Tag Archives: Supreme Court

The Kelo Decision and Barack Obama’s BLM land grabs

by Kevin “Coach” Collins

What stops the federal government from merely deeding private lands to foreign governments “because we can?” Actually nothing stops the government from doing anything, certainly not the Kelo Decision.

Without a doubt the Supreme Court’s Kelo Decision is one of the most potentially destructive weapons a tyrant like Barack Obama has at his disposal. 

We’ve heard that Dirty Harry Reid, Nevada’s real life Senator Geary, was possibly preparing to steal some of the Bundy ranch land to give it to a Chinese company to run another fake “green scam.”

This begs the question: Why couldn’t the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) merely re-deed the land in question and cite the Kelo Decision as its legal grounds?

The Kelo Decision was a 2005 case in which the Supreme Court overturned the honest use of the eminent domain doctrine, which had previously allowed confiscation of private land only for purposes of direct government use, and allowed for such confiscations to be used to transfer ownership of land from one private citizen to another. The 5 to 4 vote saw Justice Anthony Kennedy join the majority and help shred the Constitution.

Now nine years later the lawless Barack Obama stands in a position to use Kelo as a way to act like he is our Sovereign and arbitrarily strip Cliven Bundy or anyone else of property he wants to use in his next scheme.   

The Bundy ranch showdown is not over. The fight might move to Texas or another Western State, but the issue remains essentially the same. Both the government and private land owners have to ask themselves whether Kelo can be used as a way for Barack Obama to declare victory and move on. If he does he can get all those nasty videos to stop and use a show trial to crush the Tenth Amendment and the security of private land ownership forever.

After Kelo what does your name on a deed mean besides the fact that you get to pay taxes on the land until the government decides to steal it and give it to a crony?  This has never been so true as it is today.




CNN liberals bash Justice Clarence Thomas for his shocking statements about race

by Doug Book,  editor

Liberal CNN commentators lashed out at Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Tuesday for stating that he received worse race-based treatment from New England liberals than from fellow Georgians during his youth in the 1960s. “The worst I have been treated was by northern liberal elites,” said the justice. “The absolute worst I have ever been treated.” (1)

Thomas had prefaced his comment with the recollection that race “rarely came up” while he was a child in the deep South.

“In the mid-60s, when he was a kid, you could get killed if you were a black person for speaking about race,” remarked CNN legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin in a clear effort to belittle the Justice. Of course it’s highly unlikely that as many Blacks were killed 50 years ago by racist Whites as are murdered today by fellow Blacks, thanks in large part to inner city gang violence and ever-increasing Black unemployment. Both conditions may be attributed at least in part to the disastrous, Great Society  programs of President Lyndon Johnson, a longtime hero of Black race-baiters and White liberals.  Strangely enough, Toobin failed to mention either these  facts or the LBJ connection.

“He acknowledges no part that affirmative action played in his life but he wants to close the door for others,” added Marc Lamont Hill, an Associate Professor at Columbia University.  Hill was registering his objection to Thomas’s belief that advantage and success in America should be functions of merit rather than race-based, affirmative action. The professor then made the extraordinary assertion that “…it [is] disturbing, particularly for a powerful justice like Thomas, to ‘make decisions on color blindness.’”

Indeed, how could ANY rational individual believe that effort and ability might be rewarded rather than color!

It’s a sinister threat to all liberals but especially to Blacks when a conservative “of color” escapes what should be the agreeable bondage of the Democrat plantation to become a nationally acclaimed success as a result of talent and work.

After all, what would become of the race card should it ever be  widely known that Blacks can realize prosperity without it? What has been historically one of the left’s most potent weapons of intimidation might be lost!

Clarence Thomas represents a menace to decades of liberal endeavor aimed at making Blacks believe that securing generations of welfare and practicing indiscriminate reproduction are the only things to which members of their race may reasonably aspire.

Nice people, liberals.

Sources and Video link:

(1) http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnners-rip-into-clarence-thomas-politically-incorrect-childhood-memories/

(2) http://www.mediaite.com/online/clarence-thomas-northern-liberal-elites-treated-me-worse-than-segregated-south/

Supreme Court positioned to repeal the 4th Amendment

by Doug Book,  editor

Today the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Navarette v California, a case in which a wrong decision will effectively repeal the 4th Amendment rights of the American people.

The text of the 4th Amendment reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 

In 1968, the Supreme Court ruled that “…law enforcement may perform a search when they have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, even if it falls short of probable cause necessary for an arrest.” This reasonable suspicion standard created by the court has provided police the necessary “legal” authority to perform searches in violation of 4th Amendment language. In fact, thanks to the Court, the overwhelming majority of searches conducted in the U.S. today are warrantless searches. Obtaining a warrant has become an annoyance, a bothersome anachronism which is said to interfere with the timely administration of justice. 

In Navarette, an anonymous tipster telephoned police, informing them that the driver of a silver Ford truck, license number 8D94925 had just run him off of the road. Upon locating the truck, “…[police] officers verified the non-criminal details of the tip before pulling over the truck (i.e. color, plate number, etc.), [but] they did not witness any illegal behavior or reckless driving before stopping the truck.” Officers searched the truck and found 4 large bags of marijuana. The driver was charged with “…transportation of marijuana and possession of marijuana for sale.”

The defendant’s attorney asked that the evidence of the marijuana be suppressed, stating that “…the original stop was an illegal stop because the anonymous tip was insufficient to provide reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.” Both the trial court and a California Appeals Court denied the motion to suppress, each stating that police were not required to verify the claim that the truck was being driven recklessly. Officers were only required to verify the “non-criminal” details–in this case, the type and color of the vehicle and its license number–prior to stopping the truck and conducting a search.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in order to decide “…whether the Fourth Amendment requires a police officer, who receives an anonymous tip about a drunken or reckless driver, to corroborate the dangerous driving before stopping a vehicle.”

In a 2000 case, the Supreme Court ruled that an anonymous tip did not allow police the luxury of ignoring either 4th Amendment rights or even the necessity of meeting the far less stringent legal standard of reasonable suspicion.

But in Navarette, the State of California will argue before the Court that even the weak standard of reasonable suspicion may be ignored IF the alleged criminal activity is serious enough. In other words, “the more serious the crime, the less suspicion is needed.” Or more properly, the more serious the ALLEGED crime, the less suspicion is needed to stop and search the alleged suspect. Reckless driving, for example, may indicate drunk driving which represents such a potential danger to the public that the rights of an alleged suspect may be completely ignored. Therefore, an anonymous tip may be acted upon just as though the tipster were known to be reliable and correct and the driver known to be guilty!

If the Court permits law enforcement to ignore constitutional rights based upon an anonymous tip and permits police to increase the aggressive nature of their response according to nothing more substantial than the seriousness of the alleged crime, how long will it be until Democrat operatives make anonymous claims about alleged criminal activity on the part of Republican candidates? How often will former girlfriends or wives lodge anonymous charges against former boyfriends or husbands? The possibilities for the destruction of reputations are endless. And the necessity of probable cause, or proof, will for practical purposes no longer exist.






The not so dependable Chief Justice Roberts

by George Spelvin,  staff writer
What is motivating Chief Justice John Roberts?  Does he need to talk to us, the American people, about his oath to judge the law in an unbiased, non partisan manner?  Why are so many judicial decisions being made that clearly run counter to the wishes of the American people?  Where is the caveat that America must be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people?
“Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts, Jr. worked behind the scenes for gay rights activists, and his legal expertise helped them persuade the Supreme Court to issue a landmark 1996 ruling protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation,” says observer Pat Dollard (1).  This web reporter who cites a LA TIMES news report and interview goes on to stress to readers that “gay rights activists at the time described the court’s 6-3 ruling as the movement’s most important legal victory.”  Roberts took on the Romer v. Evans case as a pro bono attorney, but he failed to mention his involvement when he turned in his 67 page response to the Senate Judiciary Committee questioning him about these three SPECIFIC INSTANCES of his pro bono work: a.  what pro bono work did he, Roberts, perform? b. how did he fulfill these responsibilities c.  how much time did he, Roberts, devote to preparation of his pro bono cases. (2)  Now what becomes disturbing is the fact that according to this blog piece, Roberts failed to disclose to his Senate questioners the fact that he had done so much work for the gay rights position in Romer v. Evans!  The attorney heading the pro bono work just discounted the fact that Roberts failed to disclose, saying, “John probably didn’t recall the case because he didn’t play as large a role in it as he did in other cases.”  Huh?
Wiki tells us that the Romer v. Evans 517 U.S. 6 20 (l996) “is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case.  The court ruled 6-3 that Colorado’s constitutional amendment didn’t pass the rational test under the Equal Protection Clause.”  So SCOTUS then struck down its own decision in Bowers and went on to strike DOMA, Sect.3, in 2013.
When asked to help in the gay rights case, Roberts allegedly said, “Let’s do it.” Now coming to light is the fact that the Chief Justice’s lesbian first cousin, Jean Podrasky (3), allegedly sat in his specially reserved family members’ guest section at the SCOTUS hearing on Prop 8.  “I am definitely ready,” she reportedly said as she anticipated a gay friendly ruling so she could marry her female partner!
The American people deserve answers from the man controlling so much of our lives, our finances, our health! Why did Roberts do an abrupt switch with his ACA ruling, when reports surfaced that his opinion opposing the ACA already had been written and a hasty re-write in favor had to be done?  What really went on here, both in his own family’s very personal history and the man’s personal actions?  How come two beautiful blond, blue eyed babies somehow entered this country from Latin America?  Isn’t it about time that someone in D.C. showed some fealty to the Public Trust of the American people?

SOURCES:  (1)  (2)   http://patdollard.com/2013/03/game-over-on-doma-chief-justice-john-roberts-played-abosul . .

(3)   http://www.mediaite.com/tv/chief-justice-john-roberts-compares-gay-marr-
(4) Wikipedia, Romer v. Evans

Was Justice Roberts’ ObamaCare ruling a curse for Republicans, or a blessing?

by Doug Book,  editor

When Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the Supreme Court’s Marxist bloc in ruling the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate constitutional, stunned conservatives immediately accused him of committing an “act of judicial cowardice.”  “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices,” wrote the supremely hypocritical Roberts as he shattered one of the first rules of judicial restraint by rewriting sections of ObamaCare from the bench. Although he refused to “protect” the people from a wanton abuse of power,  he was more than willing to protect DC lawmakers from the consequences of passing unconstitutional legislation.

But did Roberts manufacture his creative penalty-is-really-a-tax revision of ObamaCare for the purpose of bailing out the lawmakers who wrote the Act? Or was it actually his intention to help destroy them!

American Thinker contributor Bill Dunne believes that in his ObamaCare ruling, the chief justice set a “diabolical trap” designed to imperil Democrats even as it “saved the Republican Party from going into a death spiral…”

It is Dunne’s contention that Justice Roberts’ decision spawned a “Great Awakening” of the American people by making it clear to them that “…ObamaCare [was] a civics lesson from hell, with vast implications for America’s future.” Had the Chief Justice sided with court conservatives, the disastrous effects of the Affordable Care Act would have disappeared along with the law. The largest tax increase in American history would not be taking place. Millions would not have had healthcare policies cancelled due to ACA mandates; premiums would not have doubled–or worse–thanks in part to unwanted coverages; longtime family doctors would still be available to patients; a non-functioning, $600 million website would not threaten to transform average citizens into “scofflaws;” identity theft would not run rampant and some semblance of a right to medical privacy might still exist for the American public.

But the most important consequence of Roberts’ ruling is the fact that millions of Americans finally understand that “…[ObamaCare] has less to do with insuring the uninsured than with one political party’s lunge for unprecedented power and control over people’s lives.” The utter contempt for individual rights which is the hallmark of DC Democrats has at last been revealed to any interested American. And the fact that healthcare may no longer be affordable or available interests one Hell of a lot of us.

Did Roberts assume the role of visionary by finding the ObamaCare mandate constitutional? After all, in spite of the happy faces assumed by party loons such as Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman Shultz, Senate Democrats like Mark Udall (Co) and Mary Landrieu (La) will likely enter Election Day 2014 from a position of weakness, dreading the possibility of THEIR vote being proclaimed the one which passed ObamaCare into law.

So was John Roberts a gutless traitor to the American nation and people? Was he blackmailed into finding the Act constitutional? Did he prostitute the Constitution in the hope of becoming an important part of history? Or did his purported act of prescience help to save the Republican Party from an historic collapse!