Items 07/06

Interesting Items 07/06 -

Howdy all, a few Interesting Items for your information. Enjoy –

In this issue:

2. Insurgency
3. Obergefel
4. Housing
5. Redistricting
6. EPA

1. SCOTUS. The SCOTUS had one of its worst weeks since it regurgitated the horrific Roe opinion in 1973. In the course of two days, the rewrote ObamaCare by a 6-3 vote; redefined marriage by a 5-4 vote; rewrote the constitution by removing the ability of state legislatures to control redistricting by another 5-4 vote; and allowed people to participate in voter registration drives without proof of citizenship by refusing to hear an Arizona case. It concluded its assault on the constitution by rewriting the Fair Housing Act to allow disparate impact claims by yet another 5-4 vote. In all of these travesties, all Clinton and Obama nominees voted in lockstep while Justice Kennedy (confirmed after Senate democrats defeated Robert Bork in 1987) mostly made it up as he went along. In the ObamaCare case, Chief Justice Roberts continued his penchant for rewriting legislation based not upon the actual language passed into law and signed, but what he thought congress really meant to do. There is no small amount of suspicion that Roberts is being blackmailed over illegal adoption of their two small children as a violation of Irish law. The operation of the SCOTUS, particularly on social issues has been sadly predictable. Essentially all democrat appointees vote party line in support of whatever the party wants. Their vote is never in doubt and their written opinions and rationale for voting on whatever the next assault on liberty are strained and turgid at best. It would be far more honest to simply say because, just because. There is no excuse for Kennedy however. So what do we do about this? We clearly have an out of control SCOTUS, busily rewriting the Constitution including the Bill of Rights on the fly. Congressional Republicans aren’t going to be much help, as Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s reaction was that there wasn’t much they could do about it, an observation that demonstrates his gutlessness more than anything else. What can we do? Same thing as we do to the Muzzies – refuse to submit. Refuse to behave. Refuse to play. If the SCOTUS wants to be lawless, so should we. When these cases come in front of juries, refuse to convict – jury nullification, which was one of the vehicles that blew up Prohibition and the anti-sodomy laws. Support state calls and resolutions for an Article V Convention of the States and a new Bill of Rights. Demand Congress pass legislation reining in the topics that the SCOTUS and in turn the Appellate Courts can review and rule on. Hit the wannabee tyrants with everything in the book. Maximize the contradictions. It will be like shooting fish in a barrel.

2. Insurgency. Ran across a book entitled “Conservative Insurgency – the struggle to take America back 2009 – 2041” via an article by its author Kurt Schlichter published initially in Townhall last April. The book and the article are both predicated on the notion that the liberals are going to regret their new rules, as they are breeding a group of conservatives just as focused, just as ruthless, and just as willing to play nasty and throw elbows as they are. The problem is that in their ascendance, the left is now playing a defensive game, defending what they have won while doing everything possible to stamp out opposition. Conservatives are in the (perhaps) unenviable position of creating an insurgency against the left and their centers of power / centers of mass. Like all insurgencies, one of the things conservative insurgents are starting to do is to irritate the power structure so that it comes down on them like a ton of bricks, with reactions and punishment far in excess of whatever the insult to the left calls for. A $135,000 fine, gag order against a small business in Oregon for refusing to bake a cake is one such example. These sorts of over the top reactions tend to wake up young people who have not had time to work out their own ideological leanings, but have always backed the left because that is what they always have done and what they were taught to do in school. Conservatives need to make peace at some level with the libertarians on the social issues. They need to adopt reform of drug laws and criminal statutes so the people in prison are actual violent offenders. They need to attack the centers of mass of the left, the media, the Universities, public education, and corporate America, all of which provide lockstep support for the left. This means that conservatives will have to run for office, work in campaigns, essentially everything the TEA Party started in 2010, and do it for years. Both reads were fascinating. If you like the article, I highly recommend the book. We need to be Happy Warriors, but absolutely as focused and ruthless as the left on our goal of returning this nation to a limited, small constitutional government. It will also be a heck of a lot of fun.

3. Obergefel. Perhaps the worst decision out of a SCOTUS after Roe, perhaps the worst since Dred Scott, Obergefel not only legalized gay marriage nationwide, it also turned it into a fundamental right under the 14th Amendment, and placed that fundamental right above all the other fundamental rights in the Constitution. Pretty cool, huh? Create a new fundamental right out of thin air and place it on a pedestal above all the other rights listed and unlisted, effectively shutting down all dissent, for any opposition will by definition be a violation of the civil rights of the gaystapo under the newly redefined 14th Amendment. I’ll bet not one of the states that passed the 14th Amendment after the Civil War expected it to be used to redefine marriage. Justice Scalia knew this was coming 12 years ago when the SCOTUS ruled in the Lawrence v Texas case overturning Texas sodomy laws and warned against it. In order to create this opinion, the SCOTUS first had to get congress out of the way so they could haft free rein. They did that three years ago when they found the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional on what were essentially Federalism grounds. In other words, the same majority that ruled last week that a definition of marriage was too important to leave to the citizens of the many states, ruled three years ago that it was too important to leave to the citizen’s representatives in congress. The vote was an identical 5-4 with the same group of black robed tyrants. So which is it? Is marriage too important to leave to congress or is it too important to leave to the states? Their answer is a ringing, neither. It is too important to leave to anyone but us, your unelected, unaccountable, black-robed tyrants. My opinion is that all five justices should be impeached, tried and removed from office, as harshly and as painfully as possible. Gaystapo reaction was immediate and predictable, with them and their allies in the state run media instantly changing their aim from the courts to the churches. Hint: They don’t have the guts to go after the Mosques. Gay activist and not so well closeted pocket fascist George Takei (Mr. Sulu in the original Star Trek) angrily set his phasers on racist with an on air rant against Justice Thomas, calling him among other things, a clown in black face. This may be the saving grace of this entire episode. While we conservatives may have lost the argument about gay marriage especially among our children and grandchildren, we most certainly haven’t lost the argument about whether or not dissenters should be professionally and economically destroyed for refusing to play along. The ugliness, nastiness and unmitigated hatred by the gaystapo aimed at those not fully on board with their new world view will go a long way toward destroying them and their cause in the eyes of the young. If this is such a wonderful thing, why are they so angry? If this is such an improvement in their way of life, why can they not leave others alone? As a religious man, I wonder if this is God’s little gift to the gay rights movement. Yeah, you’re going to get some of what you want, but you will never know happiness or joy. I can live with that. Can they?

4. Housing. The same 5-4 leftist majority rewrote the Fair Housing Act in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v The Inclusive Communities Project. This opinion held that the Fair Housing Act allows lawsuits based on the currently popular academic theory of disparate impact. In the Texas case, there were only so many tax credits for home improvement to hand out in poor neighborhoods. Some are used to improve homes in the local neighborhood. Some are used to move to better housing in better neighborhoods. The problem is that disparate impact allows everyone to sue based on disparate impact. The tax credit for home improvement in existing neighborhood can and will sue because they did not get a credit allowing them to move. The recipient that moved is allowed to sue because there were not more people allowed to move. With all the community organizers and “community service” organizations like ACORN and it ilk, there are no shortage of lawsuits. The solution is obvious, good old fashioned racial quotas, which in turn also have disparate impact on everyone involved. The big fear here is that the opinion will be used by the regime as a vehicle for their goal of neighborhoods designed and built by Washington DC. As I described last week, it will be used as a vehicle to introduce low cost housing in middle class, upper middle class and other neighborhood. Along with the housing will come all the pathologies of young, single, fatherless households – drugs, crime and gangs. As with everything out of these five leftist fools, there are a lot of things that the regime is doing that is causing disparate impact to the poor. CO2 emissions rules and regulations are causing energy prices to spike, impacting the poor worst. New CAFÉ standards on autos both jack up the costs of vehicles while making them less survivable in accidents. Disparate impact here is higher death rates for people who cannot afford good medical care. Any listing of an endangered species putting anyone out of work will negatively impact those who are least educated, as it is more difficult to move from job to job. A group of well funded lawyers can play Holy Hell with the green agenda under the newly ensconced theory. All we have to do is start using it. Even if we lose, we still maximize the contradictions, embarrass both the feds and the Obama / Clinton judges as they rule against case after case after case. They want a new tool? They aren’t the only ones who can use it.

5. Redistricting. The same 5-4 majority also rewrote Article I, Section 4 by removing the ability of a legislature to prescribe times, places and manner of holding elections. The case arose out of the redistricting commission movement out of the Clinton administration in the late 1990s. Typically there was a ballot initiative that moved redistricting from the political process and the legislature to what was supposedly an “independent” commission tasked with drawing the lines. As with most good government initiatives out of the Clinton administration, the definition of good government is elect more democrats, as over time all these commissions have been captured by the left. The California one has locked in democrat control for nearly two decades. The Arizona one tried mightily to do the same. The commission was set up by ballot initiative in 2000. The Republican - controlled legislature wants to return redistricting power to itself. The liberal majority determined that the word “legislature” in the Constitution means the power of all people in the state including ballot initiatives. This is an interesting viewpoint coming from three women and two men who no longer believe that the very same people who are able to decide how to draw lines on maps to define districts are no longer able or qualified to determine what marriage, something never mentioned in the actual text of the Constitution. But if you are a liberal, you can say and do whatever you want to do. I expect this will be overturned by ballot initiative in the not so distant future.

6. EPA. There was a little bit of good news out of the SCOTUS with a ruling that tossed out new emissions rules on mercury, arsenic and acids from power generation stations. The case Michigan v EPA tossed out the new rules because the EPA did not take the crippling cost of the new rules and regulations on power generation companies. The vote was yet another 5-4, this time with Kennedy deciding not to play with the liberals. While this places a roadblock in the EPA’s anti CO2 efforts, some observers believe the damage has already been done simply due to the long lead time necessary to design, permit and build new power generation. At least existing plants will not be forced to shut down for this excuse. But mark my words, these sorts of losses never stop the EPA. They are like the Terminator, they will keep on coming, never stopping, until everything they target is dead. If is us or them, I vote they die.

More later -

- AG