Showing posts with label supreme court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label supreme court. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

The Imperial Court: Perspective on Sonia Sotomayor

From Lew Rockwell, from the LRC Blog:

The Imperial Court

"The rise of redistributionist Sonia Sotomayor is just another cost of war and imperialism. If the US had not attacked the declining Spanish empire to conquer and colonize Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Cuba, Guam, etc., she might be a judge in Madrid. On the other hand, maybe she is payback for US oppression of Puerto Rico."

The Spanish-American War was fought between April and August 1898 over the issues of the liberation of Cuba (now that's ironic, isn't it?).

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Supreme Court Rolled Over In One Day on Chrysler

The Supreme Court rolled over in one day.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg put a temporary hold Monday on the deal to sell Chrysler to save it from collapse. Then the Justices on Tuesday evening without dissent removed a legal obstacle to sale of the troubled auto industry giant, Chrysler.


According to the Supreme Court Justices (from their order, posted on SCOTUSblog; emphasis by me):

So, holding Chrysler's secured debt in the State pension fund and facing the possibility of "irreparable injury" to the fund because of this hasty deal brokered by the Auto Task Force led by an investment banker who defaulted on debt owed to Cerberus (soon-to-be-kicked-out Chrysler's owner) means ... NOTHING.

The bankruptcy court judge Gonzalez has done everything he possibly can to accommodate the administration in quick dismantling and sale of Chrysler. And now the Supreme Court. The judicial branch of the US government has rolled over to do the bidding of the executive branch. GM bondholders can simply forget about appealing to any judiciary.

In the Legislative branch of the government in the current incarnation, Democrats have the majority in both House and Senate and pretty much can do what they want. They are doing it, which is to roll over to the Executive branch. Even in the previous incarnation, they passed the $700 billion bailout bill against overwhelming opposition from the taxpayers.

The Executive branch has been busy creating its own "government" with numerous "czars" who cover all aspects of the formal government. And it is doing whatever it wants, pretty much.

So now what? (I just have a bad feeling that this won't end well.)

Monday, June 8, 2009

Hints of What Kind of Country US Is Fast Becoming

This from Zero Hedge on June 8:
Obama Claims TARP Issue Is Out Of Supreme Court's Authority, which is based on this post from SCOTUS Blog (Supreme Court of the United States Blog):

U.S. says TARP issue out of Court’s reach (6/8/09, SCOTUS Blog):

"The Obama Administration argued Monday that no court, including the Supreme Court, has the authority to hear a challenge by Indiana benefit plans to the role the U.S. Treasury played in the Chrysler rescue, including the use of “bailout” (TARP) funds. The Indiana debt holders, U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan wrote, simply have no right to raise that issue, thus putting it out of the reach of the courts."

Emphasis is mine. The administration is saying we have no right to question the government in Chrysler bailout, and no court has authority to hear us.

This from Washington's blog on May 20:
Obama is considering doing something that even Bush didn't try: Preventive detention of people who will never get a trial:

Quoting New York Times article on May 20,

"President Obama told human rights advocates at the White House on Wednesday that he was mulling the need for a “preventive detention” system that would establish a legal basis for the United States to incarcerate terrorism suspects who are deemed a threat to national security but cannot be tried.."

"The other participant said Mr. Obama did not seem to be thinking about preventive detention for terrorism suspects now held at Guantánamo Bay, but rather for those captured in the future, in settings other than a legitimate battlefield like Afghanistan."

Do you see a pattern here?

Didn't the President teach constitutional law, or at least say he did? (Which country's constitution was he teaching?)

Do you want to run as fast as you can, as far away as you can, while you can?