Supreme Court

Judge Roger Vinson

After federal Judge Roger Vinson declared Obamacare unconstitutional on Monday, Florida Governor Rick Scott has announced that Florida will not waste any more time and money on further implementing any parts of Obamacare. Good for Florida.

Meanwhile the Obama administration is planning to continue implementing the law in direct violation of the judge’s order. Imagine the media outrage if George Bush had ignored a federal court ruling.

Judge Vinson chose to use the original tea party to illustrate the absurdity of claiming that our constitution grants the government the right to force people to buy health insurance:

It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place. If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be “difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power” [Lopez, supra, 514 U.S. at 564], and we would have a Constitution in name only. Surely this is not what the Founding Fathers could have intended.

The full text of the ruling can be found here.

The judge also referred to a Reason TV debate between conservative law professor John Eastman and liberal professor Erwin Chemerinsky on the individual mandate and the Commerce Clause. Watch “Wheat, Weed and Obamacare” to understand why a federal ruling finally putting a limit on what Congress can do under the Commerce Clause is so important if we want to preserve any limits on the power of the federal government. It is well worth investing ten minutes to watch this debate:

Judge Vinson’s ruling will eventually go to the Supreme Court possibly in 2012 just before the election. It is likely that a 5-4 majority will either uphold or overturn this ruling. Let’s hope that Justice Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote on the Court, sides with Judge Vinson and the Constitution.


On Tuesday President Obama will give the State of the Union address. The current silliness in Washington is the idea that sitting with members of the opposite party is going to achieve anything lasting. Many senators and representatives are trying to find a “date” from the opposite party to sit with on Tuesday night.

They clearly have not asked George Will about the significance of the State of the Union speech. Maybe they should.

The transcript (via The Daily Caller):

“A, they’re overrated — the next morning, the country is still a complex continental country with muscular interests in politics as its own momentum. Between Jefferson and Woodrow Wilson, no one delivered this in person. They sent the report to Congress in writing. But, now we’ve turned this into this panorama. In which in an interminable speech, every president, regardless of party — tries to stroke every erogenous zone in the electorate and it becomes a political pep rally, to use the phrase of Chief Justice Roberts last year. If it’s going to be a pep rally with the president’s supporters of whatever party standing up and bringing approval and histrionic pouting on the part of the other, then it’s no place for the judiciary, no place for the uniformed military, and no place for non-adolescent legislators.”

{ 1 comment }

Liberty Pen provides Mark Steyn’s biting humor on Janet Incompetano’s groping of Americans, the inability of the Obama / Holder regime to deal with captured terrorist and the decadence of our culture. The lines are hilarious, but the subject matter is deadly serious. Sitting in for Rush Limbaugh, Steyn fires off one zinger after another about our current state of affairs painting a comprehensive picture of the absurdity of the pathetic police state Obama is creating. (WARNING: Some adult content including brief nudity at the end of the video.)

Remember: If you are flying on Nov. 24, the busiest travel day of the year, it is Opt Out Day. Opt out of getting irradiated by the new scanners and you will be able to share the story of your own molestation by the TSA when you are with your family on Thanksgiving. If you are able to have someone record your “pat down” on an iPhone, post it on Youtube. With choices like this, I am glad I am not flying!

{ 1 comment }

President Obama’s policy of putting terrorists on trial in civilian courts rather than military tribunals has spectacularly failed this week when Ahmed Ghailani was acquitted of the murder of 224 innocent people including Americans at the 1996 American embassy bombings in Kenya. He was found guilty of just one of more than 280 charges.

The problem with this trial was not the jury, but the fact that the jury was not allowed to see key evidence in part due to rulings by the judge in charge of the trial, in part because providing all the evidence in a civilian trial would expose our field operatives in the intelligence agencies and endanger American security by giving our enemies valuable intelligence on our operations against them. You cannot try an enemy combatant in an American civilian court while the fight against the enemy goes on. We have military tribunals for cases like this.

This failure of a policy that Obama and his Attorney General, Eric Holder, were warned about repeatedly (see Obama’s Show Trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed), should result in Eric Holder immediately resigning, Obama reversing his policy and putting terrorist on trial in military tribunals and Obama apologizing to the American people for his foolish behavior.

Watch Senator Lindsey Graham grill Eric Holder on this issue earlier this year:

A man who cannot bring himself to say that Radical Islam caused recent terrorist attacks is unfit to be Attorney General or hold any other position responsible for America’s security:

See Eric Holder: Another Obama Cabinet Member Who Should Be Fired for Incompetence in the War on Islamic Terrorism for more of the context surrounding this video.

Radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt has passionately attacked the failure of Obama’s policy both on his show and on his blog. He quotes Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia:

But even when the military has evidence that it can bring forward, it is often foolhardy to release that evidence to the attorneys representing our enemies. And one escalation of procedures that the Court is clear about is affording the detainees increased access to witnesses (perhaps troops serving in Afghanistan?) and to classified information. See ante, at 54–55. During the 1995 prosecution of Omar Abdel Rahman, federal prosecutors gave the names of 200 unindicted co-conspirators to the “Blind Sheik’s” defense lawyers; that information was in the hands of Osama Bin Laden within two weeks. See Minority Report 14–15. In another case, trial testimony revealed to the enemy that the United States had been monitoring their cellular network, whereupon they promptly stopped using it, enabling more of them to evade capture and continue their atrocities. See id., at 15.

Hewitt, who is also a lawyer and teaches Constitutional Law, concludes:

Hopefully all but the most ideologically blinded of the cheerleaders of this manifestly unworkable and unnecessary process will now recognize their own folly and all future proceedings for unlawful combatants who are not American citizens will take place in military tribunals conducted at Gitmo. Hopefully at least one more Supreme Court Justice will blink in sudden recognition of the awful injustice their “reasoning” has produced and appropriately defer to the combined judgments of the Article I and Article II authorities on a matter of national security.

Hopefully at least some on the the academic left will shut up about that which they nothing about –the difficulty of trying unlawful combatants with civilians in the jury box and prosecutors unable to use evidence both because of evidentiary standards that ought not to be applicable to terrorists captured abroad and because of the the fear of compromising the methods and sources of intelligence gathering.

If these are the results of this case, perhaps the families of the victims of the massacre perpetrated by Ahmed Ghailani will receive some comfort that while the killer was acquitted of these murders, the manifest and shocking injustice of that result has curbed at least for a while the insanity of the American legal left, and especially its most prominent and powerful members, Barack Obama and Eric Holder.

Read Hugh Hewitt’s coverage of this important issues of national security here and here.


In 1995, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan wrote a 25-page Law Review paper criticizing Supreme Court nomination hearings since Robert Bork was defeated in 1986 for giving frank answers:

Now watch this exchange with Senator Jeff Sessions on whether Kagan is a “legal progessive”:

She doesn’t know what a legal progessive is? Unfortunately, Kagan isn’t sticking with her 1995 view on nomination hearings and is giving us another performance in evasiveness.

{ 1 comment }