Tag Archives: Supreme Court

Supreme Court has made confiscation of firearms a breeze

By Doug Book, editor

Last year, Democrat Senator Ed Markey (NY) and Democrat Rep. Carolyn Maloney (Mass) introduced legislation suggesting Barack Obama’s Centers for Disease Control (CDC) be paid $10 million/year to fund “…research on gun violence prevention and firearm safety.” According to the far left Markey, “it is time we study the issue of gun violence like the public health crisis that it is. If we want to prevent injury and deaths from guns, we need to know what can be done to prevent it.”

Truth be told, Markey and Maloney believe the best way to prevent gun violence is by making it illegal or at the very least, impossible, to own a gun. Maloney recently introduced legislation which would require all gun owners purchase liability insurance for their firearms and pay a $10,000 fine should they be discovered without it. Naturally, members of law enforcement would be exempt.

“An insurance requirement would allow the free market to encourage cautious behavior and help save lives,” said Maloney. “Adequate liability coverage would also ensure that the victims of gun violence are fairly compensated when crimes or accidents occur.” Only a leftist would claim that liability insurance is necessary to make gun owners exercise appropriate caution with their firearms.

Each year, about 60% of gun deaths are the result of suicide. Would Maloney demand insurance companies pay off in cases of suicide? Would a suicide “victim’s” estate be charged the $10,000 fine if he was found to have been uninsured?

As to “fair compensation” in the event of a crime or accident, it is rumored that the overwhelming majority of gun crimes are committed by criminals. The odds against thieves, killers or rapists carrying liability insurance on their stolen firearm would be astronomical. Will Maloney recommend Progressive or The General provide “no fault” gun insurance, just in case? And would that absolve the criminal of guilt for having committed the crime, or just for having used a gun?

Perhaps the real question is why Representative Maloney believed it necessary to introduce this legislation in the first place. The nation’s hoplophobes have already been given the ultimate, winning hand against gun owners.

In 2012, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts ruled that the federal government may demand the American people purchase a required item and tax anyone who refuses. Last month, Roberts and 5 other justices decided that the president, the Internal Revenue Service, even the Court itself may write, re-write and implement legislation. An act of Congress is no longer necessary, conflicting claims in the Constitution of the United States notwithstanding.

Given these recent rulings by the Roberts Court–the first on ObamaCare, the second in King v Burwell–Barack Obama’s Department of Justice will have the authority to create legislation demanding the purchase of a $1 million liability policy by every gun owner, for every gun owned. Those who refuse could be taxed the sum of, say,  $100,000 for each uninsured firearm. Simple and legal, at least according to the Court. And for those unwilling to either pay up or relinquish their weapons, Barack and the Supremes will confiscate their house!

Though such abuse of the American people may not happen over night, rest assured that it WILL happen.


Texas Two Step and recusal refusal at Supreme Court

By Suzanne Eovaldi, staff writer

This week’s Supreme Court decision in regard to legitimacy of homosexual marriage just well may be illegitimate itself whatever way the Court decides. And because of this very fact, 2016 and its crucial election must include initiatives to institute TERM LIMITS for SCOTUS along with a swift and very definitive process for removal of any member of the U.S. Supreme Court!

Just consider the fact that their rabid feminism pushed both Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Elena Kagan to “marry” two same-sex couples though they knew full well they were being called upon to give definitive judgment in the Obergefell case. Also, “Justice Ginsburg had gone so far as to strongly suggest in public that the time for same-sex marriage had arrived.” (1) Both female judges are insulting America’s highest legal authority, insulting ethical restraint in regards to conflict of interest, insulting the American family and, in fact, insulting the basis of our country’s rule-of-law underpinnings.   Kagan

This final step in the use of historicity to re-write our constitutional laws and legal process is a step that must be called out now. “If it didn’t happen that way, then it should have,” said an Afro-American teacher to me one day. She was referring to something that happened in the race-relations controversy and historical milieu in our country. In other words, she wanted the laws re-written the way she wanted them written and she wanted it done NOW.

Well, this version of Ginsburg-Kagan historicity is beyond anything the lib/Dem bulldozer through America has done so far. Their rabid hubris and out-of-control feminism have taken our country to a whole new level that in no way is America. But what is shaping up to be another slap in the face of honest rule-of-law has to do with how court employees manipulate “motion” versus “filed” to accomplish what the justices themselves really want done.   Ruth Gunsberg

“The Foundation for Moral Law had submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in favor of traditional marriage (and) had also submitted a motion in support of Justices Ginsburg’s and Kagan’s recusals. . .not only had the Court not ruled on the Foundation’s motion, but the motion had not even been POSTED (emp. added) on the Supreme Court docket. Did someone at the High Court not want to acknowledge that such a motion had been filed?” (2) In other words, docket clerks somehow did a Texas two-step to delay amicus curiae motions-filings.

Again, let’s repeat: “Did someone at the High Court not want to acknowledge that such a motion had been filed?” (3) The first motion to recuse was submitted on April 27, 2015, and so time-stamped–THREE ENTIRE WEEKS “before the Supreme Court claims that it was RECEIVED on May 21, 2015!” The Moral Law Foundation filed a second motion to recuse on May 21, 2015, after Justice Ginsburg “married” another gay couple. The docket titled this motion as merely a request. This reporter recalls similar Texas two steps that docket clerks danced in the Obama birth eligibility case facing SCOTUS.

Lowly clerks appear to be doing the Court’s work for it by delay and obfuscation and ultimately “deciding” its cases in the mail room! Same-sex marriage is not Kagan’s first conflict of interest case. As I recall, she represented Obama himself in his eligibility defense legal maneuverings. Payback was her appointment to the nation’s highest Court. This begs the question, did the Ginsburg-Kagan rule-of-law insult itself come from the White House?

These same-sex marriage docket clerks did not engage in either delaying effort without winks and nods from higher ups. IMHO, both of these critical issues, were, as they say in Chicago, “GREASED” from the git-go! Is America still a rule-of-law democracy? Is America still ruled by the impartial administration of justice? Is America a joke in jurisprudence? America is as the lib/Dem leftist rulers say it is. End of Story, end of country.

SOURCE: all footnotes are from http://www.westernjournalism.com/same-sex-marriage-efforts-to-have-justi. . . 6/22/2015, at 6:19pm by Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson/ go to traditionalmarriage@lawandfreedom.com or twitter.com/Olsonlaw Constitutional law professor Herbert W. Titus & William J. Olson filed amicus curiae briefs in this recusal action.

BTW: Did Ginsburg and Kagan not take Anatomy 101 while undergrads?

Supreme Court finds Congress irrelevant as Justices award law making powers to president and…Supreme Court

By Doug Book, editor

Coach is Right recently alerted its readers to the importance of the upcoming Supreme Court decision in King v Burwell, a case which would determine whether the Internal Revenue Service had the authority—on the orders of Barack Obama–to re-interpret the Affordable Care Act in a manner favorable to Obama and contrary to the clear language and intent of the Act as written by Congress.

Though Obama and members of his Regime have already re-written the Act (contrary to the Constitution) on 31 separate occasions, it was hoped—certainly it was never more than a hope—that the Court would uphold the will of a Congress which wrote 7 times in the Act that subsidies to ObamaCare policy holders would be made available only by ObamaCare Exchanges built by one of the 50 states. The law clearly made subsidies and tax credits unavailable in any state with an ObamaCare Exchange built by the federal government.

A ruling which found that “An Exchange established by the State” was indeed “An Exchange Established by the State” would of course make subsidies unavailable in the 34 States with an ObamaCare Exchange built by the Federal Government. Policy prices would not be competitive in 2/3rds of the nation and the Affordable Care Act would rapidly meet its demise.

But on Thursday, the Court’s decision was published and as many feared, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the clear language and intent of Congress were not acceptable to the Court as the clear language and intent of Congress. As Justice Scalia wrote in the dissent he shared with Justices Alito and Thomas, “…normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act MUST be saved.” (My Caps)

Justice Scalia’s dissent is one for the ages as he not so politely eviscerates the majority, for “The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (‘penalty’ means tax…‘established by the State’ means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence.”

For anyone not paying attention, Justice Scalia has just accused his colleagues of being dishonest. It is a statement beyond the simply critical of Justice Roberts and to a lesser degree, Justice Kennedy, as Scalia goes as far as he can in accusing both of malfeasance, corruption and, well, dishonesty.

The increasingly corrupt and pernicious purveyors of the legal system in the United States make predicting what should be the most straightforward of rulings virtually impossible. An irrepressible appetite to further a politically inspired agenda has replaced the Constitution as the foundation of American jurisprudence. Such a disgraceful and dangerous perversion of the most senior of American courts “…ignores the American people’s decision to give Congress “[a]ll legislative Powers” enumerated in the Constitution. Art. I, §1. They made Congress, not this Court, responsible for both making laws and mending them.”

But the Supreme Court, with Chief Justice Roberts in the lead, has twice “mended” the Affordable Care Act, improperly re-writing and willingly—shall it be called misinterpreting—both the text and the clearly presented desires of Congress.

America’s conservatives have lost the Supreme Court to the corruption and perversity of the left. As wanton dishonesty has replaced honor and integrity on the bench, it is difficult to imagine a time or means of returning the Court to an honest application of constitutional law.

Only 1 week until Supreme Court ruling on the future of ObamaCare

By Doug Book, Editor

Coach is Right has written extensively about the Affordable Care Act—ObamaCare—from its initial, unconstitutional passage by a Democrat controlled congress, through the disgraceful 2012 Supreme Court ruling which featured the inexplicable treachery of Chief Justice John Roberts.

Sometime during the next week the Court will decide King v Burwell, a case which will determine whether the United States and the American people may still depend upon the Constitution to defend their liberty and rights from the unlawful schemes of a tyrant.

On June 17th, CiR asked whether the Supreme Court would deliver one last ruling in defense of the illegal and unconstitutional workings of the Obama Regime.

Today, Coach is Right will publish in its entirety the commentary of Twila Brase, president of the Citizens Council for Health Freedom. A longtime expert on healthcare in America, Brase asks the key question:

Will the Supreme Court Set 37 States Free from Obamacare?

by Twila Brase

The U.S. Supreme Court will issue a ruling on the King v. Burwell Obamacare subsidy case by June 29. But pro-Obamacare forces are busy pressuring Republicans to let 6.5 million people keep their illegal subsidies (expand Obamacare) if the administration loses. Here is one example from Politico Pro:

“Inside the Beltway, we’re all on eggshells waiting on the Supreme Court’s King ruling. Outside the Beltway, not so much. The new Kaiser poll finds seven in 10 Americans have heard either nothing at all or only a little about the Obamacare case. Just 13 percent said they had heard “a lot” about it.

“Still, most people in the nearly three dozen states that could lose their subsidies said lawmakers should act to keep those flowing. About 63 percent of people overall said Congress should step in if the plaintiffs win, compared with about 55 percent of people in the states that would be affected, which are mostly controlled by Republicans….”

So the 70% who know little to nothing about the lawsuit are competent to advise Congress? I wonder what they’d say if they actually understood the law. For instance, before the Kaiser Health Tracking Poll team asked them if Congress should continue the illegal subsidies, did they ask these individuals:

· Is it OK for the President to expand Obamacare even if it’s against the law?
· Is it OK that subsidies are paid for by taxes and higher premiums on many people who can no longer
work fulltime due to Obamacare?
· Should people in 37 states be free from Obamacare’s mandates and penalties or be forced to buy health
insurance so 6.5 million people in those states can receive subsidies?
· Would you rather be able to work more hours and have more job opportunities or let the 6.5 million people
keep their illegal subsidies?

The Affordable Care Act ties mandates and penalties directly to the availability of Obamacare subsidies. Without subsidies, employers and most individuals would be free from the law’s mandates and penalties. This means employers and individuals in the 37 states without a state exchange would be free because subsidies can only be issued by an exchange “established by the state.”

Every member of Congress took an oath to defend the Constitution. In 2010, Obama and Congressional Democrats violated that oath by enacting Obamacare. But every Republican voted no.

If the justices rule against the administration (Burwell), Republicans have an opportunity to:

· Deprive the ACA of subsidy and enrollment funding it needs to stay viable.
· Implode Obamacare’s exchange and its IRS enforcement system.
· Obstruct 2,700 pages of law and more than 20,000 pages of regulations.
· Restore health care choices and decrease health care costs.
· Undo government controls over doctors and patients.

If the administration wins, freedom-restoring options include defunding and repealing Obamacare. There must be no extension of the illegal taxpayer-funded subsidies.

If the administration loses, Republicans must refuse to help Obama save his national health care legacy. The only health care legacy worth saving is health freedom — and that will take an act (or perhaps in this case, an inaction) of Congress.

In freedom,
Twila Brase, RN, PHN
President and Co-founder

Will the Supreme Court deliver one final, unconstitutional ObamaCare ruling?

By Doug Book, editor

Before the end of its current term (June 30th), the United States Supreme Court will determine whether the law of the land is established in the Constitution or by the various bureaucracies working to impose the agenda of the Obama Regime. IF the Court decides in favor of the Constitution, ObamaCare–the Affordable Care Act–will be destroyed financially. It will effectively cease to exist.

In November of last year, the Court agreed to hear King v Burwell, a suit filed against the Internal Revenue Service for usurping the power of Congress by granting itself the authority to spend $800 billion tax dollars over the next decade, money not legally allocated for Service use.

The IRS engaged in this extraordinary abuse of power in order to save the Affordable Care Act (ACA) from a financial disaster guaranteed by a failed gamble on the part of the law’s authors.  According to the Galen Institute, the IRS scheme was one of 50 changes made to the ACA after it had been passed into law; “… at least 31 that the Obama Administration has made unilaterally.”

Will the Supreme Court adhere to the language of the Constitution—and the ACA itself—by finding the IRS power grab unconstitutional?

A number of the justices hardly distinguished themselves with their ObamaCare ruling of 2012. One expects decisions based purely on promotion of the leftist agenda from the 4 Marxist members of the Court. But the nominally conservative Chief Justice John Roberts ignored both the explicit language of the Act and the clear will of Congress in his decision to rewrite the ACA by transforming the specifically defined, individual mandate penalty into a tax. It was the tax manufactured by Justice Roberts which permitted him to find the ObamaCare individual mandate constitutional.

Incredibly, however, the tax which Roberts invented—though never named–is itself unconstitutional. For Justice Robert’s brainchild represents none of the tax types defined under the Congressional power to tax in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, or in the 16th Amendment.

How dangerous is the decision created by the chief justice? According to law professor Dave Kopel, writing for the Cato Institute, the Roberts ruling:

“…[will] give Congress the power to make laws on any subject, impose a fine for noncompliance, have the IRS collect the fine, and then claim that the entire regulatory structure is part of the tax power. The result would nullify Article I of the Constitution, which carefully grants Congress 18 specific powers – and does not grant a general power to legislate on everything.”

The Affordable Care Act “…will enable the Federal Government to regulate all private conduct and…compel the States to function as administrators of federal programs,” adds Justice Scalia. 7

The Origination Clause of the Constitution requires all tax raising measures originate in the House of Representatives. The Affordable Care Act began in the Senate.

The White House changed the ACA for political reasons 31 times, each illegal, unconstitutional or both.

The IRS has defied the Constitution, Congress and the law as it will confiscate nearly 1 trillion tax dollars from the American people in order to salvage the namesake legislation of the Service’s Lord and Master, Barack Obama.

The King ruling may represent the final opportunity of a “conservative” Supreme Court to right the corruption of the Congress, the President and one of the Court’s own.

I’m not optimistic that the 5 “conservative” justices will do the right thing by supporting the Constitution.