A Supreme Court Judge Said What?!

"Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of..." [link]

Yes, I had to read that several times to make sure that I was in fact reading it correctly. We just had a sitting supreme court judge say that there was concern about population growth and in particular in certain populations! Wonder what populations she was referring to?

It is exactly this type of lunatic thinking that the 2nd amendment was intended to protect all citizens of the United States against.

Here is a link to the official 1970 census report. You may extrapolate your own data and draw your own conclusions.

But He Could Carry a Concealed Weapon Anywhere He Wanted

"U.S. District Judge Samuel B. Kent of Texas pleaded guilty in February, admitting he lied to investigators about nonconsensual sexual contact with two employees in his courthouse. As part of a plea agreement, other counts alleging sexual misconduct were dropped." [link]

When "lines are drawn" that elevate certain people's rights over the exact same rights of others why would you not expect corruption from some of them? Federal Judges are one group that once they get that title are "legally" entitled to carry a concealed firearm pretty much anywhere within the United States. Does it bother anyone else that certain job classes are "privileged" to exercise their God given rights, while regular citizens must often times break a "law" in able to defend themselves and their family?

Truth be told, with all of the exceptions, extra privileges, differential treatment, are some of these job classes really any different from holding a title of nobility? Doesn't the United States Constitution strictly forbid this?

Only If I Say So!

"First President in US History to Have Voted to Filibuster a Supreme Court Nominee Now Hopes for Clean Process!

In January 2006, then-Sen. Obama joined 24 colleagues in a futile effort led by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., to filibuster the Supreme Court nomination of now-Justice Samuel Alito." [link]

So in other words this is only good if it fulfills my own personal agenda! I don't give a ___ what America needs. I am so glad this dried up piece of dog doo is now our president, aren't you?

I Wonder Why?

"According to the U.S. Marshals Service, the number of threats against federal judges and prosecutors has mushroomed from 500 in 2003 to 1,278 in 2008. It is on track to go even higher this year." [link]

I wonder if it has anything to do with completely stupid, anti-freedom, anti-liberty, and anti-Constitution decisions that they seem to routinely make? Does anyone else out there have any ideas on why? I mean I have only been writing for a few months and I have found these dumb decisions or statements to be rather revealing about what our judges think. These threats wouldn't have to do with ideologies that go against the grain of America would it?

Goodbye Several Amendments in the Bill of Rights!

"A California federal judge ruled Thursday that mandatory DNA collection for all individuals facing federal felony charges is constitutional, dealing a setback to civil liberties advocates.

U.S. District Court Judge Gregory G. Hollows upheld the DNA Fingerprint Act, a 2006 law which allows federal law enforcement officials to collect DNA from individuals "arrested, facing charges, or convicted" of federal offenses. " [link]

Is it any surprise that this ruling came from a judge in the "land of the left"? I can deal with the part about convicted felons having their DNA on file. What I cannot stomach is just having DNA on file for those only arrested or facing charges.

Has anyone ever heard of due process, innocent until proven guilty, self incrimination? Judges that rule like this...well lets just say more oak trees need to be planted.

Another Strike Against Freedom

"Scalia, who read the opinion from the bench, said their decision will have a "minimal" effects on criminal defendants. "Because of the protections created by this court in Miranda and related cases, there is little if any chance that a defendant will be badgered into waiving his right to have counsel present during interrogation," Scalia said." [link]

I am sure that anyone familiar with David Codrea and his "Only Ones" pieces are sure to find fault in this statement.

Is This What She Wants Judges to Consider

Remember my little post about "Justice" Ginsburg wanting to look at the rulings of foreign judges in making U.S. Court decisions? Well I wonder if these are the types of judgments and actions that she is looking for? Let's start hanging people that committed crimes when they were juveniles what do you think?

Supreme Court Judge Willing to Give Up U.S. Sovereignty?

"...the Supreme Court's sole female justice told a group of budding lawyers in Ohio that U.S. courts, including her own, should refer to foreign law when deciding cases and that any squeamishness about that was just a "passing phase."

"Ginsburg asked, "Why shouldn't we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law-review article written by a professor?" [link]

Well madam Ginsburg, how about the "wisdom" of a judge that states: "The law, passed last month, says a husband can demand sex with his wife every four days unless she is ill or would be harmed by intercourse — a clause that critics say legalizes marital rape. It also regulates when and for what reasons a wife may leave her home alone." [link]

We won't even bother to discuss that pesky Constitution thing that you took an oath to uphold. You know the supreme law of the land for the United States, but why let a small thing like that bother you.

Federal Appeals Court Rules: Lawmaker Did Not Understand His Own Law?

Yes, you read the title correct. In the following piece and the article it comes from a federal appeals court upheld the dismissal of a law suit based mainly on the grounds that the intent of the law was not fully understood. Surprisingly one of the plaintiffs that wanted to law upheld was the lawmaker who wrote the law himself!?

"News outlets across the country are reporting that a federal appeals court in Atlanta yesterday upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit that sought to stop the City of Atlanta from arresting people carrying firearms in the unsecured areas of Atlanta’s airport...The basis for the judges’ decision is a determination that the new law was not intended to include airports. Ironically, Georgia General Assembly Representative Tim Bearden (R-68), who wrote the new law, is also the plaintiff who filed the lawsuit to enforce it. It is a rare event for the author of a law to be a party arguing in court over what the law means, and it is extremely rare for the court to conclude that the law meant something completely different from what its writer intended...Rep. Bearden still showed visible signs of frustration with the court’s decision. "We write the laws, not judges,". [link]

Sounds to me like another good case for: