Axis of Right

Three Native Rhode Islanders Commenting From the Right on Politics and Anything Else

Posts Tagged ‘Supreme Court’

Where Does Obama Stand on Gun Rights?

Posted by Ryan on June 29, 2008

We’ve all seen the video from February where Obama agreed wholeheartedly with the 32-year-old DC gun ban, then when the Supreme Court interpreted the 2nd Amendment to mean what it says last week, he was for that too even though it overturned the 32-year-old DC gun ban.

This incident recently reminded me of something my father once said about why on God’s Green Earth the American people voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976:  aside for the Ford/Nixon pardon-thing, the American people found Carter affable because he was for everything they we for!  Whenever he spoke to a new crowd, he told them what they wanted to hear, blurring the lines between what he really wanted to do.  The result was a candidate, then President, who many people thought they agreed with, but in fact did not. 

A recent Rasmussen poll indicates that 43% of the people think Obama disagreed with the Supreme Court’s ruling, while a full 41% think he did agree with the ruling!  It seems like the Obama campaign is being effective at telling people what they want to hear when they want to hear it.  It doesn’t really concerns me where Obama stands on this issue (we all know he won’t appoint anyone to the courts who would have voted to uphold the Constitution) but this is a potential problem for the Fall — saying whatever to whoever and getting away with it.  Add that to the poor state of the McCain camp and we don’t have a prayer.

Advertisements

Posted in Culture, Election 2008, Judicial Watch, Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

SCOTUS: Child Rapists are Protected from the Death Penalty

Posted by Ryan on June 25, 2008

The Supreme Court is getting out of control and the libs on the Court are certainly not making many friends lately.  What’s next I wonder?

In the wake of pronouncing that al Qaeda has more rights than Nazis did, and with 42 states having passed anti-Kelo laws, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 that the death penalty is off-limits for child rapists, unless of course, the child’s death results.  I’ll let you guess who voted to uphold Louisiana’s law allowing the death penalty for child rapists in this blatant act of judicial legislation.

All the Eighth Amendment “cruel and unusual” banter from Justice Kennedy (alas, a Reagan appointee gone loopy), doesn’t really take into account the effects on the victim.  Here’s what Justice Alito had to say about this ruling in his dissent:

“[Alito] lament[ed] that the majority had ruled out executing someone for raping a child ‘no matter how young the child, no matter how many times the child is raped, no matter how many children the perpetrator rapes, no matter how sadistic the crime, no matter how much physical or psychological trauma is inflicted, and no matter how heinous the perpetrator’s prior criminal record may be.’”

Maybe Justice Kennedy thought that the perp, Patrick Kennedy (no joke), was a relative or someone he knew.  Who knows?  Liberals on the court since the 1950s have seen the perps as the one’s potentially hurt by laws, not their victims so much.  I’m just waiting for the political branches of our government to assert themselves against the poorly devised judicial dictates from this court over the last few years. 

Posted in Blogroll, Culture, Election 2008, Judicial Watch, Politics, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments »

Gitmo Detainees Get Their Day in Court

Posted by Ryan on June 12, 2008

And the Constitution gets its day on the toilet paper roll!  The Supreme Court was about as off-base and dangerous today as as they were in Dred Scott.  POWs held at Gitmo will, for the first time in our history, be allowed to have access to civilian US courts during wartime.

These are five Supreme Court Justices that have seriously endangered the American people today:  John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, David Souter, Anthony Kennedy, and Ruth “Biddy” Ginsberg.

These are four Supreme Court Justices still believe in the worth of the Executive and Legislative Branch to protect the American people during wartime:  Chief Justice John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito.

Never in our 232 year history has the American government under either the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution has allowed foreign combatants held overseas access to civilian courts during wartime… until today.  It is not just a defeat of the Bush Administration, but also for Congress, national security and by extension the American people.

Why should habeas corpus apply to non-Americans during wartime on those who tried to kill Americans and were taken on the battlefield?  This is a horribly dangerous precedent — we didn’t even allow Nazis that privilege!!!  What if some of the evidence against the terrorists is classified or involved in ongoing intelligence operations?  Don’t the detainees have the right to have that evidence used or brought up in open court?  The slippery slope potential is uncanny and not in our best interest. 

President Bush is in a position to make a magnanimous gesture for the sake of posterity and NOT enforce this ruling under his watch.  Yet, he will abide and we will suffer in the long-run.  Congress passed and the President signed the current law into effect in 2006, clarifying the law as the Supreme Court asked them too.  This is an example of “legislation from the bench” if anything ever was.  In the words of Justice Scalia: “The Nation will regret what the Court has done today.”

AP photo.

Posted in Culture, Election 2008, Judicial Watch, Politics, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 13 Comments »

Supreme Court Smacks Bush, Mexicans, World Court

Posted by Ryan on March 25, 2008

The Supreme Court voted 6-3 today to strike down President Bush’s adherence to a 1963 International Treaty where aliens caught committing a crime must be aware that they are entitled to legal counsel/advice when tried in American courts.  In today’s case, Medellin v. Texas (2008), the defendant argued that he was not made aware of this detail after his arrest (even though he submitted a hand-written confession after killing two girls in 1993).  After Mexico sued the USA over the issue in 2003, the International Court of Justice in 2004 said that the Mexicans (fifty in all around the US) must be given a new trial if such counsel could affect their cases. 

Today the Mexicans lost.

Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Stevens, and Kennedy were in the majority who believed that:

The president may not “establish binding rules of decision that pre-empt contrary state law.” Neither does the treaty, by itself, require individual states to take action.

Breyer, Ruth Biddy, and Souter dissented citing the primacy of international treaties over American law:

“The nation may well break its word even though the president seeks to live up to that word,” wrote Breyer.

One of the points that Justice Stevens brings up is that Texas could, at any time, give Medellin a new trial.  Yet he ruled with the majority because he believes that Texas may not be compelled to give him a new trial; Texas law taking precedent over the ICJ order which was being enforced by the chief executive in violation of state sovereignty

I agree with this decision and appreciate how the court was defending federalism, states’ rights, and preventing a precedent whereby the World Court could on future occasions dictate what American courts and states can or cannot do.

Posted in Judicial Watch, Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »