The US Supreme Court has a new diktat for us. Are you ready for this?
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.
The US Supreme Court is going to hear a campaign finance case. The McCain-Feingold law is one of the most free-speech-infringing pieces of legislation ever to come out of Congress, telling Americans what they can and can’t say about politicians during election periods. A weak Republican congress, and a president who forgot his veto pen, all assumed the “bad parts” would be struck down by the Supreme Court. That didn’t happen in 2003, but maybe this time it will. Let’s hope so.
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.
Bush Campaign to Legally Challenge 527 Ads – I find this whole notion of stopping organizations from running ads against politicians blatantly un-American. Regardless of who is benefiting from what ads, doesn’t the First Amendment say something about freedom of political speech? Apparently not during an election year. Instead of caving in to the stunts and rants of people whining about Swift Vets speaking their minds about Kerry, Bush should be apologizing for signing the so-called “campaign finance reform bill” and asking Kerry why a group of Swift Vets shouldn’t be allowed freedom of speech.
Antipiracy bill targets technology
“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.
Last year, the elected Supreme Court Chief Justice of Alabama was told by a federal appeals court judge to remove a piece of furniture from his courthouse. In that case, no law was being broken, and the Judge Moore’s refusal to comply cost him is position. [See Rule of Law verses Rule of Judges]
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.