14 Responses to “Update: state defendants in Grinols postponed their hearing, however the US Dep’t. of Justice is not willing to stay their motion pending decision by the 9th circuit. I wonder why?”

1. dawn
   February 28th, 2013 @ 6:57 pm

   Is that kind of a ‘meow’ response? Why can’t men be the ‘man’ they used to be?

2. J Davis
   February 28th, 2013 @ 7:54 pm

   The courts are a bunch of BS

3. charlene zechender
   February 28th, 2013 @ 8:06 pm

   Valerie Jarrett’s New Supreme Court – Two Down and Two To Go…

   by Ulsterman on March 1, 2013 with 0 Comments in News

   A very interesting piece by the Washington Post celebrating the two newest members of the Supreme Court and their ability and willingness to push back effectively against the conservative majority. Valerie Jarrett must be incredibly pleased to see her hard work paying off so well…

   EXCERPT (via Washington Post)
   Sotomayor, Kagan ready for battles

   For a quarter-century, Antonin Scalia has been the reigning bully of the Supreme Court, but finally a couple of justices are willing to face him down.

   As it happens, the two manning up to take on Nino the Terrible are women: the court’s newest members, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

   …The styles of the two Obama appointees are different. Sotomayor is blunt and caustic, repeatedly interrupting. In an opinion this week, she harshly criticized a Texas prosecutor for a racist line of questioning. She has been on the interview circuit publicizing her memoir.
   Read more in News
   « WHITE HOUSE INSIDER: Updates

   Kagan is choosier about when to interject herself, but she’s sardonic and sharp-witted. (“Well, that’s a big, new power that you are giving us,” she said, mockingly, when a lawyer tried to argue that the justices should overrule Congress’s discrimination findings.)

   Both are more forceful than the Clinton appointees, the amiable Breyer and the frail Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The two new justices are sending a message to the court’s conservative majority: You may have the votes, but you’re going to have a fight.

   …Wednesday’s voting rights case was typical. Surprisingly, the five conservative justices seemed willing to strike down a landmark civil rights law (the provision that gives extra scrutiny to states with past discrimination) that was renewed with near-unanimous votes in Congress. Conservative jurists usually claim deference to the elected branches, but in this case they look an awful lot like activist judges legislating from the bench.

   Sotomayor allowed the lawyer for the Alabama county seeking to overturn the law to get just four sentences into his argument before interrupting him. “Assuming I accept your premise — and there’s some question about that — that some portions of the South have changed, your county pretty much hasn’t,” she charged. “Why would we vote in favor of a county whose record is the epitome of what caused the passage of this law to start with?”

   Moments later, Kagan pointed out that “Alabama has no black statewide elected officials” and has one of the worst records of voting rights violations.

   Scalia and Justice Samuel Alito tried to assist the Alabama county’s lawyer by offering some friendly hypotheticals, but Sotomayor wasn’t interested in hearing that. “The problem with those hypotheticals is obvious,” she said, because “it’s a real record as to what Alabama has done to earn its place on the list.”

   Sotomayor continued questioning as if she were the only jurist in the room. “Discrimination is discrimination,” she informed him, “and what Congress said is it continues.”

   At one point, Justice Anthony Kennedy tried to quiet her. “I would like to hear the answer to the question,” he said. The lawyer got out a few more sentences — and then Kagan broke in.

   Sotomayor continued to pipe up, even when Solicitor General Donald Verrilli was defending the Voting Rights Act — at one point breaking in as Alito was attempting to speak. Chief Justice John Roberts overruled her. “Justice Alito,” he directed.

   Scalia was not about to surrender his title of worst-behaved justice. He mocked the civil rights law as he questioned the government lawyer. “Even the name of it is wonderful,” he said. “The Voting Rights Act: Who is going to vote against that?” (Verrilli cautioned him not to ignore actual votes of Congress in favor of “motive analysis.”)

   But Scalia’s mouth was no longer the loudest in the room. When the Alabama county’s lawyer returned for his rebuttal, he managed to utter only five words — “Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice” — before Sotomayor broke in. LINK

   __________________________

   Let me now remind you of a portion of Valerie Jarrett’s now infamous promise days before the 2012 election:

   A”fter we win this election, it’s our turn. Payback time. Everyone not with us is against us and they better be ready because we don’t forget. The ones who helped us will be rewarded, the ones who opposed us will get what they deserve. There is going to be hell to pay. Congress won’t be a problem for us this time. No election to worry about after this is over and we have two judges ready to go.” LINK

   So we have the two newest judges now acting far more aggressive than either their fellow liberal judges or the their conservative counterparts. As problematic as that is, imagine now two more such judges being added to the court. That is what Jarrett has promised, and given the radicalized agenda now being strongly pushed by the Obama administration that includes gun restrictions, higher taxes, massive cuts to the military…etc…the promise of two more judges ready to go is likely quite true as well. The first to retire from the Supreme Court will likely be Justice Ginsberg, who though a staunch liberal Justice, has far less aggression and influence than the two newest liberal Justices. It is then the second vacancy that could then potentially shift the balance of power and remove the possibility of the Court slowing or denying the continued Obama/Jarrett agenda.

   Justice Anthony Kennedy.

   Despite promises a few years ago that he would not retire until Barack Obama was no longer in the White House, whispers are increasing regarding Justice Kennedy reconsidering that promise. If he were to step down, and the Court be replaced by a third highly aggressive liberal Justice, AND Democrats were to take control of the House of Representatives in 2014 the prognosis for the United States would likely quickly go from critical to terminal. (Some argue that has happened already – and there is much to agree with there)

   HERE IS THE GOOD NEWS THOUGH. (Credit to WHI for pointing this out to me recently)

   -Republicans hold the House in 2014 – Obama/Jarrett agenda minimized as Obama becomes Lame Duck and Democrats willing to more openly refuse his administration.

   -Republican president elected in 2016. Between 2016 and 2020 there could be as many as THREE Supreme Court Justice positions become available. The conservative court is further solidified and would then allow a Republican administration to effectively undo much of the damage of the Obama years.

   A simple and effective game plan.

   2012 was a tough and terrible loss for those who pray for a restored America. But 2012 was not the endgame. We don’t give in. We don’t give up.

   Bring on 2014…

4. charlene zechender
   February 28th, 2013 @ 8:07 pm

   they all are in it they is no one going to help us i cant believe people congress and our courts wont stop him this nation is gone

5. Rod Riddle
   February 28th, 2013 @ 8:39 pm

   Because he’s a scared little coward just like the rest of em.

6. TOM SCOTT
   February 28th, 2013 @ 8:46 pm

   The US Department of Just-Us will not do anything to go against Obama. From being America’s own Attorney General, Holder is Obama’s puppet.

7. Dudley DoRight
   February 28th, 2013 @ 10:54 pm

   Orly – So what does all this mean in lay language to the average person? Please explain – Thank you.

8. BLAISE DAVIS
   February 28th, 2013 @ 11:16 pm

   IS MARCH 5 STILL THE HEARING DATE?

9. Mission: Impossible
   March 1st, 2013 @ 1:49 am

   Well, I’ll post this here instead of the next category: We got (2) SC justices that never been a judge before-? and this is what happens when that totally, liberal, mental illness runs amok!
   ……….
   Yeah, the men on the SC are allowing the “bitch brigade” to take over! They’re lucky I wasn’t on that court, I’d of pointed out that they both have “constipation of the brain and diahrrea of the mouth!” This is ridiculous!

10. Holden Milode
    March 1st, 2013 @ 5:39 am

    This guy is not being reasonable. We’ve been waiting almost 5 years for the courts to rule on the evidence. I’m not sure how much longer we’re suppose to wait!

11. Hope Uswaller
    March 1st, 2013 @ 5:43 am

    What does this mean? I’d like to know if this will be done or not?

12. Thomas
    March 1st, 2013 @ 5:50 am

    How long before Justice Thomas grows a set and decides to ADMIT he was wrong about Obama/Soetoro?

13. Francisco
    March 1st, 2013 @ 8:43 am

    Two weeks after the SCOTUS Conference of February 15, 2013, and with 95 % of cases having been denied Certoriari, case 12A606 is still under review as of this moment.
    The Impostor-in-Chief should be biting his manicured nails right now !

14. Francisco
    March 1st, 2013 @ 10:02 am

    Not being a lawyer, what I am about to say might make no sense at all, but the fact that from the SCOTUS Conference of 2/15/2013, close to 500 cases have been denied Certoriari, and that case 12A606, with a handful of others, remains without an Order been given by the SCOTUS, it tells me that something might be cooking at the Supreme Court Building, and it is not Chili-Con-Carne !

Leave a Reply