Supreme Court to Address Whether Campaign Lies Are a Crime

a12iggymom's Blog

The Supreme Court is set to address whether the age-old act of political mudslinging and false accusations are a crime, with the fate — or at least the tone — of campaign attack ads at stake.
The case brings into conflict two deeply held constitutional values: the right of wide open and unlimited speech, particularly in a political realm, and the notion of protecting the truth — especially when a person’s charter character is maligned.
The high court on Tuesday is scheduled to hear oral arguments for Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, which centers on a dispute between former Rep. Steve Driehaus and the anti-abortion group, which waged an aggressive attack on the Ohio Democrat’s failed re-election bid in 2010.

Read More: http://washingtonexaminer.com/supreme-court-to-address-whether-campaign-lies-are-a-crime/article/2547463

View original post

The Mystery of Barack Obama Continues | Western Journalism.com

false lies conspiracy birthers BHO cair planted cia jarrett ford foundation stanleyMost Americans don’t realize we have elected a president whom we know very little about.Researchers have discovered that Obama’s autobiographical books are little more than PR stunts, as they have little to do with the actual events of his life. The fact is we know less about President Obama than perhaps any other president in American history and much of this is due to actual efforts to hide his record. This should concern all Americans… via  Western Journalism.com.

[EPA v. Sacketts in Idaho] ‘Little guy’ fight over property rights reaches high court | Local10.com

” … At issue before the high court is whether the Sacketts have a right to have a “timely and meaningful” hearing before a court to challenge a Clean Water Act wetlands-restoration order of a federal agency. About 3,000 administrative compliance orders are issued each year by the EPA.

A federal appeals court agreed with the agency the couple’s only remedy was to go through a lengthy wetlands permit process, which the Sacketts say would cost thousands more than the property is worth. The EPA still maintains the land is a wetland, and that the couple passed up the chance to work with federal officials for an “after-the-fact” permit, which may have resolved the situation quickly and cheaply, a remedy the government says it uses often for individual homeowners…”

But in arguments, a Justice Department lawyer struggled under a verbal onslaught of skepticism from a majority of justices. After hearing Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart makes his point, Justice Antonin Scalia replied, “I’m not going to bet my house on that.”

A key sticking point was whether the homeowners’ due process rights were violated when they were prevented from getting an injunction — stopping any government enforcement until a court could hear the claims. Stewart repeatedly said the Clean Water Act blocked — or “precluded” — any judicial review of compliance orders.

“You are talking about a huge upheaval,” said Justice Stephen Breyer. “For 75 years the (federal) courts have interpreted statutes with an eye towards permitting judicial review, not the opposite. And yet you are saying that this statute precludes review, and then the second thing you say is that this isn’t final. So I read the order. It looks like about as final a thing as I have ever seen.”

via News – Home.

Idaho Dream House – Supremes: EPA actions ‘outrageous’ | WND

The reality of the Sacketts’ situation is that they have been unambiguously commanded by their government not to complete their home-building project, to take expensive measures to undo the improvements that they have made to their land, and to maintain their land essentially as a public park until the property is ‘restored’ to the satisfaction of the EPA. They have been threatened with frightening penalties if they do not immediately obey; but they have been refused the prompt hearing they should have received as a matter of right in any court,” Pacific Legal argued.

via Supremes: EPA actions ‘outrageous’.

No Warrant Needed for GPS Monitoring, Federal Judge Rules | Wired.com

Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

A Missouri federal judge ruled the FBI did not need a warrant to secretly attach a GPS monitoring device to a suspect’s car to track his public movements for two months.   The ruling, upholding federal theft and other charges, is one in a string of decisions nationwide supporting warrantless GPS surveillance. Last week’s decision comes as the Supreme Court is expected to rule on the issue within months in an unrelated case…

Justice Stephen Breyer told Dreeben, “If you win this case, there is nothing to prevent the police or government from monitoring 24 hours a day every citizen of the United States.” …via No Warrant Needed for GPS Monitoring | Wired.com.

Just As We Suspected, The Fast And Furious Program Was A Gun-Control Plot After All – Investors.com

” … As we observed in June, the way Fast and Furious — the government’s gun-running operation that resulted in the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry — was conducted made no sense unless its intent was to facilitate violence with U.S. weapons in the interests of pursuing the administration’s gun-control agenda.

via Just As We Suspected, The Fast And Furious Program Was A Gun-Control Plot After All – Investors.com

and see here: Gunwalker Goes ‘Legal’: Obama Admin Massively Increased Gun Sales to Mexican Military

and here: See, I Told You So: E-Mails Show Fast and Furious was Vehicle for Gun Control (Rush Limbaugh)