So today we had a “duh” ruling. This is so obvious that one has to wonder when the four dissenting judges are going to be impeached by Congress for blatantly denying Constitutional rights.

What should worry people who care about the Constitution is that this was a 5-4 ruling. That means that there was actually a “swing vote” over such an obvious and clear right protected by the Bill of Rights. That means that it would only take one Constitutionalist judge being replaced by a liberal to erase this obvious, clear right from existence.

I won’t bore people with more punditry — it’s all been said. I’m glad that the Supreme Court has affirmed an obvious fact, and struck down an obviously unconstitutional law. I’ll be happy about that and shut up now.

“A small Virginia company in a patent fight with eBay Inc. asked a federal judge Tuesday to stop the online auction powerhouse from using its ‘Buy It Now’ feature allowing shoppers to buy items at a fixed price.”

And here I thought buying items at a fixed price was just the way most stores sell things! I never knew it was such a novel concept that someone could actually file a patent on it.

Obviously, there’s some absurd obfuscation involved that some patent clerk thought was good enough for a filing. This is just like the ridiculous “One click buying” patent Amazon.com had — a company being granted ownership of a concept so utterly simple and obvious.

I’m all for intellectual property rights, but this is beyond absurd.

1. Imagine if we had to look at a map like that to find out where we could exercise our FIRST amendment rights.

2. It should be as difficult to register to vote as it is to legally carry a concealed firearm. If you can not be trusted with your Second Amendment rights, you can not be trusted to help decide who gets to make laws.

Suppose that one year ago, house bill 1572 were not squashed before it could get a floor vote:

[State quashed bill allowing handguns on campuses]

Clearly, squashing a bill reaffirming students’ Second Amendment rights didn’t make Virginia Tech “safer.”

Imagine if those students had their First Amendment rights infringed in college. The ACLU would have been there in a heartbeat. Where are those students’ civil rights now?

The attack on the Second Amendment rights of responsible United States citizens hasn’t just disarmed law abiding citizens; it has also had the effect of making them dependent upon government agents for their defense. And that’s the tragedy in the atrocity: that a single student could rampage for over two hours without being stopped by his peers.

Here we go: Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant.

This interesting molecule, without which life on earth would not exist, has been shafted by the US Supreme Court. And I felt sorry for Pluto. This beats what happened to Pluto by a mile.

The problem with this ruling is not the absurdity of calling CO2 a pollutant (which is certainly absurd), but is, yet again, the US Supreme Court ignoring their Constitutional role and pretending to be legislators.

The Supreme Oligarchy essentially decided that Congress erred in not including CO2 in the list of “pollutants” that the EPA is charged with regulating, so they decided to simply amend the law by fiat.

When are people going to wake up and realize that the United States is no longer a country of law, but one of authority? This is not the government described by the Constitution.

And, if you’re a Republican voting in a primary, remember that McCain doesn’t think Americans should have the right to pool their resources during election time to support politicians and issues, and oppose politicians and issues, without restrictive guidelines that he sets.

“Litman said that under the Induce Act, products like ReplayTV, peer-to-peer networks and even the humble VCR could be outlawed because they can potentially be used to infringe copyrights.”

This is very bad. This is Disney being allowed to shape copyright law. Orrin Hatch should be ashamed of himself for promoting such nonsense.

Saying that devices or software that can be used for copyright infringement should be outlawed is just like saying that firearms should be banned because some people use them to commit crimes. It’s bad thinking.

Now, in San Francisco, the mayor has ordered that marriage licenses be given to homosexual couples, despite the fact that California citizens voted overwhelmingly to make it law that a marriage is between one man and one woman. In this case, the mayor is clearly breaking the law, and no legal or constitutional acrobatics are necessary to realize that. Unlike in the Alabama Ten Commandments issue, there is a clear law on the books in California prohibiting what is being allowed in San Francisco.

And yet, nothing is being done. It is in fact the responsibility of the governor of California to oversee the execution of California’s laws. However, Governor Schwarzenegger has simply issued a statement that he “encourages” San Francisco officials to abide by the law. How nice… and the courts? They are allowing this show to go on for a while because someone misplaced a semicolon in a legal filing. Perhaps the California courts will eventually affirm that the marriage licenses in question are invalid, but the damage has been done.

What we have here is a clear and blatant double-standard. Where Judge Moore broke no law and merely did not bow to the whim of an activist judge, the mayor of San Francisco is openly defying a law recently passed by the majority of California voters, and getting away with it. Whereas Judge Moore could be attacked and vilified because he was upholding what he believed was the foundation of law in Alabama, Mayor Gavin is untouchable because his cause is politically correct and designed to completely dismantle the traditional definition of a family unit.

If this continues and so-called “gay marriage” eventually becomes legal in the US, a government marriage license will be utterly meaningless.