High Court Says States Can End Racial Preferences

Univ of Michigan protest affirmative action in front
of the US Supreme Court,  June 2003. - Reuters

April 22, 2014 - Nearly 150 years have passed since the Civil War ended slavery in the United States. But institutionalized racial inequality -- supported by so-called "liberals" and "progressives" -- has persisted, propped up by the same Federal Government that has become to adept at violating states' rights.

Finally, the Supreme Court today "voted 6-2 that states may end racial preferences without violating the U.S. Constitution," reports The Wall Street Journal, "upholding a Michigan law that grew out of the state's long-running debate over affirmative action policies at public universities."

What does this mean? Quite simply, that public schools and other instutitions in Michigan can no longer discriminate against certain ethnic and racial groups. That is, after all, what "affirmative action" really is: Reverse discrimination, the favoring of some groups over others. Call it what you will, it is unconstitutional and the Supreme Court has now officially said so.

UPDATED: TROY DAVIS EXECUTION

LATEST UPDATE: DAVIS WILL BE EXECUTED AT 11 PM EASTERN.

Updated: September 21, 2011 - 7:50 PM EDT - In a stunning, head spinning turn of events, Troy Davis was given a temporary delay (not a stay) of execution by the U.S. Supreme Court. Minutes later, however, the Georgia Supreme Court is dismissing the higher court's decision. "Death row inmate Troy Davis's hopes of a last-minute reprieve were fading after Georgia courts refused to halt the execution scheduled for 7:00 pm local time on Wednesday," reports The Guardian UK. "[Georgia's] supreme court rejected a last-ditch appeal by Davis's lawyers over the 1989 murder of off-duty policeman Mark MacPhail.... Earlier, a Butts County superior court judge also declined to stop the execution...." Full report on the Troy Davis execution drama at The Guardian UK... The whirlwind of court decisions produced a lot of confusion. The bottom line now seems clearer, however, thanks to a report from AFP via Canada.com. That report explains that the U.S. Supreme Court did not give an actual reprieve to Davis. Davis's attorney "told AFP that the state of Georgia was simply delaying the execution until the top U.S. court announced its decision." AFP the prison is delaying the execution "out of respect for the court." Photograph by: Tami Chappell, Reuters

Alert! Chicago City Council To Discuss Supreme Court Handgun Ruling

Action Alert! A source within the Chicago Police Department sent this email to me today: "Tomorrow's City Hall meeting at 1:00 p.m. [on Tues., June 29] will address today's Supreme Court decision concerning Chicago' gun ordinance. There will be buses from Area 3 [police] headquarters, 2352 W. Belmont, by 11:45 a.m. to City Hall. Please attend." Chicago's City Hall is located at 121 N La Salle Street in the "Loop" (map). His Supreme Highness Richard Daley's office is on the fifth floor, by the way. He loves having voters stop in, so go up and say hi. It should be a good show. While you're there, notice that even as Mayor Daley speaks about the evil of guns, the City Hall chambers will be protected by people who have - you guessed it - guns. Daley's own bodyguards, positioned nearby, will be carrying guns. Aldermen are (were) excempted from the handgun ban, and so there's a good chance that a few of them will be packing heat, too.

Where To Buy Guns and Ammo In Chicagoland

Ah, freedom. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down Chicago's handgun ban as being unconstitutional. Mayor Daley, whose own bodyguards are heavily armed, must be soiling his pants this morning. Now that Chicagoans can legally possess a defensive weapon to protect themselves from the criminals who were never hobbled by the handgun ban, we thought we'd help you find a place near you at which you can load up on the latest self-preservation technology. In other words, guns and ammo. Click the map and start shopping. View Larger Map

Sotomayor Confirmed by US Senate - #tcot

August 6 - The Senate confirmed Sonia Sotomayor Thursday as the first Hispanic justice on the Supreme Court. The vote was 68-31 for Sotomayor, President Barack Obama's first high court nominee. She becomes the 111th justice and just the third woman to serve. FULL STORY, AP... Leave a Comment... See Our Online Store Chicago News Bench RSS Feed We're on Twitter...

Environmental Fascism and The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009

Today is the fourth and final day of hearings being held this week by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Obama Regime officials and members of Congress are debating the discussion draft of The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (see "Documents" below). More Leftist lunacy on the environment. Is the Obama Regime really concerned for the environment? Or is it just another play in the Left's power grab game? Keep in mind that this "global warming" madness continues in spite of the fact that temperature monitors report widescale global cooling. One thing is certain: The Left's environmental fear mongering is NOT about science. If it was, they would not insist, as they do, that more research is unnecessary. If the Left - and Democrat leaders in Congress - were truly interested in objective science, they would not refuse to allow dissenting voices to testify. They've just done this, in the case of a dissenting British environmental expert: A former science advisor to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher says he has been uninvited to appear before a House Energy and Commerce hearing today on global warming. Lord Christopher Monckton told "Climate Depot" that committee Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance with former Vice President Al Gore because, according to him, they don't want "Gore humiliated" over evidence or lack of evidence about global warming. Full Article at MyStateline.com... “The House Democrats don’t want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton said. (Source: Canada Free Press) Does that sound to you like an objective interest in science and facts, or more like pure politics? The Rocky Mountain Collegian wrote an idiotic column on April 22 that parrots the talking points of the Democrat environmental opportunists. An excerpt (emphasis added): Here is my challenge to skeptics. The findings are now in a 60-day public comment period before they are made official. If you can debunk the theory of global warming, contact the EPA within the next 60 days and do so. If, however, you cannot, allow the rest of us to continue the debate on how best to mitigate the threat of global warming so we can begin what we should have been doing five years ago. To the writer/s of that idiotic passage: Are you aware of the fact that Democrats and their environmentalist whacko allies have been doing backflips to prevent "the rest of us to continue the debate on how best to mitigate the threat of global warming?" Or is your column just another way of telling dissenters, such as Lord Christopher Monckton, to shut up? GetLiberty.org reports: Just this past Friday [April 17], the EPA classified the supposed side-effects of “man-made” climate change, including smog, heat waves, and storms, as a danger to "public health and welfare.” Under the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act in the Massachusetts v. EPA case—a clear case of judicial activism based on yet more junk science that defined carbon dioxide as a pollutant—the EPA can now regulate carbon-emitting facilities and industries. The hypocrisy and the idiocy of the court's ruling is this: Every one of the justices on that court expell several pounds of carbon dioxide every day as they breath. They get to and from the court by automobile. Their homes are heated and cooled with electricity. Any pets they have produce carbon dioxide, too. Oh yes, and if they or their pets are overweight, then that's another offense: "And the EPA is no doubt more than eager to oblige," writes GetLiberty, "After all, its comrades on the environmental fringe just defined fat people as a threat to mankind’s survival." (Say, isn't Al Gore kinda plump?) The Left and its environmentalist radical allies, along with the Obama Regime, are fear mongering for the sake of attaining more control over industry and individual behavior, and to achieve political points internationally in their global attempt to stunt the growth of industry. Mondaq.com's Kevin Holewinski wrote an excellent summary of Massachusetts v. EPA, in which he struck at the core motivation behind the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (emphasis added): ... as a number of commenters have already suggested, the expected endangerment finding will be used as leverage by the Obama administration as it gets ready for international negotiations in December 2009 in Copenhagen. It will presumably allow the administration to show the United States' unequivocal commitment to addressing climate change at the time that it seeks to persuade China, and other countries, of the need to do the same—without the necessity of having a comprehensive federal cap-and-trade piece of legislation passed. Given early reaction to the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, cosponsored by Reps. Henry Waxman (D. Calif.) and Ed Markey (D. Mass.), by Senator Durbin (D. Ill.) (and others) as to whether that proposal can ever become law, EPA's endangerment finding might be all the President has to use as leverage. You'll hear Democrats such as Henry Waxman (D-Calif) tell the lie that this package of environmental legislation will "create millions of jobs." But, as pointed out by The New American, "if we listen carefully, we find that even members of the Obama administration have admitted that cap-and-trade plans will impact the economy: the government has already made plans to 'help' (at taxpayer expense) those who might suffer because of them." As I said, this is not about the environment. It's all about control. DOCUMENTS (PDFs): American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 Discussion Draft Full Text American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 Discussion Draft Summary American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 Discussion Draft Section by Section Summary RELATED ARTICLES: Waxman-Markey Bill Is Most Anti-Consumer Legislation Ever ... Trillions at Stake in House Climate Change Bill Portrait of a Coward (Al Gore) Green Jobs or Gangrene? Climate change law would cost you $3000 a year, Pence says Report: Democrats Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside ... 10 Questions for Al Gore Dissenter on Climate Change Takes Fight to the Web - NYTimes.com Scientists Increasingly Dissent With Global Warming Proponents ... 32000 Scientists Dissent From Global Warming “Consensus ... CommieBama Hats and More Chicago News Bench RSS Feed Follow ChiNewsBench on Twitter!

ALERT: Fox News - Supreme Court Sides With Democratic Official in Ohio Voter Registration Dispute

Bad news for fans of fair elections: Breaking on Fox News - Supreme Court Sides With Democratic Official in Ohio Voter Registration Dispute 11:00 am CDT, 10/17/08

Wilmette Drops Handgun Ban!

The proposed ordinance to repeal the local ban was passed unanimously late Tuesday night. “The Supreme Court has made their decision. It calls into question our ordinance,” said Village President Chris Canning. FULL STORY at Wilmette Life... Well, God bless President Canning. Now what the hell are Chicago's Mayor Daley and his City Council of Stooges waiting for? Hat tip to Backyard Conservative, who has some pithy comments about the Wilmette action! Also see RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS at Second City Sarge...

Gun Hysteria: Mayor Daley Needs an Enema

It should be noted that had Mathew Shepard had a handgun with him on the night he was murdered, he might not have been murdered. He may have been able to defend himself.

Okay, with that said:

Steve McClure writes this about Mayor Daley's hyperbolic overreaction to Wednesday's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that handgun ownership is indeed allowed by the Constitution:

Daley is upset because groups already have indicated his city, which has a handgun ban similar to Washington D.C., will face a lawsuit in the wake of the decision by the Supremes. Daley can be as upset as he’d like, but looking at the statistics it appears Chicago’s ban on handguns hasn’t kept handguns from people who don’t really care what is or is not allowed by law. FULL POST at dnews.com...

Indeed. The ruling also threatens to pull down a major pillar of the Daley Administration: His unconstitutional denial of our Second Amendment right to own a handgun in the City of Chicago.

RELATED: Chicago Gun Ban Challenged; SF Suit Expected

Execution: Neither Cruel Nor Unusual

Lethal injection is okey-dokey, says the U.S. Supreme Court. Fine.

T. Mannis

Reuters reports today that the U.S. Supreme Court has "rejected a challenge to the lethal three-drug cocktail used in most U.S. executions, clearing the way for a resumption of executions halted since last September." (Full story...)

Some soft hearted folks will tell you that the death penalty is cruel and unusual. In fact, it is neither.

It is not cruel.
Let's make an analogy. Suppose your child takes a cookie from the jar after you've told her that she should not, and then you ground her for two weeks as punishment. Well, most of us would agree that that would be a cruel punishment, because the punishment is out of proportion to the offense. The punishment, in common parlance, does not fit the crime. Not letting the child watch her favorite TV show that evening might more more appropriate.

Let's stay with that analogy. Suppose the child stole a bag of cookies from the local convenience store and you found out about it. To ground her for two weeks would not be cruel, as most of us would agree that this punishment is appropriate.

Flash forward and suppose your child is all grown up. She murders one of your neighbors by deliberately feeding him poison-laced cookies. Would it be appropriate to ground her for two weeks? Or is something, say, more appropriate in order?

To make a person who stole property return the property or reimburse the true owner of the property for its value is not cruel. It is appropriate. To execute a murderer, who stole somebody's life and can never return it, is not cruel. It is appropriate.

Can the death penalty be cruel? Yes. It can be administered cruelly. Being drawn and quartered, for example, or being burned alive. But to administer a lethal injection - even though it can sometimes cause some discomfort - is not cruel. It is done with the humane intention of minimizing suffering, as opposed to many traditional forms of execution which are intended to maximize and prolong suffering.

It is not unusual.
This is much easier. What is the definition of "unusual"? The Cambridge Dictionary of American English defines it as "different from what is usual or expected." The Compact Oxford English Dictionary defines it as "(1) not habitually or commonly done or occurring. (2) remarkable; exceptional."

The death penalty has been a traditional form of punishment for thousands of years in most cultures around the world. For over 200 years, it has been used in the United States. Therefore, it cannot reasonably or honestly be called unusual.

This is not to say that one cannot make a reasonable argument against the death penalty, but to call it cruel or unusual is intellectually dishonest. Whereas it can be cruel, it is not necessarily cruel. Given it's widespread and common use throughout history, it simply cannot be called unusual.

Eminent Domain: All Your Bases Are Belong To Us

The battle rages on. Today, Lincoln Square. Tomorrow, anywhere is fair game. Educate yourselves. The government - local, county, state - wants to be able to steal your private property. This ain't George Bush, people, it's the Democrats next door. (Is Alderman Schulter part of the Bush Administration? Not.) This is not about political parties, however. It cuts across party lines, sadly. It's about power. Power over you, friend. This is a national issue, not just a Chicago issue. Here is Background, followed by current News about Eminent Domain. BACKGROUND: What is Eminent Domain? CNN.com - Supreme Court backs municipal land grabs - Jun 24, 2005 5-4 ruling found that local officials can use their "eminent domain" power to condemn homes in a working-class neighborhood for private development in hopes of boosting tax revenue and improving the local economy. Eminent Domain main page The National Conference of State Legislatures is tracking state eminent domain legislation and ballot measures... Reason Foundation - Eminent Domain and Property Rights The Reason Foundation explores in depth the debate over taking private property for public use, with links to numerous resources... Eminent Domain Watch Eminent Domain "Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's interpretation of the Constitution." NEWS: Property rights backer urges eminent-domain reform One Bakersfield Online, United States - Dec 7, 2007 Planning board calms fears of eminent domain New Jersey Herald, NJ - Dec 5, 2007 Respect for private property strongly tied to civil liberty ... Vanderbilt University News, TN - Dec 4, 2007 Eminent domain law needs revision Columbia Missourian, MO - Dec 5, 2007 - By John Schultz In 2005, the US Supreme Court decided eminent domain could be used to take property from one private party and give it to a second private party... Russia's Putin wants environmental problems in Sochi resolved PRIME-TASS (subscription), Russia - Dec 6, 2007 - Some Sochi residents have expressed concern with laws facilitating the use of eminent domain for the construction of Olympic facilities in Sochi Battle Over Money From Casino Land Seizure Hits Nevada High Court KOLO, NV - Dec 4, 2007 - The Las Vegas redevelopment agency in 1995 used eminent domain to seize Moldon's half-acre lot to allow a Stratosphere hotel-casino expansion. Feds Conditionally Accept Virtual Fence In Southern Arizona KTAR.com, AZ - Dec. 8, 2007 - Those not agreeing to such access within 30 days will face court action, possibly including eminent domain proceedings... Proposal for Greyhound bus station rejected Press-Enterprise, CA - Dec 6, 2007 - The city Redevelopment Agency is forcing the Greyhound station out of its downtown location through an eminent domain lawsuit. RTD raises hackles Rocky Mountain News, CO - Dec 2, 2007 - "If RTD is just using eminent domain for FasTracks, that's one thing, but if it's for private development, that could be another." Brian Berger, New York Calling Gothamist, NY - Dec 6, 2007 - I'm deeply concerned about city's abuse of Eminent Domain and the maltreatment of working industry in favor of shifty real estate schemes. Has North Korea Annexed Oklahoma? Forbes, NY - Nov 8, 2007 - Jacob has worked with Oklahomans pushing an initiative that would bar this type of eminent domain abuse...