Defense of Marriage Act Stuck down

DOMA struck down

Published by jwettschreck on Wednesday, June 26th, 2013

DOMA has been struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.

5-4:DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.

The “Defense of Marriage Act,” or DOMA, was passed in 1996 by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. It has two main functions. The part being challenged is called “Section Three,” which prevents the federal government from recognizing any marriages between gay or lesbian couples for the purpose of federal laws or programs, even if those couples are considered legally married by their home state. The other significant part makes it so that individual states do not legally have to acknowledge the relationships of gay and lesbian couples who were married in another state. Only the section that deals with federal recognition is being currently challenged in court.

From the SCOTUS liveblog: Justice Scalia is reading from his dissent right now. The Court’s opinion both in explaining its jurisdiction and its decision “both spring from the same diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this court in American democratic society.

The Court has not yet released the decision in Prop 8, but there is language in Windsor telegraphing that the Court will dismiss on standing.

Watch for further updates

Justices to rule on Obama recess appointments

Washington (CNN) — President Obama’s recess appointments to a federal agency– made without Senate confirmation– will be reviewed by the Supreme Court, the court announced Monday. It will mark a major constitutional test of executive power.

At issue is whether three people named to the National Labor Relations Board lack authority because the presidential appointments were made while the Senate was technically in a “pro forma” session during the 2011-12 winter holiday break.

The case sets up a high-stakes Supreme Court fight between the other two branches of government. Oral arguments will be held in public session later this year or early next.

Republican and Democratic lawmakers in the past have used the “virtual Congress” tactic to block unilateral appointments by the president when the Senate is away.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/24/us/obama-recess-appointments/

SCOTUS refuses to rule in Affirmative Action case

Instead of making a ruling, they simply vacated the lower court’s decision and sent it back for a “do over”.  Lame.

Supreme Court holds off on major affirmative action decision

 Updated at 11:20 a.m. ET

Avoiding any major ruling on the hotbutton issue of affirmative action in school admissions, the Supreme Court on Monday sent the case Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin back to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The narrow ruling essentially tees up the issue for the court to reconsider next year, when it will review another affirmative action case.

In a seven to one opinion, the court argued the lower court used the wrong standards to evaluate the Texas college’s admissions policies. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority that the Fifth Circuit should not have given UT Austin as much deference on the matter of whether its limited approach to racial considerations met the standard set by the Supreme Court in 2003. That year, in Grutter v. Bollinger, the court rejected the use of racial quotas but said that schools could consider race as part of a “holistic” review of a student’s application.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57590685/supreme-court-holds-off-on-major-affirmative-action-decision/

Feds Identify 300,000 Americans as Terrorists | Activist Post

After watching this video, I agree with the officers.  No police officer should die like that.  And no American citizen should die like that either.

We are not terrorists and I personally don’t understand the “Sovereign” theory or idea.  I do however believe we citizens have the right to be left alone, to travel to and from work and other places and no be harassed.  While I would not shoot a cop doing his job, I will resist those who feel they have more authority over me than they really do.  If I’m not breaking the law, leave me the hell alone.

If you THINK I am breaking the law then certainly do your job, but don’t expect me to get out of my car, or give you consent to search – since I have never broken the law and have no intent to do so, as a law officer you will be the one breaking the law by ordering me out of a vehicle, and I WILL sue your ass for doing it when it’s all over.

The Grey Enigma

Do you hate paying taxes? Are you fighting foreclosure? Do you feel like no one should be allowed to commit violence against you and don’t always blindly follow the commands of the authorities? Do you film encounters with police or believe gold makes better currency than Federal Reserve Notes? Well you might be part of a domestic terrorism movement and not even know it.

On Friday, the Los Angeles Times posted an article attempting to define a domestic terrorist movement consisting of as many as 300,000 Americans. Some are even labeled as non-violent “paper terrorists”.

Is there a more Orwellian term than “non-violent terrorist”?  If you can think of one please share it in the comments below.  They refer to this so-called terror group as “sovereigns, zealots who refuse to recognize government authority in virtually any form.”

When attempting to further define and identify individuals in this movement, some very…

View original post 919 more words