Conservative in a world of Liberals.
So the Supreme Court rules in favor of religious freedom and those on the Left go nuts? Were they looking for permission, because they’ve never really asked before. And with such unintelligible attacks, one really has to ponder what they think they’re trying to achieve.
Even if they are trying to just throw it in your face, they need to head back to class and study up a little. Their argument is invalid!
Read more at NewsNinja2012.com
[powerpress]
In this episode, I discuss the toxic duo of ObamaCore and ObamaCare, Ted Cruz fighting Amnesty and if cops should be able to search your cell phone without a warrant.
Robert Nisbet as he reflected on what the Framers would think after they saw the size and scope of the current government.
Facebook: http://facebook.com/TheStaffordVoice
Twitter: @staffordvoice
If you would like to email your questions or comments you can do so at: thestaffordvoice@gmail.com
Or you can call or text at (913) 735-9167
music provided in this podcast with thanks to:
[powerpress]
In this episode, I talk about the insanity within the GOP, the Supreme Court ruling on aggregate campaign funding, and why some on the Left are wanting Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg to retire.
James Madison – Federalist No. 10
“Complaints are every where heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable; that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties; and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice, and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”
big win in name of 1st Amendment
what was this case all about anyway?
http://blog.heritage.org/2014/04/02/first-amendment-triumphs-supreme-court/
it upset those on the left
promoting potential candidates that people don’t want
pandering big money donors to get behind them also
Ted Cruz comes across as a normal dude
got a fake tattoo for April fools – people connect with a guy like that
Tea Party Community poll
battle between baby-boomers and millennials
how do you sell the message
why?
she’s the oldest justice
not liberal enough?
get a younger harder liberal in her place
Facebook: http://facebook.com/TheStaffordVoice
Twitter: @staffordvoice
If you would like to email your questions or comments you can do so at: thestaffordvoice@gmail.com
Or you can call or text at (913) 735-9167
music provided in this podcast is in thanks to:
Intro music: “Exhilarate” Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
Outro music: “Gearhead” Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
Abortion Mandate Under Review by Supreme Court (via http://www.newsninja2012.com)
The Supreme Court took to hearing arguments over the controversial abortion mandate forcing employers to provide health coverage that goes against their religious beliefs. At the heart of the case rests Obamacare, as it places certain criteria on insurance…
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the oldest sitting member of the high court and is being targeted to step down and retire.
The Supreme Court is usually the last place you would expect someone to be pressured to give it up and retire. Add to that, Liberals are calling one of their own to step down.
So, why all the pressure for Justice Ginsburg to retire? Even then, Why are liberals calling for her to retire?
Think about it. It follows their strategy in order to control the court. They want her to step down so a young, highly liberal judge can be appointed. They did it with Sotomayor and Kagan. Those two will be there for a while.
The last thing liberals want is for her to get replaced by a republican as president. That would more than likely lead to a more conservative judge. Which in turn, would sway the courts to be more conservative in their rulings.
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments on another Obamacare issue.
The issue this time: the contraception mandate. This requirement has caused many companies to say that it is an attack on their religious freedom. They argue that because they as a company are required to provide health coverage, which must include coverage for birth control, goes against what they believe.
So, now that these cases are piling up and causing division in the lower courts, the Supreme Court is taking up the case. And, it isn’t expected to release a decision until mid-year 2014.
This will certainly be an interesting case. Besides the fact that the government is allowed to mandate what you as a free citizen must have, they are also trying to force private companies into what they must provide an employee as a benefit.
This should never have gotten this far. This should have been an open and shut case because the government should never have been allowed to regulate what you must purchase. Health care is NOT a right, it’s a privilege.
Wednesday the Supreme Court overwhelmingly ruled in favor of the controversial Topeka, KS Westboro Church. With the 8-1 ruling, it has echoed across the United States in such a fashion that people are almost as outraged at the Court as they are with the picketing and hateful speech.
This ruling however, probably should have never made it to the Supreme Court. It should have been a cut and dry ruling in favor of Westboro. And, while a super-majority of the American people disagree with that, they do certainly have the right to free speech so long as it is on public property. If it was on private property, this ruling could have swayed the other way.
Justice Samuel Alito, the lone dissenter, said Snyder wanted only to “bury his son in peace.” Instead, Alito said, the protesters “brutally attacked” Matthew Snyder to attract public attention. “Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case,” he said.
However, this ruling does fall in line with previous court decisions.
“The bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment,” Roberts said, quoting the flag-burning ruling by liberal icon William J. Brennan Jr., is that the government cannot punish words or ideas “simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”
If you wish to read the entire Supreme Court ruling on the case, click HERE. (PDF)
by Ken Connor
There’s been much controversy in recent weeks over the issue of full body scans and pat-downs at airport security checkpoints across America. Individuals from all points on the political and ideological spectrum are angry and speaking out against practices that they assert violate civil liberties and undermine human dignity. Much in the same way that the Patriot Act thrust the “privacy v. security” conundrum into the foreground of the public’s attention, the kerfuffle begun by John “Don’t Touch My Junk” Tyner has ignited a national debate about how far our society is willing to go to ensure the safety of air travel in America. President Obama, for his part, acknowledges the inconvenience posed by the new TSA procedures, but insists that they are necessary to ensure our safety in an era of pervasive terror threats.
Upon hearing the President’s rationalization of full body scans and vigorous pat-downs, I can’t help but be struck by this Administration’s inconsistent and unprincipled approach to personal privacy issues. Ever since the Supreme Court issued the Griswold v. Connecticut decision in 1965, the American Left has vigorously defended the constitutional “penumbras” guaranteeing an individual “right” to privacy. This understanding of individual privacy led the Court to decide in 1973 that a woman’s right to privacy trumps her unborn child’s right to life.
Continue reading . . .
Just the same as California overturned Prop 8 ruling that gay marriage was legal, Mexico City followed suit as they were wrestling with the same issue. Before the Mexico Supreme Court was the issue of allowing gay marriage and its constitutionality. And in an 8-2 ruling, the justices ruled in favor of same-sex marriage.
The more specific article referenced in Mexico’s constitution suggests:
“Men and women are equal before the law. This protects the organization and development of the family.”
After the ruling, reaction and explanation followed:
Supreme Court Justice Arturo Zaldivar said, “Those of us who are in favor of this (law) are in favor of diversity and tolerance. Our constitution does not establish a concept of marriage.”
Rev. Hugo Valdemar, the spokesman for Mexico City’s Roman Catholic Archdiocese, said “we regret this ruling because in our opinion, it affects the fundamental nucleus of the family.”
Justice Guillermo Ortiz, who argued against the law, said “marriage is reserved exclusively for couples who can procreate, because one of the big issues of marriage is the protection of children.”
Supreme Court Judge Salvador Aguirre Anguiano said, “In marriage, the invariable and eternal has been man and woman tied together with the real or unreal, realized or unrealized goal of procreation, but that idealizes the family as consisting of a man and a woman.”
With Elena Kagan being grilled and finally having to defend her past, there is a lot of information out there to take in. Here is some of what is being discussed:
Human Events | Kagan’s Answer on Roe Reveals Her Pro-Abortion Ideology
Responding to Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) this morning, Kagan confirmed her belief that “Roe (v. Wade) and Doe (v. Bolton) require” that any state “regulation” of abortion protect the “health” of women seeking abortion. Kagan isolated the Supreme Court’s holding in the 2007 case, Gonzales v. Carhart—which upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban of 2003 without a “health” exception—by stating that the Gonzales decision only pertained to a particular abortion procedure.
CSMonitor | At hearings, Elena Kagan defends approach to military recruiting
In her testimony, Kagan suggested that her policy shift did not impose a hardship on military recruiters.
She said that she felt an obligation to reverse the military-recruiting policy as a means to uphold the school’s antidiscrimination stance and protect gay and lesbian students.
“Isn’t it a fact,” Sessions asked, “that you were acting in violation of Harvard’s agreement [with the Pentagon on military recruiting] and the law when you reversed the policy?”
Kagan disagreed. “We were never out of compliance,” she said. “Nobody ever suggested that Harvard should be sanctioned in any way.”
Fox News | Sen. Al Franken Naps, Draws Cartoons During Kagan Hearings
He’s good enough, he’s smart enough, but doggone it — he just can’t keep his eyes open for Senate confirmation hearings.
Al Franken, the onetime comedian and current Democratic senator from Minnesota, used his position on the vaunted Judiciary Committee on Tuesday to doodle a lifelike bust of Sen. Jeff Sessions, the committee’s ranking Republican, as Sessions raked Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan over the coals.
But it wasn’t all fun and games for the former “Saturday Night Live” star — Franken also found time to get in a good nap during the first day of hearings Monday.
New York Times | Kagan Follows Precedent by Offering Few Opinions
Ms. Kagan’s responses, during a long and sometimes tense day of parrying with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, were similar to those of Supreme Court nominees past. But unlike her predecessors, Ms. Kagan wrote a 1995 article calling for judicial nominees to be more forthcoming. On Tuesday, minutes into her testimony, she backpedaled, saying she now believed it would be inappropriate even to answer questions that might “provide some kind of hints” about her views on matters of legal controversy.
“I think that that was wrong,” she said. “I think that — in particular, that it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to talk about what I think about past cases — you know, to grade cases — because those cases themselves might again come before the court.”
