Category Archives: Rebellion in the Ranks

SCOTUS Decisions: 2015, Part I

Posted on by
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d8/USSupremeCourtWestFacade.JPG/1024px-USSupremeCourtWestFacade.JPG

The Supreme Court of the United States

The US Supreme Court releases its decisions for the year during June. There are a number of highly important decisions we all are waiting for, such as restraining the EPA and banning subsidies for Obamacare. We often forget that some other less well-known cases are important, too. SCOTUS released three decisions yesterday. All were favorable from a conservative perspective.

The first of these, Kingsley v. Hendrickson, dealt with the standard an inmate must meet to prevail on a section 1983 action for excessive force while in pretrial detention. For the non-lawyers, 42 U.S.C. section 1983 (paraphrased) allows citizens to bring lawsuits against agents of the government when those agents deprive them of their constitutional rights (including the right to be free of the excessive use of force). The case concerned a man named Kingsley who was awaiting trial in county jail, and who was forcibly removed from his cell with some considerable force (including the use of tasers). Mr. Kingsley brought suit, alleging that his Constitutional rights had been violated. — Red State.

The Court affirmed that a person held in pre-trial confinement was still presumed to be innocent and therefore was entitled to be as free from excessive force as anyone simply walking in public.

A person who is in pretrial custody is still entitled to the same presumption of innocence that you and I are, and is still entitled to the same constitutional protections against excessive use of force. The government often tends to treat people who are in pretrial detention as being presumptively guilty nonetheless, and this decision will hopefully help reinforce the point that it isn’t so. This decision may not seem like anything that matters to you now, but if you ever find yourself awaiting trial on bogus or politically motivated charges (a reality that occurs more often than we would care to admit), it will be a major protection. — Red State.

The second decision, City of Los Angeles v. Patel, was a win for our 4th Amendment rights. The City of Los Angeles passed an ordinance requiring hotels and motels to keep copies of their registry records for 90 days and to hand them over for police inspection at any time without any judicial recourse. Failure to do automatically generated a fine against the hotel/motel owner.

Mr. Patel sought to facially challenge this ordinance on Fourth Amendment grounds – something that was previously difficult if not impossible to do (many ordinances and statutes had been subject to facial challenge under, say, the First Amendment, but not the Fourth).

The Court held that a) facial challenges under the Fourth Amendment were permissible (and not disfavored) and b) that an ordinance that did not permit independent judicial review of a search of this type was facially unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. This decision reaffirmed a basic bulwark of our constitutional protections from police overreach – that when police demand the right to conduct a search and seizure of your property, you are always entitled to a before-the-fact judicial review of their actions, in the absence of special exigent circumstances which it is their burden to prove at court. — Red State.

This decision could also be grounds for suits against some of the more egregious asset forfeiture laws and the abuses caused by them.

The third decision was a direct blow against the Department of Agriculture and the federal government as a whole. The Government may not seize property real OR personal, without due process and compensation.

The third, Horne v. Department of Agriculture, concerns one of the most shocking and longstanding abuses of the free market that the government has ever engaged in – the government’s “marketing orders” program that it uses to artificially set the market for many agricultural products. Under this abominable program, if you wish to sell many agricultural products in the United States (in this case, raisins), the government can (and does) require you to set aside a portion of your crop and just give it to the government for them to sell it, donate it, or destroy it as they see fit. For raisin growers, the government regularly confiscates nearly half the products they grow, for absolutely nothing, just for the right to sell raisins in the United States. Keeping in mind that the Department of Agriculture, with little or no Congressional oversight, determines how much of your crop they get to steal, how they dispose of your crops, and whether you get anything back at all.

The Hornes were raisin growers who refused to participate in this program, reasoning that, at the very least, if the government wanted to take their raisins, this would constitute a “taking” under the Constitution, which under Fifth Amendment precedent would at least require the government to pay them “just compensation” for their personal property. The Federal Government argued that this constitutional provision only applied to real property (i.e., land) and not personal property (e.g., raisins). Thankfully, the SCOTUS ruled for the raisin farmers, reasoning that “the Government has a categorical duty to pay just compensation when it takes your car, just as when it takes your home.” — Red State.

This last decision may well end the long abused USDA practice of “marketing orders.” It is no longer a constitutional method of generating revenue for the federal government without compensation to the owners of the seized property. SCOTUS declared that ‘person’ property is just a protected under the 4th Amendment as is real, i.e., land, property. It may seem to be small victories, but we should celebrate every victory against the statists and a tyrannical government and their dictatorial edicts.

The next release of SCOTUS decisions is expected on Thursday of this week if the Court follows its usual practice.

***

News to watch! Boehner, watch your back! Uhhh, on second thought, Johnny-boy, just ignore them. You’re safe.  Heh, heh, heh…

Facebook

Trumped!

Posted on by
https://mpinkeyes.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/donald-trump.jpg

Donald Trump, GOP candidate for President

Donald Trump, “The Donald,” declared his candidacy for President of the United States yesterday. To the dismay of many pundits and the GOP establishment. His announcement struck a cord across the county. Trump was blunt, arrogant, condescending, unhesitant in his criticism of Obama and democrats in general. He, in contrast to the GOP establishment whose darling is Jeb Bush, declared he would build a fence across our southern border and send the bill to Mexico.

The public ate it up.

The RNC is appalled. How could this bumpkin, this showman, this reality TV star, dare run against the anointed of the GOP establkishment? Easily. The leaders both parties refuse to understand a simple fact. The establishment of both parties, is equally hated across the country. Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, along with their ‘leadership’ teams are seen as being no different from Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and their ‘leadership’ teams.

Trump, like all the other ‘Pub candidates, appeared on Hannity’s radio show yesterday afternoon. Well, all except for Jeb who wanted his announcement to ‘seep’ twenty-four hours before he would deign appear with Hannity.

Trump was very careful of the timing of his announcement. He ended his speech just before Noon, Eastern time—just in time for the start of the Rush Limbaugh show and guess what? Trump was the leading topic. Free advertisement for Trump!

Trump may be arrogant, a showman, and a buffoon. He is no conservative with his donations to many democrat pols and his support for abortion. Given all that, he’s not stupid. He knows what topics are of interest in the country and he plucks those  interests, those sentiments, those harp strings with expertise.

Do I think Trump can win in the primaries? No.

Do I think he could win the GOP nomination? No.

I do believe, however, and it’s evident if you just watch the news reports, even those from FOX, that he’s sucked the wind from all the other GOP candidates. Trump, like Ross Perot and Ron Paul before him, is a spoiler. He’s not driven by a need to serve. He like Perot and Paul, is driven by a need to feed his ego. The media, and FOX as well, has presented Trump and his ego with an exceptional banquet.

This morning, Erick Erickson, of Red State, made this observation.

“Donald Trump is the disrespectful candidate for people who disrespect the process. He’ll be rude. He’ll be loud. He’ll be confrontational. And he won’t get the nomination. But along the way, he will speak to the fears and hopes of a lot of people who no longer connect with Washington or trust the government to get it right.” — Erick Erickson.

***

Open warfare has erupted between John Boehner and conservatives in the House. Included in Boehner’s ‘enemy list’ now are three Representatives from his own leadership team.

After Democrats helped imperil President Obama’s trade agenda, conservatives are insisting they can help rescue the trade effort—if House Republican leadership will let them.

Conservative lawmakers today railed against House Speaker John Boehner and his leadership team for working closely with Democrats on a failed strategy to usher Trade Promotion Authority through Congress.

“What’s most interesting to me is this is the second or third time they’ve [House leadership] negotiated with Democrats and the Democrats go back on their word and they still don’t come to the conservatives to talk,” said Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, speaking at a monthly House conservative lunch before reporters on Capitol Hill.

“Either they [House leadership] are not listening or they are completely unaware about what’s happening in their surroundings and they are only talking to special interest groups that go to fundraisers with them,” Labrador continued. — The Daily Signal

The rebellion is growing. Boehner had three members of his ‘leadership’ team removed from their positions after they voted, against Boehner instructions, “No,” on TPP this week. Representatives Cynthia Lummis (WY), Steve Pearce (NM) and Trent Franks (AZ) joined other conservatives to defeat Obama’s Transpacific Partnership (TPP) bill.

34 Republicans voted against the rule setting up floor debate for the trade package known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership last week and now three will have to pay a price.

Reps. Cynthia Lummis (WY), Steve Pearce (NM) and Trent Franks (AZ) were booted from their party leadership positions for breaking with the Grand Ole’ Party and voting against a part of the package the that gives the President the ability to negotiate trade deals known as fast track according to the National Journal. It was left to Rep. Steve Scalise (LA), House Majority Whip, to make the demotions.

…

…the move appears to come at the direction of House Speaker John Boehner who reportedly told rebellious GOP House members that he was fed up with their “nonsense,” a remark that evidently “sparked applause” in the room full of Republican lawmakers.

Speaking with reporters on Tuesday, Boehner made clear that he was disappointed by Republican members who did not vote with the party on the controversial trade legislation authority, “you know, we’re a team. And we’ve worked hard to get the majority; we’ve worked hard to stay in the majority,” said Boehner. He continued, “and I expect our team to act like a team, and frankly, I made it pretty clear I wasn’t very happy.” — Salon.

All treaties must be presented to Congress for approval. Congress has a responsibility to provide the President with ‘advice and consent.’ In the case of TPP, Congress provided a lot of advice, mostly negative, and no consent.

Like Obama in the Senate, Boehner has been ‘trumped’ by members of his own party.

Facebook

It’s not easy…

Posted on by

…being a RINO.

Conservatives in Congress continue to give John Boehner and Mitch McConnell headaches. That makes me smile! It’s hardly been a month since the GOP took control of both houses of Congress. In the first week of the new Congress, more legislation has been passed that in the entire year of 2014 under Harry Reid. The ball has now passed to Obama. Will he sign or veto?

Unfortunately, most of the legislation passed has been non-consequential. The tough bills, changes in abortion funding and border security have been pulled in the face of conservative opposition who have problems with sections of both bills.

Trouble in GOP ranks kills votes on border and abortion bills

By S.A. Miller and Stephen Dinan – The Washington Times – Monday, January 26, 2015

Facing a rebellion in their own ranks, House Republican leaders scrapped their plans to vote this week on their first border security bill of the new Congress, blaming the weather for the delay but buying themselves time to try to stiffen the bill and make it more palatable to conservatives.

It’s the second bill in as many weeks that Republican leaders have had to pull after internal opposition. Last week the GOP scrapped a bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, acting the night before the March for Life, after realizing that some female Republican House members had concerns.

The border bill had to be pulled after conservatives objected, saying it didn’t do enough to build the border fence or to step up enforcement against illegal immigrants in the interior of the U.S.

Rank-and-file Republicans said they’ve been assured the delay is temporary — a similar assurance was given to pro-lifers on their bill last week — and the border bill will be brought back once GOP leaders can add other get-tough provisions to it. They are looking to combine it with updated versions of interior enforcement bills that passed in the previous Congress.

“The idea was just to get the companion bill out here. That is the game plan,” said Rep. Earl L. “Buddy” Carter, Georgia Republican. “It all depends on the progress in [the House] Judiciary [Committee] and them getting it done.”

The column continues here.

At least Boehner did the right thing and is giving conservatives an opportunity to modify both bills as they have demanded. But neither Boehner nor McConnell have gained any confidence from conservatives. Neither Boehner nor McConnell are viewed as having any fortitude to confront Obama and the democrats. The simmering rebellion in the ranks has not dissipated. It’s still there and appears to be growing.

Boehner-McConnell retreat in Obama amnesty fight panics conservatives

By S.A. Miller – The Washington Times – Sunday, January 25, 2015

http://media.washtimes.com/media/image/2015/01/25/boehnermcconnell_s878x789.jpg?bd854b5a5236db4fa381af0adc34957a3c20f6c9

The conservative core of the Republican Party has long been leery of John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, who are viewed derisively as establishment stalwarts.

Conservatives saw it as raising a white flag when Republican congressional leaders pledged not to withhold funding for the Department of Homeland Security in the fight over President Obama’s deportation amnesty, stoking fears that for the next two years House Speaker John A. Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will consistently surrender.

For the Republican base, Mr. Obama’s unilateral move to grant legal status and work permits for up to 5 million illegal immigrants was an unlawful power grab that created a constitutional crisis.

If Republican leaders were not willing to use Congress’ power of the purse — the most potent weapon possessed by lawmakers to restrict a president — to stop a brazen unconstitutional act, conservatives reasoned, would the GOP-controlled Congress ever go to the mat to fight Mr. Obama?

The conservative core of the party has long been leery of Mr. Boehner and Mr. McConnell, who are viewed derisively as establishment stalwarts. The refusal of the leaders to threaten a government shutdown or even close a single agency to force Mr. Obama to revoke his immigration edicts seemed only to confirm the right wing’s worst suspicions.

“The anger I see from my audience at the Republican Party cannot become any more palpable,” nationally syndicated talk radio host Steve Deace said. “We have a president who looks for new and unique ways to shred the Constitution on an almost daily basis, and we have a Republican Party leadership that refuses to do anything about it.”

He said Republican incumbents should expect a backlash and primary challenges next year because of their weak attempt to stop the amnesty.

“People are this angry about it. They feel as if they are already not represented and essentially they have been betrayed by most of the people they just worked to elect in November,” said Mr. Deace. “That’s why people are angry at this, because they realize the people that are in charge of our party don’t believe in almost anything in our party platform. They don’t. They are just treacherous.”

Mr. Boehner and Mr. McConnell declined to use the power of the purse to try to stop deportation amnesty when they pushed through a spending bill in December that funded all of the government except Homeland Security for the remainder of the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30.

They promised a showdown over immigration before temporary funding for Homeland Security expires Feb. 27. But faced with a spate of terrorism in Europe and cyberattacks by North Korea, the Republican leaders also promised not to shut down Homeland Security and jeopardize the safety of Americans.

Meanwhile, Mr. McConnell and his team expressed doubts about getting the 60 votes in the Senate needed to approve the House-passed spending bill for Homeland Security that included policy riders blocking Mr. Obama’s immigration moves.

Spineless cowards. I have an idea! Let’s use Harry Reid’s rules. Let’s declare these bills as budget bills and pass them with a simple majority. It it worked for Harry, why not for Mitch?

We know why. Boehner and McConnell are more afraid of democrats than they are of us. That can be changed. We had the opportunity with the election of a new Speaker. Unfortunately, not enough Congressmen have spines and need to be replaced.

Facebook