SCOTUS nomination

Well this is news that I have been dreading since the GOP already stole one seat on the  current SCOTUS bench.

Of course Mitch McConnell wants to get a speedy vote on this. He knows that the country is pissed at his slimy thieving ass.

We are seeing that federal court nominees are not even wanting to answer questions about landmark cases. They are getting away with it, why? because the GOP does not care about justice and constitutionality, just drive the dollars in the correct direction.

We know that the GOP is pushing for the youngest judges that it can get, regardless of qualifications.

Regardless of the damages, Thank you Justice Kennedy for all of the years that you have given to the bench.

Church and State – battle on the playground

This morning SCOTUS rules that the Missouri church should not have been denied a grant for recycled rubber playground surface for their playground.

The concern it seems was over the old church and state argument.

To me, this should not have been a concern as it was not an area of political influence.

Perhaps some of the questions of importance in the grant process should have been to determine if the public funds would benefit the public, and not just the kids in the daycare. If the playground was for the sole use of the public, it moves up the list. If it is only for the daycare members’ use, then it could still be considered, but after all of the public playgrounds have been dealt with.

Of course this could be rendered moot if the church was paying it’s fair share of taxes. If that had been the case, the only issue would have been, does this funding lead to any conflicts of interest or promotion of faith? If not, then why not.

Separation of church and state was only intended to make sure that neither side could influence the other. Sadly Christianity is unable to internalize the fact that this is not a Christian nation. We are to be a free nation, capable of enjoying any faith that we wish.

I am torn on what the Supreme Court did today

Today The Supreme Court handed down a decision that in some ways I can understand since they are dealing only (or are supposed to anyway)  the Constitutional issues at hand.

One of today’s decisions was over the Massachusetts law that set out a buffer zone around abortion clinics.

The zone was to allow an area of safe passage for people to get in and out of clinics without being harassed by protesters.

There is part of the rub, it is impinging on people’s rights to protest.

I have been in protests, those that have been here for a while will remember the Westboro protest.  They can be peaceful or they can turn on a dime and get very ugly.

I am not a fan of Freedom of Speech Zones… To me and as long as I breath air all U.S. soil is a Freedom of Speech Zone. To me, my DD-214 and DD-215 forms say just that.

If you think that you can stop me from protesting, good fuckin luck!

However, that is tempered with the rights of those around me. That is my Libertarian side shining through. I will try really hard to not deprive you of your rights. No just like sin, shit happens sometimes and I may cross a line.

If I am going to drop off a package at a clinic and some rabid protester spits on me I am going to lose it. I may go to jail for my assault, and when the piece of shit get out of the hospital, I will be pressing charges of my own for their crime. (1) Yes, I am quite vindictive when I get pushed. If you want to protest, fine do so respectfully. Remember that just because a person is going in or out of a clinic does not mean that they are participating in the act that you are so upset about. There are people who have to deliver stuff to other offices within the building. Often there are other services being performed that are socially acceptable like breast exams, or pap smears.

Those that have met me (Di Da, Owt Raged, etc.) I am not a small individual. There are reasons that I don;t have fights at the bar when I am bouncing. If I am going to a clinic with Gigglez for a pap smear and someone were to get out of line… understand that I am not afraid of jail.



Is it really an imposition to ask for…

The Supreme Court has rules that states cannot ask for any more ID that the initial form to register a voter…

They find that it is too much of an imposition to ask that there be more enforcement than a simple check-box to have the signer note that they are a citizen unless penalty of perjury.

Is it really?

In most states I have to present local ID to pay by check.

In some states to use an ATM card, one must present legal ID.

To get a library card, one must normally present legal ID.

To cash a paycheck, one must present ID.


The law requires that a person voting for a federal candidate, they must be a citizen, but we will just take their word for it.

Why is it too intrusive? We are not talking about a poll tax as the cost for a state issued ID is minimal. Shit, make it free if they can show financial hardship!


All state issued ID’s should require proof of citizenship.

The other night I had my first person with a Tribal ID card. You bet I took it, as it is LEGAL ID, and it was not expired.

If I am presented with a  Marticula Consular card, I will not admit that person to the bar. If my employer wants to permit it, that is fine and I will submit my two weeks notice on the spot. (My day job requires e-verify so I am covered there)


We have laws that have served us well with common sense for ages. Yes, we have had crap laws (and still do) that were stricken as they were discriminatory or contrary to the Constitution or Bill of Rights. This is not one of those situations.

It is high time that the states start asserting their rights and opt out of assisting the federal government with various areas within their authority until the feds re-discover the fact that they are not the end all, be all of our country’s well being.


Amending amendments

I am curious about the process and authority of altering amendments.

The process of making an amendment is pretty well known and not the easiest of tasks.

We have seen them get pretty well gutted, by legislation and the court, but I am wondering more of HOW they get screwed with.

The First Amendment is pretty clear, but yet we have thrashed over the years.


Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


We know that religion is not is not really free in this country, nor is speech, the press has quit being an investigative tool. People’s rights to peaceably assemble has been nipped, and what is the federal petition process?


Some of this is cultural, but most of it has been the government just fucking us over, left and right.

BTW: for today we are containing this to the First Amendment.

Gay Marriage; States rights, federal rights, or human rights

By Eyes_open


As the Supreme Court takes on the issue of California’s Proposition 8, and the federal DOMA, and Jeb Bush weighs in that he believes marriage should be a states rights issue, where do you stand on the issue of same-sex marriage, and why. Is it a matter that should be left to each state, should the federal government be involved and to what degree. Or is this a constitutional violation of civil rights, placing it in the hands of the Supreme Court.

Obamacare a win with SCOTUS

For quite a while, I have argued that Obamacare would pass Constitutional muster.

This morning, I was proven correct. (Lucky me… I am 2-0 for the week)

Please keep in mind that this is a “conservative court”, but the next little bit should be interesting to watch.

The country will be very agitated due to both rulings this week, not to mention the Holder situation.



So the Supreme court has come in on the Arizona law SB1070

SCOTUS rejected some parts, but allowed the police to be able to ask about immigration status.

My opinion is mixed, but find that the court’s decision is sound.

Let the rest of the country follow Arizona’s lead.

What say you?



Oh and this was also sent to me from ALIPAC

ALIPAC Welcomes Supreme Court Ruling on Arizona & Vows to Spread Law to More States

For Immediate National Release

June 25, 2012

Contact: Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC)
(866) 703-0864

Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) is celebrating the decision of the US Supreme Court announced this morning which upholds the key component of Arizona’s enforcement only approach to deterring illegal immigration! ALIPAC is vowing to pass improved versions of Arizona’s law in more states as soon as possible, to protect American workers, students, taxpayers, and voters from illegal immigration.

“This Supreme Court ruling in our favor is an historic victory for Americans fighting against the corporate sponsored illegal alien invasion of our homeland,” said William Gheen President of ALIPAC. “This ruling is a great blow to the Mexican government and Barack Obama’s efforts to sustain the invasion. We believe that we now have the momentum to pass versions of Arizona’s SB 1070 law in many other states since the court upheld the most important provision in the bill!”

Americans for Legal Immigration PAC has over 40,000 national supporters and has helped to pass immigration enforcement laws in many states while stopping legislation designed to give taxpayer benefits like in-state tuition in more than 20 states. ALIPAC’s platform seeks to stop and reverse illegal immigration in America through the adequate enforcement of America’s existing border and immigration laws, instead of any changes in the law that would allow illegal aliens to form a new voting bloc that would destroy America.

“Obama has forced America into some new form of dictatorship to try to stop the mass exodus of illegal immigrants that should be following this ruling,” said William Gheen. “We plan to release new activist and legislation efforts in the coming weeks that will make it clear to illegal immigrants that departing the United States on their own volition as soon as possible, is their best course of action.”

National polls show that 81% of Americans support local police enforcing immigration laws and news reports indicate that illegal immigrants flee areas where local police can enforce immigration laws.

The Supreme Court did reject some of the other less important provisions in the Arizona law and ALIPAC found it disturbing to hear the same kind of illegal immigration supporting rhetoric used by globalists in the Obama and Bush administrations coming from some members of the court. They sound more concerned about illegal immigrants than suffering states, American workers and taxpayers.

For interviews or more information on ALIPAC’s plan to pass improved versions of Arizona’s law in more states please visit