Tag Archives: SCOTUS
When public officials want to gift themselves new powers, they usually justify their expansive actions with their favorite platitude, “for the greater good.”
Conservatives, in their turn, respond with the proverbial warning of the slippery slope.
The problem, of course, is the dynamism of American politics means the powers one party invests themselves with are then available for the next majority, which seizes the precedent and continues to expand federal jurisdiction. In this way, central power burgeons exponentially.
Perhaps the best modern example of this phenomenon is the Patriot Act, passed in the wake of 9/11 to protect the nation’s security. The always grasping hands of federal power destroyed the restraints placed on the security state by the original legislation and created bulk data collection, disturbing not only in its total disregard for civil liberties, but also in its parallelism to George Orwell’s omniscient Big Brother.
This sort of slow creep usually happens primarily through regulation. But in a stunning display of hypocrisy demonstrated by subsequent opinions issued last week, Chief Justice John Roberts demonstrated that this can happen in any part of the government.
Roberts, in writing the majority opinion in King v. Burwell, hypothesized on the intent of the legislature and President Obama in passing the Affordable Care Act and then allowed his decision to be influenced by this outcome:
“A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan. Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them.”
He gave the Court transcendent powers of interpretation. This was not a case of statutory or Constitutional interpretation; it was a case of assessing the intent of politicians and yielding to them.
Then, in his minority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, Roberts denounced the powers which had been integral to his rationale of only a day before:
“But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.”
Like other legislators who grant themselves powers and then later have them used against them by their political opponents, Roberts is a victim of his own hubris. There is some small sense of justice that the consequences of his unconstitutional actions came back to haunt him so quickly. Unfortunately, it does nothing for the irreparable damage done to the original intent of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court ruled today that same-sex couples have the right to marry and that all states must recognize same-sex marriages forged in other states. Here is the full text of the decision and dissent on Obergefell v. Hodges:
The ruling not only extends the right to marry to same-sex couples, but also requires all states to recognize gay marriages and civil unions carried out in other states.
Justice Kennedy sided with the liberal side of the court and wrote the decision. Chief Justice Roberts authored the dissenting opinion. The full text of their opinions on same-sex marriage can be found HERE.
President Obama offered his comments in a Rose Garden speech this morning where he said that “the laws of our land are catching up to the fundamental truth that millions of Americans hold in our hearts: when all Americans are treated as equal, no matter who they are or whom they love, we are all more free.” [See the full speech here]
The case being decided, Obergefell v. Hodges, asked the court to answer two questions – are states required to license a marriage to same-sex couples and do states then have to recognize same-sex marriage licenses from other states. The court answered yes to both heavily citing the 14th amendment.
While the court decision forces state governments to license gay marriages, where those ceremonies take place could become another court case.
The Coalition of African-American Pastors and other Christian church leaders held a press conference yesterday where they expressed how the court’s decision contradicts tenets of their faith and moral law.
At a press conference in Memphis, Tennessee, held in the Church of God in Christ’s historic Mason Temple, Rev. Bill Owens, president and founder of the Coalition of African-American Pastors (CAAP), said, “If they rule for same-sex marriage, then we’re going to do the same thing we did for the civil rights movement. We will not obey an unjust law.”
“The politicians and the courts have tried to take God out of this country,” he continued. “This country was founded on Godly principles. We will not stand back and be silenced.”
Recently, small business owners in the wedding industry have been cyber-bullied, boycotted and in some cases taken to court over their choosing to opt-out of servicing gay weddings. Photographers and cake makers have listed religious conflicts and moral differences for choosing not to take on the same-sex clients. One such photographer had a case make it to the Supreme Court only to have the court refuse to rule on it.
So the question remains – will pastors, priests, photographers, bakers and others that typically facilitate and service a wedding be forced to do so against their own belief systems?
More SCOTUS cases are likely on exactly this issue.
KENTWOOD, Mich., Oct. 15, 2013 /Christian Newswire/ — Today, the Thomas More Society, a Chicago-based public interest law firm, joined forces with Catholic Vote Legal Defense Fund and a Michigan law firm, to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review and reverse the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ recent decision, denying the claims of Autocam, an international automotive manufacturer, and its owners, that Obamacare’s so-called “HHS mandate” abridges their federal constitutional and statutory rights to the free exercise of their religious faith as well as other legal rights. John Kennedy, CEO of Michigan-based family-owned company, Autocam, joined the company as well as its other family owners to urge the Justices to rule that the government has no right to require that Autocam purchase group insurance coverage, providing its employees with morally objectionable contraceptives, including abortifacients (e.g., the so-called abortion pill, Plan B, and “Ella”), and sterilization.
Kennedy and his children, Paul, John, Margaret, and Thomas Kennedy, all faithfully embrace the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church that contraception, abortion, and sterilization are serious wrongs. The HHS mandate, therefore, forces these petitioners to flout their deeply held religious convictions and operate their company in a manner that they sincerely hold to constitute grave wrongdoing.
Prior to the government’s implementation of the HHS mandate, Autocam had specifically designed a health insurance plan with Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan to exclude contraception, sterilization, abortion, and abortion-inducing drugs, in full accord and harmony with its owners’ profound religious beliefs.
“Forcing citizens to violate their conscientious religious beliefs makes a mockery of the very notion of religious freedom,” said Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Society. “This cannot be tolerated in a society that professes to honor fundamental civil liberties.” Even apart from the constitutional rights to free exercise of religion and free speech, the company and its owners are also protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prohibits the federal government from substantially burdening the free exercise of religion, absent a compelling interest for doing so and then only by resort to the least burdensome means. But the petitioners for Supreme Court review contend that providing insurance for birth control or other products or services that are widely available and affordable hardly qualifies as a compelling interest, and that even if that interest were deemed compelling, the government could have opted to use other means — such as providing free contraceptives, abortifacients, or sterilizations free of charge, or subsidizing their cheap and easy accessibility for all those desiring them, without burdening or curtailing anybody else’s religious liberties.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the lawsuit on the ground that conducting business for profit is somehow wholly divorced from the religious beliefs of the business or its owners and operators. But Brejcha criticizes this ruling as reflecting a crabbed and unduly narrow view of religion, confining it to the sacred space inside the four walls of houses of worship. He argues that that morals as well as money-making have a key role to play in the marketplace; that religious faith shapes, informs and sustains one’s morals; and that a robust or meaningful religious faith must be practiced as well as professed in every aspect of life. He concludes, “Indeed, our criminal laws demand that American businesses as well as their owners act in accord with myriad laws designed to serve the public welfare and the common good, rather than maximization of profits. People of faith must not be coerced to check their religious liberties at the door when they enter the commercial marketplace.”
PURCELLVILLE, Va., Oct. 10, 2013 /Christian Newswire/ — Today the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) is filing a petition with the United States Supreme Court to hear Romeike v. Holder, the German homeschooling asylum case.
In April 2013, a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals sustained the Obama Administration’s revocation of asylum granted to the family in 2010.
The original immigration judge, Lawrence O. Burman, granted the Romeike family asylum on January 26, 2010, under the Federal Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) because Germany’s national policy of suppressing homeschooling violated their religious faith and because German authorities were improperly motivated to suppress homeschoolers as a social group.
In its ruling against the Romeikes, the Sixth Circuit rejected the judge’s findings, stating that Germany’s harsh treatment of homeschoolers did not amount to persecution and that the German authorities were not motivated by an improper purpose.
HSLDA Chairman and principal author of the petition, Michael Farris, said that the Court should intervene for the sake of justice.
“The United States should be a place of asylum for those who are persecuted because of their decision to follow their core religious beliefs,” he said. “Parents, not the government, decide first how children are educated. Germany’s notorious persecution of families who homeschool violates their own obligations to uphold human rights standards and must end.”
Farris argues that there is a clear split in the treatment of human rights standards among federal circuits and that there is confusion among the circuits about how to determine when a law that applies to everyone and doesn’t appear discriminatory can still be used to persecute certain groups.
“In virtually all other circuits,” Farris said, “the Romeikes’ chances of success would have been decisively higher. But in this case, the Sixth Circuit created a new standard that dramatically departs from its own, as well as the Supreme Court’s, jurisprudence in U.S. asylum law. The Supreme Court needs to settle this area of law.”
This case is important to HSLDA’s mission to advance freedom for persecuted homeschoolers, said Director of International Relations Michael Donnelly.
“Germany’s clear violations of human rights standards in the area of homeschooling have been going on for over a decade,” he said. “German authorities recently seized the Wunderlich children and are prosecuting others — seeking outrageous jail terms — just because of homeschooling. Germany’s repression of homeschooling freedom is infecting other European nations and our country should send a message that the United States will provide a refuge for victims of persecution even from ostensibly free democratic countries like Germany.”
Without minimizing the reality of physical persecution and other types of human rights violations in other countries, HSLDA argues that the imposition of crushing fines, seizure of children, and disproportionate criminal penalties over homeschooling amount to persecution. The brief argues that the German Supreme Court’s explicit approval for unequal treatment of homeschoolers for religious or philosophical reasons clearly violates human rights standards that the United States must recognize.
The petition places considerable reliance on the statements of the highest courts in Germany that explain that the purpose of the repression of homeschoolers was to prevent “religious and philosophical minorities” from developing into “parallel societies.”
Human rights standards make it plain that, although a nation may require compulsory attendance and may impose reasonable rules related to educational quality, no nation my exercise philosophical control over a child’s education contrary to the parent’s beliefs. “These human rights protections were written in response to Germany’s practices in the Nazi era,” Farris added. “It is impossible to distinguish the German desire for philosophical conformity today from that of the 1930s. Children do not belong to any government in any decade.”
When: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 at 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific
Tonight: This is a Special Edition of Hammered Radio – NSA/Snowden SCOTUS Roundtable discussion. Stevie J West and Steve Hamilton will be speaking with our special Guests:
Mandy Nagy – Investigative Writer for Legal Insurrection & Breitbart ‘The Convo.’ @Liberty_Chick on twitter
Kira Ayn Davis – Contributor at http://ijreview.com , video blogger, and host of “The Dark Side with Kira Davis” on FTR Radio. @KiraAynDavis on twitter
Susie Moore – Lawyer, Host of Gillespie on FTR Radio, and blogger. @SmoosieQ on twitter
This will be an exciting show as Mandy discusses Edward Snowden’s history, actions, and possible outcomes of his actions. Kira will also help us understand why this has become such a divisive subject between various Conservative Groups. And, we will get into the NSA itself. Are their actions legal, constitutional? How far should our government go to “protect” us and when does it cross the line into invasion of privacy?
We’re also talkikng about the landmark SCOTUS rulings this week and Susie will share her thoughts and understandings on their impact.
We have a lot to cover and a great panel to help shed light on this complicated and changing situation. Callers Welcome, see you there
The Supreme Court has ruled that California citizens who want to uphold the gay marriage ban do not have the right to appeal the lower court rulings striking down the ban.
Proposition 8 was passed by the voters of California in 2008, but last year, the federal court of appeals deemed it unconstitutional.
This 5-4 decision is another win for gay marriage in America.
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, has found the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.
The federal law that defined marriage as between a man and a woman is struck down in this landmark decision.
The Supreme Court of The United States has decided that gay marriage is legal.
You can read the full decision from The Supreme Court at this link.
This is the latest Press Release From Orly Taitz regarding the her lawsuit on Barack Obama’s eligibility that is before the Supreme Court.
Press Release: 14 U.S. Congressman and House Judiciary committee were served with subpoenas with attached Urgent Demand for Verification to be provided within 2 weeks by March 19th. If they do not comply, they are in contempt of court.
14 U.S. Congressman and House Judiciary Committee were served with subpoenas with attached Urgent Demand for Verification to be provided within 2 weeks by March 19th. If they do not comply, they are in contempt of court. Most of the congressmen served are members of the Judiciary committee. Most of them are attorneys, former prosecutors and judges. Proof of service on every Congressman is being posted on orlytaitzesq.com today and tomorrow. Copies are being sent by certified mail to the US Attorneys’ office-Department of Justice and are being filed with the presiding Judge Morrison C. England. Donations to cover expenses are greatly appreciated. Law abiding U.S. citizens have a right to contact their congressmen and demand that they comply with subpoenas expeditiously.
More information and posted proofs of service on OrlyTaitzESQ.com
Donations can be made through paypal on orlytaitzesq.com or by mailing to
Defend our Freedoms Foundation
c/o Orly Taitz
29839 Santa Margarita ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, Ca 92688
URGENT DEMAND FOR VERIFICATION
On 12.12.2012 a legal action Grinols, Odden, Judd, Noonen and MacLaren v Electoral College, President of the Senate, Congress, Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barack (Barry ) Soetoro, aka Barack Barry Soebarkah, Governor of California and Secretary of State of California was filed by several Presidential electors and minor presidential candidates. The case number is 12-cv-02997 Presiding Judge Morrison C. England Eastern District of California. U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner and Deputy U.S. Attorney Edward Olsen made an appearance as attorneys representing U.S. Congress, President of the Senate, Electoral College and Barack Obama. A motion for a TRO (temporary restraining order ) was filed by the plaintiffs to enjoin the certification of the electoral votes for Obama and enjoin taking of the oath of office by Obama pending adjudication on the merits of his legitimacy for the U.S. Presidency in light of the fact that he is using a Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425, which was never signed to him according to E-Verify and SSNVS, due to the fact that in his mother’s passport he is listed under a different last name, Soebarkah, due to the fact that multiple experts and members of law enforcement found his Selective Service application and long form and short form birth certificates to be computer generated forgeries and a number of other reasons. U.S. attorneys Wagner and Olsen filed an opposition to the TRO. Their opposition means that each and every US congressman, U.S. Senator, each and every Elector; all 435 US representatives, all 100 Senators, all 538 Presidential Electors oppose adjudication on the merits of above issues and do not want to get answers to the questions essential to the U.S. National security prior to the inauguration. It came to the attention of the plaintiffs that a number of Defendants actually shared the concerns of the plaintiffs and did not know that the US attorneys represented them and opposed the motion for TRO. You are requested to fill out the questioner below and clarify whether you were aware of the facts and evidence provided with the complaint and that you authorized Wagner and Olsen to oppose the TRO.
|1. I was notified that U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner and Deputy Attorney General Edward Olsen(hereinafter Wagner and Olsen) are representing me in Grinols et al v Electoral College et al12-cv-02997 Eastern District of California, presiding Chief Judge Morrison C. England(Attorney for Plaintiffs Orly Taitz, 29839 Santa Margarita, ste 100, Rancho Santa Margarita, Ca 92688 phone 949-683-5411, fax 949-766-7603 [email protected] )|
|2. I authorized Wagner and Olsen to file an opposition to TRO, opposing a stay of certification and a stay of taking the oath of office by Obama pending adjudication on the merits of the evidence of forgery in the Selective Service Certificate, long form birth certificate and short form birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barack (Barry) Soetoro aka Barack (Barry) obama Soebarkah and evidence of fraudulent use by him of Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425 by Barack Hussein Obama|
|3. Wagner and Olsen forwarded to me a sworn affidavit of the retired Chief Investigator of the Special Investigations Unit of the U.S. Coast Guard and former special agent for the Department of Homeland Security Jeffrey Stephan Coffman, where Coffman states under the penalty of perjury that the alleged application for Selective Service by Barack Obama is an altered document|
|4. I was given by Wagner and Olsen the TRO motion, where it is explained that a male who did not register with the Selective Service and who does not have a valid registration for the Selective Service (not an altered or forged one, but a valid one) is disqualified from holding any position within the Executive branch of the United States government pursuant to 5 USC § 3328.|
|5. I am aware that as part of their complaint plaintiffs provided 2009 tax returns for Barack Obama, which show him using a Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425, even though Obama was never a resident of Connecticut and according to E-verify and SSNVS this number was never assigned to Obama|
|6. I have read sworn affidavits of Sheriff of Maricopa County Joseph Arpaio, Investigator Mike Zullo, Retired Senior Deportation officer John Sampson, licensed Investigator Susan Daniels attesting to evidence of forgery in Obama’s birth certificate, Selective Service Certificate and Social Security card|
|7. I viewed the video tape of the press conference by Maricopa County, AZ Sheriff Arpaio and Investigator Zullo, as well as sworn witness testimony of witnesses Susan Daniels, Linda Jordan, Douglas Vogt, Felicito Papa attesting to evidence of fraud and forgery in Obama’s IDs|
|8. I read the passport records of deceased Stanley Ann Dunham, the mother of Barack Obama, obtained under Freedom of Information Act, included with the complaint, showing Obama listed under the last name Soebarkah in his mother’s passport records. I understand that one has to be sworn in under a correct legal name.|
|9. I read the sworn affidavit of the assistant clerk of the office of the Registrar of Hawaii Timothy Adams stating that it was a common knowledge in the office of the Registrar of Hawaii that there is no birth certificate for Obama in any hospital in Hawaii|
|10. I reviewed the biography of Barack Obama submitted by Barack Obama to his publisher Acton-Dystel in 1991 and kept on the official web site of Acton Dystel, where Obama stated that he was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia. I understand that this biography was removed from the official web site of the publisher in 2007 when Obama decided to run for the U.S. President and needed to be a “natural born” U.S. Citizen|
|11. I understand that Obama’s alleged selective service certificate contains a two digit year stamp “80″, while for over a hundred years all U.S. stamps have a four digit year, such as “”1980″|
|12. I understand that Obama’s alleged copy of his long form birth certificate contains letters of different shapes and different sizes, which is impossible when the documents is created with a type writer.|
|13. I understand that not one single judge or jury or forensic document expert was allowed to see the original birth certificate for Obama, the original application for the Selective Service and the original application for the Connecticut Social Security number used by Barack Obama|
|14. I understand that in his School registration in Indonesia in 1967 Barack Obama is listed as a citizen of Indonesia. I understand that there is no record of him changing his citizenship after returning to the U.S. from Indonesia and relinquishing his Indonesian citizenship. I understand that even if Obama/Soetoro/Soebarkah were to change his citizenship upon his return from Indonesia, he would be naturalized and not natural born citizen as required for the position of the U.S. President according to article 2, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution|
|15. I understand that in his school registration in Indonesia Barack Obama is listed under the last name of his step father Soetoro. I understand that there is no record of Obama ever changing his name from Soetoro to Obama|
|16. With full knowledge of above facts I authorized Wagner and Olsen to file an opposition to TRO, opposing a temporary stay of certification and a stay of taking the oath of office of the U.S. President by Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barack(Barry) Soetoro, aka Barack (Barry ) Obama Soebarkah pending adjudication on the merits of the evidence of forgery in his Selective Service Certificate, his long form birth certificate and short form birth certificate, evidence of fraudulent use of Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425 by Barack Hussein Obama and other related issues|
President of the Senate Joseph Biden
Please, forward the signed form to the Attorney for the Plaintiffs
Orly Taitz 29839 Santa Margarita, ste 100, Rancho Santa Margarita, Ca 92688 phone 949-683-5411, fax 949-766-7603 [email protected] at your earliest convenience. Due to the great importance to the National security answers are requested to be sent immediately by fax or e-mail and followed up by sending a certified copy by mail
This is an update from Dr. Orly Taitz, on the Supreme Court decision handed down on the lawsuit challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility case on Tuesday, February 19, 2013.
My conversation with Mr. Dennison from SCOTUS blog
I talked to Mr. Dennison, writer of the SCOTUS blog. I called his cell number 301-512-4731.
He was correct in stating that SCOTUS only denied the STAY as Obama was already sworn in, SCOTUS never commented on the merits of the case, never stated that Obama’s papers are valid.
I asked, why did they sent 5 packets back. He said that they only need the decision of 4 justices to go to the next stage of oral argument. I responded that this looks even more corrupt and treasonous, it means that they sent the remaining packets to 4 liberal justices and 5 conservative justices never saw the papers. He stated that if I feel that the high treason was committed, I should file a complaint with the Justice department. I responded that the Justice department is complicit. I forwarded all the info to Holder and he never responded. I told him that in NAZI Germany they also had a Justice Department, Supreme Court, Parliament and judges, none of whom found one single action by Adolf Hitler to be unconstitutional and that is what we have now in the U.S. He said that he knows, that he is old enough to know what happened in Germany, but he can’t talk further.