Category Archives: Courts

Health Care Bill unconstitutional, Constitutional expert speaks out, Michael Connelly, Obama Administration power grab, Congress no authority, US Constitution

Health Care Bill unconstitutional, Constitutional expert speaks out

Michael Connelly is a constitutional expert.

“The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between
the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The
Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number
of different areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses
they own.
The irony is that the Congress doesn’t have any authority to legislate in most
of those areas to begin with! I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S.
Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to
regulate health care.
This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama
administration, to all of your personal healthcare information, your personal
financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and
hospital. All of this is a direct violation to protection against unreasonable
searches and seizures. A direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th
Amendment to the Constitution. You can also forget about the right to privacy.
That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th
Amendments may provide.”
Constitutional attorney Michael Connelly

Health Care Bill Amish exemption, Religious exemption, Tax and control bill unconstitutional, Section 1501, Mennonite and Amish health care sharing plans, Let us pray

Health Care Bill Amish exemption, Religious exemption

The tax and control bill referred to as the Health Care Bill by Obama and the Democrat Congress, is clearly unconstutional on many levels. For some reason the word treason also comes to mind.

Reported here, March 25, 2010.

“Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of: The Affordable Health Care
Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of
expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the
proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found
was far worse than what I had heard or expected.
To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is
in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does
provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and
other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants,
free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by
members of the medical profession.
The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business,
and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal
health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them
will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to
physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly
controlled by the government.
However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I
have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing
affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most
massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever
occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted,
major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have
been destroyed.”
Constitutional attorney analysis of Health Care Bill

Will the Amish and other religious sects be exempt from this bill?

Michelle Malkin reported the following on Hanuary 12, 2010.

“There’s a religious exemption from the Demcare insurance mandate”

“I think there’s going to be a wave of religious conversions this year. The Watertown Daily News reported this weekend that Amish families can claim an exemption from the Demcare’s planned government health care insurance mandate as a matter of faith:
Federal health care reform will require most Northern New Yorkers — but not all, it turns out — to carry health insurance or risk a fine.
Hundreds of Amish families in the region are likely to be free from that requirement.
The Amish, as well as some other religious sects, are covered by a “religious conscience” exemption, which allows people with religious objections to insurance to opt out of the mandate. It is in both the House and Senate versions of the bill, making its appearance in the final version routine unless there are last-minute objections.
Although the Amish consist of several branches, some more conservative than others, they generally rely upon a community ethic that disdains government assistance. Families rely upon one another, and communities pitch in to help neighbors pay health care expenses.
…Lawmakers reportedly included the provision at the urging of Amish constituents, although the legislation does not specify that community and the provision could apply to other groups as well, including Old Order Mennonites and perhaps Christian Scientists.”

Read more:

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/01/12/theres-a-religious-exemption-from-the-demcare-insurance-mandate/

From Get Religion March 24, 2010.

“Religious exemption in health care reform?”

“The Goshen News starts with a straightforward headline, “Health care reform and the Amish: What will it all mean?” and a lede that made me cringe:
With his long gray beard, plain clothes and lack of electricity, David Yoder of rural Middlebury hardly seems like someone who would know much about government issues.
But the rest of the article delivers, answering questions that other newspapers have left dangling out there. Turns out the House’s bill had a religious conscience clause that may exempt most Amish families. But that may not extend to younger Amish who have yet to officially join the church and likely wouldn’t exempt Amish-owned businesses.
Here’s what Third District Congressman Mark Souder told the paper’s Gary Kauffman:
Souder says there probably will be no compelling reason to give Amish business owners an exemption simply based on their faith.
“There probably will not be a way to exempt them any more than we can exempt Mennonites or others,” he said.
Souder said the Amish, along with other conservative groups, like Orthodox Jews, have been a topic of discussion already.
“The fundamental question is, ‘Is religious freedom trumped by a public health care program?’” he said. “There will be a religious liberty fight, but the Amish likely will be part of a bigger category than just themselves.””

Read more:

http://www.getreligion.org/?p=29649

From a comment recently posted there.

“12. Amish says:
March 26, 2010, at 1:05 am
Section 1501 is the correct section for Religious Exemptions. I work for one of the Old Order Mennonite / Amish health care sharing plans and we are a 501 (c) 12. Not a 501 (c) 3. We chose the c 12 over the c 3 designation because we don’t function as a charity and it would be dishonest to say we are a charity when we are not. We are a cooperative and cooperate among ourselves to meet our health care expenses. Many of the health care sharing plans are not registered with the IRS at all or are 501 (c) 12’s. Writing the law to allow only 501 (c) 3’s a religious exemption is in fact not allowing the Amish and Old Order Mennonites any exemption at all.”

I will continue to seek clarification on the religious exemption. If you have any knowledge on this subject, a response is appreciated.

Brethren, let us pray.

Health Care Bill unconstitutional, Executive branch power grab, Constitutional law attorney, Michael Connelly, Health care rationing, Free health care for illegal immigrants, Transfer of power to the Executive Branch

Health Care Bill unconstitutional, Executive branch power grab.

As many of us know, the tax and control bill, referred to by the Democrat Congress as the Health Care Bill, is unconstitutional. But even scarier than that, it is a massive effort to transfer more power to the Executive Branch of Government.

Michael Connelly is a retired attorney and constitutional law expert. From his site:

“Well, I have some bad news for all of the socialists, or progressives, or whatever you choose to call yourselves this week, you have made a huge mistake. Following the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, Japanese Admiral Yamamoto who led the attack said that: “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.” I suggest to President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid that you have awakened the giant again and that this giant, made up of freedom loving Americans, is going to be coming at you from every direction you can imagine.

Individuals and State Governments will be challenging you in the courts, and Americans will take you on in the polling places. In every city, town and village you will hear the voices of angry Americans and despite your best efforts we will not be silenced. You will hear the outcry of Americans of every race, religion, and creed and we will prevail.

To my fellow freedom loving Americans I say this: I am nothing special, just a retired attorney and U.S. Army veteran who loves my country. Yet, my family has fought in every war that has America has engaged in since my ancestors first joined North Carolina and Virginia Cavalry Regiments during the Revolution. Now I have two sons fighting for our nation in the military. I will not allow their fight to have been in vain.

Help in any way you can, though letters to your local newspapers, financial support for groups filing lawsuits, or simply with your prayers for our country. We all must make our voices heard and do what is necessary to save our nation. Never despair and never surrender. For if freedom in America dies, then it dies in the rest of the world. God Bless America!”

Read more:

http://michaelconnelly.viviti.com/

Mr. Connelly has read the entire bill.

“Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of: The Affordable Health Care”

“Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of: The Affordable Health Care
Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of
expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the
proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found
was far worse than what I had heard or expected.
To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is
in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does
provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and
other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants,
free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by
members of the medical profession.
The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business,
and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal
health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them
will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to
physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly
controlled by the government.
However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I
have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing
affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most
massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever
occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted,
major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have
been destroyed.
The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between
the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The
Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number
of different areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses
they own.
The irony is that the Congress doesn’t have any authority to legislate in most
of those areas to begin with! I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S.
Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to
regulate health care..
This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama
administration, to all of your personal healthcare information, your personal
financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and
hospital. All of this is a direct violation to protection against unreasonable
searches and seizures. A direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th
Amendment to the Constitution. You can also forget about the right to privacy.
That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th
Amendments may provide.”

Read more:

http://randysright.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/well-i-have-done-it-i-have-read-the-entire-text-of-the-affordable-health-care/

Kerchner v Obama and Congress, Update, March 24, 2010, Charles Kerchner comments on Appellant’s Reply Brief, Mario Apuzzo attorney

Kerchner v Obama and Congress, Update, March 24, 2010, Charles Kerchner comments

From Charles Kerchner, lead plaintiff in Kerchner v Obama and Congress.

“For immediate release – 23 March 2010

Commander Kerchner’s comments on the Appellant’s Reply Brief filed today by Atty Apuzzo in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress Lawsuit Appeal

By now many of you have likely had time to read Attorney Mario Apuzzo’s outstanding Appellant’s Reply Brief filed today with the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia PA. The closing two paragraphs sum up the issues and consequences and the duty of the federal court’s role in resolving the core constitutional legal question of this lawsuit very well. Imo, Atty Apuzzo’s words will live in history. The federal courts must take this case or our Constitutional Republic is doomed and on its way to the scrap heaps of history.

Atty Apuzzo writes on pages 29 & 30:
—————————————-
“The Supreme Court has warned us what can happen to our republic if its government does not observe the laws of the land. United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438 (1928). A finding of no jurisdiction will mean that we as a nation accept usurpation and tyranny by a small group of individuals who can act in concert and gain control of both parties and overthrow the constitutional order of our Republic and that citizens of the United States such as the plaintiffs, whose life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property are threatened by such a plan and action, do not have any due process to protect themselves through a legal action in which they ask the judicial branch of government to protect them by enforcing the Constitution.

Judicial review is absolutely necessary when the other two branches of government act in a concerted way to subvert and ignore the Constitution’s requirements defining eligibility standards for the most powerful office of the land, the President and Commander in Chief of the Military. This power balance is important to the survival of our Republic and our Constitution.  Plaintiffs’ case goes to the very core of our Constitution, the fundamental law of our land, and whether ultimately our legal system truly means anything when it comes to controversial but critical constitutional issues.  For the Court to grant plaintiffs standing, find no violation of the political question doctrine, and rule that it has jurisdiction over plaintiffs claims will do no harm to the role that the judiciary plays in our Constitutional Republic but will rather confirm that elections in America must adhere to the rule of law.”
—————————————–

Bravo-Zulu Mario! You have done your job well. In your various briefs you have given the courts the facts and correctly cited the laws of our nation, including the Constitution which is the fundamental law of the land. The decision is now in the hands of the Appellate Court. They must now do their duty in our constitutional system of checks and balances and use their judicial review powers granted to them by We the People in the Constitution, and confirmed by the great Chief Justice John Marshall, to prevent usurpation of power by the other two branches. May they look for guidance to God, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and the U.S. Supreme Court decisions you cited in your Appellant’s Opening Brief and other briefs, and then do the correct thing per their oath “… to support and defend the Constitution of our United States against all enemies foreign and domestic … so help me God”, and remand the case back to the District Court for a trial on the merits so we can learn before the bar of a court of law the true legal identity of Obama and reveal what he has been hiding from the American people, that he is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” to constitutional standards.  And in doing so, We the People will remove the Usurper from the Oval Office.

If you have not read the entire Reply Brief you can read it here:

Kerchner v Obama & Congress – Appellant’s Reply Brief – Filed 23 Mar 2010 – U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals – Philadelphia PA
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28779811/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-Appeal-Appellant-s-Reply-Brief-filed-23-Mar-2010

May God Bless and Save America,

Charles Kerchner
Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http:www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####”

Kerchner v Obama, Update, March 23, 2010, Appeal Reply Brief and Request for Oral Argument, Charles Kerchner, Attorney Mario Apuzzo

Kerchner v Obama, Update, March 23, 2010

I received this a few hours ago from Charles Kerchner, lead plantiff in Kerchner v Obama and Congress.

“Kerchner v Obama Appeal Reply Brief and Oral Argument Request Filed
I have completed filing the Kerchner Reply Brief and Request for Oral Argument. These documents may be accessed at the indicated links. All parties have completed filing all briefs and now we just need a decision from the Court. We will now wait and see if the Third Circuit Court of Appeals grants my request for oral argument and if so when the oral argument will be. If oral argument is granted, it will take place at the United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit, U.S. Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The courthouse is located right across the street from Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell.
I want to thank all of my supporters on this blog and all those who visit here to find out what is going on with the Obama eligibility issue.
I will be posting more essays on natural law, the law of nations, Emer de Vattel, the Founders and Framers, the Courts, and the meaning of the “natural born Citizen” clause.
Kerchner v Obama Appeal Reply Brief: http://www.scribd.com/doc/28779811/Kerchner-v-Obama-Appeal-Appellant-s-Reply-Brief-22-Mar-2010
Request for Oral Argument: http://www.scribd.com/doc/28781505/Kerchner-v-Obama-Appeal-Request-for-Oral-Argument
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 23, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com

Florida Attorney General, Health care bill unconstitutional, State attorney generals, Lawsuits, State sovereignty, Congress no authority to mandate health insurance

 “We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

The tax and control bill being forced down our throats is most certainly not health care reform and most assuredly unconstitutional. Here are some exerpts from a letter written by Florida Attorney General, Bill McCollum, on March 16, 2010.
“As you know, President Obama has announced that he will push forward with health care legislation that includes a living tax on Americans who choose not to purchase health care insurance. Congress may take actiopn as soon as this week to send a bill to the President. After a thorough analysis of the individual mandate to buy health care insurance, I reman convinced it would be unconstitutional if signed into law.”

http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/MRAY-83LJ2W/$file/AGHealthCare.pdf

The Post & Email has an article on this from March 21, 2010.

“Florida Attorney General promises lawsuit against unconstitutional health care bill”
“Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum has written a letter to Jon Bruning, President of the National Association of Attorneys General, inviting him to “join me in preparing a legal challenge to the constitutionality of whatever individual mandate provision emerges, immediately upon the legislation becoming law.”  The letter was sent March 16, 2010 and includes an analysis of what McCollum perceives as unconstitutional provisions of the bill being contemplated by Congress.
Among his many objections to the bill, McCollum cites:  “…the individual mandate, whether levied as a tax or as a tax penalty, is a capitation or direct tax that is not apportioned evenly among the states as is constitutionally required.”  The closing paragraph of the six-page document states, “While affected citizens of every state may pursue judicial relief from the individual mandate provisions, states have standing to sue the federal government to protect their sovereign and quasi-sovereign interests.”
According to his website, McCollum has also called for a group of state agencies to analyze the financial impact of any federal health care legislation on his state.  Participating would be the Office of Insurance Regulation, the Department of Children and Families, and the Department of Health, among others.
McCollum is a candidate for governor of Florida.  He has stated that the Florida Constitution has a provision which guarantees “the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into [their] private life.”
On Thursday, March 18, South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster announced that he would join McCollum in legal action if federal health care legislation is passed.  McMaster reportedly said, “”It is my belief and that of other attorneys general that this is clearly unconstitutional. That’s why we’re moving forward. We need to protect the sovereignty of our states and the liberty of our people.””

 Read more:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/03/21/florida-attorney-general-promises-lawsuit-against-unconstitutional-health-care-bill/

Obama Rezko Blagojevich and Fitzgerald, January 27, 2008, Obama lies, Obama corruption, CNN bias, Why did Patrick Fitzgerald wait to arrest Blagojevich?, Why has Obama not been arrested?

Obama Rezko Blagojevich and Fitzgerald, January 27, 2008

Lest we forget.
This article is from January 27, 2008. Most of the corruption charges against Blagojevich, Rezko, Levine, et al were in regard to crime and corruption committed when Obama was in the IL Senate.
From Working Life, January 27, 2008.
“Obama and Rezko: CNN Omits the Nub of the Story”

“CNN’s (January 24) coverage of Sen. Barack Obama’s money ties to Illinois political fixer Antoin “Tony” Rezko failed to show the deeper relevance of the story to Obama’s political careeo r. LPAC’s own ongoing probe of the matter can begin to supply the appropriate context.
CNN showed a clip from the debate in which Sen. Hillary Clinton said to Obama, “you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago.”
Obama replied, “Oh, no, no, no. I’m happy to respond.” Obama said it was just legal work on a low-income housing project and Tony Rezko was just another client, and he declared, “I did about five hours worth of work on this joint project. That’s what she’s referring to.”
This has rattled many cages. The Clinton-hating website Drudgereport reacted by putting up an undated old photo of Bill and Hillary Clinton posing with Tony Rezko, without explanation, hoping this might undermine allegations regarding Obama.
In their January 24 coverage, CNN went on to show what has long been very public in the Chicago newspapers: that Rezko will soon be tried in two separate cases for extortion, money laundering and fraud; and that when Obama entered politics he got from Rezko his “first significant campaign contribution” and much more later: “tainted cash, some illegal, some just unsavory.” CNN showed buildings that Rezko had developed with public funds solicited for him by Obama, where the tenants were left heatless while Rezko’s donations continued to Obama. CNN mentioned the deal involving Rezko, in which Obama got his own expensive house, bought below the asking price; and how Obama has now donated, to charity, $86,000 of Rezko’s contributions to him.”

“But behind the story, the federal case against Rezko is based on a detailed picture of the web of influence Rezko and his cohorts exerted over state agencies managing Illinois’ financial assets. Barack Obama’s political career was spun out in tandem with this Rezko apparatus, particularly through Rezko’s partner and Obama’s former boss, Allison S. Davis.
Start with U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald’s December 21, 2007 proffer in the Rezko case, with its charges of extortion and kickbacks taken in 2004 from the Illinois Teachers’ Retirement System: $10,000 from this crime was channeled to a “political candidate” not named by the prosecutor. The fact that Rezko was on the finance committee of Obama’s campaign for U.S. Senate, and the other facts in the case, make it clear that Barack Obama was the candidate in question.”

“Having raised half a million dollars for Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, Tony Rezko got the Governor to appoint Rezko’s own men to the Teachers’ Retirement System, among them Stuart Levine, now indicted. And Rezko got Allison S. Davis appointed to the Illinois State Board of Investment, in control of billions in state retirement funds. Although Davis has not been charged with wrongdoing, the feds are reportedly pressing a probe of that agency. Davis is currently the president of that State Board.

Barack Obama was a Harvard Law student in 1990 when he interviewed for a job with Tony Rezko’s slum-redevelopment firm. He didn’t go directly into the Rezko company. But in 1993 Obama was hired by Allison S. Davis, whose law firm (Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland) represented Rezko’s operations over the years, while Rezko raised cash for Obama’s electoral campaigns. Davis became Rezko’s personal financial partner in slum-redevelopment deals, which were then backed by State Senator Obama.

In one of those deals, after both Obama and Davis had left the law firm, Obama wrote letters to state and city housing officials supporting the proposed Cottage View Terrace apartments, a project run by Tony Rezko and Allison S. Davis. The deal cost taxpayers $14 million and the partners got $855,000 in fees. Completed in 2002, the project is now managed by Davis’s son Cullen Davis.”

Read more:

http://www.workinglife.org/blogs/view_post.php?content_id=7718

Why did Patrick Fitzgerald wait to arrest Blagojevich?

Why has Obama not been arrested?

This information has been available for over two years. Maybe people will pay attention now.

Kerchner v Obama and Congress, Update, March 8, 2010, Obama and Congress File Their Opposition Brief to the Kerchner Appeal, Law of standing

Kerchner v Obama and Congress, Update, March 8, 2010

From Charles Kerchner, lead plaintiff in Kerchner v Obama and Congress, March 8, 2010.

“For Immediate Release – 8 Mar 2010

Attorney Mario Apuzzo’s Statement about the Opposition’s Brief filed today in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress lawsuit Appeal now before the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia PA.

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-and-congress-file-their.html
Monday, March 8, 2010
Obama and Congress File Their Opposition Brief to the Kerchner Appeal
Today, March 8, 2009, putative President Barack Obama and Congress filed their Opposition Brief to the Kerchner appeal currently pending in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. The brief may be viewed at this link. We now have until March 22, 2010, to file our reply brief which will address the arguments the defendants have made in their opposition brief.

The defendants brief is a presentation of general statements of the law of standing. Appealing to what other courts have done, the defendants basically tell the court that the Kerchner case should be dismissed because all the other Obama cases have been dismissed. Its main point is that the Kerchner plaintiffs have not proven that they have standing because they failed to show that they have suffered a concrete and particularized injury.

The brief does not even acknowledge our factual allegations against Obama which are that he is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” because his father was a British subject/citizen and not a United States citizen and Obama himself was a British subject/citizen at the time Obama was born and that he has failed to even show that he is at least a “citizen of the United States” by conclusively proving that he was born in Hawaii. It is strange as to why the brief does not even contain these factual allegations within it, giving the appearance that the Justice Department does not want such allegations to be even included in any official court record.

Nor does the brief acknowledge let alone address what all our legal arguments are on the questions of standing and political question. Rather, it merely repeats what the Federal District Court said in its decision which dismissed the Kerchner case for what it found was lack of standing and the political question doctrine and asks the Court of Appeals to affirm the District Court’s decision dismissing our complaint/petition.

I will be filing my reply to the defendants’ brief on or before March 22, 2010.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 8, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####”

Rod Blagojevich arrest, Blagojevich indictment, Impeachment, Obama ties, Who orchestrated the delay

Rod Blagojevich arrest, Blagojevich indictment, Impeachment

Rod Blagojevich knew he was being watched. It is apparent to me and others that the alleged selling of the former Obama IL Senate seat was fabricated to take the focus off of the body of evidence of longtime time corruption in cahoots with Tony Rezko, Stuart Levine and yes, Obama.

Why did Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Department of Justice wait until after the 2008 election to arrest Rod Blagojevich?

Who orchestrated this chicanery?

Why is Fox News not covering this?

Open thread, March 8, 2010.

Goodwin Liu, Obama nominee, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals judge, Rhodes Scholar, Supreme Court clerk, Stanford, Constitution Must Adapt to Changes in the World

Goodwin Liu, Obama nominee, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

From Fox News, March 4, 2010.

“Obama 9th Circuit Nominee: Constitution Must Adapt to Changes in the World”

“Goodwin Liu is President Obama’s nominee to be a judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (Stanford University).
Even his critics describe him as “brilliant,” but President Obama’s newly minted judicial nominee — law professor Goodwin Liu — will not have an easy time getting to the 9th Circuit bench.

At age 39, Liu has compiled an impressive resume: Rhodes Scholar, Supreme Court clerk, top grades at both Stanford University and Yale Law School and now law professor University of California, Berkeley.

Liu has also aligned himself with progressive legal groups, including the American Constitution Society, where he is chairman of the board of directors. That’s prompting opponents to argue that Liu is “too far outside the mainstream” to take a seat on a court just one step below the Supreme Court of the United States.

“He believes the Constitution is something judges can manipulate to have it say what they think culture or evolving standards of decency requires of it in a given day,” said the Senate Judiciary Committee’s top Republican Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.

Ed Whelan, a one-time clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia and now president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, echoed those concerns.

“Liu believes that judges have the authority to impose their views … using clever verbal camouflage to disguise what they’re doing.”

Liu opponents point to a number of his writings, including a book he co-authored in 2009 called “Keeping Faith with the Constitution,” in which the authors opine about their concept of judicial interpretation.

“Applications of constitutional text and principles must be open to adaptation and change … as the conditions and norms of our society become ever more distant from those of the Founding generation.””

Read more:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/04/obama-th-circuit-nominee-constitution-adapt-changes-world//

Thanks to commenter Don in California