A lasting legacy within the body politic continues with Supreme Court justice John Roberts who Thompson helped guide through the nomination process in 2005.

TENNESSEE – Fred Thompson, a former U.S. senator for Tennessee, GOP presidential candidate, Watergate attorney and longtime “Law and Order” star, died on Sunday. He was 73.

Mr. Thompson died after a recurrence of lymphoma, according to a statement issued by the Thompson family.

“It is with a heavy heart and a deep sense of grief that we share the passing of our brother, husband, father, and grandfather who died peacefully in Nashville surrounded by his family,” the statement reads. (more…)

After an entire media cycle filled with the insufferable professional punditry waxing on about how Muslims must be allowed to be President; the entire common sense electorate can sense the disconnect between reality and the professionally political.
Here’s a strong presentation about Ben Carson’s righteous position and the considerations of Islam – READ HERE – Meanwhile, Hilllary opines with this little PC twitter-sense:

Obviously, the U.S. Constitution outlines that “GOVERNMENT” “shall not apply a religious test as a qualification to any office etc.”  However, any individual or group is entirely free to attach their own litmus test if they so desire; it’s called discernment.
There is nothing forbidding an individual from applying their own belief system to their opinion of whether or not a Muslim follower should be trusted to “preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States“; nothing wrong with that at all.
With that in mind, here’s the ‘Splodey-Head question that no-one in the media is brave enough to ask Hillary Clinton: (more…)

Hired by election and fully supported by her community, county clerk Kim Davis is handcuffed and jailed by a U.S. Marshall and federal judge.  Note that Davis is afforded no religious accommodation by the same federal government which mandates -by law- religious accommodation within the private sector for all employees.
And the social justice warrior crowd is gleeful…..

(more…)

For more than a year we have been asking a simple question:

“How can the DOJ conduct an investigation into unlawful aspects of the IRS targeting of specific 501(c)(4) groups, when the DOJ is the initiating body for the illegality they are seeking to investigate?” (June 28th, 2014)

A few days ago Judicial Watch revealed new FOIA discoveries and posed this:

“These new documents show that the Obama IRS scandal is also an Obama DOJ and FBI scandal,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The FBI and Justice Department worked with Lois Lerner and the IRS to concoct some reason to put President Obama’s opponents in jail before his reelection.

And this abuse resulted in the FBI’s illegally obtaining confidential taxpayer information. How can the Justice Department and FBI investigate the very scandal in which they are implicated?” (link)

The entire scheme is riddled with complexity; almost too complex for the average person to understand, and seriously difficult to summarize.  However, when you boil it down here’s the essential components that are no longer suspicion or supposition, but factually provable: (more…)

SCOTUS did what many people figured they would do; with Chief Justice Roberts, yet again, joining the bench legislatures in a veiled effort to avoid the impression of a 5-4 ideological court.

SCOTUS – Today, by a vote of six to three, the Court agreed with the Obama administration that the subsidies are available for everyone who bought health insurance through an exchange, no matter whether that exchange was created by a state or the federal government.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the Court’s opinion, which Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan all joined.

The Court acknowledged that, at first blush, the phrase “established by the State” does not appear to include the federal government. After all, the ACA specifically defines “State” as “each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia.” But other parts of the law, the Court explained, suggest that the “meaning of the phrase ‘established by the State’ is not so clear.” (more…)

“Disparate Impact” is a social justice legal theorem which measures outcomes to standards and practices and determines racial legality.

Example – Under legal interpretation rules of “Disparate Impact” it is unlawful not to hire illegal aliens. If a company uses eligible (legal) work authorization status as a requirement on employment applications (when making hiring decisions), and if the use of legal work eligibility is used as a qualifier, and the eligibility (qualification) standards disqualify a protected class (ethnicity) at a disparate rate, then it is unlawful not to hire illegal aliens.

The civil rights act(s) guaranteed -through law- equality in opportunity. Disparate Impact guarantees -through legal interpretation- equality in outcome.

Today the Supreme Court upheld (5-4) the application of “Disparate Impact Rules” within housing: regulations, loans, credits, locations and subsidies.  Justice Kennedy was the determining factor.  Thomas Lifson at American Thinker accurately outlines: (more…)

Reminder: There are 7 decision announcements still anticipated including: King v. Burwell, in which the court must decide whether the 6.4 million people getting subsidies on the federal exchange to buy ObamaCare will be able to continue doing so; and Obergefell v. Hodges, where the court is being asked to decide whether bans on same-sex marriage are constitutional and whether states must recognize same-sex marriages performed legally in other states.  The Texas Housing v Inclusive Communities “disparate impact” decision is also possible.

We can anticipate one or more decisions today and tomorrow. SCOTUS BLOG HERE They will live blog decisions beginning at 9:00am Eastern.

*Note – I’ll be off line until early afternoon, but use comment section if something breaks. The next 48 hours should be interesting to say the least.

BREAKING: The Supreme Court has added two additional “decision days” to their calendar for the session ending next Monday June 29th.  They just added this upcoming Thursday and Friday.

There are 7 decision announcements still anticipated including:  King v. Burwell, in which the court must decide whether the 6.4 million people getting subsidies on the federal exchange to buy ObamaCare will be able to continue doing so; and Obergefell v. Hodges, where the court is being asked to decide whether bans on same-sex marriage are constitutional and whether states must recognize same-sex marriages performed legally in other states.

We can anticipate one or more decisions on both Thursday and Friday of this week.

UPDATE:  Given the announcement of Obama giving the eulogy for South Carolina victims on Friday we can expect the Obamacare ruling decision announcement has been aligned accordingly:

https://twitter.com/DRUDGE_REPORT/status/613085303335579648

The case was Horne v. U.S. Dept of Agriculture (full embed pdf below).  Essentially a raisin farmer was fined (and the price of his crop similarly assessed) for not forfeiting their harvest to the USDA in a program where the government regulates supply and demand through production controls.

SCOTUS ruled 8-1 (Sotomayor dissent) the U.S. government cannot “take”, or force destroyed, farming crops without compensation to the farmer under the fifth amendment “takings” clause.

The most consequential aspect of the ruling stems from 8 justices affirming that “personal property” is afforded the same constitutional protection as “real property.  Specifically, in this case,  if  crops “taken” (or rendered removed from the market) for the public good, there must be compensation for the owner/farmer.   (more…)

The Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS) will be delivering rulings, on previously argued cases, all week. Today, two rulings announced.

♦  8-1 EEOC wins suit filed against Abercrombie and Fitch on behalf of Muslim woman who sought discrimination protection -based on religion as the qualifying protected category- claiming disqualification from employment because she wore a headscarf.
Ridiculously Abercrombie argued their side of the case based on the applicant never “requesting a religious accommodation“. Justice Scalia informed the business the applicant did not need to be specifically denied a requested accommodation in order to be discriminated; the applicant merely needed to prove their employment disqualification was due to their religious belief.

…”An applicant need only show that his need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision”…  ~ Scalia

This was really a no-brainer win for religious freedom and employment eligibility. (more…)