Obama v. SCOTUS - The Washington Post

Pure Bullshit. If you believe TeamObama's pronouncement, you are not paying attention to American politics.

“I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”"

Such an absurd statement from POTUS. He's allegedly a Constitutional scholar? The healthcare act was passed on a Sunday in Congress with only a few votes in the House favoring it. No Republicans voted for it.

Obama Predicts Health Law Will Survive Supreme Court Case - WSJ.com

POTUS vs SCOTUS. Lobbying the Supreme Court for a favorable decision on ObamaCare.

"President Barack Obama predicted Monday that the Supreme Court would uphold his signature health-care law and said that overturning it would be a prime example of judicial overreach.
President Obama said at a Rose Garden press conference he is "confident" the Supreme Court will uphold his health-care reform law. (Photo: AP)
It was a rare instance of a president laying out his own arguments about a Supreme Court case before the justices are set to reach their decision.
In his first public comments about the case since the justices took it up last week, Mr. Obama appeared to be framing the political argument he would make should he have to face voters this fall after a loss at the high court..."

Judge Rules Vermont's Legislature has Overreached ...Yet Again

The decision yesterday by U.S. District Judge Murtha in the case brought by Entergy against the State of Vermont is a clear victory for the plaintiff and one more rebuff of Vermont's Legislature for making laws that are unconstitutional. Vermont Attorney General Sorrell sits in an even darker shadow for apparently failing to provide proper legal guidance to the Legislature at the time these laws are considered.  Even to a layman the outcome of this case was obvious long before it was filed. The Commerce clause of the Constitution would prevail and Judge Murtha has ruled correctly.

Whether a Vermonter is for or against nuclear power generated in Vermont, one cannot fail to recognize that in this case and in prior cases dealing with election laws and prescription drug information, Vermont continues to step beyond the U.S. Constitution and has a losing record when challenged in Federal court. Let's hope that wisdom will prevail and that Vermont will not appeal this case to waste yet more money.

Vermonters deserve better from their Governor, their Legislature and their Attorney General. This and prior litigation at the Supreme Court has unnecessarily wasted millions of taxpayer dollars. More form the national media on the the Vermont Attorney General's court performances here from Dave Gram, a Vermont AP reporter, in the San Jose Mercury News.

Voters should pay heed to these events and elect people who have greater respect for the Constitution and who will resist their ideology-driven law-making.

Finally, kudos to those in the Vermont Senate who voted against these laws that have been found unconstitutional.

Justices Recognize ‘Ministerial Exception’ to Job Bias Laws - NYTimes.com

Thankfully, the Supreme Court rejected the Executive Branch arguments that a religious group should be viewed the same as any other organized group of people under civil rights legislation and administration policy. This decision shows that the Constitution clearly protects freedom of religion and trumps the desire of the Congress or the Executive to meddle in non-secular affairs.

"Many religious groups were outraged when the Obama administration argued in support of Ms. Perich, saying this was evidence that the administration was hostile to historically protected religious liberties.


The administration had told the justices that their analysis of Ms. Perich’s case should be essentially the same whether she had been employed by a church, a labor union, a social club or any other group with free-association rights under the First Amendment. That position received withering criticism when the case was argued in October, and it was soundly rejected in Wednesday’s decision."

Gov. Shumlin Looking to Get Off the Hook?

This excerpt from TrueNorth Reports daily newsletter (01/28/11) reporting on Gov Shumlin's press conference earlier this week is very likely correct. Entergy won't walk away from its investment in Vermont Yankee without exhausting all its potential remedies.


I believe Entergy's chances are better than even that the Federal courts will side with them, but this case, if filed, will likely wind up at the Supreme Court. How much money Vermont will squander defending such a lawsuit is anybody's guess. Attorney General Sorrell, what's your budget for this?

"...The bad news is that Shumlin appears totally un-moveable from his insistence that Vermont Yankee be closed in 2012, despite being deemed safe for operation by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This, despite red flags raised this week by IBM that Vermont's largest private employer could be "outta here" if electric rates rise to un uncompetitive levels. Speculation in the State House is that Shumlin's looking for a federal lawsuit by Entergy denying the legislature the authority to close the plant to get him off the hook without overtly breaking his campaign promises...."

Supreme Court Makes Correct Decision

The New York Times' view of the decision:

"With a single, disastrous 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century. Disingenuously waving the flag of the First Amendment, the court’s conservative majority has paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding."

The Wall Street Journal's view of the decision:

"Freedom has had its best week in many years. On Tuesday, Massachusetts put a Senate check on a reckless Congress, and yesterday the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision supporting free political speech by overturning some of Congress's more intrusive limits on election spending.

In a season of marauding government, the Constitution rides to the rescue one more time."

Without doubt, the gnashing of teeth has begun in earnest about the Supreme Court's politically earth-shaking decision yesterday. The 5-4 ruling upended a large number of unconstitutional restrictions on free speech by corporations, unions and other legal "persons" to speak freely and spend money espousing or castigating candidates for public office.

In 2006, here and here, on this blog I expressed the same fundamental opinion: our democracy requires free speech including the right to spend money promoting political opinions without government interference.

When all's said and done the Supreme Court is heavily influenced by politics. Liberals appoint/approve left-leaning jurists and conservatives appoint/approve more conservative leaning people when they are in power. Supreme Court decisions reflect that reality with shifts in judicial philosophy over time based on the composition of the Court.

I firmly believe that if a labor union or a corporation has the standing of 'a person' before the law, they should have the same Constitutional free speech rights as an individual, including spending money on political speech in elections. As a voter, I have a direct power at the ballot box that 'legal persons' do not have, but they should have the ability to freely express their opinions, including spending money, to promote those views. I will then make up my own mind.

If the Burlington Free Press (Gannett Corp.) has the right to endorse a political candidate under the First Amendment, then Seventh Generation, or Google or GE should have that same right as a legal "person." Whether a company is in the "news" business should not be only the determinant. News organizations have Constitutional 'free press' rights." So should all legal "persons," without government restraint. This decision affirms that fundamental Constitutional right.

Cheers for the Constitution and bravo for this Supreme Court decision!

Obama's 'Redistribution' Constitution - WSJ.com

Obama's 'Redistribution' Constitution - WSJ.com

One meaning of Obama's 'redistribution' plans Both political parties seek to enforce their ideologies via appointments to the bench. The difference this time is that the Republicans may not have the votes to block judicial appointments in the Senate.