BREAKING NEWS - DHS Suspends Immigration Agreements with Arizona

The Washington Times is reporting....

The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.

Administration officials, speaking on condition they not be named, told reporters they expect to see an increase in the number of calls they get from Arizona police — but that won’t change President Obama’s decision to limit whom the government actually tries to detain and deport.

“We will not be issuing detainers on individuals unless they clearly meet our defined priorities,” one official said in a telephone briefing.

The official said that despite the increased number of calls, which presumably means more illegal immigrants being reported, the Homeland Security Department is unlikely to detain a significantly higher number of people and won’t be boosting personnel to handle the new calls.

“We do not plan on putting additional staff on the ground in Arizona,” the official said.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Arizona may not impose its own penalties for immigration violations, but it said state and local police could check the legal status of those they have reasonable suspicion to believe are in the country illegally.

That means police statewide can immediately begin calling to check immigration status — but federal officials are likely to reject most of those calls.

Once again, the imperial President is demonstrating a complete and utter disdain to the other co-branches of Government - this time effectively ignoring the ruling announced this morning by the Supreme Court of the US on Arizona's SB1070 illegal immigration bill because he apparently doesn't like the ruling they made permitting Arizona law enforcement to query on a person's immigration status if they have a 'reasonable suspicion' they are in the country illegally and have committed crime.

Associate Justice Scalia blasted President Obama in his dissent of the Arizona ruling...

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Monday ripped President Obama’s new deportation directive when he offered his minority opinion on the Arizona immigration ruling.

The court tossed out most of Arizona’s controversial immigration law, but in his dissent Scalia raised eyebrows by blasting the Obama administration’s directive to stop deporting some young illegal immigrants though that policy was not a matter before the court in the Arizona case.

The conservative justice accused Obama of selectively enforcing only those immigration laws that he deems appropriate and said states would never have joined the union if the framers of the Constitution had intended for the executive branch to wield power in such a way.

“The delegates to the Grand Convention would have rushed to the exits,” Scalia wrote.

Given that scathing rebuttal of the President's assertion of powers to selectively enforce only those laws he deems appropriate - I can imagine Scalia (and others) reacting as the President flips us a collective 'bird' and again decides to selectively enforce only those laws he personally deems appropriate. Yes, he is the....

The Most Arrogant Man in the World...

SCOTUS & Unions

The Supreme Court announced the disposition of 4 cases today, none of which were the highly watched Obamacare case or the Federal Government versus Arizona over SB1070 - the state's response to the Obama Administration's lack of enforcement of Federal immigration laws.

One of the cases was a strong 7-2 ruling against the SEIU - and another major rejection of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The specifics on this ruling comes from the exemplary SCOTUSBlog - one of the best sites in the blogosphere for information and analysis on Supreme Court cases....

Justice Alito announced the second opinion of the day, in Knox v. Service Employees International Union. By a vote of seven to two, the Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case for further consideration. It held that the case is not moot; five members of the Court further held that the First Amendment does not allow a public-sector union to require objecting non-members to pay a special fee for the purposes of financing the union’s political and ideological activities. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Ginsburg joined. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Kagan.

This is not good news for unions which are under increased scrutiny over their collection of dues and the use of these dues for their political advocacy interests - without any consideration or approval from the union members for the use of their dues on those political issues.

An example of the impact is this Spring 2010 article, "The Beholden State - How Public Sector Unions Broke California"...

The camera focuses on an official of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), California’s largest public-employee union, sitting in a legislative chamber and speaking into a microphone. “We helped to get you into office, and we got a good memory,” she says matter-of-factly to the elected officials outside the shot. “Come November, if you don’t back our program, we’ll get you out of office.’

This is no different from the actions of both public sector unions and private sector unions like the AFL/CIO which dumped tens of millions into Wisconsin to prevent Governor Scott Walker's reforms - and then attempt to recall the Governor when the legislation passed.

Here's another example about how some unions operate - and take advantage of their members...

Michigan School Union demands members bank account, credit card numbers to guarantee dues payments… A union president’s letter shows one school employee union planned to handle automatic dues collection of its members by demanding full payment at the start of the year or requiring its members to give a checking or savings account number or credit card for automatic monthly withdrawals.

Debbie Bence, president of the Plymouth-Canton Cafeteria Association, sent a letter to her union members on June 4 stating that the dues had to be paid as a condition of employment.

Bence said the financial information would be kept confidential and kept at the Michigan Education Association headquarters. News reports state that union dues to the MEA are capped at $778 a year.

I wonder what these teachers get for their $778 a year? Is it like the Sacramento, CA 'Teacher of the Year' I reported about last week who was laid off because of union seniority rules which protected older and less effective teachers?

Sandra Fluke, Rush Limbaugh, and the Contraception Kerfuffle

“What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex — what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute.” — Rush Limbaugh

With this, Rush Limbaugh ignited a firestorm.

Limbaugh made these comments in response to the kabuki theater arranged by Nancy Pelosi and other progressive women in the House to focus the Obamacare mandate announced by HHS and the Administration which would (and still) requires religious organizations to provide free contraception, sterilization, and abortafacients to their employees regardless of these services being against the beliefs of these religious organizations.

Across the vast majority of these religious organizations, and the institutions (hospitals, charities, and schools / university's) they run, complaints are being raised over this new mandate which they see as a violation of the 1st Amendment Constitutional rights. 

A vast majority of conservatives agree with them.  They see this as a breach of Constitutionally protected religious freedoms - 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...'

The progressive left doesn't care about religious freedoms - their concern is the implementation of their agenda and the use of government power to further their agenda.  They want to embrace their progressive roots, which include the embracement of eugenics, and ensure that these services are not only available without restrictions - but also available at no cost to the recipient.  To further their political ends, and to gain political advantage, they wish to misrepresent this issue as a case of conservatives and religious organizations seeking to ban contraception - or as one hard left wag commented - 'return to the Dark Ages' in terms of the subjugation of women.

The initial House hearings involved six religious leaders across multiple faiths expressing their concerns with the unprecedented and unconstitutional step by the Obama Administration to eliminate their religious freedom and rights.  Democrats, before a number walked out, made note of the panel that was entirely comprised of men - and complained they couldn't get their preferred choice on the panel to testify.  That member, the Georgetown Law School student Sandra Fluke who was to speak about the need and importance for free contraceptives - and the brutally high costs of these contraceptives.

It was intended to be theater to diminish the testimony of the religious leaders.  Rather than happening on the same day, it happened several days later.  Fluke's testimony, which I chronicled in a QH, whined about how expensive it was ($1,000 per year) for she and her fellow students to get the contraception they NEEDED to enjoy the full and active sex lives they desired while trying to get a very prestigious law school degree at the Jesuit run University.

She was presented as a 23 year old co-ed speaking up for her rights - and the critical impact (financially and physically) she and her fellow co-ed's were facing because while they could attend a $63,000 per year institution, they could not afford the $9 per month for the pill from the local Target or WalMart pharmacy.

As JammieWearingFool notes - we're being played in this political theater...

For me the interesting part of the story has the ever evolving “coed”. I put that in quotes because in the beginning she was described as a Georgetown law student. It was then revealed that prior to attending Georgetown she was an active women’s right advocate. In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetown’s insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn’t cover contraceptive services, she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy. During this time, she was described as a 23-year-old coed. Magically, at the same time Congress is debating the forced coverage of contraception, she appears and is even brought to Capitol Hill to testify. This morning, in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it was revealed that she is 30 years old, NOT the 23 that had been reported all along.

In other words, folks, you are being played. She has been an activist all along and the Dems were just waiting for the appropriate time to play her.

She knew that prior to the HHS mandate that religious organizations like the Jesuit run Georgetown University had an exemption to not provide medical services that ran contrary to their religious beliefs and teachings.  All religious organizations like churches, hospitals, charities, and schools had the same exemption.  One of her reasons to attend that prestigious law school, over the equally prestigious law schools of Harvard Law or Yale Law, was her intent and desire to eliminate the religious exemption - to take away their right to object on religious grounds.

Michelle Malkin highlights on her site how the progressive Democrats, like the DCCC, are using this theater as a new cause for political fund raising.  She also highlights a note from another Georgetown co-ed, Angela Morabito, who notes that Sandra Fluke doesn't speak for her...

Sandra Fluke doesn’t speak for me. Or for Georgetown.

She doesn’t speak for those of us who worked hard to be able to choose to come to a great institution with a great tradition of faith and scholarship. She certainly can’t speak for the Jesuits who dedicated their lives to God and Education with a long established set of rules. There are only ten of them, and Ms. Fluke would do well to give them a quick read. 

If she wants a more liberal sex life, she can go to Syracuse. (Syracuse, I must apologize – but we are in March and basketball matters – sorry you got caught up in this.)

Sandra doesn’t even speak for all skanks! She only speaks for the skanks who don’t want to take responsibility for their choices. That’s a tiny group of people. Hey Sandra! How about next Saturday night, you come hang out with me and my gay boyfriends! Your hair will look fabulous and you’ll get to see great musical theatre! Oh, and odds of you getting pregnant? Zero percent. 

Even the oh-so-left HuffPo called Sandra out on her media sluttery: ”Fluke got the stage all to herself and was hailed as a hero by the crowd and Democratic lawmakers on the panel, all of whom rushed to appear on camera with her at the end. “Excuse me. I’d love to get a picture with our star,” Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) said as she pushed her way through the packed room to Fluke.”

Star of what? Star of the bedroom sex tape? When did Georgetown Law start admitting Kardashians?

Sandra, we might be on the same campus, but we are not on the same planet.

For those who believe in the religion of progressivism or liberal fascism (to use the title of Jonah Goldberg's excellent book) - and they are fervent in the desire to expand the power and reach of this religion as any jihadist or even a born-again Christian evangelist that so many progressives like to ridicule - this is part of their effort to achieve what they want, when they want, how they want.  To them, it's all about rights - their rights.  The rights of the religious organizations who will lose freedoms are immaterial.

What's next?  The mandate that despite religious organizations objections to homosexuality, they will be forced by the State to perform gay marriage ceremonies? 

Despite the theater, this is not about contraceptive rights or women's rights.  Opposing the Obamacare mandate doesn't rollback any of these rights from what they were the day before the Administration's mandate.  In fact, opposing it protects the rights of religious organizations.

As Michelle Malkin notes in the same post...

I’ll tell you why Rush was wrong. Young Sandra Fluke of Georgetown Law is not a “slut.” She’s a moocher and a tool of the Nanny State. She’s a poster girl for the rabid Planned Parenthood lobby and its eugenics-inspired foremothers.

I agree. Fluke isn't a slut. She is a tool of the Nanny State. She is a poster girl for Planned Parenthood - and the morally repugnant eugenicists who founded / support that organization. She is an acolyte of liberal fascism - and an enabler of liberal fascism. Her vapid argument demonstrates the progressive left's real contempt towards rights - which are entirely based on their rights - and no one else's.

To her, and the others, the end always justifies the means.

Obamacare and the Individual Mandate

On March 26th through 28th, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral arguments regarding the constitutionality of the Individual Mandate within the Obamacare Healthcare Reform.  This mandate requires all Americans to purchase health insurance or else pay, via the Internal Revenue Service, a tax / penalty (depending on who's making the argument) for the failure to have health insurance.

In the case taken up by the Supreme Court, the Attorney General's of 26 states filed suit against the individual mandate - and in this particular one, the lower court agreed that the mandate was both unconstitutional and inseverable from the Obamacare Healthcare Reform.  The inability to sever the mandate from the bill effectively invalidated the entire bill.  Other courts have ruled otherwise, that the mandate, under the precedent set by the Commerce Clause, was constitutional and therefore Obamacare is constitutional.

Gallup has just released a poll that shows the unpopularity of both Obamacare and the concept of the individual mandate.

72% of Americans view Obamacare individual mandate as ‘unconstitutional’… Even among Americans who support President Obama’s health care overhaul, a large majority believe that the law is out of step with the U.S. Constitution, a Gallup poll released Monday revealed.


The poll, conducted Feb. 20–21, indicates that 72 percent of Americans believe the individual mandate — the government’s requirement for Americans to purchase health insurance — is unconstitutional. Even among Americans who feel the president’s health care law is a “good thing,” 54 percent think the provision is unconstitutional.


Just 37 percent of Democrats said the individual health care mandate is constitutional. A mere 6 percent of Republicans and 21 percent of Independents agreed.


The poll question read, “As you may know, the Supreme Court will hear arguments next month concerning a requirement in the healthcare law that every American must buy health insurance or pay a fine. Regardless of whether you favor or oppose the law, do you think this requirement is constitutional or unconstitutional?”

There are many arguments that have been offered to contest the individual mandate.  The majority of these work around the limitations of the Federal government under the Constitution to project it's power towards States - particularly since the Constitution is designed to limit Federal powers and leave to the States all powers that are not expressly given to the Federal government.

The Commerce Clause, is one of the powers expressly assigned by the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3), to provide the Federal government with the power to "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

Historically, Courts have used this clause to both provide and expand the Federal government with the authority to regulate both commerce and non-commerce on a Federal level across all states that are part of a commercial transaction.  But there have also been limits - for example in the decision to not permit marijuana grown for medical purposes in states that permit the medical use of the drug to be exported to other states as that would create challenges regarding those states anti-drug laws.

In the case of the Individual Mandate, the core question has been if the Federal government has the power to force a consumer, for the greater good, to purchase a specific product or service - in this case a health insurance policy.

The argument for stresses the importance and effect of the 'greater good'.  The argument against stresses the concerns that if health insurance is mandated for purchase, what is to stop the Federal government from mandating other products and services, like electric vehicles, for 'the greater good'?

However, Hot Air yesterday posted another argument against the Obamacare Individual Mandate that is, to me, extremely strong and compelling...

Constitutional law professor Elizabeth Price Foley, who is the executive director of the Institute’s Florida Chapter and who co-authored IJ’s brief, said, “The individual mandate violates a cardinal rule of contract law—to be enforceable, all agreements must be voluntary. The Framers understood this, and would never have given the federal government the power to force individuals into lifelong contracts of insurance. The Court should not allow the government to exercise this unprecedented and dangerous power.”

As IJ’s brief shows, the principle of mutual assent, under which both parties must consent for a contract to be valid, is a fundamental principle of contract law that was well understood during the Founding era and is still a cornerstone of contract law today. Indeed, contracts entered under duress have long been held to be invalid. Yet the mandate forces individuals to enter into contracts of insurance that would never be valid under this longstanding principle. (For a copy of IJ’s brief, visit: www.ij.org/PPACAbrief.)

If the U.S. Supreme Court fails to strike down the individual mandate, there will be nothing to stop Congress from forcing people into other contracts against their will—employment contracts or union membership, for example. If we still have a constitutional republic in which the federal government’s powers are limited, then the Court should strike down this law.

The Institute for Justice’s brief is the only amicus brief filed with the Court that examines this case in the context of the history of contract law. The brief illustrates how the Supreme Court has recognized the principle of consent in commercial relations in its Commerce Clause and Tenth Amendment cases, and it explains why the U.S. Supreme Court has a key role in acting as a check against this unconstitutional power grab by the federal government.

Obamacare regulatory requirements.  According to the Administration one complies - or in the case of the individual mandate, pay a financial penalty for non-compliance.

The individual mandate is, I strongly believe, unconstitutional.  If the SCOTUS opens the door by permitting the mandate to exist, there are few if any limits on the power of the Federal government to mandate US residents to acquire products or services 'for the greater good'.  As demonstrated by the Administration's push on the contraception mandate, religious objections are no longer sufficient to offer any protection from the demands / mandates of the Federal government.

My biggest concern is that SCOTUS might punt on this case and ruling because the individual mandate does not take effect until 2014.  Can they rule on a mandate / rule that has not yet taken effect or impacted any American?  Since the mandate is a cornerstone of the Obamacare legislation, and inseverable, where we are already subject to the regulatory effects of Obamacare, I think a ruling should be made now.  Far too often, once something is in effect, it becomes considerably harder to undo...which was one of the aims of the progressives in this legislation.

Proposition 8

As noted in the QH update on Feb. 7, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court ruling that struck down California's Proposition 8 - which was an amendment to the California State Constitution defining marriage as only being between one man and one woman - as unconstitutional under the US Constitution.

For those in California who tracked the case from 2008 to present, this decision by the 9th Circuit was not a surprise.  The 9th Circuit is one of the most liberal Circuit courts in the United States - and one of the most oft overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States.

A brief history is needed to set the background for the 9th Circuit decision.

In 2008, the California Supreme Court determined that the equal protection clause within the California State Constitution afforded the rights for homosexual couples to marry - and invalidated a state law on the books that prohibited gay marriage.  The jurists believed that to deny the ability to marry to homosexual couples was the denial of a fundamental right and in itself discriminatory towards homosexual couples.

This case came after Gavin Newsom, then the Mayor of San Francisco, decided to ignore an existing state law that prohibited gay marriages and the issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples in San Francisco.

Opponents of gay marriage saw this as judicial activism, claiming that the CA Supreme Court created a new set of rights not expressively given within the State Constitution.  Others also argued that one's sexual preference was not a specific protected class as one's race, gender, or creed is.  Since one of the rationales used by the Supreme Court in their ruling was that the State Constitution did not specifically define marriage, these opponents got Proposition 8 onto the fall 2008 ballot - to amend the State Constitution to specifically read that marriage is only between one man and one woman.

It should be noted, that at this point of time, same sex couples in California had all of the rights and obligations of heterosexual marriage via civil unions...all of the rights except the state sanctioned use of the term 'marriage' as in a marriage license.

The citizens of California passed Proposition 8 by 52.24% in favor to 47.76% opposed.  The State Constitution was amended....and the proponents for gay marriage sued to have Proposition 8 overturned even though it was passed by a popular majority.  This led to the first trial and then to the appeal to the 9th Circuit.

As discussed yesterday, the ruling by the three judge panel of the 9th Circuit would address three major questions.

The first, Should Judge Walker, who heard the original case, have recused himself from the case as he was a gay man, involved in a long term relationship, and therefore had a conflict of interest in the deciding of a case regarding the decision on permitting gay marriage?

The 9th Circuit Court ruled unanimously, 3-0, that he should not have recused himself.  This gets into a grey area, but I think was a good decision.  What if the case was about a Catholic charity, with a Catholic judge?  Would we have asked for the recusal of that judge because of his religion?  We have to expect a judge to be more prudent and professional.  While Judge Walker, in my opinion, pressed the levels of professionalism regarding his handling of the trial, and in particular, the video of the trial, there are processes in place to address that conduct...and Walker is now retired.

The second question was if the defenders of Proposition 8 had the proper legal standing to defend the Proposition.  This was a state ballot / amendment to the state Constitution.  In normal circumstances, the process would be defended by the government of California - the Governor and Attorney General.  However in this case, these Democrat officials declined to defend Proposition 8 as they advocate gay marriage.  The 9th Circuit jurists unanimously determined that the groups who pushed for Prop 8 to be a ballot measure had standing to defend the proposition.

The third question was the real one for this case - was the Proposition constitutional?