1. As Solicitor General, you would be charged with defending the Defense of Marriage Act. That law, as you may know, was enacted by overwhelming majorities of both houses of Congress (85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House) in 1996 and signed into law by President Clinton.

 a. Given your rhetoric about the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy—you called it “a profound wrong—a moral injustice of the first order”—let me ask this basic question: Do you believe that there is a federal constitutional right to samesex marriage?

Answer: There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

b. Have you ever expressed your opinion whether the federal Constitution should be read to confer a right to same-sex marriage? If so, please provide details.

Answer: I do not recall ever expressing an opinion on this question.

Since gay marriage has been thrusted into the political limelight again, Jacobson has resurrected his posts about Kagan from three years ago.  Now, when Jacobson posted about Kagan’s remarks, he was criticized by some conservatives, including Hot Air’s Allahpundit, over the semantics.  National Review’sMaggie Gallagher went a bit further, and called Jacobson’s post “shameful.”  Thankfully, Gallagher’s colleague at National Review, Ed Whelan, provided Jacobson with her letter to then-Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pennsylvania) at the time to clarify the issue.

In a March 18, 2009 letter (embedded below, at pp. 11-12), which is not publicly available but which Whelan kindly provided to me, Kagan supplemented her written answers at the request of Arlen Specter. Here is the language in the letter seized upon by my critics to show that Kagan really didn’t mean what she said, and really just was opining as to the current state of the law:

Constitutional rights are a product of constitutional text as interpreted by courts and understood by the nation’s citizenry and its elected representatives. By this measure, which is the best measure I know for determining whether a constitutional right exists, there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

These sentences do make it seem as if Kagan walked away from her prior written statement that “[t]here is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”

But these sentences are not the full supplemental response. Immediately preceding these sentences was the following language:

I previously answered this question briefly, but (I had hoped) clearly, saying that “[t]here is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.” I meant for this statement to bear its natural meaning.

When the full supplemental statement by Kagan is read in context, there is nothing to suggest that Kagan was walking away from her written statement that there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Of additional interest is that when the Massachusetts Supreme Court found a state constitutional right to same-sex marriage, 18 Harvard Law School professors signed onto an amicus [i.e., friend of the court] brief supporting that ruling. But not Kagan.

Now, it’s Justice Kagan, and I wonder if she still thinks that “there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”  Then again, she could just hop on the bandwagon like everyone else.   Sorry Politico, but this is the real ‘gotcha‘ story.

(H/T Legal Insurrection)

Elena Kagan March 18, 2009 Letter to Arlen Specter

HRC symbol appearing on Facebook promoting gay marriage issue

Have you noticed a strange symbol showing up on the Internet, especially Facebook? There is a red block with two pink horizontal and parallel bars showing up on FB to replace people’s profile pics. This symbol is an alteration of the more commonly seen emblem of the Human Rights Commission, an organization that supports gay rights, (normally seen as two gold parallel horizontal bars on a purple field). There is an article today in HuffPo that explains this very thing.

The reason for the promotion of this symbol is to show support for gay marriage nationwide as the controversial Proposition 8 is being discussed in the Nation’s Supreme Court. This California Law is the legally binding law, approved of by the voting public of California defining marriage as the relationship between one man and one woman, effectively banning the relationship of any other type.

Now, let’s get this straight, I am not in favor of gay marriage of any type, as I am a Christian and I believe in what the Bible has to say on this issue. I will never be in favor of gay rights per say. Whenever homosexuality or any sexual perversion is mentioned in the Bible, bad things happen, (regardless of straight or gay). But from a purely intellectual standpoint, I understand and respect what the gay lobby is trying to do.

Currently, no one is being treated substantially different under the current law of California. Gay people have the same rights as straight couples; they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Of course, that’s not what they want. What they want is special treatment to marry someone of the same sex, which is a special status not currently allowed.

HRC’s normal symbol often seen as a bumper sticker.

Now from a strictly libertarian viewpoint, I don’t really care if gay people are allowed to get married or not. I don’t approve of that type of relationship, but who am I to judge my neighbor, as long as he is not picking my pocket or breaking my leg. I understand that the gay couple wants the same benefits from the government that I would get as a straight person, which include but are not limited to: a) passing on of employment benefits to a domestic partner, b) the privilege to adopt a child, c) the right to visit a sick domestic partner in the hospital without interference from other blood relatives.

These are admirable goals, which I think can be achieved outside of declaring sanction of gay marriage. Why shouldn’t gay couples have these benefits along with any straight couple? Clearly the states can enact specific laws regarding these very complex social issues.

Here is the slippery slop now. I work at the Mayo Clinic. Under current policy the Clinic accepts living wills or powers of attorney for patients diagnosed with terminal illnesses, and it tries to honor those. However, the Clinic will usurp that power of attorney or living will if a blood relative of the patient objects, negating the will of the patient. This is unacceptable whether we’re talking about straight or gay patients, this should not be. If I have gone through the effort to make my will known, why should anyone else, relative or not, be able to simply usurp my will while I lay helpless my deathbed? If you’re gay or straight, it doesn’t matter. Everyone should have their close friends by their side when dealing with a life-threatening or terminal disease. The right of the suffering patients should be considered above that of any other, period!

Obviously we should strengthen the force of powers of attorney and medical directives.

As for the adoption issue, I am fully in favor of letting gay couples adopt so long as social services is being involved. There is no evidence that I have seen that shows that a gay couple is any more or less prone to abuse a child than a straight family. I would rather see a child get a good home than remain wards of the state. Social service involvements can oversee parents, regardless of sexuality, to determine that the child is indeed being received by a safe and stable home.

Then there is the issue of employee and social services benefits. I am all in favor of employers extending benefits to same sex couples, but here again there is a slippery slope. Should the employer have to extend benefits to Muslim or Mormon families where there are multiple wives, multiplying the cost to the employer per the number of beneficiaries? Isn’t that discrimination? Is it fair to the employer?

I think that if we are going to recognize one type of relationship, then we are excluding the others. If we open up the definition of marriage, then we open a barrel of monkeys that will be hard to close. I believe that the employers should extend benefits to one spouse only, to the exclusion of relationships of multiple beneficiaries. But here is where the state can enact laws, with the consent of their citizens, to determine the details.

I have no objection to the individual states enacting laws that make sense to their voters. What I do object to is robed elites at the appellate and Supreme Court levels usurping the will of the voter. Let the people decide what’s best for them and let the courts mind their own business.

The only reason for the court involvement is that this loud and vocal minority cannot be satisfied and must usurp the will of the majority by going over their heads to the appellate and supreme courts. In my view, these courts have no authority to usurp these laws; their only jurisdiction is to determine whether the laws enacted are constitutional. I’ve read the constitution; I don’t think there is any reference there to marriage, gay or otherwise. The only logical decision the courts can do is kick back these lawsuits and let the legislatures do their jobs. But they won’t because there is a certain power and prestige that comes with the judge’s robe and they like to use it to their benefit. The minority concerns like the gay lobby make use of this fact. As long as judges are allowed to legislate from the bench, the will of the majority will be meaningless.

And why should the state be involved in endorsing marriage in the first place? Have we had enough of the nanny state as it is? Why should I as a single person be punished for remaining single while married people get tax breaks (or penalties in some states)? Isn’t this the federal government picking winners and losers? I have an idea, let’s treat everyone the same, with a flat income tax, starting at incomes of $20k or more that taxes everyone at the same rate. Wouldn’t that be fair? No winners or losers, everyone treated the same. Perhaps that’s an issue for another column.

All in all I believe this is a 10th Amendment issue. States have the right, with the consent of their citizens, to determine what laws to enact in their state, and as long as those laws don’t break the constitutional standard, they should remain issues of the state. Where the constitution is silent on an issue, so too should be the court.

Jimmy LaSilvia of GOProud.

I recognize there will be debate even among conservatives and libertarians in regard to this issue. I welcome polite interface with people of differing opinions. My friends at GOProud for instance might have a different take. I respect their opinion. It annoys me that my friend Jimmy LaSilvia and his organization were barred from attending CPAC. As a conservative, I think there is room for debate on these very controversial issues. What there isn’t room for in the Republican and Conservative circles is hatred and name calling. That is reserved for the lockstep Liberals and Progressives. It suits their narrow-mindedness and low tolerance.

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

orly.taitz@gmail.com

attachment_id=399458″ rel=”attachment wp-att-399458″>URGENT DEMAND FOR VERIFICATION

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.

Signed:

_____________________________________________________________________________________

US Representative/state

_____________________________________________________________________________________

US Senator/state

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Presidential elector/state

____________________________________________________________________________________

President of the Senate Joseph Biden

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Dated

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 orly.taitz@gmail.com 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

 

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.

PRESS RELEASE

Clerks of the Supreme Court never forwarded to 5 out of 9 Justices one single page of pleadings, they also did not forward to any of the Justices the Supplemental Brief. Demand for investigation forwarded to Congressman Goodlatte, Chair of the Judiciary Committee of Congress

Noonan supplemental brief with the SCOTUS stamp 02.12.2013

Press release: clerks of the Supreme Court never forwarded to 5 out of 9 Justices one single page of pleadings, they also did not forward to any of the Justices the Supplemental Brief. Demand for investigation forwarded to Congressman Goodlatte, Chair of the Judiciary Committee of Congress

Law offices of  Orly taitz

29839 Santa Margarita Ste 100

Rancho Santa Margarita ca 92688

ph. 949-683-5411 fax 949-766-7603

orly.taitz@gmail.com

orlytaitzesq.com

02.16.2013

Via Federal Express

Attn. Congressman Bob Goodlatte

Chairman of the Committee on Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives

WASHINGTON, DC OFFICE

2309 Rayburn HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-5431
Fax: (202) 225-9681

PETITION FOR AN IMMEDIATE INVESTIGATION IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

EVIDENCE OF EMPLOYEES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HIDING FROM JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT PLEADINGS AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFFS AND ATTORNEYS, REMOVING CASES FROM THE ELECTRONIC DOCKET, EVIDENCE OF BOGUS CONFERENCES OF JUSTICES BEING REPORTED TO THE PUBLIC, WHEN NO SUCH CONFERENCES TOOK PLACES AND THE JUSTICES BEING CLUELESS ABOUT THE VERY EXISTENCES OF HE CASE, EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL COMPLICITY OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND TREASON IN THE MOST SERIOUS CASES DEALING WITH NATIONAL SECURITY.

02.16.2013.

Dear Mr. Goodlatte,

On 12.11. 2013   Attorney Dr. Orly Taitz, ES filed an application for stay on behalf of plaintiffs in Noonan et al v Bowen et al 12 A 606.

On 12.26.2012 Attorney for Plaintiffs resubmitted her application to the Chief Justice John Roberts, who referred the case to the conference of all 9 Justices to be conducted on February 15, 2013. Taitz followed Rule 22 of the Supreme Court that stated “Renewed application is made by a letter to the clerk, designating the Justice to whom the application is to be directed, and accompanied by copies of the original application…” these copies were supposed to be forwarded to 9 individual justices, library of Congress and National Archives.

Clerk for Stays Redmond Barnes sent back to Taitz 5 copies, whereby 5 justices never got the application, so clearly they could not discuss the case during the conference, as they never saw a word of the pleadings or evidence. Taitz submits herein the Exhibit 1, photograph of the original box in which 5 copies were sent back,  as well as the photograph of the stamp. Taitz preserved the box and the documents as evidence.

Moreover, on 02.12.2013 Taitz traveled to Washington DC and submitted to the clerks’ office a supplemental brief with information crucial to the U.S. National Security to be reviewed by the justices prior to the February 15 conference. Taitz talked to clerks Sevgi Tekeli and James Baldin.  She was told to give the pleadings to the guard at the entrance, as the Supreme Court has mandatory screening for anthrax, but the pleadings will be docketed the same day and forwarded to Justices.

The clerks’ office never docketed the Suplemental Brief (Exhibit 2 Supplemental Brief with the date stamp of the Supreme Court) and sent it back, so none of the Justices read the Supplemental Brief as well.

Taitz provides the Judiciary Committee with the application (Exhibit 3) and the Supplementary Brief (Exhibit 2).

Case at hand was scheduled to be heard on February 15, 2013 in a conference of all the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.

This case came from the Supreme Court of California and was brought by Presidential Candidates: Edward Noonan, Thomas Gregory MacLeran and Keith Judd  against the Secretary of the State of California, seeking to stay the certification of the votes for the candidate for the U.S. President Barack Obama due to the fact that the aforementioned candidate committed fraud when he provided his declaration of the candidate and when the Democratic party submitted the certificate of the nomination  due to the fact that Barack Obama is not eligible for the position, as he is not a Natural born U.S. citizen, as required by the U.S. Constitution Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5. The declaration of the candidate and the certification of the nomination were based on fraud, on Obama’s use of forged IDs, , stolen Connecticut social Security number xxx-xx-4425, use of a name that was not legally his use of Indonesian citizenship and based on aiding and abetting by corrupt governmental officials. Most notable example of criminal aiding and abetting was signing by the chair of the Democratic Party of Hawaii Brian Schatz a falsified OCON (Official Certificate Of Nomination of a candidate) where the usual wording “eligible according to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution” were removed in order to accommodate ineligible Obama.

Plaintiffs provided the Supreme Court of California and the Supreme Court of the United States with over 100 pages of official records, sworn affidavits of senior law enforcement officials and  experts showing that Barack Obama is:

1. A citizen of Indonesia, as listed in his school registration #203 from Franciscan Assisi school in Jakarta, Indonesia. As  a citizen of Indonesia Obama was never eligible and never legitimate for the U.S. Presidency.
2.  Obama is using last name not legally his. Plaintiffs provided this court with the passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham,  deceased mother   of Barack Obama, showing that he is listed under the last name Soebarkah in her passport. He was removed from her passport in August of 1969 pursuant to the request and sworn statement of Ms. Dunham and signed by the U.S. consul in Jakarta Indonesia. As the requirement for removal as listed in the passport,  is obtaining a foreign allegiance, it is believed that Barack Obama Soebarkah was removed from his mother’s passport  when he obtained his Indonesian passport. Barack Obama cannot serve as a U.S. President as the legal entity Barack Obama does not exist. The only legal entity based on the only verifiable record is Barack Obama Soebarkah.
3. Obama does not have a valid U.S. birth certificate. Plaintiff provided affidavits  from Sheriff of Maricopa County Arizona Joseph Arpaio, Investigator Zullo, experts Felicito Papa, Douglas Vogt, Paul Irey, showing that the image posted by Obama on Whitehouse.gov is a computer generated forgery. When there is a question of authenticity of a document, the only way to authenticate, is to conduct expert evaluation of the original document.  Registrar of the State of Hawaii and Director of Health and Deputy Attorney General of Hawaii in charge of the Health Department were obstructing justice and absolutely refused to comply with any subpoenas and produce the original 1961 birth certificate and as such there was never any authentication of the alleged birth certificate. After 4 years of obstruction of Justice, it is clear that the Hawaiian officials have nothing to show and genuine 1961 birth certificate for Barack Obama simply does not exist.

Obama does not have a valid Selective Service certificate. Based on the affidavit of Sheriff Arpaio and investigator Zullo, alleged copy of Obama’s Selective Service Certificate, is  COMPUTER GENERATED FORGERY. In this   supplemental brief Plaintiffs are providing additional evidence, a sworn affidavit from the Chief investigator of the Special Investigations Unit of the US Coast Guard (ret) and  former special agent of the DHS Jeffrey Stephan Coffman who attested under the penalty of perjury that Obama’s alleged Selective Service registration is a forgery.

Plaintiffs submitted with their TRO and complaint the Affidavits of Sheriff Arpaio and Investigator Zullo and as a supplement an affidavit of the Chief Investigator of the Special investigations of the US Coast Guard Jeffrey Stephan Coffman. Based on those affidavits Obama’s alleged application for the selective service is a forgery. According to  5 USC § 3328.every man born after 1959 has to register with the Selective Service and cannot work in the executive branch if he did not register with the selective service.

(a)An individual—

(1)who was born after December 31, 1959, and is or was required to register under section 3 of the Military Selective Service Act (50 App. U.S.C. 453); and

(2)who is not so registered or knowingly and willfully did not so register before the requirement terminated or became inapplicable to the individual,

shall be ineligible for appointment to a position in an executive agency.

As Obama claims to be born in 1961 (without a valid birth certificate we don’t even know when he was born) he had a duty to register with the Selective Service. A forgery does not represent a registration, as such Obama is not eligible to be working in the executive branch of the U.S. government. He is not eligible to be a President in the White House or a janitor in the White House and it is a duty of this court to exercise its’ jurisdiction to rule Obama not constitutionally eligible.

1. 4.     Obama’s 2009 tax returns posted by Obama himself on line showed him using a CT Social Security number xxx-xx-4425, which failed both E-verify and SSNVS. Affidavit of investigator Albert Hendershot provided herein as an exhibit showed it being issued to Harrison (Harry ) J. Bounel, born in 1890 in Russia, immigrant to the United States, presumed to be deceased, whose death was either not reported to the SSA or deleted from the computer system by a treasonous and criminally complicit employee of the SSA. Due to Obama’s use of a stolen SSN he is not eligible to work anywhere in the United States, not in the Federal Branch, not in any other branch, not in the private sector, not even to pick tomatoes or clean toilets. Based on his use of a stolen SSN the only thing Obama is eligible to is at least 18 month prison term and deportation. For that reason alone the Supreme Court of California erred in denying the application. This court has to either grant the application or remand it back to the Supreme Court of California for reconsideration.

 315 MILLION U.S. CITIZENS DEMAND TO KNOW, WHO IS COMMITTING TREASON AND AIDING AND ABETTING THE USURPATION OF THE U.S. PRESIDENCY: IS IT DONE BY 9 JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OR BY THE STAFF ATTORNEYS AND CLERKS OF THE COURT WHO HAVE HIDDEN THE PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE FROM THE JUSTICES

Justices Antonin Scalia in his book “Making your case” p77 described a process of triage in the Supreme Court, he wrote: “Another factor distinctive to petitions for certiorari is that judges don’t like to spend a lot of time deciding what to decide. Indeed in most courts they won’t even read the brief in support of your petition, but will rely on summaries (or on the selection of particular briefs) by law clerks. And law clerks don’t like to spend much time on this job either.”

Unfortunately, the clerks do more than summaries. Taitz, counsel for the plaintiffs submits as Exhibit 3 a recent correspondence with the Supreme Court in regards to case Taitz v Astrue USCA District of Columbia Circuit no 11-5304, where Taitz caught the employees of the Supreme Court actively obstructing justice and tampering with the documents submitted to the Supreme Court.     Taitz provided the court with Federal Express receipts showing packages received by the Supreme Court and signed for by the employees of the Supreme Court, but never docketed and hidden from the Justices of the Supreme Court by the employees. These employees of the court were not appointed by the President, were not confirmed by the Senate, they never took an Oath of Allegiance and nobody knows where their allegiance lies.

This is only one of a number of suspicious activities in the Supreme Court of the United States. Previously a case Lightfoot v Bowen A-084524 by the same attorney Taitz  was deleted from the docket of the Supreme Court on inauguration day January 21, 2008, ostensibly to give an impression that there are no more challenges to Obama’s legitimacy. Only after the enormous pressure from the public,  media, State Representatives and sworn affidavits from attorneys the case was reentered in the public docket. Clerk in charge for STAYs Danny Bickle repeatedly made incorrect statements claiming that all files were deleted due to some type of computer malfunction, which was not the case. Later, in March of 2009 during a meeting with attorneys and book signing in Los Angeles Taitz was able to discuss the case with Justice Scalia, who was absolutely clueless that the case even existed, even though according to the docket he was a part of the conference of justices who denied that case dealing with the legitimacy of the U.S. President and he voted to deny that case. One can believe that a judge would forget a case about some trivial dispute, but not a case dealing with the U.S. Presidency he supposedly discussed in conference only a month and a half earlier. It is clear that the case Lightfoot v Bowen was decided by the clerks, the names of the justices were printed on the order when the justices had no clue the case even existed. In a case at hand dealing with the usurpation of the U.S. Presidency this is HIGH TREASON, for which guilty parties should be getting a life in prison or death penalty and the nation is entitled to know who these people are.

In a different case Rhodes v MacDonald 10A56 (entered by the Supreme Court as

Taitz v MacDonald) a docket entry showing Justice Clarence Thomas denying an

application for STAY was made retroactively on a weekend when Justice Thomas was thousands of miles away giving a seminar in Utah. When Taitz demanded to see an actual signature by Justice Thomas on the order to deny stay or on the cover page of the application, she was referred to Eric Fossum, the same

employee, who signed the denial letter in the Taitz v Astrue case, who admitted to her on the phone thatthere is no signature of Justice Thomas either on the order or on the cover page of the petition. As such, there is no proof justice Thomas ever saw the petition or ever read a word written in the petition. When citizens went to the Supreme Court and requested copies of the pleadings in aforementioned cases, they were told that there are no such documents available.

Noonan v Bowen is a case which provides an undeniable evidence of usurpation of the U.S. Presidency by a criminal, a citizen of Indonesia who claims that his name is Barack Obama, who is using all forged IDs and a stolen Social Security number and a last name not legally his. Allowing this usurpation to go on is an act of HIGH TREASON. The nation has a right to know who is committing high treason: 9 justices of the Supreme Court of clerks, who hide the pleadings and sworn affidavits from justices. For that reason plaintiffs respectfully demand signatures of the justices on the order or on the front page of the application. If there are no actual signatures of the justices the plaintiffs and the nation as a whole will know that the justices never saw a word of pleadings an the case was “ruled upon” by court employees with unknown allegiance.   Plaintiffs also demand to know the names of the court employees who summarized the case, provided it to the justices and compiled the list of approved or denied applications. Plaintiffs, U.S. Congress, law enforcement and World Community at large deserve to know who committed HIGH TREASON, who should be tried for high treason, who should be getting a penalty which is customary in such cases, which is a life in prison or death penalty.

Conclusion:

Plaintiffs and their attorney are demanding an immediate investigation of both the actions of the employees of the Supreme Court of the United States in hiding pleadings and exhibits from the Justices and Barack Obama’s use of forged IDs and a stolen Social Security 042-68-4425.

Not addressing this case represents high treason against the United States of America and people of the United States of America

Respectfully submitted

/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

Noonan supplemental brief with the SCOTUS stamp 02.12.2013

Press Release via Orly Taitz, Esq.

H/T Red Flag News

With the Supreme Court and the future of constitutional government in doubt, it’s always reassuring to hear from the voices who espouse those views.  I’m an ardent optimist.  I have faith that the electorate will correct their decisions made on Nov. 6, and constrain this president’s pernicious agenda of implementing a hyper-regulatory progressive state.  The Federalist Society’s 30th Anniversary Gala last Thursday night featured Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who detailed how the legal opinions of those on the left threaten America’s constitutional bedrock: federalism.

To put it simplistically, the federal government is supreme in its sphere, as is the state government in their defined area.  There is overlap – and confusion.  However, Alito gave a robust defense of the doctrine.  While it’s seen better days, federalism in Alito’s view, promotes energetic and productive competition, protects liberty, and encourages experimentation.  He also reiterated that you do not have to buy the various treatises on constitutional law that run over a thousand pages –  and cost a considerable amount of money – to understand that congressional power is limited.  You just have to read the plain text of the U.S. Constitution to understand that point.

He then went on to detail various cases that have threatened this principle of federalism.  From the government being able to attach GPS monitors surreptitiously to your vehicles and calling it a search under the Fourth Amendment to facing the regulatory nightmare of having wetlands being designated in one’s backyard, the fight to keep the Madisonian experiment in limited government, and the principles of federalism un-imbrued continues with fragility.

We have four liberals, four conservatives, with Justice Alito included, and moderate Justice Kennedy on the bench, which isn’t a firm legal defense of the principles conservatives wish to see blemished.  And more fights will come.  One fight in particular that was highly salient – which was described more in depth by Justice Alito, concerned Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC.

In this case, Cheryl Perich was hired by the Hosanna-Tabor Lutheran Church and School, taught some lessons, contracted narcolepsy, took a leave of absence, and was subsequently replaced.  She sued under the American with Disabilities Act, however, the ministerial exception gave more latitude to religious institution in terms of hiring and firing processes.  The Court ruled unanimously that such an exception applied here, and therefore, discrimination lawsuits brought against religious institutions aren’t valid.

Well, The New York Times, to no one’s surprise, didn’t take too kindly to the decision.  But, the argument for Perich and The New York Times is disturbing.  Should courts be allowed to review cases, and make decisions based on legal and religious doctrines?  Is it up to a judge and jury to decide a termination?  If accepted, government would have been able to go deep into the dynamics of religious institutions, and the doctrines that guide them.  That’s gross overreach.For jurists to decide cases based solely on church doctrine, if this argument were accepted by the Court, and not law is insane.  As Justice Alito said at the dinner, it’s a “chilling” foray into this plausible episode of government intrusion.

This nation proudly and robustly defends the right to free speech enshrined in our First Amendment.  However, this case, and Citizens United, shows how some people on the left will try to alter the Constitution to fit their model on how they feel government should operate – or feel whole again.  Citizens United, the more controversial of the two cases, was boiled down to the government making the case the speech articulated or disseminated by the privileged few is protected, but isn’t for other parties in the country.  That’s perverse, and it doesn’t stop there.

Justice Alito concluded with a warning about the alternate vision we’re fighting against in the judiciary.  It’s a vision where federalism offers no refuge.  It’s an insufferable progressive state that stomps on religious institutions and freedoms.  It’s a government that can willingly seize private property.  Justice Alito vociferously made the case that the U.S. Constitution wasn’t meant to be malleable with a dependent, entitled society.  It was designed for the citizens operating within a socioeconomic fabric that stressed freedom and independence.  This document embeds certain rights, so that they can’t be easily removed from the political landscape.  Therefore, as Justice Alito alluded to, it’s integral to the survival of our freedom, and our commitment to be an open and prosperous society.

Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Senator-Elect Ted Cruz (R-TX) were adamant about two things when they addressed The Federalist Society’s discussion about constitutional law and the Supreme Court yesterday: “our [conservative] ideas work, their [ liberal] ideas don’t.”  Furthermore, our ideas have been winning the argument, which explains why law schools are limiting the amount of speakers – invited by Federalist Society – chapters that can come and articulate such views across the country.  Both men viewed that we must return to the government our Founders envisioned, and must guard against the progressive regulatory state advocated by our adversaries in Congress.  With the re-election of Barack Obama and the full implementation of Obamacare – the stakes couldn’t be any higher to keep the Madisonian experiment alive.

Sen. Lee first remarked about his election to the U.S. Senate in 2010, after beating incumbent Republican Bob Bennett at the state party convention.  Then, he went into rather humorous anecdotes about how security didn’t recognize him as a senator for the longest time during his first session in Congress.  However, he looked forward to two events this year that he thought would transform government, and make it more palatable to the Founder’s vision.

The first event was on June 28, the day of the Obamacare decision, which he received – along with most conservatives – warmly at first.  The court was articulating a position defining limits on the Commerce Clause – making this the third time in the last seventy-five years where the Supreme Court has done so.   However, as the reading of the opinion continued, more wind was blowing in liberal sails, as the senator described it.  The Court rewrote the law.  To make a long story short, the penalty was constitutional under the taxing authority, which was a position that wasn’t argued by the government.  Concerning the Medicaid expansion provisions, the Court ruled that the government had unjustly coerced states into accepting stipulations on the program’s funding, and that the Secretary for Health and Human Services cannot cut off the revenue stream – which funds the program – to states who refuse to expand coverage. In all, it was a limited purpose victory.  The second event was on November 6, which we know did not turn out well for conservatives.

Sen. Lee agreed that we won the argument for a limited proposal victory, but we also lost a lot too.  It showed that the Court can rewrite laws, and we lost the opportunity to write laws of our own choosing.  The checks on Congressional power was stipulated by judiciary and political restraint.  The judicial restraint has been compromised.  They seem, as Senator Lee put it, “unwilling” to exercise that check on power.  Second, the political check is rendered useless since Congress can pass unconstitutional laws, but if the Supreme Court can rewrite it – then what’s the purpose of that check on government power.

Sen. Lee believes that the Court acted in a manner where everyone got a little of what they wanted – but ended up hurting the American people as a result. Nevertheless, he feels that America’s best days are ahead.

Senator-Elect Ted Cruz also reiterated anecdotes on the campaign trail.  His win is almost a miracle.  He was polling sub 5%, and within the margin of error when he first began.  This highlights the trials and tribulations of any statewide campaign, especially one where you’re outspent three to one in a $ 50 million dollar primary, as in the case of Cruz, which is somewhat of a well-known characteristic within political circles.  It can be nasty, and Cruz’s opponent, David Dewhurst, dished out $35 million dollars in attack ads – but failed to clinch the nomination.  Why? He didn’t have the grassroots infrastructure needed to win.  This is the way politics should be decided, according to Senator-Elect Cruz.

Cruz is a good friend of Sen. Mike Lee, and thanked him for his early support in the beginning of his candidacy for the U.S. Senate.  In the wake of conservatives’ devastating defeat on Nov. 6, he said we much ask ourselves what went wrong, and what does this mean for the future of conservatism?  He was steadfast in the view that what conservatives have done in politics – we must now do in the law.  First, we must win the argument, which conservatives are doing – albeit very slowly.

The Senator-Elect was amused by the fact that the media was detailing how Republicans lost in 2012 because they weren’t like Democrats.  If they had acted, like the political left, things would’ve been great.  Well, conservatives lost because we didn’t make the argument.

The president said that he inherited a bad economy, and that it was all George Bush’s fault.  This message was pervasive. However, Cruz said that President Obama forgets history.  Between 1978-79, unemployment was in double-digits, interest rates were at 22%, gas lines around the block, and the Iranian hostage crisis – which probably left then-President Jimmy Carter regretting leaving peanut farming. But, Ronald Reagan won in a landslide in 1980.  He reduced taxes, regulations, and the scope of government, which led to an economic boom.  Again, playing into the narrative of these two men being “our ideas work, their ideas don’t.”

However, there’s a reason why Obama voters believe this economy is still Bush’s fault.  Why?  Mitt Romney’s campaign team didn’t respond.  Concerning the fatuous ‘war on women,’ the Senator-Elect vociferously denied Republicans want to curb or deny contraceptives to America’s women.  He doesn’t know a single Republican who thinks that way.  He quipped that he has two daughters, and he’s glad he doesn’t have seventeen.  However, you cannot own, change, or destroy a damaging narrative, if you don’t respond. First, win the argument, then you win the election – which is what Senator-Elect Ted Cruz and Sen. Mike Lee plan to do in the U.S. Senate.

Pat Buchanan called Romney’s “the finest debate performance” in 52 years “with the possible exception of Ronald Reagan’s demolition of Jimmy Carter in 1980.”

Indeed, when all of CNN and MSNBC – to include Chris Matthews, Lawrence O’Donnell and Rachel Maddow – hysterically admit that President Obama got smoked; he got smoked. Bad.

Liberal blogger and Obama sycophant Andrew Sullivan captured the universally shared “progressive” panic as the brutal mismatch came to a close: “How is Obama’s closing statement so f—ing sad, confused and lame? He choked. He lost. He may even have lost the election tonight.”

For those of us who have long recognized the messianic myth that is Barack Hussein Obama, the debate was especially gratifying.

The world had fallen prey to a cartoonish hoax. This media-crafted Iron Man has proven a mere mortal, a tin man, an international embarrassment.

The jig is up.

In just 90 minutes, Mitt Romney stripped away the Iron Man costume and exposed, naked beneath, a man more closely resembling Robert Downey Jr.

Recall the image, so often seen, of a young Robert, head downcast in shame, standing before the judge to rationalize why, yet again, he’d screwed up magnificently. Last Wednesday was Barack’s turn.

Don’t get me wrong, I like Robert Downey Jr. – I’m glad he turned his life around. But he’s an actor. He reads his lines. He’s not Iron Man. And he’s not qualified to be president.

Neither is Barack Obama.

And so, lost with no teleprompter binky, and, thus, suffering a debate trouncing unparalleled in history, it would seem that the president’s not so good, very bad week couldn’t get worse.

It got worse.

Just two days prior, the U.S. Supreme Court revived hope – long thought dead – that Obamacare, the president’s signature achievement, might yet be ruled unconstitutional. The High Court shocked the legal community by opening its new term with an order giving the Obama Justice Department just 30 days to respond to Liberty Counsel’s petition for rehearing. Liberty Counsel filed the petition on behalf of Liberty University and two private individuals.

An appeals court in Richmond, Va., ruled that the Anti-Injunction Act, or AIA, barred the court from addressing the merits in Liberty Univ., Inc. v. Geithner, which challenged the individual mandate (Section 1501) and the employer insurance mandate (Section 1513) of Obamacare.

In addition to the constitutional arguments that Congress lacked authority to pass the law, the suit also raised the Free Exercise of religion claim because of the forced taxpayer funding of abortion.

You may recall that the first day of oral argument was dedicated to the AIA, the issue that Liberty University’s case placed before the High Court. In June, the Supreme Court ruled that the AIA does not apply to Obamacare. Therefore, Liberty Counsel asked the Court to grant the petition (because Liberty University prevailed on the AIA claim), vacate the Court of Appeals ruling and remand (send back) the case to the Court of Appeals to consider the Free Exercise claim and the employer mandate, neither of which were decided by the High Court.

Long story short: If the Supreme Court ultimately hears the case on appeal – which is highly possible as the claims are unique – and rules that the employer mandate and Free Exercise claims are legit, Obamacare dies on the vine. It’s effectively overturned. It’s like a shiny new Chevy Volt without the exploding battery. It goes nowhere fast and is towed to the junkyard of really, really stupid ideas.

This means, among other things, that people who value human life won’t be made complicit in abortion homicide on the taxpayer dime.

“Obamacare is the biggest funding of abortion in American history,” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University School of Law. “Under the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate, Obamacare will, for the first time, require employers and individuals to directly fund abortion.

“This abortion mandate collides with religious freedom and the rights of conscience. I am very pleased with the Court’s decision today,” concluded Staver.

During the debate, Mitt Romney took Obama to task over Obamacare: “I just don’t know how the president could have come into office, facing 23 million people out of work, rising unemployment, an economic crisis at the – at the kitchen table and spent his energy and passion for two years fighting for Obamacare instead of fighting for jobs for the American people. It has killed jobs.”

Obama was left stuttering and stammering – sheepishly defending his grossly unaffordable, wholly unsustainable and wildly unpopular Obamacare monstrosity.

I was left encouraged.

Whether by legislative repeal, or through Liberty Counsel’s ongoing case, freedom-loving America should be confident. This freakish Frankenstein monster will, God willing, be soon laid to rest beneath the cold, clammy earth from which Democrats dug it up.

Obama’s shovel-ready debate performance was the groundbreaking.

Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)  

In the executive order, she was reaffirming the current Arizona law that denies taxpayer-funded public benefits and state identification to illegal immigrants.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer issues an executive order denying public-funded benefits to young illegal immigrants

Young illegal immigrants around the country between the ages of 16-30 around the nation began applying for work permits on Wednesday under the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

The new federal ‘policy’ defers deportation of certain young illegal immigrants who have a high school diploma, a GED, or who have served or are currently serving in the United States Armed Services, and all applicants must not have committed certain crimes.

Jan Brewer labeled the new federal policy by Barack Obama as “backdoor amnesty” back in June when the policy was announced.

Arizona has been a leading state in fighting for the right to protect their citizens from illegal immigrants, most recently making the news with the Arizona v. United States Supreme Court decision.

The U.S. Supreme Court in June overturned parts of the Arizona enforcement law known as SB1070 but ruled that a key provision on requiring police to ask people about their immigration status under certain circumstances can be implemented.

The Obama Administration and Eric Holder challenged the law in 2010, claiming that Arizona doesn’t constitutionally have the right to pass the law, since Immigration powers are enumerated to the federal government.

Gov. Brewer went on the Mike Broomhead show on 550 KFYI radio to discuss the executive order, listen here:

Follow me on Twitter: @chrisenloe

While most Americans already knew that affirmative action was race/ethnicity-based, the fact ACE is filing a brief that flat out says it is astounding. How does changing the tone from “separate but equal” to “together and unequal” remove racial division? Why isn’t it simply… equality of opportunity?

ACE goes on to trip all over themselves by describing the pluses of the UT admissions policy:

The ACE brief argues that a core holding in Grutter remains valid: Universities can consider race or ethnicity as a “plus” factor in the context of individualized consideration of each and every applicant.

The problem here is that if race is a “plus” factor for one group, does that not make it a “minus” factor for anyone not included in the “plus” groups?

Shouldn’t the focus be on achievement? If a middle-class hispanic student and a middle-class white student both score 1160′s on the SAT and have 3.4 GPAs, why should either one’s race come into the picture at all? According to ACE, it’s about diversity:

“Courts have long recognized that diversity is a compelling interest in higher education and that individual institutions are in the best position to determine how to pursue that interest in service to their own educational objectives.”

If a school wants to have a more diverse population, it should attract top performing members of ethnic groups, not knee-cap one group because there aren’t enough applicants from another.

One Supreme Court Justice won’t be deciding the case as Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself, likely due to her involvement with the case during her tenure as the Solicitor General. That leaves a right-leaning court that may seek to apply the 14th as it was intended, not as it has been abused.

The fourteenth amendment is precisely the amendment that was cited in Brown v. Board of Education that led to the de-segregation of schools. Can the supreme court possibly argue that the Constitution should protect one group more so than another?

If the court finds for Fisher, it will overturn Grutter v. Bollinger which affirmed the use of race and ethnicity in admissions. A win for the plaintiff will likely result in the end of affirmative action in schools across the nation.

Scalia’s comments elicited a furor at the website National Journal, where many weighed in to register their disgust at the possibility of another “conservative” justice betrayal. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts  appeared poised to strike down the individual mandate of the Obamacare legislation in late June 2012, but apparently sided with the liberal wing at the last moment.

Appearing in an interview given by Mike Wallace that is to be aired on Fox News Sunday, the originalist stalwart had the following comments:

[Whether or not government can ban high volume magazines and "assault" weapons] will have to be decided in future cases… But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also “locational limitations” on where weapons could be carried.

Several commenters at National Journal rightly rebutted Scalia’s opinion by pointing out the subjective nature of basing law on what liberals perceive as “frightening” or “menacing,” including hand-held weapons. There were other causes for concern with Justice Scalia’s comments.

Instead of basing his reasoning on inalienable individual rights, such as the rights to private property and self-defense, Scalia expounded on particular 18th century gun practices that preceded the ratification of The Constitution. From this exercise in historical exegesis, he leapt to the conclusion that the several states had the authority to “regulate” the citizens’ right to keep and bear arms.

Scalia thus hedges the recent case record that the Second Amendment is incorporated and binding on the states, which was established in the 2010 Supreme Court case McDonald vs. Chicago that struck down local gun control laws. That followed upon the related gun control case District of Columbia vs. Heller, which also struck down gun regulations.

The record of the Roberts’ course had seemed to be strong on both gun control and free speech issues before the Obamacare case debacle. Roberts’ capricious minimalism (the tendency to yield to the legislature on Constitutional interpretation)  and Scalia’s inconsistency in defending individual rights have many attentive citizens alarmed that gun “regulation” could go the deleterious way of Commerce “regulation.”

Whether or not one agrees with the Constitutional amendment stating that citizens have the right to bear arms, it is empirically rock-solid that citizens’ ability to lawfully carry concealed firearms leads to a 60 percent decrease in multiple-victim public shootings and a 78 percent decrease in victims per attack among the several states.

Nonetheless, the massacre at an Aurora, Colorado theater, a gun-free zone, has given rise to increasingly vocal calls for gun regulations by the Democrat Party. The party even had the audacity to try to slip assault weapons-related gun regulations into an upcoming “cybersecurity” bill, probably after recognizing that the U.S. would not become a party to the UN’s small arms treaty.

Please share this article if you want to alert your fellow citizens about the assaults being made on the Second Amendment!

“We don’t need permission to exercise our rights!”

A documentary by Jason Rink: Nullification: The Rightful Remedy

YouTube Description:

What do we do when the Federal Government steps outside of it’s constitutional boundaries? Do we ask federal bureaucrats in black robes to enforce the limits of it’s own power? Thomas Jefferson and James Madison didn’t think so, and neither do we. The rightful remedy to federal tyranny rests in the hands of the people and the several States. It’s called “nullification” or “interposition.” It’s an idea whose time has come.

This just released documentary from the Foundation for a Free Society and the Tenth Amendment Center features Thomas Woods, Michael Boldin, Debra Medina, Stewart Rhodes, Sheriff Richard Mack, Charles Goyette, Kevin Gutzman, Mike Maharrey, and others. In it we explore the history of state nullification, the constitutional legitimacy of the idea, and how nullification can be used today to push back against the encroachment of federal power.

This is Chief Justice John Roberts confirmation hearing, and then-Senator Joe Biden was questioning him on the “Micro-chip”. Senator Biden tells John Roberts:

“Can a microscopic tag be implanted in a person’s body to track his every movement? There’s actual discussion about that.You will rule on that, mark my words, before your tenure is over.”

For all the prophecy naysayers out there, here is an article- by an Obama supporter- that explains:

The Obama Health care bill under Class II (Paragraph 1, Section B) specifically includes ‘‘(ii) a class II device that is implantable.” Then on page 1004 it describes what the term “data” means in paragraph 1, section B:

14 ‘‘(B) In this paragraph, the term ‘data’ refers to in15
formation respecting a device described in paragraph (1),
16 including claims data, patient survey data, standardized
17 analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of
18 data from disparate data environments, electronic health
19 records, and any other data deemed appropriate by the
20 Secretary”

What exactly is a class II device that is implantable? Lets see…

Approved by the FDA, a class II implantable device is a “implantable radiofrequency
transponder system for patient identification and health information.” The purpose of a class II device is to collect data in medical patients such as “claims data, patient survey data, standardized analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of data from disparate data environments, electronic health records, and any other data deemed appropriate by the Secretary.”

This Obama supporter ends his article with this:

So will everyone be covered by the public option eventually??????

And does that mean everyone will be chipped?????

Micro-chipping citizens is part of Obamacare! Chief Justice John Roberts ruled on this, just as Joe Biden said he would.

If you follow the link to the quoted article, you will see that the author thinks those who receive the chip are  the “lucky ones”.

Now, believe what you will, where Bible prophecy is concerned, but personally, I would have never imagined Joe Biden to be the one to speak such prophetic words!

Now, is Obamacare the actual Mark of the Beast? There is great debate, even among religious circles, as to the answer to this question. I cannot say that it is, but neither can I say it will not be.  However, this Scripture certainly makes is clear that someday, it will come to pass, that all will be required to receive a mark of some kind.

“And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either  the name of the beast or  the number of his name.”  Revelation 13:16-17

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts prefers to dress casually in his off hours.

Last Thursday dawned bright and clear. It was shaping up to be a great day for conservatives. More than one observer — waiting for the Obamacare decision outside the Supreme Court — noticed aircraft coming in low on the horizon. Everyone assumed it was ICE drones searching for illegal aliens deserving of amnesty and a college scholarship.

But as the aircraft passed overhead the full weight of our mistake hit home. That wasn’t the Army Air Corps insignia on the underside of the wing. That circular logo was the Obama meatball and it was Pearl Harbor all over again! Obamacare was legal and conservatives were caught completely unprepared as plans to roll back Big Government exploded in their face.

Make no mistake. Chief Justice John Robert’s decision is a total, crushing and potentially unrecoverable defeat. Roberts joins with Chief Justice Roger Taney of Dred Scott fame as another Maryland chief justice responsible for a Supreme Court decision that will live in infamy.

“I always say…that if my fellow citizens want to go to Hell I will help them. It’s my job.

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

“It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

Chief Justice John Roberts

Justice Holmes, a crusty veteran wounded three times during the Civil War, was being cheerfully cynical. Justice Roberts, who appears to be suffering from PTSD induced by State of the Union criticism following the Citizens United decision and potential criticism prior to the Obamacare decision, is merely being pathetic.

Berkeley law professor John Yoo contends Robert’s doesn’t agree with his own ruling but intended to “pull the court out of political fight.”

Unfortunately, Robert’s job is to uphold the Constitution regardless of Democrat political pressure. His failure to do so removes one of the few remaining limits on the growth and expansion of federal power.

This type of judicial temporizing in the face of political pressure is the same thing that happened during the 1930’s. A gutless Supreme Court stood idly by while FDR and the Democrats twisted the Constitution and began the long, legislative march toward intrusive, domineering Big Government.

If conservatives had not been lulled into a false sense of security, much like radar observers at Pearl Harbor, the Robert’s decision earlier in the week to overturn most of Arizona’s illegal alien law would have served to warn us of impending problems.

Deluded optimists claim the decision was a clever rope–a–dope and now Obama has to run for re–election with Obamacare and its hidden tax hung around his neck for all the voters to see.

I don’t know what election these optimists have been watching, but the failure of Obamacare was already part of his campaign. Now, thanks to Roberts, he can run on the success of Obamacare, which serves to solidify a base that was becoming increasingly disillusioned. Protecting the fruit of this Supreme Court decision becomes a strong motivator to get out the Obama vote.

If this is a victory for conservatives, God save us from defeat.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–KY) is already whining that it’s going to be difficult to repeal the entire law because it’s so complicated. But it doesn’t require a 2,400–page bill to repeal a 2,400–page bill. You could do it with a bill no longer than a single page. What it does require is a certain strength of will and Sen. McConnell is telling us he and the majority of Republicans in the Senate lack that will.

They would rather file a lawsuit and let the Supreme Court do the heavy lifting, an option that after last Thursday no longer exists. This, in fact, will increasingly complicate life for Congressional Republicans as an imperial presidency continues to trample the Constitution. The legislative branch can no longer delegate Constitutional protection to the Judiciary.

The second rationalization for our famous victory is that Roberts ended the abuse and misuse of the Commerce clause. But that’s wrong, too. As Rick Richman notes in the Commentary blog: “Part III-A of the Roberts opinion – concluding the Obamacare mandate was not valid under the Commerce Clause – was not in the portion of his opinion that represents the opinion of the Court.” Which means the Commerce portion does not set or overturn precedent.

What a difference a week makes. Last Thursday a powerful conservative fleet was ready to weigh anchor. Eager to catch the high tide of the Obamacare decision and sail to victory in the fall. Today we’re tapping on the barnacle–encrusted hulls of capsized battleships trying to find survivors.

Some are using hammers. Me? I’m using my head.

You’ll also want to check out Ben Shapiro’s piece on Breitbart.com where he explains that no on in our government is willing to defend our Constitution.  Now it’s up to you to do it.