Lake Erie Conservative

thoughtful discussion(s) about issue(s)

Posts Tagged ‘US Supreme Court’

… Voter I.D. is Moving in Ohio [#voter fraud]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Wednesday,November 30th,2016

.. unfortunately , it will not be in time for this fall ‘ s elections …

.. the state legislature is taking up another election reform bill . Especially since the GOP will still be in control , and Jon Husted [GOP SecState] will likely be the chief elections officer , the legislature does not have to double – time the issue …

.. [h/t — m.NationalReview.com]..
.. [link] to the blog post …

.. the question will likely brought up again in the new edition of the legislature that will take office in January . Kasich will still be around [having been easily re – elected], so getting the bill thru will not be a problem . Setting it up for the early voting period will get interesting , though , to see how they require documentation to be submitted …

.. it will hit me . I have a driver ‘ s license , a state i.d. , and a US passport . It is plenty enough documentation for what will be required …

— [update]– hopefully , it will move in the post – election special session . it is possible , but it is not likely ….

.. a much more likely possibility is that the new legislature will take it up . Amazingly enough , the drubbing that the DemoCraps took at the polls on November 4th , 2014 had the predictable result — the Dems lost even more seats in the legislature , if that were possible . now the Dems are down to only 34 Dems in the State House , and 9 in the State Senate …

.. what that will allow is a provision of the Ohio Constitution , one that allows the Legislature to adopt a bill with a 3/5ths majority . It is usually done to adopt and pass a bill as an emergency [in a big hurry] . In this case , it is not needed . This provision is used to block any possible initiative or referendum that could possibly be mounted by interest groups to try to repeal the bill .  With a 3/5ths vote , un – uh … that move is not allowed …

.. expect a court fight (again) over this one . The NAALCP and the ACLU will go hyper – spastic over it . Knowing the ObamaCraps are still around , the Holder Department of InJustice will probably stick its nose in on their behalf …

.. someone should remind them … by a solid [7 to 2] precedent in Indiana [under the Voting Rights Act] , Voter ID has been found kopasetic by the US Supreme Court , so , enough already …

Advertisements

Posted in accountability, personal opinion, rule of law | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… US Supreme Court to D.C. Circuit Court [#Spank]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Friday,November 18th,2016

.. we were watching you guys …

.. so , don’t even bother farting around with the Halbig case anymore …

.. [h/t — hotAir.com]..
.. [link] to the blog news …

.. the U.S. Supreme Court granted cert in the other case [King v. Burwell] , but you had to know , they were watching the knuckleheads at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals . In particular , the three radicals that Dingy Harry stuffed on there courtesy of the nuclear option …

.. in total contravention of court precedent , the full Appeals Court granted en – banc review of the Halbig case [the ObamaCrapCare tax subsidies case] . As a result , a thoroughly reasoned Halbig decision was vacated . You think that the Supremes were not watching these antics ?!?! …

.. well , it is obvious that they were . Also , the recent ruling in Oklahoma [Pruitt v Burwell] has gone to the Fifth Circuit , slightly creating a conflict ….

.. what the Supremes do by doing this is : [Spank] , [Spank] , [Spank] … and [also , don’t bother any further with the case] …

.. this is a public rebuke , with a message that is designed to be heard loud and clear : do not do this kind of stunt again …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Busted !! [#Miz Hillary][#gun rights]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Sunday,October 9th,2016

.. these days , you should assume any ” mike ” is hot ..

.. also , you may want an event not to be recorded . Whoops . Assume that it will be recorded . If you don’t , you will regret it ..

.. Miz Hillaary just got a reminder of that . You can guess , she got burned the hard way ..

.. she went on an one – minute plus rant against guns , the N.R.A. , and the 2nd Amendment . She went on and on about how she hates all three ..

.. Whoops , dummy ! It was recorded , Miz Hillary ..

.. [h/t — WFB.com]..
.. [link] to the blog post ..

.. nice going , you idiot !! ..

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Now Ohio has a Role Model to Follow [#Voter ID law]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Saturday,July 16th,2016

.. at least , now , Wisconsin has some finality in its Voter I.D. case .

.. the radical left would not give up . They appealed the adverse decision of the 7th Circuit to the U.S. Supreme Court . They were expecting [at the least] that they would get a hearing in front of the Supremes . To get that , that would require the votes of 4 justices . Well , they did not get it …

.. here is the photo of the order dismissing the radical ‘ s cert petition to the Supreme Court ….

Ws Voter ID case (USsc order dismissed)

.. [h/t — LegalInsurrection.com]..
.. [link] to the blog decision in the case ..

.. what it means is that Wisconsin is finally free [at last] to fully implement its long – contentious Voter I.D. law . It was passed several years ago , but has been tied up in court challenges ever since ..

.. many , of not most , of us use photo I.D. all the time in our daily lives . We use them many times a day . So most folks already have not just one form of photo I.D. . Many have several , including either a driver license , a state i.d. , and / or a US Passport . Those that do not can be provided with a free photo i.d. [for voting purposes] , provided that they have the necessary prep documents …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… No , this was not a Punt [#SCOTUS ObamaCrapCare ruling]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Sunday,May 22nd,2016

.. I will admit , this one was a bit odd . It is extraordinarily rare when SCOTUS decides to play the role of ” mediator . ” ..

.. but this time , they did ..

.. what SCOTUS did what send the case back down to the Federal District Court , while acting to dismiss ALL of the appeals court rulings in the case . That is really creative ..

.. so , what does this do ?? ..

.. [h/t — Newsmax.com]..
.. [link] to the blog post ..

.. SCOTUS points the way towards an effective settlement . It also blocks the Feds from enforcing any penalties , thus lifting a great weight on the plaintiffs . It also gives a big hint towards what it wants to see , and what it does not want to see ..

.. this case , again ..

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… What I think [#POTUS and Exec Amnesty (Immigration)]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Monday,April 18th,2016

.. you would think that there are no court cases out there . There would be no way in order to reverse POTUS ‘ action , and crack down on his antics on misconduct in office …

.. Wrong ! …

.. there is this little matter of Az Dream Act Coalition (sic) v. Brewer . It is a case out in the loonie land of the judiciary , the 9th Appeals Circuit Court . Yeah , that one . So , what is it about ??

.. [h/t — HotAir.com]..
.. [link] to the news article ..

.. when POTUS pulled his stunt on D.A.C.A. (for the Dreamers) , Az Gov Jan Brewer retaliated . She made it explicitly clear that under Arizona law , illegal aliens were clearly ineligible to receive documernts such as Az driver licenses . They were not able to , already . Her E.O. made it more explicit . So , the coalition sued …

.. the Federal District Court in Phoenix said no . However , a 3 – judge panel of the 9th Circuit said yes , that Dreamers could get these government documents , such as driver licenses . Even though AZ law was clear on the subject , that they were ineligible , and thus not allowed …

.. I think that the U.S. Supreme Court could reach down to this court , grab the case , and fast – track it for briefs and arguments at the Supreme Court . Boy , would that set off a circus . It would , in addition to the likely impeachment inquiry that would result from such an order . People will think that potus WILL GO SMALL . iN THIS CASE …

.. in for a penny , in for a pound . I think that Obama will go for ” the gusto , ” and supposedly ” legalize ” as many people as he thinks that he can get away with ….

— [update] — well , His Lordship did do it , just but not as much as I expected . Also , now , Arizona has a new GOP governor [Douglas Ducey] who is just as committed to this case . This case is far closer to the US Supreme Court than anything else , so stay tuned …

Posted in constitutional opinion, legal info, legal opinion, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Ruth Bader Ginsberg may be a Radical [#US Supreme Court]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Wednesday,March 9th,2016

.. but she is not stupid .

.. she has seen how the confirmation process has evolved over the years . Especially since her own , and those of her colleagues …

.. [h/t — Newsmax.com]..
.. [link] to the news piece …

.. after what ol’ Dingy Harry Reid has done with the nuclear option , it will be extraordinarily difficult for any confirmation for any position in the remaining days of the Obama Administration . You cannot unring the bell . It is that simple …

.. If His Lordship thinks that he can get a raging liberal past the US Senate , no matter who controls it , forget it . Even if the Dems control it , it will put enormous pressure on the moderates and those in Red States to vote against the nominee . You can bet on virtually united GOP opposition …

.. Biden has to explain to Obama , you cannot and will not get certain nominees past the Senate . The U.S. Senate is not the Illinois Senate . The GOP nationally is not the GOP in Illinois …

Posted in communications strategy, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… If These Arguments are any Indication [#SCOTUS][#Friedrichs v CTA]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Sunday,January 17th,2016

.. then the public sector unions throughout the country are in big trouble .

.. you would expect that Alito , Thomas , & Roberts would be solid votes to uphold Friedrichs are the likelies , Justices Kennedy and Scalia . I would also count among the possibles one of the liberals , Justice Steven Breyer ..

.. from the arguments , Scalia will be a strong vote to uphold . He may well even get the majority opinion to write , that is if the Chief Justice [Roberts] does not do so himself ..

.. [h/t — Politico.com]..
.. [link] to the blog post article ..

… then there is Tony Kennedy . He literally is SCOTUS ‘ resident ” weather vane , ” that is the swing vote in may of the cases . he may well be a swing vote , but he is still nominally a conservative . One should try to remember that . So , in this case , he is a Yes vote ..

.. in arguments , Breyer was very leery about overriding the current precedent [Abood v Detroit Bd of Ed] . It does not mean that he will not do so . In recent cases , such as Knox v C.T.A , Breyer voted with the conservatives . It is possible , especially if he is given the majority opinion to write , that Breyer will do so again …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… This One Could Be a Game Changer [#Labour Law case][#Friedrichs v C.T.A.]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Monday,January 11th,2016

.. yes , this one could really be a doozy ..

.. I think that there could be as many 6 votes for this one , possibly 7 …

.. well , start at the beginning . Lori Friedrichs is a schoolteacher in California . She resigned for her union , the C.T.A . This union is , to be specific , the California Teachers Association ..

.. California is not a union – friendly state . Since the latter part of the 1970s , the reigning SCOTUS precedent , Abood v Detroit Bd of Ed , has allowed unions to collect fees [agency fees , to be exact] from non – members of the union . These people are required by law , however , to be members of the collective bargaining unit , no matter what ..

.. [h/t — Politico.com]..
.. [link] to the blog article …

.. like many who resign from the union , Friederichs endured quite a bit . Teachers who resign from their union get a large amount of professional shunning and personal abuse from their fellow teachers . Yet she endured , as did several dozen others ..

.. now SCOTUS has offered certiorari on these folks appeal from their loss at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals . Given the rulings and precedents of recent years , such as Beck v CWA , Ferris State Teachers , and Knox v CTA, the ground could be extremely dangerous for the AFL – CIO and their member unions ..

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Ruth Bader Ginsberg is a Radical Activist [#Supreme Court Justice]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Monday,December 7th,2015

.. How this ultraliberal witch was confirmed was beyond me …

.. She was nominated and confirmed by Bill Clinton [and the USSenate] in the early 1990s . She was , at the time , a lead A.C.L.U. legal counsel . So , there you are …

.. you look at her rulings down through the years , and you wonder ? Why did the GOP vote for her confirmation ? She should have been blocked . She has no business being a Supreme Court justice …

.. [h/t — HuffingtonPost.com]..
.. [link] to the opinion piece …

.. hopefully , God Willing , she will be replaced by a GOP president . Preferrably , by a conservative one . The more conservative , the better … It would be a pleasure to watch the liberal DemoCRaps have a hissyfit over the confirmation of her successor . It would be poetic justice , especially if she had died in office …

.. hopefully , a strong and stout young conservative will begin to restore sanity and reason to the bench …

— update — if Ginsberg [given her age and health] decides to step down , it will make for one hellish confirmation battle . POTUS will want to make his imprint on the Supremes , no matter what party controls the Senate . The problem is if POTUS nominates someone that is not confirmable , even by the DemoCraps . Even they may not be able to tolerate a radical activist …

.. if she does it in 2016 , then there will be no confirmation battle at all . The GOP will simply not confirm anyone , even for an Associate Justice slot on the Supreme Court . If , as I expect , the GOP sweeps through to victory in 2016 , then they get to appoint the replacement …

Posted in constitutional opinion, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

… The Issue is ” Disparate Impact ” [#legal theory]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Saturday,December 5th,2015

.. my home state of Ohio is involved in one honey of a brawl over the management of early voting . It is a doozy . Now the US Supreme Court has gotten involved . They had no choice , to be honest …

.. The political leadership thought that there needed to be ” reform of the reform . ” Early voting is nice , to be sure . But it is too much of a good thing . The Ohio Legislature acted to bring some rhyme and reason , along with some restraint to the process . They pulled back the reins on the Early Voting process , and granted the county boards of election [who , along with the Secretary of State , manage the process in Ohio] more ability to manage their financial and personnel resources …

.. The radical left had a massive hissy fit . So , as usual , they decided to bring a lawsuit . They wanted to find a ” friendly judge . ” Unfortunately , downstate , in the central and southern districts of the state , they found one .  The radical activists sought out a friendly judge in order to get a favourable ruling in their lawsuit . They brought the lawsuit in order to bring back elements of early voting that the state of Ohio does not deseire to have remain in effect …

.. These are things that the State has found are totally unnecessary .One is ” Golden Week , ” where people may register and then vote at the same time . That is outrageous . A county board of elections in my state deserves the right to check databases in order to verify the legitimacy of the registration . Another is evening voting , along with Sunday voting . The BOEs have a right to manage their resources , according to the will of the vovters and the legislature of the State of Ohio . It is not the province of a radical activist judge , whether it be a district court judge , or a group of appeals court judges , to impose their judgement , where their idea of the law has been total rejected by the vast majority of the courts …

.. Theier problem is over what is known in legal circles as ” disparate impact ” legal theory . Generally , you need to have direct impact of evidence of discrimination to interfere with their management of their affairs . What disparate impact does is sinister . It infers discrimination based upon the numerical impact on various ” protected classes , ” such as minorities . Once that happens , then the burden of proof flips to the other party to prove legitimacy , which , usually is next to impossible …

.. The impact of ” disparate impact ” usually ends up leading to greatly enhanced affirmative action . Not just affirmative outreach to affected groups , mind you … It means the adoption of numerial goals , or , in effect , quotas , by class , gender , etc …

.. there you see the problem . The liberals and the radical activists still cling to this outdated and racist legal theory . It has been discredited , time after time after time . Yet , these nutjobs still act to cling to this …

Posted in accountability, personal opinion, rule of law, stupidity (legal) | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… A Major Victory for Property Rights [#US Supreme Court][#Horne v Dept of Ag]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Monday,June 29th,2015

.. what came up at the US Supreme Court recently in Horne v. Department of Agriculture …

.. The Horne family is one of raisin growers . Many of our agricultural products have been subject to what are called ” marketing orders ” since the Depression – era programs of the late 1930s . What they do is ” take ” a portion of the grower ‘ s product , and use it to ” stabilize ” the market ..

.. what has never been quite established is that these ” marketing orders ” are takings under our US Constitution under the Fifth Amendment . Yes , the Fifth Amendment , remember the second clause ..

.. [h/t — m.NationalReview.com]..
.. [link] to the blog posting ..

.. what the Supreme Court decided [and , as usual , the media butchered] is that yes , these marketing orders are a taking ..

.. Carrie Severino of National Review puts it better ..

The Court had to address three questions to decide whether this constituted a taking, and on this question, eight justices were in agreement.

First, it determined whether the Constitution’s Takings Clause, the text of which simply addresses “private property,” covers only real estate, or whether it also covers personal property (like the raisins in this case). The Court rightly held that the words “private property” are broad enough to cover property in general, so “the Government has a categorical duty to pay just compensation when it takes your car, just as when it takes your home.” This reading is particularly sensible in light of history, including Revolutionary War-era appropriations of personal property that angered the colonists and likely inspired the constitutional protections. The Chief even cited the understanding of property in the Magna Carta, which just last week celebrated its 800th birthday.

The second question for the Court was whether a contingent residual interest in the property was enough to compensate growers for the taking. In this case, after the raisins were disposed of (in various noncompetitive markets or even given away), growers were paid their share of any net proceeds – often less than the cost of producing the crop or nothing at all. The Court held that the speculative possibility of a payment at a later date was not sufficient to save the scheme. Law students will recall that even forcible installation of a cable box on a rooftop constitutes a taking due (presumably small) compensation. In light of that precedent, it’s hard to see why losing control over how one’s crop is used wouldn’t be a taking. Under the USDA’s program, the government takes title to (full legal ownership of) the raisins and has the right to dispose of them however it wants. Any residual funds paid to growers would simply be accounted to the “just compensation” due for such a taking.

It’s significant that the physical taking of the raisins was key to the Court’s result on both these questions. While many have decried the burden that purely regulatory takings place on the economy, the Court’s decision explicitly distinguishes this case from that sort of taking. So the answer may have come out differently if, for example, growers were simply limited in the ways they could use their raisins rather than having their raisins physically “appropriated” from them and title given to the government. That case will have to wait for another term.

The third question considered by the Court was whether the raisin-confiscation scheme was still a taking despite the fact that it was a “condition on permission to engage in commerce.” The government was arguing, in effect, that the raisin growers opted into this scheme voluntarily in exchange for being allowed to sell their crop at all. But Chief Justice Roberts wrote that saying “let them sell wine” (the vintner’s equivalent of “let them eat cake”) is cold comfort and anyway outside the government’s authority. While the government can require compliance with safety regulations for sellers of pesticides,

Selling produce in interstate commerce, although certainly subject to reasonable government regulation, is . . . not a special governmental benefit that the Government may hold hostage, to be ransomed by the waiver of constitutional protection.

As the Chief put it, “[r]aisins are not dangerous pesticides; they are a healthy snack.” And selling normal agricultural products shouldn’t require farmers to go to the government with hat in hand.

But even a wine cellar can’t reach the chilling effects of the government‘s asserted entitlement to control of the growers’ property. While the government had the good sense not to endorse the Ninth Circuit’s attempts to limit the Fifth Amendment to protecting real property, it showed little respect for property owners. Its arguments suggested that Americans should have to ask permission from their benevolent overlords to be allowed to enter the marketplace at all. The government argued that being allowed to “keep the change” after a third party disposed of nearly half the annual crop was equivalent to retaining full ownership of the literal fruit of one’s labors.

The 5-4 section of the opinion dealt with whether the Hornes had received just compensation for their raisins. The Chief held that the value of the grapes had already been established by the government itself when it assessed a nearly half-million dollar fine on the Hornes as the value of the grapes they refused to release to federal agents. The case was thus neatly resolved by simply canceling out the fine imposed by the government.

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Well , His Lordship Loses Again [#exec action][#immigration][#appeals court]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Tuesday,June 2nd,2015

.. yep , he lost again ..

.. in a 2 to 1 decision , POTUS had his request for the injunction on his policy change on DAPA [and DACA] to be lifted . The court heard the request . The court majority [the 2 judges] said no ..

.. they said that there was no reason to lift the injunction [it was granted properly] . Also , the case for which the injuction that was granted is still at the district court level . Judge Andrew Hanen of the 5th Circuit still has the case in his court . Also was it most important is whether the Government has the possibility of winning the case on the merits …

.. [h/t — McClatchyDC.com]..
.. [link] to the news story ..

.. the court said the likelihood was no .

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… States can Set some Limits [#vanity license plates]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Thursday,May 14th,2015

.. but Texas really goofed on this one ..

.. States should be able to set some simple guidelines , ones that everyone has to follow . One is a minimum [reasonable] number , or one that is financially guaranteed by a bond by the group in question . Subject material is another …

.. [h/t — TruthRevolt]..
.. [link] to the blog news post …

.. States are notorious for their censorship of license plate messages . They are especially on the hunt for ones that are obscene , no matter what the language . California got filleted recently for letting one through that was patently obscene , but in Vietnamese . San Jose [Ca] is a heavily Vietnamese area , and they easily understood the meaning , one that Caltrans definitely whiffed on . So , they do not like them …

Sons of Confederate Veterans [Texas] license plate

.. But , censoring one like this for the Sons of Confederate Veterans is going a bit too far . It is clearly not obscene . A flag is clearly within good taste . So , Texas , what gives ?? …

.. The Supremes are going to fix this issue for Texas and many other states , and , if need be , set some rules , if the legislature does not beat them to it …

Posted in legal question, moral action, moral question, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Today is A – Day [#Argument Day]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Wednesday,March 4th,2015

.. yep , it is Argument Day .

.. today , arguments are held at the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of King v Burwell . Yep , it is another ObamaCrapCare care ..

.. except in this case , it is damn serious . Given the actions of the Government , and , in particular , the Infernal Revenue Service , it is absolutely critical ….

.. the Government feels that they can re – write and re – interpret statutes as they see fit . No , they cannot . The precedent that was set in the ruling Chevron v NRDC [commonly called ” Chevron Deference] . The government has some latitude , but only so much latitude in calling a spade a spade . In other words , they cannot engage in creative writing by rewriting and reinterpreting a statute …

.. Professor Jon Adler [of CWRU] and Michael Cannon [of the Cato Institute] really hit a home run when they did the ground – breaking research on their paper . They really hit the nail on the head . The government went too far …

.. now , it is up to the U.S. Supreme Court . One part of the decision is to make the tough decision . The Government royally screwed up . Someone needs to hold them to account for it . The other is to actually hold the government to account …

Posted in communications strategy, constitutional opinion, legal question, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… The ” Supremes ” Intervene [#US Supreme Court] [#Ohio voting case]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Tuesday,November 25th,2014

.. it turns my planned series of posts on the election law case in my home state of Ohio inside out and upside down …

.. oh well …

.. the US Supreme Court intervened in the white hot Voting Right act case here in the Buckeye State . Previously , a radical activist [Clintonista] overturned the work of the Ohio legislature and the Ohio Secretary of State , Jon Husted . Their work would have trimmed back some of the unnecessary extra early voting time in my home state . It wwould also eliminated what has come to be called the ” Golden ” week . That ” Golden week has allowed people to register to vote , and then to immediately cast their vote vote , all in the same motion ….

..now , the work of the legislature and SecState Husted are back on , at least for this election , I believe …

.. [h/t — ScotusBlog.com]..
.. [link] to the court case post …

.. now comes more legal brawling , sure to come . The state of Ohio now has to formally apply for what is known as ” certiorari ” before the Court . There is no guarantee , though that what is called ” cert ” will be granted . However , my guess is that , unless there is a total screwup on the cert petition , it will be granted …

–[update]– cert (certiorari) has been granted . I am not sure whether it is for this term , but I  would not be surprised if it were for this term  . A case like this one is one that is likely to be decided in June , without question . My guess is that there  are at least 5 firm votes [more than likely , 6] to overturn the antics of the two lower courts [DC judge Economous and the 6th  Circuit panel  (all loonie lefties)] on their disparate impact arguments …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… The 4th Appeals Circuit Panel does not Get It [#election law case]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Saturday,October 18th,2014

… the liberal activists got lucky ..

.. they drew a judicial panel of radical activists …

.. unfortunately , the US Supreme Court is going to have to step in in this case , as well …

.. [h/t — PoliticsUSA.com]..
.. [link] to the news article …

.. the appeals court panel struck down parts of North Carolina ‘ s recent election [voting rights] regulation law . They have acted to restore anequivalent of what is called in Ohio as ” Golden Week . ” Golden Week makes trying to verify a person ‘ s voter registration a real headache for the county where that person lives and the state . It does not allow them to verify information before that person is allowed to cast an immediate ballot , as is done in ” Golden Week . ”

.. The state and county won at the district court level , in a clear and stunning victory . The loons then appeals . Well , they did indeed get lucky . For now…

.. so , the US Supreme Court will have to intervene . Again ….

.. what will it take for the radicals to get the message ? The ” disparate impact ” theory of legal judgement is unnatural , immoral , and evil . It must stop …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… You Have to Be Kidding [#sham marriage suit in Oregon]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Monday,October 6th,2014

.. yet , here it is …

.. having to deal with a radical activist AG in Oregon is bad enough .

.. in a case in an Appeals Circuit [the 9th Circuit] that is the very worst for radical activism in the U.S. is even worse . This circuit was the home base for the pro – so – called gay marriage case Hollingsworth v Perry , right out of California …

.. [h/t — m.NationalReview.com(BenchMemos)]..
.. [link] to the case documents …

.. but active collusion betwee the parties ?? … come on ??? …

.. it is clear from the documentation that the National Organization of Marriage has got the State and the opposing parties dead to rights . They were caught in the act of active and open collusion before , during , and after the court case . Even during the appeallate phase …

.. it is clear that this case should be vacated and reversed . It will be brought again , without doubt . However , the private parties should be allowed to fight it out . The state of Oregon should be ordered to stay out of it , and should be severely sanctioned for its misconduct …

Posted in body of law, legal opinion, legal question, legal strategy, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Jan Brewer really Gets It [#imperial POTUS]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Saturday,September 13th,2014

.. she really does get it .

.. so , Crane v. Napolitano will live on , but in a different cloak .

.. her case is already at the 9th Circuit . It will not be finished there by the time that she leaves office in January . God willing , her successor will be a Republican , and one who understands the fight …

.. [h/t — Newsmax]..
.. [link] to the article ..

.. D.A.C.A. was created by imperial fiat . Now , we as a country are reaping the whirlwind of the results . POTUS really thinks that he is going to get $$ without restrictions ?? No way …

Posted in body of law, personal opinion, political accountability | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… A Unique Dissent [#Hobby Lobby]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Tuesday,July 22nd,2014

.. you will find , sometimes , that judges or justices will absent themselves from parts of an opinion ..

.. it is rare at the appeals level .

.. However , it is much more common at the US Supreme Court . Sometimes , one justice has a different interpretation of the fact pattern from another . When they do , it can leade to a slightly different result …

.. the Hobby Lobby case is a case in point . Justices Breyer and Kagan absented themselves from part of Justice Ginsberg ‘ s dissent …

.. [h/t — m.NationalReview(BenchMemos)]..
.. [link] to the fact pattern …

In their one-paragraph dissent, Justices Breyer and Kagan say this (and this is their opinion in its entirety):

We agree with JUSTICE GINSBURG that the plaintiffs’ challenge to the contraceptive coverage requirement fails on the merits. We need not and do not decide whether either for-profit corporations or their owners may bring claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. Accordingly, we join all but Part III–C–1 of JUSTICE GINSBURG’s dissenting opinion.

Part III-C-1 of Justice Ginsburg’s opinion, concerning the rights of for-profit corporations, runs from page 13 to page 20 of her 35-page opinion, or about 20% of it.  There is no section of her opinion that is longer than this one.  Announcing that they do not join this part is the only reason for Breyer and Kagan to write separately.  They express neither disagreement nor agreement with the contrary conclusion of the Court that such corporations are protected under RFRA.  But it is very, very good news that there are only two justices on the Court–only Ginsburg and Sotomayor–who are willing to make the transparently bad argument that when you go into business for a profit under the corporate form, you lose your religious freedom under the law.

.. in this case , these two differed from the resulting judgement of the case . They did not agree with the majority opinion . However , they differed with Justice Ginsberg in one important section .. corporations and religious rights . Ginsberg does not evidently believe in them . However , from the writing of their concurring dissent [which is unusual] , they do , however .

.. So , as to the result of religion and corporations , the result of the case [which is all important] is not 5 to 4 . It is actually 5 to 2 , with 2 abstentions . Those abstentions are highly unusual , and with the Supremes , extraordinary …

Posted in body of law, legal opinion, legal strategy, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Dingy Harry is off his rocker [#pro death bill]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Sunday,July 20th,2014

.. and this pro – death bill scheme is going to blow up in his face .

.. what this is , folks , is a pro – death bill . It is misleadingly called the ” Women ‘ s Health Protection Act . ” What it is is a rewrap of what used to be called the ” Freedom of Choice Act . ” What a pukified and obscene joke …

.. [h/t — LifeNews]..
.. [link] to the news article …

.. What this bill does , among other obscene items , is repeal pro – life measures at the state and local level . Even ones that were adjudged o.k. by State Supreme Courts and the U.S. Supreme Court would be wiped out . Also , all federal pro – life measures , including the Hyde Amendment (prohibiting federal funding of abortion) would be gone …

.. what chance does this bill have in the House — None . Zip . Zilch . There is no way in hell that it would pass , even with a DemoCrap majority . Pelosi is Pro – Death , but she is not stupid . She can add . The great mass of the House GOP is pro – life . Even the moderates are borderline pro – life . There are at least 3 dozen pro – lifers , including many Latinos , in the House DemoCrap caucus . So , forget about it …

.. so , why ? to gin up the base with the floor debate and the media publicity . The DemoCraps need all of the help with their base that they can get . Even safe DemoCrap seats [Ca Gov , NY Gov , for example] are starting to get a little unconfortable …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Nancy Pelosi is a … [#take your pick]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Sunday,July 20th,2014

.. liar .

.. coward …

.. [fill in your choice here] …

.. [h/t — HotAir]..
.. [link] to the video critique …

.. Bravo , Megyn (Kelly) ! She really takes the wood to Nancy Pelosi for taking the Hobby Lobby decision all out of sorts …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… the Battle over Hobby Lobby Continues …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Saturday,July 12th,2014

.. and , amazingly , it gets much better ..

.. Wheaton College is a religious – oriented school . They challenged ObamaCrapCare in the lower levels of the courts . I am not sure , but I think that they may have lost in the lower levels of the courts …

.. now comes the effects of the Hobby Lobby decision . And the court ‘ s liberals have split , with Steven Breyer siding with the conservatives , and the 3 ladies issuing a vehement dissent …. which is rare , because the order for Wheaton college v . Burwell was a per curiam [ or unsigned] opinion…

.. [h/t —HotAir]..
.. [link] to the blog news post …

.. from HotAir …

After the Hobby Lobby decision, a number of people pointed to a reference to the so-called “accommodation” for religious-oriented organizations in the HHS contraception mandate to conclude that the Supreme Court’s decision would be limited to the for-profit sector, and only to certain methods of contraception. A series of orders the next day showed the latter was not true, and a decision late yesterday suggests the former isn’t, either. An emergency injunction on behalf of Wheaton College sparked the ire of three Supreme Court justices, who issued an angry dissent to the unsigned order that temporarily sets aside the “accommodation”:

Today, the Supreme Court granted Wheaton College an injunction pending appeal against enforcement of the contraception mandate, even though Wheaton was eligible for the accommodation HHS has provided for religious non-profits. Specifically the Court ordered:

If the applicant informs the Secretary of Health and Human Services in writing that it is a non-profit organization that holds itself out as religious and has religious objections to providing coverage for contraceptive services, the respondents are enjoined from enforcing against the applicant the challenged provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and related regulations pending final disposition of appellate review. To meet the condition for injunction pending appeal, the applicant need not use the form prescribed by the Government, EBSA Form 700, and need not send copies to health insurance issuers or third-party administrators.

.. and it continues …

First, the issuance of a temporary injunction is not a decision, as Sotomayor well knows. Sotomayor herself issued a temporary injunction to stop enforcement of the mandate on the Little Sisters of the Poor, which caused an eruption of hysteria and Know-Nothing anti-Catholic bigotry at the beginning of the year — a foreshadowing of what we saw this week, actually. A stay is just a pause that allows the courts to consider the issue at hand before enforcement does serious damage to the plaintiff, based on a reasonably good chance for the petitioner to win the case but not a decision on the merits. The court signaled that they want a closer look at the accommodation, not yet that it’s not acceptable.

But didn’t they already rule on the accommodation in Hobby Lobby? Not yet, as I warned earlier this week. Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion does cite the accommodation, but never directly finds that it satisfies the RFRA. He mentions it to demonstrate an entirely different point — that the government didn’t offer to Hobby Lobby what it did to other organizations and which HHS claims as satisfactory to relieve the burden on religious expression, which means that even by the government’s own standard they did not use the least burdensome method to satisfy what they consider a compelling state interest:

Wheaton College v Burwell opn segment

Posted in legal opinion, legal strategy, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Victory at the Supreme Court [#Harris v. Quinn]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Monday,July 7th,2014

.. hell , yeah !! ..

.. now , Pamela Harris can take care of her son in peace . Also , the unions [the S.E.I.U., in particular] can keep their collective noses out of a a disabled parent ‘ s business , caring for their loved one or elderly relative , in a home setting ..

.. what the public unions have been doing is nothing short of a power play . These are people who receive public subsidy money for taking care of their loved ones in their homes . Even nurses aides and private care nurses are swept up in this powergrab by the public sector unions …

.. [h/t — HotAir]..

.. [link] to  the blog news ..

.. these people are not public employees . They are not hired , fired , or are disciplined by the state or other jurisdiction . They are their own private employer , not anything else …

.. from HotAir …

The decision in this case narrowly centered on that distinction, but offers a window into a path for broader rollbacks of forced participation in PEU funding:

The Supreme Court dealt a blow to public sector unions Monday, ruling that thousands of home health care workers in Illinois cannot be required to pay fees that help cover the union’s costs of collective bargaining.

In a 5-4 split along ideological lines, the justices said the practice violates the First Amendment rights of nonmembers who disagree with the positions that unions take.

The ruling is a setback for labor unions that have bolstered their ranks — and bank accounts — in Illinois and other states by signing up hundreds of thousands of in-home care workers. It could lead to an exodus of members who will have little incentive to pay dues if nonmembers don’t have to share the burden of union costs.

But the ruling was limited to this particular segment of workers and it stopped short of overturning decades of practice that has generally allowed public sector unions of teachers, firefighters and other government workers to pass through their representation costs to nonmembers.

This AP read misses one essential fact from the Harris opinion, which is that it’s not about “nonmembers” at all, but about non-employees. “PAs are much different from public employees,” the court held in the majority opinion. The appellate court had found in favor of Illinois using Abood, which upheld the demand for “agency fees” from employees in a union shop that refused to join the union and/or objected to dues going to political activities. But Abood assumes that the union’s collective bargaining benefits non-members as well as members, which is only true if they have the same employment status.

That’s not the case in Harris, which means that agency fees cannot be collected:

The Illinois Legislature has taken pains to specify that personal assistants are public employees for one purpose only: collective bargaining. For all other pur­poses, Illinois regards the personal assistants as private­ sector employees. This approach has important practical consequences.

For one thing, the State’s authority with respect to these two groups is vastly different. In the case of full-fledged public employees, the State establishes all of the duties imposed on each employee, as well as all of the qualifica­tions needed for each position. The State vets applicants and chooses the employees to be hired. The State provides or arranges for whatever training is needed, and it supervises and evaluates the employees’ job performance and imposes corrective measures if appropriate. If a state employee’s performance is deficient, the State may dis­charge the employee in accordance with whatever proce­dures are required by law.

None of this applies to the PAs, nor does the state assume any liability for the conduct of PAs, either. The intrusion of state-imposed unionization of individual homes and employment would “invite problems,” chiefly on where to draw the lines:

Consider a continuum, ranging, on the one hand, from full-fledged state employees to, on the other hand, individuals who follow a common calling and benefit from advocacy or lobbying conducted by a group to which they do not belong and pay no dues. A State may not force every person who benefits from this group’s efforts to make payments to the group. See Lehnert, 500 U. S., at 556 (opinion of SCALIA, J.). But what if regula­tion of this group is increased? What if the Federal Gov­ernment or a State begins to provide or increases subsidies in this area? At what point, short of the point at which the individuals in question become full-fledged state em­ployees, should Abood apply?

If respondents’ and the dissent’s views were adopted, a host of workers who receive payments from a governmen­tal entity for some sort of service would be candidates for inclusion within Abood’s reach. Medicare-funded home health employees may be one such group. See Brief for Petitioners 51; 42 U. S. C. §1395x(m); 42 CFR §424.22(a). The same goes for adult foster care providers in Oregon
(Ore. Rev. Stat. §443.733 (2013)) and Washington (Wash. Rev. Code §41.56.029 (2012)) and certain workers under the federal Child Care and Development Fund programs (45 CFR §98.2).

Clearly this anticipates a much wider claim of government authority had Harris proceeded along the path granted by the lower courts.

However, the problems for PEUs don’t end there with the Harris opinion. The fate of Abood, which allows for forced collection of agency fees, looks potentially gloomy, depending on whether it gets challenged on its own. Justice Samuel Alito strongly hints that Abood itself might get reversed if directly challenged:

The Abood Court’s analysis is questionable on several grounds. Some of these were noted or apparent at or before the time of the decision, but several have become more evident and troubling in the years since then.

The Abood Court seriously erred in treating Hanson and Street as having all but decided the constitutionality of compulsory payments to a public-sector union. As we have explained, Street was not a constitutional decision at all, and Hanson disposed of the critical question in a single, unsupported sentence that its author essentially aban­doned a few years later. Surely a First Amendment issue of this importance deserved better treatment.

The Abood Court fundamentally misunderstood the holding in Hanson, which was really quite narrow. As the Court made clear in Street, “all that was held in Hanson was that [the RLA] was constitutional in its bare authori­zation of union-shop contracts requiring workers to give ‘financial support’ to unions legally authorized to act as their collective bargaining agents.” 367 U. S., at 749 (emphasis added). In Abood, on the other hand, the State of Michigan did more than simply authorize the imposition of an agency fee. A state instrumentality, the Detroit Board of Education, actually imposed that fee. This pre­sented a very different question.

This case did not challenge Abood but rather its extension to private-sector employees paid in part with subsidies from the state. That’s probably why the 5-4 majority didn’t summon the will to directly address Abood, but Alito has done everything except send semaphore signals to interested parties that might want to take a whack at overturning it. That would address the issues of PEU reform at its core by essentially mandating open shops in public-sector bureaucracies.

The direct ruling on Harris is bad enough for PEUS, but it may mean something worse down the line. For politicians looking to sell out home health-care workers to curry favor with union donors, it’s the end of one part of the gravy train, and an end to a potential line of reasoning that may have trapped a much wider part of the private sector into the government’s web of control and corruption.

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… NLRB v Noel Canning [#US Supreme Court]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Thursday,July 3rd,2014

.. well , they ruled .

.. and HOW ! ..

.. [h/t — m.NationalReview]..
.. [link] to the expert commentary …
.. [NLRB v Noel Canning [POTUS powers — recess appts]] to the court opinion …

.. Noel Canning is a private business . It was fighting a diktat from the lawless Obama NLRB ordering it to implement a labor agreement with its union . Slight problem : the NLRB did not have a quorum to transact business …

.. so His Lordship rammed through his 3 appointees during a supposed Senate ” recess ” that was not a recess . The US Supreme Court called them on it , and how …

.. The ObamaCraps were slapped down 9 – 0 by the Supremes . Ouch …

.. Don’t worry . A POTUS still can make recess appointments . Now , the rules are clearer . Remember , the House still has a say . The Senate cannot go out on recess for more than 3 days without the permission of the House of Representatives . It is the same the other way …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

… A Sad Commentary on the Economy [#ObamaCrap EPA regs]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Monday,June 30th,2014

.. yea , it is very sad .

.. but , it is to the point .

branco cartoon (OC coal killer)

.. [h/t — Comicallyincorrect]..
.. [link] to the cartoon..

.. I would have had it as a nuclear weapon . A stick of dynamite is something the coal industry can survive . Also , the juxtapose would be far more hilarious …

.. [update] — with the Supreme Court ruling in UARG v EPA , at least the EPA ‘ s sails have been trimmed a pretty fair bit . More than they realize . The Court liberals tend to grossly underestimate how gifted an opinion writer Antonin Scalia really is . This opinion was a real dandy …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… A Significant Supreme Court Decision [UARG v EPA] …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Sunday,June 29th,2014

.. well , whatdoes it mean ? ..

.. well , the government does still get to regulate greenhouse gasses . That will be the case as long as the current lineup of the Supreme Court remains unchanges. Once a change comes (hopefully , for the better) , then the EPA can be forces to retreat …

.. [h/t — m.NationalReview(BenchMemos)]..
.. [link] to the blog post ..

.. the decision basically says that the agency (in this case , the EPA) will be granted a certain amount of latitude . That latitude , known in the trade as “Chevron Deference,” gives an agency the ability to implement (within reason) the law and intent of a statute . However , what I think the liberals do not understand with this decision is that UARG limits that deference to a clear point , within reason . It cannot be stretched , as Chief Justice Rehnquist once put it , beyond the limits of reason with the strands of a rubber bands as to be unrecognizable …

Posted in body of law, legal opinion, legal strategy, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… the PC Police strikes Again [#Gay Rights crowd]

Posted by paulfromwloh on Friday,June 6th,2014

.. so , what else is new ..

.. this gentleman is a gay rights supporter and a law professor at the University of Virginia law school . So , what problem does the PC crowd have ?? …

.. [h/t — Powerlineblog]..
.. [link] to the blog post ..

.. he was ” insufficiently ” gay – rights friendly . That is the problem . He wrote a letter to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer during the debate over SB 1062 , the religious freedom restoration bill . He made it clear that the bill struck a fair balance between the rights of the individual business owner who delivers services and those who request services … That set off the gay community , or , at least this interest group …

.. how ridiculous . Gov Brewer eventually vetoed the bill , but ones like it are steadily popping up and making their way through the legislatures in other states . The gay rights crowd cannot stop them . They might want to , but they cannot …

.. Also , the US Supreme Court is going to have to deal with this issue , yet again . This time , I believe , especially with the Hosanna Tabor and Town of Greece precedents , it will rule 6 to 3 in favour of religious liberty …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… If I were Asked [Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Thursday,April 3rd,2014

… what do I think will happen ? …

.. if asked , I would answer …

.. [h/t — m.NationalReview]..

.. [link] to the blog post ..

.. central finding [corporate exercise of religion , substantial burden] — 6 to 3 — Thomas , Roberts , Alito , Kennedy , Breyer , Scalia …

… actual case [strict scrutiny] — 5 to 4 — Thomas , Roberts , Alito , Scalia , Kennedy …

Posted in constitutional opinion, legal opinion, legal strategy, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Well , What do I Think [Hobby Lobby v Sebelius] …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Sunday,March 30th,2014

.. drawn in part from ScotusBlog , and in part from National Review ‘ s Bench Memos …

.. I think that the government is in big trouble ….

.. [h/t — ScotusBlog]..

.. [link] to the blog post ..

.. — Note — this stuff by Amy Howe of ScotusBlog helps bring the dry rigamarole of law and legal arguments into plain English . It tries to translate the legal schtuff that most folks (even me , sometimes) do not always understand , and bring it to everyday folks in a simpler and plainer manner , especially less verbose …

.. back to the wars — women can still get their health insurance and their benefits . It is just that they will not be able to get their corporate bosses to finance the abortion – related part of it , the public financing of which is already illegal under federal law .

.. also , it is a substantial burden to force people over their moral objections to pay for things that for which they have substantial and paraamount moral objections to , such as abortion and abortifacient drugs . It is not that women cannot get them . The companies are not interfering in that . It is that the government cannot force individuals , either directly (as a sole proprietorship or partnership) or as a corporation (indirectly) to violate their firmly held First Amendment rights to  freedom of religion and finance something that for which they have sincerely and deeply held moral objections …

Posted in constitutional opinion, legal info, legal opinion, legal strategy, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »