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

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.