Kazran:   Are you really a babysitter?
11th Doctor: (shows psychic paper) I think you’ll find I’m universally recognised as a mature and responsible adult.
Kazran: It’s just a lot of wavy lines.
11th Doctor (looking at the paper)  Yeah, it’s shorted out. Finally, a lie too big.

Doctor Who A Christmas Carol 2010

My first thought when I saw this 5-3 ruling from the Supreme Court to Temporarily Block and order forcing transgender bathrooms on public school kids and reading that for the first time in my memory a liberal voted with conservatives put the stay on, was “Finally a lie too big for a liberal justice to go along with”.

But when I read these details:

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote separately to say that he concurred in the decision in part because granting the stay would “preserve the status quo” until the court has a chance to consider a petition for cert. “I vote to grant the application as a courtesy,”

and got a days sleep (working overnights you know) it hit me.

This isn’t about keeping the status quo before cert, this is about keeping the status quo concerning the perceived momentum in this election.

Right now the perception is (Regardless of the reality) that Trump is reeling yet in politics it doesn’t take much to change the conversation which is why the MSM didn’t bother to report much on the bus bombing in Paris or touch Mr. Kahn’s deleting, in classic Clinton style, his law firms’ web site.
However the transgender bathroom issue in public schools is an issue that can change that paradigm.

While the left has managed to push the culture to the brink of insanity & even some would say past it, we have not yet reached the point where anything near a majority of Americans believe that a person with a penis is a woman.

If Justice Breyer had voted with the left this would become a debate issue and then Hillary might find herself having to answer the one question that nobody in the MSM wants raised before the election:

At what age should a young girl be compelled, against her will by law to share a bathroom with a person who has fully developed male genitalia?

This question reveals the Transgender nonsense for what it is which is why it is not asked. The left can not let this question be asked and Hillary must not be made to answer.

Even worse the idea that Hillary would appoint justices who would answer that question with the age of five or under must NOT under any circumstance get into the heads of any voters in swing states, particularly not voters of color who might find this a bridge too far.

Justice Breyer wasn’t doing a courtesy to the state of Virginia, it was a courtesy to the Hillary Clinton campaign to keep things quiet till she is safely elected and this can be done to the American people by fiat in the classic liberal way.

Closing thought, if you are #nevertrump and this doesn’t convince you of the stakes we’re playing for here nothing will.


Don’t forget this is the 2nd week of our 6 week tryouts for Da Magnificent Prospect, You can check out their work Monday evening, Tuesday at Noon, All Day Thursday and Saturday at noon. If you like what you see from them consider hitting DaTipjar in support of them (and please mention their name when you do) as both internet hits and tipjar hits will be part of scoring who stays & who goes.




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



The Mask has dropped from Justice Ruth Ginsberg:

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she doesn’t want to conjure up the possibility of Donald Trump in the White House.

“I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” Ginsburg told The New York Times in an interview published Sunday. “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”
Ginsburg, on the high court since 1993, told the Times the prospect of a Trump presidency reminded her of the type of wry comment her late husband might have made.
“‘Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand,'” Justice Ginsburg said.

Not only did the mask of impartiality drop she refused to put it back on and doubled down:

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s well-known candor was on display in her chambers late Monday, when she declined to retreat from her earlier criticism of Donald Trump and even elaborated on it.

“He is a faker,” she said of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, going point by point, as if presenting a legal brief. “He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. … How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that.”

As you might have heard this got some critique from Donald Trump but it also got a lot of critique from liberals as well:

The New York Times:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg needs to drop the political punditry and the name-calling. …

In this election cycle in particular, the potential of a new president to affect the balance of the court has taken on great importance, with the vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. As Justice Ginsburg pointed out, other justices are nearing an age when retirement would not be surprising. That makes it vital that the court remain outside the presidential process. And just imagine if this were 2000 and the resolution of the election depended on a Supreme Court decision. Could anyone now argue with a straight face that Justice Ginsburg’s only guide would be the law?

The Washington Post

I first wrote about Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s controversial comments about Donald Trump on Monday. Since then, the situation has erupted into an all-out feud, and now the editorial boards of both the New York Times and The Washington Post have weighed in against Ginsburg’s decision to insert herself into the 2016 campaign…I’ll say at the top what I’ve said before: It’s hard if not impossible to find a direct analog to what Ginsburg has said in recent days. Supreme Court experts I’ve spoken to were unaware of any justices getting so directly and vocally involved — or involved at all, really — in a presidential campaign.

Slate:

There is really very little to debate about the ethics of Ginsburg’s comments. They were plainly a violation, the kind of partisan partiality that judicial ethics codes strive to prevent. But Ginsburg, who is a quietly canny judicial and political strategist, surely knows that her comments were an ethical error. That leads to a fascinating question: Why would the justice risk her reputation and good standing—and even her power to hear cases involving Trump—for a few quick jabs at the candidate? The answer, I suspect, is that Ginsburg has decided to sacrifice some of her prestige in order to send as clear a warning signal about Trump as she possibly can. The subtext of Ginsburg’s comments, of her willingness to comment, is that Trump poses an unparalleled threat to this country—a threat so great that she will abandon judicial propriety in order to warn against looming disaster.

To be clear, what Ginsburg is doing right now—pushing her case against Trump through on-the-record interviews—is not just unethical; it’s dangerous. As a general rule, justices should refrain from commenting on politics, period. That dictate applies to 83-year-old internet folk heroes as strictly as it applies to anybody else who dons judicial robes. The independence of our judiciary—and just as critically, its appearance of impartiality—hinges on a consistent separation between itself and the other branches of government. That means no proclamations of loyalty to any candidate, or admissions of distaste of any other.

Even CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin was not happy as reported by Newsbusters:

No, I don’t think there’s any chance she will resign, but I think it’s appropriate to criticize her about this. This is not how Supreme Court justices have talked traditionally. They do not get involved in day-to-day political controversies. They do not endorse or un-endorse candidates.

Describing himself as a “great admirer” of Justice Ginsburg, he then got to the subject of recusal as he added:

And I think there are lots of good reasons for that, not least of which, something involving the election may come before the Supreme Court in a Bush V. Gore type case. And I think she’d have to recuse herself at this point. 

I just think, as someone who is a great admirer of Justice Ginsburg, she is completely wrong in this situation, and she should not be making these kinds of political statements.

And cartoonists as well:

A lot of people are upset about this ethical violation.

I’m not.

Don’t get me wrong, it was a complete abrogation of her duty as a judge on the highest court in the land and an action unworthy of her and her position. Furthermore it sets a horrible precedent for the future.

However there is one other consideration.

If there is one thing that anyone who watches the court knows it that any 5-4 decision will involve a “conservative’ justice voting with liberals. You will not and have not seen any of the liberals, Kagan, Sotomayor or Ginsberg being the deciding vote for a case going in the direction of conservatives.

Justice Ginsberg’s public statements make it plan for all to see that our liberal friends on the Supreme Court are simple ideologues and that their vote on any key issue dividing left and right would be no different if every brief in support of the liberal position consisted of the sentence: “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.” repeated ad infinitum.

Ann Althouse gets it

In the case of Justice Ginsburg, Trump isn’t inferring bias and politics from whatgroup she belongs to. It’s a reaction to her particular statements. It’s individual. She openly displayed her political leanings and her desire for political allies on the Court and her intent, going forward, to use those allies to get to a majority that would overrule cases that recognize important constitutional rights — includingHeller, the case that says there is an individual right to bear arms.

And here’s where it becomes clear that the NYT editorial proceeds upon the second reason I posited above, that Justice Ginsburg’s particular political statements are dangerous and damaging to the political cause she and the NYT support. “In this election cycle in particular,” it’s important to keep voters believing that judges will be impartial and above politics, and here’s Ginsburg “call[ing] her own commitment to impartiality into question.” The Times tries to pass this off as Ginsburg “choos[ing] to descend toward [Trump’s] level,” but she’s not joining Trump, she’s proving him right: Judges are political, and that’s a bad thing. Perhaps Curiel didn’t deserve the criticism, but Ginsburg does, and it’s very irritating to the NYT, it would seem, because the Curiel incident was so effectively used against Trump, and then along comes Ginsburg displaying herself as pleased to be political.

Justice Ginsburg unethical behavior has provided a valuable service to the entire nature by allowing them to see that lie that the NY Times and other want to keep hidden.  The question becomes will the American people react the way the NYT and the left fears they will?

One can only hope but no matter how they do, rest assured the American people will get the president and the justice system we deserve.

Sorta Update: Justice Ginsburg has finally figured out she was not helping her cause.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Thursday she regrets remarks she made earlier this week to CNN and other news outlets criticizing presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

“On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them,” Ginsburg said in a statement. “Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect.”

The best part of this non-apology is it allowed Donald Trump the high ground in response:

“It wasn’t really an apology, but we have to move on anyway. It’s just something that should not have taken place,” the presumptive GOP presidential nominee said.

“It’s just a very disappointing moment for me because the Supreme Court is above that kind of rhetoric, those words. … But she acknowledged she made a mistake, and I’ll accept that.”

The greatest ally Trump has in this election are the people who oppose him.


I’d like to think we do good work here If you’d like to help us keep up the pace please consider hitting DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



As I’ve been writing a lot about the Kim Davis situation I was very interested in how it would come up in the Presidential debate on Wednesday, however the subject didn’t so much point out the differences in the GOP position as it pointed out the seemingly contrary positions of both media and the selective enforcement of federal law and selective interpretation of the constitution depending on who it involves.

First lets look at the Kim Davis exchange:

Jake Tapper: I want to turn back to Governor Huckabee. Governor Huckabee, last week, you held a rally for a county clerk in Kentucky who was jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as I don’t need to tell you. You’ve called what happened to Kim Davis, that clerk, “an example of the criminalization of Christianity.” There are several people on the stage who disagree with you. Governor Bush, for example, says that that clerk is sworn to uphold the law. Is Governor Bush on the wrong side of the criminalization of Christianity?

Gov Mike Huckabee: No, I don’t think he’s on the wrong side of such an issue. Jeb is a friend. I’m not up here to fight with Jeb or to fight with anybody else. But I am here to fight for somebody who is a county clerk elected under the Kentucky constitution that 75 percent of the people of that state had voted for that said that marriage was between a man and a woman. The Supreme Court in a very, very divided decision decided out of thin air that they were just going to redefine marriage. It’s a decision that the other justices in dissent said they didn’t have and there wasn’t a constitutional shred of capacity for them to do it. I thought that everybody here passed ninth-grade civics. The courts cannot legislate. That’s what Roberts said. But heck, it’s what we learned in civics. The courts can’t make a law. They can interpret one. They can review one. They can’t implement it. They can’t force it. But here’s what happened: Because the courts just decided that something was going to be and people relinquished it and the other two branches of government sat by silently — I thought we had three branches of government, they were all equal to each other, we have separation of powers, and we have checks and balances. If the court can just make a decision and we just all surrender to it, we have what Jefferson said was judicial tyranny. The reason that this is a real issue that we need to think about

Jake Tapper:Thank you, Governor.

Gov Mike Huckabee: No, no. Let me finish this one thought, Jake. I haven’t gotten that much time, so I’m going to take just what little I can here. We made accommodation to the Fort Hood shooter to let him grow a beard. We made accommodations to the detainees at Gitmo — I’ve been to Gitmo, and I’ve seen the accommodations that we made to the Muslim detainees who killed Americans. You’re telling me that you cannot make an accommodation for an elected Democrat county clerk from Rowan County, Kentucky? What else is it other than the criminalization of her faith and the exaltation of the faith of everyone else who might be a Fort Hood shooter or a detainee at Gitmo?

Jake Tapper:  Well, I’m not telling you that, Governor. But Governor Bush is, because he — because he disagrees. He thinks that Kim Davis swore to uphold the law. You disagree? You’re not — you don’t…

Gov Jeb Bush: I don’t think — you’re not stating my views right.

Jake Tapper: OK. Please do.

Gov Jeb Bush: I think there needs to be accommodation for someone acting on faith. Religious conscience is — is — is a first freedom. It’s — it’s a powerful part of our — of our Bill of Rights. And, in a big, tolerant country, we should respect the rule of law, allow people in — in — in this country — I’m a — I was opposed to the decision, but we — you can’t just say, “well, they — gays can’t get married now.” But this woman, there should be some accommodation for her conscience, just as there should be for people that are florists that don’t want to participate in weddings, or bakers. A great country like us should find a way to have accommodations for people so that we can solve the problem in the right way. This should be solved at the local level…

Jake Tapper: You did…

Gov Jeb Bush: And so we do agree, Mike.

Gov Chris Christie: I was —

Jake Tapper: Governor, you said, quote, “she is sworn to uphold the law.”

Gov Chris Christie: She is, and so if she, based on conscience, can’t sign that — that marriage license, then there should be someone in her office to be able to do it, and if the law needs to be changed in the state of Kentucky, which is what she’s advocating, it should be changed.

Ok so we have a question of “she’s sworn to uphold the law” and “there needs to be an accommodation based on faith” presumably based on the 1st amendment but oddly enough when Mr. Tapper asked this question on federal drug laws

Jake Tapper: Senator Paul, Governor Christie recently said, quote, “if you’re getting high in Colorado today,” where marijuana has been legalized, “enjoy it until January 2017, because I will enforce the federal laws against marijuana.” Will you?

The arguments on enforcement suddenly changed.  While Senator Paul invoked the 10th amendment suggesting the feds had crossed into a state issue. During his answer he mentioned a person on stage who used pot at one time. It turned out to be Jeb who had this to say. (all emphasis mine)

Gov Jeb Bush: So, 40 years ago, I smoked marijuana, and I admit it. I’m sure that other people might have done it and may not want to say it in front of 25 million people. My mom’s not happy that I just did. That’s true. And here’s the deal. Here’s the deal. We have — we have a serious epidemic of drugs that goes way beyond marijuana. What goes on in Colorado, as far as I’m concerned, that should be a state decision. But if you look at the problem of drugs in this — in this society today, it’s a serious problem. Rand, you know this because you’re campaigning in New Hampshire like all of us, and you see the epidemic of heroin, the overdoses of heroin that’s taking place. People’s families are — are being torn apart. It is appropriate for the government to play a consistent role to be able to provide more treatment, more prevention — we’re the state that has the most drug courts across every circuit in — in — in Florida, there are drug courts to give people a second chance. That’s the best way to do this.

Hold on a second. The laws concerning drugs are Federal laws, laws actually passed by the congress and signed by the president as opposed to the reinterpretation of a constitutional amendment.  How is it that Kim Davis a county clerk is “sworn to uphold the law” but public servants in the state of Colorado who are not claiming this has anything to do with religion, are not?

As the exchange continued. It got worse, after Jeb bush was pressed by Sen Paul on medical marijuana: again emphasis mine

Sen Rand Paul: Well, you vote — you oppose medical marijuana…

Gov Jeb Bush: Here’s the deal. No, I did not oppose when the legislature passed the bill to deal with that very issue. That’s the way to solve this problem. Medical marijuana on the ballot was opened up, there was a huge loophole, it was the first step to getting to a (inaudible) place. And as a citizen of Florida, I voted no.

So Jeb Bush believes Kim Davis “Is sworn to uphold the law” but didn’t oppose the state legislature in Florida passing a bill directly contradicting established federal law and apparently he’s not alone here.  (again emphasis mine)

Gov Chris Christie: And Senator Paul knows that that’s simply not the truth. In New Jersey, we have medical marijuana laws, which I supported and implemented. This is not medical marijuana. There’s goes as much — a further step beyond. This is recreational use of marijuana. This is much different. And so, while he would like to use a sympathetic story to back up his point, it doesn’t work. I’m not against medical marijuana. We do it in New Jersey. But I’m against the recreational use against marijuana. If he wants to change the federal law, get Congress to pass the law to change it, and get a president to sign it.

So Christie, like Bush is willing to support and implement laws that contradict existing federal law, laws that he is sworn to uphold, and is willing to do this without claiming a religious or constitutional reason.  It sounds to me like “being sworn to uphold the law” apparently doesn’t apply if the law is supported by yuppies on the left or the MSM who are both widely in favor of legalizing medical marijuana.

 

Now let’s take a look at another subject. The Question of the 14th amendment and birthright citizenship came up, Mr. Trump (backed up by Senator Rand Paul) said scholars said no but when asked by Jake Tapper, Carly Fiorina (after making a great point concerning the Democrat’ desire to have this as an issue & not solve the problem said this: again emphasis mine

Carly Fiorina: …the truth is, you can’t just wave your hands and say “the 14th Amendment is gonna go away.” It will take an extremely arduous vote in Congress, followed by two-thirds of the states, and if that doesn’t work to amend the constitution, then it is a long, arduous process in court. And meanwhile, what will continue to go on is what has gone on for 25 years. With all due respect, Mr. Trump, we’ve been talking about illegal immigration for 25 years. San Francisco has been a sanctuary city since 1989. There are 300 of them. And meanwhile, what has happened? Nothing. The border remains insecure. The legal immigration system remains broken. Look, we know what it takes to secure a border. We’ve heard a lot of great ideas here. Money, manpower, technology…

So Mrs. Fiorina says that “you can’t just wave your hands and say “the 14th Amendment is going to go away, and an awful lot of media pundits and people like Jeb Bush are with her on this. But lets take a look at the text of it The 14th Amendment specifically section 1 which states:

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Nowhere in that entire section do you see the words “Gay Marriage” ( in fact you will not find the words “marriage” anywhere in the US Constitution)

Yet five members of the Supreme Court found a right to gay marriage that every other justice who ever served on the Supreme Court did not, one that overrode every single state constitution that said otherwise.

So my question is this? If justices can magically reinterpret the 14th Amendment to find a right to Gay Marriage in a document that doesn’t mention marriage, and the media claims it is legit how is it that one can’t interpret that same 14th amendment to say it doesn’t grant citizenship to people born here if their parents came illegally not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

Bottom line, apparently some in the GOP believe, with the media that when it comes to Kim Davis, the 14th Amendment is flexible and the enforcement of federal law is not, but some of those same people believe with the media, that when it comes to birthright citizenship and federal drug laws. The 14th Amendment is rigid and the enforcement of federal law is flexible.

Funny isn’t it?

*******************************************************

The only pay I get for this work comes from you. If you think this is of value I ask you to kick in and help me reach my monthly goal $1834 a month or Twenty Two grand a year.

I’d appreciate it if you would hit DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done and then some.


Choose a Subscription level



Additionally our subscribers get our podcast emailed directly to them before it show up anywhere else.

I know you can get the MSM for nothing, but that’s pretty much what they’re good for.

It is highly unlikely that Justice Scalia dissent in Obergefell et al vs Hodges is going to get the attention that his dissent in King vs Burwell did, but there is a paragraph in this dissent that should be recited and memorized by every conservative in America:

But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003.  They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds— minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly— could not. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their “reasoned judgment.” These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.

This is the fundamental belief of the Baby Boomer generation, that they are in fact the greatest generation and all those who came before were dopes at best and bigots at worst.  The people dancing in front of the Supreme Court today share this belief and that ignorance & hubris is why ISIS, China, radical Islam and Putin are also celebrating today.

They know that the path we have chosen leads to their victory and they are convinced we are too lazy & stupid to get off of it.

**********************************************************************

If you like what you see and want to help support me & my magnificent seven please consider helping us make our annual goal.

My goal for 2015 is Twenty Two grand which will give me a nominal living doing this.

Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. (including my writers like Fausta)  If I can get to Forty Thousand I can afford to travel outside of New England and/or hire me a blogger to help me get it done.

Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done.

 

Our June Premium for tip jar hitters of $50 or more is Elizabeth The Anchoress Scalia Strange Gods: Unmasking the Idols in Everyday Life

Subscribe at $50 or more in and receive each monthly premium shipped the date of your payment.

All Tip Jar hits of $10 or more will get a copy of Jeff Trapani’s excellent E-Book Victor the Monster Frankenstein.

Chicago's skyline
Chicago’s skyline

By John Ruberry

On Monday Rahm Emanuel will be sworn in for his second term as mayor of Chicago. He faces enormous challenges including a high murder rate–with it comes the new nickname for the city, “Chiraq,” a crumbling infrastructure that includes pothole-strewn streets, and multiple financial crises. Just last week Moody’s Investors Services double-downgraded the credit rating not only for the city of Chicago, but also for the Chicago Park District and Chicago Public Schools–any bonds they issue will have junk status according to Moody’s. While not placing Chicago in junk status, two other financial firms downgraded the city’s credit last week too.

How the mighty have fallen. Forty years ago, when the New York Daily News’ used the now legendary headline, “Ford to City–Drop Dead” during New York’s financial crisis, Boss Richard J. Daley’s Chicago enjoyed the top credit rating from Wall Street firms.

Now what? Illinois is even worse off than Chicago, the governor of New York bailed NYC out in the 1970s, the Land of Lincoln’s new governor, Republican Bruce Rauner, believes Chicago Public Schools should declare bankruptcy. Chicago’s credit downgrades were generated by a unanimous Illinois Supreme Court decision tossing out the state’s 2013 baby-steps pension reform.

But CPS can’t declare bankruptcy–nor can any Illinois governmental body–state law prohibits it, although a Republican state legislator, Ron Sandack, wants to change that. But the status quo is the way the public-sector unions want it, because during a bankruptcy, all contracts are thrown out the window. The Democratic enablers of the government unions like the status quo too. Michigan is different–and when Detroit’s bankruptcy was concluded, retirees received modest cuts in their pensions.

A massive tax increase for Chicagoans to pay for pensions doesn’t seem to be likely, not even the politicians have the stomach for that.

There is no easy way out.

John "Lee" Ruberry
John “Lee” Ruberry

Ironically, the junk credit announcement came on the same day Chicagoans Barack and Michelle Obama, chose their hometown for the Obama presidential library. Arne Duncan, Obama’s secretary of education, was the CEO of Chicago Public Schools prior to moving to Washington. Rahm Emanuel was the president’s first chief-of-staff. Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s senior advisor, was once deputy chief-of-staff under Mayor Richard M. Daley.

America–and Chicago–face a daunting future.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

Q: When do you know that everyone’s favorite Convicted Speedway bomber has finally crossed a line even the left can’t abide?

Stacy tells the story of the ACLU and former Kimberlin Lawyer Paul Alan Ley defending Ace is here and here A peek:

I doubt Kimberlin v. Ace of Spades will ever become a landmark Supreme Court ruling, something your grandchildren will read about in history books, but crazier things have happened, so you never know.

But here is the story from the horses’ mouth key bits:

Kimberlin was in prison for some horrifying crimes – the planting of several bombs in Speedway, Indiana – and we had no idea whether Kimberlin was telling the truth about Quayle.  But the Justice Department was not punishing him on the theory that his speech was deliberately false and defamatory (in which case it would have been unprotected by the First Amendment; but how would the Justice Department have known whether Quayle was or was not a drug customer anyway?), and even thugs have the right to criticize public officials.  So we pursued documents about his confinement under the Freedom of Information Act, hoping to set up a Bivens action against the responsible federal officials.  (The action under Bivens and other authorities was brought by pro bono attorneys from Arnold & Porter and was ultimately settled after several denials of summary judgment and trips to the DC Circuit and even the Supreme Court).

Right away Mr. Levy points to Kimberlin as a person who was jailed for horrible crimes.  That being the case it would seem to me that referring to said crimes and or distrusting said person based on those crimes would be not only normal but prudent.

As I usually do in these situations, I began by trying to persuade Kimberlin to drop his discovery request because the blog post in question is not defamatory.  Kimberlin responded by detailing a number of different statements that Ace of Spades had made which, Kimberlin threatened, would be made the subject of an amended complaint.  And when Kimberlin learned that I had not been dissuaded, he sent Ace of Spades an email threatening that, unless Ace immediately accepted Kimberlin’s unspecified terms, Kimberlin would unmask her and she might suffer the same fate as other bloggers whom Kimberlin had managed to identify (Kimberlin mentioned one blogger who had lost his job and suffered two years of unemployment).

I’m a big believer in trying to head off trouble politely  Mr. Levy is to be commended as a person who both has contact with Mr. Kimberlin and his trust due to his earlier association in attempting to dissuade him from these actions.  That Kimberlin rejected this wise advice and instead began threatening Ace in my opinion says that Stacy McCain , William Hoge, Aaron Walker & Patterico have him pegged exactly right from day one.

As for Mr. Levy he then talks about what he has argued that Ace of Spades….

…has real reason to fear retaliation if she is identified.  This could involve either the economic consequences that Kimberlin threatened explicitly, or even physical consequences in light of the SWATting phenomenon visited by unknown persons on several bloggers involved in controversies with Kimberlin, not to speak of Kimberlin’s own violent past.

and if that last paragraph didn’t clinch that Kimberlin et/al are dangerous this one from the complaint should do it:

First, there is a serious danger of retaliation against Ace of Spades. Ace is concerned by Kimberlin’s past reputation for violent acts — resulting not only from Kimberlin’s convictions for the terroristic bombing campaign in Speedway, but also past reports about Kimberlin’s effort to procure the murder of the prosecutor of the bombing cases, and the police investigation into whether Kimberlin was involved in the gang-style slaying of Julia Scyphers and then planted the bombs to cover up that crime, reported in the Indianapolis Star.  Gelarden, supra. Moreover, even assuming that Kimberlin was not himself involved in the SWATting of his critics (and as long ago as 2012, Ace of Spades specifically urged her readers not to assume that Kimberlin was the SWATter, because she does not believe that he was), the factremains that several of Kimberlin’s critics have been SWATted.   Complaint ¶¶ 58-62. Given Kimberlin’s public identification of other critics as soon as his subpoenas revealed their identities, Ace of Spades has every reason to fear violence at the hands of Kimberlin’s admirers if Kimberlin obtains his identifying information.

To those who think this is all overplayed or not a big deal re-read that last sentence.

I have a lot of respect for all those who have taken on Kimberlin & co head-on, they are doing it not just for themselves but for those who follow who would be intimidated and silenced.

That a debt that can’t be easily repaid.

********************************************************

Olimometer 2.52

It’s Wednesday and the quest for the #350 to pay the pay Da Magnificent Seven and the less than magnificent mortgage continues.

You might ask why you should support some overweight guy in a fedora & a scarf writing a parody piece about the media ignoring Jihadists. I submit and suggest it’s BECAUSE I’m writing these pieces that the MSM does not that you should kick in.

10 $25 tip jar hits will do it for this week.

If you would to help Just click on DaTipJar below

Now there is another reason to kick in on a more permanent way

DaGuy low rez copy-psd

Please consider being a subscriber. Only 57 subscribers @ at $20 a month are necessary to secure the cost of DaMagnificent Seven & my monthly mortgage on a permanent basis AND if you so at the $25 level
you can receive one of several Exclusive Original Chris Muir high Res Graphics of original members of DaTechGuy’s Magnificent Seven Gang. like the one on the right


Low res tha lotPlease specify which of the eight hi res (including myself you wish to receive) Subscribe at $50 a month and receive all eight. Subscribe at $100 a month and get all 8 wanted posters high res graphics plus the high res version of all of us exclusively created for subscribers of DaTechGuy blog by Chris Muir himself!

11th Doctor: So why does the Gunslinger want you [Jex]?
Isaac: It don’t matter.
11th Doctor: I’m just saying, if we knew that
Isaac: America’s the land of second chances. We called this town Mercy for a reason

Doctor Who A Town Called Mercy 2012

10th Doctor:  You’re not actually suggesting we change our own personal history?

11th Doctor:  We change history all the time I’m suggesting something far worse

War (8 1/2th) Doctor:  What exactly?

11th Doctor:  Gentlemen I have had 400 years to think about this,  I’ve changed my mind.

Doctor Who  Day of The Doctor 2013

A little over a year ago the Supreme court upheld Obamacare deciding, contrary to everything the administration said when passing the law,  that it was a TAX and constitutional on that basis.  On July 2nd I linked to Jay Nordlinger who wrote the following:

“Roberts failed to do his duty — his constitutional duty. He’s not supposed to be looking at the political situation. He’s not supposed to think about his ‘legacy.’ He’s supposed to uphold the Constitution, plain and simple. The majority decision will come to be embarrassing. The dissent will stand as something true and admirable.”

I said, “So, do you think Bush 43 may have inadvertently saddled us with another Warren Burger?” “No!” said the judge. “Burger would never have written something so stupid” as the Roberts ruling. “He was not incompetent.”

This was a day after I concluded that the Chief justice changed his vote/opinion based on pressure and earned a new name:

A person has the right to change their mind based on facts, but a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court changing his mind based on pleasing the NYT or MSNBC et/al is the most dishonorable thing I’ve heard of in public service.  It’s a stain on the court, a Yellow Stain.

Bottom line the question has been answered:   Blue Eyed Hottie out, John Roberts old Yellowstain it is!

May you be happy in the choice you have made.

And his reward for this attempt to appease has not only been scorn but a politicized nominating process

Last week, with the Senate eliminating most filibusters on presidential nominees, was a sad one for the federal judiciary. It would be wholly inappropriate for a judge to apportion blame at the prospect that the voices of present and future Senate minorities have been effectively silenced in judicial confirmations. Now, even those with the most rigid and absolute beliefs can spend a lifetime on the federal bench without a scintilla of bipartisan support.

Well America is a land of second chances and the Chief Justice is going to get another one:

President Barack Obama’s health care law is headed for a new Supreme Court showdown over companies’ religious objections to the law’s birth-control mandate.

CNN elaborates:

The justices agreed on Tuesday to review provisions in the Affordable Care Act requiring employers of a certain size to offer insurance coverage for birth control and other reproductive health services without a co-pay.

At issue is whether private companies can refuse to do so on the claim it violates their religious beliefs.

I’ll have more to say about the word “Claims” tomorrow but The Catechism of the Catholic Church deals with the matter of contraception  and is even more explicit on Abortion where cooperation in one brings automatic excommunication.

You don’t get much clearer when it comes to the 1st Amendment.

However I’m not a judge so my opinion doesn’t matter but the opinions of the members of the court do.

Presuming Justice Roberts old Yellow Stain is embarrassed by his previous ruling and wishes to redeem himself this gives him a chance to correct himself based on totally different grounds.  Religious freedom is a founding principle of our country and the 1st Amendment the bedrock of our rights so it will be hard to critique an argument based on that.

But even if he is NOT embarrassed by his previous actions and still subject to pressure the game is different this time.

#1  The president’s numbers are horrible:

Only four out of 10 Americans believe President Barack Obama can manage the federal government effectively, according to a new national poll. And a CNN/ORC International survey released Monday morning also indicates that 53% of Americans now believe that Obama is not honest and trustworthy, the first time that a clear majority in CNN polling has felt that way.

According to the survey, conducted last Monday through Wednesday, 40% say the President can manage the government effectively. That 40% figure is down 12 percentage points from June and is the worst score Obama received among the nine personal characteristics tested in the new poll.

“A lot of attention has focused on the President’s numbers on honesty in new polling the past three weeks, but it looks like the recent controversy over Obamacare has had a bigger impact on his status as an effective manager of the government, and that may be what is really driving the drop in Obama’s approval rating this fall,” CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said.

It’s one thing to be pressured by a popular & powerful President in the middle of an election campaign, it’s another to be pressured by a lame duck president whose numbers are down and his honesty in question, particularly if you are going to be in government long after he is gone.

#2  Obamacare is hurting democrat re-elect numbers:

the Democratic lead has disappeared. A new CNN/ORC poll indicates the GOP now holds a 49%-47% edge.

The new survey was conducted last week and released Tuesday.

The 10-point swing follows a political uproar over Obamacare, which included the botched rollout of HealthCare.gov and controversy over insurance policy cancelations due primarily to the new health law.

A few months ago Democrats were talking about an outside chance of taking the house now,  the generic ballot is now reversed and we are seeing stuff like this in Senate Races:

The most significant part is that these words…

We asked Kagan about that today and she ducked the question more than once, blaming insurance companies instead.

…came from an ABC reporter. Not a Fox Reporter, Not a Conservative Blogger but a reporter for local ABC affiliate.

The source of this danger is the continued existence of Obamacare yet to vote on repeal or delay risks angering the base.  A Supreme Court decision striking it down solves that problem.  The Democrat party is about power, not principle, it’s one thing to put pressure on the court to uphold a law when it helps the party,  it’s another thing to put pressure on someone to do so when that law might cost you your house seat, your senate seat or your senate majority.

3.  The Obamacare effects:

In the last few weeks we have seen the cancellation of insurance policies en mass,

An extra legal attempt by the President to change is law

Insurance rates skyrocket

Security Breaches in the exchances

And video of  corruption among “Navigators”

And I didn’t even include the web site blowing up on that list.

Obamacare was unpopular before these things happened, it’s much more unpopular now.  The last time a Chief Justice upheld a law that unpopular with the people was in the Dred Scott decision.  Do you really think a justice worried about his reputation like old Yellow Stain will want to be the next Roger Taney?

In the end it will be up to all nine justices on the court.  Frankly we already know how 7 will vote.  The deciding votes will be Justice Kennedy and Chief Justice Old Yellowstain.  Nobody every knows which way Justice Kennedy will vote, but as for the Chief, whether is motive is principle, or pressure now is the perfect time to remove that stain from him.

For the sake of the country let’s hope he’s wise enough, brave enough, or pragmatic enough, to do so.

**********************************************************

Olimometer 2.52

Wednesday is here and there has been movement on November’s goals. We are $232 away from full paychecks and full mortgage payments all around.

9 tip jar hitters at $25 or twelve at $20 means I’ll have one more reason to give thanks.

Can my readers give me a happy Thanksgiving? That’s up to you.

We are offering sponsorships of both the Magnificent Seven & the Magnificent Panel now is an excellent time to jump on board, contact me here for more details

What do you when threats, even threats in the company of convicted bombers fail to silence your political opponents? You sue!

Convicted felon Brett Kimberlin has filed a Maryland lawsuit naming bloggers Aaron Walker, W. J. J. Hoge, Robert Stacy McCain, National Bloggers Club President Ali A. Akbar and the anonymous blogger “Kimberlin Unmasked” as defendants.

The defendants believe that the suit is without merit and is part of Kimberlin’s continued effort to use lawfare to silence journalists and bloggers who have written about Kimberlin’s criminal past. The defendants will not be made available for comment until they have finished initial consultations their respective legal counsel.

Two thoughts. What should we make of the fact that Stranahan & Patterico are not included in this suit?

I don’t know what the SLAPP laws are in Maryland but I’m sure that discovery by the defendants should be a whole lot of fun.

I hit Stacy’s tip jar, you should too.

Update: It should be made clear my wondering concerning Stranahan & Patterico doesn’t imply anything. It just seemed odd that if Kimberlin is trying to slow people who have stood up to him they would not automatically be on the list. Not that it matters, as I suspect this suit has less legitimacy that Ed Markey’s “Present” vote on war in Syria, and believe me that’s a hard standard to get below.

Update 2: Patterico has done some research:

Until a complaint is made public, only limited comment can be made. A search of court records reveals the complaint is for “DEFAMATION, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, HARASSMENT, STALKING, CONSPIRACY, INVASION OF PRIVACY AND INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.” It sounds like “accuse the accusers” on steroids, doesn’t it?

I submit and suggest that Stacy McCain being a journalist of long experience is much too canny to have crossed any lines and would be wise enough to advice Ali of the same. Unless I’m mistaken both Mr. Hoge & Walker have experience in law. Could this be all about outing Kimberlin Unmasked in order to allow his minions to attack?

Yesterday afternoon I was listening to the live stream of Rush on WABC and was surprised to hear ABC News at the top of the hour talk about the Chris Lane Murder.

It seemed atypical. After all usually when a group of black men kill a white person that is considered a local story. Such news might have traction in the city or state where it takes place in but certainly not beyond as the MSM considers it racist to talk about such things.

Of course even that might be more coverage than the story would get if Chris Lane was Black. Such a murder wouldn’t have received local TV coverage let alone national. Lane would have been just another statistic in the plague of black on black violence that the media & the Al Sharptons therein ignore.

So why has this story broken out beyond the local press?

Well because the Mr. Lane was Australian and the Australian press for all its faults is not about to ignore the murder of an Australian Ball player on American soil, particularly when the media reports he died to relieve his killers boredom.

Times have changed.  If this was 20 years ago the Australian press not withstanding the MSM might still have been able to ignore this story, but in ago of Drudge it can’t be done.

So ABC radio did their piece on the murder however there was no mention of race in their piece

or in this AP story (emphasis mine):

Prosecutor Jason Hicks called the boys “thugs” as he described how Christopher Lane, 22, of Melbourne, was shot once in the back and died along a tree-lined road on Duncan’s well-to-do north side. He said the three teens, from the grittier part of town, chose Lane at random and that one of the boys “thinks it’s all a joke.”

Despite the frenzy of the George Zimmerman / Travon Martin case of just 30 days ago nowhere in the AP/CBS story will you see the words “White” or “Black” and  while twitchy is asking the obvious question

 

along with bloggers

and while PJ Media is asking relevant questions on culture, gangs:

Google “blue bandana gang” and you’ll get thousands of hits. Light blue bandanas are typically associated with the Crips gang and its offshoots. The Crips are active in Oklahoma — four Crips were indicted on drug trafficking charges in Tulsa in June of this year.

Many are already blaming the gun that the teens allegedly used to kill Chris Lane, including members of the Australian government. Guns are inanimate objects.

The “gun culture” didn’t kill Chris Lane, but the rap and gang culture may have played a prominent role.

and money:

edwards-money pj media

Here is one of several photos of wads of cash on Edwards’ Facebook page. Where does a “bored” 15 year old get this kind of money?

none of these are going to be discussed, the MSM has decided on its meme

 

and where the MSM leads their acolytes will follow.

@DaTechGuyblog Bored teens do graffiti. Excuses like yours about #guns just ignore the issue of handguns as core problem. #FucktheNRA — Betsy (@BetsyinCalico) August 20, 2013

If  the MSM media has to cover the Chris Hunt murder it’s going to be the story of guns in America…

The indiscriminate shooting of Christopher Lane, a 23-year-old Australian who was living his dream of studying in the U.S. on a baseball scholarship, has repulsed many in his home country and led to calls for Australian tourists to boycott the United States.

“It is another example of murder mayhem on Main Street,” former Australian deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer told CNN’s Piers Morgan.

“People thinking of going to the USA for business or tourists trips should think carefully about it given the statistical fact you are 15 times more likely to be shot dead in the USA than in Australia per capita per million people.”

…not race, not gangs and not anything else.  If American racism can’t be blamed America itself will be.

And that’s a story the MSM will be happy to run with.

**************************************************************

Olimometer 2.52

As the photo above shows, gang membership pays a lot better than conservative media.

Three of those bills from that stack would fill my weekly paycheck currently standing at $39 of the $305 needed to keep the mortgage moving.

Can this change? Well that’s up to you, Please consider hitting DaTipJar below and prove that while conservative blogging will never pay what gang activity does it can generate a paycheck to keep the mortgage paid.

.

Life is full of surprises, this is not one of them

State Attorney of the 19th Judicial Circuit Bruce Colton today took away the plea agreement after they uncovered that Hunt allegedly gave the underage girl an iPod touch for the two to secretly communicate and meet up for dates and sex over the last 6 months.

This revocation of the plea deal means if the case goes to trial, Hunt now faces the maximum penalty, plus possible additional charges added with the new evidence.

I’m sure there are some who are shocked SHOCKED that after a mere 20,000 violations of the no contact order and the sending of a porn video to her alleged victim that the court might decide to revoke the “no jail no sex offender list” deal.

And if you’re one of the few people who are in fact shocked by that you might also be shocked by this news…

Sheriff’s spokesperson Thom Raulen added, “Tonight at approximately 9pm, Kate Hunt was brought into the county jail by a representative from the bail/bond company which had posted her bond. This was not a result of judicial action but rather done at the discretion of the bail/bond agent. (emphasis mine)

…you should not be. While the 300,000 who signed the free Kate petition or the folks who marched her in the NYC Gay Pride parade or who kicked in a ten spot to her legal defense fund might be upset by these developments, they have no skin in the game other than what they have already given.

The bail bondsman has actual cash on the line, and in the land of real life as opposed to the land of paranoid leftist activism, Kate Hunt is a bad risk.

Good luck finding someone else to go your bail after you violate terms of pretrial release this flagrantly.

says Robert Stacy McCain as he said in another piece before this development:

Once you knew the facts, you recognized that the “Free Kate” argument was constructed entirely of rationalizations and evasions — minimizing, justifying, blame-shifting

Which is likely why the cause célèbre has been light on the célèbre side since May and why Katie Hunt is now sitting in a Florida jail.  And the news that she will be staying there for a while….:

Bond was revoked after Judge Robert Pegg described evidence of Kaitlyn Hunt’s violation of her pretrial release as “overwhelming.” An arraignment date was set for the new charges of transmitting “material harmful to minors,” and Hunt was escorted out of the courtroom and back to the Indian River County Jail.

…is no surprise at all to those paying attention.  I’ll tell you one thing, I won’t be surprised to find out she there alone for long

Court documents show prosecutors have evidence that not only did Kate Hunt violate a court order to avoid her underage girlfriend, but her mom also pressured the alleged victim to tamper with evidence.

“Delete EVERYTHING … PLEASE delete everything..make sure NO ONE finds out you have spoken to Kate at all,” prosecutors say mom Kelley Hunt wrote to the victim.

I wonder if she will be as fast to denounce her plea deal as she was with her daughter’s that is if she is offered one?

Somehow I think not.