Category Archives: The Courts

Legal: The Not-So-Wise Latina Lets Loose

Affirmative Action, Law, Race, Racism, The Courts

What happens when the highest court in the land admits to the bench an individual who emotes rather than reasons, and is without the intellectual wherewithal to tell reason from emotion? You get the not-so-wise Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who delivered an unhinged disquisition in favor of institutionalizing affirmative action forever-after.

On Monday, reports John Fund, “the Supreme Court voted six to two to uphold the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), which was passed with support from 58 percent of that state’s voters in 2006. It simply enshrines in Michigan’s constitution that the state should not engage in race discrimination.” (Read “BUSH’S AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AMBUSH” as a refresher.)

But from where Sotomayor is perched, as a confessed recipient of affirmative action (“Sonia SotoSetAsides once admitted that her test scores ‘were not comparable to her colleagues at Princeton and Yale’”), the choice should not be up to Michigan voters.

At 58 pages, her dissent was longer than the opinions of all the other justices combined — and she took the relatively unusual step of reading it passionately from the bench.
“The stark reality is that race still matters,” Sotomayor said. “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination.” She went on to chastise the majority’s opinion: “My colleagues misunderstand the nature of the injustice worked by” the Michigan amendment.

At least that excuse for a Chief Justice, John Roberts (the man whose clever casuistry gave us Obamacare’s individual mandate), offered a firm rejoinder to this surly woman:

Roberts directly confronted Sotomayor in his own concurring opinion: “It is not ‘out of touch with reality’ to conclude that racial preferences may themselves have the debilitating effect . . . that the preferences do more harm than good. To disagree with the dissent’s views on the costs and benefits of racial preferences is not to ‘wish away, rather than confront’ racial inequality. People can disagree in good faith on this issue, but it similarly does more harm than good to question the openness and candor of those on either side of the debate.”

More about the career of SotoSetAsides.

A Law Unto Themselves

Constitution, Founding Fathers, Healthcare, Justice, Law, The Courts

Why stage a judicial intervention when you can sit back and let the executive and the legislature accrue more power, a power that invariably will redound to the Courts as well?

On Monday, the High Court, which should check the other two branches of government—how is that working out?—decided against taking up “the constitutionality of the National Security Agency’s surveillance program that collects bulk telephone data of millions of Americans.” (NJ)

When the Supreme Court has the chance to strike down rights-violating laws and legislation (like the Obamacare individual mandate)—it so often declines.

“Monday’s decision,” concludes the National Journal (too charitably, in my opinion), “reaffirms expectations that the justices would rather allow the issue to percolate within the circuit courts first.”

(At least NJ covers such stuff.)

In the case of Obama’s Affordable Care Act, John G. Roberts Jr., chief of the country’s legal politburo of proctologists, rewrote Obamacare, and then proceeded to provide the fifth vote to uphold the individual mandate undergirding the law, thereby undeniably and obscenely extending Congress’s taxing power.

Face it, the idea of a judiciary that would police the executive as an arm of a self-correcting tripartite government is worse than naive. Rather, it WAS recklessly naive of the American Founding Fathers to imagine that branches of a government, each of whose power is enhanced when the power of the other branches grows, would serve as a check on one another.

A Supremely Ugly And Evil Oligarchy

Constitution, Gender, Healthcare, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Religion, The Courts

“Decent people are sick and tired of conservatives in their bedrooms and liberals in every other room.” This applies to the tyranny that is the U.S. SCOTUS (Supreme Court). It also covers the Court’s philosophical complexion, unless Justice Anthony Kennedy deigns to injects a tiny smidgen of libertarianism, if you can call it that, into this oligarchy’s debates. Via SCOTUSblog:

This morning, the [SCOTUS] heard a new and different challenge arising out of the Affordable Care Act: can a business be required to provide its female employees with health insurance that includes access to free birth control, even if doing so would violate the strong religious beliefs of the family that owns the business?

Said Ugly and Evil (behold. Or under “Recent Headlines and Pictures”):

“Those employers could choose not to give health insurance [to all their employees] and pay not that high a penalty – not that high a tax,” Sotomayor said. … “And in that case Hobby Lobby [plaintiff] would pay $2,000 per employee, which is less that Hobby Lobby probably pays to provide insurance to its employees,” Kagan said. “So there is a choice here. It’s not even a penalty by – in the language of the statute. It’s a payment or a tax. There’s a choice.”

Yes, push the poor male victims of Obamacare and all right-thinking women onto the Zerocare exchange, just because some females wish to screw themselves sillier on the public dime. These despicable women “have the right to purchase the stuff, but not to rope other Americans (including insurers) into supplying it.”

UPDATE II: Conned About Marriage, Constitution And ‘States’ Rights’ (Constitution’s About Process)

Conservatism, Constitution, Federalism, Founding Fathers, Gender, Homosexuality, Law, The Courts

“Conned About Marriage, Constitution And ‘States’ Rights'” is the current column, now on WND. An excerpt:

The ban on the ban is unconstitutional.

This was the gist of broadcaster Mark Levin’s angry tirade against the humdrum, and certainly predicable, decision of a federal judge to strike down “Oklahoma’s voter-approved ban” on gay marriage.

At the center of conservative contretemps are similar decisions in California, New Mexico and Utah, following on which U.S. District Judge Terence Kern had “determined that Oklahoma’s constitutional amendment” violated the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. It stipulates that “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Broadly speaking, WND’s Alan Keyes concurred with Levin, alluding to the Constitution’s 10th and Ninth Amendments by which “the judges and justices of the federal judiciary are forbidden to … deny the antecedent rights retained by the people.”

Indeed, “the prevailing view in 1791,” observed The Honorable Robert T. Donnelly, former chief justice of the Supreme Court of the state of Missouri, “was that the national government had only delegated powers and that reserved to the people was an undefined sphere of non-government within which people may not be interfered with by government.”

But that was then.

In voiding “voter-approved law,” Justice Kern has resorted to perfectly proper 14th Amendment judicial activism. Deploying the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, Kern nullified the 10th. It specifies that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

As expressed in the once-impregnable 10th Amendment, the Constitution’s federal scheme has long since been obliterated by the 14th Amendment and the attendant Incorporation Doctrine.

What does this mean?

If the Bill of Rights was intended to place strict limits on federal power and protect individual and locality from the national government—the 14th Amendment effectively defeated that purpose by placing the power to enforce the Bill of Rights in federal hands, where it was never intended to be. …

… Either way, the freedoms afforded by federalism are no longer because American federalism is no longer. …

… Conservatives as astute as Mr. Levin, Esq., ought to quit misleading their readers and listeners about the restoration of a constitutional structure that has suffered death by a thousand cuts, long before the dreadful cur Obama appeared on the scene. …

Read the complete column. “Conned About Marriage, Constitution And ‘States’ Rights'” is now on WND.

JOIN THE CONVERSATION:

• At the WND Comments Section. Scroll down and “Say it.”

• On my Facebook page.

• By clicking to “Like,” “Tweet” and “Share” this week’s “Return To Reason” column.

If you’d like to feature this column, WND’s longest-standing, exclusive paleolibertarian column, in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact ilana@ilanamercer.com.

UPDATED I (1/24): American constitutional federalism is about process, rather than what law you like or don’t. The process is clear. The Courts were never meant to tell people how to run their homes and communities. It’s a column I’ve been wanting to write for a while. It’s quite disturbing how little people understand about a structure/scheme that is no longer and that was intended to protect liberty. The 14th is a real problem, as it killed the 10th.

UPDATE II: Facebook thread:

Todd Frank: The post-civil war Republicans did not think several things through when they drafted the 14th amendment. That said, there still has to be some sort of remedy when states themselves trample on the rights of the individual short of giving the US government carte-blanche to do whatever they want to us.

Ilana Mercer : Todd Frank, you make a good point. But just about every state had itself a constitution with a bill of rights.