Tag Archives: court

Georgetown Law-educated Bonnie Erbe Blusters Nonsense About Supreme Court Ruling on Gun Rights

Given that our tax dollars are subsidizing her salary, is it too much to expect PBS’s Bonnie Erbe to have at least some intelligent command of the issues of the day? On second thought, don’t answer that. In her latest blogging misadventure at USNews.com, the “To the Contrary” host portrayed yesterday’s 5-4 ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago as a blow to “local rights” : The Supreme Court’s decision , taking away important local rights to control gun ownership, marks another sad day in America’s now seemingly endless political appetite for increasing the number of privately owned guns in this country. By 5-4 the justices overturned strict gun ownership rules set by Chicago and one of its suburbs. Perhaps the general lethargy that has caused many Americans to lose faith in government has crept into our philosophy on law and order, feeling hopelessly that even our local police and sheriffs can no longer protect us from harm. Vigilantism reigns supreme and with it a misinterpretation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that the powerful gun ownership lobby has interpreted to mean anyone can essentially own any weapon or weapons of any caliber. Of course the Court’s rulings in both McDonald and Heller dealt simply with the most extreme of liberal gun control schemes: complete bans on gun ownership by the cities of Chicago and Washington, D.C. In both cases the local authorities grossly overstepped the boundaries of their authority by infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Far from taking away a legitimate power of government, the Supreme Court’s rulings were corrective actions to stop governmental abuse of individual liberties. What’s more, these rulings do not mean the Court has or intends to consider any and all gun control legislation to be illegitimate, just as the First Amendment doesn’t mean one has a right to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater, to propagate libelous speech, or to burn a cross on someone’s lawn in an effort to intimidate him. Erbe, a Georgetown Law grad , most certainly knows that, yet she still elected to hack out hyperbolic drivel instead of at least attempt to present a cogent liberal case for why she believes the Court is off the mark.

View original post here:
Georgetown Law-educated Bonnie Erbe Blusters Nonsense About Supreme Court Ruling on Gun Rights

Chicago Tribune: Supreme Court ‘Extends Gun Rights’

“Supreme Court extends gun rights” a headline on the Web site for the Chicago Tribune erroneously claims today. The link on the page brought readers to a story entitled “Supreme Court extends gun rights in Chicago case.” Here’s the opening paragraph: WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court reversed a ruling upholding Chicago ‘s ban today and extended the reach of the 2nd Amendment as a nationwide protection against laws that infringe the “right to keep and bear arms.” But that language suggests that the Court invented a right out of whole cloth rather than grounded its decision in the Constitution itself. In truth, what the Supreme Court found in McDonald v. City of Chicago was that the 2nd Amendment’s guarantee of the individual’s right to firearm ownership is incorporated to the states via the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause. “The right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an even handed manner,” Justice Alito wrote for the Court.  The bottom line: The Supreme Court recognized that the City of Chicago was in violation of the the 2nd and 14th Amendments to the federal Constitution. A more accurate headline would have been “Supreme Court finds Chicago gun ban violates Constitution.” Of course, that presupposes the liberal media in Chicago are interested in shooting straight when it comes to reporting developments with which they have an ideological disagreement.

Read more from the original source:
Chicago Tribune: Supreme Court ‘Extends Gun Rights’

VIDEO: Media Routinely Used ‘Conservative’ Label on Bush Nominees to Supreme Court; Obama Picks Always ‘Centrist’

When President Bush nominated John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court in 2005, the media did not hesitate to describe both men as “very conservative,” but when President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor in 2009 and Elena Kagan this year many in the press couldn’t seem to identify any liberal ideology. The Media Research Center has produced a video compilation of examples to further demonstrate the obvious double standard. [Audio available here ] During ABC’s live special coverage of Roberts’s nomination on July 19, 2005, then This Week host and former Democratic operative George Stephanopoulos declared: “This is a very conservative man with a strong paper trail that proves it.” NPR’s Nina Totenberg could hardly contain her urge to label, using the word “conservative” several times during a July 23 appearance on Inside Washington: “John Roberts is a really conservative guy…he’s a conservative Catholic….[President Bush] has given conservatives a hardline conservative.” The same labeling followed Alito’s nomination months later. CBS’s Bob Schieffer opened the October 31 Evening News by proclaiming: “Conservatives wanted a conservative on the Supreme Court, and said the President ought to risk a fight in the Senate to get one. Their wishes have been fulfilled.” Later that evening, on a special 7PM ET hour edition of CNN’s The Situation Room, anchor Wolf Blitzer described: “…there is a new nomination and new controversy. A battle shapes up as the president picks a staunch conservative who could help reshape the U.S. Supreme Court.” Compare those characterizations of Roberts and Alito with how Stephanopoulos introduced Sotomayor to Good Morning America viewers on May 1, 2009: “She’s built up a strong centrist record on the court.” On the May 27 CBS Evening News, anchor Katie Couric scratched her head when it came to Sotomayor’s political views: “Now pundits usually label judges as either liberal or conservative, but that won’t be easy with Judge Sotomayor.” Meanwhile, Totenberg actually remained consistent, arguing Obama’s nominee was actually on the Right: “…she’s more conservative than some members of the Supreme Court, including Justice Scalia, perhaps.” With Kagan, on CBS’s April 11 Face the Nation, legal analyst Jan Crawford described the broad support the potential nominee would receive: “…she’s got some support among conservatives because she hired a lot of those conservative law professors at Harvard.” On the May 10 Good Morning America, ABC World News anchor Diane Sawyer explained how Kagan “is expected to play a role as somewhat of a conciliator, the bridge across the conservative and liberal wings of the Court.” Like Totenberg with Sotomayor, on the May 11 CBS Early Show co-host Maggie Rodriguez floated the idea that Kagan was conservative: “she may actually shift the Court to the Right, compared with Justice Stevens.”      As evidence of Kagan’s staunch liberalism comes out in her confirmation hearings, one wonders if the media will finally be willing to accurately describe her left-wing views.

The rest is here:
VIDEO: Media Routinely Used ‘Conservative’ Label on Bush Nominees to Supreme Court; Obama Picks Always ‘Centrist’

Supreme Court Case a Defeat for Monsanto’s Ambitions

It should be no surprise that Monsanto's PR machine is working hard to spin the truth in this morning's decision in the first-ever Supreme Court case on genetically engineered crops (Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Farms). Despite what the biotech seed giant is claiming, today's ruling isn't close to the victory they were hoping for. The 7-1 decision issued today by the Supreme Court was on the appeal of the Center for Food Safety's (CFS) successful suit, which resulted in a ban on GMO alfalfa. And, while the High Court ruled in favor of Monsanto by reversing an injunction that was part of the lower court's decision, more importantly, it also ruled that the ban on GMO alfalfa remains intact, and that the planting and sale of GMO alfalfa remains illegal. This point, which seems to be lost in some news reports, is actually a huge victory for the Center for Food Safety and – most importantly – for the farmers and consumers who we represent. The Supreme Court ruled that an injunction against planting was unnecessary since, under lower courts' rulings, Roundup Ready Alfalfa became a regulated item and illegal to plant. In other words, the injunction was “overkill' because our victory in lower federal court determined that USDA violated the National Environmental Policy Act and other environmental laws when it approved Roundup Ready alfalfa. The court felt that voiding the USDA's decision to make the crop legally available for sale was enough. A different ruling could have had far-reaching ramifications that might have extended beyond our borders, affecting the health and status of world markets for U.S. alfalfa, and impacting the fastest growing sector of the US agriculture market – organic. But the court clearly saw that, and opted instead to rule very narrowly. And yet, Monsanto is out there in a public statement saying that they've won a great victory. They claim that they're ready to sell Roundup Ready Alfalfa seeds now, and that they hope that their farmers should be able to plant by fall 2010. It's a canny statement, but neither of those potential situations is by any means possible at this point. The bottom line: the ban on planting Roundup Ready Alfalfa still stands. The Center is victorious in this case in several other ways: most importantly, the High Court did not rule on several arguments presented by Monsanto about the application of federal environmental law. As a result, the Court did not make any ruling that could have been hurtful to National Environmental Policy Act or any other environmental laws. In addition, the Court opinion supported the Center's argument that gene flow is a serious environmental and economic threat. This means that genetic contamination from GMOs can still be considered harm under the law, both from an environmental and economic perspective. This Court opinion is in many ways a victory for the environment, the Center for Food Safety, for farmers and for consumers and a defeat for Monsanto's hopes of a green light. To represent this opinion in any other way is just spin. added by: treewolf39

Heather Mills Aims for More Gold

Heather Mills has successfully dug for gold – now she wants to win some! Paul McCartney’s ex-wife shared a dream with The Daily Express in Great Britain this week: she wants to compete at the 2014 Winter Paralympic Games. “I’ve been skiing for many years… I’m training hard to try to get on the British Paralympic downhill team,” said Mills, who lost a leg in a 1993 motorcycle accident. “You know when you set in your head things that you want to do and achieve? Well, I’ve ticked about 90 percent of all the boxes, and this is one of the major ones remaining for me.” Hmmm… we wonder which box this photo of of the former call girl fell into. Added Heather: “If I manage to compete, it would be phenomenal – very inspiring for all the kids that I counsel. They didn’t believe they could do anything and they are now trying ice skating and roller blading and biking and swimming, which is wonderful.” And all because of her influence, of course. Mills competed on Dancing with the Stars in 2007. Her performance on that program made England’s 2010 World Cup team look dominant by comparison.

See more here:
Heather Mills Aims for More Gold

Vienna Girardi: Cheating on Jake Pavelka with Gregory Michael?

Their breakup came out of nowhere and absolutely shocked the celebrity gossip world this morning, leaving fans reeling from the loss of a storybook romance. Okay, not really. There was no way in hell Jake Pavelka and Vienna Girardi would last. Still, what contributed to the abrupt dissolution of The Bachelor couple? Publicly, they’re not saying, but sources involved in the production of the reality say that Jake was the one who pulled the plug – because of her cheating. At least that’s what he believes. Rumors that Vienna was “stepping out” with Gregory Michael of the ABC Family show Greek were apparently the last straw. The story had been out that the two were flirtatious at a recent event, and apparently Jake took it to heart , severing his engagement to the airhead Floridian. SHOULD’VE PICKED TENLEY : Are Vienna Girardi and Gregory Michael hitting it, and is that the reason Jake Pavelka dumped her? It’s all Greek to us – but that’s the rumor. Sources say they don’t know if Vienna Girardi was in fact doing the nasty with Greg Michael, but Jake was convinced, and broke things off in the last 24-48 hours. We don’t want to throw Vienna under the bus without hard evidence … but come on. It’s not like this is the first secret boyfriend of hers we’ve reported on, people. Nor is it a stretch to think that she cheated on Jake, given that she allegedly cleaned out her Marine ex-husband’s bank account to pay for fake boobs. Just saying. Another theory: ABC had them fake the proposal and keep up their sham engagement until Jake’s stint on Dancing with the Stars wrapped. We could see that too. The couple’s rep did not offer any explanation for the breakup and claims that the reality TV stars want “privacy” as they deal with the “heartbreak” at this time. Jake, wanting privacy. Ha. Who’s next, Speidi?

Visit link:
Vienna Girardi: Cheating on Jake Pavelka with Gregory Michael?

Kristen Stewart and Taylor Lautner Stop in Stockholm

Kristen Stewart and Taylor Lautner touched down in Sweden yesterday, as their global Eclipse promotional tour is nearing its conclusion. The pair has posed for photos in Australia and in Rome already, but will return to Los Angeles by Thursday for the world premiere of this Twilight Saga installment. Tomorrow night, meanwhile, fans should tune in to ABC at 10 p.m. EST, as Taylor and Kristen are joined by Robert Pattinson and others for the primetime special, Jimmy Kimmel Live’s Twilight Saga: Total Eclipse of the Heart . We love that title. Click on the following pics of Stewart and Lautner in Stockholm for larger versions of them…

Visit link:
Kristen Stewart and Taylor Lautner Stop in Stockholm

Gary Coleman to Judge: Keep Shannon Price the Hell Away From Me!

Gary Coleman secretly took out a restraining order against ex-wife Shannon Price just months before she took him off life support, according to reports. Hospitalized at the time, the actor worried what his greedy, money-grubbing leech of a former spouse would do “while she is trespassing in my home.” Coleman writes that Price “has shown a tendency to damage, destroy and steal my property and I believe she will continue to do so in my absence.” The 42-year-old former child star was granted the restraining order by a Utah court on February 19, but never ended up serving it on Shannon Price. Gary died May 28 after suffering a fall a few days earlier and incurring severe brain trauma. Price made the decision to take the star off life support. Not before taking photos on his deathbed to sell for profit, of course. Why get a restraining order, then not use it? Gary’s former agent, Robert Malcolm, explains: “The dynamics of their relationship were very unhealthy.” “He knew he needed to break away so he made sure she was not allowed in his home, but then he had feelings for her even though she was abusive.” “So he eventually allowed her back into his home.” Nevertheless, his affidavit seeking the restraining order shows not only the volatility of his relationship with Price but his fear of her vindictiveness. “I believe if she is given any warning of this pending order to require her to immediately vacate the home, she will cause more damage and destroy more irreplaceable memorabilia, documents, personal papers and other such valuables,” he writes. “I therefore ask the Court to issue this order requiring her removal and restraining her from going upon the premises under any circumstances.” Malcolm has been highly critical of Shannon Price . “Shannon knew how to get what she wanted, and he tried to give her everything to make her happy,” he said. “She was incredibly jealous of his fame, she was a nobody, and didn’t like to be known as a nobody, so now she is having a ball.” Sickening .

See more here:
Gary Coleman to Judge: Keep Shannon Price the Hell Away From Me!

Lakers edge Celtics in Game 7, win 16th title « Hoopsground.com

Lakers edge Celtics in Game 7 , win 16th title. (By GREG BEACHAM, AP Sports Writer) Purple and gold confetti raining down upon him, Kobe Bryant hopped up on the scorer’s table, shook his fists and extended five fingers. … The Boston Celtics were a half away from an 18th championship , taking a 40-34 lead into halftime during a sloppy Game 7 of the NBA finals on Thursday night. Ron Artest kept the Lakers in it with 12 points on a night Kobe Bryant (3 of 14) and Pau Gasol …

Original post:
Lakers edge Celtics in Game 7, win 16th title « Hoopsground.com

The Lakers Win The 2010 NBA Championship (Kobe Says He Got 1 More …

29 Responses to “The Lakers Win The 2010 NBA Championship ( Kobe Says He Got 1 More Than Shaq)”. SmokinAces Says: June 18th, 2010 at 1:22 am. You had to be a hater as usual. Shame. Ah, well. 16 for the boys. Kobe further solidifies his …. but ft shooting, defense and rebounding were tremendous. thank GOD that bball is a team sport. its not like the lakers would have been in position to win the title at all if kobe wasn’t sporting purple and gold . so save the hate. give …

View original post here:
The Lakers Win The 2010 NBA Championship (Kobe Says He Got 1 More …