Subscribe to OK Politechs
|
By Charles M. Phipps on September 24th, 2018 
Supreme Court nomiinee Brett Kavanaugh at his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing in Washington on Sept. 4, 2018. MUST CREDIT: Bloomberg photo by Andrew Harrer.
I didn’t want Brett Kavanaugh. When President Trump announced his nomination to the Supreme Court in early July I was hoping he would pick Amy Coney Barrett. After looking at their records and their writings, it appeared to me and many others that Barrett would be more conservative on the court than Kavanaugh. But, Trump seems to have caved to the veiled threats from Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) not to support a nominee whom they believed might one day vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. So we got Kavanaugh.
Throughout the confirmation process for Kavanaugh, I was lukewarm on the events and the nominee. It was reported that Collins and Murkowski had put their stamp of approval on the nomination as ‘acceptable,’ which meant to me that they felt […] → Keep reading
By Charles M. Phipps on July 9th, 2018 
After President Trump’s nomination for the Supreme Court tonight I fully expect liberal heads to explode. All of the leaked finalists have a record that will send the left into a conniption. I’m expecting the nomination to be Judge Raymond Kethledge, but Trump might surprise me and nominate Amy Coney Barrett, who I believe would be the better choice. Regardless of who gets the nomination, the Democrats are going to be in opposition. As Senator Graham said this morning, the Democrats would oppose Trump’s choice even if it was George Washington.
The number one thing the left is worried about with this nomination is keeping abortion legal. I’ve lost track of how many politicians, pundits, and self-appointed political analysts on Twitter have adamantly demanded that Trump’s nominee be someone who will respect ‘settled law’ or ‘established law,’ and they go on to mention Roe v. Wade. They don’t seem to realize that the opinion to overturn is not Roe […] → Keep reading
By Charles M. Phipps on April 5th, 2016 
Technology has always been ahead of the law, or so the adage goes. Smartphones, internet-enabled vehicles & wristwatches, health monitors, home video cameras, and other devices have all been part of the discussion around privacy and technology. It’s nearly impossible to write privacy laws to cover devices and capabilities that have yet to be invented, so often times there is new technology on the market while the law tries to catch up. Some believe that to be the case with drones. I do not concur.
The use of drones has been increasing exponentially over the last few years with drones being available for private use, businesses, news reporting, and law enforcement, to name a few. Drones are so prevalent that anyone can purchase one on Amazon for fifty bucks, and that includes the attachable 2MP HD Wifi camera. At that price, having a personal drone may become as common as having a cell phone.
But not everyone is fond of […] → Keep reading
By Charles M. Phipps on January 13th, 2016 
Earlier this week the Supreme Court heard arguments in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, a case that asks whether public workers who are not members of a union can be forced to pay “fair share service fees” in order to cover the cost of collective bargaining. A group of California teachers is suing to end the compulsory fees, which costs them $650 per year instead of the $1000 that union members pay. Both the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times have articles indicating that the tone of the proceedings seemed to indicate a majority of the Justices would be voting to overturn a 1977 Supreme Court ruling that allowed the fees.
Los Angeles Times– “Everything that is collectively bargaining is within the political sphere,” Justice Antonin Scalia said.
So the key question, according to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., is “whether or not individuals can be compelled to support political views that they disagree with.”
On Monday, […] → Keep reading
By Charles M. Phipps on June 29th, 2015 
Now that the Supreme Court has created the constitutional right to homosexual marriage it seems prudent to offer an examination to related social issues in order to determine which perversities will be next on the left’s agenda to be normalized. One need not look very hard for the answer.
Polygamy is an obvious choice. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts noted in his dissenting opinion in the Obergefell decision that the majority of the Court seemingly opened the door for polygamy in their maneuvers to legalize that which had no constitutional basis. The majority’s opinion which legalized homosexual marriage could easily be construed as also requiring the legalization of polygamy.
“Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage […] → Keep reading
By Charles M. Phipps on May 5th, 2015 
With the Supreme Court decision over the homosexual marriage issue expected next month, it could potentially be a landmark decision. The Justices have said their decision will rest on these questions:
Is marriage based on biology or feelings? Who should decide whether to redefine an institution that stretches back for “millennia”? If justices begin tampering with the historically exclusive definition of marriage as the lifelong union of a man and a woman, what would prevent future courts from imposing polygamy, incest or pedophilia-based marriage on the nation?
Justice Scalia noted that if the Court rules that homosexual marriage is a constitutional right, then pastors, rabbis, priests and imams will be forced to perform such ceremonies or face state penalties.
Lifesite – Justice Scalia repeatedly suggested that once a constitutional right to marry by same-sex couples was enshrined by the court, a member of the clergy could not be given civil marriage powers by the state unless he agreed to perform […] → Keep reading
By Charles M. Phipps on October 8th, 2014 
With this week’s action, or rather the inaction, of the Supreme Court, homosexual marriage is now legal in Wisconsin, Utah, Indiana, Virginia and Oklahoma. By refusing to hear cases from these states the Justices have allowed lower court rulings overturning bans on homosexual marriage to stand.
After the Supreme Court’s inaction on Monday there were thirty states recognizing homosexual marriages. Yesterday, a ruling from the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals added five more states to the list, and a pending decision in the 6th Circuit could get the number up to 39. Of these 39 states, only six have chosen through the democratic process to recognize homosexual marriages. All the rest have had it forced upon them by leftists in black robes.
With each judicial ruling that legitimizes gay marriage, these judges are telling state populations and legislatures that have passed ballot measures, laws and amendments that their democratic process doesn’t matter and their sovereignty as a state is […] → Keep reading
By Charles M. Phipps on April 8th, 2014 
Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from Elane Photography of Albuquerque, meaning that the legal case of the photographer who refused to take photos at a gay wedding is now over. The refusal to hear the appeal means the decision of the New Mexico Supreme Court will stand and that court ruled against the photographer, Elaine Huguenin. If you aren’t familiar with this case, Huguenin refused to take pictures for a gay wedding because doing so would violate her religious beliefs. The gay couple was offended and sued her for discrimination.
Justice Richard Bosson of the New Mexico Supreme Court wrote in the ruling that “when Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, it violated the [New Mexico Human Rights Act] in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races.”
Bosson further wrote that although the studio owners may object on religious grounds to […] → Keep reading
By Charles M. Phipps on April 3rd, 2012 
Okay, maybe President Obama didn’t really say that. Or did he. Let’s take a look. Yesterday, he was speaking at a joint press conference and had this to say about the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare:
“Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress.
And I would like to remind conservative commentators that for years what we have heard is that the biggest problem is judicial activism and that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.
Well, this is a good example and I’m pretty confident this court will recognize that and not take that step.”
A strong majority? Really?? The final vote in the House was 219-212, with 34 Democrats joining every Republican in voting no. If that’s a “strong majority” I wonder what he would call […] → Keep reading
|
|
