Showdown At The Supreme Court Corral

The sooner this Obamacare abomination is declared unconstitutional, the better for the country, the economy, and the American people. It’s a huge, bloated beached whale that will add trillions to the national debt and increase the cost and lower the quality of health care, forcing people to pay more to wait longer for less.

Supreme Court could rule on health care law in months

The Obama administration set the stage Monday for the Supreme Court to rule early next year on the constitutionality of the president’s health care law by declining to press for a full appeal in a lower court.

The Justice Department announced it will forego an appeal to the full 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. Such an appeal to the 10-member court could have taken months and delayed a final decision from the high court until at least 2013.

In August, a 2-1 panel of the 11th Circuit became the first appellate court to declare unconstitutional the new requirement that all Americans have health insurance.

Now, the administration can appeal directly to the Supreme Court and ask the justices to schedule the case to be heard and decided during the term that begins next week and ends in June. If the court follows that schedule, the justices will hand down a ruling on Obama’s signature legislation just as the election campaign moves into high gear.

See also:
‘Obamacare’ Closer to Supreme Court Review After Administration Declines to Appeal Latest Ruling
Unconstitutional Obamacare? Supreme Court battle is on in 2012
It’s On: Health Care Reform is Going to SCOTUS
Health reform lawsuit appears headed for Supreme Court
Administration Lets Case Go Forward Against Health Reform Law
Obama Won’t Seek Hearing on Health Law, Setting Stage for High Court Case
Health Law Path to High Court Clears
Health Case Closer to High Court
No Appeal for Health Care Law in Atlanta
Obamacare Headed for Supreme Court
Obama Administration: No Challenge to Health Care Ruling

Over the centuries, the Commerce Clause has been bent and warped to justify all manner of Federal government intervention in people’s lives, but Obamacare is a bridge too far. You simply cannot force U.S. citizens to affirmatively purchase a product against their will. And, if the Federal government can force people to buy health insurance, what product can’t they make them buy?

/Obamacare is blatantly unconstitutional and if the Supreme Court agrees and strikes it down, in the middle of the run up to next year’s Presidential election, it will blow Obama’s already dwindling reelection chances clear out of the water

Advertisements

You Have The Right To Remain Silent . . . For Two Weeks

Score one for the police.

Supreme Court puts expiration date on ‘right to remain silent’

A crime suspect who invokes his “right to remain silent” under the famous Miranda decision can be questioned again after 14 days, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday. And if he freely agrees to talk then, his incriminatory statements can be used against him.

In a 9-0 decision in a Maryland child-abuse case, the high court overturned a rule set in 1981 that barred the police from questioning a suspect once he had asked to remain silent and to speak with a lawyer.

Known as the “Edwards rule,” it was intended to prevent investigators from “badgering” a suspect who was held in jail after he had invoked his Miranda rights. In some cases, police had awakened a suspect in the middle of the night and asked him again to waive his rights and to admit to a crime.

In recent years, the rule has been understood to prevent police from ever requestioning a freed suspect, even for other crimes in other places. The justices said Wednesday that although the rule made sense for suspects who were held in jail, it did not make sense for suspects who had gone free.

“In a country that harbors a large number of repeat offenders, the consequence [of this no-further-questioning rule] is disastrous,” Justice Antonin Scalia said.

If there has been a “break in custody” and the suspect has gone free, Scalia said, the police should be allowed to speak with him after some period of time.

“It seems to us that period is 14 days,” he said. “That provides plenty of time for the suspect to get reacclimated to his normal life [and] to consult with friends and counsel.”

Then, if the suspect waives his rights and agrees to talk, any statement he makes can be used against him, the court said.

The ruling in Maryland vs. Shatzer reinstates a child-abuse conviction against a Maryland man who made incriminatory statements to a state investigator 2 1/2 years after he had first been questioned by police.

See also:
Maryland v. Shatzer
Maryland v. Shatzer
‘Miranda’ dealt one-two punch by high court
Court says inmate’s lawyer request no longer valid
Supreme Court rules that request for lawyer in questioning has expiration
Supreme Court hands police another victory in Miranda cases
High Court Sets Time Limit on Lawyer Request
Court Says Miranda Rights Don’t Bar Requestioning
Supreme Court eases rules for questioning suspects
Supreme Court: Police can question suspect after release
Miranda Rights Last for 14 Days, High Court Says
High court overturns Maryland child molestation decision
Edwards v. Arizona

Hooray for the Supreme Court, and it was a unanimous decision no less! Good deal, Miranda could use a good pruning. Ever since the uber liberal Warren Court pulled the Miranda warning scheme out of thin air, criminals have had way too much of an advantage over law enforcement when it comes to questioning.

/seriously, if a criminal is too stupid to know that they don’t have to confess to the police, they deserve to go to prison anyway, just for being that dumb

Not So Fast There Obama

Supreme Court Delays Chrysler’s Swift Sale

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday held up the sale of Chrysler’s assets to Italian automaker Fiat, at least temporarily interrupting the Obama administration’s massive and speedy restructuring of the U.S. auto industry.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s 53-word order did not hint at what she thought of an appeal led by a group of Indiana pension and construction funds, which stand to see their investments in Chrysler reduced with no say in the process. Instead, she instructed simply that the transaction is “stayed pending further notice.”

The decision buys the court time to consider objections filed over the weekend, and it comes as the clock is ticking. Fiat can back out of the deal if it is not finalized by Monday, and the government has warned that the only alternative would be to force the nation’s third-largest automaker into liquidation, throwing the industry in turmoil and leaving tens of thousands of people without jobs.

The stakes may be higher for the Obama administration: If the court backs some of the claims, it could disrupt plans to rescue General Motors and weaken the government’s hand in stabilizing the troubled economy.

“Every day that Chrysler remains in bankruptcy without consummating the sale threatens to postpone the resumption of production even further and to prolong the period of $100-million-per-day losses” financed by taxpayers, Elena Kagan, the U.S. solicitor general, said in a 26-page filing with the high court.

A host of business and conservative groups applauded Ginsburg for standing up to what one called the Obama administration steamroller. And Congress is beginning to stir. Legislation is being drafted to reverse decisions by Chrysler and GM to close thousands of dealerships. The Senate Banking Committee, meanwhile, is preparing to hold a hearing this week on the government’s role in the auto rescue.

The significance of the court’s action remains to be seen. The language Ginsburg used in her order usually signals a delay of short duration.

There could be several explanations, not the least of which is that the justices may not have had time to fully consider the request. Court filings from those opposing the deal began arriving over the weekend and into Sunday. The government’s response in opposition did not arrive at the court until shortly before justices convened yesterday at 10 a.m.

The petitions are directed at Ginsburg because she is the justice responsible for the circuit that includes New York, where the suit was filed. She may decide the stay issue on her own or refer the question to the full court. If it’s the latter, that could explain the need for more time. The full court would have to vote on whether to hear the merits of the case.

See also:
High court blocks Chrysler sale to Fiat
Supreme Court delays Chrysler sale
Chrysler sale on hold, but for how long?
Supreme Court asked to block Chrysler sale to Fiat
Supreme Court Asked to Block Chrysler Sale to Fiat

Of course Ginsburg’s stay doesn’t mean that the Supreme Court will take up the case, it only means that she wanted more time to decide. However, the Supreme Court should take on this case and take a good long look at the legality of the Chrysler/Fiat deal that Obama’s Car Task Force is trying to ram down the taxpayers’ throats. What’s the rush, are they trying to hide something?

The government’s first argument as to why this shotgun wedding must be rushed through is that the deal with Fiat is necessary to stop Chrysler’s “$100-million-per-day losses”. Well, gee, let me get this straight, Fiat gets Chrysler’s assets and suddenly Chrysler miraculously stops losing money. How does that work, exactly, magic?

The government’s other equally bogus argument for steamrolling the Chrysler bondholders is that “the clock is ticking, Fiat can back out of the deal if it is not finalized by Monday, and the government has warned that the only alternative would be to force the nation’s third-largest automaker into liquidation, throwing the industry in turmoil and leaving tens of thousands of people without jobs.”

Really, are they sure Fiat will back out? That’s not what the Fiat CEO said earlier today.

Fiat Will ‘Never’ Walk Away From Chrysler, CEO Says (Update1)

Fiat SpA will “never” walk away from its deal with Chrysler LLC, Fiat Chief Executive Officer Sergio Marchionne said in an interview.

“We should just be patient and let the system work,” Marchionne said by telephone today moments after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ordered a delay of Chrysler’s planned sale to the Italian carmaker while the U.S. Supreme Court considers a request for a longer postponement that might scuttle the deal.

A federal appeals court in New York last week allowed the sale, while putting its decision on hold until 4 p.m. today to let opponents, including Indiana pension funds, seek Supreme Court intervention. The Indiana pension funds hold $42.5 million of $6.9 billion in Chrysler’s secured loans.

“We would never walk away,” Marchionne said in response to a question about whether Fiat would pull out of the deal if it isn’t completed by the June 15 deadline. “Never.”

So, there’s no good excuse not to slow this deal down and let the Supreme Court take a careful look at the legality of it. The real reason the Obama administration wants to cram this down the taxpayers’ throats, without any meaningful scrutiny, is to cover up their abhorrent, thuggish behavior, motivated by the single minded purpose of protecting the UAW, whatever cost to the taxpayers be damned. The Obama Auto Task Force wants to get this deal done because the unseemly details concerning their extremely questionable tactics and purpose are starting to see the light of day and honest people are starting to ask some hard, honest questions.

U.S. Pushed Fiat Deal on Chrysler

The Obama administration rushed an alliance between Chrysler LLC and Fiat SpA despite Chrysler’s worries about Fiat’s financial health and its willingness to share technology, according to internal company emails.

The emails show Fiat ignoring requests for documents and trying to change contract terms late in the talks. A Chrysler adviser at one point said the deal risked looking as if the U.S. auto maker and the Treasury Department, which helped broker the pact, were “in bed with a shady partner.” In another note, an official referred to the Treasury Department as “God.”

The documents, filed in the Southern District of New York as part of Chrysler’s bankruptcy proceedings, provide a glimpse at the tense debates that shaped Chrysler’s final days as it raced to find a suitor.

On Friday, a federal appeals court upheld Chrysler’s Fiat deal, dismissing a challenge by dissident Chrysler debt holders. But the court also issued a stay until 4 p.m. Monday — leaving a small window for Thomas Lauria, the lawyer pursuing the case, to appeal to the Supreme Court. One judge on the three-judge panel suggested the Supreme Court should have “a swing at this ball.”

Mr. Lauria’s persistence led one government lawyer in the Chrysler case to dub him a “terrorist” in an email to a Chrysler adviser.

See also:
Obama’s man called shots on bankruptcy
Chrysler-Fiat Deal: U.S. Government as “God”

UPDATE: Indiana vs. Chrysler: Was TARP Used Illegally?

A quick scan of the 169-page legislation detailing the purpose of the Troubled Asset Relief Fund doesn’t say anything about automobile companies. Nor does it say anything about using the government’s money to bail out nonfinancial institutions generally.

On its face then, it might appear the Indiana pension funds have a solid argument in challenging the U.S. Treasury Department’s use of TARP funds to finance Chrysler’s restructuring. That point is at the heart of the pension funds’ effort to persuade the Supreme Court to issue a stay the Chrysler-Fiat deal. The stay asks for a temporary hold on the deal until the Justices can decide whether to hear the case.

See also:
Why the Legality of the Chrysler Bailout Won’t Matter
Senate panel to question Obama auto task force

Like a dead, flattened skunk on a hot asphalt road at high noon on a sunny 950 day, this Chrysler/Fiat deal stinks to high heaven. Just a few of the serious problems with it include the government coercion of a private corporation, the trammeling of first lien secured creditors’ legal rights in favor of unsecured creditors, the abrogation of well settled bakruptcy law and established capital structure, and the possible illegal use of and wasteful spending of taxpayer money. And these same legal concerns are also cropping up in the GM banruptcy.

/all I can say is that if the U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t take on this case and sort through these very important legal issues threatening the existing rule of law in this country, they’ll be shirking their duty as a coequal branch of government and shame on them

Let Your Imagination Run Wild

Oh boy, Obama’s going to get his first crack at appointing a Supreme Court Justice. The only good news about it is that it’s one of the leftys.

Supreme Court Justice Souter To Retire

NPR has learned that Supreme Court Justice David Souter is planning to retire at the end of the current court term.

The vacancy will give President Obama his first chance to name a member of the high court and begin to shape its future direction.

At 69, Souter is nowhere near the oldest member of the court. In fact, he is in the younger half of the court’s age range, with five justices older and just three younger. So far as anyone knows, he is in good health. But he has made clear to friends for some time that he wanted to leave Washington, a city he has never liked, and return to his native New Hampshire. Now, according to reliable sources, he has decided to take the plunge and has informed the White House of his decision.

Factors in his decision no doubt include the election of President Obama, who would be more likely to appoint a successor attuned to the principles Souter has followed as a moderate-to-liberal member of the court’s more liberal bloc over the past two decades.

In addition, Souter was apparently satisfied that neither the court’s oldest member, 89-year-old John Paul Stevens, nor its lone woman, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who had cancer surgery over the winter, wanted to retire at the end of this term. Not wanting to cause a second vacancy, Souter apparently had waited to learn his colleagues’ plans before deciding his own.

Given his first appointment to the high court, most observers expect Obama will appoint a woman, since the court currently has only one female justice and Obama was elected with strong support from women. But an Obama pick would be unlikely to change the ideological makeup of the court.

See also:
Supreme Court Justice Souter To Retire
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Souter to retire: reports
Source: Justice Souter retiring
BREAKING NEWS: David Souter To Retire
NBC: Souter to retire from Supreme Court
David Souter
United States Supreme Court
The Justices of the Supreme Court

Well, Obama shouldn’t have any problem getting his nomination through a now filibuster proof Senate.

/God only knows what 40 year old, hard core left wing internationalist socialist heathen, to the left of Karl Marx, who believes that the Constitution is a living document and the Framers didn’t really mean what they wrote, he’ll appoint

Keep Counting Until You Win, It’s The Democrat Way

franken-794120bmp

Court declares Franken winner; Coleman to appeal

After a trial spanning nearly three months, Norm Coleman’s attempt to reverse Al Franken’s lead in the recount of the U.S. Senate election was soundly rejected today by a three-judge panel that dismissed the Republican’s lawsuit.

The judges swept away Coleman’s argument that the election and its aftermath were fraught with systemic errors that made the results invalid.

“The overwhelming weight of the evidence indicates that the Nov. 4, 2008, election was conducted fairly, impartially and accurately,” the panel said in its unanimous decision.

In rejecting Coleman’s arguments, the panel said the Republican essentially asked it to ignore Minnesota election requirements and adopt a more lenient standard allowing illegal absentee ballots to be counted.

The panel also rejected Coleman’s comparison of Senate election problems to those in the 2000 presidential race in Florida.

Unlike Florida, Minnesota has statewide standards for absentee voting that are “uniform and explicit and apply in every county and city,” the panel wrote.

See also:
Court: Franken won most votes; Coleman to appeal
Minn. court declares Franken leading vote-getter
Court: Franken defeats Coleman
Democrat wins round in Minnesota U.S. Senate race
MN-Sen: Franken declared the winner
Media Ignore Fact that Minn. Recount Boss Mark Ritchie an ACORN Ally
2006 Endorsements
Court Finds For Franken
Norm Coleman for US Senate

How do you find more than 1000 votes to go from losing by more than 700 votes on election day, six months ago, to winning by more than 300 votes today, after a canvass, recount, and court challenge? Well, you start by “finding” hundreds of ballots, in places like car trunks, days after the election is over. Then, during the canvass, you count hundreds of duplicate ballots in several Franken districts. Next, during the recount, you rely on Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, a huge ACORN Democrat to shepherd your campaign over the finish line for the big win. Finally, you depend on the Democrat dominated Minnesota judiciary to put the stamp of approval on your stunning 900 vote, reversal of fortune, come from behind victory, and then add another 100 votes to the margin, just for good measure.

I watched the recount and, living in Minnesota, have been paying close attention to this saga since election day. The scope of the irregularities is mind boggling.

Unlike Florida, Minnesota has statewide standards for absentee voting that are “uniform and explicit and apply in every county and city,” the panel wrote.

Are they joking? Many counties refused to even participate in the absentee recount. There’s no way absentee recount election standards were consistently applied statewide or , for that matter, during the recount of election day ballots. There’s gigantic due process and equal protection issues here that deserve further appeal. This Senate election process and the resulting aftermath is so fundamentally and fatally flawed, the only equitable dispensation of justice is to order a special election.

Anyway, Norm’s next stop is the Minnesota Supreme Court, which will undoubtedly uphold the Panel’s ruling, and then it’s on to the U.S. Supreme Court on federal Constitutional grounds.

Republicans, as well as right minded people everywhere, should financially support Norm’s legal appeals as long as it takes and as far as they go, out of principle and, yes, for tactical partisan purposes. Franken’s victory comes by hook and crook, why should we give up before we at least run out the string of legal options?

/just remember, every day without Al Franken in the U.S. Senate is a markedly better day than the alternative

What A Brilliant Idea!

Gitmo East

War On Terror: The administration says the detainees at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan cannot challenge their detentions and have no constitutional rights. Wouldn’t that be a perfect place to send the Gitmo jihadists?

After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that Guantanamo detainees had the legal right to challenge their detentions in American courts, four detainees held at Bagram thought they had a get out of jail free card. Following that ruling, petitions were filed on their behalf in a U.S. district court.

Apparently, in handling prisoners of war captured in the war on terror, the first law of real estate applies. The rights of detainees depend on location, location, location.

It is now the official opinion of the Obama administration that the detainees at Bagram have none while those at Gitmo, such as those who attacked the Navy destroyer Cole in a Yemeni harbor in 2000, have the same rights as any U.S. citizen.

Hey, problem solved, just load them back on the plane they arrived at Gitmo in and ship them right back to where they came from in the first place!

See also:
Detainee Flight
Terrorist Detainees Arrive in Cuba
Bagram Air Base – Home
Afghanistan — Bagram Airbase
Guantanamo Bay [GTMO] “GITMO”

/it’s the perfect solution, I can’t believe that no one has thought of it before