Category Archives: Supreme Court

Good discussion about 2 important O’care court cases

Arroyo’s guest was Hobby Lobby’s lawyer.  He explains things very clearly.

World Over – 2014-03-27 – Hobby Lobby, HHS arguments at the US Supreme Court with Raymond Arroyo

Leave a comment

Filed under HHS, Hobby Lobby, Supreme Court, Videos


Posted by Pistol Pete


Why John Roberts (Likely) Is Protecting Obamacare

On Monday, without comment (because he could not make a coherent one),  Chief Justice John Roberts denied a request by the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons and the Alliance for Natural Health USA for a stay in the implementation of Obamacare. The groups had made their application last Friday, arguing that since the bill had been declared a tax by the Supreme Court (with Justice Roberts himself the deciding vote), and it had originated in the Senate (the Constitution says revenue bills may not originate), the law was therefore unconstitutional; and implementation of Obamacare  should at least be stayed pending further examination.

While there are other minor issues attached to the application that were also not addressed, the truth of the matter is clear: John Roberts will never do anything to derail Obamacare, no matter what arguments against it are brought before him.

There is very good reason to believe that regardless of the media’s skillful smothering of the story, John Roberts is being blackmailed to make certain Obamacare never falls in a Supreme Court case. The basis of this charge surrounds the fact that a series of strange (and probably felonious) acts are attached to the adoption of his two children.

In 2005, when they thought they were doing the Democrats’ bidding, the New York Times dug into apparently easily accessible records and found that the children Roberts and his wife adopted in “South America” started life as Irish citizens. This is a red flag. The laws of Ireland regarding adoptions are very clear: adoptions by non-citizens are prohibited, as are private adoptions.

Apparently, when the Democrats realized they could control a Supreme Court Justice’s vote through blackmail over his having committed a number of international crimes, the Times pulled back and dropped its investigation. The Democrat paper of record pulled back because it didn’t want to “ break the seal of an adoption case” – as if violating laws ever means anything to Democrats in their quest for power. Keep in mind Barack Obama’s violation of his opponents’ “sealed” divorce records propelled him to a US Senate seat.

What does the Roberts problem mean for the average American who looks to Washington for relief from Democrat oppression? It means we won’t be getting any relief from the Roberts Court, period.

(source: The Western Center for Journalism)

Lord,I can’t take much more of this. Please take me when you’re ready.

It’s not worth it anymore.


Filed under John Roberts, Obamacare, Supreme Court

HHS Mandate challenge scheduled for Feast of Annunciation

SCOTUS calendar announcement:

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius (consolidated for one hour of argument) – whether the Affordable Care Act’s mandate that employee health plans include birth control and other pregnancy-related services violates the religious rights of corporations and their owners

March 25th is the Feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary which marks the day the Archangel Gabriel came to Mary and told her she would be the mother of the Messiah.

Modern Annunciation icon

This feast day is celebrated by In the Roman Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental and Eastern Catholic liturgical calendars. In the west, the date is moved if necessary to prevent it from falling during Holy Week or Easter Week or on a Sunday. In the east, it is always celebrated on March 25th.

This year, the feast will be celebrated on March 25th around the world.


SCOTUS calendar @

Painting @

About the feast @

Comments Off

Filed under Christianity, HHS, Obamacare, Supreme Court

Ideological Purity

The Anchoress (aka Elizabeth Scalia) writes:

I stopped being a Democrat when it became clear that I was expected to vacate any of my own thoughts and opinions in order to fall in line with the party, or be called moronic or hateful or bigoted or even evil. There was no way the party could be wrong on anything, therefore dissent indicated a problem originating with me. “I” had the problem; not the party.

Don’t snigger, conservatives, you have your narrow-minded purists, too. Perhaps you’ve never marched in lockstep with quite the same precision as the Democrats, but you’ve run your own purges, and handily. Because whom the godlings of ideologies would destroy, they first make mad.

Currently Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor is being sized up for a suit of tar and feathers or, more precisely, she is being warned that one awaits her, if she does not quickly fall back in line and do what she was supposed to do, was expected to do when President Obama nominated her to the bench: rubber-stamp his dubious policies once they landed before her, as expected.

Read the rest @

The line – “There was no way the party could be wrong on anything” – jumped out at me, because I just saw it last night in a book published in 1954, called Don Camillo’s Dilemma by Giovannino Guareschi.

In the part I read last night, the Communist daughter of the Communist mayor of the town, Peppone, has learned she is one of the finalists in a beauty contest. Her boyfriend is incensed at the idea of her going to Rome to parade in front of people in a skimpy bathing suit. However, he cannot say so, as this would betray him as a bourgeois chauvinist, so instead he objects to the pageant itself, saying that it is bourgeois. She counters that it must be politically correct, because the party is sponsoring the contest and “There was no way the party could be wrong on anything.”

Ideological purity is nothing new and The Anchoress is correct to point out that the we have our own narrow-minded purists on our side as well. I expect every group has them. I’ve certainly seen it in my Catholic experience.

  • On the right, a man who refused to sit with his family at Christmas Mass, because that side of the church would be receiving Eucharist from a lay minister and he only took it from the priest.
  • On the left, a nun who refused to give Eucharist to a war veteran because he had carried a gun into battle and, in her mind, that made him guilty of mortal sin.*

*Please note: The commandment “Thou shalt not kill” is not translated correctly. The original is “Thou shalt not murder.” Anyone who watches crime procedurals should be very clear on the distinction between killing and murder. And Jesus never condemned soldiers; in fact, he commended one for his great faith.

The Anchoress’ article is a review of an op-ed in US News and World Report entitled “The Catholic Supreme Court’s War on Women.” The specific issue I find particularly interesting is that while the Left is unsurprisingly outraged at Sotomayor’s siding with the nuns, the outrage expressed in this particular screed is based entirely on the premise that she’s doing it because …. gasp …. she’s a CATHOLIC. [Cue creepy music and fog machine.]

2014_01 08 Review Catholic SCOTUS war on women

The Anchoress has a way with words. I especially like this summation of the op-ed: “bigotry intent on fomenting paranoia.” Also, “Are not the women who serve the indigent poor as entitled to justice as anyone else? Do Justice and Mercy only trend in one direction, in Stiehm’s world? Are they only rewarded to the socially obedient? Oh, my! Steihm sounds exactly like what she imagines the church to be: an entity demanding only one’s strict and unthinking obedience. Funny how easily we can become precisely the thing we hate, isn’t it?”

I recommend you read her entire piece.



Filed under Catholic Church, Democrats, Military, Republicans, Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court

Update: Court challenges to HHS Mandate UPDATED

UPDATE 1: Dec 31, 2013 at 4:58 pm An emergency injunction granted just moments ago in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit means that Priests for Life will not have to obey the contraception mandate contained in the Affordable Care Act as its appeal is being heard. It also means that, tomorrow, Priests for Life will not have to cancel health insurance for its employees.

UPDATE 2: Tuesday night, Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor acted on an emergency request from an order of Catholic nuns in Colorado to block the HHS Mandate starting January 1. Justice Sotomayor is giving the government until Friday morning to respond to her decision. … SOTOMAYOR blocked the HHS Mandate?! Did the sun set in the East or something?

OBAMA All your conscience are belong to us

  • December 16, 2013: U.S. District Court Judge Brian Cogan in the Eastern District of New York ruled FOR religious liberty in Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York v. Sebelius.
  • December 19, 2013: U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan in the Eastern District of New York ruled AGAINST religious liberty in Priests for Life v. Sebelius.

Dec 23, 2013: Fr. Frank Interviewed on Fox News about the HHS Mandate [0:49]

Priests for Life is appealing and has declared that, regardless of the outcome, they will NOT comply with the HHS Mandate.

If you want to help with their legal expenses:


  • Priests for Life
  • PO Box 141172
  • Staten Island, NY 10314

If you have any questions, call Priests for Life toll-free at 888-735-3448.


My Priests for Life email

RULING: Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York v. Sebelius @

NY Judge Rules against Government on HHS Mandate

FILING: Priests for Life v. Sebelius @

[I couldn't find a ruling or a news report on the Priests for Life case, maybe because it was a dismissal. As I understand it, the judge just said, "Go away, fools." Or something.]

Comments Off

Filed under Barack Obama, Catholic Church, HHS, Obamacare, Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court, Videos


December 19, 2013: U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled against Priests for Life in their lawsuit against the HHS abortion mandate. In other words, in his opinion, our First Amendment right to freedom of religion is subject to the government’s approval. Since a different District Court Judge ruled the OTHER way on this matter, it’s virtually a done deal that the issue will go to the United States Supreme Court. You can donate to the Priests for Life legal fund @

December 19, 2013: The White House announced it will grant a “hardship exemption” for people who have had their prior coverage canceled and believe that Obamacare’s offerings are unaffordable. Note: This isn’t insurance. It’s just an exemption from the FINE for not having insurance. But, oh goodie, Obama is encouraging health insurers to make up bare bones options for these people … which the guy in this video says aren’t affordable either.

So … those people we have heard about? The ones with cancer, MS and other devastating illness who WERE getting the care they wanted but have had their health insurance plans eliminated by Obamacrat Decree? THOSE people are STILL SCREWED … and the individual health insurance market is in chaos.


Priests for Life email

Comments Off

Filed under Abortion, Ben Carson, Democrats, Government Tyranny, HHS, Insurance, Nancy Pelosi, Obamacare, Religious Liberty, Republicans, Supreme Court, Videos

OBAMACARE: Rebel or Die

OBAMACARE You can't keep your plan

The Obamacrats have made it clear they are not going to do the right thing by us and repeal their disaster of a healthcare law. Obama went so far as to say there was NO WAY the law would be repealed as long as he is in office.

That’s not technically true.

  • PPACA (aka, ACA) could be repealed by Congress with a simple majority vote in the House and Senate, though the latter won’t happen with a Democrat majority under Harry Reid running the Senate.
  • If Republicans win the Senate majority next fall, they could pass a law overturning Obamacare.
  • Obama would certainly veto this law, but a presidential veto can be legally overturned by a two-thirds majority vote in Congress.

Keep in mind that “Obamacare” includes not just the ACA, but also the bazillion heinous regulations subsequently inflicted on us by an unelected band of pro-abortion Obamacrats.

OBAMACARE has 2 parts - PPACA and regulations

There are signs of hope!

  • Eleven Republican physicians are running for U.S. Senate on a “Repeal Obamacare” platform.
  • South Carolina and Georgia are moving to outlaw Obamacare within their own borders. Former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano says the states do have the power to do that.
  • A legal challenge has targeted the unconstitutional origins of the PPACA itself. SCOTUS ruled that the ACA’s penalty for non-compliance is not a fine, but a tax. The Constitution says tax laws must originate in the House. The PPACA originated in the Senate.

Another avenue open to individuals is to refuse to participate in the exchanges. If a majority of us do so, maybe the damn thing will collapse under the weight of its own pretensions.

OBAMACARE Rebel or Die



Filed under Barack Obama, Democrats, Obamacare, Republicans, Supreme Court, Taxes, U.S. Congress

The ACA tax and the Origination Clause

Remember when SCOTUS ruled 5-4 that the IRS fine in ObamaCare was a tax, so therefore, it was constitutional? Roberts may not have been selling out, but instead going for a longer, surer end to the monstrous law.

As I understand it, the fine/tax challenge SCOTUS ruled on was somewhat limited; ruling against it wouldn’t have killed the whole law. But ruling it a tax could potentially kill the whole thing dead, Dead, DEAD … because the Constitution says revenue-raising bills (i.e., tax laws) must originate in the House of Representatives and the ACA “Obamacare” bill originated in the Senate.

Sissel v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services challenges ObamaCare on this basis. The lowest court found for Obama and it’s now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

HR 3590 amendation was a sham

More than 40 members of the House have signed onto the lawsuit saying, “Given that an Origination Clause challenge against a taxing bill of this magnitude has never before been mounted, it is imperative that this Court not sanction the lower court’s superficial analysis of the Origination Clause.”

“Since the 2010 elections, the people’s immediate representatives have voted some 40 times to repeal or defund the ACA, but the senators, who sit for six years unchallenged, have never agreed. The Framers’ exact fear of taxation without adequate representation has materialized due to the complete disregard of the mandates of the Origination Clause by the U.S. Senate.”


1 Comment

Filed under House of Representatives, IRS, Obamacare, Supreme Court, Taxes, U.S. Senate