ByFRANK CAMP @FRANKDCAMP July 1, 2018 On Sunday, Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) appeared on CNN’s "State of the Union," where she told host Jake Tapper that she wouldn’t support a Supreme Court nominee who showed "hostility to Roe v. Wade." I would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade because that would mean to me that their judicial philosophy did not include a respect for established decisions, established law. Regarding a conversation she had with President Trump, she said, "I emphasized that I wanted a nominee who would respect precedent, a fundamental tenet of our judicial system." While precedent is certainty a compelling force in American jurisprudence, it must not be understood as an impervious barrier to the reexamination of potentially erroneous case law. The Supreme Court is not infallible. During the 19th and 20th centuries, there were multiple instances in which SCOTUS rulings were overturned — either by amendments to the Constitution, or by the Supreme Court itself at a later date. In Dred Scott v. Sandford, the Supreme Court ruled that African Americans "could not claim U.S. citizenship, and therefore blacks were unable to petition the court for their freedom," writes History. Chief Justice Roger Taney wrotethat slaves were "property," and the "right to traffic in it, like an ordinary article of merchandise and property, was guaranteed to the citizens of the United States." Dred Scott, which is widely cited as one of the most egregious SCOTUS decisions in U.S. history, was overruled by the 13th and 14th Amendments. In 1883, the Supreme Court ruled in Pace v. Alabama that the punishment prescribed to an interracial couple who had been sentenced to prison for their relationship didn’t violate the 14th Amendment because it was equally enforced. The ruling was essentially overwritten by the 1967 case, Loving v. Virginia. "In a unanimous decision, the [Supreme Court] justices found that Virginia’s interracial marriage law violated the 14th Amendment to the Constitution," writes History. After a mixed-race man named Homer Plessy was arrested for sitting in the white section of a train car in violation of Louisiana’s "Separate Car Act," the Supreme Court ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 that the "separate but equal" doctrine didn’t violate the 14th Amendment. Justice Henry Billings Brown wrote in the majority opinion: The object of the [14th] amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but, in the nature of things, it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political, equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either. Laws permitting, and even requiring, their separation in places where they are liable to be brought into contact do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race to the other, and have been generally, if not universally, recognized as within the competency of the state legislatures in the exercise of their police power. The most common instance of this is connected with the establishment of separate schools for white and colored children, which has been held to be a valid exercise of the legislative power even by courts of States where the political rights of the colored race have been longest and most earnestly enforced. The "separate but equal" doctrine was overturned in 1954’s Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, in which the Supreme Court ruled against school segregation, noting its unconstitutionality. These are just three cases in which a Supreme Court ruling was found to be in dire need of reexamination and revision. There are plenty of others. Renowned legal scholar John Hart Ely, an ardent supporter of abortion himself, wrote that the grounds upon which Roe v. Wade was decided were incredibly shaky: The Court's response here is simply not adequate. It agrees, indeed it holds, that after the point of viability (a concept it fails to note will become even less clear than it is now as the technology of birth continues to develop) the interest in protecting the fetus is compelling. ... Abortion is too much like infanticide on the one hand, and too much like contraception on the other, to leave one comfortable with any answer; and the moral issue it poses is as fiendish as any philosopher’s hypothetical. ... What is unusual about Roe is that the liberty involved is accorded a far more stringent protection, so stringent that a desire to preserve the fetus' existence is unable to overcome it – a protection more stringent, I think it fair to say, than that the present Court accords the freedom of the press explicitly guaranteed by the First Amendment. What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers' thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation's governmental structure. Nor is it explainable in terms of the unusual political impotence of the group judicially protected vis-a-vis the interest that legislatively prevailed over it. And that, I believe – the predictable early reaction to Roe notwithstanding ... is a charge that can reasonably be leveled at no other decision of the past twenty years. At times the inferences the Court has drawn from the values the Constitution marks for special protection have been controversial, even shaky, but never before has its sense of an obligation to draw one been so obviously lacking. Not in the last thirty-five years at any rate. Other legal scholars have come to similar conclusions, including Edward Lazarus, who clerked for SCOTUS Justice Harry A. Blackmun. According to Lazarus: "What, exactly, is the problem with Roe? The problem, I believe, is that it has little connection to the Constitutional right it purportedly interpreted. A constitutional right to privacy broad enough to include abortion has no meaningful foundation in constitutional text, history, or precedent. ..." According to Lawrence Tribe of Harvard Law School: "One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found." According to Kermit Roosevelt of the University of Pennsylvania: "As constitutional argument, Roe is barely coherent. The court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether. It supported that right via a lengthy, but purposeless, cross-cultural historical review of abortion restrictions and a tidy but irrelevant refutation of the straw-man argument that a fetus is a constitutional 'person' entitled to the protection of the 14th Amendment." Finally, in the decades since the Roe decision, the scientific community has developed a much greater understanding of the way in which life begins. Just as legal precedent didn’t act as an impenetrable barrier to progress when it came to issues affecting the African American community, it shouldn’t act as a barrier to the reexamination of a legally dubious SCOTUS decision that has, for nearly 50 years, allowed individuals to enjoy mortal authority over the life of another human being. Sen. Collins appears to want an unmoving judiciary, citing "respect for established decisions" as the foundation for her belief — but precedent isn’t everything. Once again, history has shown that SCOTUS rulings are not infallible. In some cases, they are poorly established. If a "hostility to Roe v. Wade" is Collins’ litmus test for a SCOTUS nominee, the senator should take a look at the case history presented above, as well as the remarks from legal scholars who believe the Roe decision to be lacking substance. ___________________________
CNN SUCKS ... look to the left side of Acosta
Thank you Kent Lamberson
Thank You Kent Lamberson
Thank you Kent Lamberson
Sept 29th Demand apology from Government Officials who use this description for Concerned American Citizens
Definition of a Tea bagger .. To tea bag is a slang term for the sexual act of a man placing his scrotum in the mouth of a willing sexual partner for pleasure or onto the face or head of another person. The name of the practice, when it is done in a repeated in-and-out motion, is derived from its passing resemblance to the dipping of a tea bag into a cup of hot water as a method of brewingtea. As a form of non-penetrative sex, it can be done for its own enjoyment or as foreplay. _________________________
Erik McGregor/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images
ByBEN SHAPIRO @BENSHAPIRO June 27, 2018 On Wednesday, the Supreme Court held that public sector unions could not use the force of government to compel non-union members to pay so-called “agency fees” — quasi-membership fees charged to them without their consent. This ruling will have a significant impact on public sector unions that have ill-served their members and non-members, many of whom will opt out of being part of the unions, undercutting the monetary base for some of those unions altogether. That’s a good thing. Here’s what you need to know. The law in the state of Illinois as well as federally states that if the majority of employees in a particular “bargaining unit” — as defined by a government agency — vote to join a union, that union then represents all employees for purposes of collective bargaining. This is insanity. It is a government-approved and instituted monopoly. Your ability to control your own labor is therefore subjected to a third party non-governmental organization, enforced with the government gun. Unions that do a good job represent enough employees that they don’t have to kneecap scabs to avoid people crossing picket lines or undercutting union negotiations. Unions sponsored by the government effectively kneecap any political opposition they receive from individuals. This is why union contracts don’t benefit great teachers, for example, but do help out rotten teachers who become unfire-able. This system of creating “labor peace” through government-created union monopoly violates basic principles of free association and destroys the purpose of government itself — which is to protect your life, your liberty, and your property. Furthermore, the notion of unions bargaining with the public sector is itself nonsensical. We have rules with regard to payment of state employees. They are created by legislatures, who are in turn answerable to the voter. The same does not hold true for union contracts, negotiated through tacit threat of strike. Public sector unions create the odd situation where the public pays to hire a police officer, for example, but the police officer tacitly works with the union to threaten to walk off the job, leaving the public unprotected. That’s blackmailing taxpayers. Now, such strikes have been generally held to be illegal, but that certainly hasn’t stopped them from taking place. What’s more, public sector unions — unlike private sector unions — are bargaining with non-stakeholders. Private sector unions bargain with the bosses, who are innately adversarial in terms of negotiating for lower pay in order to create more profit margin. Public sector union negotiations aren’t adversarial — legislators are incentivized to make deals with checks they don’t have to write. What’s more, unions know this, and spend enormous quantities of cash in order to elect precisely the legislators they believe will sign the most generous contracts with the unions. None of these issues were up for debate in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. The issue up for debate was an even more insane law: after compelling all workers in a particular “bargaining unit” to be represented by a union they may not even like, the law in Illinois required those non-members to pay cash to the unions. The Supreme Court struck this down, stating clearly that this was a violation of First Amendment principles. Justice Alito correctly wrote: Compelling individuals to mouth support for views they find objectionable violates that cardinal constitutional command, and in most contexts, any such effort would be universally condemned. Yes, yes, and yes. So, what will the impact be on public sector unions? Presumably, they’ll lose a fair bit of cash; perhaps some lose enough members to be decertified as a union. Unions will still get to collectively bargain on behalf of classes until then, but there’s always the possibility that they won’t provide services that please enough people. That’s their problem, as it always should have been. Forcing people to pay money to a non-governmental institution they never voted for is tyranny. Good for the Supreme Court for recognizing that basic fact. ___________________________
Glenn discusses walking out of his CNN interview with Brian Stelter.
Share on FacebookTweetEmailPrint“When they go low, we go high.” That was the liberal slogan made famous by Michelle Obama — but it looks like it lasted all of about ten seconds before collapsing. Instead, the left seems to be stooping as low as possible. On Saturday morning, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders put a spotlight on just how “tolerant” and open to “diversity” liberals are… or more accurately, are not. It looks like a restaurant in Virginia couldn’t stand serving food to someone with different political views. Over the weekend, they told Sanders and her party to leave simply because she works for the White House.
“Last night I was told by the owner of Red Hen in Lexington, VA to leave because I work for (President Trump) and I politely left,” the White House press secretary posted on Twitter. TRENDING:Watch: Border Agent Expertly Flips Script on CNN, Leaves Host Speechless “Her actions say far more about her than about me,” Sanders continued. “I always do my best to treat people, including those I disagree with, respectfully and will continue to do so.” Employees of the restaurant confirmed that they kicked the working mother out of their restaurant for no reason other than her political views. “I just served Sarah Huckabee Sanders for a total of 2 minutes before my owner kicked her out along with 7 of her other family members,” wrote waiter Jaike Foley-Schultz on Facebook. Yes, the location wasn’t just intolerant of Sanders, it also apparently couldn’t stand serving her entire family.
According to The Hill, Sanders didn’t draw attention to the incident until other people bragged about the restaurant’s actions online. “The post went viral when the director of Clean Virginia, a left-leaning energy focused nonprofit, shared the post on Twitter, along with a handwritten note purportedly from the restaurant that reads, among other things, ’86 — Sara Huckabee Sanders,'” the news magazine reported. “’86’ is restaurant industry slang meaning ‘throw out’ or ‘get rid of,'” The Hill continued. Sanders may have taken the high road by refusing to trash-talk the restaurant, but the location quickly found itself in the middle of an online firestorm over its actions. As of the Saturday afternoon, the previously well-reviewed restaurant had taken a major hit on social platforms like Yelp, and was down to a dismal 2.3 stars out of 5 on Facebook.
“Reviewers from both sides of the aisle flooded [The Red Hen] restaurant’s Facebook and Yelp pages with one- and five-star reviews after a server at the restaurant claimed his boss kicked out White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders,” The Hill stated. It seems the one-star reviews are winning. __________________________
The Agitated Schoolmarm Returns: Obama Hasn’t Lost His Classic Tone-Deafness bypeterheck 1 day-edited Oh how we missed the collective experience of being put in the timeout corner after having disappointed schoolmarm Obama If there’s one thing I think all Americans have missed since the presidency of Barack Obama ended, it has to be the former president’s propensity for delivering speeches or addresses that had all the characteristics of an agitated schoolmarm lecturing her unruly and disobedient students. Nothing unified the American people for those eight years quite like the collective experience of being placed in the time-out corner after disappointing our exalted ruler. That’s why it was so nice to take a walk down memory lane listening to Obama’s speech at a Nelson Mandela event held in South Africa Tuesday. As if reading the minds of so many of his fellow countrymen who long to have their president indirectly tell them how stupid they are and how much they need his guidance, Obama came out scolding: “This is another one of these things that I didn’t think I had to lecture about: you have to believe in facts…Unfortunately, too much of politics today seems to reject the very concept of objective truth. People just make stuff up…we see the utter loss of shame among political leaders where they’re caught in a lie and they just double down.” See, this was the glory of the Obama years – his peeved sermons rebuking us for a sin that he never seemed to recognize he was guilty of committing with, given his position of influence, far more damaging consequences. How oblivious does one have to be, after all, to pontificate about other leaders doubling down on lies they’ve been caught in rather than confessing them, when the cloud of “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” hanging over his head? And that reality brought back another glorious memory of the Obama tenure – a completely complicit and disinterested media eager only to act as megaphones and cheerleaders for the Dear One. For all the recent talk about the courage of intrepid, truth-telling, fact-finding media warriors, none seemed interested in pointing out this whopper of an elephant in Obama’s living room. How nice that some things never change. Along those lines, what Obama lecture would be complete without the obligatory reference to the driving force behind his presidency, racial division? He intoned: “[Democracy means understanding] the reality of people who are different than us…You can’t do it if you insist that those who aren’t like you because they’re white, or because they’re male…that somehow they lack standing to speak on certain matters.” Gosh how I miss President Obama making grand speeches about racial reconciliation before turning around and doing all he could to exploit and exacerbate racial tension for political gain. Don’t misunderstand, this statement he made in South Africa is exactly right. But he doesn’t really mean it. He never did. He champions the Planned Parenthood gaggle that pretends men can’t speak to the dignity of human life because they're not women. And he promotes the voices who pretend that “white privilege” disqualifies a white person from transcending racism and that minorities are incapable of racism themselves. Yes, for a few brief moments in Johannesburg two days ago, we were taken back to a time in our not-so-distant past when words were to mean everything and actions were to mean nothing. Provided those words were approved by the schoolmarm-in-chief, that is. __________________________
Trump Travel Ban Gets Protection from Supreme Court in Major Ruling By Andrew West June 26, 2018 Throughout the ridiculous “resistance” of the liberal left, a number of President Trump’s policies have been scheduled for the gallows…even if those policies were both approved by the American people and designed to strengthen national security.This is why we must be ever so careful with the dissonance that the democrats are sowing: It is not an ordinary opposition at all, but, rather, a blind and flailing attempt at landing a blow through a furious and disjointed anger. There is no class in their act, nor are they adhering to the rules of decorum set forth by those statesmen who’ve come before them. They are simply throwing a tantrum, kicking and screaming on the floor of a crowded Congress. It’s rather pathetic, but, given how little the American people think of Congress as a whole, we’ve been content in watching them toss about in a tizzy for the time being.
Now, however, one of these controversial Trumpian policies is getting backup from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld President Trump’s controversial travel ban affecting several mostly Muslim countries, offering a limited endorsement of the president’s executive authority on immigration in one of the hardest-fought battles of this term. The 5-4 ruling marks the first major high court decision on a Trump administration policy. It upholds the selective travel restrictions, which critics called a discriminatory “Muslim ban” but the administration argued was needed for security reasons. In a written statement, Trump called the ruling “a tremendous victory for the American People and the Constitution.” As critics continued to decry the policy as “xenophobic,” Trump described the court decision as “a moment of profound vindication following months of hysterical commentary from the media and Democratic politicians who refuse to do what it takes to secure our border and our country.” The Trump “Travel Ban” has already been at the center of a number of judicial conflicts, asliberally-biased judges beholden to former President Barack Obama have made no qualms about openly attacking the directive in court. Of course, the ban itself was opposed by the left on the flimsy basis that it was Donald Trump’s idea, which is literally all it takes for the left to oppose a motion. If the President today were to declare that all Americans get $500 back from the IRS for something, there is no doubt that you would see women like Nancy Pelosi and Lena Dunham tearing up their checks on Twitter in order to gain favor with their constituents. This absurdity may never be a curable issue, but we can learn to recognize it and avoid giving these people power in the future. __________________________