<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; Supreme Court</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/tag/supreme-court/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 16:20:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>Top Obama Lawyer Brings Anti-Israel Bias to High Court</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/joseph-klein/top-obama-administration-lawyer-brings-anti-israel-bias-to-the-supreme-court/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=top-obama-administration-lawyer-brings-anti-israel-bias-to-the-supreme-court</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/joseph-klein/top-obama-administration-lawyer-brings-anti-israel-bias-to-the-supreme-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2014 05:15:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Klein]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jerusalem]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[passport]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Verrilli]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=244731</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem is like Russia's control of Crimea? ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/zivotofsky_wide-b042c275eff15a2ea95aaee3c6be1b4f4ae3ae51.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-244732" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/zivotofsky_wide-b042c275eff15a2ea95aaee3c6be1b4f4ae3ae51-440x350.jpg" alt="zivotofsky" width="342" height="272" /></a>The Obama administration’s anti-Israel bias was on full display at the Supreme Court earlier this week. Its chief lawyer, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, offered an incredibly insulting analogy while arguing a case involving whether a U.S. citizen born in Jerusalem has the right to require, upon request, that the State Department identify “Israel” as the place of birth on his or her passport. In defending the administration’s position that it has the inherent discretion to deny any such request if it believes that granting the request would undermine the president’s foreign policy objectives, Verrilli raised the bogeyman comparison to “issuing passports to people born in the Crimea tomorrow that identified Russia as the country of birth.” Verrilli said that to do so “would contradict the foreign policy position in a way that could be quite deleterious,” leaving the distinct impression that Israel’s relationship to Jerusalem should be analyzed the same way for the purposes of this case.</p>
<p>The case stemmed from an attempt by the parents of a boy born in Jerusalem, who is a U.S. citizen because both of his parents are U.S. citizens, to file an application for a consular report of birth abroad and a United States passport for their son, Menachem Binyamin, listing his place of birth as “Israel.” The parents were exercising a statutory right explicitly granted by Congress in the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, which still remains in effect and requires the State Department to record a Jerusalem-born U.S. citizen’s place of birth as “Israel” if requested to do so by the citizen or his or her legal guardian.</p>
<p>The State Department denied the parents’ request, despite the fact that their son was born in “West&#8221; Jerusalem, which even the Palestinian negotiators are not currently claiming belongs to them. The Palestinians insist that only “East” Jerusalem must become the capital of an independent Palestinian state, but the State Department’s rejection of the passport request thrusts the status of <i>all</i> parts of Jerusalem into the conflict, including the undisputed portion.</p>
<p>Verrilli argued to the Supreme Court that requiring the State Department to identify in a passport, an official government-issued document, Israel as the birthplace of a U.S. citizen, known by the government to have been born in Jerusalem, would impermissibly “interject an issue of recognition policy into the content of passports.” He added that “Congress cannot compel the Executive to issue diplomatic communications that contradict the official position of the United States on a matter of recognition,” in summing up the administration’s position. He also expressed concern about the impact that such implied recognition of Israel’s claims would have on the Palestinians, whom, he noted, declared, “Jerusalem the capital of the Palestinian state.”</p>
<p>Verrilli characterized the Obama administration’s role as “an honest broker who could stand apart from this conflict and help bring it to resolution.” He said that adhering to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act’s passport requirement would undermine this role and “the credibility of the President on this fundamental question of where the United States stands on the status of Jerusalem until the parties work it out.”</p>
<p>In other words, the Obama administration has come before the Supreme Court with self-righteous proclamations about the need to preserve the president’s credibility and even-handedness in his conduct of diplomacy on the Jerusalem issue in order to justify its utter disregard of a law on the books concerning the issuance of passports. True to form, the Obama administration is asserting unbridled executive power. Claiming that Congress cannot interfere with the president’s conduct of foreign diplomacy, the State Department decided to disregard an explicit provision in a congressional statute, which requires the State Department to record a Jerusalem-born U.S. citizen’s place of birth as “Israel” if requested to do so by the citizen or his or her legal guardian. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act’s Jerusalem provision granted no discretion to the executive branch in this regard.  The Act says: “For … a United States citizen born in the city of Jerusalem, the Secretary shall, upon the request of the citizen or the citizen’s legal guardian, record the place of birth as Israel.”</p>
<p>“Shall,” not “may,” is the operative word. Such legal technicalities do not faze the Obama administration, however. Its Solicitor General told the Supreme Court Justices that they “ought to defer to the Executive Branch&#8217;s judgment that the place of birth listing can have significant diplomatic consequences.” Justice Stephen Breyer agreed with this position because, as Justice Breyer so humbly put it, “I&#8217;m a judge. I&#8217;m not a foreign affairs expert.”</p>
<p>Justice Sotomayor, acting as if she were counsel for the Palestinians rather than a Supreme Court Justice, remarked that requiring the State Department to honor a Jerusalem-born U.S. citizen’s request to record his or her place of birth as “Israel” on an official government document would be tantamount to “asking the government to lie.” She reached that bizarre conclusion on the premise that the U.S. government would be identifying Jerusalem with Israel, contrary to the government’s official recognition policy.</p>
<p>The more conservative-leaning Justices expressed some skepticism regarding the argument that issuing the passport as requested would interfere with the president’s diplomatic powers to decide whether or not to recognize the sovereign claims of Israel to Jerusalem. Justice Scalia acknowledged that there could be a constitutional issue if the president’s recognition powers were being directly challenged by legislation, but he questioned whether that was the case here.</p>
<p>Justice Alito said that while he understood “the position of the United States that Israel does not exercise full sovereignty over Jerusalem,” he suspected there were certain attributes of sovereignty exercised by Israel such as Israel’s issuance of birth certificates for births within Jerusalem or Israel’s prosecution of crimes committed within Jerusalem which “the United States recognizes that Israel is lawfully exercising.”</p>
<p>Justice Kennedy proposed an idea he thought might alleviate the State Department’s concerns. He suggested that the State Department could simply include a statement with the passports it issues for Jewish American citizens born in Jerusalem that “This passport does not indicate that the government of the United States and the Secretary of State recognize that Israel has sovereign jurisdiction.”</p>
<p>Justices Kagan and Ginsburg expressed concern about the ramifications of appearing to take sides in the dispute between the Palestinians and Israel over Jerusalem’s status.</p>
<p>“I mean, history suggests that everything is a big deal with respect to the status of Jerusalem,” Justice Kagan said, pointing to the recent spate of violence in Jerusalem to support her point. “And right now Jerusalem is a tinderbox,” she added, “because of issues about the status of and access to a particularly holy site there. And so sort of everything matters, doesn&#8217;t it?”</p>
<p>With all due respect to Justice Kagan’s concerns about not setting off a “tinderbox,” what should matter is not to give the Palestinians a veto power over the implementation of a clear congressional statutory directive because of worries about a violent Palestinian reaction.</p>
<p>Justice Ginsburg questioned the fairness of the statute. “What about Palestinians who were born in Jerusalem and want to have Palestine as their place of birth?” she asked. “American born Palestinians cannot do that. And that suggests that Congress had a view, and the view was that Jerusalem was properly part of Israel.”</p>
<p>Horror of horrors that Congress should dare tilt in the direction of the one true democracy in the Middle East that has traditionally been our closest ally in the region!</p>
<p>In any case, President Obama has tipped the scale in precisely the opposite direction. Solicitor General Verrilli’s argument that the president’s ability to serve as an “honest broker” will be at risk if the Court rules against the State Department’s denial of the passport request rings hollow. Obama forfeited that role when he effectively endorsed the division of Jerusalem, based on Obama’s call for Israel to withdraw essentially to the pre-June 1967 lines as the basis for Palestinian-Israeli final status negotiations on the border between the two states. Obama’s map-drawing would mean that so-called “East” Jerusalem would become a part of a new Palestine state, codifying an artificial division that would reinstate the conditions prevailing during Jordan’s illegal occupation of the eastern portion of Jerusalem, including the Old City, between 1948 and 1967.</p>
<p>Prior to the Jordanians’ illegal occupation, Jerusalem was an undivided city. Historically, Jews have been living in Jerusalem continuously for more than three millennia. Jerusalem has never been the capital of any sovereign nation except of the Jewish people.</p>
<p>In more recent times, Jews have constituted the largest single group of inhabitants in Jerusalem since at least the mid-1800s. During the Jordanians’ illegal occupation between 1948 and 1967 of the eastern section, including the Old City, which Jordan annexed and ruled from its capital, Amman, Jewish homes and sacred places were destroyed or defaced. Jews were barred from worshipping at their holiest sites. The Palestinians today want to replicate this division and impose an ethnic and religious cleansing of any Jewish residents.</p>
<p>“In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli — civilian or soldier — on our lands,” Palestinian Authority President Abbas said last year.</p>
<p>When the Obama administration condemns Israel for planning to expand housing for Israeli Jews living in over-crowded Jewish neighborhoods within the portion of Jerusalem that Jordan had illegally occupied until Israel reunified the city, it is not neutral or acting as an “honest broker.” It is embracing the Palestinians’ bogus claims derived from Jordan’s illegal occupation.</p>
<p>Earlier this week, Abbas sent a letter to the family of the Palestinian jihadist killed by Israeli soldiers after he had seriously wounded Rabbi Glick, an American citizen, who was peacefully seeking more access for Jews to pray on the Temple Mount. Abbas called the would-be assassin “a martyr defending the rights of our people and the holy places.&#8221;</p>
<p>The Temple Mount is holy to Jews, as well as to Muslims. It includes but is not limited to the al-Aqsa Mosque. But Muslims, whom have been abusing the administrative responsibilities Israel granted to them in connection with the site,  insist on barring Jews from worshipping anywhere on the Temple Mount site. Defending “the holy places” means, according to Abbas, enforcing such discriminatory exclusion of Jews, whom he previously referred to as “cattle,” by &#8220;all means&#8221; necessary.</p>
<p>Palestinian violence has followed in the wake of Abbas’s incendiary rhetoric. But the Obama administration continues to side with the Palestinian position. When asked to comment last week on Glick’s shooting by a Palestinian jihadist, State Department Spokesperson Jen Psaki deplored the shooting but quickly pivoted to expressing the Obama Administration’s “support” for “the long-standing practices regarding non-Muslim visitors to the site, to Haram al-Sharif / Temple Mount.” Just by referring to the Temple Mount first by its Arabic name – even before its English designation &#8211; and omitting any reference to its Hebrew name Har haBáyit (or Har haMoria), the State Department spokesperson displayed the Obama administration’s pro-Palestinian bias.</p>
<p>In what should have been a prosaic explanation to the Supreme Court of the Obama administration’s position on the relevant law, its Solicitor General exposed the true animus that the Obama administration has towards the Jewish state of Israel. Solicitor General Verrilli’s reference to Russia and Crimea in an oral argument dealing with the issuance of a passport listing Israel as the place of birth for an American citizen born in Jerusalem was a contemptible distraction intended to place Israel in an unfavorable light in front of the highest court of the land.</p>
<p>It is always difficult to ascertain which way the Supreme Court will rule in a controversial case from the comments made by the various Justices during oral argument. However, what could emerge is a narrowly written majority opinion that sidesteps the constitutional question of separation of powers. The State Department can honor the Jerusalem-born American citizen’s request in accordance with the statute, based simply on the uncontested fact that it was Israel which issued the official birth certificate in the first place upon which the issuers of the passport relied for information. As Justice Kennedy, often a swing vote on the Court, suggested, the administrative action of issuing the passport with such birth information can be accompanied by a clear disclaimer statement that issuing the passport in no way is meant to express the U.S. government’s diplomatic recognition of Israel’s sovereign claims to Jerusalem.</p>
<p>Whatever the outcome, Solicitor General Verrilli’s slanderous Russia-Crimea analogy will remain a shameful episode in the annals of Supreme Court oral arguments.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/joseph-klein/top-obama-administration-lawyer-brings-anti-israel-bias-to-the-supreme-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Paul Singer Is Right: Argentina Must Pay Their Debts</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ronn-torossian/paul-singer-is-right-argentina-must-pay-their-debts/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=paul-singer-is-right-argentina-must-pay-their-debts</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ronn-torossian/paul-singer-is-right-argentina-must-pay-their-debts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2014 04:10:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ronn Torossian]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[debt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[loan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Singer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[repay]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=243112</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An investor comes to a country's rescue -- and the government tries to make off with his money. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/cristina-fernandez-de-kirchner.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-243214" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/cristina-fernandez-de-kirchner-450x337.jpg" alt="cristina-fernandez-de-kirchner" width="327" height="245" /></a>Hedge fund manager Paul Singer of Elliott Management Corporation has been involved in a high-profile dispute with the Republic of Argentina for seeking repayment of the full face value of debts acquired at a deep discount during Argentina’s financial crisis.  While the latest ruling in the United States Supreme Court rejected Argentina&#8217;s appeal of the ruling, Argentina remains in default for not repaying $539 million in interest – and remains on the hook for $1.5 billion dollars.</p>
<p>Media reports indicate that a mediator recently noted that despite repeated court rulings, Argentina still has issues. A certain logic must prevail. Winners win, and losers lose.  If one invests and wins, in the civilized world they get paid – even if they are wealthy.  If this group of Singer-led investors would have bet wrong, one can bet they wouldn’t have gotten a penny back. Hence, they must be paid. Argentina can call them any bad words they choose – from vultures to whatever else – but spell the name right on the check.</p>
<p>It is really very simple – one must pay what they agreed to. Some quotes from wise people who should be listened to on this matter:</p>
<p>“To the U.S. Government, I would say that supporting the government of a country that does not play by the rules of a true democracy does not necessarily mean support for its citizens.” &#8212; Horacio Vazquez, an Argentine holdout bondholders</p>
<p>“I love it when he (Singer) wins, because it just validates who he is as a person. He’s a fighter. He’s not going to give up. And he’s not a villain: He’s a hard-nosed businessman, that’s it, and he sticks up for what he thinks is right. More people should do that.” &#8212; Ralph DellaCamera</p>
<p>“Since the country was largely cut off from international capital markets following its default in July, the government of President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner — never a paragon of orthodox policy making — has resorted to even more self-destructive coping measures. As the foreign currency reserves that Argentina needs to pay for imports have diminished, the government has issued new rules meant to keep dollars from leaving the country.<i>” </i>“There’s one easy way for Argentina to avert such a scenario: Settle with its holdout creditors and regain access to global capital markets.<i>” &#8211; </i>Bloomberg Editorial, “<a href="http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-10-05/argentina-s-contempt-for-its-citizens"><span style="color: #0433ff;">Argentina’s Contempt for Its Citizens</span></a>”</p>
<p>“After being urged to invest in our country after its historic 2001 default (which was restructured in 2005) we were told that our investments were worth pennies on the dollar, and that the government would no longer honor its contracts and commitments.” &#8212; Horacio Vazquez, an Argentine holdout bondholders</p>
<p>“He doesn’t get into fights for the sake of fighting. He believes deeply in the rule of law and that free markets and free societies depend on enforcing it.” &#8212; Daniel S. Loeb.</p>
<p>“By negotiating in good faith with its creditors and respecting the rule of law, Argentina could repair its <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2534770/Argentina-apply-1-8billion-World-Bank-loan-just-days-reveal-Britain-sends-country-2million-aid.html"><span style="color: #0433ff;">global standing</span></a> and signal a new era to much-needed foreign investors.  Such a move would be a positive first step in repairing Argentina’s wretched economy for the benefit of all its citizens.” &#8212; American Task Force On Argentina</p>
<p>“As Argentina struggles with a poor economy and the risk of default, a consensus has emerged among Argentines, business groups and ruling-party lawmakers that the government should settle a $1.5 billion debt with holdout bondholders—and do so soon….” &#8211; Wall Street Journal</p>
<p>“Imagine how much capital a country like Argentina might attract &#8211; If instead of defaulting seriatim and affecting a pose of anger toward creditors, it borrowed responsibly and honored its obligations.” &#8212; Paul Singer (2005)</p>
<p>Even this <a href="http://www.5wpr.com/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">PR Agency</span></a> owner cannot spin Argentina’s case – Was Argentina issuing bonds with no intention of paying them back?  When they got the money did they simply not intend to pay it back? Governments receive money – and investors get paid even if they end up making a ton of money.</p>
<p style="color: #272727;">It is really rather simple: investors deserve to be paid.  That’s the way the world works.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ronn-torossian/paul-singer-is-right-argentina-must-pay-their-debts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court: Obama Is Out of Order</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/matthew-vadum/supreme-court-obama-is-out-of-order/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=supreme-court-obama-is-out-of-order</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/matthew-vadum/supreme-court-obama-is-out-of-order/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2014 04:58:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matthew Vadum]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hobby Lobby]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[homecare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[labor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ruling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Union]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=235519</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Devastating rulings from the high court put the imperial presidency in its place. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Supreme-Court-building-permission.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-235520" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Supreme-Court-building-permission-450x301.jpg" alt="US Supreme Court" width="293" height="196" /></a>The Supreme Court has wrapped up its 2013-2014 term by handing stinging defeats to the increasingly unpopular President Obama.</p>
<p>Doing its job for a change, the high court <a href="http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/30/obama-racking-up-judicial-losses/">reined in</a> the power of the Executive Branch of the federal government, striking down a forced unionization scheme, an abortifacient mandate, and improper recess appointments. The Court also rejected the Obama administration&#8217;s contention that police be allowed to search Americans&#8217; cellphones without warrants.</p>
<p>In the nearly five and a half years Obama has been president, the Supreme Court has now ruled against the government 9-0 an astonishing 20 times, as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) points out. George W. Bush and Bill Clinton lost on unanimous votes 15 times and 23 times, during their respective eight years in the Oval Office.</p>
<p>This means that as measured by judicial losses, the Obama administration is on track to surpass its two immediate predecessors.</p>
<p>&#8220;The importance of the unanimous cases is that you can&#8217;t say, &#8216;Well, there are five Republican appointees on the court and four Democrats,&#8217;&#8221; said Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute.</p>
<p>&#8220;These cases where they haven&#8217;t gotten the votes of either of the two Obama nominees means the arguments being presented by the Justice Department to the court are just out of left field,&#8221; he said.</p>
<p>Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor were appointed by Obama. Kagan served as Obama&#8217;s solicitor general, arguing cases before the Supreme Court.</p>
<p>In a ruling that has sent shock waves through Big Labor, the Supreme Court <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/01/harris-v-quinn-ruling-could-force-seiu-to-return-funds-from-due-skim-scam/">struck down</a> a scam that was being run by the grifters at the president&#8217;s favorite labor union, Service Employees International Union (SEIU).</p>
<p>The Court ruled 5-4 in <i>Harris v. Quinn</i> (<a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/11-681_j426.pdf">full text of decision</a>) that SEIU cannot compel people who care for their loved ones to become union members. Nor can SEIU deduct member dues from the government checks of the people for whom they care.</p>
<p>&#8220;The practice has gone on for several years in a handful of states, creating a lucrative stream of cash for the powerful labor organization, which represents more than 2 million workers and takes in about $300 million per year,&#8221; according to one commentator.</p>
<p>If this sounds like a sleazy ACORN scam, there is a reason for that. Local 880 of SEIU was an affiliate of the now-defunct Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. The local, which was headed by ACORN insider Keith Kelleher, was absorbed into a larger collective bargaining unit a few years ago, as I detailed in my book <i><a href="http://tinyurl.com/vadumbook">Subversion Inc.</a></i></p>
<p>That bargaining unit was SEIU Healthcare Illinois &amp; Indiana (SEIU-HII) whose actions gave rise to the Supreme Court case.</p>
<p>The people forced to become SEIU members may now sue the union to get back the money that was stolen from them.</p>
<p>“The whole point of the decision was that the folks milked by the SEIU weren’t really public employees and should not be forced to pay union dues at all,&#8221; said Hans Bader, senior attorney at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. &#8220;So they should be able to sue for refund of their compelled union dues back as far as the statute of limitations will allow.&#8221;</p>
<p>“It could have a large effect,” he added.</p>
<p>In an era of declining union membership, home health aides had become a big part of SEIU&#8217;s base, making up about a fifth of the union&#8217;s total membership. In Illinois and other states, they have been deemed public sector workers. The ruling applies to an estimated 26,000 home health care workers in the Land of Lincoln but it could eventually affect many more in other states.</p>
<p>SEIU President Mary Kay Henry was unrepentant and non-responsive, totally ignoring the health care workers&#8217; rights.</p>
<p>&#8220;No court case is going to stand in the way of home care workers coming together to have a strong voice for good jobs and quality home care,&#8221; she said. &#8220;At a time when wages remain stagnant and income inequality is out of control, joining together in a union is the only proven way home care workers have of improving their lives and the lives of the people they care for.&#8221;</p>
<p>On Monday the Court <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/hobby-lobby-supreme-court-decision-5-takeaways-108467.html">delivered</a> a tiny, relentlessly overhyped setback to Obamacare, ruling that closely held for-profit companies can refuse on religious grounds to cover abortifacients (i.e. pregnancy-terminating) birth control methods in their employee health care plans.</p>
<p>Although the decision is a victory for religious liberty, contrary to media reports it is not about contraceptives at all.</p>
<p>Treatments that prevent an already fertilized human egg from developing further do not have to be covered but 16 out of 20 approved methods that prevent conception still have to be covered. The ruling by itself will not do much to halt the ongoing destruction of the American health care system mandated by the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare.</p>
<p>The 5-4 opinion in <i>Burwell v. Hobby Lobby</i> (<a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf">full text of decision</a>) led to an immediate eruption of manic leftist apoplexy from Greenwich Village to San Francisco as social media websites were swamped with the usual death threats and inarticulate expressions of rage from the freeloader lobby and those who don&#8217;t understand the difference between contraceptives and abortifacients.</p>
<p>Sandra Fluke echoed false media reports that decried the ruling as an assault on women&#8217;s rights or as an outright ban on health care coverage of contraceptives. Spewing nonsense on &#8220;The O&#8217;Reilly Factor,&#8221; she characterized the ruling as an attempt &#8220;to limit women&#8217;s access to reproductive health care.&#8221;</p>
<p>On her own show, Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly <a href="http://redalertpolitics.com/2014/07/01/megyn-kelly-takes-sandra-fluke-hobby-lobby-argument/">slapped down</a> Fluke.</p>
<p>“Hobby Lobby, which is an evangelical company, came out and said, ‘Alright we’ll do it. We’ll do it for all of them except for four that end a fertilized egg from going forward,’ ” said Kelly, who practiced law as a corporate litigator at the Jones Day law firm for nine years before becoming a journalist.</p>
<p>“What happened was we passed Obamacare. And then [former Secretary of Health and Human Services] Kathleen Sebelius had some of her HHS minions go down in the basement and write a regulation that said as part of Obamacare, you have to cover 20 out of 20 birth-control drugs.”</p>
<p>Kelly noted that the high court invoked the Clinton-era Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 as the basis for its ruling.</p>
<p>As the Court states in <i>Burwell v. Hobby Lobby</i>, that law prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” The statute was amended by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 which covers “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.”</p>
<p>“That law protects you, Hobby Lobby,” Kelly said, “and Kathleen Sebelius’s minions in the basement don’t get to take your rights away from you.”</p>
<p>Predictably, Benghazi bungler Hillary Clinton <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/hobby-lobby-supreme-court-ruling-hillary-clinton-108460.html">weighed in</a> on the indignity of female employees having to pay for their own abortifacients, calling the Supreme Court’s ruling  “deeply disturbing.”</p>
<p>Revealing her ignorance of basic human biology, Clinton opined that “it’s the first time that our court has said that a closely held corporation has the rights of a person when it comes to religious freedom, which means the corporation’s … [‘closely held’] employers can impose their religious beliefs on their employees, and, of course, denying women the right to <i>contraceptives</i> as part of a health care plan is exactly that.” [emphasis added]</p>
<p>“I find it deeply disturbing that we are going in that direction,” she said, despite the fact that we are not actually going in that direction.</p>
<p>“It’s very troubling that a sales clerk at Hobby Lobby who needs <i>contraception</i>, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer’s health care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using <i>contraception</i>,” Clinton said, ignoring the actual facts of the case which is about mandated coverage of abortifacients. [emphasis added]</p>
<p>By contrast, Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) hailed the ruling.</p>
<p>&#8220;Today&#8217;s decision is a victory for religious freedom and another defeat for an administration that has repeatedly crossed constitutional lines in pursuit of its big government objectives,&#8221; said Boehner who recently filed a lawsuit against President Obama aimed at curbing his almost daily overreaches.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court also unanimously struck down a Massachusetts law that prevented protests within 35 feet of abortion clinics, <a href="http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/06/26/supreme-court-throws-out-massachusetts-abortion-clinic-buffer-zone-law/VTTYHYD8oiVJJNreAPyKAN/story.html">affirming</a> the free speech rights of pro-life activists. The state &#8220;buffer zone&#8221; law imposed “serious burdens” on protesters wanting to talk with arriving patients, the high court found.</p>
<p>The ruling in <i>McCullen v. Coakley</i> (<a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1168_6k47.pdf">full text of decision</a>) &#8220;effectively overturns about 10 fixed-buffer-zone laws across the country, from San Francisco to Portland, Maine, but offers a framework for more limited restrictions around clinic demonstrations,&#8221; the <i>Boston Globe</i> reports.</p>
<p>The state law was ridiculously overbroad, as Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the opinion of the Court:  The &#8220;Massachusetts statute makes it a crime to knowingly stand on a &#8216;public way or sidwalk&#8217; within 35 feet of an entrance or driveway to any place, other than a hospital, where abortions are performed.&#8221;</p>
<p>Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, a left-wing Democrat and close friend of President Obama, pledged new legislation that abridges the First Amendment on behalf of Bay State abortionists but details of it have not yet emerged.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court also unanimously <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/symposium-in-riley-v-california-a-unanimous-supreme-court-sets-out-fourth-amendment-for-digital-age/">rejected</a> the Obama administration&#8217;s insidious argument that police should be allowed to search cellphones without a warrant.</p>
<p>The Court&#8217;s ruling in <i>Riley v. California</i> (<a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-132_8l9c.pdf">full text of decision</a>) brings &#8220;the Fourth Amendment into the digital age,&#8221; according to SCOTUSblog.</p>
<p>As Chief Justice Roberts writes in the Court&#8217;s opinion, “Cell phones differ in both a quantitative and a qualitative sense from other objects that might be kept on an arrestee’s person.”  The ruling will no doubt affect the NSA’s bulk record collection program at some point.</p>
<p>Last week the Supreme Court <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/matthew-vadum/supreme-court-rebukes-obama-lawlessness/">rebuked</a> President Obama by invalidating three recess appointments the president made in an attempt to unconstitutionally manipulate federal labor relations policy.</p>
<p>Justices held unanimously in <i>National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning</i> (<a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1281_bodg.pdf">full text of decision</a>) that Obama overreached in 2012 when he recess-appointed three members to the NLRB without bothering to wait for the U.S. Senate to recess. Obama’s goal was to pack the under-staffed NLRB with likeminded leftists and give the board the quorum it previously lacked to conduct official business. The ruling calls into question every order issued by the NLRB since the date the appointments were made.</p>
<p>As usual, the Obama White House refuses to admit that things aren&#8217;t going well.</p>
<p>&#8220;I&#8217;d hesitate to make a broad assessment like that from this podium,&#8221; newly minted White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters.</p>
<p>A few more terrible weeks for our despotic president and maybe, just maybe, America has a fighting chance of avoiding the fundamental transformation he and his Marxist ilk are working so hard to bring about.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/matthew-vadum/supreme-court-obama-is-out-of-order/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>297</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lefties Angry Over Hobby Lobby Confuse Blog w/Supreme Court, Hilarity Ensues</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/lefties-angry-over-hobby-lobby-confuse-blog-wsupreme-court-hilarity-ensues/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=lefties-angry-over-hobby-lobby-confuse-blog-wsupreme-court-hilarity-ensues</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/lefties-angry-over-hobby-lobby-confuse-blog-wsupreme-court-hilarity-ensues/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2014 13:27:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[The Point]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=235321</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["You ruled against the working people. Revolution is coming."]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/WILM_040714_HobbyLobby6-240x240.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-235322" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/WILM_040714_HobbyLobby6-240x240.jpg" alt="WILM_040714_HobbyLobby6-240x240" width="240" height="240" /></a></p>
<p>Progressives are notoriously intelligent. Not like those silly tea partiers. That&#8217;s why this happened.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Reminder to wayward twitter users today: <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog">@SCOTUSblog</a> is NOT the twitter account for the actual <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SCOTUS?src=hash">#SCOTUS</a>.</p>
<p>— natthedem (@natthedem) <a href="https://twitter.com/natthedem/statuses/483588335193956352">June 30, 2014</a></p></blockquote>
<p><script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" async="" charset="utf-8"></script></p>
<p>&#8230;but that didn&#8217;t dissuade furious progressives from assuming that a blog about the Supreme Court was the actual Supreme Court.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>
Or eating the cheap Kung Pao Chicken MT <a href="https://twitter.com/NYCPainter1">@NYCPainter1</a>: Of all the bad decisions <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog">@SCOTUSblog</a> made the last few years, <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/HobbyLobby?src=hash">#HobbyLobby</a> is the worst</p>
<p>— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/statuses/483659005563138048">June 30, 2014</a>
</p></blockquote>
<p><script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" async="" charset="utf-8"></script></p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>When you start reading our description. MT <a href="https://twitter.com/ProgressivesWin">@ProgressivesWin</a>: <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog">@SCOTUSblog</a> When will you start honoring the constitution. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/5OldBigots?src=hash">#5OldBigots</a></p>
<p>— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/statuses/483649187074957312">June 30, 2014</a></p></blockquote>
<p><script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" async="" charset="utf-8"></script></p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>
Off by just 1 constitutional amendment, but close MT <a href="https://twitter.com/golfndadblogger">@golfndadblogger</a>: <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog">@SCOTUSblog</a> scum will try to bring ak47 into [clinic buffer] zone nxt</p>
<p>— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/statuses/482506055637688320">June 27, 2014</a>
</p></blockquote>
<p><script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" async="" charset="utf-8"></script></p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Everyone knows we don’t pass laws RT <a href="https://twitter.com/justblegit">@justblegit</a>: <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog">@SCOTUSblog</a> Don’t pass laws that you yourself don’t abide by. Remove your buffer zone</p>
<p>— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/statuses/482671439020306432">June 27, 2014</a></p></blockquote>
<p><script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" async="" charset="utf-8"></script></p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>
Or when bloggers decide the law? MT <a href="https://twitter.com/alyssaanton">@alyssaanton</a>: <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog">@SCOTUSblog</a> proves democracy cannot work when leaders are appointed instead of elected.</p>
<p>— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/statuses/483771714007207937">July 1, 2014</a>
</p></blockquote>
<p><script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" async="" charset="utf-8"></script></p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Come at us, bro MT <a href="https://twitter.com/mazurslovedogs">@mazurslovedogs</a>: <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog">@SCOTUSblog</a> manages to screw up or endanger everyone’s life. Maybe someone needs to discuss impeachment!</p>
<p>— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/statuses/483677391080808448">June 30, 2014</a></p></blockquote>
<p><script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" async="" charset="utf-8"></script></p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>
The passive aggressive way <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog">@SCOTUSblog</a> is answering right now is horrible considering the position they just put women in. Not okay.</p>
<p>— Dumb of the Day (@WollyWollenberg) <a href="https://twitter.com/WollyWollenberg/statuses/483660302677196800">June 30, 2014</a>
</p></blockquote>
<p><script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" async="" charset="utf-8"></script></p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>You are not the 1st &amp; won’t be the last <a href="https://twitter.com/JayRooTheDee">@JayRooTheDee</a>: everyone should tweet <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog">@SCOTUSblog</a> and tell them what we think of their misogyny.</p>
<p>— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/statuses/483654823510695936">June 30, 2014</a></p></blockquote>
<p><script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" async="" charset="utf-8"></script></p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>
We prefer them as our editor &amp; manager. RT <a href="https://twitter.com/Allout1">@Allout1</a> I guess <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog">@SCOTUSblog</a> wants women barefoot, pregnant and cooking dinner.</p>
<p>— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/statuses/483756731429056512">June 30, 2014</a>
</p></blockquote>
<p><script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" async="" charset="utf-8"></script></p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>We put them in closets, dear RT <a href="https://twitter.com/sufferfest">@sufferfest</a>: <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog">@SCOTUSblog</a> = Hitler. Keep your black robes out of my vagina!</p>
<p>— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/statuses/483784957631160320">July 1, 2014</a></p></blockquote>
<p><script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" async="" charset="utf-8"></script></p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>
How did we get something so obvious so wrong MT <a href="https://twitter.com/leiacunning">@leiacunning</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog">@SCOTUSblog</a> Your complete misunderstanding of the issues scr@wed American women</p>
<p>— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/statuses/483741293810819073">June 30, 2014</a>
</p></blockquote>
<p><script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" async="" charset="utf-8"></script></p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>#2: read a twitter bio RT <a href="https://twitter.com/bradleytroth">@bradleytroth</a>: <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog">@SCOTUSblog</a> things a real person can do a corporation can’t: adopt a child.</p>
<p>— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/statuses/483790448256118784">July 1, 2014</a></p></blockquote>
<p><script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" async="" charset="utf-8"></script></p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>
We thought blogging seemed very 21st century. MT <a href="https://twitter.com/Iiuslep">@Iiuslep</a>: <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog">@SCOTUSblog</a> want to obliterate any progressive acheivement of 20th century.</p>
<p>— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/statuses/483629641232441344">June 30, 2014</a>
</p></blockquote>
<p><script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" async="" charset="utf-8"></script></p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>It’s a secret. MT <a href="https://twitter.com/GilaGal">@GilaGal</a>: <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog">@SCOTUSblog</a> Why do you want to destroy lawyer/client and doctor/patient confidentially?!</p>
<p>— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/statuses/483244516552769536">June 29, 2014</a></p></blockquote>
<p><script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" async="" charset="utf-8"></script></p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>
How did you come up with your twitter handle? RT <a href="https://twitter.com/boortzthebozo">@boortzthebozo</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog">@SCOTUSblog</a> You&#8217;ll be the death of this republic.</p>
<p>— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/statuses/483719002083303424">June 30, 2014</a>
</p></blockquote>
<p><script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" async="" charset="utf-8"></script></p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Sry MT <a href="https://twitter.com/calph7">@calph7</a>: Hilarious that <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog">@SCOTUSblog</a> is mocking lay persons’ opinions. They don’t care, they’re their own branch of gov’t!</p>
<p>— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/statuses/483755458659123200">June 30, 2014</a></p></blockquote>
<p><script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" async="" charset="utf-8"></script></p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>
You understand our government perfectly. MT <a href="https://twitter.com/levenah">@levenah</a>: I’m sure the <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog">@SCOTUSblog</a> is going to rule for hobby lobby bc religion runs the US.</p>
<p>— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/statuses/483418710917791744">June 30, 2014</a>
</p></blockquote>
<p><script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" async="" charset="utf-8"></script></p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Glass half full? MT <a href="https://twitter.com/folkpants">@folkpants</a>: <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog">@SCOTUSblog</a>, your RTs aren’t funny. You’re laughing at causing half the population to fear their futures.</p>
<p>— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/statuses/483770700160057344">July 1, 2014</a></p></blockquote>
<p><script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" async="" charset="utf-8"></script></p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>
Soooooo superior MT <a href="https://twitter.com/rappublicist">@rappublicist</a>: <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog">@SCOTUSblog</a> Tx for taking us back to middle ages a@@wipes. So ashamed to be american WAIT I’m British</p>
<p>— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/statuses/483701592432996352">June 30, 2014</a>
</p></blockquote>
<p><script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" async="" charset="utf-8"></script></p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>It won’t be televised here MT <a href="https://twitter.com/cjnkira">@cjnkira</a>: <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog">@SCOTUSblog</a> you ruled against the working people, especially women, today. Revolution is coming.</p>
<p>— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/statuses/483620564636930049">June 30, 2014</a></p></blockquote>
<p><script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" async="" charset="utf-8"></script></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/lefties-angry-over-hobby-lobby-confuse-blog-wsupreme-court-hilarity-ensues/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court Rebukes Obama Lawlessness</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/matthew-vadum/supreme-court-rebukes-obama-lawlessness/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=supreme-court-rebukes-obama-lawlessness</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/matthew-vadum/supreme-court-rebukes-obama-lawlessness/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2014 04:53:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matthew Vadum]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recess appointment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ruling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Senate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=235090</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The unanimous decision rejecting the president's "recess" appointments. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/court-gavel.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-235092" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/court-gavel-450x337.jpg" alt="court-gavel" width="271" height="203" /></a>In a humiliating rebuke to President Obama, the Supreme Court affirmed in a labor relations case yesterday that there continue to be constitutionally prescribed limits to the powers of the nation&#8217;s Chief Executive.</p>
<p>The Court invalidated three recess appointments the president made in an attempt to unconstitutionally manipulate federal labor relations policy.</p>
<p>Justices held unanimously in <i>National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning</i> Thursday that Obama overreached on Jan. 4, 2012 when he recess-appointed three members to the NLRB without bothering to wait for the U.S. Senate to recess. Obama’s goal was to pack the under-staffed NLRB with likeminded leftists and give the board the quorum it previously lacked to conduct official business.</p>
<p>Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) lauded the Court&#8217;s clampdown on “President Obama’s unlawful abuse of the president’s recess appointments power.”</p>
<p>“This marks the 12th time since January 2012 that the Supreme Court has unanimously rejected the Obama administration’s calls for greater federal executive power,” Cruz said.</p>
<p>A delighted Michael Savage said on his radio show: &#8220;America just won a 9-to-0 victory over an emerging dictatorship.&#8221; (The full opinion is available at the Supreme Court&#8217;s <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1281_bodg.pdf">website</a>.)</p>
<p>In this post-constitutional era in which the Supreme Court gave its imprimatur to the nonsensical ruling in <i>NFIB v. Sebelius</i>, the vile pro-Obamacare decision that has been aptly compared to an infamous slavery-reinforcing ruling that helped to precipitate civil war, it remains to be seen what, if any, other limits to governmental power the Court will see fit to recognize. Ben Shapiro correctly <a href="http://www.creators.com/opinion/ben-shapiro/the-worst-ruling-since-dred-scott.html">characterized</a> the tortuously reasoned Obamacare decision as &#8220;the greatest single judicial limitation on American liberty since <i>Dred Scott v. Sandford</i> (1857), in which the Supreme Court ruled that under the Constitution, blacks were not human beings.&#8221;</p>
<p>The lawsuit disposed of yesterday was brought by Noel Canning of Washington state, the owner of a soft drink bottling and distribution company who was displeased by a ruling the board made against him after its quorum was restored by the purported recess appointments. The NLRB found that Canning&#8217;s firm engaged in unfair labor practices by declining to sign a collective bargaining agreement. Canning argued the board had no legal authority to render the decision because the president&#8217;s recess appointments, made when the U.S. Senate did not consider itself to be in recess, were improper.</p>
<p>The Recess Appointments Clause (Article II, Section 2, Clause 3) of the U.S. Constitution states, &#8220;The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.&#8221;</p>
<p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit previously sided with Canning and his company, finding that the president may make recess appointments only when the Senate is in recess between numbered sessions of Congress, and only then if the vacancy arose in that same time span. The high court concurred, finding that the president cannot arrogate to himself the power to determine when the Senate is in recess. It is for the Senate to judge when it is in recess.</p>
<p>“We hold that, for purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause, the Senate is in session when it says it is, provided that, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the majority decision for the high court.</p>
<p>During oral arguments earlier this year, nearly every member of the Supreme Court questioned the constitutionality of Obama’s NLRB appointments.</p>
<p>Chief Justice John Roberts defended the Senate’s constitutional prerogative to approve nominees as a vital check on an out-of-control executive branch. Senators “have an absolute right not to confirm nominees that the president submits,” he said.</p>
<p>Left-leaning Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee who had served as the president&#8217;s solicitor general, told government counsel, “The history is entirely on the Senate’s side, not your side.”</p>
<p>However, in rendering their decision this week the justices split over whether to preserve the president&#8217;s recess appointment powers.</p>
<p>As Daniel Greenfield <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/supreme-court-obamas-recess-appointments-violated-constitution/">noted</a>, &#8220;There was no Supreme Court disagreement as to whether Obama’s recess appointments were illegal. Instead the liberal majority protected the recess appointment, while conservatives dissented.&#8221;</p>
<p>Justice Antonin Scalia indicated he agreed with the result in the case but chided the liberal members of the Court. “The majority practically bends over backwards to ensure that recess appointments will remain a powerful weapon in the president’s arsenal,” he said.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, the new ruling calls into question every order issued by the NLRB since the date the appointments were made.</p>
<p>The AFL-CIO&#8217;s Marxist president, Richard Trumka, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/what-does-the-supreme-courts-nlrb-ruling-mean-for-hundreds-of-labor-cases/2014/06/26/3a20a1fe-fd4f-11e3-b1f4-8e77c632c07b_story.html">downplayed</a> the significance of the decision:</p>
<blockquote><p>The impact of [Thursday’s] ruling is far less than it might have been, because there is now a full complement of Senate-confirmed members of the NLRB and a Senate-confirmed NLRB general counsel.</p></blockquote>
<p>But Thomas J. Donahue, CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, hailed the court decision, calling it &#8220;a victory for the rule of law.” He added, “the president’s unprecedented recess appointments left the NLRB in legal limbo, causing major uncertainty for both employers and employees alike.”</p>
<p>Last summer the labor board got five Senate-confirmed members for the first time in years as part of a political deal between Senate Democrats and Republicans. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) pressured Republicans by threatening to enact the &#8220;nuclear option&#8221; to eliminate filibusters for most presidential nominations. The deal moved forward but Reid and his allies went ahead and changed the filibuster rule anyway.</p>
<p>Incidentally, the NLRB itself shouldn’t even exist. It is a socialist anachronism left over from the New Deal that Obama uses to create new rules and regulations without having to go the normal route and ask Congress to pass a law. Obama’s toadies at the NLRB are hellbent on making America more like bureaucratic, dysfunctional Europe where labor violence and union-caused disruptions are everyday occurrences.</p>
<p>It is worth recalling that two of the three recess-appointment labor board members were professional leftists.</p>
<p>At the time of his appointment Richard Griffin was general counsel for the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE). Since 1994 he had served on the board of directors for the AFL-CIO Lawyers Coordinating Committee.</p>
<p>When she was recess-appointed, Sharon Block was Deputy Assistant Secretary for Congressional Affairs at the U.S. Department of Labor. Between 2006 and 2009, Block was Senior Labor and Employment Counsel for the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee where she worked for the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.).</p>
<p>Appointee Terence F. Flynn, who had served as Chief Counsel to NLRB board member Brian Hayes, didn’t stick around long enough to influence much at the NLRB. He resigned four months into his term after an official probe was launched into allegations that he unlawfully leaked internal documents to a Republican colleague. Flynn denied any wrongdoing.</p>
<p>But the <i>Canning</i> decision wasn&#8217;t the only pro-freedom court ruling yesterday.</p>
<p>The New York State Court of Appeals <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/nyregion/city-loses-final-appeal-on-limiting-sales-of-large-sodas.html?_r=0">killed</a> former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg&#8217;s wildly unpopular law that prohibited the sale of sugar beverages in containers exceeding 16 fluid ounces.</p>
<p>Writing for the court&#8217;s majority, Judge Eugene F. Pigott Jr. determined that New York City&#8217;s Board of Health “exceeded the scope of its regulatory authority” in enacting the measure that residents resented because it limited their choices as consumers.</p>
<p>The city&#8217;s new far-left chief executive, Bill de Blasio, whined about the court decision, saying he was &#8220;extremely disappointed.&#8221; The mayor promised to seek out new ways to microscopically meddle in the affairs of New Yorkers.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-N.Y.), who frequently excuses his sometimes jaw-dropping political timidity by asserting that Republican control of the House of Representatives represents control of one-half of one-third of the federal government, <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/25/liberal-law-professor-jonathan-turley-thinks-congress-could-win-their-new-lawsuit-against-obama/?advD=1248,53299">filed a lawsuit</a> in which House Republicans speak for all of Congress.</p>
<p>&#8220;In my view the president has not faithfully executed the laws,&#8221; Boehner told reporters as he explained the legal action aimed at curbing Obama&#8217;s nearly daily overreaches.</p>
<p>Although some question whether House Republicans have proper legal standing to sue, leftist law professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University said the action has a decent shot at succeeding.</p>
<p>Referring to President Obama&#8217;s increasing unilateralism, Turley said “there’s no license for going it alone in our system.”</p>
<p>“I think there is a case against the president for exceeding his authority,” Turley said. “I happen to agree with the president on many of his priorities and policies, but as I testified in Congress I think he has crossed the constitutional line.”</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/matthew-vadum/supreme-court-rebukes-obama-lawlessness/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court: Obama&#8217;s Recess Appointments Violated Constitution</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/supreme-court-obamas-recess-appointments-violated-constitution/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=supreme-court-obamas-recess-appointments-violated-constitution</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/supreme-court-obamas-recess-appointments-violated-constitution/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2014 16:30:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[The Point]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NLRB]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=234994</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is the 12th time the Supreme Court unanimously challenged Obama's executive power]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Judge-Gavel.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-234995" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Judge-Gavel-450x257.jpg" alt="Judge-Gavel" width="450" height="257" /></a></p>
<p>The Supreme Court stood up to Obama. It was a unanimous decision, but not entirely so.</p>
<p>There was no <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/us/supreme-court-president-recess-appointments.html?_r=0">Supreme Court disagreement as to whether</a> Obama&#8217;s <a href="http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/06/26/obama-recess-appointments-illegal-unanimous-supreme-court-finds">recess appointments were illegal</a>. Instead the liberal majority protected the recess appointment, while conservatives dissented.</p>
<blockquote><p>The Supreme Court on Thursday said President Obama had violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate to appoint officials to the National Labor Relations Board during a brief break in the Senate’s work.</p>
<p>But the larger message of the court’s majority opinion, written by Justice Stephen G. Breyer and joined by its four more liberal members, was that there is a role for recess appointments so long as they are made during a recess of 10 or more days.</p>
<p>Justice Antonin Scalia agreed with the result in the case but issued a caustic concurrence from the bench. “The majority practically bends over backwards to ensure that recess appointments will remain a powerful weapon in the president’s arsenal,” he said.</p>
<p>“We hold that, for pur­poses of the Recess Appointments Clause, the Senate is in session when it says it is, provided that, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the majority decision.</p>
<p>Having concluded that the Senate was in session during pro forma sessions, the majority provided historical context showing how unprecedented the NLRB appointments were.</p>
<p>“[T]hough Congress has taken short breaks for almost 200 years, and there have been many thousands of recess appointments in that time, we have not found a single example of a recess ap­pointment made during an intrasession recess that was shorter than 10 days,” Breyer wrote. “Nor has the solicitor general.”</p>
<p>Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Breyer’s decision.</p>
<p>Justice Antonin Scalia concurred in the judgment, but wrote a separate opinion describing recess appointments as an anachronism in an age of high-tech communication devices. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas signed on to Scalia&#8217;s opinion.</p>
<p>Scalia’s opinion sought to further constrain executive power, saying recess appointments are only constitutional when vacancies arise during a true recess, and expressed concern about the standards set by the majority.</p>
<p>“The majority replaces the Constitution’s text with a new set of judge-made rules to govern recess appointments,” Scalia wrote.</p>
<p>Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, cheered the court&#8217;s check on &#8220;President Obama’s unlawful abuse of the president’s recess appointments power.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;This marks the 12th time since January 2012 that the Supreme Court has unanimously rejected the Obama administration’s calls for greater federal executive power,&#8221; Cruz said in a press release.</p>
<p>Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., responded to the ruling by urging reform to Senate rules that require a 60-member majority to move legislation and nominations.</p></blockquote>
<p>The interesting question is whether the liberal justices would have even gone this far if Reid hadn&#8217;t declared war on the filibuster.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/supreme-court-obamas-recess-appointments-violated-constitution/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>From Latma to &#8216;Yisrael Hayom&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/caroline-glick/from-latma-to-yisrael-hayom/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=from-latma-to-yisrael-hayom</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/caroline-glick/from-latma-to-yisrael-hayom/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2014 04:20:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Caroline Glick]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public broadcasting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=225684</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Popular media reforms thwarted in Israel -- to benefit the Left. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/610.jpg"><img class="wp-image-225693 alignleft" alt="610" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/610-450x289.jpg" width="270" height="173" /></a>Originally published by the <a href="http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Column-One-From-Latma-to-Yisrael-Hayom-352433">Jerusalem Post</a>. </em></p>
<p>Last Sunday, the government passed what was billed as a major reform in Israeli broadcasting.</p>
<p>The cabinet voted 18-2 to eliminate the fee the public is forced to pay to finance public broadcasting, shut down the public broadcasting authority and open a new public broadcasting authority that will be unfettered by the wreckage of the old one.</p>
<p>The problem with the bill that was approved by the government for submission to the Knesset is that the larger problem with public broadcasting remained unaddressed. The main reason that members of the public railed against the fee is that they don’t like what they are paying for. By and large, with a few notable exceptions, public broadcasting’s offerings are unoriginal, uninteresting and poorly done.</p>
<p>Moreover, they either reflect the worldview of the narrow post-Zionist sliver of the population or signify nothing at all.</p>
<p>The decision to close the broadcast authority and reopen it under another name while canceling the fee is a net positive achievement. But it was also a missed opportunity.</p>
<p>At the last moment, Justice Minister Tzipi Livni inserted radical amendments in the bill to ensure that the price of reform will be maintaining public broadcasting as a subsidized platform for the radical Left.</p>
<p>The original bill, written by Communications Minister Gilad Erdan and co-sponsored by Finance Minister Yair Lapid, gave authority to a committee to nominate an unlimited number of candidates to serve on the new broadcast authority’s nine-member board of directors. The committee was to be chaired by an unelected, retired Supreme Court justice or district court judge, and manned by two other members appointed by the judge.</p>
<p>In the original draft, the judge was supposed to give the list to the minister of communications, who would be empowered to accept or veto the individual names on the list. While this system would give the retired judges enormous power to impose their political ideology on the public broadcasting system, the minister would retain some limited power to block this corruption of broadcasting independence. As new ministers are appointed every few years from different political parties, in all likelihood the minister’s power would ensure some degree of political diversity among committee members.</p>
<p>Livni’s amendment took the minister’s power away. Her version – which Erdan accepted and the government approved – gives the judge the power to present a closed nine-person list to the minister and the minister can either approve or reject the entire list.</p>
<p>So, too, the original bill gave the minister and the government ultimate power to fire the general director of the new authority. Under Livni’s amended version, only the judge has that power.</p>
<p>So who is this all-powerful unelected judge? Since the overwhelming majority of Supreme Court justices are radical leftists, it is fair to assume that the judge will be a radical leftist.</p>
<p>There is some wiggle room to be had since retired district court judges can also run the committee and there are more non-radicals among them. But the law of averages leans heavily in favor of the radical Left.</p>
<p>The result is that the new bill not only ensures ideological conformity in the committee, by granting a single person essentially all the power to choose the committee, it ensures that the ideological conformity will almost certainly be leftist.</p>
<p>This is what the Left does. It quashes independent thought while insinuating its members in every position it can to prevent an open exchange in the marketplace of ideas.</p>
<p>As a consequence, Israel’s news and entertainment industries are by and large closed to Zionist voices.</p>
<p>Consider the saga of Latma. I founded Latma, a Hebrew-language satirical media criticism website funded by private philanthropists, in February 2009. Our flagship satirical news broadcast, The Tribal Update, premiered in May 2009.</p>
<p>Latma’s purpose was to entertain viewers while focusing attention on the sacred cows of the Leftist elites that control the media, the legal system and academia. Until Latma’s appearance, those elites had been immune from effective criticism.</p>
<p>The result was immediate and overwhelming. Three months after we launched it, The Tribal Update became the most-watched Israeli Internet broadcast. Within a year of its launch, Latma had garnered international attention and tens of millions of hits.</p>
<p>Many in the broadcast industry were certain that if Latma’s Tribal Update were broadcast on television, it would become the most popular satirical television show in decades. And yet, neither of the commercial television stations showed any interest.</p>
<p>That left state television. As the station that supposedly exists to provide a platform to underserved sectors of the public, Channel 1 seemed like a reasonable fit for our show.</p>
<p>And indeed, in 2010, it solicited a pilot broadcast, which it immediately accepted. The station’s leadership opened negotiations toward signing a contract to produce a season of the show. But then they disappeared, only to reappear, and then disappear, again and again.</p>
<p>Over the past four years, Latma passed through every committee charged with approving new broadcasts multiple times. But we never received a contract.</p>
<p>Last fall, the Knesset’s Education Committee intervened. MK Ayelet Shaked from Bayit Yehudi demanded that Channel 1 account for its treatment of Latma.</p>
<p>Committee chairman Amram Mitzna, from Livni’s far-left Hatnua party, ordered the station to immediately sign a contract with us.</p>
<p>Three months later, when nothing happened, another meeting was called, and despite his ideological affinity with Latma’s opponents, Mitzna again gallantly ordered Channel 1 to sign a contract with Latma.</p>
<p>It may still happen. Our producer recently met with the station’s executives and had a productive negotiations session.</p>
<p>But even if there is a happy end to the story, the saga Latma has undergone as an avowedly Zionist content producer has no precedent.</p>
<p>At a minimum, Livni’s intervention in the new broadcast law will ensure that if and when shows like Latma’s Tribal Update appear on public television, their appearances will be rare.</p>
<p>The only way to remedy the situation in the media business as a whole is to deregulate it. The only way that all voices can be heard is if there is no one regulating any voices.</p>
<p>But rather than strip away the power of the ideologically uniform regulators, rightist politicians give them more power. And so they collaborate with the Left to perpetuate a system that is inherently discriminatory against them, and against their ideological camps, which comprise the majority of the population.</p>
<p>Consider the Internet. On Tuesday, The Wall Street Journal ran an article describing the changes that online video content is fomenting in the advertising industry. US advertising industry leaders project that by 2018, the majority of US advertising dollars will be spent on online platforms rather than traditional television networks.</p>
<p>As in the US, so in Israel. Online content producers – such as Latma – are taking away an ever-expanding segment of viewership from television stations.</p>
<p>And this is altogether reasonable. Unrestrained by “objective” regulators, online content producers can put out anything they want. Unlike traditional broadcasters, Internet content creators stand or fall on the quality of their output rather than the strength of their political connections and the nature of their politics.</p>
<p>Rather than protect the only free, accessible marketplace of ideas in Israel, in February Erdan formed a new committee, composed largely of regulators. It is tasked with determining how to regulate the media market in the era of Internet in order to protect the commercial viability of the commercial broadcast stations – which are run by members of the closed club of post-Zionist broadcasters.</p>
<p>In other words, the new committee is to find ways to limit Internet speech in order to ensure that consumers have limited choices.</p>
<p>The situation in print media is similarly discouraging.</p>
<p>In March, lawmakers from coalition parties co-sponsored a bill whose clear purpose is to shut down the free nationwide daily Yisrael Hayom, owned by American Jewish casino magnate and conservative philanthropist Sheldon Adelson.</p>
<p>The bill would require all nationally circulated dailies to charge consumers a fee, thus rendering Yisrael Hayom’s business model illegal.</p>
<p>Until Yisrael Hayom appeared on the scene seven years ago, all mass circulation Hebrew-language daily newspapers in Israel – together with television and radio news shows – were uniformly antagonistic toward Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.</p>
<p>Yisrael Hayom is not a right-wing newspaper. According to reporters who work for Yisrael Hayom, all of its editors and reporters, aside from a few sports reporters, are leftists. And their views are reflected in the paper’s coverage of events, albeit to a somewhat lesser degree than in competing papers.</p>
<p>And yet, from the moment it appeared on the market, Yediot Aharonot, its main competitor, and Ma’ariv, Yediot’s chronically bankrupt clone and competitor, tried to get it outlawed. The current bill is Yediot’s friendly legislators’ sixth attempt to pass a law to close down the competition.</p>
<p>The most distressing thing about the current bill is that it is co-sponsored by Shaked and supported by the Habayit Hayehudi party leader, Economy Minister Naftali Bennett.</p>
<p>While it is absolutely true that Yisrael Hayom favors Netanyahu over Bennett and Shaked, it is also true that Yediot and Haaretz favor the post-Zionist Meretz party over them.</p>
<p>Closing Yisrael Hayom won’t ensure them fair media coverage. The only way to get fair coverage is to strip all media outlets of government protection – and of government regulation.</p>
<p>Yisrael Hayom published an article the other day arguing – rightly – that the Knesset bill is unconstitutional because it breaches Israel’s Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation, and infringes on freedom of expression. The subtext of the article was that if the law is passed, the paper will petition the Supreme Court.</p>
<p>But that would be futile. The Supreme Court isn’t in the business of protecting rights. It is in the business of protecting the Left. For its sin of supporting Netanyahu, Yisrael Hayom can expect the court to trample its rights just as it trampled Arutz 7’s rights in 2002 when it absurdly ruled that it was unconstitutional to allow Arutz 7 a broadcast license.</p>
<p>And so the vicious circle will continue. Leftist judges will appoint leftist regulators. The regulators will act in concert with leftist broadcasters to block Zionist voices and to destroy non-leftist competition. Shortsighted right-wing politicians will collaborate with this corruption to win tactical victories against their opponents, while accepting strategic defeat in the war of ideas.</p>
<p>This is our system. And until our leaders open the marketplace of ideas to competition, our system it shall remain.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/caroline-glick/from-latma-to-yisrael-hayom/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>14</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>One Cheer for the Schuette Decision</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-thornton/one-cheer-for-the-schuette-decision/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=one-cheer-for-the-schuette-decision</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-thornton/one-cheer-for-the-schuette-decision/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2014 04:56:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bruce Thornton]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Affirmative Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ban]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Race]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Racism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Schuette Decision]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=224237</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The devious methods universities use to ignore bans on racial preferences. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/scotusbuilding.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-224239" alt="scotusbuilding" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/scotusbuilding-450x337.jpg" width="315" height="236" /></a>Many conservatives are applauding the recent Supreme Court </span><i style="line-height: 1.5em;">Schuette</i><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> decision upholding the right of the citizens of Michigan to ban racial preferences. As Charles Krauthammer </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/376512/let-people-decide-charles-krauthammer">writes</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">, the 2003 </span><i style="line-height: 1.5em;">Grutter</i><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> decision, which like </span><i style="line-height: 1.5em;">Schuette</i><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> did not ban racial preferences altogether, was correct: “The people should decide. The people responded accordingly. Three years later, they crafted a referendum to abolish race consciousness in government action. It passed overwhelmingly, 58 percent to 42 percent. </span><i style="line-height: 1.5em;">Schuette</i><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> completes the circle by respecting the constitutionality of that democratic decision.”</span></p>
<p>This approval of <i>Schuette</i>, however, ignores 2 problems. The first is that a state’s ban on racial preferences doesn’t end racial preferences; it just spurs universities to find more creative and subtle ways to take race into account. Second, it leaves in place the duplicitous, ideological, and incoherent doctrine of “diversity” that ever since the 1978 <i>Bakke </i>decision has been the “compelling state interest” justifying taking race or sex into account.</p>
<p>In November of 1996 the voters of California passed Proposition 209, the Civil Rights Initiative, which amended the state constitution to forbid the state from “discriminat[ing] against or grant[ing] preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.” Yet despite the clear-cut legal prohibition, race-based preferences and policies live on in California higher education.</p>
<p>Take, for example, the process of hiring faculty in the California State University system. Despite the “end of affirmative action,” every hiring committee still must have an “affirmative action” representative, which after Proposition 209 was renamed the “Equal Employment Opportunity designee.” Despite the name change, the EEO designee performs the same function based on the same assumptions the voters supposedly rejected. The purpose of this representative is not to make sure the most qualified and suitable person is chosen for the position regardless of race, sex, or any factor forbidden by the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The EEO designee can be from any department on campus, and so in most cases will not have much awareness of the qualifications required for the position. Yet despite this lack of knowledge, no hire can go forward without the EEO representative’s approving signature at every step of the process, in order to make sure no qualified minority candidate has been unjustly passed over. But by definition the only “qualification” that matters to the EEO designee will be race or sex.</p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Other race-based procedures in hiring are still in place. All the applicants in the pool are identified by race and sex, and this information is part of the hiring process. When finalists are invited for campus visits, their race and sex, and the race and sex of the hiring committee members, are identified and made part of the process as well. If “preferential treatment” based on race or sex has been presumably outlawed in California, why is this information still being gathered and made part of the hiring process in a state-funded institution? Moreover, informal pressure can be brought to bear by deans and provosts to encourage taking race and sex into account. For example, a position can be approved, or an additional position granted, with the verbal proviso that a minority candidate is the finalist.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Nor has Proposition 209 prevented race from being factored into admission decisions. Any applicant with a Hispanic surname – no matter how privileged, or even if he is a Caucasian from Spain or Latin America – will be assumed to add “diversity” to the campus community and given an advantage over a better qualified white applicant. Universities also can add a proxy for race such as “overcoming challenges or difficulties” or “obstacles overcome,” code for experiencing racism and prejudice, and weight those subjective factors enough to overcome any deficiencies in grades or test scores. This sort of “holistic score” is already in use, and some research indicates that it functions as a substitute for race. Richard Sander’s study of UCLA’s admissions procedures found that a higher percentage of blacks and Latinos are accepted than are whites and Asians with the same “holistic score.”</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">The second, and more pernicious problem, is the idea itself of “diversity,” the conceptual sleight-of-hand that allowed Justice Powell in the </span><i style="line-height: 1.5em;">Bakke</i><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> case to rationalize the continuing use of race in college admissions even as he was compelled to acknowledge that most affirmative action programs at that time were simply naked quota systems in clear violation of the Civil Rights Act. Powell argued that only a “compelling state interest” could justify exceptions to the Civil Rights Act’s ban on discrimination by race, and that “diversity” and its presumed benefits to higher education was indeed such a “state interest.” </span><i style="line-height: 1.5em;">Schuette</i><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> has left this dubious rationale in place, thus justifying the sort of trickery outlined above. But this “diversity” is a dishonest and incoherent concept, masking an ideologically skewed interpretation of history in which the wicked white man has oppressed and excluded the dark-skinned “other.”</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Proponents of diversity hide this racialist and ideologically loaded idea by using the old-fashioned bait-and-switch. Diversity, they tell us, is just about acknowledging and respecting the ethnic and cultural differences that make up the wonderful mosaic of American society, and ensuring that the university campus represents and benefits from that diversity. But the call to respect the various cultures comprising American identity is nothing new, and existed long before “diversity” became university dogma. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">At the beginning of this century, for example, the vast influx of immigrants from Slavic countries and the southern Mediterranean sharpened the debate between what was then called “pluralism” and “assimilation.” Nor were melting-pot assimilationists the only point of view heard. Pluralists at that time made the same argument the diversicrats make today, as can be seen in this statement from 1937: “No one culture contains all favorable elements, but each group that makes up the total American population has unique values, and . . . the nation will be richer and finer in its cultural make-up if it, the country, conserves the best that each group has brought.” The writer goes on to argue that “the fundamentals of their heritages be preserved for generations.”</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">For most of this century, then, there were those who argued against completely assimilating away cultural differences that they recognized contributed to American identity. But if the call to acknowledge and “respect cultural differences” is nothing new, then what really characterizes current “diversity” doctrine? It is the identity-politics melodrama of white Western oppression and intrinsic racism, which explains the various contradictions and incoherent assumptions of diversity as it is actually practiced.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Real diversity is enormous in its variety, encompassing scores of ethnic groups, economic strata, regions, political views, and religions, to name a few, not to mention the various possible combinations of these categories. A poor, Catholic, Mexican-Indian immigrant farm worker from Oaxaca, for example, has a very different identity from that of a middle-class, secularized, suburban 3</span><sup style="line-height: 1.5em;">rd</sup><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">-generation mestizo Mexican-American from Menlo Park. The fact that their surnames are “Hispanic” doesn’t tell us anything about what each can contribute to campus “diversity.” The middle-class Mexican-American will probably have more in common with a middle-class white kid than with the Indian immigrant. Yet in the university, the second “Hispanic” applicant will be courted and presumed to offer more “diversity” than a poor rural white kid who resembles in many respects the Indian farm worker.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Here is the illogic of most universities’ idea of “diversity”: it functions in terms of stereotypical, simplistic race-based categories that ignore all the other ways in which people are diverse, all the other benefits of those particular “diversities” that could enrich the university. Certainly most universities today, dogmatically secular and philosophically materialist as they are, could use the diversity that more religious believers could bring. And given that faculties overwhelmingly comprise progressives and leftists, a concern with genuine diversity would demand active recruitment of conservative students and faculties.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Moreover, of all the various categories of diversity, whether ethnic, economic, political, or religious, most universities are really interested in only a few, those minorities that the Civil Rights industry recognizes: Hispanic, black, and occasionally any Third-World “person of color” (the disproportionate academic success of Asians has banished them from this select group). Less politically connected groups, however, simply don’t count. Armenians were subjected to genocide in Turkey and discriminated against in California for decades, but they’re not considered to be as “diverse” as a black dentist’s son who grew up in the suburbs. Many other ethnic groups, such as Portuguese, Italians, Russians, Sikhs, or Poles, are lumped together into the meaningless category “white” and thus are deemed irrelevant for increasing campus diversity. Finally, economic class doesn’t count when it comes to campus diversity. Poor minority students, and poor white students, for that matter, are underrepresented on university campuses––at the 200 most selective universities, only 5% come from the bottom 25% of the income scale. Indeed, 92% of blacks at elite colleges are from the top 50%.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">This brings us to the real basis for institutionalizing diversity: not to give voice to the actual variety of Americans in terms of culture, religion, politics, economic status, or region, and to enrich college campuses with that genuine diversity, but to privilege the anointed victims of white oppression, reinforce progressive ideology, and pressure governments and institutions to make reparations for that history. This ideology in turn serves the race industry and its parent company the Democratic Party, which implements policies that benefit that industry and big government bureaucracies, at the same time creating political clients for both.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">“Letting the people choose,” as </span><i style="line-height: 1.5em;">Schuette </i><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">does, will not prevent universities from using race, or remove the rationale for discrimination that serves the ideology corrupting American universities. And it does not address the Supreme Court’s inconsistent commitment to letting the people choose. The people of California chose traditional marriage when they passed Proposition 8, yet last year the Supreme Court by one vote refused to defend the right of the people to choose by invoking the litigants’ lack of standing (see Anthony Kennedy’s </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf">dissent</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">). Given these problems, one cheer is all the approval the </span><i style="line-height: 1.5em;">Schuette</i><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> decision deserves.</span></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-thornton/one-cheer-for-the-schuette-decision/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>17</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Michigan and the Backlash Against Race Preferences</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/michigan-and-the-backlash-against-race-preferences/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=michigan-and-the-backlash-against-race-preferences</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/michigan-and-the-backlash-against-race-preferences/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2014 04:56:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arnold Ahlert]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Affirmative Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ban]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michigan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Race]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[universities]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=223964</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Bans on affirmative action deemed constitutional as more states follow suit. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/shutterstock_126388292.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-223965" alt="shutterstock_126388292" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/shutterstock_126388292.jpg" width="320" height="210" /></a>In a 6-2 ruling reached yesterday, the United States Supreme Court </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/us/supreme-court-michigan-affirmative-action-ban.html?_r=0">upheld</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> Michigan’s ban on the use of race as a factor for determining college admissions. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy suggested the ban can also be extended to other arenas. &#8220;There is no authority in the federal constitution or in the precedents for the judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit to the voters the determination whether racial preferences may be considered in governmental decisions, in particular with respect to school admissions,&#8221; he wrote. Kennedy further clarified the Court’s intent. &#8220;This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved,” he explained. &#8220;It is about who may resolve it.” </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Michigan voters resolved it in 2006 when </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-upholds-michigan-affirmative-action-ban-n86626">58 percent</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> of the electorate approved </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.diversity.umich.edu/legal/prop2amend.php">Proposal 2</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">. It </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.diversity.umich.edu/legal/prop2faq.php">amended</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> the Michigan Constitution to &#8220;ban public institutions from discriminating against or giving preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public education, public employment, or public contracting.”</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">The move was a response to a 2003 Supreme Court ruling in </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-241.ZS.html">Grutter v. Bollinger</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">. In a 5-4 decision, the Court upheld the use of race as one of many factors used to determine admission to the University of Michigan (U-M) Law School as a means of ensuring educational diversity. Writing for the majority, Justice Sandra Day O&#8217;Connor </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://chronicle.com/article/Sandra-Day-OConnor-Revisit/63523/">indicated</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> that the decision had a likely time limit attached to it. &#8220;We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today,” she contended. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">The people of Michigan preferred not to wait that long. Nonetheless, the will of the electorate was thwarted in 2012 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati. In an 8-7 vote, the Court </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/12a0386p-06.pdf">ruled</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> that Proposal 2 violated the United States Constitution’s equal protection clause, using the reliably leftist argument that the elimination of racial preferences disproportionately affects those who would have been the beneficiaries of those preferences. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Writing for the majority, Judge R. Guy Cole Jr. proffered that specious argument. “A student seeking to have her family’s alumni connections considered in her application to one of Michigan’s esteemed public universities could do one of four things to have the school adopt a legacy-conscious admissions policy: she could lobby the admissions committee, she could petition the leadership of the university, she could seek to influence the school’s governing board, or, as a measure of last resort, she could initiate a statewide campaign to alter the state’s Constitution. The same cannot be said for a black student seeking the adoption of a constitutionally permissible race-conscious admissions policy. That student could do only one thing to effect change: she could attempt to amend the Michigan Constitution&#8211;a lengthy, expensive and arduous process&#8211;to repeal the consequences of Proposal 2.” </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">The disingenuousness of this reasoning is stark. Both students would have to engage in arduous efforts to get the school to adopt a particular policy, including equal efforts to effect a change in the state constitution. But because a legacy-conscious admissions policy offered additional avenues of </span><i style="line-height: 1.5em;">possible</i><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> redress, such alternatives constituted discrimination.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Dissenting Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton said his colleagues got it exactly backward. “A state does not deny equal treatment by mandating it,” he said, further contending  that the ruling “transforms a potential virtue of affirmative action into a vice. If there is one feature of affirmative action programs that favors their constitutionality, it is that they grow out of the democratic process.”  </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor made her disdain for the democratic process quite clear, insisting that &#8220;without checks, democratically approved legislation can oppress minority groups.” “The Constitution does not protect racial minorities from political defeat,” she continued. “But neither does it give the majority free rein to erect selective barriers against racial minorities.”</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Sotomayor is certainly right that democratically approved legislation </span><i style="line-height: 1.5em;">can</i><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> oppress minority groups, but the notion that the elimination of racial </span><i style="line-height: 1.5em;">preferences</i><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> constitutes oppression is absurd. And the only &#8220;selective barrier” erected here was the one that put </span><i style="line-height: 1.5em;">non</i><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">-minority students in a disadvantaged position with regard to college admissions. One can work hard to achieve better grades and test scores, or participate in any number of activities to enhance one’s chances of being accepted to a college. One can do nothing to alter one’s ethnicity.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">In fact the Supreme Court recognized that reality on the same day they ruled on Grutter v. Bollinger.  In </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-516.ZS.html">Gratz v. Bollinger,</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> the Court ruled 6-3 that the University of Michigan’s undergraduate policy, whereby “underrepresented” ethnic groups automatically received 20 points towards an admission score in which 100 points </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/admissions/legal/gratz/gratsumj.html">guaranteed</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> admission (compared to 12 points for a prefect SAT score) was unconstitutional. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice William Rehnquist </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://quizlet.com/39391386/constitutional-law-quiz-5-study-guide-flash-cards/">explained</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> that &#8220;predetermined point allocations&#8221; awarding 20 points to underrepresented minorities &#8220;ensures that the diversity contributions of applicants cannot be individually assessed,” thereby rendering the law unconstitutional.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.freep.com/article/20140422/NEWS06/304220075/Supreme-Court-upholds-Michigan-s-ban-on-affirmative-action-in-college-admissions">applauded</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> yesterday&#8217;s ruling. “The U.S. Supreme Court made the right call today,&#8221; he said. &#8220;Our state constitution requires equal treatment in college admissions, because it is fundamentally wrong to treat people differently based on the color of their skin. A majority of Michigan voters embraced the ideal of equal treatment in 2006, and today their decision was affirmed.” </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">George Washington, an attorney for the radical leftist group By Any Means Necessary (BAMN), offered the predictable over-the-top response. “This is a terrible ruling,” he contended. &#8220;It gives the white majority the right to deny black and Latinos the right to higher education. It is today’s Plessy v. Ferguson ruling. We will fight it by every means possible. The Supreme Court has made it clear they want to repeal the gains of the Civil Rights movement.”</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">His sentiments were undoubtedly shared by the Black Student Union. They have condemned the low level of minority enrollment at U-M, and earlier this year they told college officials they had seven days to meet a list of seven demands addressing lack of diversity and inclusion at the University or “physical actions” will be taken on campus. One of those demands included an increase of black student representation on campus from the current 4.6 percent to 10 percent.</span></p>
<p>University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman and admissions director Ted Spencer were undoubtedly <a href="http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2014/04/post_16.html">disappointed</a> as well. Both have denounced the affirmative action ban, contending the school cannot achieve a fully diverse student body as a result. &#8220;It&#8217;s impossible,&#8221; Spencer said in a recent interview, &#8220;to achieve diversity on a regular basis if race cannot be used as one of many factors.”</p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Philip Pucillo, a lecturer at Michigan State University’s law school and a constitutional law scholar, </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.freep.com/article/20140422/NEWS06/304220075/Supreme-Court-upholds-Michigan-s-ban-on-affirmative-action-in-college-admissions">cut through</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> the self-inflicted hysteria. “The court isn’t saying anything about whether a public university can have a race-related admissions process in this ruling, rather they are saying that there is nothing wrong with the voters of a state saying they can’t have it,” he explained.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Additional parts of Justice Kennedy’s comments clarified exactly that. &#8220;Were the Court to rule that the question addressed by Michigan voters is too sensitive or complex to be within the grasp of the electorate; or that the policies at issue remain too delicate to be resolved save by university officials or faculties, acting at some remove from immediate public scrutiny and control; or that these matters are so arcane that the electorate’s power must be limited because the people cannot prudently exercise that power even after a full debate, that holding would be an unprecedented restriction on the exercise of a fundamental right held not just by one person but by all in common,” he wrote. “It is the right to speak and debate and learn and then, as a matter of political will, to act through a lawful electoral process.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Left-leaning Justice Stephen Breyer made a similar argument. “I continue to believe that the Constitution permits, though it does not require, the use of the kind of race-conscious programs that are now barred by the Michigan Constitution. … But the Constitution foresees the ballot box, not the courts, as the normal instrument for resolving differences and debates about the merits of these programs,” he wrote.</span></p>
<p>The ruling will impact more than just Michigan. In California, <a href="http://www.theaggie.org/2014/04/18/legislation-to-allow-affirmative-action-in-california-colleges-halted/">backlash</a> largely from Asian community groups has forced legislators to shelve a bill that would have allowed race, gender and ethnicity to be considered for admissions in that state’s public universities. Six other states, <a href="http://www.freep.com/article/20140422/NEWS06/304220075/Supreme-Court-upholds-Michigan-s-ban-on-affirmative-action-in-college-admissions">including</a> Florida, Washington, Arizona, Nebraska, Oklahoma and New Hampshire already have bans similar to the one Michigan enacted. More states could follow.</p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">As the number of states departing from race politics orthodoxy grows, and as successful challenges to racial preferences at the high court also increase in number, the left&#8217;s stranglehold on race relations is becoming weaker and weaker. The rejection of race-based decision-making in such areas as employment and admissions has found wider acceptance among the population and in the halls of government; the sentiment is perhaps stronger than it has been in decades. These trends give hope that the era of race hatred and balkanization is approaching its end. </span></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/michigan-and-the-backlash-against-race-preferences/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>77</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Demonizing SCOTUS</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/matthew-vadum/demonizing-scotus/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=demonizing-scotus</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/matthew-vadum/demonizing-scotus/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2014 04:35:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matthew Vadum]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attack]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Center for American Progress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free Speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Protest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=223078</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Left launches an attack against conservative justices. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/o-SUPREME-COURT-facebook.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-223080" alt="o-SUPREME-COURT-facebook" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/o-SUPREME-COURT-facebook-450x350.jpg" width="315" height="245" /></a></span><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Left-wing activists and U.S. senators have launched a pressure campaign targeting the more conservative members of the Supreme Court in hopes of forcing them to abandon First Amendment protections in the Constitution.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">In the Left&#8217;s view, Americans and the corporations they use to make money can&#8217;t be allowed to freely express themselves politically by giving money to candidates for public office because that might halt the country&#8217;s ongoing slide into leftist chaos. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">American leftists have long believed that if they can&#8217;t get what they want through the ballot box, they&#8217;ll get it through the judicial system. If they can&#8217;t get what they want from the judges, they&#8217;ll smear and intimidate those judges, Hugo Chavez-style, until they give in. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Get ready for Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, and others to be viciously attacked and demonized by the Left using the techniques of </span><i style="line-height: 1.5em;">Rules for Radicals</i><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> author Saul Alinsky.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">In the manner of Soviet era propagandists, these neo-Marxist activists are planning to depict the nation&#8217;s highest court as a tool of the wealthy powers-that-be that conspire against middle-class families. Senate Majority Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has taken to the floor of the Senate to denounce wealthy libertarian donors Charles and David Koch, who underwrite many right-leaning causes.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Some strategists on the Left picture the new movement as a left-wing answer to the “Impeach Earl Warren” movement of the 1960s, which they say set the stage for the high court to become more conservative later on.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">According to </span><i style="line-height: 1.5em;">The Hill</i><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> newspaper, </span></p>
<blockquote><p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">&#8220;Democrats say the present-day court lacks the experience to understand the corrupting influence of money in politics, because none of its members have held publicly elected office. Warren served as governor of California before presiding as chief justice from 1953-1969, when the court issued landmark rulings celebrated by liberals in </span><i style="line-height: 1.5em;">Brown v. Board of Education</i><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> and </span><i style="line-height: 1.5em;">Miranda v. Arizona</i><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">.&#8221;</span></p></blockquote>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">But the current Supreme Court wishes &#8220;to dismantle all limits on giving, piece by piece, until we are back to the days of the robber barons, when anyone or anything could give unlimited money, undisclosed, and make our political system seem so rigged that everyone will lose interest in our democracy,” said Senate Rules Committee Chairman Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.). Schumer, incidentally, </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/schumers_plan_to_abolish_the_tea_party.html">laid out</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> a blueprint to destroy the Tea Party movement at the Center for American Progress Action Fund earlier this year.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">An added bonus to this new effort to influence the high court is that the Left&#8217;s agitation may help to pump up voter turnout in the November midterm elections by energizing the Democrats&#8217; extremist electoral base.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Sixties radical </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1170">Robert Borosage</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">, co-director of </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7331">Campaign for America’s Future</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">, said the Left&#8217;s “legal groups will be doing a full-fledged, increasingly severe critique of the court as a court for plutocrats.&#8221;</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Carrying their message of hatred and class warfare, activists and Democratic senators are accusing the conservative-leaning justices of acting out of political bias to further the Republican Party&#8217;s agenda. These radicals have it exactly backwards. The jurists deemed conservative don&#8217;t vote reliably as a bloc &#8212; but when they do they tend to be acting as </span><i style="line-height: 1.5em;">originalists</i><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> trying to faithfully interpret the Constitution without glomming a political agenda onto the plain meaning of the words. They are enforcing the great national charter, not rewriting it as the Left would prefer they do.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">These increasingly obnoxious groups are taking cues from President Obama who </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0110/Justice_Alitos_You_lie_moment.html">scolded</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> the assembled Supreme Court justices at the 2010 State of the Union address for upholding the First Amendment. In that speech the former part-time adjunct constitutional law lecturer misrepresented the landmark </span><i style="line-height: 1.5em;">Citizens United v. FEC</i><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> decision when he claimed it &#8220;reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections.&#8221; In response, Justice Samuel Alito was famously caught on camera mouthing the words &#8220;not true.&#8221; </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Georgetown University Law Center professor Randy Barnett offered a sports analogy to describe what these groups are now doing to the Supreme Court.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">“The Left clearly tried to work the refs on the Affordable Care Act,” Barnett said. “They worked the refs after </span><i style="line-height: 1.5em;">Citizens United</i><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">, which helped set things up for the Affordable Care Act challenge. If it seems to work, why not continue? It’s unfortunate, I think, that they’ve been encouraged in this behavior by its apparent success.”</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Democrats are also backing this campaign to distract from the Obama administration&#8217;s many failures, especially the bungled Affordable Care Act that has already taken health care insurance away from millions of Americans.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">“This very well likely is also about finding an issue other than health care and the economy in 2014,&#8221; Barnett said. &#8220;This is like attacking the Koch brothers from the floor of the Senate every other day. It’s another way of trying to gin up the base of the Democratic Party.”</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">In 2010 elected Democrats did chastise and attempt to embarrass Supreme Court justices during speeches in Congress after political spending provisions were circumscribed in </span><i style="line-height: 1.5em;">Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission</i><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">One popular rumor floating around the nation&#8217;s capital is that Chief Justice John Roberts infamously voted to uphold Obamacare in 2012 because he was stung by criticism and sought to prevent a similar blow-up from happening following the rendering of that decision.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">One of the groups trying to strong-arm the Supreme Court is the Progressive Change Campaign Committee which is running online ads encouraging supporters to back legislation that would fund political candidates with tax dollars.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">PCCC boasts that the far-left </span><i style="line-height: 1.5em;">Nation</i><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> magazine gave it an award for “Most Valuable Campaign” of 2011 and that MSNBC’s unhinged talk show host Ed Schultz has called PCCC “the top progressive group in the country.”</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Founded in 2009, the grassroots-funded PCCC </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://boldprogressives.org/2014/04/supreme-court-doubles-down-on-citizens-united-time-to-fight-back/">reacted</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> in horror April 2 when in </span><i style="line-height: 1.5em;">McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission</i><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> the Supreme Court struck down some of the limits on how much individuals can donate to electoral campaigns. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">&#8220;With those limits gone, it will be even harder for everyday people to have their voices heard in Washington. In response, PCCC is launching ads in Washington to make clear that not only should Congress pass a Constitutional Amendment to counteract the power of money in politics — it needs to pass the Government by the People Act, which would fit within recent Supreme Court rulings and would match small-dollar donations with public funds.&#8221;</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">The creepy corporatist legislation to which PCCC </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.demos.org/publication/government-people-act">refers</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> really ought to be called the Perpetuation of Big Government Forever Act. The measure would create a massive campaign contribution subsidy scheme paid for by U.S. taxpayers.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Specifically, it would form a Freedom from Influence Fund to match contributions of up to $150 to participating candidates 6-to-1 or more. It would provide a $25 refundable tax credit for small contributions and matching funds in the final 60 days of a general election for candidates in high-cost races. It would also create People PACs, or small donor committees, that aggregate the donations of individuals.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">According to their official website biographies, PCCC was founded by left-wing activists Stephanie Taylor and Adam Green. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Taylor, currently a Ph.D. candidate in American history at Georgetown University, is a veteran union organizer &#8220;and a pioneer in the area of scalable field, using technology and field to achieve results.&#8221; Green, who has a law degree from the University of Virginia, worked four years as Director of Strategic Campaigns and Civic Communications Director for MoveOn. Green was also press secretary for Sen. Tim Johnson&#8217;s (D-S.D.) 2002 re-election campaign. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">PCCC and its allies are gearing up in anticipation of the Supreme Court&#8217;s upcoming ruling in </span><i style="line-height: 1.5em;">Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc</i><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">. The court is expected to determine whether the federal mandate on employers to offer birth control coverage violates the Constitution.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Senate Rules Committee Chairman Schumer plan to conduct hearings on the </span><i style="line-height: 1.5em;">McCutcheon</i><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> decision, according to </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/202898-dems-the-left-seeking-to-demonize-justices#ixzz2yJrZkm00"><i>The Hill</i></a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> newspaper.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">After the ruling was released, Leahy said, “five justices once again have decided to rule on the side of moneyed interests and against the American people.”</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">It&#8217;s been said in political circles that personnel is policy. If that&#8217;s true, Americans should be very concerned about Leahy&#8217;s senior counsel at the Judiciary Committee. That lawyer is the race-obsessed radical </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/matthew-vadum/mumia-abu-jamals-lawyer-to-obamas-justice-department/">Debo Adegbile</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> who recently lost his fight to become the Justice Department&#8217;s top civil rights enforcer. The Senate rejected Adegbile&#8217;s nomination after conservative groups pointed out his support for unrepentant cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal. A staunch affirmative action supporter, Adegbile, formerly head of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, doesn’t appear to believe that white Americans are entitled to civil rights protection.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Meanwhile, the Left is essentially threatening to riot if the Supreme Court strikes down the Obamacare mandate forcing employers to provide birth control options in their employee&#8217;s health care insurance packages.</span></p>
<p>Democrat Shenna Bellows, who is challenging moderate Sen. Susan Collins (R- Maine), participated in a rally outside the Supreme Court to put pressure on the justices to leave the mandate alone.</p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">If the ruling comes down the way the Left fears, with any luck the unrest caused by progressives will happen soon before the November election, just in time to disgust conservative and middle-of-the-road voters.</span></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/matthew-vadum/demonizing-scotus/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Will SCOTUS Reverse Obama&#8217;s Recess Appointment Power Grab?</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/matthew-vadum/will-scotus-reverse-obamas-appointment-power-grab/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=will-scotus-reverse-obamas-appointment-power-grab</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/matthew-vadum/will-scotus-reverse-obamas-appointment-power-grab/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jan 2014 05:55:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matthew Vadum]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Labor Relations Board]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Noel Canning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recess appointment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=216507</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Tough questioning from the chief justices may mean a victory for the Constitution. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/9806727-large.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-216508" alt="9806727-large" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/9806727-large.jpg" width="310" height="256" /></a>Speculation is running rampant in the nation&#8217;s capital that the Supreme Court is poised to strike down three purported recess appointments that President Obama used to unconstitutionally manipulate federal labor relations policy.</p>
<p>During oral arguments in <i>National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning</i> on Monday, the justices seemed uncomfortable with Obama&#8217;s Jan. 4, 2012 overreach in which <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/04/president-obama-announces-recess-appointments-key-administration-posts">he recess-appointed</a> three members to the NLRB without bothering to wait for the U.S. Senate to recess. Obama&#8217;s goal was to pack the under-staffed federal body with likeminded leftists and give the NLRB the quorum it previously lacked to conduct official business. A defeat for Obama in this closely watched case could call into question every order issued by the NLRB since the date the appointments were made.</p>
<p>Incidentally, the NLRB itself shouldn&#8217;t even exist. It is a socialist anachronism left over from the New Deal that Obama uses to create new rules and regulations without having to go the normal route and ask Congress to pass a law. Obama’s toadies at the NLRB are hellbent on making America more like bureaucratic, dysfunctional Europe where labor disruptions and union violence are everyday occurrences.</p>
<p>During oral arguments this week nearly every member of the high court questioned the constitutionality of Obama&#8217;s NLRB appointments that were apparently carried out contrary to Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution.</p>
<p>Chief Justice John Roberts <a href="http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/195253-high-court-tackles-recess-appointments">defended</a> the Senate’s constitutional prerogative to approve nominees as a vital check on an out-of-control executive branch. Senators “have an absolute right not to confirm nominees that the president submits,” he said.</p>
<p>Left-leaning Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee, told government counsel, &#8220;The history is entirely on the Senate&#8217;s side, not your side.&#8221;</p>
<p>Ruling against the Obama administration could deprive the current president and future presidents of a power that presidents have used since George Washington&#8217;s administration, the government&#8217;s lawyer argued.</p>
<p>“That’s the end of the recess appointment power,” Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli said in a fit of hyperbole. “You write it out of the Constitution.”</p>
<p>A ruling that clamps down on the recess appointment power would “repudiate the legitimacy of thousands of presidential appointments,” Verrilli argued.</p>
<p>Justice Antonin Scalia balked. “You don’t really think we’re going to go back and rip out every [decision made?]” he said.</p>
<p>Lawyers opposing the government denied a ruling against the Obama administration would cause chaos. Various legal mechanisms, including a six-year statute of limitations on agency actions, would prevent a mountain of NLRB decisions from being cast into legal purgatory, they say.</p>
<p>Miguel Estrada, who represented Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), dismissed suggestions that upholding the D.C. Circuit decision would unleash a “parade of horribles” across the federal government&#8217;s bureaucracy.</p>
<p>“There will be no parade, and there will be no horribles,” Estrada told the court.</p>
<p>The White House said Monday it expected that the Supreme Court would rubber-stamp Obama&#8217;s highhanded appointments. “In our view, we&#8217;re confident that the courts will uphold the president&#8217;s authority and look forward to resolution of this matter,” White House lie-regurgitator Jay Carney said at a daily briefing.</p>
<p>The lawsuit was brought by Noel Canning, the owner of a soft drink bottling and distribution company who was displeased by a ruling the board made against him after its quorum was restored by the putative recess appointments. Last year the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sided with Canning and his company, <a href="http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/D13E4C2A7B33B57A85257AFE00556B29/$file/12-1115-1417096.pdf">finding</a> that the president may make recess appointments only when the Senate is in recess between numbered sessions of Congress, and only then if the vacancy arose in that same time span.</p>
<p>Two of the three NLRB appointees were professional leftists.</p>
<p>At the time of his appointment Richard Griffin was general counsel for the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE). Since 1994 he had served on the board of directors for the AFL-CIO Lawyers Coordinating Committee.</p>
<p>When she was recess-appointed, Sharon Block was Deputy Assistant Secretary for Congressional Affairs at the U.S. Department of Labor. Between 2006 and 2009, Block was Senior Labor and Employment Counsel for the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee where she worked for the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.).</p>
<p>Appointee Terence F. Flynn, who had served as Chief Counsel to NLRB board member Brian Hayes, didn&#8217;t stick around long enough to influence much at the NLRB. He <a href="http://www.allgov.com/news/appointments-and-resignations/labor-relations-board-member-resigns-under-investigation?news=844542">resigned</a> four months into his term after an official probe was launched into allegations that he unlawfully leaked internal documents to a Republican colleague. Flynn denied any wrongdoing.</p>
<p>Expectations that the recess appointments will be invalidated may not be well-founded.</p>
<p>Many pundits and journalists seem unaware that high court justices like to play devil&#8217;s advocate, toying with lawyers the way cats playfully maim and torture mice. When this writer attended oral arguments in 2005 in <i>Kelo v. New London, Conn.</i>, a haughty, indignant Justice Anthony Kennedy made quite a show of it, sarcastically asking what sounded like hostile questions of New London&#8217;s city solicitor. Kennedy seemed genuinely enraged that the Connecticut town was trying to dispossess homeowners who didn&#8217;t want to sell their properties.</p>
<p>But in the end, Kennedy cast the deciding ballot in favor of the local government&#8217;s unseemly land grab. The landmark eminent domain decision <a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Property%20Rights%20Deserve%20Oval%20Office.html">infamously</a> gave local governments essentially unlimited power to seize private property on even the flimsiest &#8220;public use&#8221; justifications.</p>
<p>Are the misdeeds of America&#8217;s increasingly despotic chief executive finally catching up with him?</p>
<p>In this post-constitutional era in which the Supreme Court gave its imprimatur to the jurisprudentially promiscuous <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/daniel-flynn/the-emperor-has-no-robes/print/"><i>NFIB v. Sebelius</i></a>, the vile, nonsensical pro-Obamacare decision that has been aptly compared to <i>Dred Scott v. Sanford</i>, it remains to be seen, what, if any limits to government power the court will see fit to recognize.</p>
<p>We&#8217;ll know soon enough if the Supreme Court is willing to rein in our lawless president but it&#8217;s not advisable to hold your breath waiting for fickle politicians dressed in black robes to mete out justice.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/matthew-vadum/will-scotus-reverse-obamas-appointment-power-grab/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>32</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hillary Clinton: Racial Demagogue</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/hillary-clinton-racial-demagogue/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=hillary-clinton-racial-demagogue</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/hillary-clinton-racial-demagogue/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Aug 2013 04:58:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matthew Vadum]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Black]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jim Crow]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Race]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voter ID]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voting Rights Act]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=201302</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Keeping Obama's flames of ethnic hatred burning for 2016.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/AP597033706753.jpg"><img class=" wp-image-201306 alignleft" alt="Hillary Clinton" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/AP597033706753-433x350.jpg" width="303" height="245" /></a>Hoping to keep Obama-generated racial animosity alive long enough to get her past the presidential finish line in 2016, Hillary Clinton has been bloviating about what racist election laws America supposedly has.</p>
<p>&#8220;In 2013, so far, more than 80 bills restricting voting rights have been introduced in 31 states,&#8221; Clinton told fawning admirers at a meeting of the American Bar Association. Such laws are part of a Jim Crow-like effort to &#8220;disproportionately impact African-Americans, Latino and young voters,&#8221; she said.</p>
<p>Hillary, of course, is a seasoned race-monger who knows when to pour it on thick.</p>
<p>This is the person who patronizingly <a href="http://youtu.be/DGDm4jkDbGQ"><i>stretched her syllables out</i></a> in a slow drawl when she last ran for the presidency. &#8220;I don&#8217;t feel noways tired,&#8221; she said, quoting a hymn by the late Rev. James Cleveland.</p>
<p>Race-baiting and racial pandering have always been part of Hillary&#8217;s oeuvre. She was close to ACORN just as her husband was when he was president and Arkansas governor. She spoke at ACORN conferences and played up her ties to the group.</p>
<p>Speaking at ACORN’s 2006 national convention, Mrs. Clinton looked back fondly on her memories of the group&#8217;s early days in Arkansas. It was a love fest. After noting that she founded a group called Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families that dealt with many of the same issues ACORN focused on, she hailed ACORN as a group of vision. “I thank you for being part of that great movement, that progressive tradition that has rolled across our country.”</p>
<p>Quoting Martin Luther King Jr., Clinton said, “Let’s move it forward, let’s be drum majors for justice.”</p>
<p>More recently, Mrs. Clinton falsely claimed that the Supreme Court was in on the supposedly racist plot because it had &#8220;struck at the heart&#8221; of the Voting Rights Act this summer in a ruling denounced by left-wingers and the misinformed.</p>
<p>In fact all the high court did was <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/a-victory-for-election-integrity/"><i>strike down</i></a> an obsolete formula in the Voting Rights Act that gave the race-baiting ballot box stuffers of the Left a distinct advantage in federal elections. The rest of the statute remains in effect and the Department of Justice still has the legal right to ask a court to order that state and local election operations be federally monitored.</p>
<p>To boil it down, the court opinion in <i>Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder</i>, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, was a pronouncement by the highest court in the land that America is not the racist swamp of leftist myth. The court acknowledged at long last that the anti-discrimination provisions of the Voting Rights Act, which gave the federal government a veto over changes in state election laws in places with a history of discrimination, may have been needed when the law was enacted 48 years ago, but no longer.</p>
<p>Congress approved the statute months after the nation witnessed Alabama state troopers attacking civil rights marchers in Selma in March 1965. Lawmakers reasoned it was needed because many state and local officials routinely discriminated against black Americans in the voting process, making it difficult for them to cast their ballots.</p>
<p>But the recent court ruling recognized that widespread voting discrimination is a distant memory. Today black Americans fully participate in the democratic process by voting, running for, and winning elective office at every level of government up to and including the highest office in the land.</p>
<p>This is bad news for the race industry which thrives on making mountains out of molehills. Leftist demagogues and community organizers across the fruited plain are now howling that a key tool they used to frustrate electoral integrity efforts has been taken away.</p>
<p>Outside of MSNBC hosts, Hillary is probably the most high profile of the complainers.</p>
<p>&#8220;Now not every obstacle is related to race but anyone who says that racial discrimination is no longer a problem in American elections must not be paying attention,&#8221; she declared.</p>
<p>Of course racial discrimination still exists somewhere out there, but it&#8217;s not much of a factor in modern American life.</p>
<p>As the <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324139404579013144182779468.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion"><i>Wall Street Journal</i></a> opines, Mrs. Clinton &#8220;must have missed the May 2013 Census Bureau study on &#8216;The Diversifying Electorate—Voting Rates by Race and Hispanic Origin in 2012 (and Other Recent Elections).&#8217;&#8221;</p>
<p>That government report showed that minority voter turnout nationwide has been surging in recent years. Black Americans, for example, had a voter turnout rate of just 53 percent in 1996. But black turnout has gone up in each of the last four presidential elections.</p>
<p>&#8220;In 2012, black turnout as a share of all eligible voters exceeded the turnout of non-Hispanic white voters—66.2% to 64.1%. Nearly five million more African-Americans voted in 2012 (17.8 million) than voted in 2000 (12.9 million). In both 2008 and 2012, black voters even exceeded their share of the eligible black voting age population. In 2012, blacks made up 12.5% of the eligible electorate but 13.4% of those voting.&#8221;</p>
<p>The big jump in black turnout since the days when left-wingers depicted Bill Clinton as the nation&#8217;s &#8220;first black president&#8221; undermines Hillary&#8217;s claim that new race-based obstacles to voting are on the upswing.</p>
<p>She claims that North Carolina&#8217;s new electoral integrity law &#8220;reads like the greatest hits of voter suppression.&#8221; All the legislation does is require the presentation of voter ID, shave a week off early voting, end same-day registration, and prevent the arbitrary extension of voting hours.</p>
<p>&#8220;Voters without an ID can get one free at the Department of Motor Vehicles and they can also cast a provisional ballot pending confirmation that they are legally registered,&#8221; the newspaper notes. The paper&#8217;s editorial adds that even though Georgia, Indiana, and Tennessee have &#8220;some of the strictest voter ID laws of the more than 30 states that have such laws,&#8221; black turnout blew past that of non-Hispanic whites in 2012 in all three. states. &#8220;Where is the evidence that voter ID laws keep minorities from voting?&#8221;</p>
<p>Hillary seems convinced that feeding fears about make-believe government racism will get her back into the White House.</p>
<p>This Saul Alinsky disciple, whose senior college thesis was an ode to the master community organizer, is well aware that Democrats are going all-out to make her the nation&#8217;s first female president.</p>
<p>The primary purpose of the Benghazi cover-up was to help get Barack Obama reelected but the only slightly less important secondary purpose has always been to protect Mrs. Clinton as she runs for president.</p>
<p>Hillary may be even more thin-skinned than Obama. Look at her angry outburst during congressional hearings about the Benghazi attack in response to questions posed by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.).</p>
<p>Displaying her signature callous indifference, she made it clear she didn&#8217;t care why Americans died on Sept. 11, 2012. &#8220;With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans,&#8221; she shouted. &#8220;Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?&#8221;</p>
<p>And remember this is the woman who is credited with the phrase &#8220;vast right-wing conspiracy,&#8221; which she uttered on national television in order to distract from her husband&#8217;s storied &#8220;bimbo eruptions,&#8221; itself a term coined by Betsey Wright, a senior Bill Clinton campaign aide.</p>
<p>Hillary will do whatever it takes to become America&#8217;s 45th president.</p>
<p>If that entails trying to make Americans of different races hate each other, she&#8217;ll do it.</p>
<p>Brace yourselves for three and a half years of this, America.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/hillary-clinton-racial-demagogue/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>40</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Justice Roberts Joins SCOTUS Libs in Freeing 10,000 Cali Convicts</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/justice-roberts-joins-scotus-libs-in-freeing-10000-cali-convicts/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=justice-roberts-joins-scotus-libs-in-freeing-10000-cali-convicts</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/justice-roberts-joins-scotus-libs-in-freeing-10000-cali-convicts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Aug 2013 21:52:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[The Point]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[penal system]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=199513</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Justice Alito said “the majority is gambling with the safety of the people of California.”]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/2761_5.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-199514" alt="2761_5" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/2761_5-450x252.jpg" width="450" height="252" /></a></p>
<p>Read it and hide in your homes because in Obama&#8217;s America, the right of convicts to live in five-star prisons tops the rights of their victims. And Justice Roberts has once again joined the left wing of the court, as he did over Obamacare.</p>
<blockquote><p>The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday refused to block a lower court&#8217;s decision ordering the state of California to reduce its prison population by about 10,000 inmates by year&#8217;s end, rejecting Gov. Jerry Brown&#8217;s argument that the downsizing will put public safety at risk.</p></blockquote>
<p>You know things are bad <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/U-S-Supreme-Court-backs-state-prison-reductions-4704105.php">when you find yourself to the left </a>of Governor Moonbeam.</p>
<blockquote><p>The 6-3 decision appears to mean the state is out of legal options and must reduce the prison population to about 110,000 inmates by Dec. 31 &#8211; or run the risk of being held in contempt of court, said Donald Specter, a lawyer for the inmates who sued the state over health care in 2001.</p>
<p>Brown and his predecessor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, have consistently fought the 2009 inmate reduction order by a three-judge panel, which stemmed from a ruling that overcrowding in state prisons led to inadequate inmate health care that violates prisoners&#8217; constitutional rights.</p></blockquote>
<p>If California is really hard up, I hear Gitmo has some openings now that Obama is releasing terrorists left and right. It won&#8217;t accommodate the 10,000 though.</p>
<blockquote><p>The order was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011, in a 5-4 decision. This time around, Chief Justice John Roberts joined the majority and ruled against the state.</p></blockquote>
<p>Not the first time he&#8217;s done that.</p>
<blockquote><p>The state has worked to comply with the order, in large part by implementing a program in 2011 that required low-level felons to serve their time in county jails instead of state prisons. That program, known as realignment, has helped reduce the prison population by about 24,000 inmates. In January, Brown declared that the overcrowding and health care problems had been solved and asked the three-judge panel to withdraw its population cap order.</p>
<p>The judges refused and said the state should increase sentence-reduction credits for inmates that demonstrate good behavior; Brown balked and went to the Supreme Court, arguing in the appeal that most of the state&#8217;s low-risk inmates have already been freed and to go further would put public safety at risk. His appeal has been supported by a number of Democratic lawmakers, four former governors and a number of mayors, including San Francisco&#8217;s Ed Lee.</p></blockquote>
<p>The most liberal leaders of the most liberal state in the region understand that freeing large numbers of dangerous felons is well&#8230; dangerous.</p>
<p>But we have runaway judicial activism that attempts to dictate to California which inmates it should free.</p>
<p>At least there are a minority of three sane justices on the court who follow the actual Constitution, instead of the one in their heads.</p>
<blockquote><p>In a biting dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia &#8211; joined by Justice Clarence Thomas &#8211; wrote that he has opposed the lower court&#8217;s release order from the start and accused his Supreme Court colleagues of washing their hands of the entire case with their 2011 ruling affirming the lower court&#8217;s injunction.</p>
<p>&#8220;So also today, it is not our fault that California must now release upon the public nearly 10,000 inmates convicted of serious crimes &#8211; about 1,000 for every city larger than Santa Ana,&#8221; he wrote. &#8220;As for me, I adhere to my original view of this terrible injunction. It goes beyond what the Prison Litigation Reform Act allows, and beyond the power of the courts. I would grant the stay and dissolve the injunction.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>And here&#8217;s a flashback to 2011.</p>
<blockquote><p>Justice Scalia called the order affirmed by the majority “perhaps the most radical injunction issued by a court in our nation’s history.” Justice Alito said “the majority is gambling with the safety of the people of California.”</p>
<p>Justice Scalia summarized his dissent, which was pungent and combative, from the bench. Oral dissents are rare; this was the second of the term. Justice Kennedy looked straight ahead as his colleague spoke, his face frozen in a grim expression.</p></blockquote>
<p>He should. Justice Kennedy will have blood on his hands before his jailbreak is through. As for Justice Roberts, he knew all along that this was wrong.</p>
<blockquote><p>In a second dissent, Justice Alito, joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., addressed what he said would be the inevitable impact of the majority decision on public safety in California.</p>
<p>He summarized the decision this way, adding italics for emphasis: “The three-judge court ordered the premature release of approximately <em>46,000 criminals — the equivalent of three Army divisions.</em>”</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/justice-roberts-joins-scotus-libs-in-freeing-10000-cali-convicts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>28</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Victory for Election Integrity</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/a-victory-for-election-integrity/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=a-victory-for-election-integrity</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/a-victory-for-election-integrity/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jun 2013 04:50:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matthew Vadum]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[integrity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ruling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voter ID]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voting Rights Act]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=194598</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A game-changing decision from the Supreme Court -- but the Left prepares for revenge. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Election_Day_voting12_5608.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-194604" alt="Election_Day_voting12_5608" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Election_Day_voting12_5608-450x300.jpg" width="270" height="180" /></a>In a landmark ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down part of the Voting Rights Act that gave the race-baiting ballot box stuffers of the Left a distinct advantage in federal elections.</p>
<p>The court opinion in <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf"><i>Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder</i></a>, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, is essentially an official finding from the highest court in the land that America is not the racist swamp of leftist myth.</p>
<p>The court finally recognized that the anti-discrimination provisions of the Voting Rights Act, which gave the federal government a veto over changes in state election laws, may have been needed when the law was enacted in 1965, but no longer.</p>
<p>Catherine Engelbrecht, president of Houston-based True the Vote, a good government group, praised the decision:</p>
<blockquote><p>For decades, voters in various states, counties and boroughs have been punished for the sins others committed in a bygone era. Washington has treated whole segments of this nation as guilty until proven innocent. Ideological bureaucrats have used this law to exact a form of racial justice on their presumed enemies while ignoring the country’s demands for basic election integrity measures. Thankfully, the Court stripped Washington of a power that was only being used as a weapon today.</p></blockquote>
<p>J. Christian Adams <a href="http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2013/06/25/supreme-court-buries-section-5-of-voting-rights-act/">described</a> the court opinion, which clears the way for enforcement of much-needed state-level voter ID laws, as &#8220;one of the most important decisions in decades.&#8221;</p>
<p>In terms of how the game of politics is played in this country, he&#8217;s right.</p>
<p>The Voting Rights Act is what unscrupulous Attorney General Eric Holder used to block states from implementing voter ID laws aimed at combating election fraud. The Left relies on fraud to win closely contested elections.</p>
<p>Section 5 of the statute relegated states and localities to second-class status by presuming they were too corrupt and racist to administer elections fairly. The section requires state and local governments in certain parts of the nation to get approval from the Justice Department or a federal court – called pre-clearance – before making changes in their voting procedures. Changes can include anything from moving a polling place to changing district lines in a county. The way the law is interpreted even lowly bond referendums in affected areas require pre-clearance.</p>
<p>The section requires a state, county, or local government entity to demonstrate to federal authorities that the voting change in question does not have a racially discriminatory purpose and is not “retrogressive,” which means that it will not make minority voters worse off than they were prior to the change.</p>
<p>Before the high court ruling, elections in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia were subject to pre-clearance. Section 5 also covered various counties across the nation: four in California; five in Florida; three in New York (all within New York City); 40 in North Carolina; and two in South Dakota. It covered two townships in Michigan and 10 townships in New Hampshire.</p>
<p>Congress approved the statute months after the nation witnessed Alabama state troopers attacking civil rights marchers in Selma in March 1965. Lawmakers reasoned it was needed because many state and local officials routinely discriminated against black Americans in the voting process, making it difficult for them to cast their ballots.</p>
<p>Echoing the language of the Fifteenth Amendment, the Act forbade states from enacting any “voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure … to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” Congress gained the power to abolish the imposition of poll taxes in federal elections when the Twenty-Fourth Amendment was ratified in January 1964.</p>
<p>Section 4 of the Act laid down the criteria under which offending states and political subdivisions were covered by the statute. Initially, the section covered jurisdictions that had maintained &#8220;a test or device&#8221; as a prerequisite to voting as of Nov. 1, 1964, and had under 50 percent voter registration or turnout in the 1964 presidential election. &#8220;Such tests or devices included literacy and knowledge tests, good moral character requirements, the need for vouchers from registered voters, and the like,&#8221; according to the court opinion.</p>
<p>Congress reauthorized the law in 1970 and 1975, tinkering with the criteria used in Section 4. By 1975 the formula was ensnaring jurisdictions that had a voting test and under 50 percent voter registration or turnout as of 1972. That was the last time Congress updated the formula. In 2006, more than 40 years after voting tests were banned, Congress reauthorized the legislation for 25 years &#8212; with its outdated formula intact.</p>
<p>But Section 4 outgrew its usefulness in the eyes of the court. According to the majority opinion in the 5 to 4 decision, the court took action because in 2006 Congress &#8220;reenacted a formula based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relation to the present day.&#8221;</p>
<blockquote><p>Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.</p></blockquote>
<p>The ruling recognizes that widespread systematic voting discrimination is a distant memory. Today black Americans fully participate in the democratic process by voting, running for, and winning elective office at every level of government up to and including the highest office in the land.</p>
<p>But this is bad news for the race industry which thrives on making mountains out of molehills.</p>
<p>Predictably, leftist demagogues and community organizers across the fruited plain are howling now that a key tool they used to frustrate electoral integrity efforts has been taken away.</p>
<p>Racial arsonist and MSNBC host Rev. Al Sharpton spoke of the court ruling as if the Jim Crow laws of the Old South were still in effect. The decision is &#8220;a devastating blow to Americans, particularly African-Americans, who are now at the mercy of state governments.&#8221; He angrily promised to mobilize his supporters to counteract the ruling.</p>
<p>Of course Congress may revisit the legislation and establish a new formula under Section 4. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.) has reportedly vowed to lead the charge to “fix” the legislation.</p>
<p>Adams, bestselling author of <i>Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department</i>,<i> </i><a href="http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2013/06/25/supreme-court-buries-section-5-of-voting-rights-act/">said</a><i> </i>it’s unlikely Section 4 will get fixed:</p>
<blockquote><p>[T]he Supreme Court left almost no room to &#8220;fix&#8221; anything. Only in &#8220;exceptional circumstances&#8221; may the federal government have power to preclear state-election law changes. &#8220;Exceptional circumstances&#8221; is a term pulled from the jurisprudence to describe conditions blacks faced in 1964. Anyone with any sense knows those days are gone. Congressional Republicans should ignore the inevitable slurs from the racialist Left and find better things to do besides &#8220;fix&#8221; a law that the Supreme Court has found to be mostly unfixable and which has upset the constitutional order for the last couple of decades.</p></blockquote>
<p>In the polarized current Congress, odds are much will be said about “fixing” the antiquated Voting Rights Act but not much will actually get done. Gridlock, in this case, may help to save the Republic.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/a-victory-for-election-integrity/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>15</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rimsha Masih’s Unending Nightmare</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/frank-crimi/rimsha-masihs-unending-nightmare/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=rimsha-masihs-unending-nightmare</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/frank-crimi/rimsha-masihs-unending-nightmare/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2013 04:18:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frank Crimi]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[acquitted]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Christian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rimsha Masih]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=184083</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Pakistan high court renews the witch-hunt against a mentally handicapped Christian "blasphemer." ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/frank-crimi/rimsha-masihs-unending-nightmare/rimsha-masih/" rel="attachment wp-att-184085"><img class=" wp-image-184085 alignleft" title="rimsha-masih" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/rimsha-masih-450x348.jpg" alt="" width="270" height="209" /></a>After being acquitted in January 2013 of blasphemy charges, Pakistan’s Supreme Court has now <a href="http://www.bosnewslife.com/27330-breaking-news-pakistan-blasphemy-girl-facing-prison-mother-death-sentence">reopened</a> the case against Rimsha Masih, a 14-year-old Pakistani Christian girl believed to suffer from mental disabilities.</p>
<p>Rimsha’s case had drawn international attention as well as corresponding outrage after the young girl was <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19311098">arrested </a> at her home in August 2012 and charged with blasphemy upon being accused by a Muslim neighbor of allegedly burning pages from a Koran.</p>
<p>It should be noted that running afoul of Pakistan’s notorious blasphemy laws can earn sentences of death or life in prison for those convicted of desecrating Islam’s holy book or insulting its Prophet Muhammad.</p>
<p>For her part, Rimsha, who worked as a maid at the time, denied through her attorney any blasphemous wrongdoing, claiming she was simply burning garbage and “did not know a Koranic book was among the papers because she cannot read.”</p>
<p>Moreover, Pakistan’s Minister for National Harmony, Paul Bhatti, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19311098">said</a> that given Rimsha’s mental disorder, it was unlikely the young girl had “purposefully desecrated the Koran.”</p>
<p>Unfortunately, Rimsha’s illiteracy and mental impairment were not persuasive enough arguments in which to prevent Pakistani police from incarcerating the young girl for the alleged heretical act.</p>
<p>Yet, in September 2012, Rimsha’s case seemingly took a turn for the better when Pakistani police <a href="http://www.arabtimesonline.com/NewsDetails/tabid/96/smid/414/ArticleID/188930/reftab/69/Default.aspx">arrested</a> a local Muslim cleric, Hafiz Mohammed Khalid Chishti, and charged him with planting the burned Koranic pages in an effort to frame Rimsha.</p>
<p>According to a police official Chishti “put pages into the ashes, showed them to the people of the area, and gathered them to attack the girl’s house.”</p>
<p>Those charges were corroborated by three officials from Chishti’s mosque who told a judge that Chishti’s attempt to incriminate Rimsha was part of a broader plan by the cleric to oust Christians living in the poor Mehrabad neighborhood of Islamabad where Rimsha and her family lived.</p>
<p>Of course, that revelation most likely raised few eyebrows given that Pakistan’s blasphemy statutes are often used and abused to either settle personal scores or as weapons in which persecute religious minorities, such as Christians, Hindus and Ahmadis.</p>
<p>Still, the officials testified that they had urged Chishti to not go through with his plan, efforts which apparently had little effect on the Imam who reportedly replied, “You know, this is the only way to expel the Christians from this area.”</p>
<p>Unfortunately, Chishti’s plan almost worked to perfection.  Soon after the accusations were levied against Rimsha, an angry Muslim mob numbering in the thousands gathered outside Rimsha’s house, where they threatened to burn down Christian homes in the neighborhood if police did not arrest the young girl.</p>
<p>To that end, over a thousand Christians in the area were forced to flee their homes, seeking shelter in church compounds or sleeping outdoors, a move which at the time, <a href="http://www.bosnewslife.com/22918-breaking-news-thousands-flee-as-pakistan-jails-girl-for-burning-koranic-book">according</a> to the head of a Pakistan-based human rights group, was “the largest reallocation of Christians from any area of Pakistan.”</p>
<p>To this day, many of those same Christian families have yet to return to their homes, fearful of Muslim reprisals. Included in that exiled group is Rimsha, her parents and relatives, all of whom have been in hiding since Rimsha was released on bail in September 2012.</p>
<p>Rimsha’s flee to safer confines was certainly understandable given that in Pakistan, those accused of blasphemy, more often than not, never see their cases settled by a Pakistani court but instead are forced into hiding or killed by mobs before they even stand trial.</p>
<p>Since 1990 at least 60 Christians accused of blasphemy have been killed extra-judiciously by enraged Muslim mobs or individuals.</p>
<p>For his part, Chishti, who has been out on bail since October 2012, has denied the allegations levied against him. Moreover, the prospect of Chishti paying any judicial price for his misdeeds seem fairly remote given that the witnesses who testified against him have since <a href="http://www.christiantoday.com/article/setback.in.rimsha.masih.case/30744.htm">recanted</a> their statements.</p>
<p>Despite that, the case against Rimsha appeared to have been settled in November 2012 when the Islamabad High Court (IHC) <a href="http://www.thenews.com.pk/article-76252-IHC-dismisses-FIR-against-Rimsha-Masih">dismissed</a> the blasphemy charges against her, finding that there was no evidence that she had been seen burning the Koranic pages.</p>
<p>Rimsha, however, was still not out of the Pakistani judicial woods as shortly after the IHC ruling, the neighbor who had initially accused Rimsha of blasphemy, Malik Ammad, filed an appeal to Pakistan’s Supreme Court, claiming that “the police had shown bias in investigating the charges against Rimsha.”</p>
<p>Yet, in January 2013 Pakistan’s Supreme Court upheld the IHC decision when it voted to <a href="http://www.christiantoday.com/article/closure.for.blasphemy.accused.rimsha.masih/31473.htm">acquit </a>Rimsha of all charges of blasphemy, a decision which presumably ended all further legal challenges in her case. As Rimsha’s attorney, Tahir Naveed Chaudhry, said at the time, “The SC’s decision has put an end to future contentions on the case.”</p>
<p>As for the fate of Rimsha and her family, Chaudhry <a href="http://www.worldwatchmonitor.org/english/country/pakistan/article_2016163.html/">said</a> “we will now seriously consider relocating them to some other city so that they can resume their normal lives now that the case has reached its logical end.”</p>
<p>Unfortunately, that pronouncement has been proven woefully premature as the Pakistani Supreme Court voted at the end of March to reopen the case after receiving an <a href="http://www.bosnewslife.com/27330-breaking-news-pakistan-blasphemy-girl-facing-prison-mother-death-sentence">appeal</a> from a police investigator who claims he “was pressured by the government to drop charges against her after an international outcry.”</p>
<p>So now Rimsha Masih once again faces the prospect of life in prison for a crime she clearly did not commit, a fate that perhaps only a deafening international outcry can prevent from happening.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/frank-crimi/rimsha-masihs-unending-nightmare/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Foolishness</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/janice-fiamengo/supreme-foolishness/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=supreme-foolishness</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/janice-fiamengo/supreme-foolishness/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Mar 2013 04:15:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Janice Fiamengo]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hate Speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[homosexuality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rulling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[William Whatcott]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=179974</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Canadian high court decision exposes Christians to contempt and protects Muslims from criticism.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/janice-fiamengo/supreme-foolishness/supreme_court-2/" rel="attachment wp-att-180010"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-180010" title="supreme_court" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/supreme_court.jpg" alt="" width="233" height="202" /></a>Coarse and rebarbative though his words undoubtedly were, William Whatcott was not far wrong when, in a flyer titled “Keep Homosexuality out of Saskatoon’s Public Schools,” he pinpointed the massive shift in law and public opinion that had taken place in Canada over the previous 30 years. “In 1968 it was illegal to engage in homosexual acts,” he wrote in one of four flyers he distributed in 2001 and 2002 to denounce the normalizing of homosexuality in schools and the mainstreaming of gay desire in the media, and “now it is almost becoming illegal to question [homosexuality].”</p>
<p>One of the most remarkable aspects of the judgment last week by Canada’s Supreme Court is the impression it conveys that it’s still 1968, that Canada is rampant with homophobia, with gay men and women living in the shadows, anxiously on the alert for the next Christian pamphlet that will unleash public humiliation and cruel reprisals. Is it irrelevant that six of the nine justices are senior citizens, four of them over seventy years of age? Do hellfire evangelicals wield such an enormous social influence that far-reaching measures by an enlightened Court are needed to protect sexual minorities? Canadian society has been a relatively welcoming place for gay men and lesbians for decades, with gay marriage legalized in 2005 and gay urban enclaves set up well before hate speech provisions existed. There is not complete acceptance of homosexuality in all quarters, but neither is there anything close to wide-scale discrimination. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court judges, in striking their phantom blow against prejudice, have handed down a decision that restricts the free expression of a religious minority and limits truth-based arguments on matters of pressing concern.</p>
<p>Much has already been written about the absurdities and inconsistencies of the Supreme Court decision, which affirms the constitutionality of Canada’s notorious hate speech laws and upholds Whatcott’s 2005 conviction, by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal, for hatred. A member of “Christian Truth Activists” and a former addict who became a biblically faithful Christian while in jail, Bill Whatcott campaigned to prevent the Saskatoon Public School Board from introducing discussion of homosexuality in Grades 3 and 4. His use of ugly words such as “sodomy,” “buggery,” and “filth” to describe homosexuality, and his apocalyptic-style warnings that “Our children will pay the price in disease, death, abuse and ultimately eternal judgment if we do not say no to the Sodomite desire to socialize [them]” convinced the Court that his flyers went well beyond merely offensive speech.</p>
<p>The judgment seems to assume that blunt and old-fashioned words—though laughable to many in Canadian society today— are more dangerous than sophisticated ones. (As <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/canadian-supreme-court-kills-last-hope-for-free-speech/">Bruce Bawer</a> astutely points out, Whatcott’s obsolete wording is more likely to have crystallized opposition to him than to have incited hatred in previously hate-free hearts or “silenced” the targets of his opprobrium, as the Court avers.) Rather than rehearse the entirety of the foolishness and illogicalities in the decision, I will make a few points about the preoccupation with “effect” as the determinant of unacceptable speech. In focusing not on the content of Whatcott’s expression—in which case the judges would have had to acknowledge the statements about God’s grace that soften his abrasive message—but instead on its presumed effect, the decision creates a legal nightmare that advances an unworkable concept of hate, exposes Christians to contempt, and insulates repugnant Muslim doctrines, simply because they are held by Muslims, from justifiable exposure and attack.</p>
<p>As a number of critics have already pointed out (see especially Andrew Coyne’s brilliant <a href="http://digital.nationalpost.com/epaper/viewer.aspx">article</a>), you can’t get a much vaguer or more hypothetical definition of hate speech than its “likely effect” as determined by a “reasonable person.” As any reasonable person can attest, a “likely effect” concerning something as subjective as hatred can never be known in advance. It might be that a targeted group is as likely to be vilified because of excessive praise as because of hateful censure: would the praise then, in its harmful effect, constitute hate speech too? More to the point in this case, might the Court’s prohibition of expressions of hatred towards homosexuality actually exacerbate such hatred by creating the (not unfounded) impression that homosexuals are granted special legal protections not available to heterosexual Canadians?</p>
<p>Even more confounding to logic is the Court’s related claim that “proof of actual harm” need not be established in relation to hate speech. “The seriousness of the harm to vulnerable groups,” the Court states, is so great that it needs no demonstration, being “part of the everyday knowledge and experience of Canadians.” In a culture in which storefronts sport the rainbow flag to declare their allegiance with gay people, Hollywood celebrates gay heroes (and condemns evangelicals), and thousands applaud Gay Pride Parades in every major Canadian city, it is not clear that homophobia is “part of the everyday knowledge and experience of Canadians.” The Court’s fundamental assumption about the self-evidence of prejudice and therefore of the harm of hateful speech is demonstrably false.</p>
<p>Given that the Supreme Court’s own reasoning defines hate speech by its likelihood to cause an identifiable group to be subject to prejudice and discrimination, one could reasonably conclude that the judgment is itself an example of hate speech directed at bible-believing Protestant evangelicals, a religious minority comprising about 8% of the Canadian population according to a recent <a href="http://canadianchristianity.com/nationalupdates/2007/071213state.html">report</a>. Is it not likely that many of the self-righteous and politically correct members of the chattering classes who read about the Supreme Court judgment in their Thursday newspapers experienced a satisfying frisson of disgust and smug horror against Christians? A main concern of the Court is that hate speech may cause people to “reconsider the social standing” of a vulnerable group. Many well-heeled secularists are already inclined to feel contempt for Christians who believe the Bible’s moral injunctions; now they have an enhanced reason to do so, and from a source far more respectable and influential than Whatcott’s crudely written flyers.</p>
<p>Given the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9762745/Christianity-close-to-extinction-in-Middle-East.html">massive increase in violence</a> against Christians in the Muslim Middle East over the past two years, is there not a well-founded fear that the Supreme Court’s decision will reduce Canadians’ indignation over the persecution of the same group presented in the Court decision as hateful and malignant? Such speculations are, admittedly, as vague as the Supreme Court’s own definition of hate speech. Still, there can be no doubt that the Court decision places a particular limitation on Christian discourse, suggesting that speaking the Bible’s truth is unacceptable and that restrictions on Christian freedom are necessary to protect others from harm. By implication, Christians like Whatcott are a menace to society, a belief that the Supreme Court decision defines as typical of hateful expression.</p>
<p>Finally and most grievously, in affirming that “even truthful statements may … expose a vulnerable group to hatred,” the Supreme Court ruling places an ill-advised limitation on fact-based criticism of minority groups, especially those groups whose ideology and cultural practices may be heinous enough that their mere recitation is likely to incense and repulse listeners. The Court’s overwhelming concern is “the need to protect the societal standing of vulnerable groups”—but what if the “vulnerable groups” have beliefs and practices deserving of censure? The Court would suggest that one should draw the line at sweeping and vehement denunciations. Referring to cases of anti-Semitism, the Court notes that hate speech typically creates the false impression that a certain group is responsible for social problems or seeks to undermine Western civilization.</p>
<p>But what if the group actually <em>does</em> seek to undermine Western civilization, as <a href="http://www.investigativeproject.org/document/id/20">Muslim Brotherhood strategy</a> states? According to the Court, it doesn’t matter if criticisms are true or not, for “to the extent that truthful statements are used in a manner or context that exposes a vulnerable group to hatred, their use risks the same potential harmful effects” as gutter-variety hate—and must be penalized. This is astounding. If truth is no defense against the charge of fomenting hatred, then we confront the collapse of all rational discourse in this country. The ruling comes at a time when there is a pressing need to speak about injurious Islamic practices such as honor killing, creeping Sharia enforcement, Jew hatred, and female genital mutilation—to say nothing about vicious <em>physical</em> as well as verbal attacks on homosexuals. What the Court clearly cannot imagine or accept is that there might be cases in which detestation of a culture’s practices is justified, even beneficial. Should not any group advocating a fascist program be exposed and denounced in vehement terms?</p>
<p>The Canadian Supreme Court’s overarching imperative to “protect the societal standing of vulnerable groups” makes the answer &#8220;No.&#8221; I am still shaking my head in disbelief.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>.  </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/janice-fiamengo/supreme-foolishness/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>23</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Canadian Supreme Court Kills Last Hope for Free Speech</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/canadian-supreme-court-kills-last-hope-for-free-speech/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=canadian-supreme-court-kills-last-hope-for-free-speech</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/canadian-supreme-court-kills-last-hope-for-free-speech/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2013 04:30:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bruce Bawer]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jihad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[war on free speech]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=179449</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Even stating factual information will be met with state oppression. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/canadian-supreme-court-kills-last-hope-for-free-speech/li-scc-sign-620-1052732/" rel="attachment wp-att-179450"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-179450" title="li-scc-sign-620-1052732" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/li-scc-sign-620-1052732-450x304.jpg" alt="" width="270" height="182" /></a>That sound you hear is Voltaire rolling over in his grave.</p>
<p>“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Once upon a time, it was commonly understood that this sentiment is the very foundation of a free society.  Compromise free speech, water it down, and you destroy freedom itself.</p>
<p>In Toronto there lives a man named Bill Whatcott. During the last two decades or so, he has spent much of his time traveling around Canada, waving protest signs at gay-pride parades and Planned Parenthood clinics, agitating for the criminalization of homosexual acts and abortion, and distributing fliers packed with incendiary language about gays and graphic images of aborted fetuses. In 2010 the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal fined him $17,500 for distributing “hateful” materials; an appeals court overturned the ruling, whereupon the province&#8217;s Human Rights Commission appealed the case to the Canadian Supreme Court. Now the Court has ruled, and it&#8217;s an icy day for freedom in the Great White North.</p>
<p>To be sure, the Court&#8217;s <a href="http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/02/27/supreme-court-upholds-canadas-hate-speech-laws-in-case-involving-anti-gay-crusader/%20">unanimous ruling</a> on the Whatcott case pretends to be nuanced, measured, carefully thought-out – a product of the most sophisticated kind of legal deliberation. In evaluating<strong> </strong>the hate-speech section of Saskatchewan&#8217;s Human Rights Code, for instance, the Court struck down a passage forbidding speech that “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity” of certain groups, while upholding a prohibition on language that is “likely to expose” those groups to hatred. For the most part, the Court upheld the province&#8217;s hate-speech legislation, maintaining that it “appropriately balances the fundamental values underlying freedom of expression with competing Charter rights and other values essential to a free and democratic society, in this case a commitment to equality and respect for group identity and the inherent dignity owed to all human beings.”</p>
<p>One of the many striking aspects of the Court&#8217;s decision is the insistence that any judge, jury, or commission seeking to determine whether a speech act crosses the threshold of being punishable by law must not look to the speaker&#8217;s intent but must, rather, make an assessment of the potential of that speech act for causing hate. Speech capable of causing emotions that are negative but that fall short of full-fledged “abhorrence,” the Court dictated, cannot be banned. Another key detail is that truth is no defense: it is impermissible even to state demonstrable facts if, in the authorities&#8217; estimation, those facts might spark enmity toward a group. Yet another point worth mentioning is that any judgment rendered in such matters must, the Court posited, be arrived at in an “objective” manner.</p>
<p>Many commentators in the major Canadian media gave the Court&#8217;s decision at least a partial thumbs-up, agreeing that it struck an admirable balance between free speech and censorship. <em>National Post </em>columnist Jonathan Kay, for example, while <a href="http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/02/27/jonathan-kay-on-the-upshot-of-the-supreme-courts-hate-speech-judgment-denounce-gays-if-you-like-but-dont-call-them-filth/%20">regretting</a> that the Court&#8217;s ruling will effectively stifle “strict religious conservatives” and deny them “the same free-speech rights enjoyed by secular Canadians,” claimed that it “can’t be considered a win” either “for free-speech champions” or “for human-rights censors,” and even characterized it as “a measured blow against political correctness” that puts Canadian human-rights commissions on notice “that they may target only public expressions of true hatred that create a genuine climate of menace for a targeted group.”</p>
<p>Meanwhile, over at the <em>Globe and Mail, </em>Michael Plaxton, a law professor at the University of Saskatchewan, served up a <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/whatcott-ruling-is-a-very-real-burden-on-some-speech/article9133370/%20">wishy-washy analysis</a> in which he praised the Court&#8217;s “nuanced and well-crafted decision” while admitting that it “all but strangle[s] certain kinds of argument – particularly those made from a religious point of view.” While accepting that “a commitment to equality” may indeed require that some faith-based views “be muffled somewhat,” Plaxton suggested that if we do choose to tone down certain people&#8217;s opinions, “we should be honest about what we are doing.” And in the <em>Montreal Gazette, </em>human-rights lawyer Pearl Eliadis called the Court&#8217;s ruling “reasonable and balanced” and said that it “should provide comfort to those concerned about being found liable for &#8216;offending&#8217; others,” given that judges will now be required to “look at the objectively verifiable effects of the speech, and not whether a person is merely affronted or offended.”</p>
<p>Terrifying, isn&#8217;t it? As the major Enlightenment thinkers and America&#8217;s Founding Fathers understood, free speech is really quite a simple matter. Yes, out-and-out libel is something else, as is shouting fire in a crowded theater. But beyond that, either speech is free or it isn&#8217;t. The Canadian Supreme Court&#8217;s decision – with its tangled, tortuous logic, its quaint, absurd confidence in the possibility of “objectively” ascertaining whether this or that statement is capable of engendering hate, and its prioritizing of group sensitivities over truth itself – has now verified that north of the border, speech is decidedly unfree. And they&#8217;ve done this, supposedly, for the benefit of the kinds of groups targeted by Bill Whatcott&#8217;s rhetoric.</p>
<p>Now, I&#8217;m not Canadian. But as a member of one of the groups the Court professes to be protecting, I feel obliged to say the following to the Court: Don&#8217;t do me any favors. I feel far less threatened by the likes of Whatcott than I do by courts that consider it their prerogative to limit the liberties of a free people in such an arrogant fashion. The justices seem not to recognize – or to care – that if you want to live in a truly free society, you&#8217;ve got to be willing to share that society with people who consider you an abomination and who feel compelled to shout their views from the rooftops. Curb their right to have their say, and you put your own rights on exceedingly shaky ground.</p>
<p>A further point. As we&#8217;ve seen, Jonathan Kay and Michael Plaxton, while generally approving of the Court&#8217;s decision, express concern that it will inhibit the articulation of religious convictions. But what they don&#8217;t note is that the Court&#8217;s decision is also a shot across the bow at those who might be inclined to criticize religion itself – notably Islam. Indeed, as law professor Alan Shanoff <a href="http://www.torontosun.com/2013/02/27/whatcott-decision-a-good-day-for-the-human-rights-industry%20">pointed out</a> in the <em>Toronto</em> <em>Sun, </em>Canadians have effectively been enjoined by their Supreme Court to “tiptoe around criticism of any religion no matter how odious we may find some of its practices.” This isn&#8217;t fundamentally about Whatcott and other Christians of his stripe – their numbers up north are minimal and they pose no real threat to anything or anybody. No, one strongly suspects that for the Supreme Court, the Whatcott case represented, above all, a golden opportunity to set down guidelines for those individuals whose opinions have been perceived by Canadian authorities, in recent years, as the <em>real</em> menace to Canadian social order and harmony – namely, Islam critics like Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant.</p>
<p>A welcome dissent from the Court&#8217;s ruling came from <em>National Post </em>political columnist Andrew Coyne, who <a href="http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/02/27/andrew-coyne-supreme-court-twists-the-charter-of-rights-in-its-haste-to-limit-free-speech/%20">focused</a> on a truly staggering sentence in the ruling, the intent of which was to justify the prosecution of even thoroughly veracious statements: “truth,” wrote the justices, “may be used for widely disparate ends.” Coyne&#8217;s thoroughly legitimate reaction: “I cannot quite believe I am reading these words, even now.” Coyne rightly questions the very premise of the Court&#8217;s ruling – namely, that people like Whatcott actually do succeed in convincing others to hate while “cut[ting] off any path of reply by the group under attack.” Take a gander at the <em>National Post</em>&#8216;s <a href="http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/02/27/supreme-court-upholds-canadas-hate-speech-laws-in-case-involving-anti-gay-crusader/">photo</a> of Whatcott with some of his posters, and ask yourself: has this guy caused hatred to spring up in formerly hate-free hearts – or is it more likely, on the contrary, that he&#8217;s intensified a lot of people&#8217;s contempt for the very views he seeks to spread?</p>
<p>The bottom line here is that the Canadian Supreme Court, in the name of justice, has struck a blow against freedom and promulgated a pack of lies – among them, first, the lie that free speech can and should be “balanced” against other worthy social objectives; second, the lie that it is possible for government officials to make “objective” determinations as to the possible consequences of a given speech act and as to the exact location of the boundary between hate and lesser emotions; and, third, the lie that “hate speech,” in some way, silences its targets. No, “hate speech” doesn&#8217;t silence – the prosecution of “hate speech” does. Yes, the Court&#8217;s decision may well be used to suppress the vigorous expression of religious people&#8217;s opinions – or, more specifically, the opinions of people who agree with Bill Whatcott. But does anyone honestly think that, say, Canadian imams who preach core Islamic tenets – such as the obligation to punish gays, apostates, and adulteresses with death – are henceforth in serious peril of prosecution? Or has the Court, instead, handed the “objective” instruments of Canadian justice a fresh new club with which to bludgeon the few brave souls in that nation who dare to tell the truth about the Religion of Peace?</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/canadian-supreme-court-kills-last-hope-for-free-speech/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>130</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Reining In Obama&#8217;s Big Labor Activists</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/earl-capps/reining-in-obamas-big-labor-activists/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=reining-in-obamas-big-labor-activists</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/earl-capps/reining-in-obamas-big-labor-activists/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2013 04:50:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Earl Capps]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Labor Relations Board]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Noel Canning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recess appointment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tim Scott]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=175302</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Private companies rejoice at high court's ruling on the president's unconstitutional recess appointments. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/earl-capps/reining-in-obamas-big-labor-activists/00_labor_usc1008872_nlrb_sign_800px-2/" rel="attachment wp-att-175321"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-175321" title="00_LABOR_USC1008872_NLRB_sign_800px" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/00_LABOR_USC1008872_NLRB_sign_800px1.jpg" alt="" width="237" height="158" /></a>Efforts by the Obama administration to pursue an aggressive pro-union agenda via the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) suffered a major setback on Friday. A three-judge federal appeals court <a href="http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/D13E4C2A7B33B57A85257AFE00556B29/$file/12-1115-1417096.pdf" target="_blank">in the Noel Canning case unanimously found that recent recess appointments of NLRB board members violated the Constitution</a>, ruling that &#8220;[b]ecause none of the three appointments were valid, the Board lacked a quorum and its decision must be vacated.&#8221;</p>
<div>
<div>
<p>If the ruling is upheld by the Supreme Court, to which the Obama administration is expected to appeal the case, it would be a long-awaited victory for Republicans and business organizations who have long objected to the Board&#8217;s growing reach into non-union workplaces and increasingly pro-union rulings. It would also be vindication for Senate Republicans who have sought to check the administration&#8217;s political agenda via the confirmation process, which the recess appointments bypassed.</p>
<p>In this case, attorneys for <a href="http://www.noelcorp.com/" target="_blank">Noel Canning, a Washington State canning and bottling company</a>, sought to appeal a ruling in which the <a href="http://mynlrb.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4580811c29" target="_blank">Board ruled against the company and imposed a collective bargaining agreement</a> after the company had refused to execute the agreement, claiming that wage-benefit packages for union members had not been agreed upon. In the appeal, the company’s attorneys argued that as the Senate was still meeting in pro forma session, three recess appointments made to the Board by the Obama administration were invalid. These appointments included:</p>
<ul>
<li>Sharon Block, who filled a seat that became vacant on January 3,  2012,  when Board member Craig Becker’s recess appointment expired. Block was a former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Congressional Affairs at the U.S. Department of Labor, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel for the Senate HELP Committee, where she worked for Senator Edward M. Kennedy and received the John F. Kennedy Labor Law Award.</li>
<li>Terence F. Flynn, who filled a seat that became vacant on August 27, 2010, when Peter Schaumber’s term expired. Flynn, who has since left the Board, was previously Chief Counsel to former Board Members Brian Hayes and Schaumber, as well as an attorney in private practice, specializing in employment and labor law.</li>
<li>Richard F. Griffin, who filled a seat that became vacant on August 27, 2011, when Wilma B. Liebman’s term expired. Previously, Griffin was General Counsel for International Union of Operating Engineers and served on the board of directors for the AFL-CIO Lawyers Coordinating Committee.</li>
</ul>
<p>In the ruling, the Appellate Court agreed with the attorneys for Noel Canning:</p>
<blockquote><p>It is undisputed that the Board must have a quorum of three in order to take action. It is further undisputed that a quorum of three did not exist on the date of the order under review unless the three disputed members (or at least one of them) were validly appointed.  It is further agreed that the members of the Board are “Officers of the United States” within the meaning of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, which provides that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.” (p. 15)</p></blockquote>
<p>The board presently has three members, two of whom are Block and Griffin (Flynn left the board in July of last year). Their removal from the board would reduce it to one member, leaving it unable to issue further rulings until new appointments could be made, as well as invalidate a number of recent Board rulings, such as the Noel Canning ruling. This could impact a number of controversial NLRB initiatives, including:</p>
<ul>
<li>The Poster Rule, which would require workplaces to post notices about employees&#8217; right to organize a union, <a href="http://www.nam.org/Communications/Articles/2012/09/Manufacturers-Renew-Court-Battle-Against-the-NLRB.aspx" target="_blank">remains on hold while the case is being appealed </a>following split rulings where a South Carolina federal court struck the rule down and a Washington D.C. court upheld the Rule.</li>
<li>Several rulings in which the Board ruled the language of employee handbooks in non-union workplaces placed restrictions upon employee communication, which the Board argued could inhibit the ability of employees to organize a union if they chose to do so (<a href="http://www.bakerlaw.com/alerts/nlrb-to-non-union-employers-we-just-may-be-the-boss-of-you-5-4-2012/" target="_blank">Hyundai America Shipping Agency Inc. </a>and <a href="http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/nlrb-finds-that-employer-lawfully-fired-24031/" target="_blank">Karl Knauz Motors</a>).</li>
<li>A ruling (<a href="http://mynlrb.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4580e80f3d" target="_blank">WKYC-TV, Gannet Co., Inc.</a>) that overturned a five-decade precedent by directing employers to continue to withhold union dues after the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement.</li>
</ul>
<p>Republicans were quick to seize upon the ruling as a chance to go after the NLRB. Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander, the ranking Republican on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, demanded <a href="http://www.humanevents.com/2013/01/25/sen-alexander-demands-nlrb-resignations/" target="_blank">the resignations of those board members whose appointments were challenged in the ruling</a>, calling the ruling &#8220;proof that the administration defied the Constitution’s separation of powers and its concept of checks and balances, which are the guard against an imperial presidency.&#8221;</p>
<p>Allen Gray, a lobbyist with Carolinas AGC, a construction industry association based in North and South Carolina, and head of the industry association&#8217;s human resources committee, said the court &#8220;followed the letter of the law&#8221; and predicted the ruling would &#8220;force the President to choose between picking nominees with more moderate positions who could win a confirmation vote or not appointing anyone at all.&#8221; Likewise, Senator Tim Scott (R-South Carolina) expected that future NLRB nominees sent to the Senate for confirmation should be willing to take less pro-union stances. Scott warned &#8220;the agency&#8217;s pattern of punishing states like South Carolina for their successful right-to-work policies has to end. Any future nominees must demonstrate a commitment to treat the families and businesses of pro-worker states just the same as anyone else.&#8221;</p>
<p>In addition to allowing many of the Board’s recent rulings to be vacated, the appellate court&#8217;s ruling &#8211; if upheld &#8211; could affect other recess appointments made by the Obama administration, most notably that of <a href="http://www.consumerfinance.gov/the-bureau/about-rich-cordray/" target="_blank">Rich Cordray, the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau</a>, who has come under fire from the banking industry for advocating excessive regulations and oversight.</p>
<p>The Obama administration is expected to appeal this ruling to the Supreme Court instead of conceding defeat to Republicans, who are eager to force President Obama to moderate the political tone of his nominees. With the GOP getting more aggressive about using the confirmation process to check Obama&#8217;s agenda, it&#8217;s clear that a high-stakes game between congressional Republicans and the White House is underway. Should the Supreme Court uphold the appellate court’s ruling, it would be a major setback for the administration and a major victory for those who&#8217;ve sought to rein in the NLRB&#8217;s radical pro-union agenda.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
</div>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/earl-capps/reining-in-obamas-big-labor-activists/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Arizona Begins Enforcing Immigration Law &#8212; For Now</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/arizona-begins-enforcing-immigration-law-for-now/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=arizona-begins-enforcing-immigration-law-for-now</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/arizona-begins-enforcing-immigration-law-for-now/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2012 04:35:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arnold Ahlert]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arizona]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[identity check]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Illegal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Immigration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jan Brewer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SB 1070]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=144750</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[But pro-illegal alien crusaders are gearing up for a fight.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/jan-brewer-arizona-governor-0816-art.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-144802" title="jan-brewer-arizona-governor-0816-art" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/jan-brewer-arizona-governor-0816-art.gif" alt="" width="375" height="245" /></a>In Arizona on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-immigration-arizonabre88i00z-20120918,0,1427943.story">lifted the injunction</a> on the part of Arizona&#8217;s immigration law upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in June. As a result, police can check the immigration status of people they stop and suspect are in the country illegally. The implementation of this particular provision of SB 1070 represents the latest development in the two-year battle between the state of Arizona and the federal government. Governor Jan Brewer was delighted. &#8220;Today is the day we have awaited for more than two years,&#8221; Brewer said, before adding a caveat. &#8220;It must be enforced efficiently, effectively and in harmony with the Constitution and civil rights. I have full faith and confidence that Arizona&#8217;s State and local law enforcement officers are prepared for this task,&#8221; she added.</p>
<p>What Arizona law enforcement officials actually do may be largely irrelevant. It is no secret the Obama administration and its minions in the Department of Justice (DOJ) are contemptuous of Arizona&#8217;s attempt to protect itself, despite the reality that the state remains the nation&#8217;s most <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/18/us/arizona-immigration/index.html">heavily traveled corridor</a> for both illegal immigration and smuggling. The same DOJ estimated that 400,000 of Arizona&#8217;s two million Latino population are illegal aliens. Moreover, 60 to 70 percent of the state&#8217;s deportations or &#8220;removals&#8221; are Mexican nationals.</p>
<p>The usual demagogues are out in force muddying the waters. Omar Jadwat, a senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union Immigrants&#8217; Rights Project said the ruling &#8220;opens the door to racial profiling, wrongful detentions and arrests, putting everyone&#8217;s civil rights at risk. Law enforcement resources are wasted when people are targeted based on their skin color, and our core American values of fairness and equality are compromised,&#8221; he added. The National Day Laborer Organizing Network released a statement. &#8220;President Obama has the moral responsibility and legal authority to protect the people of Arizona,&#8221; it said. &#8220;We expect he will do everything within his power to prevent the discrimination, punishment, and suffering that will escalate under&#8230;[the law's] implementation.&#8221;</p>
<p>Pro-illegal activists will <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/18/judge-police-to-enforce-ariz-immigration-law-now/?test=latestnews">employ</a> several strategies in an effort to undermine the statute. Efforts to set up a hotline to field questions about one&#8217;s rights if stopped by police have begun. Immigration patrols conducted by police will be monitored by private citizens armed with cameras. Opponents of the law are contacting individual police departments around the state asking them not to enforce the provision. And the ACLU said it was prepared to continue challenging the law by documenting instances of racial profiling throughout the state, according to Alessandra Soler, executive director of the legal group in Arizona. Phoenix attorney Daniel Ortega <a href="http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20120919/BETTERLIFE02/309190072/Judge-Police-can-start-enforcing-Arizona-immigration-law?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CHome%7Cs">echoed</a> that sentiment. “We have to respect authority. We have to be cooperative. But we have constitutional rights and we should exercise them, especially if we believe that the police are racially profiling us and the community,” he said.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/arizona-begins-enforcing-immigration-law-for-now/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Legal Despots and the Threat to Israeli Democracy</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/caroline-glick/legal-despots-and-the-threat-to-israeli-democracy/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=legal-despots-and-the-threat-to-israeli-democracy</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/caroline-glick/legal-despots-and-the-threat-to-israeli-democracy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Sep 2012 04:25:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Caroline Glick]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[families]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[home]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israeli]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Migron]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Peace Now]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Settlers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=142516</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The radical Israeli Left and judicial enablers succeed in their efforts to destroy an Israeli community. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/migron-thumb-470x261-3014.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-142517" title="migron-thumb-470x261-3014" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/migron-thumb-470x261-3014.gif" alt="" width="375" height="250" /></a></p>
<p style="text-align: left;"><em>Originally <a href="http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=283299">published</a> in the Jerusalem Post.</em></p>
<p>By Tuesday, 50 Israeli families will have been tossed out of their homes in their village of Migron, which is set for destruction.</p>
<p>They will not be dispossessed because they unlawfully squatted on someone else&#8217;s property.</p>
<p>The residents of Migron will be tossed from their homes &#8211; on the order of the Supreme Court &#8211; because Attorney-General Yehuda Weinstein and his associates believe they are above the law. And due to this opinion, Weinstein and his associates refuse to recognize the sovereign authority of Israel&#8217;s government or to act in accordance with its lawful decisions.</p>
<p>The media have alternatively presented the story of Migron&#8217;s imminent destruction as a story about a power struggle between so-called settlers and the IDF, whose forces will be called upon to eject them from their homes; or as a struggle between the Israeli residents of Judea and Samaria and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu; or as a struggle between the radical leftists from Peace Now and its fellow foreign government-financed NGOs, and the residents of Judea and Samaria.</p>
<p>These portrayals are reasonable on the narrow level of day to day developments in the story of Migron&#8217;s struggle. But on a more fundamental level, the story of Migron and its pending destruction is the story of the power struggle between Israel&#8217;s unelected, radical legal fraternity represented by the attorney-general, the State Prosecution he directs and the Supreme Court on the one hand, and Israel&#8217;s elected governments &#8211; from the Right and from the Left &#8211; on the other.</p>
<p>Migron is the latest casualty of this struggle. The legal fraternity&#8217;s bid to wrest sovereign power of governance from Israel&#8217;s elected leadership threatens our democracy. In its continuous assault on governing authority, the legal fraternity renders it difficult if not, as a practical matter, impossible, for the government &#8211; any government &#8211; to govern.</p>
<p>It is important at the outset to recognize that there is a world of difference between the rule of law and the rule of lawyers. The fate of Migron, which was sealed on Wednesday with the decision of the Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, to remove all 50 families from their homes, is a legal atrocity.</p>
<p>Migron was founded in 1999 on 60 plots of land. In 2006, the EU-funded Peace Now petitioned the High Court claiming to represent Arab owners of five out of the 60 plots of land. Peace Now asked the court to require the state to explain why it hadn&#8217;t destroyed the town, which the group claimed was built on stolen land. Migron&#8217;s residents dispute this claim.</p>
<p>In responding to this petition, the State Attorney&#8217;s Office could have asked the court to allow the issue of ownership to be adjudicated by a lower court. Instead, the State Prosecution accepted as fact Peace Now&#8217;s unproven claim of private ownership of the land. And, after numerous delays, in 2011 the court ruled that the village must be destroyed.</p>
<p>Following its victory in the Supreme Court, Peace Now sued the state for damages for the alleged Arab landlords, claiming that the presence of the community prevented the land&#8217;s owners from harvesting nonexistent olive trees. Peace Now abruptly canceled its lawsuit when the court asked for proof of ownership.</p>
<p>For their part, Migron&#8217;s residents went through Jordanian land records and were able to find owners for only seven of the registered plots. And they managed to buy &#8211; at exorbitant cost &#8211; three of those plots. Recognizing that its claim that Migron was illegally built on private lands could no longer be justified, Peace Now changed its strategy. In the latest Supreme Court hearings, brought by Migron&#8217;s residents, Peace Now claimed that the reason all the Israelis need to be ejected from their homes, and all the homes need to be destroyed, is that the village was built without proper permits.</p>
<p>Ahead of the court hearing last month, the government&#8217;s Ministerial Committee on Settlement convened to determine the government&#8217;s position on the new Migron petition. Led by Netanyahu, the ministers decided that the government&#8217;s position was to ask for a continuance in order to enable the lower courts to adjudicate the claims of ownership of the land.</p>
<p>Rather than follow the law and represent that position to the court, Weinstein instructed attorney Osnat Mandel from the State Prosecution to inform the court he did not accept the government&#8217;s decision, and ask for a continuance in order to give him time to force the government to change its position.</p>
<p>Addressing the court, Mandel said, &#8220;The attorney- general believes that the ministerial committee&#8217;s position will raise legal difficulties. And since we&#8217;re requesting a continuance for undertaking the evacuation anyway [for unrelated reasons], he requests [time] to hold meetings with the elected leadership.&#8221;</p>
<p>On the face of it, Weinstein&#8217;s defiance of a legally binding government decision was unlawful. Certainly it would appear to be grounds for his immediate firing. But while shocking, Weinstein&#8217;s rank insubordination was not unique.</p>
<p>As relates to Israel&#8217;s legal rights in Judea and Samaria, Weinstein is guided not by the law but by the ideology of the far Left. This ideology received formal expression in a 2005 report on unauthorized Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria authored by former assistant state attorney Talia Sasson. The Sasson Report represented a wholesale renunciation of all Israeli claims to legal rights over Judea and Samaria. It was unhinged from both Israeli and international law.</p>
<p>And it was embraced by the legal fraternity.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/caroline-glick/legal-despots-and-the-threat-to-israeli-democracy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 1432/1598 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 11:24:24 by W3 Total Cache -->