U.S. Supreme Court...Arizona E Verify Immigrantion Law upheld by Justices!

Today, the Supreme Court ruled that Arizona was within its rights to require employers to check the legal status of their workers before hiring.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce brought a lawsuit against the state over the legal measure on the grounds that enforcement of E-Verify Laws was exclusively in the purview of the federal government.

Surprisingly, the four Justices who sat on the U.S. Supreme Court, tipped their hand when they gave clear and obvious signs at oral argument that they were inclined to rule in favor of the appellant (Arizona).

The final decision was 5 - 3.

Justice Elena Kagan did not vote in the case because of a potential conflict.

Kagan bowed out on the grounds that her previous position as Solicitor General in the Obama administratio
precluded herself from participating in the landmark case.

Although sweeping immigration reforms (instituted in 1986) barred most States the right to enforce immigration laws, there was a loophole which the appellants were able to drive a spike through.

Lawmakers left one clause in 1986 pertaining to “all licenses necessary to operate the businesses" which cinched it for Arizona in a nutshell.

John Roberts noted in his "Opinion" on behalf of the U.S. Supreme Court that Arizona is entitled to enforce its employment-verification requirement through licensing laws which turns out to be a clear opening for other states similarly situated.

“We hold that Arizona’s licensing law falls well within the confines of the authority Congress chose to leave to the states and therefore is not expressly preempted,” Roberts wrote with a nod from his peers on the Court.

In the wake of the ruling, it is anticipated that other states will now follow suit, to put a lid on the hiring of illegal immigrants in the United States which has been escalating out-of-control over the past year.

The high court’s findings in respect to the narrower employer-focused law signals that states have some leeway in passing laws similar to Arizona’s now-infamous immigration law.

A federal E-Verify requirement law is also in the works.

“I am pleased the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Arizona E-Verify law and their right to revoke business licenses for employers that knowingly hire illegal immigrants. Not only is this law constitutional, it is commonsense," beamed House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) who is introducing the measure on the Federal level.

On the heels of this ruling, some Arizona lawmakers are hopeful that another case going before the U.S. Supreme Court in the near future, requiring that local law enforcement officers check for the legal Immigration Status of an arrestee will be successful as well.

News at 11!

http://www.thetattler.biz

U.S. Supreme Court...Unconscionable ruling favors anti-gay protesters! 1st Amendment rights!



One headline said it all:

“Unconscionable but Constitutional”

Of course, I am referring to the high court’s ruling in favor of a hateful posse of protesters who were sued for picketing a soldier’s funeral because he was an “out” practicing homosexual.

While the actions of the rag-tag gang of Church-goers (!) from Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka (Kansas) was considered deplorable (un-Christian-like, if you ask me) the Supreme Court was forced to recognize that the protesters (headed up by Fred Phelps) had a Constitutional right to voice their opinion that the “U.S.” was “overly tolerant of sin” and that God allegedly “Kills soldiers as punishment” for their “gay” lifestyle.

To many, though, the Church group’s anti-gay protests at funerals – where shameful parishioners waved signs that read – “God hates fags” and “Thank God for dead soldiers” – were “sick” and in bad taste.

Although their message may have been lacking in any resemblance to the loving God portrayed in the scriptures – or his message of compassion and understanding and forgiveness – Chief Justice John Roberts noted that Phelps and his bible thumpers observed the laws of the land because they maintained a thousand-foot buffer zone and protested without “physical” violence .

What about the mental and emotional anguish they wrought on innocent mourners?

With an 8-1 ruling to back his decision, the bench-warmer wrote in his opinion that “even hurtful speech on public issues” merits 1st Amendment protection.

In sum, the hypocritical religious zealots won this round – rightly so – for the aforementioned reasons.

However, in the eyes of God, their reprehensible conduct was not only unconscionable – but, sinful - as well.

The scriptures are quite specific in that regard in at least two passage as follows:

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

John 8:7

“Judge not that ye be judged”

Mathew 7:1

Amen!

http://www.thetattler.biz




Chief Justice John Roberts votes for 1st Amendment rights!
(no matter how hateful in nature)

Elena Kagan...media frenzy over sexuality peaks! Supporters scoff "not gay"...

Shortly after President Barack Obama announced that Elena Kagan was his choice for Supreme Court nominee, the Internet was rife with speculation about the perky little politician’s sexuality.

For good reason!

The “gay-marriage” suit - slated for closing arguments in the Federal District Court in June - will probably end up in the lap of the Supreme Court Justices down the road a year or two from now.

Dave Letterman made a quip the other night, for instance, that hinted the Liberal candidate might be a butch gay woman, which caused tongues to wag at coffee coolers at the crack of dawn the following day.

Bill O’Reilly criticized one newspaper for running a photograph of Kagen at the plate on a baseball diamond which inferred that because she played softball she might be a diesel dyke.

At one juncture, O’Reilly threw his hands up in the air in dismay, and called on guest Dennis Miller to voice his opinion on the matter.

“Well, she has a good stance,” he joked straight-faced.

When CBS picked up the story, Kagan supporters sprang into action to squelch the rampant rumors running wild around the four corners of the globe.

“When we were students years ago, I recall her excitedly chatting about a couple of boys, how cute they were, that sort-of-thing,” one long time acquaintance uttered up in her defense in so many words.

I laughed out loud!

Ellen Degeneres often gushes about young studs like the Jonas Boys.

And, fans of Rosie O’Donnell show, can attest to the fact she was always ecstatically blabbing about her crush on Tom Cruise (before she officially came out publicly) .

Bottom line?

Both strong-willed Lesbos with a taste for petty pu**y.

Kagan was also coming of age in an era when homosexuality was strictly taboo in the heartland of America.

In fact, in many respects, it was still the love that dare not speak its name.

A closeted male with his sights set on an executive position at a major corporation often grappled with the dilemma.

Come out, and you might be passed over for a plum job, in a Fortune 500 company.

No wonder, many career-minded homosexuals - with a strong sense of self-survival - chose to live a double-life instead.

There are many instances, for example, where men married - and started up a family - in a deceitful effort to bolster a straight image that would be an entree into the upper echelons of polite society.

Sexual urges for male companionship were pursued in clandestine fashion on the fringes of a shadowy underground gay society behind closed doors.

A few years ago, the Los Angeles Times once reported in the morning daily - that when the police conducted a sweep in the Silverlake area in a bold-faced effort to thwart gays from  prowling for sex on the streets at the midnight hour - a large percentage of the males booked on charges of lewd conduct in a  public place were married (with wives and children at home in the suburbs).

So, the Kagan arguments are flimsy at best.

The fact that the Supreme Court nominee hasn’t stepped forward to resolve the issue publicly - establishes one thing - however.

Kagan definitely doesn’t have any ba**s.

Do you accept Shorty?

http://www.thetattler.biz

Hillary Clinton...bandied about as potential Supreme Court nominee! Obama looney...

Stuff that respectable Justices are made of?

The scuttlebutt on the hill in Washington at the crack of dawn this morning was that Hillary Clinton's name is being bandied about as a potential candidate for the post of Supreme Court Justice.

Obama, say it ain't so!

Clinton is not worthy of the lofty prestigious perch - in the staid environs of the Supreme Court - at the  highest level of the judiciary in the land.

If you recall, during the Whitewater scandal, Mrs. Clinton not only twisted and distorted the facts - but on occasion - locked heads with investigators amidst a lot of nonsensical legal wrangling, dirty politics, and game-playing.

Oh, she's a slippery one, alright!

When Hillary was asked to produce documents, for instance, she begged off with the excuse that she - quite honestly - didn't know where the subject paperwork was.

One fine day when boxes of the incriminating documents turned up, Mrs. Clinton's fingerprints were the only ones spied on the wayward cartons.

Talk about a smoking gun.

Gotcha!

And who could forget the vicious unscrupulous attacks on Obama on the campaign trail?

Hillary and slick Willy are a disreputable duo - prone to feather their own nests - at the expense of others (the taxpayers, in particular).

The former Presidential hopeful's lack of moral rectitude bars her from assuming the post.

In a nutshell, installing Mrs. Clinton as a Justice would not only be a fatal misstep on the part of the President, but result in irreparable harm to the integrity of the Court.
 
Talk about a fox in the hen house!

 

http://www.thetattler.biz/

U.S. Supreme Court...votes down YouTube broadcast of gay-marriage trial!

High Court continues stay of YouTube broadcast!

In a 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme court ruled to continue the "stay" on a YouTube broadcast of the Proposition 8 trial (relating to gay-marriage issues in the State of California) currently underway in San Francisco.

The Justices did not issue  an official opinion stating on what grounds the "emergency" appeal (filed by Proposition 8 litigants) was denied.

A lone dissenter had no qualms about voicing his disapproval, though.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer, asserted in his dissent, that  the court's standard for granting a stay was not met in his view.

"The papers  did not show a likelihood of  irreparable harm," the Justice stated for the record in so many words.

In their concise order, the Justices (in essence) said they were quashing the move by U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker  - "permitting real-time streaming" of the trial  - except as it permitted streaming to other rooms within the confines of the courthouse in which the trial was being held.

http://www.julianayrs.com

Proposition 8...trial begins amidst fears of favoritism! YouTube broadcast "stayed"...

Judge's impartiality in question?

 

Yesterday, the Federal trial began on matters before the Court pertaining to the isssue of same-sex marriage.

At the heart of the legal proceeding rests Prop 8 - a voter-approved measure - that holds that a bond through the act of marriage is a holy union reserved exclusively for a man and woman.

The issue was hotly-contested in lower and upper State courts - and in the process - nearly tore the California apart politically and socially (and otherwise).

When gay activists lost the their last battle in the State Supreme Court arena, two lesbian couples proceeded to file a lawsuit in Federal Court, in a bold-faced effort to overturn Prop 8 on the gounds of discrimination.

In sum, they argued in their briefs that the ballot initiative revoked the marital rights of one disfavored group of California residents and - thus - was unconstitutional.

Not true, argued their strident opponents, who put forth their legal notion that anti-gay bias was "off point" since the State already legalized same-sex domestic partnerships.

The basic underlying arguments sounded reasonable; unfortunately, they tended to splinter off and get shriller and shriller.

For example, opponents to the gay right to marry insisted that extending the privilege to same-sex couples would redefine marriage, weaken biological parents' connection with their children (!), tell men they don't have any significant place in the family life (!), and force many religious Americans into choosing between being a believer and a good citizen.

What a load of hogwash!

If you ask me, both sides are a little hysterical at this juncture.

But, the judge presiding over the case - Chief  U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker - is a bit of a wild card, too (if you read are inclined to read between the lines).

For example, Prop 8 supporters have lamented that the Judge's rulings to date in the preliminary phase of the trial,  have tended to favor the gay lifestyle advocates.

Couple those allegations with Walker's decision to go forward with a non-jury trial - and its easy to fathom why all parties to the proceedings (and fascinated curiosity-seekers on the sidelines) - are all keyed up with emotion.

The bench-warmer's  decision to broadcast the proceedings on YouTube didn't sit well with me.

On one hand, ensuring that the proceedings are transparent is of the utmost importance, but my concern is that the whole proceeding will be trivialized in the process.

The integrity of the court may be at stake.

Fortunately, as I was putting the final touches on this post, news came over the wire that the U.S. Supreme Court "stayed" the Judge's ruling to allow the trial to be broadcast on the pop culture site until Wednesday (and until such time as the Justices have the opportunity to review briefs and make a final determination).

The only way to view the proceedings currently is by dropping into Judge Walker's courtroom on the 17th floor of the Federal Courthouse where thirty-six seats daily await lucky individuals who manage to  maneuver their way into the proceedings.

Another one-hundred-and-fifty seats are available in an overflow courtroom on the 19th floor where the trial is being broadcast on close-circuit television.

However, I gave the Judge a thumbs up when he explained the reasoning behind a trial process he intends to follow to the "t".

"A trial is needed because critical facts are in dispute - for example, the extent of discrimination against gays and lesbians, the possible effects on same-sex marriage on opposite-sex couples, and the intent of Prop 8."

Legal analysts argue that the intent of the measure may be the decisive issue.

Attorneys for Prop 8 proponents underscored in their legal brief that the traditional defintion of marriage does not reflect any animus against gays and lesbians.

"It simply reflects that the institution of marriage is, and always has been concerned with promoting and regulating naturally procreative relationships between men and women to provide for the nurture and upbringing of the next generation," he added.

If I wanted to be Devil's advocate  - I might argue on that premise - that gay couples who have naturally-born offspring (with a former spouse, let's say) or adopted children be allowed to marry for the same beneficial reasons.

If barred from doing so, under the circumstances, wouldn't that be discrimination?

In addition to this issue, the court intends to also probe the history and meaning of marriage, the adequacy of domestic parnership as a substitute, and the social political status of gays and lesbians in the community-at-large.

Say, whatever happened to the transgenders?

The searing glare of the spotlight has been on gays and lesbians primarily.

Are they out of the loop, I wonder.

The Prop 8 supporters, in the final analysis, are expecting the worst-case scenario.

For this reason, a rep from Protective Marriage, chided the naysayers.

"Forunately, the last word will come from the nine Justices in the highest court of the land," he smugly noted for the record.

Maybe he needed to do a bit of legal research before opening his yap.

After all, in 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down laws against same-sex sodomy.

As far as legal eagles are concerned, any hint at what action the Justices may take on the issue of same-sex marriages, is blowing in the wind.

Today?

Day two of the controversial trial will shortly be underway at the Federal Courthouse.

See 'ya there!

Poster gals for same-sex marriage!

http://www.julianayrs.com

Medical Marijuana...U.S. Supreme Court refuses to hear case! Victory for patients...

I have reported on the ongoing battle in the courts in the matter of a medical marijuana case - Garden Grove vs. Superior Court - which eventually weedled (no pun intended) its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Yesterday, the high court of the land refused to review a landmark decision, wherein California State Courts found that the medical marijuana law was not preempted by Federal Law as previously argued.

Initially, the lower court Justices in the Appellate court issued an "Opinion" on November 28, 2007, that specifically underscored the grounds for their historic ruling.

"It is not the job of the local police to enforce the federal drug laws."

The case arose from an incident in June of 2005 when police charged resident Felix Kha with possession of marijuana (in spite of the fact papers in his possession verified he was a medical marijuana patient entitled to legally use the controlled substance) and proceeded to confiscate Kha's medicine in what was later to be determined as a wrongful seizure.

Medical marijuana advocates who have been vigorously fighting this case in the courts for the past three years, praised the Supreme Court for rendering what they deemed a just decision.

In sum, legal scholars have hailed the ruling as significant because it has underscored law enforcement's obligation to uphold state law.

On the heels of the conclusion of the exhaustive legal wrangling, advocates have theorized that there will now be stricter adherence to state medical marijuana laws by local police - the end result being - that there won't be as many arrests or illegal seizures.

"It's now settled that state law enforcement officers cannot arrest medical marijuana patients or seize their medicine simply because they prefer the contrary federal law," said Joe Elford, Chief Counsel with Americans for Safe Access (ASA), the medical marijuana advocacy organization that represented defendant Felix Kha.

"Perhaps, in the future local government will think twice about expending significant time and resources to defy a law that is overwhelmingly supported by the people of our state."

Don't Bogart that joint, Arnold!

Supreme Court...agrees to rule on fleeting expletives & obscenity issues!

So, that's what a t** looks like...


The Supreme Court has taken up the task of revisiting the issue of obscenity on the public airwaves, a subject they last addressed over thirty years ago when they upheld fines against a radio station for broadcasting comedian George Carlin's infamous "seven dirty little words" monologue that was aired in mid-afternoon programming amid a lot of controversy.

Federal Law forbids broadcasting any obscene, indecent, or profane language.

However, when Congress constructed the laws pertaining to obscenity, lawmakers fell short in defining indecency, preferring for the FCC and the courts to tackle the specifics.

The issue is ripe for review once again in the wake of a major ruling handed down by an Appellate Court in New York which effectively blocked the FCC from enforcing a strict new rule in respect to "fleeting expletives".

For the broadcasters, the ruling was a clear victory.

The FCC had slapped hefty fines against the networks when two stage performers - independent of each other - uttered what many thought was offensive language on a couple of awards shows that were broadcast live.

At the Golden Globes, for instance, when Bono got up to accept an award, he excitedly cried out to the wildly enthusiastic audience,

"This is f**king brilliant!"

In a second incident, after Cher had been roundly written off by critics as a has-been, she found herself trotting up to the stage to accept a career achievement award. When she accepted her coveted prize, she made reference to their absurd musings and joyfully quipped,

"Well, f**k 'em!"

The FCC also imposed a $550,000.00 fine against CBS when there was an alleged wardrobe malfunction at a half-time show at a Sports Event in which Janet Jackson's breast became exposed to the nation in prime time without warning.

The networks filed suit arguing that they should not be held for responsible for fleeting expletives that pop out of the mouth's of performers in a moment of excitement when overwhelmed by such an auspicious occasion or have to pay fines for mishaps which occur during the course of a broadcast unexpectedly.

The New York court ruled in favor of the broadcasters on the grounds that the FCC had not been justified in its abrupt change in policy. In addition, the Justices elaborated that the FCC policy was "unclear" because the F-word was permitted in some news shows and in the TV broadcast of "Saving Private Ryan".

The producers argued that in the instance of "Ryan", the profanity used on the D-day beaches was integral to depicting the horror of war.

At the request of Government lawyers and George Bush's administration, the Supreme Court agreed to take on the case which is ripe for review.

Some are troubled by the decision since they believe that the New York Appellate Court ruling was "well-reasoned" - and therefore - should "stand".

Meanwhile, others have applauded the action taken by the Supreme Court.

Timothy Winter - the President of the Parents Television Council in Los Angeles - complained that coarse unedited profanity is unacceptable for broadcast over publicly owned airwaves when children are likely to be watching.

Mr. Winter also noted that within days of the expletives being hurled into the public airwaves into the faces of citizens around the country, at least 1.2 million members of his group complained about the flagrant obscenity.

In their review of the issues, the Justices will determine whether federal regulators may levy large fines on broadcasters who let expletives on the airwaves during daytime and early-evening hours.

Likewise, the Justices may take the occasion to define the term "obscenity" more succinctly, so that the "laws of the land" may be administered more astutedly in the future without hindrance or controversy.

Without doubt, the high court will also determine the exact extent of the "reach" of the FCC, how broad their powers are, and so forth and so on.

On the other hand, it is wholly possible in the grand scheme of things, that the Justices may conclude that the protection that the 1st Amendment provides in respect to - "Freedom of Speech" - does not permit the government to punish broadcasters for an occasional vulgarity.

I'm all for freedom of speech but against rampant obscenity on the airwaves, especially when it is exploitative, has no redeaming value, and has the potential to rob our youth of their innocence.

"Obscenity is what gives a Judge an erection"
Author unknown