That’s Just About Right

24 04 2015

Washington, D.C.

CNS:

Attorney: ‘Same-Sex Couples Have a Perfect Right to Reproduce’

The attorney who argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003 in favor of striking down the sodomy law in the state of Texas said on Friday that homosexuals have “a perfect right to reproduce.”

“Same-sex couples have a perfect right to reproduce – whether they’re married or not – and are, in fact, doing that,” Paul Smith, attorney and partner at Jenner & Block, said at an American Constitution Society (ACS) event to discuss the high court’s hearing oral arguments on Tuesday on same-sex marriage in the Obergefell v. Hodges case.

Something that is biologically impossible is now a “right.”  Soon, saying in public that gay couples can’t reproduce by the laws of biology will be an *-ism or a *-phobia.  Because science.

UPDATE 4/25

Okay, the smart alecks who aren’t quite as clever as they think they are, are already yapping “sperm donor” and “surrogate mother.”  True, but that only means that one half of the “same sex couple” in question is reproducing.





Twenty Second

22 04 2015

Downtown

2:

Police and prosecutors frustrated over felons committing crimes with guns

Law enforcement officials on two fronts are upset concerning the way judges deal with felons who have violated gun laws.  Police Chief Sam Dotson and the circuit attorney’s office believe a recent case that involved 22-year-old Bruce Edward Johnson is an example of what upsets them.

Johnson was arrested as a result of the rolling gun battle on interstate 44 and Interstate 55 Monday.  He’s no stranger to police or the court system. In 2011 he was charged with unlawful use of a weapon, he got probation. In 2014 he violated that probation this time he got 120 days shock time. And, now he’s been arrested again for unlawful use of a weapon felony possession. St. Louis City Police Chief Sam Dotson said, “When somebody pleads guilty to felony, and both of those charges were felonies, we have to do better than just probation and then when they violate probation we’ll give you probation again and let you try it again. And now, look what happens, put dozens of lives at risk.”  Mary Pat Carl, an assistant circuit attorney said, “We’re absolutely concerned about these things we can’t have people who use firearms who possess firearms can’t get first second third chances.”

Well, it’s the 22nd Circuit, full of black and white liberal judges, so its motto is:  “Everyone deserves a 22nd chance.”

Prosecutors are also concerned about the recently passed Amendment 5, they say it benefits felons but does nothing to help people who can already legally carry guns.  They tell me some judges have decided the amendment means no longer can courts prosecute convicted felons for possessing legal firearms.

Even if it means the state can’t, the Feds still can.  Where’s Richard Callahan’s office?





The Other Aisle

7 04 2015

Washington, D.C.

As useless as the Republicans are, you have to remember that that other party is just about 100% thrown in to open borders no borders immigration surge.

Every Senate Democrat voted for Gang Bangers of Eight in 2013.  Every Senate Democrat in this current Congress helped prevent the passage of a DHS funding bill that defunded Obama’s amnesty fatwa.  Every House Democrat voted against that same bill.  Of the purported Democrat Presidential candidates, the only one that has a thawed relationship with immigration patriotism is Jim Webb.

And now, all but seven House Democrats have signed on as amici curiae on Obama’s side in Texas v USA.





Not Profound

26 03 2015

Washington, D.C.

Deals a blow?

Not really, not practically.

Hold my hand, and I’ll walk you through this.

All it means is that SCOTUS has found that minority-favorable gerrymanders are not an implicit requirement of the Voting Rights Act.

It does not mean that any such districts in existence now will be wiped out, and it does not mean that they will be specifically prohibited in the future.  All it means is that if they’re not drawn, it’s going to be all but impossible for the NAACP et al. to use the Federal judiciary as a weapon to force their existence.

However, they will continue to exist for at least a few more decennial redistricting cycles for two main reasons:

1.  Republican state legislators and black Democrat state legislators want them to exist.

2.  White Democrat state legislators, while they know now that their existence marginally hurts white Democrats, aren’t going to be in a much of a mood to work against their existence, because they’re too scared to tell blacks no.

For my new best friend, in case you’ve bought into the leftist crackpot hysteria about gerrymandering, then I’ll point you back to what I wrote in this space last November.  I’ll make it so easy for you that I’ll blockquote my favorite source, myself, instead of forcing you to click on a link:

NOTE:  The following section was updated on December 17 in accordance with the final Congressional runoffs and recounts complete.

Are you ready to put the leftist hoopla over gerrymandering to bed?  Hold my hand and come with me.

In 2010, the national popular vote for Congressional candidates was 52.2% R 44.6% D.  In 2014, 52.6% R 44.4% D.  Notice how almost the same these results are.

Remember, the 2010 votes were fed into the Congressional maps drawn in 2001 and extant from 2001-2011.  This year’s vote is fed into these great evil Republican gerrymandered maps that are and will be extant from 2011-2021.

So you feed just about the same two party percentage split into two different Congressional district maps, and what do you get?  242 seats in 2010, 247 seats in 2014.  So this great Republican gerrymandered map only results in five more Republican seats using virtually the same popular vote percentages.

Then again, you already put the gerrymandering mania to bed, because you read this space.  Earlier this year, the NYT did a story about a study that several university professors did.  They fed the 2012 Congressional vote, which in raw terms was slightly more Democrat than Republican, into thousands of hypothetical national Congressional districting maps, ranging from the craziest pro-Democrat to the craziest pro-Republican and everything in between.  The researchers found that only a few of the craziest pro-Democrat maps would have resulted in an actual Democrat House majority; all the other maps, meaning most Democrat-favorable maps and all the neutral maps and pro-Republican maps, resulted in a Republican majority.  It also found that the real world map drawn in 2011 is, on the researchers’ relative scale, a moderately pro-Republican map, and not a crazy one.  Which makes sense, because not every state legislature in 2011 was Republican-run, and some Democrat-ones (think:  California and Illinois) did favorable Democrat gerrymanders in those states.  The researchers’ conclusion was that the main problem Democrats have in Congressional elections isn’t gerrymandering, (and they reminded us that gerrymandering’s original purpose was to draw short bus districts for blacks, the Republican benefit fell out of the design accidentally), but the fact that Democrat voters are clumped up in small geographical areas, i.e. big cities.

The moral of this story:  Five seats.  Wow.  Some conspiracy.

***

 

 





Why Would He Bother?

17 03 2015

Washington, D.C.

NYT wants Obama to come up with a creative pseudo-legal pseudo-Constitutional workaround should SCOTUS find the “wrong” way in King v Burwell.

Why should he even bother with this knit picking?  All he has to do is flip SCOTUS the bird.  Who’s going to arrest Baraq Obama for contempt of court?  The FBI that Baraq Obama controls?

He may not even have to do that.  The insurance industry will make sure all the Republican politicians they bought and paid for restores the Federal subsidies if SCOTUS does the “wrong” (i.e. right) thing.  Congress will do it so quickly that they’ll beat Planck Time.  Meanwhile, we’re still waiting on some Congressional legislation that defunds Obama’s executive order immigration amnesty.





There Goes the Judge

9 03 2015

Ferguson

SCOMO transfers Ferguson’s municipal caseload to the State Appellate Court for Eastern Missouri.

Here comes the downhill rolling snowball  — How will this not happen with many other municipalities in the state?  What’s true for Ferguson that invoked this action is also true for a bunch of other municipalities.  I fully expect this to end up with most if not all municipal courts in the state being eliminated, and many municipal police departments being eliminated.  Meaning that the actual municipalities might as well go out of business, though like I said earlier, that would be “fine” with me.





A Three Piece Puzzle

4 03 2015

Washington, D.C.

Two pieces of the puzzle in King v Burwell, whose SCOTUS BJs have just started.

Louisiana Gov. Piyush Jindal, writing in NR:

And here’s where some on the right want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Conventional wisdom in Washington has assumed that, should the Court strike down the subsidies in 37 states under King, states will immediately act to establish their own state-run exchanges — allowing the subsidies to flow once more. Alternatively, Congress might be tempted to pass language extending the subsidies to the federally-run exchange, allowing Obamacare to comply with the Court ruling. That’s a “solution” in search of a problem. If eliminating the subsidies represents a net tax cut, then restoring the subsidies — whether by states creating their own exchanges, Congress passing new legislation, or some combination of the two — would re-impose a sizable tax increase. Americans would pay billions more in higher taxes to fund the newly restored subsidies, making Obamacare that much more entrenched. What self-proclaimed conservative of sound mind would do such a thing? Alternatively, some have talked about enacting a “compromise” that would restore the Obamacare subsidies while reforming some of the law’s new insurance requirements and regulations. But restoring the flow of subsidies means restoring the employer mandate, thus raising taxes. And even if such a “compromise” weakens or eliminates the employer mandate, the Obama administration — to say nothing of the insurance companies themselves — will hardly countenance a repeal of the individual mandate, which restoring the subsidies will only strengthen. So those seeking to restore the flow of subsidies will likely end up having to raise taxes on millions of Americans, in some way, shape, or form.

The emphasis of one given word in this quote is my own addition.

Betsey McCaughey, in the NYP:

Insurance companies will be the biggest losers

Their stock prices have soared since the healthcare.gov rollout — Humana up 66 percent; Cigna, 53 percent; Aetna, 52 percent. No wonder: ObamaCare forces the public to buy their policies.

It’s like a law requiring all Americans to buy cars, subsidizing those who can’t pay. That would send automaker stocks skyrocketing, too.

Insurers are expected to haul in over a trillion dollars of taxpayer money over the next decade. No wonder they’re bombarding the Supremes with arguments defending their cozy deal.

The third piece of the puzzle?  Look at the campaign finance reports of a lot of Republicans, and you’re going to find a whole lot of insurance PACs, 527s, if not semi-directly, then funneled through one or two intermediaries.

It’s why the Republican Party in current form is never going to make a serious run at repeal.  At “best,” they’ll just nibble around some of the worst edges.








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,119 other followers