EXTRA! Dodged That Bullet!

And to think…with all of the angst and criticism going on around the country right now about Merrick Garland’s decision to “personally sign the search warrant” for Mar-A-Lago, we could have very easily had that guy sitting on the Supreme Court bench for life!

That would have been a travesty of justice to say the least!

Merrick Garland, the current Attorney General of the United States of America, is the first and only Attorney General to sign a search warrant that instructs the FBI to raid the home of a former president. Bobo Obama never had this. Hillary Clinton never had this. Joe Biden never had this. Jimmy Carter never had this!

Why in the world would this idiot of a lawyer sign a document that had NEVER been signed in the history of our country before? Because he’s nothing more than a political hack, and not a very good one at that.

When I think back to Bobo Obama nominating this clown for the high court during his last year in office, and Mitch McConnell telling the world he wasn’t going to get a hearing, but that he was going to wait until the elections were over to see who won before granting Garland floor time for a confirmation hearing, I kinda sorta felt sorry for Garland. That was pure emotion and had no logic behind it. I know McConnel has taken a lot of crap from a lot of people over the years as Majority and Minority Leader in the Senate. But he was spot on for this one.

Can you imagine for a second (no longer than that please!) that Garland would be deciding constitutional issues? He would have been the worst Supreme Court justice in our nation’s history! As it is, I don’t know that he is going to be able to hold on to his job as Attorney General much past January if the GOP wins the midterms. Kevin McCarthy, the next presumptive Speaker of the House has already tweeted the Garland needs to clear his calendar for next year’s hearings, and to be ready to update his resume.

I know Democrats who don’t want to see Trump run against Biden are gleeful at this, even though most of them aren’t willing to comment publicly about it. And while I think that’s a pretty smart move that will save them embarrassment up the road, they need to realize the path they have put this country on is heading down the road to destruction. Forget an infrastructure bill. They need a bill that says Congress and the White House will follow the Constitution under the penalty of loss of all personal property.

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

The Difference Between The Right And The Left

I have sat quietly watching the Supreme Court decisions unfold in June. Oh, don’t get me wrong. I was happy to see the fact that the state of New York, which quite frankly I’ve always viewed as not just liberal but run by a bunch of narcissistic idiots that would never be allowed to even run for office in another state, get their anti-gun carry law banned. And I was happy that a “right” that was never granted by the Constitution (abortion) was overturned and given it’s rightful place back to the states, as should have happened some 50 years ago.

But what all of this has taught me is the overriding difference between the left and the right.

When the right has something passed that they don’t like, they go along with it until it can be changed. Oh, they may hold peaceful (that should have been underlined, in bold and in Italics!) rallies, as the pro-life group had done with abortion for decades. But they don’t riot in the streets. They don’t threaten bodily harm to the members of the high court. They don’t cry and weep incessantly like we’ve seen over the past few weeks. They go with the flow, gather up their members and when the time is right they change it.

What the left does is hold riots. They threaten. They go to violence almost immediately. If you don’t go along with what the left wants on an issue, you’re “cancelled” or banned. You’re the pariah. You’re the problem. It doesn’t matter that what they want makes no sense. It doesn’t matter that what they want is wrong. That doesn’t have anything to do with it. They want some crazy idea to be thrust, and they are going to spin it as “saving the children” (well, not in abortion’s case), or taking medicine or food out of grandma’s mouth. But they never give you both sides of the equation. Just because in the New York case, people can carry guns now without going through an arduous process, they think it’s going to lead to more crime. And the liberal media is going to highlight any time there is a shooting anywhere in the state, just wait.

As far as abortion is concerned, the left has always been more about protecting a non-existing “right” of women’s ability to choose what to do with her own body, rather than protecting the life of the unborn within that body. They knew they could never win an argument if killing a baby was a part of it, so they made it about “women’s health”. It’s not about women’s health. It’s about eliminating a pregnancy without regard to what they are actually doing so the women who are doing it don’t feel ashamed or guilty for killing a baby.

Of course, there are other differences as well. There’s the whole large government vs. small government argument. And you’ve got the states rights vs. federal government argument (which I thought the 10th Amendment answered quite clearly). And they don’t accept any argument that runs counter to their addle-minded way of thinking.

One of the best arguments I heard over the few weeks was, “Guns are in the Constitution. Abortion is not. Period.” Tough to argue with that one.

And until we get the youth of America educated properly, and not indoctrinated in our public schools, this fallacy of whatever I believe is right and what you prove to me that it isn’t right is dead wrong and you don’t deserve to live! has to be eliminated from our society.

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

SCOTUS Term Limits?

I’m not sure if you caught the latest attempt by the leftist snowflakes to limit the impact of a 6-3 conservative Supreme Court. Rather than pack the court, which is a terrible idea that would just end up with the population of Jacksonville, Florida sitting on the bench, liberals have decided that the answer to their problems of not getting their way in the judiciary branch is to invoke term limits. It’s a flawed argument that runs into constitutional issues (Article III, Section 1 gives Justices a life-time appointment as long as they display “good behaviour”).

But the argument goes like this.

Justices are able to serve one 18 year term on the high court. Every president would appoint a Justice in year one and year three of their term (and year five and seven if they serve two terms). So, every president would get at least two nominations. Currently, you may not get any if no one retires or dies on the high court while you’re in office. Donald Trump got three in just four years. So every court would consist of no longer than the last 2 1/2 to 4 1/2 administrations “to better reflect the current make up of the American public.”

Here are the flaws. First, it would require a constitutional amendment. The last constitutional amendment was passed in 1992 (30 years ago) and is never a guarantee. Second, whoever came up with this idea forgot that the Supreme Court is there to interpret the Constitution, not to make decisions based on “the current make up of the American public”.

There are people on both sides of the fence that think this would be a good idea. But the left is playing it like it’s bi-partisan. It’s not. They cite that John Roberts, the current Chief Justice would go along with it. What he said was, “It’s an interesting idea.” That’s not a ringing endorsement. That says, “we can talk about it.” However, it did get me to thinking. We already have term limits for the presidency. If you’re going to insist that there be term limits for the Supreme Court, then you have to do the same thing for the legislative branch as well. So, let’s tackle that one, because that doesn’t require a constitutional amendment.

Members of the House of Representatives would be limited to two terms (4 years), and members of the Senate to one term (6 years). Also, while we are at it, let’s limit the ages to “full retirement age” (currently 70) according to the Social Security Administration. Well, there are five members of the Senate, and 11 members of the House that are 80 or older. Another 21 members of the Senate and 65 members of the House that are in their 70’s. That’s 26% of the Senate and 17.5% of the House are over the full retirement age. We would also lower the wages of both houses to the average worker which is around $52,000 a year. No one should get rich serving their country. There would also be no pension, no healthcare after you leave office, nothing. You go back to what you were doing prior to getting elected.

So, you can serve in the House two terms, and if you’re over 70, until your current term is up. In the Senate you’d serve one term, but cannot serve past your 70th birthday, so you can’t run once you’re past 64. Once you have served in Congress, you are through with politics. You can’t run for the White House, you can’t be a “contributor” on Fox News or MSNBC or CNN. You cannot make any money dealing with government. And you can’t work for a lobbying firm or a political PAC of any kind. Basically, if it has to do with politics, you’re finished when you’re done serving.

What this does is drastically reduce the influence of money in politics. There would be no need for fundraisers because you’re only going to serve one term in the Senate and two in the House. In fact, we could limit campaign spending to $1,000 and the money can’t come from one source. That stops George Soros from buying up Congress like he tried to do with District Attorneys (that hasn’t worked real well, has it?)

Now, we’ve lowered the age of those serving. We’ve eliminated that lifetime politician. We’ve taken the money out of the equation, and you can’t spend the rest of your life writing about, talking about or giving speeches about your time in Washington. Is there anything that I’ve missed on that one?

As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, term limits are a bad idea. Those nine people aren’t there to cave to the whims of the American people. They are there to insure that what we Americans do, what laws we pass, are constitutional. That’s their only job. In fact, that should be the only job of any federal judge. There shouldn’t be any legislating from the bench on either side of the equation. If it’s not in the Constitution, you don’t go along with it. Period.

The only snag in making this term limit idea come true? Getting Congress to go along with it. Somehow, I don’t think they would be receptive to my idea, do you?

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

Is The GOP Going Too Far?

The Supreme Court’s ruling on Dobbs v. Jackson did away with a couple of earlier, and incorrect Supreme Court rulings, most notably Roe v. Wade. Handing the abortion question back to the states and denying the whole “privacy” question that actually was the lynchpin in Roe passing muster in the first place was a smart move by the court. In essence, they did not deny someone’s ability to get an abortion. They just denied that the federal government had any jurisdiction in the matter and that the states should decide for themselves. And that was the correct decision.

But there have been rumblings ever since the ruling was made public at the end of last month that the GOP is considering a nationwide ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Soon to be Speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy has told CNN that he would support such a move. And while I would be the first to say that my religious beliefs do not allow me to accept abortion because it is the taking of a life, and violates the Sixth Commandment, I also think that this isn’t a fight the GOP needs to take on.

The Supreme Court showed it’s intelligence by not wading into the middle of the “Is it right or wrong” fight. As they had previously done with the whole Obamacare issue, the court looked at it from a Constitutional vein. And they concluded (rightly so) that the Constitution does not give the federal government jurisdiction in this manner. Therefore it needs to be returned to the states.

I would suggest that if McCarthy goes ahead with a nationwide ban after 15 weeks, he’s making the same mistake that the Justices made back in 1973. There are somethings that need to be left to the discretion of the states, and abortion is one of them. It’s not a right or wrong issue, it’s an issue of federal rights versus states rights, and it’s always been that.

The abortion battle, as far as the federal government is concerned is over. Now all we have to do is convince lawmakers of that!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

Do YOU Remember What Today is About?

I’m sure that most of you do. Some of you that are a little younger may not actually know that the 4th of July is a very special day in our nation’s history. It was on this day some 246 years ago that the Declaration of Independence was signed at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Of course, you learned all that in school.

But there is so much more. Today is a very special day, especially because of everything that hit the Supreme Court this year and the meanings that the Founding Fathers’ held for our new country so many years ago. Lets take a look at just a couple of items,.

Now, granted, what we are talking about here aren’t from the Declaration of Independence, but from the Constitution. That document was signed some eleven years and three months or so after the Declaration of Independence (September 17, 1787), also at Independence Hall in Philadelphia. But it couldn’t have taken place without the Declaration of Independence!

So, we’ve tested and corrected a couple of things recently. First off, the Supreme Court tested the Second Amendment, that gives the citizens the right to bear arms. Why? Because the Founding Fathers were well aware of what happens when governments get too power hungry. It wasn’t that they wanted to have a militia (though that was important since there was no US Army at the time). But they wanted to give the PEOPLE the right to defend themselves against the government should the need arise. THAT is the reason for the Second Amendment. And THAT was the reason the Justices found that New York’s century-old law was unconstitutional.

Let’s move on. We have to look at a First Amendment argument. Remember the Bremerton, Washington football coach who got fired for praying with his team at midfield after games? Turns out the Bremerton school board was wrong in firing him. See, for the past 50 years or so, we’ve used the First Amendment to have freedom FROM religion. That’s not what it means or says. It basically says that you can worship as you please and the federal government cannot get in the way of establishing religion. They don’t say anything about Christianity. They don’t say anything about Judaism. Or Islam, or Buddhism, or Shinto or anything else. Because the Founding Fathers wanted you to have the right to FREELY worship as you chose. If you believe that God Almighty lives in a McDonalds in Erie, Pennsylvania, then you have the right to believe that. No one can take the belief from you. They didn’t ever say what religion was right or wrong. They never intended anyone to not allow prayer in schools. After all, both houses of Congress open with prayer every single day they are in session! And most (not all) presidents that are sworn in, still put their hand on the Christian Bible. What the Supreme Court said in the case of Mr. Kennedy was simply that Bremerton was prohibiting him to worship as he sees fit. He wasn’t making that prayer mandatory. It was voluntary. And what the school board did was wrong. It’s not freedom FROM religion, it’s freedom OF religion.

Finally, we get to the item that some women in this country are mistakenly screaming and upset about and that was the Dobbs v. Jackson Health Center ruling that basically dismantled Roe v. Wade. First of all, as I have said before, the left is totally wrong when they say women have a “reproductive right”. No, sorry. They don’t. That’s because man does not give rights out. Only God Himself can give out rights. The Founding Fathers realized that. Liberals today don’t. So, that was mistake number one when Roe v. Wade was founded. The liberal court at the time pointed to a privacy clause saying that any decision was between a woman and her doctor. That’s the most used argument for it. And actually, they are right on this one. It’s not the federal government’s place to legislate this matter. That’s because the Tenth Amendment says that unless it’s specifically spelled out in the Constitution, or specifically denied that the states should make that decision, any legislative decision belongs to the states. So, yes, ladies, you’re right that the federal government has no business legislating abortion. And that’s what the Supreme Court corrected. It wasn’t about the Ninth Amendment. It wasn’t about the Fourteenth Amendment. It’s about whether or not the federal government has the actual right in the first place to make the decision, and they don’t.

Those are three shining examples that take what was written almost a quarter of a millennium ago, and apply it to today’s life. It actually still stands up pretty well. And it’s all because of the document that was signed on this day some 246 years ago (or right around today’s date… it actually took a lot longer to sign!).

Enjoy your cookout, and Happy Fourth of July!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

No Right?

If you were to listen to leftist idiots, like Dean Obeidallah, who is nothing more than an attorney and a comedian (what a combination!), you don’t have a right to bear arms. That’s right. He says that the Second Amendment does not give you the right to own a gun. Let’s just take a look at what the Second Amendment to our Constitution says, shall we?

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

And here’s what Obeidallah has to say about it.

“There is NO constitutional right to own a gun. That was literally made up by 5 GOP Justices in 2008 decision of DC v Heller. We need to make overturning Heller a cause like the right made overturning Roe v Wade. Between 1789 and 2008 NO federal court found 2nd Amendment created a PERSONAL constitutional right apart from being in a militia to own a gun. In 2008, five supreme court justices INVENTED that in DC v. Heller. We must OVERTURN Heller so we can pass gun safety laws!”

Now, you’re going to have to forgive me here for a minute. I’m not sure if Obeidallah is coming at us wearing his attorney hat or his comedian hat. Because what he tweeted over this past weekend is absolutely hilarious, and shows he doesn’t really understand our Constitution.

See, as said in the second paragraph above, it says, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” That is rather simple English. I would assume any L-1 student could understand the definitions of words like “keep and bear Arms”, and “people”.

Now, Obeidallah inappropriately claims that no federal court found 2nd Amendment created a PERSONAL constitutional right apart from being in a militia until the DC v. Heller case. That’s a fallacy that any 3rd grader could figure out. No, according to the Supreme Court ruling IN DC v. Heller, you don’t have to be in a militia in order to own a gun.

See, this is what I really hate about liberalism. If they don’t agree with the wording of something, they want to change the wording so it fits their narrative. If they can’t get that done, they’ll do something even more drastic, like term limits for Supreme Court Justices or packing the court. They can’t seem to play by the rules and get things to go their way, and if they don’t, then try again at a later date. That’s what earlier liberals used to do. If they got beat on an issue, they’d get whatever part of the issue they could on the books, then they’d come back later and expand it (I call it the “Seat Belt analogy”. When seat belts were introduced in the 1960’s it was an option. Then it became mandatory, but they couldn’t ticket you. Then they could only ticket you if they pulled you over for something else. Now they can pull you over for not wearing a seat belt.)

People like Dean Obeidallah need to be either corrected or silenced. It’s one thing to have an opinion, and I respect other opinions. It’s quite another to come out with absolutely ludicrous statements and thought processes like we’re hearing from people like Dean Obeidallah. Maybe he just needs to drop being a lawyer and focus on being a comedian. He’s much better at making me laugh than he is at making sense of the law!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

EXTRA! Roe v Wade To Be Overturned!

I know…I couldn’t believe my eyes when I read it either. But Fox News is now reporting that a “unprecedented leaked draft” of the abortion case that will be made public in June was written by Justice Samuel Alito, and basically knocks down Roe v. Wade, giving the states the right to determine whether abortion is legal in their state. The leaked draft was obtained by Politico.

According to Politico and Fox News, the draft was written in February. It’s not clear whether the draft has been revised or rewritten since that time. “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Justice Samuel Alito writes in the document, labeled the “Opinion of the Court” for the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

So the whole case of abortion does not come down to whether or not it should be legal for a woman to actually HAVE an abortion, or whether the fetus is defined as a “viable mass” or a “living being”. It actually comes down to a 10th Amendment argument that the federal government isn’t given the right by the Constitution to make that decision, but that decision can be made, and should be made by the states on an individual basis.

What does this all mean? Well, basically it’s going to mean that blue states typically will pass laws that allow abortion, such as what Colorado has already done, and others are starting to do, fearing that this ruling was in the offing. Other states, like here in Arizona are passing laws that basically deny women the right to an abortion.

And IF this comes to pass (again, at this time, it’s not been confirmed nor denied by the Supreme Court), you can count on people wearing the funky looking hats to parade up and down for months on end at the Supreme Court. My hunch is, it will also renew Democrats’ pledge to pack the court, or make the Justices’ terms less than lifetime. That will be something that the Senate will have to decide, and Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema have both said they would vote against it. So even if there were a way to figure it as a “reconciliation bill”, they are still going to fall a couple votes short of passage at the current stage. And if the Republicans take over both houses of Congress, it’ll be a dead issue anyway.

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

Millions Of $$, No Decision

Remember a while back, probably in February or March? The Senate was screaming about how Amy Coney Barrett took Ruth Ginsburg’s place on the Supreme Court, and how unfair it was because Donald Trump nominated her in like, September of 2020, just ahead of a presidential election? And remember they were going to “pack the court”? And Biden, who had come out against packing the court said he would have a commission put together to study the problem?

Well, they reached their decision.

Their decision was no decision. After six public hearings, 44 individual witnesses, millions of dollars spent, and 8 months of wrangling, the 34 members of the Commission put together a 288 page report that basically said nothing.

While they said they saw both sides in their argument, and while they could make good cases for each side to pack the court or limit the term of a Supreme Court Justice, they couldn’t agree on the actual way the Congress should go. So, they basically said, keep everything the way it is. Actually, this was their conclusion:

“The commission takes no position on the validity or strength of these claims,” the report’s summary added. “Mirroring the broader public debate, there is profound disagreement among commissioners on these issues. We present the arguments in order to fulfill our charge to provide a complete account of the contemporary court reform debate.”

Another way to read that is, “We couldn’t agree on anything, so leave it like it is.”

Democrats are unhappy with the report that was released this past Tuesday, because they wanted to get the green light to go ahead and pack the court and limit the judicial terms starting next year. They figured with Dems controlling the House, Senate AND the White House, it would be the perfect time to do so. And the whole reason they want to pack the court in the first place is the tired old Democrat playbook that says if you can’t win by following the rules, change the rules.

It’s nice to see that at least after spending millions of dollars on this Commission and all of the hearings and squabbling, they actually came up with something that both sides are going to have to live with. Knowing that there isn’t going to be any major change to the make up of the high court allows the five and a half conservatives to hold sway for at least another few years until someone like Clarance Thomas decides to retire.

In the end, it’s a victory for Republicans. Let’s hope it’s the first of many in the next 12 months!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

No Mandate For You!

In an affirmation to an earlier ruling the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans has issued their ruling in the Biden Vaccine Mandate case…and it’s a victory for workers and businesses everywhere.

No mandate will be coming forth on January 4th.

Biden had said that companies that employ 100 or more workers would either have to require their workers to have a vaccine by that date, or they would have to opt for weekly testing for COVID. The Appeals Court ruled that the mandate was “a one-size-fits-all sledgehammer” and was “staggeringly overbroad”.

I would expect that the Biden administration will take it to the Supreme Court to find out what the high court has to say about it. my hunch is, the conservative court will probably back up the 5th Circuit as to the fact that the mandate will cover about two-thirds of the workers in the country.

The country is already spiraling out of control with supply chain issues that are caused by mandates for vaccines and masks, as well as an incredible hike in the cost of diesel fuel. Truckers all over the country are refusing to visit Long Beach or Los Angeles to truck goods from Asia to your neighborhood stores because of the cost of fuel, and the fact they aren’t necessarily happy about taking part in the mandate.

Mandates have long been a sore spot in the United States. The first vaccine mandate occurred in Massachusetts way back in 1802 for small pox. By 1900, school children were forced to receive vaccines before they could enter school in various locales. In the late ’60’s, there was a push for the MMR (Mumps, Measles, Rubella) vaccines across the schools which basically eradicated those diseases. Alaska and Los Angeles didn’t got that route and between 3-4% of the students went unvaccinated and unable to attend school until they were.

The big difference between what happened with small pox and MMR’s and what’s going on today is the difference between federal government and states’ rights. In the above examples, the states were the ones to mandate vaccines, and yes, they still do to this day. And they are legal and upheld by the Supreme Court. Where the rub comes in is when the federal government starts issuing national mandates for everybody, or in the case of COVID, workers in companies that employ 100 people or more.

So, in essence, this isn’t a health issue, as Biden wants you to believe. It is actually a states’ rights issue. If a state decides that they want their school children to be vaccinated against COVID or any other disease, they have the right to make that happen. If a neighboring state decides that they don’t want to follow suit in that fashion, they don’t have to. It’s their choice. But the federal government doesn’t have a constitutional right to step in and force a state to order a vaccine mandate. Both the 10th Amendment and the 14th Amendment have been cited by the Supreme Court as reasons in the past to not allow the federal government to step in and force vaccines.

Once again, a guy that has 48 years experience in Washington DC politics and making the laws, fails to understand what high schools students going through civics class probably already know (if they’re still even teaching civics in the 9th grade anymore!) That is that if the Constitution doesn’t specify that the federal government can do something, the states have the right to make their own decision. And that should be the way it is in this case as well. I would assume that the Supreme Court, whenever this matter gets there, would uphold the 5th Circuit.

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

Court Packing?

The Biden administration almost a year ago, called for a commission to decide whether the Supreme Court should be expanded to 13 members from the current 9. Remember all the hullabaloo over Amy Coney Barrett getting nominated after Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away? They were ready to take over the high court any way they could.

Biden said that he would appoint a commission to look into it, and he did.

But what the commission has come up with, and what is going to be made public next month by Biden is that the court should not probably be expanded to 13 justices. There’s not much in the way of legal precedent to do so, nor is there much agreement from those on the mostly liberal commission to do it.

Oh, they heard from scores of people that said it was a great idea. They heard from more people that thought the Supreme Court shouldn’t be a lifetime appointment, and that maybe after 18 years or so, the justices would take a “smaller role” in determining the outcome of the cases before it.

In the end, it’s basically going to be High Court stays the same as it is now. And the reason is basically two fold.

First, the American people don’t want expansion. It’s never been a popular idea with the public, and it’s never been a popular idea with those wearing the robes. In fact, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer have both come out against it, and they are two of the most liberal justices we’ve had on the Supreme Court in recent memory.

The second reason that the Supreme Court will stay the same is, Congress is most likely going to be changing next year. That means that you’re not going to be able to get expansion of the SCOTUS through the legislative body. Republicans don’t want to see it expanded, and if they take the House and Senate, as most predict will happen, you’ve got a better chance of seeing Jesus today than seeing the Supreme Court being expanded to 13 members.

So, we’ve spent millions of dollars, wasted a year of time, and done what Washington does best. Come up with the status quo. Why am I not surprised!?

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!