Tag Archives: supreme

Help ban crush videos in the US

Crush videos, among other “fetish videos,” feature small live animals, such as kittens, puppies, mice and bunnies, being slowly tortured in the most horrific ways imaginable; including being burnt alive, cut with pruning sheers, nailed to the floor, skinned alive, beaten, stabbed, and having their limbs broken. All of these videos share a common theme: the animals are incrementally crushed by a woman in high heels. Most people view these materials for “sexual gratification”, but these videos are becoming increasingly popular just for their shock value alone. The crush fetish can be also linked to “paraphernalia,” which is an atypical sexual arousal to nonhuman objects and humans alike being caused physical distress. Crush videos are becoming increasingly popular across America, and will escalate to epidemic proportions due to the Supreme Court’s recent ruling to legalize them. It’s not hard to find such sites on the Internet with any search engine-keep in mind it’s now perfectly legal to download and watch. Minors can access these materials with a click of a button. If The Supreme Court says, “Okay fine, It’s free speech,” please first examine the damage it causes both human and nonhuman lives, and society as a whole. Freedom of speech has its limits when it places a society in danger, such as the ban on child pornography as it leads to violence of children. Films that exploit, torture, and kill animals for entertainment purposes also puts society in danger, for it is destructive by inciting violent and antisocial behavior, thereby endangering our citizens. Adults showing their own children these videos can cause emotional damage and lead to Antisocial Personality Disorders. This is not only considered child abuse, but is one of the leading disorders found in serial killers. While there are many factors that contribute to someone becoming a serial killer, the one constant they share is animal abuse. In short, there is nothing socially redeeming about “crush videos” and animal torture videos when used for entertainment and financial purposes. However, relating to educational or for political and sociological purposes, this should be the exception – such as speaking against, or educating the public about the realities of dog fighting or other issues and how it affects a society, such as the making of a violent criminal or serial killer. Sign the petition added by: crystalman

PBS Reporter Waters Down Liberal Bias of Ninth Circuit Court

Reporting a U.S. District Court judge overturning California’s Proposition 8, PBS correspondent Spencer Michaels noted that if the case is appealed to a higher court, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals would handle it. Michaels watered down the court’s infamous history of liberal rulings, saying that though it may be liberal, it is not more so than any other U.S. Circuit Court. The Ninth Circuit has “kind of a liberal bias – at least that’s the charge,” Michaels quickly corrected himself. “In actual fact, they probably aren’t any more liberal than any other court,” he insisted of the circuit with the dubious distinction of being the most-overturned of any by the Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit has a long history of being stacked with liberal judges since the days of President Carter, and infamously struck down “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance in 2002. The Court has arguably inched to the right with the addition of moderate and conservative judges, but is still widely regarded as the most liberal of the circuit courts. James Taranto, member of the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, described the court as “notoriously liberal,” in his piece about the reversal of Proposition 8. Ashby Jones, writing for the WSJ’s law blog, said that the court has a reputation for being “packed with liberal judges.” The sentiment isn’t confined to conservative-friendly publications. The Los Angeles Times reported last year that 15 of the court’s 16 cases reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court were reversed. “Judicial analysts attribute the high reversal rate at least partly to the 9th Circuit’s reputation as a liberal-dominated bench, even though more recent conservative appointments have diluted that influence,” the paper reported. Indeed, the New York Times reported this past spring that “outside experts who have examined the circuit for quantitative evidence of its leanings say that over all, it is indeed the most liberal circuit – but not by all that much.” A transcript of the segment, which aired on August 4 at 7:10 p.m., is as follows: JUDY WOODRUFF, PBS anchor: And as you suggest, the proponents of Proposition 8 had already served notice that they plan to appeal. What is their recourse here? SPENCER MICHAELS, PBS correspondent: Well, they’re going to go to the Ninth Circuit, which is California and the rest of the West’s appellate court in the federal system. That court has a kind of a liberal bias, at least that’s the charge. In actual fact, they probably aren’t any more liberal than any other court. They’re going to take up this case, and from there, what one of the lawyers I talked to today said, is that what happens in the Ninth Circuit is going to be very, very important, that they will set precedent. And if they set a precedent that makes the Ninth Circuit different than the rest of the country, then the Supreme Court will want to step in and settle this issue. You can’t have gay marriage approved in the Ninth Circuit and not in the rest of the country. So the Supreme Court will want to get involved in that. So that’s probably what will happen. It probably will go to the Supreme Court eventually. The people who are in favor of gay marriage aren’t really happy to go to the Supreme Court at this point. They know the make-up of that court, and they probably figure that they don’t have a big chance of winning. WOODRUFF: And Spencer, you were saying in your report a few minutes ago that it’s not clear the effect this is going to have on the other 49 states right now. What is your understanding of that? MICHAELS: Well as I said, right now this court is just a district court, a trial court – it doesn’t present a precedent. If it goes to the Ninth Circuit, then there is a precedent involved, and the Ninth Circuit rules in most of the states west of the Rockies. But the rest of the country is not bound by the Ninth Circuit. So the U.S. Supreme Court would have to make a decision for the rest of the country.

Visit link:
PBS Reporter Waters Down Liberal Bias of Ninth Circuit Court

Kagan’s Confirmation Makes ABC and NBC as Giddy as Liberal Democrats

“The number that really excited Democrats is three: Think Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan,” NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell excitedly announced Thursday night while leading into a clip of Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy, who exclaimed as he bounced on his heels on the Senate floor: “Three women will serve together on the United States Supreme Court for the first time in our nation’s history!” The news equally excited the TV network journalists. “History was made in this country today when the Senate confirmed Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court,” declared fill-in NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt as viewers were treated to a “Making History” on-screen graphic. “Tonight on World News, a day of high court history. Elena Kagan confirmed. For the first time ever, three women will be part of deciding the law of the land,” spouted a giddy Diane Sawyer in matching NBC by making Kagan her lead story. Sawyer could hardly contain her excitement: We are here in Washington on the day a new voice joins the Supreme Court. Elena Kagan, the third woman currently on the court, a woman with a reputation for holding her own in any room. And our Jonathan Karl is right here to tell us about the big vote right over there on Capitol Hill. And I want to know what happens when a new justice dons the robe for the first time, Jon? Karl confirmed: “Well, it’s a big day here. I mean, in all of American history, the Senate has confirmed only 112 justices, and, even if you include retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, only four of them have been women.” One sour note for Karl, a certain Republican who voted no: “There was one surprise. Scott Brown, I mean, this is the liberal, or moderate Republican from Massachusetts, introduced her at the confirmation hearings, defended her leadership of Harvard Law School. But in the end, he voted no.” (Back on January 31, 2006, when the Senate confirmed President George W. Bush’s second Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito, ABC’s World News held itself to a short item read by anchor Elizabeth Vargas.) On NBC Thursday night, Holt fretted that “today’s confirmation vote fell largely along party lines, seen by many as another symbol of Washington’s ever-deepening partisan divide.” But that “ever-deepening” is actually slightly less so than with Alito. Five Republicans voted to confirm Kagan, one more than the four Democrats who backed Alito. On the January 31, 2006 NBC Nightly News, Pete Williams noted: “The vote, 58-to-42, was one of the most deeply partisan ever for a Supreme Court nominee, with just four Democrats voting to confirm.” The MRC’s Brad Wilmouth corrected the closed-captioning against the video to provide these transcripts of the Thursday, August 6 stories: ABC’s World News: DIANE SAWYER, IN OPENING TEASER: Tonight on World News, a day of high court history. Elena Kagan confirmed. For the first time ever, three women will be part of deciding the law of the land. … SAWYER: We are here in Washington on the day a new voice joins the Supreme Court. Elena Kagan, the third woman currently on the court, a woman with a reputation for holding her own in any room. And our Jonathan Karl is right here to tell us about the big vote right over there on Capitol Hill. And I want to know what happens when a new justice dons the robe for the first time, Jon? JONATHAN KARL: Well, it’s a big day here. I mean, in all of American history, the Senate has confirmed only 112 justices, and, even if you include retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, only four of them have been women. SENATOR AL FRANKEN (D-MN): The tally is 63-37. KARL: Elena Kagan was easily confirmed in a vote the President hailed as historic. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: For nearly two centuries, there wasn’t a single woman on our nation’s highest court. KARL: Kagan faced last-minute attacks from Republicans who branded her a liberal activist with absolutely no judicial experience. SENATOR PAT ROBERTS (R-KS): Her lack of judicial experience, striking. MITCH MCCONNELL, SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: -is not suited- SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS (R-AL): -does not have the gifts- SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ): She is unlikely to exercise judicial restraint. KARL: It was highly partisan. All but five Republicans voted no. All but one Democrat voted yes. With Kagan, the court will now have, for the first time, three women serving at once, one third of the justices. It’s a huge sea change for an institution that has been dominated by men. As recently as last year, there was just one woman on the court. JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG, U.S. SUPREME COURT: Now there I am all alone, and it doesn’t look right. It’s lonely for me. There’s life experience that a woman has simply because she’s grown up inside a woman’s body. KARL: Ronald Reagan nominated Sandra Day O’Connor as the first woman in 1981, but it wasn’t until 12 years later that the court installed a woman’s restroom near the room where they deliberate. JOAN BISKUPIC, SUPREME COURT HISTORIAN: For years, they would just have a men’s bathroom back there. It just goes to show what a male-dominated place the Supreme Court had been for many years. KARL: Kagan will, of course, be the most junior justice, and the others will make sure she knows it. By tradition, the junior justice must take notes when the nine of them deliberate. And, Diane, if somebody knocks on the door, it is her, the most junior justice, that has to go up to answer the door to bring in papers, a message, or even coffee. SAWYER: Pretty mild form of hazing, though. Tell me about the vote itself. Any surprises who voted for and against? KARL: There was one surprise. Scott Brown, I mean, this is the liberal, or moderate Republican from Massachusetts, introduced her at the confirmation hearings, defended her leadership of Harvard Law School. But in the end, he voted no. SAWYER: So he voted with the Republicans? KARL: He voted with the rest of the Republicans, all but five of them, against her nomination. SAWYER: Okay, thanks, Jon. Good to be here with you tonight. NBC Nightly News: LESTER HOLT: Good evening. Brian is on assignment tonight. I’m Lester Holt. History was made in this country today when the Senate confirmed Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. Once she’s sworn in this weekend, she’ll become the current court’s third woman member and the fourth ever named. Tonight President Obama calls Kagan’s confirmation “an affirmation of her character and her temperament.” Still, today’s confirmation vote fell largely along party lines, seen by many as another symbol of Washington’s ever-deepening partisan divide. NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell is on Capitol Hill with more. Kelly, good evening. KELLY O’DONNELL: Good evening, Lester. When you look at today’s vote, you can see history. Justice Kagan will give women a greater voice – making up one-third of the court – and you can see politics. Five Republicans crossed over to support Kagan while one Democrat was among the no votes. SENATOR AL FRANKEN (D-MN): The tally is 63-37. The nomination is confirmed. O’DONNELL: Elena Kagan did get five fewer votes than Sonia Sotomayor last summer, but the number that really excited Democrats is three: Think Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan. SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT): Three women will serve together on the United States Supreme Court for the first time in our nation’s history! O’DONNELL: At 50, Kagan becomes the youngest justice, succeeding the oldest, 90-year-old John Paul Stevens. Congratulations from President Obama late today. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: She knows that the Supreme Court’s decisions shape not just the character of our democracy, but the circumstances of our daily lives. O’DONNELL: Kagan’s unexpected sense of humor charmed Senators of both parties at her confirmation hearings. JUSTICE ELENA KAGAN, U.S. SUPREME COURT: It means I’d have to get my hair done more often, Senator Specter. O’DONNELL: New York born, first woman dean of Harvard Law. Her policy to limit military recruiters access there gave Republicans their strongest criticism. SENATOR JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): Dean Kagan, I believe, showed a willingness to bend the law and facts to advance her own political goals of protesting the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. O’DONNELL: Kagan worked for Presidents Obama and Clinton. She will be the only justice on the current court who has never been a judge. LEAHY: She earned her place at the top of the legal profession. No one gave it to her. She earned it. O’DONNELL: And it’s been 40 years since the newest member of the Supreme Court has had no previous experience as a judge. And the plan for Elena Kagan is that she will be sworn in this Saturday afternoon by her new colleague, Chief Justice John Roberts.

See more here:
Kagan’s Confirmation Makes ABC and NBC as Giddy as Liberal Democrats

Women drivers make men nervous – survey

ONE in three men feels unsafe when in a car with his wife or girlfriend behind the wheel, results of a British survey have revealed. The study – conducted by British online research company OnePoll.com – surveyed 3000 men, asking them for their attitudes about women's behavior behind the wheel. It found that men often pushed their feet down involuntarily when their wife or partner was late to hit the brakes. Other men regularly spent part of a journey gripping the edges of the passenger seat. A spokesman for OnePoll.com said the study showed that most men felt they were better drivers than the women in their lives. ''They believe they concentrate a lot better, read road situations more quickly and clearly and have better reactions,” he said. ''One in five even went as far as to say they were never able to relax when their other half is driving.'' The study also found one in five couples have argued due to the other one's driving. One in 10 men felt it necessary to ask their wife to pull over so they could take the wheel. Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/women-drivers-make-men-nervous-survey/story… added by: eden49

We Told You So — Obama Tries to Pull a Fast One On Health Care

Sometimes you hate being right. In chapter 4 of our book, “The Blueprint: Obama's Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency,” we make the point that Team Obama would try to pull a fast one when it comes to Obamacare's individual mandate that everyone reading this blog post needs to buy health insurance, or be subject to a penalty payable to your good friends at the IRS. We first made this argument in a column we co-authored with Senator Orrin Hatch in The Wall Street Journal back in January. Now this issue has suddenly exploded back into the news. For months, Team Obama has been saying that the individual mandate is authorized by Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce, as found in the Commerce Clause. We explain in our book why that argument is a loser in court, and that the White House would have to pull a bait-and-switch and suddenly argue that the mandate is a tax (violating Obama's promise not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250K per year). Looks like we were right. In their first filing against the multi-state lawsuit challenging Obamacare, Team Obama is now arguing that the individual mandate is… a tax. If you read chapter 4 of our book, though, after we explain how the mandate is not authorized by the Commerce Clause, we then go on to explain how it is also unconstitutional if it's a tax.Evidently worried about this, Team Obama then goes on to argue that if the court doesn't buy the tax argument either (because the argument is bogus, perhaps?), then it's still justified under the General Welfare Clause. Anticipating that, our next section in chapter 4 explains why the mandate is also not authorized by the General Welfare Clause. We close that section by noting that one thing you're taught in law school is that the General Welfare Clause doesn't authorize the federal government to do anything. It is a limitation on federal power, not a source of additional power. When you cite the General Welfare Clause, you're grasping at straws. That's exactly what Team Obama is doing. Their legal argument is desperate, because the Obamacare mandate is unconstitutional. With the vote on Elena Kagan's confirmation to the Supreme Court looming, this issue could not be more timely. We need federal courts that will uphold the Constitution's limits on federal power. They can start by striking down Obamacare http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/07/19/ken-blackwell-ken-klukowski-blueprint-… added by: congoboy

Clarence Thomas’ Suicidal, Epileptic Nephew Punched, Tasered in Hospital [Incidents]

Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas and family are “outraged” after his nephew was allegedly punched, pulled and tasered at a New Orleans hospital, after a possible suicide attempt. The taser put him into a “massive epileptic seizure.” Video below. More

The End of the World of Warcraft

Blizzard is watching you! added by: Geoffiroth

Maine “Michael Nifong on steroids”

Maine: Supreme Court Hears Case on Out-of-Control DV Prosecutor Tuesday, June 15, 2010 By Abusegate Bob This is an update on a case currently being argued in front of the Maine Supreme Court about an out-of-control prosecutor named Mary Kellet, who has wrongfully charged and prosecuted many innocent men in Maine… The Maine Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in the State of Maine vs. Vladek Filler. National Director of the Domestic Abuse Helpline Jan Brown attended the hearing as did some others. The “Michael Nifong on steroids” Mary Kellett has prosecuted countless innocent men on trumped up charges and false evidence. When it becomes easy for a prosecutor to lie to judges and juries with impunity, it is also easy for them to lie to the Supreme Court. Mary Kellett mislead the Supreme Court about her misconduct and the trial record. When the trial court found Mary Kellett guilty of prosecutorial misconduct against Vladek Filler she continued to abuse her power as the representative of the State of Maine. She filed an appeal of her prosecutorial misconduct, then wrote the appeal herself, and then argued it herself before Maine Supreme Court. It is equivalent to a corrupt police officer investigating himself then writing a report finding the victims at fault. The prosecutor brazenly lied to the Supreme Court about her misconduct and explicit court order violations at trial, pointed the finger at the defense attorney, and argued for Vladek Filler to be denied acquittal or even a new trial. One Justice asked Mary Kellett whether she considered a custody battle for the children important in a case where the wife is alleging spousal rape against the husband. Mary Kellett responded that it is the defense who should be concerned with the importance of child custody battle evidence. The admission of the State’s unconstitutional “burden shifting” is stunning. The State of Maine has admitted that it is less concerned with evidence ulterior motives and false allegations, and relies on defense to seek the truth and be concerned with such evidence. Vladek Filler’s attorney argued the systematic and flagrant prosecutorial misconduct committed by Mary Kellett and the insufficiency of evidence to support Vladek Filler’s conviction or even for bringing charges against him. That in fact, the evidence showed this prosecutor brought numerous charges of rape against a man where the accuser herself made admissions that it was consensual. This highly politicized appeal is pending in the Maine Supreme Court. Not a single media outlet in Maine has covered the State’s appeal or the systematic prosecutorial abuse of innocent men in the Bar Harbor region. The prosecutorial and civil rights crimes against Vladek Filler and men like him must be exposed. For more information, see: www.fillerfund.com added by: choice

CBS ‘Early Show’ Follows ABC’s Lead, Touts Kagan’s SNL-Worthy Humor

During the ‘Early Wrap’ segment on Friday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith discussed the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan with a panel of media pundits: “The almost unknown, practically under the radar, the Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, before committees this week being funny. She was downright funny.” GQ Magazine’s Washington correspondent Ana Marie Cox agreed with Smith and added: “…a Saturday Night Live skit made live , in part because she looks exactly like Rachel Dratch. And it’s perfect because Al Franken is on the committee. And I kept on watching like waiting for someone to burst into song or Unfrozen Caveman Senator.” Radio host Jane Pratt chimed in: “Her joke was good, the Chinese food joke was good.” Smith remarked: “Very funny. Sunday night, and Christmas.”          On Wednesday’s Good Morning America on ABC, news reader Juju Chang noted Kagan’s “lively sense of humor” and later asked co-hosts George Stephanopoulos and Elizabeth Vargas “who is going to play her in the SNL skit?” Vargas replied: “I don’t think they could be as funny as Elena Kagan was!” While the Early Show touted Kagan’s comedic performance, neither Good Morning America nor NBC’s Today made any mention of the confirmation hearings on Friday. In addition, none of the evening newscast on Thursday made any mention of Kagan’s final day of testimony. Here is a full transcript of the July 2 Early Show exchange provided by NewsBusters’ Scott Whitlock: 8:20AM HARRY SMITH: The almost unknown, practically under the radar, the Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, before committees this week being funny. She was downright funny.  MO ROCCA: Last Justice Standing. [All laugh] ANA MARIE COX: American justice. It’s funny. I actually thought she was funny, too.  SMITH: Right.  COX: I have to say, watching it immediately, I don’t know if I’m allowed to say SNL, but Saturday Night Live, a Saturday Night Live skit made live, in part because she looks exactly like Rachel Dratch. And it’s perfect because Al Franken is on the committee. And I kept on watching like waiting for someone to burst into song or Unfrozen Caveman Senator. I mean- JANE PRATT: Yeah. Right. I haven’t been able to watch it just because I feel like- like, I see Al Franken looking like he’s kind of falling asleep and I’m like, it makes me feel like I’m going to fall asleep and then I wanted to crack a joke. Her joke was good, the Chinese food joke was good. SMITH: Very funny. Sunday night, and Christmas. COX: She took the fifth on Team Edward vs. Team Jacob, which all women do. [They move on to other topics.]

See the rest here:
CBS ‘Early Show’ Follows ABC’s Lead, Touts Kagan’s SNL-Worthy Humor

The Last Airbender

Read the original here:
The Last Airbender