Advertisements
Home

Clarence Thomas is Fed Up With People Playing Victim

Leave a comment

H/T Western Journalism.

It seems there is a perpetual state of victim-hood in America if something does go your way you start screaming racism,sexism,homophobia,Islamophobia,xenophobia or who knows what.

Justice Clarence Thomas decried the contemporary culture of victimhood during remarks Thursday, telling an audience at the Library of Congress that constant aggrievement would exhaust the country.

Ever a touchstone for controversy on racial issues, the justice-related a story from a recent trip to Kansas, where a black college student told him she was primarily interested in school work, and less interested in the political tumult gripping college campuses.

“At some point we’re going to be fatigued with everybody being a victim,” he said.

Thomas has struck similar cords throughout his public life.

He appeared on Laura Ingraham’s Fox News program in November 2017, and suggested contemporary activists could learn would benefit from the example of his grandparents, who exhibited quiet fortitude during the heady days of white supremacy.

He made his Thursday remark in the context of a broader discussion about his childhood.

Thomas was born in Georgia’s coastal lowlands among impoverished Gullah-speakers and spent his childhood working his grandfather’s farm.

He likened his upbringing to Kathryn Stockett’s 2009 novel “The Help” as most of the women in his life, including his mother, were domestics in white households.

Given the few options open to blacks in the Jim Crow south, Thomas’ family felt they had no choice but to do the best with what they had.

The justice detects the hand of providence in those select opportunities open to him, like parochial education and Savannah’s Carnegie library, which served the black population.

“You always have to play the hand you’re dealt,” he said. “If you’re dealt a bad hand, you still have to play it.”

As detailed in his 2008 memoir, he inherited these sensibilities from his grandfather.

Thomas was sent to live with his grandparents after a fire ravaged his mother’s home during his childhood.

By Thomas’ telling, his grandfather was the defining figure of his life. When he joined the Supreme Court in 1991, his wife commissioned a bust featuring his grandfather’s favorite quote.

“His favorite quote was ‘Old Man Can’t is dead. I helped bury him,’” Thomas said.

A version of this article appeared on The Daily Caller News Foundation website.

Advertisements

Never Trump Cry-Babies

3 Comments

In the beginning, when the RNC was trying to steal the nomination and give it to “Little Jebbie” or Mitt “The Loser” Romney, I said that I would not vote for President in 2016.

Then I got to thinking about the men and women that fought and died to give me the right to vote. And because of that, I have not missed voting in the last 44 years.

Conservatives not voting in 2012 gave us four more years of Barack Obama, and it will elect either Hillary or Bernie.

There is no way I would let that happen.

I am now going to step on many toes either because I am going to get down to my rant about the Never Trump Cry-Babies:

You say you will not vote for Trump because your favorite did not win primaries and get the nomination, and you say you are a patriot and love America.

I am going to say you are a liar and you do not care about America or her freedom because if you are a patriot and love freedom you would not set on your rear at home and allow Hillary or that crazy Uncle Bernie get elected. They will finish off the murder of America that Obama started.

You say you are a gun owner and you support the Second Amendment.

Once again, Skippy, I am calling you a liar. By not voting you will allow more liberal justices to be appointed to the Supreme Court. Then. by executive orders you’ll see the Second Amendment and free speech destroyed.

You will see the Gestapo kick in your door, then shoot you and your family dead to get your gums.

True Patriots and Second Amendment Supporters would stand and fight to not let tyranny win.

So suck it up, Buttercup! Put on your big boy/big girl panties and support Donald Trump in November, 2016. 

I do not want my grandchildren to ask me to tell them what is was like when America was free.

I also do not want to explain why a bunch of Never Trump Cry-Babies did not vote and allowed the destroyers of freedom and America come to power.

Many of you Never Trump Cry-Babies want someone to run as a third-party candidate. Head cry-baby William Kristol wants Mitt “The Loser” Romney to run third-party.

Mitt “The Loser” could not get elected in 2012 and it will not happen in 2016 as a third-party candidate.

Many of you Never Trump Cry-Babies say you will vote for the Libertarian candidate. Well, Skippy, I am going to rain on your parade. The Libertarian does not stand a snowball’s chance.

 

The most underrated Founding Father: Oliver Ellsworth?

1 Comment

This is from Constitution Center.org.

On the anniversary of Oliver Ellsworth’s birth, Constitution Daily looks back an important founder who helped forge a compromise that led to the Constitution, and later played important roles in the early Senate and Supreme Court.

OliverEllsworth-535

Ellsworth was born on April 29, 1745 in Windsor, Connecticut. From a prominent New England family, Ellsworth began his education at Yale and finished at Princeton, where he started the American Whig-Cliosophic Society along with fellow students Luther Martin and William Paterson. (Other early members included James Madison, Aaron Burr and Henry Lee.)

He quickly became a successful lawyer and then became involved in the Revolutionary War, serving in the Continental Congress.  Ellsworth was also a judge in Connecticut.

Ellsworth played a very active role in the Constitutional Convention in 1787 in Philadelphia. According to Madison’s records, Ellsworth spoke frequently at the Convention.  And Ellsworth won a debate over dropping the term “United States” from the official name of the federal government.

Ellsworth and Roger Sherman were involved in the Great (or Connecticut) Compromise that led to a House of Representatives with proportional representation and a Senate with fixed representation based on two Senators per state; he also supported the three-fifths compromise about slavery.  Ellsworth then served on the five-person committee that wrote the Constitution’s first draft, but he forced to leave Philadelphia for business reasons before signing the final document in September 1787.

During the ratification battle over the Constitution, Ellsworth wrote Letters of a Landholder, a series of articles like the Federalist Papers that supported the proposed Constitution. Seven were written about Connecticut’s ratification debate and six were targeted at a national audience.

In the first national government under the Constitution, Ellsworth was appointed to the U.S. Senate by Connecticut, and he functioned as the de facto Senate Majority Leader until 1796. His biggest accomplishment was the drafting and passing of the Judiciary Act on 1789. Ellsworth personally wrote much of the Act along with William Patterson, which defined the structure and jurisdiction of the federal court system, and remains largely intact today. The Act also gave the federal Supreme Court the ability to hear appeals of cases decided by state supreme courts, which was an important step in the concept of judicial review.

Ellsworth was also an important force in the Senate for promoting Alexander Hamilton’s national debt funding and for starting the Bank of the United States. In 1796, Ellsworth left the Senate to become the third Chief Justice of the United States, and he also served as commissioner to France while he sat on the Supreme Court between 1796 and 1800. During his short time on the Court, Ellsworth tried to initiate the modern format of Supreme Court decisions, with Justices issuing joint majority and dissenting opinions.

While in France negotiating with Napoleon to end an undeclared trade war with the United States, Ellsworth resigned from the Supreme Court, citing health problems caused by his travel schedule. Ellsworth’s replacement was John Marshall.

Returning to Windsor, Connecticut, Ellsworth remained active in state politics until his death in 1807.

Despite Ellsworth’s considerable contributions in the Founding period, little was been written about him, with few biographies available. The official Encyclopedia Britannica entry on Ellsworth was written by future U.S. President John F. Kennedy.

Black Democrats to Obama: Pick Lynch for Supreme Court

Leave a comment

This is from The Hill.

Loretta Lynch has no business being Attorney General.

She has less business being on the Supreme Court for life.

Black lawmakers in Congress are urging President Obama to make history by nominating Attorney General Loretta Lynch to the Supreme Court.

Lynch, if confirmed, would become the first African-American woman to serve as a justice. She would also be the first African-American appointed by a Democratic president since Thurgood Marshall, an influential liberal who retired in 1991.

 Members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) argue the court’s only African-American justice, Clarence Thomas, who was nominated by George H.W. Bush in 1991, doesn’t represent the interests of their constituents.“I would love to see him appoint Loretta Lynch. She’s already been vetted. She meets the criteria that he’s laid out. She would certainly be my recommendation,” said Elijah Cummings, a senior member of the CBC.

Cummings noted that African-American women voters helped Obama win the presidency.

“African American women have played a major role in our electoral process. They vote at a high rate,” he said.

Senate Republicans are vowing to oppose any Supreme Court nominee from Obama, saying this week that the person will not receive a hearing from the Judiciary Committee or even a meeting with top Republicans.

Democrats say Obama should ramp up the pressure on the GOP by picking a Supreme Court candidate who has attracted bipartisan support.

Black lawmakers argue that Lynch would fit the bill, noting that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) voted to confirm her as attorney general last year.

Nine other Republicans also voted for Lynch, including vulnerable GOP incumbents facing reelection such as Sens. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Rob Portman of Ohio.

“African-Americans across the country understand the significance of the Supreme Court,” said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), another member of the CBC.

Cleaver said Obama should pick Lynch.

“Probably more than anyone else, she would, with open minds, sail through the Judiciary Committee and onto the floor for a vote,” he said.

Lynch also has won plaudits from former Republican New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who last year expressed his full confidence that Lynch would uphold the Constitution as attorney general.

“As a Republican and looking at the Constitution, I find Loretta Lynch not only to be an acceptable appointment, but I find her to be an extraordinary appointment,” he said.

Lynch received her law degree at Harvard and served as the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York. One of her biggest cases was prosecuting members of New York City’s police force for brutally beating Abner Louima, a Haitian immigrant.

At a time when the Black Lives Matter movement has become a political force, her nomination would resonate with African Americans, Democrats say.

“The Supreme Court pretty much reflects America with that one exception. The way in which the president addresses this issue, frankly, could have an impact on turnout in the election,” Cleaver said.

Reflecting that grassroots sentiment, the liberal group Democracy for America on Friday launched a petition calling for Obama to put a “woman of color” on the high court.

“After centuries of racial and gender exclusion, America has a lot of catching up to do. Since the creation of the Supreme Court in 1789, America has had 112 justices, and 106 have been white men,” the petition says, without specifically advocating Lynch.

Despite her qualifications, Republicans did hold up Lynch’s nomination as attorney general, using it as leverage to pass a human-trafficking bill.

And even though Lynch was confirmed with bipartisan support in a 56-43 vote, other potential Supreme Court candidates have passed the Senate by more overwhelming margins.

Jane Louise Kelly, of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Sri Srinivasan of the D.C. Circuit won Senate confirmation in 2013 by votes of 96-0 and 97-0, respectively.

But black lawmakers argue that Lynch or another African-American jurist would have a unique perspective on some of the biggest legal issues of the day: racism, police brutality, the mass incarceration of African-American men and voting rights.

“I think it’s important for him to nominate a candidate who is going to consider the legal interests of the African-American community. It would be great to have more diversity there,” said Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), a CBC member. “I think Loretta Lynch would be phenomenal.”

Lawmakers say African Americans lost an important voice on the court when Marshall stepped down and was replaced by Thomas, a staunch conservative.

President Lyndon Johnson praised Marshall at his 1965 swearing-in ceremony as someone at the legal vanguard to end discrimination in education, housing and voting.

“That perspective, the values that Thurgood Marshall brought to the court, are just extraordinary, and right now we do not have an African American that shares that crucial perspective, and it would be great to have someone like that on the Supreme Court,” said Hilary Shelton, director of the NAACP’s Washington bureau.

“It’s time for serious consideration to be given to a talented African-American jurist,” said Rep. Lacy Clay (R-Mo.), another member of the CBC.

“When you think about qualifications, [former Obama Attorney General] Eric Holder is the first one that comes to mind along with Loretta Lynch, who have both been through Senate confirmation,” he said.

Some Republicans have recently questioned Lynch’s impartiality in the investigation into whether Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton may have compromised classified material by using a private e-mail server.

Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn (Texas) has called for Lynch to appoint a special counsel to avoid the possibility of “political considerations” interfering with a decision to launch a criminal investigation of Clinton.

Even if Republicans blocked Lynch, the Democrats argued her nomination would not be wasted because Clinton, if she wins the White House, could resubmit her name to Congress.

“Under Hillary Clinton, we would have a good chance of getting a qualified African-American nominee through,” Clay said. “She could always re-nominate the person.”

Lynch has proved much less of a lightning rod at Justice Department than Holder, her predecessor, who also enjoys support among black lawmakers.

They would love to see Obama tap Holder for the high court, but acknowledge he has become too politically controversial despite his impressive legal résumé.

“I would love to see Eric Holder on the bench, more than any other person I know on the planet,” Cleaver said. “I’m not sure that would not be seen by the other side as the president lobbing a hand grenade in their bunker.”

Scalia’s Last Words on Judicial Activism: Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Lacked ‘Even Thin Veneer of Law’

Leave a comment

This is from Breitbarts Big Government.

The final words of  Justice Antonin Scalia will chill you to the bone.

Amidst the rich legacy that Justice Antonin Scalia left to the American people after more than 30 years serving on the Supreme Court, his last and one of his greatest statements against judicial activism came after the notorious 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision that trampled the democratic process, legislating same-sex marriage for all 50 states.

Justice Scalia’s major contention with the court’s decision had little to do with same-sex marriage at all and everything to do with democracy and the rule of law. It is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage, he writes, but it is of overwhelming importance “who it is that rules me.”

“Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court,” he said.

In his nine-page dissent, Scalia ripped into the majority opinion, calling it a “judicial Putsch” that poses a “threat to American democracy.” He added that a “system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.”

The Court’s “naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power” bulldozed the right of the People to self-government, said Scalia, which represents the greatest threat to the American experiment in self-government.

In his scathing rebuke of the ruling, Scalia said that the majority had reached “an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law.”

He noted that at the time the Constitution’s 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, “every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so,” which makes it extraordinarily suspicious that the 2015 court could suddenly find differently.

In what amounted to a brief history lesson, Scalia underscored the gravity of the Court’s action by comparing it to England’s treatment of the American colonies that ignited the movement for American independence. The justice said that in its hubris, the majority decision had carried out a more serious offense than the one that sparked the Boston Tea Party and later the American Revolution itself.

Indeed, wrote Scalia, “to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.”

When the Supreme Court no longer acts like a judicial body and instead usurps the power to enact legislation, as it did in its infamous June 26 ruling, it radically oversteps its mandate and is worthy of nothing but scorn.

As millions of Americans pause to bid farewell to this brilliant and outspoken legal scholar and judge, his warnings of the dangers of judicial activism must not fall on deaf ears. In an election year, the direction of the Supreme Court hangs in the balance.

Antonin Scalia, RIP.

 


Four famous people who almost served on the Supreme Court

Leave a comment

This is from the National Constitution Center.

I did not know this.

The call from the President to become a Supreme Court Justice is a hard offer to refuse. But not everyone in history has accepted it. Here’s a look at four famous cases where prominent people passed on joining the most-powerful court in the land.

passedonscPatrick Henry

The revolutionary firebrand apparently was offered the position of Chief Justice of the United States in late 1795 after John Jay resigned and John Rutledge failed as a recess appointment.Letters from Light Horse Harry Lee to Henry indicated an offer was coming from President Washington to serve on the Court. Henry didn’t respond for several weeks, leading Washington to call the incident “embarrassing in the extreme” to Lee in a separate letter. Henry had already declined the position of Secretary of State and he didn’t wind up as Chief Justice when Oliver Ellsworth was confirmed instead.

Thomas Dewey

The two-time Republican nominee for President (in 1944 and 1948) was reportedly considered for the Supreme Court by Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Lyndon Johnson, turning down both their offers to join the Court. According to the New York Times obituary for Earl Warren, Eisenhower offered the Chief Justice position in 1953 to John Foster Dulles and Dewey first, and both men declined. Warren then accepted. A decade later, Johnson reportedly offered Dewey a Supreme Court seat after Dewey didn’t support Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential election, and Dewey declined again.

Howard Baker

Senator Baker was a Majority Leader and White House Chief of Staff, but Baker also had a chance to join the Supreme Court in 1971 at the request of President Richard Nixon. Baker had been an attorney in Tennessee before winning a 1966 U.S. Senate election there. Five years later, President Nixon made Baker his first choice for one of two positions on the Court, as a replacement for Hugo Black or John Marshall Harlan.

According to John Dean, also of Watergate notoriety, Baker paused about accepting the appointment as he weighed the financial aspects of a Supreme Court position. Nixon moved on to William Rehnquist as Baker’s replacement as Baker delayed.  But it was then Baker in 1973, as a Senator at the Watergate hearings, who asked Dean the famous question, “What did the president know, and when did he know it?”

Mario Cuomo

The former presidential candidate and New York Governor was openly mentioned by Bill Clinton as a possible Supreme Court Justice when Clinton was a presidential candidate. A year later, Cuomo released a statement to Clinton and the public about his Supreme Court aspirations. “I do not know whether you might indeed have nominated me, but because there has been public speculation … I think I owe it to you to make clear now that I do not wish to be considered,” Cuomo said.

In 2012, Clinton confirmed that he had made the offer to Cuomo while he was President. And in a prior book, George Stephanopoulos said a deal was within minutes of being struck when Cuomo changed his mind about the nomination in 1993. Instead, Ruth Bader Ginsburg received the call from the White House.

Surveys: Many Americans know little about the Supreme Court

Leave a comment

This is from the National Constitution Center. 

It would make for some interesting arguments with Judge Judy on the bench.

The upcoming nomination battle over a vacant Supreme Court seat could expose some Americans to an institution they know little about – the Supreme Court itself.

Judge Judy. Source: CBS

Judge Judy (who is not on the Supreme Court). Source: CBS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the past few years, polling firms have included questions about the Court and its nine Justices among its surveys of popular political and civic knowledge. And not surprisingly, many of those surveyed in the general population couldn’t name key players and policies in all three branches of the federal government – and especially the Supreme Court.

For example, a poll released in January 2016 fielded by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni showed that about 10 percent of college graduates believed TV’s Judith Sheindlin (aka Judge Judy) is on the United States Supreme Court.  As of today, Sheindlin is not on the Supreme Court.

Among the college graduates, about 62 percent correctly answered that Elena Kagan is on the current Court, and not Sheindlin, John Kerry or retired federal judge Lawrence Pierce. Overall, just 44 percent of all those polled identified Kagan as a Supreme Court Justice. (Another 35 percent of those polled thought impeachment trials took place in the Supreme Court.)

A similar survey from the Annenberg Public Policy Center, released in September 2015, showed that many people struggled to answer basic questions about the Court.

For example, 32 percent of Americans couldn’t identify the Supreme Court as one of the three branches of the federal government, and 28 percent thought Supreme Court case decisions were returned to Congress for reconsideration. And another 25 percent were in favor of eliminating the Supreme Court entirely if it made too many unpopular decisions.

The struggles many Americans face with civics knowledge is well-documented. Back in 2011, Newsweek had a group of 1,000 people take a standard citizenship test; only 62 percent passed. In addition, only 37 percent knew that are nine Justices on the Supreme Court.

In a 2015 Pew Research survey, only 33 percent of Americans could answer correctly that three women are on the current Supreme Court bench. Another Pew survey in 2013 showed pictures of four Justices and asked respondents to name the Justice who was frequently the Court’s swing vote; only 28 percent could name Anthony Kennedy as the correct answer.

In a similar photo lineup in 2012, just before the Court’s decision on Obamacare, just 34 percent of those surveyed could identify an image of Chief Justice John G. Roberts. Just after the Affordable Care Act ruling, 45 percent of those polled didn’t know the ruling upheld the ACA.

On Tuesday, Gallup looked back on its past polling data about the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, which showed many Americans were unfamiliar with him. Last July, 29 percent of Americans had a favorable opinion of Scalia, with 27 percent had an unfavorable opinion. But a bigger number, 32 percent, had no idea who Scalia was.

A total of 44 percent of people in 2015 had no opinion or no idea who Scalia was – the same number received by Chief Justice Roberts. Almost half of Americans had no knowledge or opinion of Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Americans do have opinions about the Supreme Court as an institution. Since 2000, Gallup has fielded a specific public approval poll about the Court. Last September, Gallup said 95 percent of people polled had some opinion about the Supreme Court: 50 percent disapproved of the Court, while 45 percent approved of the job it was doing. In 2000, 62 percent of Americans approved of the Court.

But the Gallup numbers show that while current Court approval numbers are lower, as of 2015, the Court has an institution far outranks Congess, which had an approval rating of 14 percent last September. President Obama’s approval rating last September was 47 percent.

Gallup’s research on overall trust in the three branches of the federal government goes back to 1973, when 45 percent of people had a high level of trust in the Supreme Court, compared with 42 percent for Congress. Today, those numbers are 32 percent for the Court and just 8 percent for Congress.

Supreme Court puts Obama’s power plant regs on hold

1 Comment

This is from Fox News Politics.

Will Obama use his pen to push this agenda?

Will the GOP have the gonads to stand up to him?

 

A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday abruptly halted President Obama’s controversial new power plant regulations, dealing a blow to the administration’s sweeping plan to address global warming.

n a 5-4 decision, the court halted enforcement of the plan until after legal challenges are resolved.

The surprising move is a victory for the coalition of 27 mostly Republican-led states and industry opponents that call the regulations “an unprecedented power grab.”

By temporarily freezing the rule the high court’s order signals that opponents have made a strong argument against the plan. A federal appeals court last month refused to put it on hold.

The court’s four liberal justices said they would have denied the request.

The plan aims to stave off the worst predicted impacts of climate change by reducing carbon dioxide emissions at existing power plants by about one-third by 2030.

“We disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision to stay the Clean Power Plan while litigation proceeds,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said in a statement.Earnest said the administration’s plan is based on a strong legal and technical foundation, and gives the states time to develop cost-effective plans to reduce emissions. He also said the administration will continue to “take aggressive steps to make forward progress to reduce carbon emissions.”

Appellate arguments are set to begin June 2.

The compliance period starts in 2022, but states must submit their plans to the Environmental Protection Administration by September or seek an extension.

Many states opposing the plan depend on economic activity tied to such fossil fuels as coal, oil and gas. They argued that power plants will have to spend billions of dollars to begin complying with a rule that may end up being overturned.

Attorney General Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia, whose coal-dependent state is helping lead the legal fight, hailed the court’s decision.

“We are thrilled that the Supreme Court realized the rule’s immediate impact and froze its implementation, protecting workers and saving countless dollars as our fight against its legality continues,” Morrisey said.

Implementation of the rules is considered essential to the United States meeting emissions-reduction targets in a global climate agreement signed in Paris last month. The Obama administration and environmental groups also say the plan will spur new clean-energy jobs.

Environmentalists were stunned by the court’s action, which they stressed did not reflect a decision on the relative strength of the Obama administration’s case.

“The Clean Power Plan has a firm anchor in our nation’s clean air laws and a strong scientific record, and we look forward to presenting our case on the merits in the courts,” said Vickie Patton, a lawyer for Environmental Defense Fund, which is a party to the case.

California Gov. Jerry Brown called the decision an “arbitrary roadblock” that “undermines America’s climate leadership.”

To convince the high court to temporarily halt the plan, opponents had to convince the justices that there was a “fair prospect” the court might strike down the rule. The court also had to consider whether denying a stay would cause irreparable harm to the states and utility companies affected.

The unsigned, one-page order blocks the rules from taking effect while the legal fight plays out in the appeals court and during any further appeal to the Supreme Court, a process that easily could extend into 2017.

How West Virginia Is Leading the Charge Against Obama’s Environmental ‘Power Grab’

1 Comment

This is from The Daily Signal. 

This law is one of many to punish Red States.

CHARLESTON, W.Va.—The Mountain State has its back against the wall, and time is running out. Leading a coalition of more than two dozen coal states, West Virginia is asking the Supreme Court for an emergency stay of President Obama’s new regulations governing the coal industry.

West Virginia and 26 other states argue that the Environmental Protection Agency overstepped its authority by circumventing Congress to unilaterally implement the package of rules.

The EPA calls it the Clean Power Plan. The states call the move an unconstitutional “power grab” and complain that it will bankrupt their local coal industries.

But while they’re confident the law is on their side, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey says time is not. That’s why the states have asked the Supreme Court for an emergency stay to temporarily freeze the Clean Power Plan as the case moves through the legal system.

At issue is whether the EPA will be allowed to become “a central energy planning authority,” Morrisey said.

The District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals last week agreed to hear the case on an expedited basis but declined to halt the EPA from implementing the new rules. And while oral arguments are set to begin in June, the battle likely will drag on into next year.

That’s the perfect scenario for the EPA to run out the clock, Morrisey says.

“The EPA’s goal is to obtain compliance,” he tells The Daily Signal, “whether or not the regulation is upheld in court.”

In an unusual legal play at this stage of the litigation process, the states asked Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to grant the freeze in the rules. The court has invited the Obama administration to file a rebuttal by Feb. 4 and likely will hand down a decision the following week.

Morrissey says he is cautiously optimistic that the high court will grant a stay.

“The EPA has consistently run roughshod over the rule of law and West Virginia,” Morrisey says.

And he says he is confident a temporary freeze is justified since the Clean Power Plan “is causing irreversible harm.”

States are scrambling to comply with the plan, which is considered a key component of Obama’s broader effort to achieve climate change goals negotiated in Paris last year.

The president calls the Clean Power Plan “a tremendously important step in the fight against global climate change.” Vetoing a bill from Congress that would have derailed the plan last month, Obama wrote that the measure “gives states the time and flexibility they need to develop tailored, cost-effective plans to reduce their emissions.”

The regulations require states to cut carbon emissions by 32 percent before 2030  and give them until Sept. 6 to submit implementation plans to do it.

Opponents in West Virginia fear that costly regulation will price coal out of the energy market. They point to a recent study by the West Virginia College’s Bureau of Business and Economics that forecasts an 18-percent reduction in the state’s coal production by 2035.

Brian Lego, an assistant research professor at the college, tells The Daily Signal that the production decrease could be as much as 25 percent in the long run. And as businesses brace for the new regulation, Lego predicts that West Virginia will witness more layoffs of coal miners and more shutdowns of mines.

So far this year, the state has seen an avalanche of layoffs. The West Virginia Coal Association estimates that as many as 2,000 miners were put out of work in January.

The CEO of one of the nation’s largest coal producers, Murray Energy, tells The Daily Signal that’s part of a growing trend.

Bob Murray says his company “peaked at 8,400 direct employees on May 1, 2015.” Now his company’s payroll has dwindled to about 6,000.

Murray, whose company is one of the litigants requesting that the Supreme Court put a hold on the Clean Power Plan, says that under the new regulations, “people on fixed income aren’t going to be able to pay their electric bills.”

And domestic manufacturers, he says, “won’t be able to compete in the global market because electric rates are soaring.”

In addition to this “economic and personal carnage,” Morrisey told the West Virginia Coal Symposium last week that the Clean Power Plan does “violence to the rule of law.” He also argues that “these rules will transform the EPA from environmental regulators into a central energy planning authority.”

West Virginia’s first Republican attorney general in 73 years, Morrisey has brought the state to the forefront of several legal cases against the Obama administration. But he tells The Daily Signal the current challenge could prove the most significant.

The EPA is trying to “pick winners and losers within the energy marketplace,” he says, warning that if this “unprecedented” action isn’t curbed, the agency’s authority “moves to levels we can’t possibly comprehend.”

On The Day: The Roe v. Wade decision

Leave a comment

This is from the National Constitution Center. 

The only rulings that have been as bad are upholding Obamacare and allowing homosexual marriage.

Since Roe v Wade almost 58 million babies have been murdered.

Proverbs 6:16-17King James Version (KJV)

16 These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

 

On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that continues to divide the nation to this day. In Roe v. Wade, the Court ruled that a state law that banned abortions except to save the life of the mother was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. Although the decision was arguably not the Court’s most important, it has proven to be one of the most recognized and controversial cases in the Court’s history.

Norma L. McCorvey discovered that she was pregnant in June 1969. It was to be her third child, but McCorvey wished to have an abortion. At the time, Texas law only allowed for abortion in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. McCorvey was advised by her friends to falsely assert that she had been raped, but there was no police report to back up this claim. Instead, McCorvey attempted to have an illegal abortion, but she soon discovered that the authorities had shut down the facility.

McCorvey visited a local attorney seeking advice on what to do next. The attorney assisted McCorvey with beginning the process of putting her child up for adoption, and also referred her to Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington, two recent graduates of the University of Texas Law School.

Coffee and Weddington brought a lawsuit on McCorvey’s behalf (who went by the alias “Jane Roe” throughout the case to protect her identity) claiming that the state’s law violated Roe’s constitutional rights. The suit claimed that, while her life was not in danger, Roe had a right to obtain an abortion in a safe, medical environment within her home state. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas agreed, and ruled that the Texas law violated Roe’s right to privacy found in the Ninth Amendment, and was therefore unconstitutional.

Texas appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, and the case reached the Court’s halls in 1970. However, the Court decided to wait to hear Roe until they had decided Younger v. Harris and United States v. Vuitch. After the Court announced the decision in Vuitch, which upheld the constitutionality of a Washington, D.C. statute that similarly outlawed abortion, the Court voted to hear Roe and the closely related case of Doe v. Bolton.

Arguments in the case began on December 13, 1971. Shortly before that date, Justices Hugo Black and John Marshall Harlan II retired from the bench. Chief Justice Warren Burger decided that Roe and Doe, as well as the other cases that were scheduled on the docket, should go on as planned.

Jay Floyd, who was representing Texas in the case, opened his argument with what commentators have described as the “worst joke in legal history.” In reference to Coffee and Weddington, Floyd began by saying, “Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. It’s an old joke, but when a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they are going to have the last word.”

The rest of the case was argued that day. However, as Justice Harry Blackmun was attempting to draft a preliminary opinion based upon the law’s vagueness in May 1971, he proposed to his colleagues that the case be reargued. After some debate on the issue, the case was reargued on October 11, 1972. Texas Assistant Attorney General Robert C. Flowers replaced Jay Floyd for the case’s reargument in front of the Court.

Justice Blackmun continued to be the Justice to write the Court’s opinion following the second argument, and on January 22, 1973, the Court issued its 7-2 decision. In it, the Court determined that Texas had violated Roe’s constitutional right to privacy.

Drawing on the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments, the Court said that the Constitution protects an individual’s “zones of privacy.” Citing earlier cases that ruled that contraception, marriage, and child rearing were activities included in these “zones of privacy,” the Court found that the zone was “broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”

Because the Court determined that abortions were within a woman’s “zone of privacy,” it was therefore ruling that a woman had a fundamental right to the procedure. Although this right was fundamental, that did not mean that it could not be limited.

The Court said that any limitations on abortion must meet the standards of strict scrutiny. This meant that there must have been “compelling state interest” in regulating abortions, and the legislation must have been narrowly tailored to meet this “compelling” state interest.

The Court then assessed the state’s interests. Justice Blackmun found two legitimate government interests: protecting the mother’s health and “protecting the potentiality of human life.” In order to balance the fundamental privacy right to abortion with these two state interests, the Court created the trimester framework. This solution resolved when the right to abortion would be without limitations, and when the state’s interests would be compelling.

The Court said that, during the first trimester, the abortion decision was left to the woman and her doctor. Following the first trimester, until fetal viability, the state’s interest in the mother’s health reaches the compelling level, and the state can regulate the procedure if it “reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health.” When the point of fetal viability is reached, then the state could protect its interest in “potential life” and regulate abortion to that end. This includes banning that practice of abortion at that stage in the pregnancy.

In 1992, the Court adjusted the trimester framework in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. In that case, the plurality asserted, under the Fourteenth Amendment, that the mother had a constitutional right to abortion and that this right could not be unduly interfered with by the state prior to viability.

Ever since the Roe v. Wade decision was issued in 1973, the case had remained as one of the most contentious in the public sphere. It has inspired political campaigns and movement, and has influenced debates throughout the nation around ethics, religion, and biology.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: