Mark Levin On Supreme Court ObamaCare Decision

Mark Levin is a constitutional scholar and practicing lawyer, has one of the most listened to radio talk shows, has written four books (on law, culture and politics which I highly recommend), and is president of Landmark Legal Foundation. Arguably one on the best legal minds in the country. This is the clearest, most detailed analysis of  the lawless Supreme Court\Chief Justice Roberts ObamaCare decision I've found. This will take some time, but it's important to know these details; freedom in America is at stake, and those of us not Statists, need to make the case for the repeal of it to everyone we talk to about this.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Another Federal Government Attack on Christianity

It's been a tradition as long as this country has existed, and that's placing crosses to commemorate the dead. It's been part of the ACLU,  neo-atheists and the Federal Government to expunge Christianity from the nation for decades. The most recent attack has been on crosses placed in Utah to commemorate Highway Patrolmen killed in the line of duty.

Statist judges have decided that these crosses are unconstitutional. I've looked over the US Constitution a lot, and I don't see any mention of crosses. Don't see anything in there about religion, except the government can't make you pray and go to religious services of their choosing.

The alleged judges from Denver's 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals said it's in there, that the crosses were endorsing Christianity. These crosses, 12 foot high, 6 foot cross bar, were paid for privately by citizens with the agreement of the families of the fallen officers. A short biography of an officer was on each cross.

When you see a cross on the highway, what first comes to mind? Someone who has died or Christ resurrected? The alleged judges said that any "reasonable observer" would conclude the state of Utah and the Utah Highway Patrol were endorsing Christianity. They only think that because they are secularist anti-Christian bigots. It took 38 pages of opinion to say they will not tolerate anything that reminds them, not anyone else, of Christianity, and to insult the law enforcement community.

The suit was brought the American Atheists Inc. Atheism has been ruled by the Supreme Court to be a religion, so these three alleged judges have chosen one religion over another, and used the force of law to implement the Atheists' belief.

Supported by Statist Secular alleged judges.

This is an insult to the fallen patrolmen, their families and Christianity.

This is an endorsement of Secularism, Statism, and Atheism by the Federal Government.

Kagan Not Supported by Rabbis

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan has been shown to be not only a Statist, but an activist one. She thinks the Constitution allows the government to limit free speech. She's for partial birth abortion. She equates the KKK and the NRA. She worked in the Clinton White House 1995-1996 on the White House Council and the White House Domestic Policy Council from 1997 to 1999. She called them (KKK & NRA) "bad guy" organizations in a ruling that had to do with tax exemptions, and of course what she said was more "nuanced" than what's being reported. (Of course you stupid conservatives and Christians and traditionalists don't understand "nuance". Well, we do understand lies and 'spin'.)

Kagan has spent very little time on the bench actually making rulings. Most of her career has been as a professor, political advisor, and advocate for Leftist causes. Three days ago the current White House finally relented and released about 160,000 pages of her stuff from her years at the White House. Confirmation hearings begin this coming week. The White House fought releasing these at all from the Clinton Library. Regarding confirmation hearings, she's said she thought the Bork hearings were just great. "I loved what happened in the Bork hearings.... The Bork hearings were great, the Bork hearings were educational, the Bork hearings were the best thing that ever happened to constitutional democracy."

We're happy to see some Jews actually not support blindly support a Liberal. (It's problematic that Jews still vote Democrat even though the Party has shown itself to be anti-Israel, antisemitic, and against all traditional Jewish values.) In this case, 850 Orthodox Rabbis of the Rabbinical Alliance of America have come out against her.

Alliance spokesman Rabbi Yehuda Levin: "...a great deal has been made about the fact that she would be the second Jewish woman on the court, and we want to signal to people across the country that we take no pride in this.”

From the Alliance statement: “It is clear from Ms. Kagan's record on issues such as abortion-on-demand, partial-birth-abortion, the radical homosexual and lesbian agenda, the 'supremacy' of the anti-family panoply over religious liberties of biblical adherents, et. al., that she will function as a flame-throwing radical, hastening society's already steep decline into Sodom and Gomorrah.”

Two Jewish members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) support Kagan. The Alliance say Kagan so flies in the face of Judaic beliefs and values that she would serve as an embarrassment to Jews.

I don't ever want to see someone "borked", but I definitely want to see the same result from the hearings. This nominee doesn't have the judicial experience to serve on the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan-Anti-Free Speech

Seriously. She wrote in the University of Chicago Law Review, titled 'Private Speech, Public Purpose: the Role of Government Motive in First Amendment Doctrine,'that the free speech clause allows the government to limit speech if the government can show "proper intent" to limit speech. I've linked to the actual paper so you can see for yourself how she justifies limiting free speech.

Reminder of what the Constitution says: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.'

It's pretty clear that 'no law' means 'no law'. That freedom of speech cannot be "abridged".

In her paper she advocates for just such governmental restrictions on free speech, as long as it can justify itself by presenting "proper intent".

She wrote that government can restrict speech if it deems that the speech may cause harm. She advocates governmental restrictions on speech that it thinks is an incitement to violence, hate-speech, threatening or “fighting” words. If the government decides that your words cause harm, in their view, you can be shut down and punished. Some of my Statist friends may like this idea, along with Obama, the Jurassic Press and Dems would like to shut down Fox News, Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, etc., so this could be a good thing. Hmmmmm, how about a Conservative president and Congress that see's the Statist reporting of MSNBC, NBC, CBS, NY Times, WaPo etc., show harm in their view?

Kagan: “The doctrine of impermissible motive, viewed in this light, holds that the government may not signify disrespect for certain ideas and respect for others through burdens on expression.” “This does not mean that the government may never subject particular ideas to disadvantage. The government indeed may do so, if acting upon neutral, harm-based reasons.” Prez and his boy and girls see harm-based reason, as they define it, can shut down free speech?

Do you really what a Supreme Court Justice that believes the government should regulate speech?

This alone disqualifies her.

Sotomayor Doesn't Even Know or Understand Law

Maloney v. Cuomo, a January 2009 ruling, Sotomayor signed the opinion that the 2nd Amendment doesn't keep states from restricting the right to bear and keep arms. Say what? She thinks the law is only Federal. Straight quote from the opinion “It is settled law, however, that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right.” A nominee to the Supreme Court believes this! Sotomayor sites some law that really doesn't apply, the 1886 Supreme Court case of Presser v. Illinois. Not being a legal person, I don't know, and really don't care, what that opinion said. Something else Sotomayor doesn't appear to know, is previous rulings by the Supreme Court regarding the Second Amendment. She also is apparently unaware of the 14th Amendment, which reads, in part: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States … nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

She also thinks that it's okay to run power plants into the ground fiscally. Cost benefit analysis to protect little fishes and other aquatic life shouldn't apply; they must be protected regardless of the cost. Higher utility bills anyone? Because you know that cost would be passed on to consumers.

This individual is not qualified and not one Republican should vote for or recommend her.

Sonia Sotomayor-Next Supreme Court Judge

She'll get the position. This is a political battle the Republicans can't win. Is she qualified? NO. Dems rejected Republican nominees because of ideology; they weren't Liberal. While we go through this, you know that she won't be treated as horribly, "borked" as Republican nominees either. How does she think?

Sandra Day O’Connor said that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.
Sotomayor said: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

There's a video of Judge Sotomayor asserting in 2005 that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.” She then immediately adds: “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.”

I've read several of her other comments. She puts her gender and ethnicity before the law. All in all, this puts the Constitution and the American people in no worse of a position than we had with Souter. She too believes in legislating from the bench. Can't get it passed in the congress, take it to court and get it done based on race, gender and international law, not the Constitution.

School Prayer and Dragnet

Just the facts. I had posted, on my MySpace blog, a school 'prayer' allegedly by a high school kid. I doubt it, but enjoyed some of the sentiments expressed nonetheless. Some Christians think school prayer was run out of schools by godless barbarians, and some non-Christians celebrate that those fire-breathing religious fanatics were stopped from running their religion down everybody's throat. Here's the facts about school prayer. There was a decision, United States Supreme Court, Engle v. Vitale in 1962. The New York State Board of Regents that runs the public schools, thought it a good public policy to have moral and spiritual training as part of educational development. Part of that was a prayer that was to be recited: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teacher and our Country."
The Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 9 in Hyde Park decided this prayer was not an option, and was going to force students to recite it daily. This ticked off some parents, and they sued using the first amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". The state court ruled against the parents, and so did the appeals court. The Board of Education and the supporters of the prayer backed down a bit, and said, well, the kids could leave the classroom or not recite the prayer. Do any of us know, or when we were kids ourselves, of any child that would not do was was mandatory for fear of being ostracized? It all went to the Supreme Court, and they said government can't force people to pray. At the end of all the brouhaha, there never was prayer in schools, except maybe before math tests and athletic competition. Both sides need to take a deep breath. As a Christian, I want people to come to God by His Grace. All force does is create resistance. And on the secular side, well, I'll let the secularists think about how they want to act. Just the facts...