The Supreme Court

11 May 2010 11:39 pm


Just Biden their time at the White House until their friends in the media set the nations’ heads straight about Obama’s choice of Elena Kagan, the super friendly and fun new Supreme Court nominee. There is not much of a paper trail for the nominee which might explain the focus on her great personality. It’s as if Barack and friends were trying to convince the nation to take Kagan out on a date. She plays basketball (or maybe she plays the basketball?) she plays a mean straight (or maybe it’s two of a kind) and she loves to go to Halloween parties.

The White House would certainly have us believe that Kagan is not vapid and hollow even though she used those words to describe the Supreme Court nomination process of Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

However, the White House has thus far provided little meat (or potatoes) to the biography of nominee, Kagan. It’s as though the Gates to the brain trust are Locked. Just ask the reporters who questioned Robert Gibbs about a White House produced interview of Kagan posted today on the White House website.

We know that Kagan didn’t want military recruiters anywhere near her beloved Harvard but when she was challenged before the Supreme Court, she lost. Perhaps that is why she was selected by Obama to be the nations’ solicitor general. (I’m being Sebelius)

After all, Obama doesn’t even know how to pronounce corpsman. It appears from the dearth of a paper trail that Kagan has been grooming herself for the court for years. So what if she’s had a few photo ops with military members? Sometimes the elite do have to mix with their perceived enemies. But the attempt of the clueless president to paper over Kagan’s bias against our nations’ military fools no one except reporters. It makes no Rahm or reason.

It’s all about perception.

I read in the Wall Street Journal that Ms. Kagan had mixed grades as Dean of the Harvard Law School. To her credit, she was inclusive with conservative speakers and law faculty. She even had praise for the Federalist Society. But, according to the article Kagan was given more credit than she deserves for adding more conservatives to the law faculty. The credit should be given to her predecessor, Robert Clark, dean for 14 years.

On the other hand, there are all the goodies Kagan provided for Harvard Law, a skating rink, a renovated gym, even tampons in the bathroom!

Here is more about Kagan’s Harvard Law days as Dean.

Then there is Kagan’s “Socialism Thesis.” Not much of a blip in the news but very revealing. Even though there is much to be learned about Elena Kagan the Washington liberal fog machine blows on.

Will we see Republicans in the Senate ask Kagan the questions she thought should have been asked of Justices Breyer and Ginsburg?

Not bloody likely.

26 Jun 2008 07:47 pm


Thanks Supreme Court (well, five of you anyway) for affirming that individual Americans have a right to bear arms. Or possess firearms. That little girls and boys can grow up in this country learning how to handle guns.

I love guns.

I should.

A gun got me my husband.


It goes like this.

Back when I was a teenager my parents didn’t allow me to date until I was sixteen, and then it was with a group. When I was seventeen I was allowed to go out on a date with a guy in a car. If a young man got me home one minute late, my father was at the door to meet us with his double barreled shotgun.

If I went on more than one date with a young man my dad put him through the trick glass quest. If he didn’t pass the sense of humor test he didn’t date me. And he went home with a wet shirt.

But quest number one? The young men I dated had to respect the gun.

My husband (back then just a cute guy who had completely caught my eye) got me home five minutes after my Dad’s curfew on our first date. I was a little nervous knowing my Dad’s proclivity to be at the door waiting with one of his guns.

A few times when I had gotten home on time Daddy was at the door with the gun and the young men turned pale and left as quickly as they could. I never heard from them again. It kind of hurt my pride but my Dad told me that they weren’t dating me for the right reasons if they couldn’t pass the gun test. If they were that sissy or afraid to face my father they just didn’t measure up. After a while (and I didn’t date that much really) I began to enjoy the idea and felt a sense of pride that my Dad was there waiting for me every time I went out.

But on the night that Bob got me home late I was nervous because I really liked him and I didn’t want Daddy to scare him off.

I needn’t have worried.

When we got home as we walked up to the house the front porch light went on. As we stepped on the porch the door opened and there was Daddy standing with his double barreled shotgun, looking serious. Bob took one look at him and grabbed the gun away from him and said, “Is that an LC Smith?” He took the gun apart, exclaiming over it and Daddy had found a kindred spirit. Before the night was over Daddy was showing Bob his barbwire collection. It got so late that I was sleepy and went to bed. Daddy and Bob were still talking.

Bob tricked my Dad on quest number two. When Daddy offered Bob the trick glass he was so thirsty he finished the glass in one drink. His shirt was dry. Daddy was really intrigued. By that time so was I.

Guns have always been a familiar presence in my families’ lives. A good presence. We have all been taught how to respect and handle a gun. It’s a tool for some, a hobby for others but for all of us it is protection from those who would harm us.

In a perfect world there would be no need for a gun but we do not live in a perfect world. We need to be able to defend ourselves against the criminals who would take away our possessions, or our lives.

Thank goodness there are still five members of the Supreme Court who abide by the Constitution.

12 Jun 2008 10:06 pm


Did I just hear a door slam shut?

Or is it simply that the keys to our American National Security were copied and given out freely to our greatest enemies by five elderly people who serve on our nations’ highest court?

Today, our nations’ Supreme Court, by a slim margin of one, held that foreign terrorism suspects have rights to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts, and in their majority opinion awarded these unlawful combatants the “privilege of the writ of habeas corpus”

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a very strong dissent.

America is at war with radical Islamists. The enemy began by killing Americans and American allies abroad: 241 at the Marine barracks in Lebanon, 19 at the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, 224 at our embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, and 17 on the USS Cole in Yemen. See National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report, pp. 60–61, 70, 190 (2004).

On September 11, 2001, the enemy brought the battle to American soil, killing 2,749 at the Twin Towers in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon in Washington, D. C., and 40 in Pennsylvania. See id., at 552, n. 9. It has threatened further attacks against our homeland; one need only walk about buttressed and barricaded Washington, or board a plane anywhere in the country, to know that the threat is a serious one.

Our Armed Forces are now in the field against the enemy, in Afghanistan and Iraq. Last week, 13 of our countrymen in arms were killed.

The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the Nation’s Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.

This was not only a dissent but a scathing dissent.

Bruce Kesler writes….

The arguments persuasive to the majority are that a strict interpretation of the Constitution only permits the suspension of habeas corpus in the event of domestic rebellion or invasion, and that Guantanamo is effectively under US jurisdiction. The dissents point out that the executive and Congress followed the Supreme Court’s prior ruling to provide a practical equivalent for the detainees at Guantanamo, and now the majority disregards its own ruling.

Did they have an Emily Litella moment?

The United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in the Suspension Clause, located in Article One, Section 9. It states:

“ The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.

I am obviously a layman when it comes to the law but I can read very well. I would assert that the attack by al Qaeda on September 11th, 2001 constituted both a rebellion, and an invasion and that public safety does require that the terrorists being held at Guantanamo be denied that privilege.

The use of the word privilege by Justice Kennedy in writing for the majority especially rankles.

According to the Law Encyclopedia:Privilege

A particular benefit, advantage, or immunity enjoyed by a person or class of people that is not shared with others. A power of exemption against or beyond the law. It is not a right but, rather, exempts one from the performance of a duty, obligation, or liability.

As American citizens we do enjoy freedoms and responsibilities. We pay our taxes, we obey the laws of the land and up until now, we have had the freedom of dissent. We are allowed to speak out when we are in disagreement with a policy, a law, a decision.

We are privileged to live in a nation with three separate and equal branches of government, the legislative, the executive and the judicial. With today’s decision the Supreme Court has in essence superseded the executive and the legislative branches. The five justices ignored their own precedent, and ignored law, and made a political decision for political reasons.
They have usurped the power of the Executive branch, and taken away the power of the United States military and their tribunals.

Detainees’ rights (and privileges) are now considered more important than American citizens’ own right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, yes, I know that those three American aspects came from our Declaration of Independence, not our constitution.

The Supreme Court is the end of the road, a cul de sac.

To whom do we go to get our safety now?

Hugh Hewitt explains why all Americans should be alarmed.

Bruce Kesler calls it lawfare.

Here is John Podhoretz’s well written dissent.

01 Aug 2007 02:47 pm


Now that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has been released from the hospital and the usual suspect/leftists are (hopefully) recovering from their convulsive fits of glee at another person’s distress, some of us have been thinking about the effects epilepsy has on the lives of loved ones who suffer from the condition.

Jack Lewis has an interesting post up about his own problem with “benign idiopathic seizures.”

In 1983 I had a grand mal seizure. I’d suffered for years from short “black outs” following periods of lack of sleep. The neurologist put me on seizure medication that summer to see if it could control it, but as I left for college that August I forgot the medicine. Being August, in Arkansas, in a dorm with no air-conditioning, I got very little sleep that first night back, and the next morning rather than a simple “black-out” I had a full-blown seizure. I was on the medication until 1997 when a different neurologist wanted to see if my original seizure was caused by going off the medicine too quickly. I went off the medicine slowly, and everything seemed fine, for several months until one morning I again had a seizure.

Epilepsy also runs in my family. My grandmother developed it as an adult after she gave birth to my mother. She was advised to have no more children. My grandmother suffered grand mal seizures for the rest of her life but it didn’t stop her one iota. She was a brilliant person who went to college at the age of sixteen with a chemistry scholarship. She and my grandfather ran a dry cleaning business and after my grandfather’s death at the age of sixty kept the business going for quite a few years. She never drove a car but that didn’t stop her from getting where she wanted to go. She walked.

In our family the seizures were called spells.

When my mother was in her mid-thirties she suffered a grand mal seizure while in a college class and after she arrived at the hospital had another one. Tests indicated that she also suffered from epilepsy so she went on medication and has never suffered another seizure.

I do think that high intelligence brings with it a tendency to overuse certain areas of the brain. My son’s best friend has also been diagnosed with epilepsy. It first occurred when he was a teen, then went away until his mid-twenties when it returned with a vengeance. He is unable to drive but that hasn’t stopped him. He is a missionary currently serving in Africa.

Growing up with relatives who suffered from epilepsy may have made life more serious to me. I do remember how scared it made me when my own little brother suffered some seizures and I was the one who discovered them. He outgrew the malady, thankfully, by his teens.

But I will never forget one summer day when I was about ten, sitting with my family at my brother’s baseball game and a man fell to the ground with a grand mal seizure. The crowd grew very quiet except for some teenagers who started to point and laugh. A man jumped out of the bleachers and gave assistance to the seizing man and another woman took on the laughing punks. I still remember the looks on the kids’ faces when she was finished with them.

May Chief Justice John Roberts long serve our country on the Supreme Court, rendering justice and wise decisions. I wish that same fierce lady was around today to take on the leftist adolescents praying for Robert’s demise.