Tuesday, September 28, 2010
LINK. Is it only a matter of time until the whole country surrenders? Many mayors and other public officials already have. Of course, it won't be an explicit surrender from the government. According to Pres. Calderon, if American only had stronger controls on assault weapons this wouldn't have happened.
This result is stupid. It seems to me that the rational remedy would be to give him the required notice and then have a totally new hearing. If this result is required by contract or collective bargaining agreement, those documents should be changed. Where do they find these employees and administrators? LINK
Monday, September 27, 2010
Unfortunately, the system failed to protect this woman or provide help for the dangerous mentally ill man from whom she needed protection. Anyone who thinks they don't need weapons to protect their lives and homes and can safely rely on the police is living in La-La land. LINK
If it isn’t already obvious, it should be by now why The Dems are against the U.S. Supreme Court's First Amendment decision in Citizens United, and voted for the bill which was partly struck down by the Supreme Court. They are for the First Amendment only when they benefit. "I want you to understand right now all over this country special interests are planning and running millions of dollars of attack ads against Democratic candidates," Obama said at a Democratic fundraiser in New York on Wednesday. "Because of last year's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, they are now allowed to spend as much as they want, unlimited amounts of money, and they don't have to reveal who is paying for these ads." Source: LINK IMHO anyone who thinks most American’s politicians have any sincere concern about broad-based First Amendment principles beyond self-interest are terribly naïve. Think critically: Who Benefits?
Friday, September 24, 2010
Thursday, September 23, 2010
In the U.S., this would be protected by the First Amendment. The U.S. has more protections for speech and press than any nation on earth. Many people think the U.S. should be more like Britain and Europe. Sorry, but I personally don't like it when government tries to punish those who are politically incorrect according to the regime's standards. LINK
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Okay, let me get serious for a moment about our Supreme Court Justices. A few serious, but opinionated comments: CJ ROBERTS: A consistently conservative CJ, just like his predecessor Rehnquist. Eminently qualified to be CJ. Although he often has opinion-assigning authority, he doesn’t hog it. At his confirmation hearings he showed great knowledge of the Constitution and was able to charm many of the skeptics. Samuel ALITO: Had trouble coming up with one for him, hence the long reach. In spite of the negative connotation, I was pleased with his nomination and confirmation. He might be one of the few who takes judicial restraint seriously. It’s a big feather in his cap to get authorship of the landmark McDonald opinion. The nickname comes from his tendency to be ruthlessly conservative in his opinions like his namesake was in history as a warrior and ruler. Too much knee-jerk conservatism. On the positive side, without him our Second Amendment rights might still be buried under a liberal smokescreen. Anthony KENNEDY: IMHO, the Justice most likely to be able to rise above ideology to do real judging. I agree with Kennedy more often than any other Justice. As the most frequent swing-vote, one of the most powerful public officials in America. IMHO, he usually gets the big ones right, e.g., Heller, McDonald, Boumediene and the corporate campaign finance case. Probably the closest thing to a real libertarian on the Court. Perhaps a little too conservative when it comes to the rights of suspects and defendant. Antonin SCALIA: The most brilliant, witty, perceptive and overall the best writer and researcher. At one time he was my favorite and I thought he was serious about setting aside ideology. He seems to be have become another knee-jerk conservative. He writes too many nit-picking dissents. However, his brilliance came through in his McDonald concurrence which made mincemeat of Stevens’ dissent. No one on the Court comes close to his intellect, esp. the liberals. Clarence THOMAS: Frequently way out in right-field. Times have changed and precedents have come and gone since the 1800’s. Tends to be a knee-jerk conservative—sometimes an embarrassment. Nickname comes from his tendency to remain totally silent at oral argument. Stephen BREYER: Most transparently aggressive of the left-wing cultural warriors on the Court. Not impressed with his intellect, but am impressed with his creativity. He can find more arguments that have little or no basis in the Constitution, history or precedent to justify his preferred result than any Justice I’ve seen. Over-sized ego. His huckstering of his book is an embarrassment. Ruth Bader GINSBURG: I am impressed with her intellect but not with her knee-jerk liberalism. As for the nickname, check out some of her recent photos. Sonya SOTOMAYOR: Not impressed yet. She will probably turn out to be another knee-jerk liberal. Elena KAGAN: Too early to tell, but given her background and her nominator, she’ll probably turn out to be another knee-jerk liberal. Too much experience in academe, not enough in areas that should count more. Finally, the most recent retiree, STEVENS: another nickname would be John Paul, “Don’t burn that flag” Stevens. Some of his later year opinions were weak. Although not as bad as some of the others, generally a knee-jerk liberal. I’m anxious to hear your opinions on this crew.
Friday, September 17, 2010
All right, let’s have a little fun and a few laughs. I know this is irreverent and disrespectful, but I have little respect for any of the Justices. I know the stuffed shirts, and Supreme Court idolaters will not be pleased, but there must be a few people out there with a sense of sarcastic humor. The Justices already have in-court nicknames, but let’s have some fun and make up some new ones. CJ John, “Rehnquist II,” Roberts (or “the Charmer”) Clarence “19th Century” Thomas (or “Big Mouth”) Antonin, “The Originalist,” Scalia (or “the Professor,” “the Scourge” [of oral argument]) Samuel, “Attila,” Alito. Stephen “the Huckster” Breyer Sonya,“Wise Latina,” Sotomayor Elena, “Ivory Tower,” Kagan Ruth Bader, Sourpuss” Ginsburg, and finally, my favorite Justice Anthony “The trapeze artist” Kennedy (or “How much am I bid”) We certainly can’t let Stevens get by even though he has retired: John Paul “way past retirement” Stevens.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Monday, September 13, 2010
The number of firearms and handguns in U.S. society goes up every year. However, the rates of all kinds of violent crime have been declining for years. When are the simple-mind gun banners going to face the facts? LINK
Sunday, September 12, 2010
The 3 current and 1 former NOPD officer(s) charged with the murder of 2 persons during the notorious Danziger Bridge incident will NOT face the death penalty. LINK
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
Thursday, September 09, 2010
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
Although protected by the First Amendment, this is not the way to protest terrorism committed by Islamic extremists. It shows a lack of sophisticated understanding of the issues, and may only fan the flames of terrorism. Religious bigotry and book-burning are an embarrassment in a free and educated society. LINK
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
IMHO it is naive to believe that most of the people on the Supreme Court are trying to be impartial judges. Most, IMHO, are ideologues. More evidence re this on selection of law clerks. LINK
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
My own conclusion is that it has a lot of, but not unlimited, authority if the person is outside the usual legal jurisdiction of the U.S and has committed criminal acts against the U.S. or U.S. citizens. This suit may help answer that question. LINK