Groundbreaking US Supreme Court Decision on the Tenth and Ninth Amendment

[Hardrock69]

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/728/483/Groundbreaking_US_Supreme_Court_Decision_on_the_Te nth_and_Ninth_Amendment.html



Saturday, June 18, 2011 1:40

* Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

* Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


6.17.11

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court issued one of the best and most important decisions ever on federalism. The Court unanimously held that not just states but individuals have standing to challenge federal laws as violations of state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment. This decision is as radical in the direction of liberty as the New Deal was radical in the direction of socialism. Click here to read the decision.

In short, freedom advocates like us just got a green light from the USSC to bring more cases under the 10th Amendment. This will have huge—positive—implications for freedom so long as the current constitution of the court holds.



Here is our favorite passage: “Federalism secures the freedom of the individual. It allows States to respond, through the enactment of positive law, to the initiative of those who seek a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times without having to rely solely upon the political processes that control a remote central power.” We will put this precedent to work immediately when we file our opening brief in the Obamacare lawsuit Monday, and also in our defense of Save Our Secret Ballot against the NLRB challenge, and many more cases to come.



One other important note: Sometimes little cases make big constitutional law. This case involved a woman who was prosecuted under federal law for harassing her husband’s girlfriend—not the set of facts ordinarily creating an important precedent. Some of our cases, too, are seemingly “little” but with big principles at stake.

[Dr. Love]

And by "individuals" they probably mean "corporations".

[FORD]

How does anybody fighting against union card checks consider themselves a "freedom advocate"??

Of course when I saw the phrase "....as the New Deal was radical in the direction of socialism." I knew this was written by a teabagging nutcase KKKoch Brothers front.

So yeah, Doc's right. This is more corporations as "people" enabling horseshit.

[FORD]

Supreme Court backs Wal-Mart in lawsuit on sex discrimination

By Guy Adams in Los Angeles
Tuesday, 21 June 2011

Handing a valuable and highly symbolic victory to Corporate America, the US Supreme Court has blocked a massive sexual discrimination lawsuit which would have claimed systematic discrimination in the employment practices of the retail giant Wal-Mart.

The nation's highest court yesterday overturned an earlier ruling which would have allowed as many as 1.6 million female Wal-Mart employees to sue the firm for allegedly paying women less than men, and for giving them fewer promotions than their male counterparts. In a decision passed on ideological lines – it was supported by the Supreme Court's five conservative justices and opposed by its four liberal ones – the court ruled that there were too many women in too many different jobs at the company to wrap into a single lawsuit. Individual plaintiffs will still be able to pursue their own discrimination suits. However they will now find themselves in a David versus Goliath battle, with fewer legal resources to draw upon, smaller amounts of compensation at stake and less pressure on Wal-Mart to settle.

The decision was celebrated by the US business community, which feared that any sex discrimination payout by Wal-Mart could lead to a flood of similar suits against other employers. Large class-action lawsuits, in which groups of plaintiffs band together to sue corporations, have in the past led to huge payouts by tobacco, oil and food companies.

Civil rights and women's groups said that it represented a setback for gender equality. "The court has told employers that they can rest easy, knowing that the bigger and more powerful they are, the less likely their employees will be able to join together to secure their rights," said Marcia Greenberg, of the National Women's Law Centre.

Shares in Wal-Mart, which owns the UK supermarket chain Asda, ticked up. A spokesman for the firm said it was "pleased" with the result, noting that the company "has had strong policies against discrimination for many years".

The suit began in 2000, when a "store greeter" from California called Betty Dukes claimed that despite six years of exemplary performance reviews, she had been denied training that would allow her to advance to a more senior position. In her complaint, Ms Dukes said that despite holding 80 per cent of poorly paid supervisory positions, female staff made up just 14 per cent of the firm's managers. Wal-Mart disputed many of her figures and denied that Ms Dukes had been subject to discrimination.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said the plaintiffs had failed to satisfactorily demonstrate a company-wide policy of discrimination. "In all, Wal-Mart operates approximately 3,400 stores and employs more than one million people," he wrote. "Because respondents wish to sue about literally millions of employment decisions at once, they need some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together."

The ruling, which prevents internal company documents from being made public during trial, is the latest example of the right-leaning court reaching a conservative view in a controversial test case. Last year, it voted to reform electoral finance laws to allow corporations to secretly give unlimited funds to political candidates of their choosing.

Yesterday, the court blocked a federal lawsuit by states and conservation groups trying to force cuts in greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. It also refused to hear an appeal from ACORN, the left-leaning community group, over a recent law that banned it from receiving federal money.

Link (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/supreme-court-backs-walmart-in-lawsuit-on-sex-discrimination-2300301.html)

So, in addition to allowing WalMart to discriminate against women, the five BCE appointed fascists just effectively killed the Class Action Lawsuit, one of the few remaining ways possible for the people to fight back against corporations.

Freedom, MY ASS!! :mad:

Impeach Uncle Clarence Thomas NOW. And the ridiculously unqualified Opie Roberts too.

[FORD]

Clarence Thomas Decided Three Cases Where AEI Filed A Brief After AEI Gave Him A $15,000 Gift

By Ian Millhiser on Jun 21, 2011 at 10:04 am

In 2001, a conservative, corporate-aligned think tank called the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) gave Justice Clarence Thomas the gift of a $15,000 bust of Abraham Lincoln. At the ceremony presenting Thomas with this very expensive gift, AEI president Christopher DeMuth explained that the bust was “cast in 1914 by the great neo-classical sculptor Adolph Alexander Weinman.” Watch it:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ6fOYShGvs

AEI, however, is not simply in the business of giving luxurious gifts to Supreme Court justices — it is also in the business of litigating before the United States Supreme Court. ThinkProgress uncovered three briefs that AEI filed in Thomas’ Court after Thomas received their $15,000 gift. Thomas recused from none of these three cases, and he either voted in favor of the result AEI favored or took a stance that was even further to the right in each case:

Riley v. Kennedy: AEI filed a brief asking the Supreme Court to reverse a lower court decision preventing a change in Alabama’s voting law from going into effect. Justice Thomas did not recuse, and he joined the Supreme Court’s decision reversing the lower court.

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1: AEI filed a brief asking the Supreme Court to reverse a lower court decision upholding a local school district’s desegregation plan. Thomas joined the majority opinion reversing the lower court’s decision, and he filed a lengthy concurrence defending that result.

Whitman v. American Trucking Association: AEI joined a brief asking the Supreme Court to allow the EPA to consider the costs of implementing new air quality standards before it issued them. Thomas’ concurring opinion went much further than AEI asked him to go, suggesting that the law authorizing EPA to issue these standards is unconstitutional.

Although there is no evidence that AEI gave Thomas the $15,000 gift specifically to buy his vote in a particular case, Thomas’ decision to sit on cases where his benefactor has a demonstrated interest creates a very serious appearance of impropriety. No one would trust a judge to hear their case if they learned that someone on the other side of the case had given that judge a rare and expensive gift.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/06/21/249512/thomas-aei/

[Hardrock69]

Supreme Court? Impartial only in theory.

[Nitro Express]

"Who put the pubic hair on my Coke?" --Clarence Thomas--

[Nitro Express]

Government is power period. It can be centralized in the federal government or it can be diversified into the states. The argument of which is better is as old as the country itself. Even Thomas Jefferson and George Washington differed on this issue. Washington wanted a strong federal government because he worried about being open to an enemy attack and thought a strong federal government would keep the country from falling to a foreign invader. Thomas Jefferson on the other hand thought giving the states the majority of the power would better serve the people.

If history proves anything, centralized power in too few hands hardly ever turns out well. When governments run amok the result is big piles of dead bodies. I lean towards keeping just enough government to keep law and order and keep it local as possible.

[FORD]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKkp37jqMsI

[FORD]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t04t0-w-Vwc

[sadaist]

I can't concentrate in any thread Dr Love posts in. That sweet ass in the orange shorts is just hypnotizing. I swear I stared at it so long I was seeing orange floaters for 30 minutes after. Like staring at the sun too long.....except trying to see through to the butthole. :hee:

[SunisinuS]

I can't concentrate in any thread Dr Love posts in. That sweet ass in the orange shorts is just hypnotizing. I swear I stared at it so long I was seeing orange floaters for 30 minutes after. Like staring at the sun too long.....except trying to see through to the butthole. :hee:

Lol. Be careful when going up the old dirt road to fish brown trout if you don't have a license!

[sadaist]

Lol. Be careful when going up the old dirt road to fish brown trout if you don't have a license!


it's only fun because you aren't supposed to. Once they allow it, the thrill is gone.

[SunisinuS]

Killjoy


But they still like it. I know some that beg for it. Dirty Girls...sorry sadaist....I am still single. Bwhahahaha.

:deadhorse:



Yay coulda heard the angels singing.....coulda heard the angels sing and they say:


:xmas: