Dr. Spenser is one of those non-existent scientist who does not believe in man made global warming. Al Gore and his pals have said over and over and over that there is no legitimate scientific opposition to their global warming view. Even the supreme court bought the argument of the cap-and-trade crowd, not that they even tried to get the facts. The press of course repeats it every chance they get. Chickenshit to the max.
I try to take a look at Dr. Spenser's site as often as I can"
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Elena Kagan, Just a Gigolette?
Is Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan’s primary qualification that she is an Obama sycophant zombie drone clone? Appears that way. Here's what she had to say about her silver tongued, rock-star, wizard hero:
An intense Elena discussing her 'hero' BHO when he was a senator. She heaps it on quite deeply about his 'truly rock star qualities.' You can imagine the thrill running down her leg. Unfortunately the utube link may not be functioning anymore, it appears. The link may be reestablished but I also add an entertaining video on the topic of Elana K that I just found:
Not that she is bought and paid for; she is just on the same wave length as BHO. Just as Judge Bork was sympathetic toward the constitutional philosophy of Ronald Reagan, Kagan is in accord with the anticonstitutional philosophy of BHO. Is that sufficient reason for conservative senators to oppose her nomination? Political differences alone have been good enough reasons for liberals to oppose Judge Bork and other nominees for the supreme court and courts of appeal. With Kagan, Obama is pulling no punches. She is a blatant rubber stamper for his policies, which conservatives believe to be often at odds with the constitution. If Republicans on the judicial committee are not going to make a stand here then where? Nowhere, I guess.
Republican Lindsey (Goober) Grahm has nothing but praise for the lady. (Goober is the epithet supplied by Mark Levin.) This seems to defy reason. What are conservative voters to think of someone who claims to oppose the socialist policies of the current administration, does not vehemently voice that opposition, and now will not turn that opposition into action with his vote?
An intense Elena discussing her 'hero' BHO when he was a senator. She heaps it on quite deeply about his 'truly rock star qualities.' You can imagine the thrill running down her leg. Unfortunately the utube link may not be functioning anymore, it appears. The link may be reestablished but I also add an entertaining video on the topic of Elana K that I just found:
Not that she is bought and paid for; she is just on the same wave length as BHO. Just as Judge Bork was sympathetic toward the constitutional philosophy of Ronald Reagan, Kagan is in accord with the anticonstitutional philosophy of BHO. Is that sufficient reason for conservative senators to oppose her nomination? Political differences alone have been good enough reasons for liberals to oppose Judge Bork and other nominees for the supreme court and courts of appeal. With Kagan, Obama is pulling no punches. She is a blatant rubber stamper for his policies, which conservatives believe to be often at odds with the constitution. If Republicans on the judicial committee are not going to make a stand here then where? Nowhere, I guess.
Republican Lindsey (Goober) Grahm has nothing but praise for the lady. (Goober is the epithet supplied by Mark Levin.) This seems to defy reason. What are conservative voters to think of someone who claims to oppose the socialist policies of the current administration, does not vehemently voice that opposition, and now will not turn that opposition into action with his vote?
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Obma and Immigration: Yes We Can't
Arizona's recent immigration law creates some interesting dilemmas for the current administration, and for conservatives also. The fact that it brings into question some of the Obama administration's policies, especially its alleged unwillingness to secure the US and Mexican boarder, forces Obama to focus on an area where he is on thin political ice. Furthermore, the immigration debate also impinges upon the foundation of the welfare state. Can we simultaneously grant increasingly large welfare benefits while encouraging the immigration of those who will be given those benefits? Does, "yes we can" apply in these areas? The political nature of the human beast dictates that no government or policy will survive without popular backing. This is the fundamental theorem of politics.
Conservatives back the Arizona law because it attempts to remedy weak enforcement by the federal officials. This (I believe) puts conservatives on the opposite side of the preemption question that usual. Justice Thomas, for instance, believes that federal statutes should not be read with a presumption against preemption. (see Cipollone v. Liggett Group,(1992)). Preemption is the doctrine that states federal law invalidates state and local law on the same subject.
Preemption is a complicated topic. Most conservatives believe that the federal government should be silent on most questions traditionally addressed by our common law. That covers almost everything, but probably not immigration. Courts have not only looked at the state and federal statutes to determine if conflicts exist, but they have also looked at the factual background to determine if there is a state interest that is not being addressed by the federal law, or federal enforcement there of.
That is why lack of federal enforcement is an issue in the present case. That is why BHO recently stated that the boarders are more secure that ever. What that opinion is based upon,or whether that is good enough, he did not say. The U.S. Supreme Court in Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 US 497 (1956), stated that there was no state interest to be protected and that the federal government was dealing appropriately with the problem that the laws in question were enacted to address. (In that case the court held that the Federal Alien Sedition act preempted the Pennsylvanian statute.)
Two factors that obviously distinguishing the Pennsylvania and Arizona cases: 1) Arizona is indeed being harmed by illegal aliens who must be provided services at state expense, and 2) in spite of its expenditures, the federal enforcement effort has been ineffective as demonstrated by the number of illegal aliens in Arizona and elsewhere. There are of course other distinguishing factors and other legal arguments in favor of (and against) the Arizona enactment, which time prevents me from discussing here.
Regarding the propaganda surrounding this matter, why did the BHO functionaries and lackeys and their lap dog press proclaim loudly and ad infinatum that the Arizona law was racist then not include civil rights violations claims in their legal arguments ???? Inquiring minds and the junior Senator from Minnesota want to know why they were lying.
Conservatives back the Arizona law because it attempts to remedy weak enforcement by the federal officials. This (I believe) puts conservatives on the opposite side of the preemption question that usual. Justice Thomas, for instance, believes that federal statutes should not be read with a presumption against preemption. (see Cipollone v. Liggett Group,(1992)). Preemption is the doctrine that states federal law invalidates state and local law on the same subject.
Preemption is a complicated topic. Most conservatives believe that the federal government should be silent on most questions traditionally addressed by our common law. That covers almost everything, but probably not immigration. Courts have not only looked at the state and federal statutes to determine if conflicts exist, but they have also looked at the factual background to determine if there is a state interest that is not being addressed by the federal law, or federal enforcement there of.
That is why lack of federal enforcement is an issue in the present case. That is why BHO recently stated that the boarders are more secure that ever. What that opinion is based upon,or whether that is good enough, he did not say. The U.S. Supreme Court in Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 US 497 (1956), stated that there was no state interest to be protected and that the federal government was dealing appropriately with the problem that the laws in question were enacted to address. (In that case the court held that the Federal Alien Sedition act preempted the Pennsylvanian statute.)
Two factors that obviously distinguishing the Pennsylvania and Arizona cases: 1) Arizona is indeed being harmed by illegal aliens who must be provided services at state expense, and 2) in spite of its expenditures, the federal enforcement effort has been ineffective as demonstrated by the number of illegal aliens in Arizona and elsewhere. There are of course other distinguishing factors and other legal arguments in favor of (and against) the Arizona enactment, which time prevents me from discussing here.
Regarding the propaganda surrounding this matter, why did the BHO functionaries and lackeys and their lap dog press proclaim loudly and ad infinatum that the Arizona law was racist then not include civil rights violations claims in their legal arguments ???? Inquiring minds and the junior Senator from Minnesota want to know why they were lying.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Mark Levin Wrong (but is Still Right)
Mark Levin is correct that Section 7 of Article I of the Federal Constitution states, "[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States..." Of course, section 1 states, "[a]ll legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United Sates..." In other words, under the constitution, only congress can make laws and the way they make them is by both houses passing a bill (that is, the same bill). Then the president has the power to approve or reject the bill before it becomes a law. Section 7 further provides for the presidential veto and congressional override of that veto. That is the part where the the statement is made that the name of each member voting must be entered on the journals of the respective houses: for the vote whether or not to override the presidential veto. Mark Levin is not correct when he says that the constitution requires the names to be entered on the journals for votes on all bills.
The names on the journal part is a minor point. The point is that the bill has to be passed by both houses, not deemed passed. Mark Levin is still 99.9% right all of the time. That puts him a little ahead of Rush Limbaugh.
With some exceptions, a roll call can be demanded by any member of the House or Senate on any vote. Apparently, with a large enough majority, this rule can be waive. During the first years of the FDR administration, there were large enough Democrat majorities to deny requests for roll calls. The result of that was that constituents could not find out how their congressional members voted. When the Republicans won more seats, they could and did demand that a roll be taken of every vote. Roosevelt's control over congress started to slip at that point.
When the final vote came to send Roosevelt's Judicial Bill adding more justices back to committee, a Republican Senator moved for a roll call vote. Republicans further demanded to know exactly with what instructions the Bill would be remanded to committee. The instructions were that it would not deal at all with the supreme court. The Republicans wanted to make sure the bill was good and dead and that everyone knew it. Burt Wheeler had refused to compromise, be bought out, or intimidated.
(For reference regarding the FDR era congress, see: "Will War in Europe Save Roosevelt?" by Fredrick L. Collins; Liberty magazine, November 11, 1939. Mr. Collins says, "He surrounded himself with erratic and inexperienced theorists." Sound familiar? )
The names on the journal part is a minor point. The point is that the bill has to be passed by both houses, not deemed passed. Mark Levin is still 99.9% right all of the time. That puts him a little ahead of Rush Limbaugh.
With some exceptions, a roll call can be demanded by any member of the House or Senate on any vote. Apparently, with a large enough majority, this rule can be waive. During the first years of the FDR administration, there were large enough Democrat majorities to deny requests for roll calls. The result of that was that constituents could not find out how their congressional members voted. When the Republicans won more seats, they could and did demand that a roll be taken of every vote. Roosevelt's control over congress started to slip at that point.
When the final vote came to send Roosevelt's Judicial Bill adding more justices back to committee, a Republican Senator moved for a roll call vote. Republicans further demanded to know exactly with what instructions the Bill would be remanded to committee. The instructions were that it would not deal at all with the supreme court. The Republicans wanted to make sure the bill was good and dead and that everyone knew it. Burt Wheeler had refused to compromise, be bought out, or intimidated.
(For reference regarding the FDR era congress, see: "Will War in Europe Save Roosevelt?" by Fredrick L. Collins; Liberty magazine, November 11, 1939. Mr. Collins says, "He surrounded himself with erratic and inexperienced theorists." Sound familiar? )
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Business and the Right to Free Speech
The president used the occasion on the State of the Union address to denounce the recent Supreme Court decision to allow freedom of speech protection to corporations. His disingenuous rationale was that it would open the door to foreign manipulation of American elections. The truth is that he knows business does not like his policies and he wants to limit its ability to fund political ads contrary to those policies. Lawyers, legislators, and political commentators have since come forward to state that the decision keeps in place the various regulation against foreign contributions to domestic political organisations.
Talk show host, Michael Medved, states that the court merely said that just as we do not limit a corporations ability to advertise, neither can we limit their public political statements. This may be so. It would be difficult, although totalitarian bureaucrats would relish the task, to discern where the one stopped and the other began. However, this argument lacks persuasiveness and seems disingenuous. It avoids the real issue. The populous is convinced that corporations should be silenced because it fears the power of corporations. Given the pervasiveness of misleading advertising, this is a reasonable fear. Nevertheless, the best policy is to hear all opinions and hope we can discern a measure of truth. That was the founders' rationale in guaranteeing freedom of the press and freedom of speech. As a practical matter, it is only common sense, that businesses should explain how a particular candidate or policy would affect their industry. In fact if they remain silent while a decision is being made, how can they complain later?
Talk show host, Michael Medved, states that the court merely said that just as we do not limit a corporations ability to advertise, neither can we limit their public political statements. This may be so. It would be difficult, although totalitarian bureaucrats would relish the task, to discern where the one stopped and the other began. However, this argument lacks persuasiveness and seems disingenuous. It avoids the real issue. The populous is convinced that corporations should be silenced because it fears the power of corporations. Given the pervasiveness of misleading advertising, this is a reasonable fear. Nevertheless, the best policy is to hear all opinions and hope we can discern a measure of truth. That was the founders' rationale in guaranteeing freedom of the press and freedom of speech. As a practical matter, it is only common sense, that businesses should explain how a particular candidate or policy would affect their industry. In fact if they remain silent while a decision is being made, how can they complain later?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)