More SCOTUS modus operandi *rolling eyes*

”The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a federal law that makes it a crime to lie about receiving a military medal, ruling it violated constitutional free-speech rights. By a 6-3 vote, in a case about how far the government may go to prosecute false claims about military honors, the high court handed a setback to the Obama administration over the “Stolen Valor Act” that Congress adopted in 2006.” (WatchDogWire)

Ha, Orwellian doublespeakcross by men who ought to know better.   When is lying ever not wrong,  I implore you, All Mighty Robes!  Go ahead.  Set the precedent to allow ALL those in high office to lie their asses off.  They do now anyway.  Putting your GoodHousekeeping seal on the Lie is the Law-on-High putting lipstick on a pig and calling it not a hog.  Historians will have a hay day with this court, for sure.   What?  You say you don’t care, All Mighty Robes?  Of course you don’t.  You’d need a conscience for that, wouldn’t you?

Hey, Everyman:

A lie, is a lie, is a lie.  What don’t you get about that?  What the Court has done is issue carte blanc “cover” for all liars – past, present, and future.  We the People are aware of the false credentials and fake diplomas used by a high number of high office holders, going on, say, for well over 30 years now.  It’s been in the major newspapers and archived on the internet – forever.   What are all you liars going to do about that?  Create an excuse to take down the Internet under the guise of a national security threat? Well, that’ll go over real big like.

I’m still in mock-n-awe mode over this ruling, sorry.  Hope y’all don’t think we see the Big Toe in the door, here, yahknowwhadimean, Vern?!

 

 

Advertisements

Obamacare: the new strategy, same as the old strategy; new version of new diversion.

1. Whereas the entire debate is diverted to where president Obama was born versus the fact that Obama’s father was a British  subject makes Obama ineligible for the presidency,

2. The lame stream media will frame the debate on the constitutionality of Obamacare on the terms ‘penalty’ versus ‘tax’ rather than the fact that tax revenue bills are to originate in the House only, not from the Senate, as it was in this case brought before the SCOTUS.

3. What media outlet will take the lead on these stories before the GLOBE once again aces the traces and attracts the facts?!?

Is there such a thing as a Two-faced Chief Justice..? (**,)

Okay, okay. You’re right. I can’t leave this alone.  Chief Justice Roberts is the best politician of all time.  Or a liberal mole  sitting on the  SCOTUS.  Perhaps on a fictional planet SCROTUM (Sometimes Courts Rat on the Uninformed Minions)?.  Come on… just going for the guffaw!  ha ha.

Seriously tho, there’s something so desperately wrong with this Roberts-ruling picture.   I venture to guess most Americans think Chief Justice Roberts is conservative.   A member of the Washington, D.C.  chapter of the conservative Federalist Society.  Adviser of then-Governor Jeb Bush with the latter’s actions in the Florida election recount during Bush’s presidential election?  Roberts has been portrayed as a consistent advocate for conservative principles by analysts such as Jeffrey Toobin.

Jeffrey Toobin, CNN’s chief legal analyst, heaped praise on Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, whose arguments before the High Court in March he called a “train wreck” and a “plane wreck.” “This is a day for Don Verilli to take an enormous amount of credit and for me to eat a bit of crow,” said Toobin.

Ohh, bullsh*t.  I listened to Verrilli’s arguments on CSPAN and he deserves no “enormous amount of credit” for winning this case.  Verrilli’s arguments could be interpreted as a “train wreck”.  But, in my opinion, all the credit is on Roberts who has shown, without shame, his two-facedness to the American people.  This SCOTUS ruling debacle is Roberts’ Clintonesque moment  ‘..that depends on what the meaning of is, is.’

Roberts discombobulated opinion (hyperbolic theatrical PuC tradecraft only, *tricksy titters*) ought to be closely scrutinized in public forums, if not for any reason other than ‘for the record’.

An important question, though, is what caused the “very,very conservative” Roberts to suddenly switch sides on this case, immediately prior to announcement?  But more precisely,  was it triggered by prezdementia’s WARNING (to SCOTUS/Roberts?) the evening before?  Hmm, coinkydinky?  Not likely.

Lastly, it  remains troublesome why Roberts joined the liberal side on two of the most recent important rulings:  immigration and obamacare.  Sounds like double agent scenario to me, kiddos.

Hang our heads in shame – the world is hee-hawing US

Yesterday history was made.   No.  Not because of the SCOTUS ruling in favor of the president’s healthcare scheme.  I think it is about the un-making of a brilliant man who happened to be lucky enough to pass muster in Congress to become Chief Justice only to turn-coat on Congress to blatantly engage doublespeak in his “majority opinion” ruling on the constitutionality of Obamascare.  A debate that had already been more or less settled in the pubic forum, both private and professional, and deemed unconstitutional.  One only has to read what Roberts has written on the issue, contradictions litter his opinion,  and if you heard the oral arguments via CPAN, one might think this whole process was a dog and pony show with the outcome already decided long before the “show”.   I’ve seen this tactic played over and over on the Congressional floor over the past decade.

I think history will not treat Chief Justice Roberts well (all the Justices involved in this case for that matter, see below) .  Historians might portray Roberts as intellectually dishonest and may record the flubbing of the swearing-in, Oath of Office, of president Obama.  It was re-done in private.  Why?  Why not start-over at the Inauguration, preceded perhaps by a witty remark?   Additionally, I’ve seen Roberts during his nomination testimony and the interview on CSPAN when CPAN aced interviews with all the Justices.  He was sharp as a tack.  Compare that sharpness to the times where I think it appears as though Roberts’ in a trance-like state.  Does anyone know whether the Chief is on strong medications?

Regardless, I believe the Court and especially Chief Justice exercised mental aerobics to twist words and intent to satisfy the “warning” issued by our Illustrious Leader the day before.  I think no one wants to be  “made an example of” in real time these days.

Most importantly, the justices disregarded the Constitution itself as far as where this bill originated.  Any bill having to do with revenue, “taxing” Americans that is, is deemed to begin in the House of Representatives, not the Senate, where this bill originated.  I believe Justice Kennedy put it best according to CNSNews.com:

U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, in commenting on the dissent in the Obamacare case said, “In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety.”  He made his remark inside the Court on Thursday.

In the written dissent, it states, “we would find the Act invalid in its entirety. We respectfully dissent.”

The dissenting justices further said, “What is absolutely clear, affirmed by the text of the 1789 Constitution, by the Tenth Amendment ratified in 1791, and by innumerable cases of ours in the 220 years since, is that there are structural limits upon federal power – upon what it can prescribe with respect to private conduct, and upon what it can impose upon the sovereign States. Whatever may be the conceptual limits upon the Commerce Clause and upon the power to tax and spend, they cannot be such as will enable the Federal Government to regulate all private conduct and to compel the States to function as administrators of federal programs.”

Think what you will, but PuC thinks this ruling will be the catalyst for diversion and distraction from the shenanigans which will more than likely go on behind the scenes during this election year.

Veiled threat or ignorant posturing – you decide (“,)

Drudge, in big, larger-than-cockroach-sized red font, screams at me OBAMA WARNS ON HEALTHCARE RULING.  I think to myself:  someone’s gonna die.  If the ruling doesn’t go his way, that is.  But, then I remember something I read on some website, on some internet (Owl Gore’s possibly) that it was Chief Justice Roberts who put the kibosh on some lawyer’s uneligibility case to do with  King Obama.  (In a flash, I see myself overseas..blinded by the sun..somewhere very gritty..holding my hand out for a cold Bud..but I digress.)  Maybe it’s just me, but those words sure sound ominous and threatening – coming from the Leader of a free Republic – dontcha think?  But getting back to Roberts, he also served the bungling word-salad during Obama’s Swearing-In Oath, too, requiring a re-do elsewhere, remember?  What’s up with that?  And now, today,  I learn that, possibly, it might be Chief Justice Roberts who may write the majority opinion regarding the Affordable Care Act.  Do we think he might bungle that, too?  As in ruling the ACA constitutional?

Then I remember how Prez-O dissed the Supreme Court Justices during the State of the Union speech.

PuC thinks they ought to kick a leg out from under Prez-O’s high horse before he becomes king.  Just for fun.   That’s what PuC thinks.

SCOTUS modus operandi

Ahh, what a conundrum we Americans have been served for breakfast today, piled high on our already impossible plate of Angst with a sprig of Scream….no?  On the one hand it looks good.  I, too have wondered what our country would be like if we had just not loosened our high standards to become an American if and when one immigrated here from another country.  Back ‘when’, it was done slowly and methodically, thus allowing both parties to acclimate to a difference in the repesective cultures.  Hmm…  I bet, dear reader, you wonder what the process produced.  Well, for starters it produced a gradual assimilation to our way of life to said foreigner.  In other words, the foreigner adopted our customs, our language and our ideals.   Albeit, at a time when they all seemed to be operating together nicely – for the common good.  With me so far?  Good, because we’ve come so far away from that process over the years that present Americans inherited this current problem having to do with illegal immigration.  And believe me, it wasn’t we Americans who caused it.  And it wasn’t foreigners who wanted to make a better life for themselves here,, in the greatest country in the world,, at that time.  No, I think  fault lies within the confines of the highest offices in our nation.

Where was I?  Ahh, yes..the SCOTUS modus operandi.  One might think the SCOTUS ruling had something to do with the influx of illegal immigrants and its almighty fix…heh heh…foolish mind-tinkerings, for sure.   For it is my opinion that there’s something else brewing in the undercurrent of this tidal wave ruling.  I think, perhaps, maybe, doubting Dudley-Do-Rights imagine many imaginings, may be, perhaps, emerging from maybe..the chambers of horrors!  Ha ha, just kidding!  *tricksy titters*  But all you brightest of the brightest amongus know what you know…  and that is the knowledge of what’s behind the curtain of,, wait for it,,……..the SCOTUS modus operandi!

Caio, for now, my brightests.

Democrat prevents vote on Black Panther case until after midterms; damning report leaked

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights was set to vote on a 131-page draft report about the Obama administration’s decision to drop the Black Panther voter intimidation case today — but a partisan Democratic member prevented the commission from doing its job. Michael Yaki walked out of the meeting before the vote, preventing the commission from reaching quorum, a procedural motion designed to stall for time. A report now seems unlikely to be released until after the midterm elections.

However, the left-wing blog Talking Points Memo obtained a leaked copy of the report, which details credible allegations of Justice Department evasion, dissembling, and possible perjury before the commission. The document reveals a commission at the end of its rope dealing with a “recalcitrant” administration that refuses to investigate “serious allegations” of selective and racially discriminatory law enforcement, harassment of dissenters, and a politically controlled Justice Department bowing to the demands of left-wing pressure groups rather than the dictates of justice. (And contrary to TPM, “Much of the commission’s draft report is” not in fact “based on an anonymously sourced story” that appeared in the media. As the report makes clear, several DoJ career officials exposed a pattern of wrongdoing in the decision making process that reached at least as high as the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder.

H/T to Floyd Reports