Source: http://crucis-court.com/?m=201206
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 17:47:52+00:00

Document:
To say, for most of us, that yesterday was not a good day, is a large understatement. I cannot describe how I felt. I listened to the usual pundits, Rush, Hannity, Levin, FOX, and never really got a good feel about Robert’s motivation. From some reports, Kennedy’s dissent had been the majority opinion until recently. some time in the last couple of weeks, Roberts changed his position. I don’t know the validity of those reports and we probably won’t for a long time. If ever.
Roberts had a solid conservative record until this week. He upheld the 2nd Amendment and appeared to be an Originalist like Scalia, Alito and Thomas. Kennedy frequently sided with the Originalists, too. On Monday, in the Arizona Immigration suit, he dealt a blow to state sovereignty. Yesterday, Thursday, June 28, 2012, he appeared to side with the liberals on the Court.
The Independent Journal Review has a different opinion on Robert’s thinking and motives. The IJ Review believes that Roberts dealt a death-blow to several controversial issues.
Limited the “Commerce Claus.” He ruled that the mandate, under the Commerce Clause was unconstitutional.
That contrary to Obama’s claims, the penalty for failure to acquire healthcare is not a penalty but is, in fact, a tax. Obama and the libs must now defend that fact.
The Federal government cannot penalize states, by blocking other federal funding, who do not choose to comply. This was the Medicaid component. Yes, the feds can block Medicaid funding but no other federal funding.
The article below is interesting. I am not a lawyer, just a curious citizen who reads a lot. The opinion in this article does bear some consideration. And, we must remember, we can still repeal Obamacare—if we have a filibuster and VETO proof majority in the Senate.
The article above does have some appeal among all the doom ‘n gloom being spread by others. But it all depends if the dems will observe—and follow the law. Their record so far is poor and gives no assurance they will in the future.
If all of the positives in the above article is true, why do I feel like I’ve been raped? I can see no good coming from this. Roberts could have nailed the Commerce Clause by ruling that the Mandate was unconstitutional under the Clause and therefore the entire law was unconstitutional.
There is one solid result of the Court’s decision. We can no longer rely on the Court for redress to our grievances.
Yes, I know, the proper word in this post title should be “bated”, not “baited.” Somehow, bait seems more appropriate. Like Rush said yesterday, no matter what the Obamacare ruling will be, it will still be a mess. Ditto for Holder’s Contempt of Congress vote in the House.
Personally, I don’t see how SCOTUS can decide anything other than to declare all of Obamacare Unconstitutional. But the Law and human foibles are a factor too. Who would have thought that Chief Justice Roberts would side with Obama and Holder on the Arizona bill? It makes you wonder if Roberts was under some coercion.
The bottom line is what we have always known. Government is not our friend—never has been, never will be. Our only means of survival is to keep government small and politically weak except for one mandate—to preserve the security of the country.
Along with the SCOTUS decision is the Holder vote. Acts by two different but equal branches of government. The democrats in the House are expected to support Holder. The Black Congressional Caucus plan to walk out during the vote. That, too, is a meaningless gesture until they can prevent the House from achieving a quorum. I don’t think they have the numbers for that.
We are living in Interesting Times. We’ve brought that Chinese curse upon ourselves by allowing our enemies within to gain control. It’s time to fix that situation.
This is a story that crossed my inbox today. I doubt many of you have heard about it. A bill was introduced by Sen. Marko Rubio (R-FL) in the US Senate to allow employers to provide incentive pay raises to union members. The idea was to provide incentive rewards for higher performance. The SEIU and other union lobbyists were able to block this bill in a 45-54 vote.
The bill would allow employers to raise, not lower, but to reward good performance. Why would unions not want this? According to the Heritage Foundation, this was their motivation.
When you’re in a union, raises are usually all or nothing. They are not necessarily forbidden; the unions just have to sign off on them. Only about 20 percent of union contracts permit performance-based raises, less than half the rate in nonunion firms. This means 80 percent of workers can’t get an individual raise for doing good work—a raise must be negotiated for everyone. That certainly takes away the incentive to go above and beyond, because there are no performance-based bonuses or even merit increases.
Instead, unions typically base pay on seniority and job classifications—not individual effort or productivity. Workers cannot bargain individually for more. By law, hard-working union members get the same pay as those who slack off.
The bill would also weaken the union. Members would suddenly realize that they could get raises, upgrade benefits, and other job improvements without a union. All they would need was to work—hard and improve performance. A radical idea! For unions.
For over a century, unions were supposed to protect worker rights, working conditions, and job safety, among other work issues. Somewhere along the line the unions went astray. Instead of being primarily a worker support organization, they became a socialist power wielder. Their first interest became expanding their personal (union) power and push their socialist agenda. Unions became a leveler—equality across the board for the strong and willing as well as for the weak and lazy. Leveling lowers standards instead of raising them.
The RAISE Act, which has yet to garner a vote in the House but has been introduced there by Representative Todd Rokita (R–IN), would enable 2.8 million women and 4.8 million men to earn higher wages through their individual effort. Heritage research indicates that if Congress passed the RAISE Act, the average union member’s salary could rise between $2,700 and $4,500 a year.
But union bosses don’t want that. They want to preserve the collective bargaining agreements that keep union members’ wages down.
“Collective bargaining agreements are intended to prevent employers from making arbitrary decisions about wages,” said SEIU International President Mary Kay Henry. The word “arbitrary” can have negative connotations, often meaning that someone made a decision that wasn’t rooted in fact. But really, what worker would mind if his boss “arbitrarily” decided to give him a raise? He probably wouldn’t argue too much.
Obama’s NLRB has blocked previous attempts to provide union worker raises outside of the union contact. Unions no longer aim to improve their member livelihoods. Their prime purpose now is to wield political power. The union effort to recall Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker was one such attempt. Fortunately, it failed. The Wisconsin union money laundering scheme was exposed and halted. Unions also lost a Supreme Court decision this week that would have allowed them to increase union dues to non-members in California and other states.
The score this week for unions is won one, lost one. This action this week to block Rubio’s R.A.I.S.E (Rewarding Achievement and Incentivizing Successful Employees) bill will not block the continuing losses of union membership. Such actions as this will only increase the reduction of union roles when members realize they don’t need a union, operating under a separate agenda, as their representative. Individuals can and do manage their employment quite well. I did for forty years. Union members can too.
Missouri Political Status: Good or Bad?
Missouri has been a bellwether state for over a hundred years, . That label has drawn attention to the state from across the nation. This year it’s different.
In past elections, Missouri’s status has brought millions of dollars into the state, buying TV, Radio and Ads across the state. This election year the funding is going to other states like Ohio, Virginia and those called, “Purple” states.
In past election cycles, Missouri was a purple state too. But the excesses of liberal policies at the state and federal level have had consequences. Missouri is now a solid Red state. We have not a hint of Blueness left. A column in USA Today expands on that shift.
Missouri has been a bellwether state for more than 100 years, with presidential candidates lavishing attention on Show-Me State voters and spending millions on field operations, glossy campaign mailers, and TV ads. But this election? Not so much.
This year, Missouri isn’t on the list of top swing states — those vote-rich battlegrounds that political experts and campaign strategists say will determine who wins the White House on Nov. 6. Most political handicappers instead have Missouri in the “leans Republican” column.
So even though Barack Obama lost Missouri by fewer than 4,000 votes in 2008, the president’s re-election campaign isn’t expected to make a major investment in Missouri this time around. And Mitt Romney probably won’t be tromping through the state for a bevy of big rallies or small meet-and-greets, either.
There’s no question that other states, such as Virginia, Nevada, and Colorado, have bumped Missouri aside as an electoral battleground, because of demographic changes and political shifts within their borders. Virginia, for example, has seen a spike in affluent and politically moderate residents, particularly in the suburbs at its northern tip, outside Washington. And Colorado and Nevada have seen increases in their Hispanic populations, giving those Western states a purple hue.
An assumption in this column is that the influx of Hispanics will shift the demographics to the democrats. In other words, the assumption is that voting Hispanics will be supporting more government handouts. More gimmes. The fact those handouts are paid by others is lost to them. That assumption says Nevada and Colorado are more likely to shift to the democrat camp.
I think that is a poor assumption.
More and more, Hispanic leaders are repudiating the left’s liberal policies and agenda. They, like any other taxpayer, realize the hazards of the left’s unlimited and unsupported spending. It is foolish to think all Hispanics, like all Blacks, will vote, in lockstep, for democrats. Some will. But all? I don’t think so.
“Missouri is not on the presidential TV radar screen right now,” said Elizabeth Wilner, who conducted the analysis and is vice president at CMAG.
Wilner said to the extent some Missourians in the northern part of the state are seeing presidential ads, it’s “spillover” meant to influence voters in Iowa. That stands in sharp contrast to previous presidential contests, when Missouri airwaves were swamped with presidential TV spots early in the election season.
Wilner said the “issues menu” in this election, such as ballooning deficits and opposition to Obama’s health care law, make Missouri a tough state for Democrats.
Others echoed that assessment, saying Missouri hasn’t undergone any major demographic changes, but has seen a few subtle political shifts. — USA Today.
Subtle changes. Yes, like a solid ‘Pub majority in both state houses. Roy Blount’s 13 point victory in his 2010 election for the US Senate.
The democrats poo-poo that shift. They refuse to acknowledge that Claire McCaskill’s three ‘Pub opponents all poll higher than she. If I remember correctly, Sarah Steelman polled 12 points higher than McCaskill a few weeks ago.
No, it should not be a surprise than Missouri is no longer a bellwether state. The state must have the possibility of falling into either camp, to be borderline for either party. No more for Missouri. We’re solidly Red, now.
Missouri’s goal, now, is to shed the last tentacles of the left from our state and local governments. Come the Fall, I believe we will make solid progress towards that goal…if we don’t achieve it completely.
James Taylor sang a song for the movie, Cars, titled “Our Town.” It is one of my favorites.
The storyline is a small town that was once thriving but is no longer. The town was located on the fabled US Route 66. Then the Interstate arrived and by-passed the town. Since then it has been slowly dying.
That scenario exists today. Just substitute any small town in America for the one in the movie. Instead of the arrival of the interstate, substitute the liberal economic policies of Obama and the democrat leaders in Congress.
You can see the results yourself. Just drive down any highway and look at the empty, abandoned buildings, the empty gas stations, small businesses, former construction lots…all empty, overgrown with weeds and covered with For Sale and realtor signs.
These are the lyrics of Our Town. Substitute a word , here and there, and it becomes your town.
Today could be a historic day. The US Supreme Court is expected to lay down some rulings on ten issues before the end of this month. The two most discussed is Obamacare and the AZ Immigration law. Rumor says those two may be announced later today.
One decision has already been announced—a decision about unannounced union dues increases.
The Supreme Court says a union must give nonmembers an immediate chance to object to unexpected fee increases that all workers are required to pay in closed-shop situations.
The court on Thursday ruled for Dianne Knox and other nonmembers of the Service Employees International Union’s Local 1000, who wanted to object and opt out of a $12 million special assessment the union required from its California public sector members. Knox and others said the union did not give them a legally required notice that the increase was coming.
The union, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said the annual notice that the union gives was sufficient. The high court disagreed in a 7-2 judgment written by Justice Samuel Alito.
First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards. A suit whether lawsuits under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, which allows homebuyers to sue banks and title companies when they pay kickbacks for the closing of a mortgage loan, are constitutional if the kickback does not affect the price or quality of the services provided?
Knox v. Service Employees International Union. Another union issue whether a state can require its employees to pay a special union fee that will be spent for political purposes without first giving the employees information about the fee and a chance to object to it.
United States v. Alvarez. This is better known as the “Stolen Valor” case. It decides whether a federal law that makes it a crime to lie about receiving military medals or honors violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of the right to free speech.
Southern Union Company v. United States. An interesting jury issue whether the Constitution requires that a jury, rather than a judge, must find beyond a reasonable doubt any fact that leads to a higher fine for a criminal defendant.
Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs. This concerns whether a sentence of life without parole for someone who was convicted of murder when he was fourteen violates the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. If I remember correctly, an earlier case prohibited life sentences for juveniles in non-homicide cases.
Dorsey v. United States and Hill v. United States (consolidated). I heard this one called a positive Ex Post Facto case. The key factor is whether the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which reduced the sentences for defendants who are convicted of crack cocaine offenses, applies to defendants who were convicted before the Act went into effect but sentenced after it.
The details above were scraped from SCOTUSBlog.
As the Chinese proverb says, today through next week could be interesting times.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.