Just ask SCOTUS.
BZ
Tag Archives: SCOTUS
ObamaCare: good for SCOTUS
Goose and gander, anyone?
You, of course, realize that the Supreme Court of the United States wouldn’t deign to sully its hands with the lowly healthcare afforded the Proles and Serfs and Groundlings of this fine nation — having deemed, twice now — that ObakaKare is the law of the land. Hok-ptui! on ObakaKare, they say.
And with that, a Texas representative has come up with his own novel solution for arrogance, because SCOTUS happens to be exempt from same.
From TheHill.com:
House bill would force the Supreme Court to enroll in ObamaCare
by Mark Hensch
A House Republican on Thursday proposed forcing the Supreme Court justices and their staff to enroll in ObamaCare.
Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas) said that his SCOTUScare Act would make all nine justices and their employees join the national healthcare law’s exchanges.
“As the Supreme Court continues to ignore the letter of the law, it’s important that these six individuals understand the full impact of their decisions on the American people,” he said.
“That’s why I introduced the SCOTUScare Act to require the Supreme Court and all of its employees to sign up for ObamaCare,” Babin said.
Babin’s potential legislation would only let the federal government provide healthcare to the Supreme Court and its staff via ObamaCare exchanges.
“By eliminating their exemption from ObamaCare, they will see firsthand what the American people are forced to live with,” he added.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen.
Goose and gander.
BZ
Policing America: should the green shirts be exchanged for Brown Shirts?
I submit that is a question you need to ask.
First, watch this video, an excerpt from the John Stossel show “Policing America: Security vs Liberty” recently broadcasted on Fox News, July 26th, involving USBP checkpoints up to 100 miles inland from an American border:
I find this shameful and repulsive, personally and professionally. As anyone in law enforcement (as I am) knows, there is the spirit or the law and the letter of the law.
A pastor had both of his vehicle windows broken and was Tazed from both sides when he refused to let USBP search his vehicle. He is Caucasoid and spoke clear English.
The issue? The federal law indicating “a reasonable distance from the border.” Is 60 miles reasonable? 100 miles? Yes, 100 miles. As Stossel points out, that’s where most Americans live, when you consider our borders north and south, and our coastlines east and west.
Some persons are installing cameras in their cars to document these abrogations, God bless them. This is pushback and they are patriotic for doing so. Again, see the video above.
The SCOTUS said that travelers can be briefly detained for the purpose of conducting a limited inquiry into residence status, as per United States vs Martinez-Fuerte, 428 US 543 (1976). Neither the vehicle nor its occupants can be searched, yet the video clearly shows that Americans are being told to submit to detentions, searches, and arrests resulting from non-cooperation when more than an ID check is demanded.
How does one conduct a brief check into residency status? Speak to the individual stopped, see if they speak English, check for a driver’s license and/or other forms of identification. Any prudent and reasonable LEO can tell you this readily.
What we see displayed above is what is known in law enforcement as “contempt of cop.” As in: you have pissed me off because you have dared to challenge my authority, and I am now making it personal.
John Stossel says “big government creates problems,” and that is certainly the case here, involving the Fourth Amendment. “It’s like living in occupied territory,” some lawful residents of the United States of America are saying.
More Americans, as Stossel says, are pushing back. As I submit they should, particularly if they possess video evidence of their incidents. Further, as an affected citizen in an incident similar to those above, I would be suing the federal agencies involved and then the individuals themselves because, as the agents themselves made it personal, perhaps they should take a helping of “personal” in return.
Let there be no mistake: I have been in law enforcement for 41 years. I have worked in a LE capacity for the federal government and for local agencies, where I have worked now for 35 years. I was a Field Training Officer (FTO) in Patrol and have been in training the bulk of my LE career. I taught my trainees to respect the foundational documents and in fact they had not only to conform to my agency training regimen, but my personal training regimen as well, which included knowledge about the Bill of Rights and its applicable amendments.
I emphasized that arrests and detentions should be built but upon solid probable cause and reasonable suspicion, and that we do not bluff. If the law is not on our side, then we don’t make a potential bad situation worse. We know, I would literally say (and wrote in my own adjunct training manual that I would hand out to my charges), when to back down.
Let me submit this for your consideration: if the USBP were literally “striking it rich” from vehicle blockades many miles within the United States proper, they and the Obama Administration would be crowing about it from the tallest of spires, the mightiest hilltops, far and wide, proving the efficacy of these policies. Not only that, the American Media Maggots, sycophants that they are, would plaster these statistics over TV screens and newspapers for days and days.
Except they aren’t. Which tells me one very salient thing: the stats are not bearing out the efficacy of this policy. Trust me, if these interior check points were literal gold mines of success and productivity you would know.
And as far as Representative Peter King (R) is concerned, he is wrong. Open your eyes. All you have to do, sir, is watch this video.
Big Brother is indeed watching. But in this case, watching the wrong Americans — whilst purposely allowing illegal invaders easy passage through our southern border.
This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to me.
This is not the America I remember from even, say, 30 years ago.
I still adhere to the age-old axiom and standard I was held to when I worked Detectives, in Theft, Child Abuse, Warrants, Robbery and Homicide: see below.
That is how it is done in a free United States of America where the police respect the foundational documents, the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Should the USBP exchange their green shirts for Brown Shirts?
BZ
Monday’s second SCOTUS ruling in re Union membership:
On the heels of the Monday SCOTUS ruling involving Hobby Lobby et al:
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that some corporations can hold religious objections that allow them to opt out of the new health law requirement that they cover contraceptives for women.
Leftists, Progressives and Demorats all began their unanimous bleat about a so-called “war on women.”
It is, instead, a War on the American Taxpayer. In terms of making the American Taxpayer responsible for funding contraception for women who still have any number of free venues available to them for contraceptive solutions, to include Planned Parenthood and various clinics open in each and every college and university across the land.
The argument was predicated upon religion, yes. But I submit it was also foundationally (if not more so) predicated upon the mandatory payment, by businesses, of contraception for women. Not just for religious-based businesses but for all businesses. And: WHY should ANY business be forced to pay for contraception for any employee?
Male or female, Viagra or pill or diaphragm or condom, no business should be forced by government to pay for those contraceptive items. According to four justices, however, you cannot even opt out. Do they not understand that the federal government is not solving the nation’s problems?
That said, there was a second SCOTUS ruling that occurred on Monday, less revealed.
Harris v. Quinn, 5-4.
From the AP.org:
Court: Public union can’t make nonmembers pay fees
by Sam Hananel
WASHINGTON (AP)
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 a 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.
This sounds like a negative SEIU ruling, as affecting Fornicalia.
The ruling is a setback for labor unions that have bolstered their ranks and their 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.
As in: what becomes the benefit in joining a so-called “union,” in terms of my bottom-line paycheck?
Writing for the court, Justice Samuel Alito said home care workers “are different from full-fledged public employees” because they work primarily for their disabled or elderly customers and do not have most of the rights and benefits of state employees. The ruling does not affect private sector workers.
BZ
P.S.
If one more liberal Justice is appointed in this country, we will lose our social and political and personal freedoms in this country. And then woe, shall we be.
ObamaKare cracks: SCOTUS rules about forced contraception coverage
From the Associated Press:
Justices: Can’t make employers cover contraception
by Mark Sherman
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that some corporations can hold religious objections that allow them to opt out of the new health law requirement that they cover contraceptives for women.
The justices’ 5-4 decision is the first time that the high court has ruled that profit-seeking businesses can hold religious views under federal law. And it means the Obama administration must search for a different way of providing free contraception to women who are covered under objecting companies’ health insurance plans.
As I’ve said before to women: you can have all the contraception you can stuff down your gullets and other locales. I just don’t want to be forced to pay for it.
And with some religious-based businesses, that is now the law of the land.
Though, of course, the Obaka Regime continues to abhor the Rule of Law.
Please read the full article here.
Is the King undressing before our very eyes?
BZ