Antonin #Scalia scores one last victory #SCOTUS

By Post Editorial Board

May 20, 2016 | 9:54pm

Modal Trigger

Supreme Court Justice Antonin ScaliaPhoto: Zuma Wire

Congenitally offended campus lefties finally lost one: The law school at George Mason University has been renamed for the late, great Justice Antonin Scalia.

The State Council of Higher Education for Virginia this week unanimously declined to block the renaming, ignoring the protests of Democratic politicians and the
George Mason Faculty Senate, which passed a resolution opposing the new name.

But the Law School faculty actually supported it — since the new name is linked to $30 million in donations for scholarships, a dozen added faculty and new facilities.

The petty professors over on the main campus couldn’t see past their cartoonish, lefty views of Scalia. They’d have done better to heed the words of his impeccably liberal fellow justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

“Justice Scalia was a law teacher, public servant, legal commentator and jurist nonpareil . . . I miss his bright company and the stimulus he provided, his opinions ever challenging me to meet his best efforts with my own. It is a tribute altogether fitting that George Mason University’s law school will bear his name. May the funds . . . aid the Antonin Scalia School of Law to achieve the excellence characteristic of Justice Scalia, grand master in life and law.”

#Obama Detectives question lack of autopsy in #Scalia death @Post

• Google
• Email
• Copy

NEWS

EXCLUSIVE

By Jamie Schram and Bob Fredericks

February 15, 2016 | 11:07pm

Modal Trigger

Antonin ScaliaPhoto: Zumapress

MORE ON:

ANTONIN SCALIA

Jeb calls to block literally anyone Obama nominates for Scalia's seat

The president doesn't deserve an EZ-pass in replacing Scalia

5 judges on Obama's rumored short list to replace Scalia

I found Scalia dead with a pillow over his head: ranch owner

Veteran homicide investigators in New York and Washington, DC, on Monday questioned the way local and federal authorities in Texas handled the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

“It’s not unreasonable to ask for an autopsy in this case, particularly knowing who he is,” retired Brooklyn homicide Detective Patricia Tufo told The Post.

“He’s not at home. There are no witnesses to his death, and there was no reported explanation for why a pillow is over his head,” Tufo said. “So I think under the circumstances it’s not unreasonable to request an autopsy. Despite the fact that he has pre-existing ailments and the fact that he’s almost 80 years old, you want to be sure that it’s not something other than natural causes.”

Bill Ritchie, a retired deputy chief and former head of criminal investigations for the DC police, said he was dumbstruck when he learned that no autopsy would be performed.

“I took a look at the report and I almost fell out of my chair,” Ritchie told The Post from his home in Maryland.

“I used to be an instructor in the homicide school. Every death investigation you are handling, you consider it a homicide until the investigation proves otherwise,” Ritchie said.

“How do you know that person wasn’t smothered? How do you know it’s not a homicide until you conduct an investigation? You have to do your job. Once you go through that process, you can conclude that this is a naturally occurring death.”

Presidio County Judge Cinderela Guevara said she declared Scalia dead via telephone based on what cops and marshals at the scene told her — that there were no signs of foul play.

“How in the world can that Texas judge, not even seeing the body, say that this is a heart attack?” Ritchie wondered. “A US marshal can’t tell you. You need a medical professional. If this was Joe Blow, you say OK, 79 years of age, health problems, maybe natural causes. But this is a sitting justice of the Supreme Court!”

Guevara also spoke by phone with Scalia’s physician, who told her Scalia had several chronic medical conditions and had gone to the doctor’s last week for a shoulder problem, reports say.

Scalia’s family did not want an autopsy, she added.

With AP

#SCOTUS Ranting on Facebook Not a Crime ! @NBC

Bloomberg via Getty Images

Updated 8 minutes ago

The U.S. Supreme Court today said the government cannot base a prosecution for sending an Internet threat solely on how the message was perceived, NBC News reported. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for seven justices, said it was not enough for prosecutors to show that the comments of Anthony Elonis would make a reasonable person feel threatened. But the court did not specify to lower courts exactly what the standard of proof should be. Elonis was prosecuted under a law banning illegal threats after he posted Facebook rants in the form of rap lyrics about killing his estranged wife, harming law enforcement officials and shooting up a school. The justices ordered a new trial for the Pennsylvania amusement park worker.

Get More at NBCNews.com

Published 34 minutes

Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/national-international/Supreme-Court-Ranting-on-Facebook-Not-a-Crime-305692991.html#ixzz3bpINBhpy
Follow us: @nbcchicago on Twitter | nbcchicago on Facebook

#GAY MEANS #SODOMY !!!

The latest salvo in the incessant GAY WAR on CIVILIZATION states that CHRISTIANS must BE MADE to CONFORM to their SICK View of LIFE by CHANGING OUR LAW - before the US SUPREME COURT TODAY -

I've GOT SOME 


BAD NEWS




GOD'S HOLY LAW was written thousands of years ago and WILL NEVER CHANGE -

GOD spoke to the #EVIL of #HOMOSEXUALITY centuries AGO:

1. The HOLY Law of God

Leviticus 18:22, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” An abomination is anything that is disgusting to God.

Leviticus 20:13, “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

Deuteronomy 23:17,28 “There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”



The word “dog” means a 


sodomite or a male prostitute.

The Uproar over #RELIGIOUS #FREEDOM points out a CRITICAL DIFFERENCE Between the #EVIL of #HOMOSEXUALITY and normal folk -

SODOMY!!

Now, let's get a few things straight:

If you are SO



DESPERATE FOR AN 


ORGASM that you have 


to STICK YOUR PENIS




INTO ANOTHER MAN'S 


ASS and PUMP It around 


in his SHIT you are -



ONE FILTHY PIG!!!


But these MONSTERS only care for their ORGASMS and the HOMOSEXUALS EVEN GAVE THE WORLD


AIDS!!!



BUT THE QUEERS are 10 times more LIKELY TO ENGAGE IN EASY PROMISCUOUS SEX and find a DATE for the night than NORMAL FOLKS - i.e.



QUEERS ARE 


PROMISCUOUS PIGS!



Promiscuous SEX and GLUTTONY are ALSO MORTAL SINS but these MONSTERS do not care -



So forget all about #CHRISTIANS Bending to the "GAY" Agenda - 





GOD'S HOLY LAW WILL NOT 


CHANGE for a BUNCH OF 


PSYCHOTIC PERVS

SCALIA: 'WHY NO ANCIENT GREEK #GAY MARRIAGES?'

Supreme Court hears historic case on same-sex nuptials

Published: 3 hours ago. Updated: 04/28/2015 at 3:35 PM

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2013/03/gkant_avatar.jpg

 GARTH KANT

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/04/Protest.png

Protesters hold a pro-”gay”-rights flag outside the US Supreme Court on April 25, 2015.

WASHINGTON – The most dramatic moment in a historic case before the U.S. Supreme Court on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage Tuesday morning came after the first attorney had wrapped up her argument.

“Gay marriage is an abomination in the eyes of God,” suddenly screamed a protester in the courtroom.

After continuing his protest, the man was escorted from the court room.

Justice Antonin Scalia quipped, “That was refreshing, actually,” causing loud laughter to ripple through the courtroom.

Scalia’s approval of ancient wisdom echoed his previous referral to the ancient Greeks and Romans to argue against government sanctioning of same-sex marriage.

The justice noted the Greeks and Romans had no moral disapproval of homosexual relations, yet neither culture ever considered approving same-sex marriage. The implication was that those cultures must have found it would cause some sort of harm to society.

Don’t miss Phyllis Schlafly’s book, now available autographed at the WND Superstore: “Who Killed The American Family?”

Scalia used the same example to indicate that modern state laws defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman were not motivated by dislike of, or discrimination against, gays.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/scalia-why-no-ancient-greek-gay-marriages/#1dio1pM9F3Foq28A.99

#SCOTUS Split over #OBAMACARE Subsidies @FOX

The Supreme Court appeared divided Wednesday along ideological lines after hearing a challenge of ObamaCare tax subsidies that, if struck down, could affect up to 8 million policy holders. 

The liberal justices peppered Michael Carvin, the lawyer for the health law challengers, with skeptical questions almost from the outset over his argument to limit the subsidies.

When Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. -- who represents the Obama administration -- stepped to the lectern, the liberal justices fell silent, and Justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia took over. 

But Chief Justice John Roberts, who was the deciding factor in the last major ObamaCare case in 2012, said almost nothing in nearly 90 minutes of back-and-forth. And the questions posed by Justice Anthony Kennedy, often a key swing vote on the bench, did not make clear how he will come out. During the hearing, Kennedy posed tough questions to both sides

http://foxnews.com/

Please RT

#BREAKING #SCOTUS Alerted RE #OBAMA 'LAWLESS BEHAVIOR'

Warned against 'foolhardy' ruling on separation of powers, rule of law

Published: 2 days ago

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2011/10/runruh.jpg

 BOB UNRUH

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2014/11/obama_laughing.jpg

The Obama administration has exhibited a “discomfiting pattern of behavior” in changing congressionally approved laws to meet political needs, including its offer of subsidies to people who buy through the federal exchange, contrary to the Affordable Care Act, a court filing claims.

Faced with “a statute that yielded politically unpopular results,” the president at one point suspended the individual mandate for millions, “waived ‘minimum essential coverage’ requirements in 2014″ and expanded the scope of hardship exemptions in a manner “entirely inconsistent with Congress’ design.”

That’s according to a new brief submitted by the Cato Institute in the King v. Burwell case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The case argues the plain language of the Obamacare law says only those who sign up through state exchanges will be eligible for subsidies. But the Obama administration is giving them to people who sign up through federal exchanges as well.

The subsidies were expanded for political reasons, the brief charges.

“As with the individual and employer mandates, the administration was faced with another key provision that yielded politically unpopular results. Section 36B was a third pillar propping up the ACA. It authorized subsidies, in the form of refundable tax credits, for health insurance bought through a state-established exchange. The ‘credit’ ‘shall be allowed’ based on the number of months the ‘taxpayer … is covered by a qualified health plan … enrolled in through an exchange established by the state,’” the brief argue

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/supremes-alerted-to-obamas-pattern-of-lawless-behavior/#fAzDYWYvcuLDMbfZ.99

#SCOTUS will hear Same-Sex Marriage Isssue

#SCOTUS Update - 2015

Sotomayor’s demeaning views on race (Retweet)

by Mike Gonzalez

Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia SotomayorPhoto: AFP/Getty Images

Tuesday’s Supreme Court ruling that Michigan voters had the right to ban racial preferences in university admissions didn’t sit well with the court’s self-described “Wise Latina,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Her 58-page-long dissent made clear that she’ll be the last line of defense for affirmative-action policies at the highest court in the land.

But a look at the dissent — parts of which Sotomayor dramatically read aloud from the bench — as well as her own history, makes clear that the lady doth protest too much. Immigrants and their children simply have no claim on affirmative action — if anyone does. To the contrary, these policies hurt their intended beneficiaries.

The court didn’t rule on the merits of affirmative action, but simply on whether voters can opt to ban its use in public universities. Sotomayor tried to do several things as she fought a rear-guard battle.

She sought, for one, to equate affirmative action with voting rights, which didn’t fly. More interestingly, she also vainly tried to read this policy into the Constitution, the better to save it from future challenges.

http://goo.gl/Io2Dl9

Race Hustlers get a big punch in the Nose courtesy of SCOTUS

The U.S. Supreme Court, delivering its second major blow in less than a year to the civil rights race hustlers who often masquerade as "reverends", on Tuesday when it upheld Michigan’s voter-approved ban on the use of racist discrimination in admissions at the state's public universities.

In Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, a 6-2 majority, splintering in their reasoning, held that Proposal 2, an initiative adopted in 2006, did not violate the U.S. Constitution.

Civil rights groups, still reeling from last June’s decision striking down a key part of the Voting Rights Act, quickly denounced the decision as a step backward in the nation’s commitment to equal treatment.

Al Sharpton was seen weeping as he tried to shake down a neighborhood manufacturer who told him to kiss his big white ass and Chicago's Jesse Jackson was seen conferring with the entire Jackson clan on how to ensure that their rich city contracts remained in place. 

Eight states—Michigan included—have similar voter-approved bans on affirmative action. More states  are considering such bans, and encouraged by this monumental decision, will doubtless continue to put affirmative action in the grave for good.

Read more: http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202652166648/Court-Upholds-Voter-Approved-Affirmative-Action-Ban#ixzz2zjGFyoOx

Illinois mom takes fight against forced unionization to Supreme Court

NEW YORK (FOX News) -

It has always been about her son. It always will be.

Pam Harris, the Illinois mom who stood up to union thuggery and her state government, said she never wanted to be the face of the fight against forced unionization.

"The mission has never changed," Harris told Illinois Watchdog. "That's to do what's right for Josh. That has always been my goal, to do what's right for Josh."

Read more: http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/24629598/illinois-mom-takes-fight-against-forced-unionization-to-supreme-court#ixzz2sNt2pDl2

Justice Antonin Scalia SLAMMED President Obama's interpretation of the U.S. Constitution today.

On Monday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia slammed President Barack Obama’s interpretation of the U.S. Constitution during oral arguments over Recess appointments.

The case, National Labor Relations Board vs. Noel Canning, is over whether the president acted legally when he made a series of temporary appointments to the National Labor Relations Board while the Senate was not conductingbusiness  but still gavelling in and out every day.

Clause three of the Constitution’s section on presidential powers states that, “The president shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.”

  

Scalia slams Obama

http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/13/scalia-slams-obama/

The Question of Disparate Speech Impact in the Court’s Upcoming McCullen v. Coakley Case Constitutional Law - Justia Verdict

Today we analyze a very intriguing issue raised by a case that will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court next month, McCullen v. Coakley, in which the plaintiffs challenge a Massachusetts law limiting pedestrian traffic near abortion clinics.  The statute in question makes it a crime to “enter or remain on a public way or sidewalk adjacent to” a reproductive rights clinic within 35 feet of “any portion of an entrance, exit or driveway” of the facility.  The statute exempts from this prohibition persons who are entering or leaving the facility, employees or agents of the facility acting within the scope of their employment, emergency and utility personnel doing their jobs, and people who are using the sidewalk or public way to reach a destination other than the facility.  The law’s challengers—individuals who seek to communicate with women who may, at that place and moment, be contemplating abortion—allege that the law violates the First Amendment.  The challengers lost in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and in June the Supreme Court granted review. - See more at: 

http://verdict.justia.com/2013/12/20/question-disparate-speech-impact-courts-upcoming-mccullen-v-coakley-case?utm_source=Justia+Law&utm_campaign=c6b5b1445e-summary_newsletters_jurisdictions&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_92aabbfa32-c6b5b1445e-406021093#sthash.bRIeTkRn.dpuf