Tag Archives: Supreme Court

California’s teachers union hears the footsteps of workers’ freedom

By Kevin “Coach” Collins

The California Teachers Association (CTA) has quietly started to prepare its members for life after extortion.  It has put together a report titled “Not if, but when: Living in a world without Fair Share,” in which it acknowledges that the days of being able to extort teachers to bribe Democrats may be fast coming to an end. Automatic, compulsory union membership for teachers is being challenged in court and the thugs that run the state’s biggest teachers union can see the outcome will lead to an end of their cushy lives.

They have prepared a slideshow outlining the “terrible consequences” of their racket being curtailed. They warn the union will lose members, have to reduce staff (Oh no!) will lose the ability to influence pension and benefits decisions and see smaller chapters close down. They realize that teachers will flee their clutches the minute they are given the opportunity. When they see the plantation gate has been opened the stampede will be on as has happened elsewhere across the country when union slaves have been set free.  

The CTA is well aware that the recent Supreme Court case Harris V. Quinn has declared union shake-downs unconstitutional. In “Harris” the Court heard the case of Illinois forcing home care workers to pay their “fair share,” to the SEIU although they never had any intention of joining a union.  As the CTA see it, the union greed and overreach of the SEIU has provided the grounds for the “death knell for fair share.”    

CTA fears of extinction are well founded. When Republican Scott Walker broke the stranglehold of unions on state workers, union membership dropped dramatically, to a point where they are no longer political players in the state.  

The case that is currently being argued at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals could be the end of the CTA’s power if it hits the Supreme Court. Given the mood of the Court toward union overreaches it could very well bring down the curtain on the CTA’s extortion scheme.  

Source:  http://freebeacon.com/issues/not-if-but-when/

The Left reveal their colossal fear of religion in the Hobby Lobby case

By Doug Book, editor

In spite of having mastered the frequently demanding practice of deceit, once in a while genuine motivation breaks through the left’s façade of compassion and caring. Though not widely recognized, it happened in the Hobby Lobby case decided by the Supreme Court on Monday.

In the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993, Congress provided the option of going to court to anyone who sought religious based exemption from a federal law. In providing this statutory right to religious objectors, Congress wrote that “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability…”

Among other things, Hobby Lobby attorneys argued that imposing massive fines against their client for not providing “abortion drugs” to employees must obviously represent the sort of substantial burden addressed by Congress in the statute. The Supreme Court agreed.

Concerned that the substantial burden language in the RFRA might at least in part derail Barack Obama’s efforts to subordinate religious freedom to the commands of the state, a number of the Government’s amici—friends of the Court arguing on behalf of the government case—advised justices that there would be no “burden” if Hobby Lobby “…simply terminated health insurance for all of its employees.” That is, “…terminating health insurance and compensating employees with additional wages would be no burden.” Hobby Lobby would no longer face the threat–that is the BURDEN–of government fines for the company’s Christian refusal to supply abortion drugs to its employees.

The Court rejected this argument in its 5-4 finding for Hobby Lobby.

But hold on. Wasn’t the overarching purpose of ObamaCare to provide health insurance–affordable, quality health insurance that is—to the uninsured? Weren’t these the premier talking points of the left? So why are government amici suggesting that a closely held corporation   providing insurance coverage to some 15,000 employees suddenly deny those people coverage? Shouldn’t Obama’s forces congratulate employers of this sort?

Could there be a better example of the contempt in which the practice of religion—especially Christianity—is held by the far left? Contempt and fear that is. For the left believe it must be their exclusive right—the right of government–to teach people the difference between right and wrong; that is, teach and demand that the behavior mandated by those “teachings” be executed without question or refusal!

But the lessons provided by 2000 years of Christianity put a big hole in government’s dreams of being the owners and purveyors of absolute moral authority. The Hobby Lobby case made it clear that the left is far more interested in curtailing—preferably destroying—the practice of religious freedom than in making sure everyone has health insurance.

Once again the left allows the mask to slip, showing us who and what they are.

Sources:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/30/prof-mark-rienzi-a-good-day-for-hobby-lobby-and-for-the-little-sisters-of-the-poor-and-mr-muhammad-too/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/30/the-hobby-lobby-majority-summarized-in-relatively-plain-english/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act

Affirmative Action takes another hit in Supreme Court

by Doug Book,  editor

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that the nations Colleges and Universities must be prepared to demonstrate that all non-race based attempts to achieve student diversity have failed before the tightly controlled use of racial preference may even be considered.

And on April 22nd, in a 6-2 decision, the Court ruled in Schuette v BAMN that Proposal 2, a constitutional amendment approved by Michigan voters which “…end[s] racial preferences in many aspects of state government,” including university admissions, does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution by denying any person the “equal protection of the law.”

In 2003, the Supreme Court decided that the practice of racial preference could continue in the admissions department at the University of Michigan. The rulings came in 2 cases which saw Justice Sandra Day O’Connor cast the deciding vote.

It was the fact of these decisions permitting reverse discrimination which prompted the people of Michigan to end racial preference by passing Proposal 2.

Writing the lead opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy explained that the case did not so much involve the question of race as “…whether and in what manner voters…may choose to prohibit the consideration of racial preference in governmental decisions.”

And it was in approving Proposal 2 that “…Michigan voters exercised their privilege to enact laws as a basic exercise of their democratic power.”

During the 60′s and 70′s, the Court developed the “political process doctrine” which “allowed courts to act where a state’s action pose[d] a risk of causing specific injuries on account of race.” Whether on not discriminatory intent was involved in a state policy, the court had given itself absolute authority, not to make certain that legislation was race neutral, but that it literally favored the interests and agenda of minorities. It was reverse racism, not simply permitted but mandated by the court.

Today, however, a Supreme Court far more likely to ground its decisions in the Constitution has ruled that affirmative action preferences are unconstitutional if used, among other things, to “promote racial balancing,” compensatory justice,” or redress “statistical inequalities. As Justice Scalia noted in Schuette, “…if any policy was deliberately designed to benefit minorities, we would hold the policy unconstitutional.”

At last, the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause has become just that. And it has once again become the right of American citizens to determine the manner in which racial preference and other controversial issues will be resolved.”

Sources:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/22/DUPLICATESupreme-Court-Upholds-Michigan-Constitution-s-Ban-on-Racial-Preferences

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=5563

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/04/22/why-the-result-in-schuette-was-inevitable/

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-682_j4ek.pdf

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.

Source:

http://kfor.com/2014/04/20/oklahoma-militia-gears-up-to-fight-with-feds/ 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London 

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/