In an act of terminal stupidity, the overwhelmingly Democrat New York City Council passed and the RINO Mayor Bloomberg signed a bill repealing the provisions of the food and general vendor laws requiring that officials check the citizenship status of license applicants.
These amply compensated politicians may not have to worry about their hot dog coming with a side of drug-resistant TB, but we all have to worry about terrorism. How hard would it be to hide 100 pounds of explosives in a food cart and wheel it to city hall?
What Bin Laden Couldn’t do, City Hall can, thanks to The Supreme Court
The MTA is seizing stores on Fulton street, just as they recover from September 11th. Having stayed at this location out of a sense of patriotism and loyalty to the city, the small business owners are being offered ¼ of the value of their stores.
And people wonder why businesses continue to leave New York.
Mayor Bloomberg's attempt to buy his way out of being the next John Lindsey hits a speedbump.
National Union split asunder, civil war to commence (please)?
TEAMSTERS GIVE LEADERS AUTHORITY TO LEAVE AFL-CIO
Who Guards the Guardians?
Schumer has a point, kind of. Whether one support the nomination of Judge John Robert to the supreme court, are skeptical, or a scared by him, we should all support efforts to have a nominee state his positions.
Traditionally, nominees have been judged on the basis of their qualifications and character. It is time to re-evaluate this deference.
The Supreme Court, once limited to protecting the Constitution, have become super legislators. Whether the degeneration began with Marbury vs Madison or in the Court-packing crisis of 1937, by the Warren era, the court had become a Judicial oligarchy of nine. Even the supposedly conservative Rehnquist court, has done failed to restore the Constitutional order.
Driven by legal fads, changing mores, and the power to rewrite the Constitution’s meaning, the true Nazgul conjured new “rights” like abortion out of penumbras while property rights, equality under the law, and the First and Second Amendment where interpreted out of existence. (Evidently the First Amendment was really created to protect pornography and the secular humanist state, not to protect political speech or the independence of houses of worship.)
I for one, would like to know if Judge Robert’s thinks that Roe v Wade is “settled Constitutional Law”, despite having no basis in the Constitution.
I would like to know what prior court decisions Roberts disagrees with.
Robert’s defense of Judicial Supremacy in his testimonial duel with Schumer in 2003, is troubling.
"With respect, Senator, you're getting back in the area of asking me to criticize particular Supreme Court precedents. I think it's inappropriate because it would be harmful to the independence and integrity of the Federal judiciary. The reason I think key to the independence and strength of the Federal judiciary is that judges come to the cases before them, unencumbered by prior commitments, beyond the commitment to apply the rule of law and the oath that they take."
Which is it? Is Roberts encumbered by precedent (Roe, Kelo, Grutter …) or is his true commitment to the Constitution, and dare I pray, to restoring our branches of government to the status of co-equals?