrench to be able to fix it so that it is alive, well, constitutional and impervious to another challenge that will be filed by the usual suspects,” Sensenbrenner said.

Supremely confused

The Supreme Court has struck down the Defense of Marriage Act. It is easily arguable that this is not a conservative court. A lot of people will be making that argument today.  I am not hopping on that pile today.

However while it is legally understandable that if gay couples are allowed to marry, it is less arguable that marriage should have its definition changed to fit the times.  Churches are not being forced to perform marriages that do not fit their belief systems (or synagogues or mosques).

But church goers are now being forced to subsidize tax, and health benefits for those who do not share their definition of marriage - the common, historical definition.

It is the same as Obamacare requiring Catholic hospitals to provide birth control if they want continued government funding.

This will bring states' rights back into focus.

The Supreme Court is extremely confusing of late. With another Obama term and a possible Hillary term  following it could get far worse for a long time.

Quick hit: Supremely Disappointing Court

Just happening this morning, the Supreme Court has ruled Arizona's law that requires proof of citizenship for voting purposes illegal.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states cannot require would-be voters to prove they are U.S. citizens before using a federal registration system designed to make signing up easier.

The justices voted 7-2 to throw out Arizona's voter-approved requirement that prospective voters document their U.S. citizenship in order to use a registration form produced under the federal "Motor Voter" voter registration law.

Federal law "precludes Arizona from requiring a federal form applicant to submit information beyond that required by the form itself," Justice Antonia Scalia wrote for the court's majority.

The court was considering the legality of Arizona's requirement that prospective voters document their U.S. citizenship in order to use a registration form produced under the federal "motor voter" registration law.

Is it just me or does this seem like a 10th Amendment issue?  We'll need more details to determine the decision's logic, but if this is supposed to be a conservative court, I'm not impressed.

Will a Supreme Court decision decide the election?

This week is shaping up to be a pivotal week in the Obama presidency vis-a-vis his chances to be re-elected in November.  The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is expected this week to hand down its ruling on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act a.k.a. Obamacare.  While the November election seemed to be on a slow but predictable path to a specific outcome, the ruling by the SCOTUS could very well be a game changer.  What happens after the ruling will depend on what the ruling is.

IMPACT: Pre-election Supreme Court decision on Obamacare

The Supreme Court has agreed to rule on the Obamacare case brought against the federal government by 26 of the 50 states.  It will impact the 2012 elections because it's fair to expect a ruling before the 2012 presidential election.

Recapping Obama

For those of you or for your friends who do not follow politics on a regular basis and get your political impressions and decisioning courtesy of the mainstream media, complete with it's inherent bias, allow me to recap the Obama presidency for you in something that suits your passing fancy and/or short attention span.

Seriously.

Justice Stevens Retiring (4 years too late)

Supreme Court Justice Stevens, aged about 734 (almost 90 actually), announced his impending retirement from the Supreme Court. Born in Chicago and having possessed an initially somewhat conservative judicial record, he was appointed to the Supreme Court by Gerald Ford in 1975. However he clearly drifted leftward and a statistical analysis in 2003 ranked him as the most liberal member of the Supreme Court - even more liberal than Justice Ginsberg.  

Black History Month - yet another icon

Clarence Thomas, is often overlooked not just with respect to African American history, but in general. The man is thoughtful, reasoned and insightful. In honor of Black History Month, here's a clip of Clarence Thomas.