What Did June Wreak? And What Does the Future Hold, if Anything.

There is so much unpleasantry going on in these United States this summer. The Son's 18-year marriage dissipated into thin air yesterday with the stroke of a Judge's pen on a Divorce Decree. The Supreme Court has become decidedly and unashamedly activist. (I particularly like one post that I stole and shared on Facebook: "My feed looks like the Confederacy has declared war on a Skittles factory.")

Reparations for Antebellum slavery are going on nationwide, although they're not being identified as such. Donald Trump and Chris Christie have announced campaigns for the presidency. TV Land has canceled re-runs of The Dukes of Hazzard, for crying out loud, and NASCAR is backing off displays of the Confederate Battle Flag!  NASCAR!!!!

And on June 30, there was a convergence of Jupiter and Venus that made them the brightest objects in the night sky.

One blog notes that the last time this happened was a little over 2,000 years ago while three Kings were en route to Bethlehem to welcome our Saviour.

It kinda makes a body wonder. And to get one's affairs in order.

Overload. Heading to the Deck.

So.

Human jackals are looting the crash site of the MalaysianAir passenger plane, shot down with missile fire by who knows.  There is escalated ethnic cleansing of Christians in Iraq by ISIS, without comment from the Obama administration.  On the same day, within hours of one another, two federal Circuit Courts issued conflicting rulings on Obamacare's individual mandate and premium subsidies, thus suggesting an expedited hearing by the Supreme Court on the law's future with a scary, unpredictable CJ Roberts in the fold. And my babiest baby has yet to recover emotionally from having to put her precious pup, Zeus, down.

And, it appears that chipmunks love to devour green cherry tomatoes.  Even those planted in containers. Alvin has ceased to be cute.

Have I mentioned how very peaceful is the view from my back deck when the trees are leafed out?

Thankfully.

Next Up fom the Enumerated Taxation Power --

Makes sense to me.

*sigh*

Obamacare Oral Arguments Begin, and Justice Kagan is In The House (Where She Shouldn't Be)

I may not be able to recall the entire post that Blogger ate yesterday, but at least I can re-post part of it -- the entry from last December that points out the damage that Supreme Court Associate Justice Elena Kagan has done to the image of the federal judiciary by refusing to recuse from participation in the Obamacare appeal, to-wit:

Friday, December 2, 2011

Justice Kagan Sullies the Supreme Court Bench. Badly.

Article III, sec. 1, of the U.S. Constitution establishes the federal judiciary. The requirements aren't much -- one needn't even be a lawyer to qualify as a federal judge. There are only two simple requirements:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

So, to become and remain a federal judge (or Justice) for life, one need only (1) behave him/herself and (2) get paid.

In my opinion, if she continues to refuse to recuse herself from the Obamacare case, Justice Elena Kagan will meet only one of those two simple requisites for service in the federal judiciary.

In her role as Solicitor General, Kagan became so inextricably intertwined in efforts to pass the Act that she cannot possibly be able to remain impartial in hearing arguments against, and deciding on, its constitutionality. Because such an appearance of impropriety falls well shy of "Good Behavior," Justice Kagan should be Impeached, convicted by the Senate, and removed from the bench.

Yes. I contend that such egregious behavior amounts to nothing less than "high crimes and misdemeanors." The woman clearly perjured herself during her confirmation hearings by denying any participation in the Obamacare process, and her threatened participation in the Obamacare case is an oozing blemish on the face of the Supreme Court.

Where's the Clearasil?!?!

The rest of the post had to do with distinguishing Justice Clarence Thomas' decline to recuse.  Liberals had demanded his recusal because his wife was an anti-Obamacare activist before the bill passed.  Based on a personal experience I endured in the wayback, I noted that it's pretty silly to suggest that someone trained in the law would be overwhelmingly swayed by his spouse's take on an issue.

Trust me.  That's a pretty silly argument.

The Supreme Court must get this right and strike down the individual mandate, or we, as a free People, will fade into memory.  We'd better start sending subliminal messages to Justice Kennedy so he'll swing to the side that will rein in the Commerce Clause (and Congress).  All week.

Justice Kagan's Refusal to Recuse Will Leave a Lasting Taint on the Obamacare Decision

Justice Kagan Sullies the Supreme Court Bench. Badly.

Article III, sec. 1, of the U.S. Constitution establishes the federal judiciary.  The requirements aren't much -- one needn't even be a lawyer to qualify as a federal judge.  There are only two simple requirements:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

So, to become and remain a federal judge (or Justice) for life, one need only (1) behave him/herself and (2) get paid.

In my opinion, if she continues to refuse to recuse herself from the Obamacare case, Justice Elena Kagan will meet only one of those two simple requisites for service in the federal judiciary.

In her role as Solicitor General, Kagan became so inextricably intertwined in efforts to pass the Act that she cannot possibly be able to remain impartial in hearing arguments against, and deciding on, its constitutionality. Because such an appearance of impropriety falls well shy short of "Good Behavior," Justice Kagan should be Impeached, convicted by the Senate, and removed from the bench.

Yes.  I contend that such egregious behavior amounts to nothing less than "high crimes and misdemeanors."  The woman clearly perjured herself during her confirmation hearings by denying any participation in the Obamacare process, and her threatened participation in the Obamacare case is an oozing blemish on the face of the Supreme Court. 

Where's the Clearasil?!?!

Tiptoe: The Young President's First Whack at the Supreme Court

This one may just drive us all over the edge. The Young President has already been given the opportunity to nominate a Supreme Court Justice. Speculation is all over the place.

Some pundits think that, knowing he'll probably have more than one appointment over the next 3 1/2 years, he may back off and nominate a fairly moderate centrist. Others think he'll dive directly into the left end of the pool. Of course, race/ethnicity and gender will be criteria. Immutable characteristics such as skin color and reproductive organs are certainly reliable predictors of judicial acumen. Yawn.

The Young President has been quoted as saying he believes the time for radical judicial activism has passed, but another quote has him desiring a nominee "who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book." Huh? Being able to empathize with a litigant's "pain" does not help one to construe a statute or to discern legislative intent.

The Supreme Court rarely seeks the abstract concept of "justice" as its goal; the Supreme Court is tasked by the Constitution and the Common Law system with interpreting the law as it applies to a specific set of facts. Our law school profs taught us that first you argue the Law, and if the law's not on your side, then you argue the Facts; only as a last resort do you argue Public Policy (read: justice). It's that whole hobgoblin-of-small-minds concept.

I just can't see him abandoning juicy judicial activism. He's already thrown most of the Constitution out the window -- why not toss common law precedent out there, too?

Crossposted here.