I enjoyed listening to the audio of the Heller arguments but unfortunately, they did not release any audio for today’s arguments. This afternoon I posted the full text of the oral arguments within a few minutes of being released and I’ve taken the time to read through the 77 pages during some free time tonight.
Here’s the full text for the arguments from today’s Supreme Court session concerning McDonald v. City of Chicago. I”ll consider posting a full HTML version if it is made available, but this one is a PDF file.
SCOTUSblog is covering the Supreme Court this morning, starting with release of opinions and followed up by arguments in the McDonald v. Chicago Second Amendment incorporation case.
Less than a week after President Obama and other Democrats slammed the Supreme Court’s decision to discard portions of campaign finance legislation, 12 Senators spent the weekend in sunny Miami with 108 high-dollar lobbyists.
As my brother isn’t ranting as much these days, perhaps I should step in. President Obama’s comments Wednesday during the State of the Union address concerning the Supreme Court were nothing short of outrageous.
Monday the Supreme Court granted a stay of the Chrysler bankruptcy court’s order approving the “sale” of Chrysler to Fiat. In layman’s terms, that means no “sale” will occur until the Supreme Court says so.
The case arrived at the Supreme Court because the Attorney General of Indiana filed an appeal on behalf of three Indiana pension funds who will lose $6 million if the “sale” is approved. Each of these funds lent money to Chrysler, and, in return for their loan, they received a secured lien on the assets of Chrysler. In case of bankruptcy, a secured lien means that the secured creditor, i.e., the Indiana pension funds, would be the first to be paid. The government’s plan in the Chrysler bankruptcy, however, put the the secured creditors last.
As a matter of law, that is wrong.
I have no idea whether the Supreme Court will hear this case. The stay is only in place temporarily. If the Supreme Court decides not to hear the appeal, the stay will be lifted, meaning the “sale” will go through, and, the three Indiana pension funds will have to look elsewhere to make up this $6 million loss.
But, here is what disturbed me most. The Solicitor General, the chief attorney for the government in Supreme Court cases, filed a brief opposing the stay. The Solicitor General argued that,
the losses to the Indiana funds “cannot outweigh” the potential broader problems a collapse of Chrysler would present.
Accepting that argument is the judicial equivalent of embracing Marxism. And, according to that argument, the law matters not if it gets in the way of the “greater good”.
So, what laws can we be assured of, and for how long?
According to the Solicitor General, apparently not many, particularly if they get in the way of the “greater good”.
I saw this in today’s USA Today, and just had to add it to my post.
Rep. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., said he remains “very hopeful” the sale will be approved. Chrysler has three plants employing about 5,000 workers in his district. “There’s been no indication that the pension funds have suffered any damage,” he said.
Huh? Perhaps Mr. Donnelly should speak with the Attorney General of his own state.
It’s now officially out of hand. We saw this coming a week ago when we just happened to catch liberal talk show host Bill Press bring it up. We made fun of it then, hardly believing that this would either be a plus in bringing Catholics on board … or a minus. But we so underestimated it all, because we never saw the abortion issue coming.
First the AP chimed in here … calming liberal fears by assuring all she may be a Catholic … but not really a Catholic. Now even the Catholics says she’s not really a Catholic … well practicing… which is why Dianne Feinstein is “way on board.”
The only thing no one has mentioned is … the Supreme Court has too many Catholics …. way out of proportion with the population …. UNTIL NOW.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYOWoadxUqs
OK … stop it … now. Let’s be clear … she’s Catholic … but not too Catholic and thus will not upset the court balance … OK? Or will she? Oooooooooh.
Well the mainstream media has finally caught on to what we at RVO have already blogged on twice. Once here and here … although I must admit both posts were to point out the absurdity of it all.
Now the AP has noticed … but don’t worry … Sotomayor isn’t one of those “church going Catholics.” (Emphasis mine). Much thanks to Ann Althouse for pointing this out.
But far from forming any unified bloc, the justices would represent the vast diversity of American Catholics, from weekly churchgoers to the occasional attendee.
Sotomayor, a parochial school graduate, has said nothing since her nomination about how she practices her faith.
The White House said: “She currently does not belong to a particular parish or church, but she attends church with family and friends for important occasions.”
That would make her what religion experts call a “cultural Catholic,” someone who identifies with Catholicism and its traditions but is not active in the church.
More than half of U.S. Catholics rarely or never attend Mass, and they tend to have more liberal views than frequent churchgoers on abortion, gay marriage and other issues.
On the high court, Sotomayor would join a group of regular Mass attendees: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
“Cultural Catholic”? I have been Catholic all my life and I didn’t know we had two kinds, “cultural” and what … “actual”? I must say I am baffled. But it does explain a lot when I read polls that say half of all Catholics are pro choice or 50% of Catholics voted for Obama, despite his past stance on not just abortion but also late term abortion … real late.
But I have to ask, unlike Judaism, Catholicism is not defined by heritage. How does one call themselves Catholic if 1. you never attend mass and 2. Do not believe in Church dogma much less doctrine (please don’t ask me to explain the difference and if you consider yourself Catholic and don’t know the difference, I rest my case). Quite simply you are not. You can call yourself a rose all you want … but if you are a daisy … that’s what you are.
As for Catholics on the Supreme Court, I wonder why Americans are not saying something about the fact that soon they will make up 6 of the 9. Is that diversity? I am Catholic and I am not so sure this is a good idea … or for that matter … that it even makes a difference.
Maybe that’s what Bill Press meant when he said this:
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L2GKBUKgbA
This was just too much to pass up. Former New York State Supreme Court Judge Leslie Crocker Snyder is asked to comment on comments made by Rush Limbaugh in which Limbaugh calls Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor a reverse racist. Read more
If you have never had the opportunity to be present during an oral argument before the Supreme Court, I should explain that it is one of the more awe inspiring things you will ever experience. Read more