Some justices seem to rethink campaign-finance ruling

There's no such thing as "re-resigning." After McConnell, I wrote a letter to the CLerk of Court asking him to remove my name from the list of Members of the SC Bar, and confirm to me that was done. He did that. And then I wrote and published my reasons why, in "To the Supreme Court: I Quit."

I agree with you, however, that the Kelo decision is an abomination. In that, as in McConnell, the majority of the Justices wiped their feet on the Constitution.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column: "On Judge Alito, the San Francisco Chronicle is Unfit to be a Newspaper"

When the Supreme Court socialists (er, .illiberal) decided in favor of "the state" [when the government wants a piece of property (to increase tax revenue), it CAN TAKE that piece of property], they disguised their socialism because there was a "greater need" (of tax revenue) that were more important than the specific words in the Constitution (that prohibit eminent domain.)

They found "a right to privacy" (somewhere - it isn't in the Constitution either!) over the specific "right to life" in the Declaration of Independence and "due process" (for the unborn"

1. So, when the states-rights-socialists (on the Supreme Court) found they needed to decide in favor of McCain-Feingold over the First Amendment, what words did they find as an excuse to ignore the very clear words in the First Amendment?

2. If (and we were only lucky that these cases did NOT come up in front of these states-rights-socialists), what else would they have eliminated:

"Public safety" over "Private right to guns"? (Most likely.)

"Wall between church and state" (from Jefferson's private letter to a friend) over the First Amendment's "right to worship"? (Again, very likely.)

Would they find an unalienable "Right to die" (when somebody wants an elderly or invalid to die rather than live inconveniently and expensively) somewhere? (Oh yeah, they already did do that.)

Robert, my friend,

The headlines gave the impression that the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of the "right to die" as established by Oregon law. Since I'm writing an article on that right now, I can assure you that the case does not say that.

Instead, the Court took a close look at the drug laws as established by Congress. Those give the licensing of physicians to dispense dangerous substances to the federal government. But those laws leave the licensing of physicians to practice medicine solely in the hands of the states, as it always has been.

In short, the Court ruled that the Attorney General acted beyond the power that Congress delegated to him. And I not only have no quarrel with that, based on the law before them I believe the Court acted correctly.

As usual, the MSM did not read the full decision and find out that this was a small, technical decision, rather than a sweeping, general decision.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column: "On Judge Alito, the San Francisco Chronicle is Unfit to be a Newspaper"

“You have a very good argument, but we heard it right in that case,” Justice Stephen Breyer told James Bopp, lawyer for the Wisconsin group, referring to the McConnell decision. “What’s different, or are you asking us to undo what we did?”

Translation: PLEASE do not revisit this case with the revamped lineup on the court.

After McConnell, I wrote a letter to the CLerk of Court asking him to remove my name from the list of Members of the SC Bar, and confirm to me that was done. He did that. And then I wrote and published my reasons why, in "To the Supreme Court: I Quit."

Bless you, CB. We need more people who will make that kind of a statement nowadays.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.