Showing posts with label Elena Kagan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Elena Kagan. Show all posts

Monday, September 27, 2021

The National Popular Vote Compact, an end run around the US Constitution which also creates faithless electors, is actually supported in Michigan by stupid Republicans and a Hillsdale college instructor

My lunatic former state senator, Dave Hildenbrand, was the chief Republican sponsor of the compact in 2018. He's a lobbyist now.

The former state GOP Chair Saul Anuzis is a huge supporter and consultant to the NPV organization.

You can read all about such fools here and here.

Because the Republican controlled lower chamber has blocked a bill to make it the law since 2018, supporters of NPV are now organizing an end run . . . around THEM.

They intend to make this a ballot initiative, which in Michigan has been the go-to method for deciding hot topics to which elected representatives don't want their names attached through legislation. The method has been the way they wash their hands of issues instead of having the courage to take a stand for or against them.

Ballot initiatives in Michigan should have been curbed long ago, but when you have a spine made of jello, you can't curb anything.

So, given the success of Democrats in 2018 sweeping state offices and a handful of left of center ballot initiatives with them, quietly promoted by Barack Obama's wingman,  Eric Holder, and backed by money from George Soros, it looks like a fait accompli already.

Michigan Republicans are too dumb and too libertarian to stop this.

The only hope is that the US Supreme Court will eventually rule the NPV unconstitutional, given the fact that it has already ruled that faithless electors must award their Electoral College votes to the certified winner of a state wherever such laws require it, not to whomever they want:

The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously upheld laws across the country that remove or punish rogue Electoral College delegates who refuse to cast their votes for the presidential candidate they were pledged to support.

The decision Monday was a loss for "faithless electors," who argued that under the Constitution they have discretion to decide which candidate to support.

Writing for the court, Justice Elena Kagan, in a decision peppered with references to the Broadway show Hamilton and the TV show Veep, said Electoral College delegates have "no ground for reversing" the statewide popular vote. That, she said, "accords with the Constitution — as well as with the trust of the Nation that here, We the People rule." ...
Thirty-two states have some sort of faithless elector law, but only 15 of those remove, penalize or simply cancel the votes of the errant electors. The 15 are Michigan, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Indiana, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Washington, California, New Mexico, South Carolina, Oklahoma and North Carolina. Although Maine has no such law, the secretary of state has said it has determined a faithless elector can be removed. ... For centuries, almost all electors have considered themselves bound to vote for the winner of the state popular vote.

Monday, April 23, 2012

The New York Times Discusses Bi-Partisan Culpability For The Imperial Presidency


Mr. Obama's new approach puts him in the company of his recent predecessors. Mr. Bush, for example, failed to persuade Congress to pass a bill allowing religiously affiliated groups to receive taxpayer grants -- and then issued an executive order making the change.

President Bill Clinton increased White House involvement in agency rule making, using regulations and executive orders to show that he was getting things done despite opposition from a Republican Congress on matters like land conservation, gun control, tobacco advertising and treaties. (He was assisted by a White House lawyer, Elena Kagan, who later won tenure at Harvard based on scholarship analyzing such efforts and who is now on the Supreme Court.)

And both the Reagan and George Bush administrations increased their control over executive agencies to advance a deregulatory agenda, despite opposition from Democratic lawmakers, while also developing legal theories and tactics to increase executive power, like issuing signing statements more frequently.

The bipartisan history of executive aggrandizement in recent decades complicates Republican criticism.

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

With ObamaCare About to Pass, Elena Kagan Wrote to Harvard Plagiarist Laurence Tribe to Exult !!

She should recuse herself from hearing any case involving ObamaCare.

David Harsanyi weighs in here:

Nor, as we learned this week, is it reassuring to find out that while the House was debating passage of Obamacare, Kagan and well-known legal scholar Laurence Tribe, then in the Justice Department, did a little dialoguing regarding the health care vote, and according to documents obtained by Media Research Center, Kagan wrote: "I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing."

Nothing says impartiality like double exclamation points!!

Friday, June 3, 2011

Why Not Count Bi-Sexual Softball Players as Three Fifths of a Teammate?

That way the team could have three bi-sexuals, which would count as only 1.8 players, 2 heteros and 5 full-on queers and win every time!

A gay softball organization can keep its rule limiting the number of heterosexual players [to two] on each team, but allegations by three players who say they were disqualified from a tournament because they weren't gay enough can proceed to trial, a federal judge said. ...

The organization says it has always considered bisexuals to meet the definition of "gay" for roster purposes, but the minutes [of a hearing] also note that one official involved in the decision to disqualify D2 commented that "this is not a bisexual world series. This is a gay world series."

More here.

Switch Hitters Nullify Softball Victory

"U.S. District Judge John Coughenour ruled Tuesday that the organization [North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance] has a First Amendment right to limit the number of heterosexual players, much as the Boy Scouts have a constitutional right to exclude gays."

More here

If the case goes to the Supreme Court, will she recuse herself?