Liberals love to perpetuate the stereotype that “liberal” judges rule in favor of minorities, the poor, and the little guy (Good Things), while “conservative” judges rule in favor of evil corporations, police departments, and white males (Bad Things). This parallels the stereotype that Democrat politicians help the criminally accused and the working man while Republican politicians help evil corporations and police departments.

The White House and their allies are already trying to push these long-ingrained stereotypes in preparation for this summer’s upcoming Supreme Court confirmation battle to replace Justice Stevens’ seat. Like most stereotypes, however, they are not true.

Republican Supreme Court appointees have long-stood against heinous racial discrimination. For example, President Rutherford B. Hayes, a Republican, appointed Justice John Marshall Harlan, the lone justice to dissent in the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) and Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896); these cases permitted segregation and “separate but equal” discrimination. President Herbert Hoover, a Republican, appointed Justice Owen Roberts (full disclosure: a fellow Penn and Daily Pennsylvanian alumnus), the lone Republican appointee on the Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 213 (1944), a case where six Democrat-appointed justices ruled that the Constitution permitted the government to forcibly herd U.S. citizens of a particular ethnicity into concentration camps. Justice Roberts’ vigorous dissent said that “convicting a citizen as a punishment for not submitting to imprisonment in a concentration camp, [solely] based on his ancestry, without evidence or inquiry concerning his loyalty and good disposition towards the United States” was a “clear violation of Constitutional rights.” Interestingly, the liberals preferred “assembly area” as the euphemism for these concentration or internment camps.

Even Justice Stevens, whom the media now calls a “liberal lion,” did not stand up for the “little guy” nor his First , Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights as much as “conservative” justices like Justices Scalia and Thomas did.

(more…)

Hopefully by now you are aware that Senator Chris McDaniel and I have filed a citizens class action lawsuit against the PPACA, the liberty-robbing “Obamacare” statute, in the federal court for the Southern District of Mississippi.  Please see our prior article on this subject here. The response from liberty-loving Americans has been overwhelming — from Big Media, not so much.  I understand their disinterest, though, because really important things like the travails of a billionaire golfer takes up so much of their time.

That’s quite alright, because I would rather come directly to you to make important announcements like this:  Lt. Governor Phil Bryant has entered our class action lawsuit against the PPACA as an individual, private citizen.  He is serving as a Petitioner, and is the class representative for a uniquely important class:  employees of the State of Mississippi.

Lt. Governor Phil Bryant addresses crowd in Jackson, Mississippi

Why this new class is important.

Congress is now dictating what must be — and must not be — in your health insurance plan.  In other words, they are controlling the health insurance that your employer is offering you.  Socialism is defined as “government ownership or control of all the means of production (farms, factories, mines, and natural resources) and all the means of distribution (transportation, communications, and the instruments of commerce).”  Realize, “socialized medicine” is here, right now.  Even worse, by controlling what health insurance plans must be offered, Congress and the Executive branch are controlling your employer, and thus your employment.

Your liberty depends on the survival of your republic.  The PPACA is a direct attack on the republican form of government.

Every kid who’s ever put hand over heart and recited the Pledge of Allegiance knows that we live in a republic:  “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

(more…)

Whether or not you think former New York Republican Senate Majority leader Joe Bruno, who reigned over Albany in a triumvirate of power for 27 years, is guilty or not, he has the right to a fair trial and an impartial Judge. It appears he is getting neither.

Bruno has been indicted under the controversial ” theft of honest services” law. The same law that Supreme Court Justice Anton Scalia says is unconstitutionally vague. Indeed, the US Supreme Court has taken not one but two “honest services cases” for review. The government has no evidence of bribes or improper pressure on government–required by the law–that Bruno took for his clients. Under New York Law, legislators are part-time  and are allowed to have outside income. Bruno , an non-lawyer with a business background, is a business consultant.

When the Government dropped hundreds of thousands of pages of new documents on Bruno’s defense team only days before trial Bruno’s lawyer asked Judge Gary Sharpe of the Northern District of New York for a mere two week delay. The motion was denied.

(more…)

So, now that we’ve opened this can, just how sweeping is the “global warming” bills’ curiously identical Sec. 707?

At risk of getting into a peeing match which my time budget may not allow me to finish, I believe that the dispute between Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air and the folks at the WashingtonExaminer joining Sen. David Vitter (and, by implication, I suppose me) is not necessary but worth resolving. Caution: it is also for the legislatively inclined or otherwise the pointy-headed. But, since I arguably joined the fray here on Big Government on Tuesday, here goes.

At issue is a provision buried in both the Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Boxer “global warming” bills.

I had to leave for a few hours after starting my comment on this, in which time I decided not to wage the war over how strongly we need to argue that it prima facie nullifies the rest of the respective legislative language that too many lobbyists tout was carefully crafted to provide “certainty”. Lobbyists of course tend to say things reflecting well on their defense of client interests.

What is inescapable is that this language dispels such notions of certainty. But that shouldn’t be shocking. The bills statutorily establish “global warming” causation, for every existing or new increment of GHGs (read: employers, economic activity), as well as harm caused. And they fail to preempt states and elsewhere EPA as needed, or the National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Water Act or Endangered Species Act, or every other tool that’s already being tried out as a “global warming” law. Let alone the rest of the U.S. Code. All of which is relevant to context, as we shall see.

(more…)