Hillary Clinton lies about Hobby Lobby SCOTUS ruling

Here is the full, in-context video of which Jim featured portions of on the big radio show today.

Read more

News media & liberal sites lying about Hobby Lobby SCOTUS decision

The number of people claiming the Hobby Lobby SCOTUS case denies the “rights” of women is alarming. The Facebook posts are out-of-control and completely out of context. People should take the time to read and understand the case Hobby Lobby brought against the government and stop lying about the SCOTUS decision and the case.

Read more

And your opinion on Dred Scott v. Sandford is?

Or how about Korematsu v. United States? Or maybe Plessy v. Ferguson? I’m quite annoyed at the people who keep saying “the Supreme Court has decided” and the debate about the so-called “Affordable” Health Care Act is over. We’re supposed to just shut up an take it? What do those of you who have called Vicevich and written to the SOS and I saying “deal with it” think of the Supreme Court decisions on slavery, internment and segregation? Should those effected just “deal with it” at the time or fight for what’s right?

I’m not at all saying we should govern by mob rule or govern by absolute majorities. Those of you who know me know it’s all about the size and scope of the federal government. It’s too damn big, has been too damn big for decades. This drives dependency. Not necessarily dependency in financial terms – although that’s a big part if it – it’s more of a “what are they going to do to solve the problems we have” type of dependency. We conservatives predicted this years ago!

As I look at a few of the state websites out there along with the federal exchange, I have to ask… Why couldn’t this all have been done with no federal government action? Why couldn’t the insurance companies have done this on their own? They did. For years we’ve been able to compare life insurance, auto insurance, homeowners insurance and yes, health insurance online. Heck, President Obama sold the idea suggesting it would not cost the government anything extra, so why couldn’t the people who did not have insurance before go out and shop and buy policies? They could, and I’m willing to bet the rates we see now – factoring out new state and federal mandates – are not much more than they were three years ago. Obama did not wave a magic wand to reduce the prices that were already available. But there is something more…

It’s all about the government forcing changes to behavior. Government control. How comfortable do you feel about the government controlling more and more aspects of your life? If you don’t have insurance you have to buy it. Don’t tell me some people could not afford it, I know that. There was an existing safety net out there for people called Medicare and Medicaid. States have programs for kids. For certain, many people had difficulties with medical bills, and we could have taken care of those cases in many other ways, but it was not about that. It is about control.

For those of us who are conservatives, there are plenty of bad Supreme Court decisions we’re disappointed with including Katzenbach v. McClung and Chevron v. NRDC. The Supreme Court is not perfect, and when the absolute majority of American citizens have a serious problem with it and want a law changed or voided, our congress-critters have a responsibility – a duty – to discuss it. To discuss the Founding Fathers. To discuss original intent. To discuss the power of States as compared to the federal government. And yes, to discuss the grotesque and outrageous growth of the federal government that must be stopped.

The Raisin Administrative Committee

I will wager a guess that you have no idea that lurking within the bowels of the federal government we have a Raisin Administrative Committee.  But, we do.  It has come to light as a result of an oral argument last week before the United States Supreme Court. Read more

Obamacare revisited?

Today is the first Monday in October and thus the opening of the United States Supreme Court’s new term.  One of the orders issued is a bit unusual. Read more

Help me interpret the Supreme Court ruling

Having put up the obligatory post about what is included in today’s Supreme Court’s ruling on Obamacare, I am a bit confused about the decision.  And, I know you will be able to dispel said confusion with your comments. Read more

Supreme Court rules on Arizona immigration law

Today, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Arizona v. United States.  By a vote of 8 -0, the Court found that the most controversial provision of the law, as written, did not violate federal law, and thus could stand. Read more

Three Good Reasons

With the much anticipated release of the Supreme Courts Ruling on Obama-Care and while surfing the web last night while watching television,  I stumbled upon an article entitled “Three Reasons The Supreme Court Should Overturn Obama-Care’s Individual Mandate”. Read more

Senator suggests Supreme Court overturn of Obamacare would be “conservative activism”

Oh no it won’t. There is a huge difference between judicial activism, where a judge or court provides a ruling based on their own feelings or opinion, and a proper judicial review when a court makes a decision based on the Constitution.

Read more

Is the Arizona Immigration Law unconstitutional?

Wednesday, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments concerning this issue. Actually, there are four separate pieces of the law that are before the Court.  The remainder of the law is not being challenged by the administration. Read more