1309, 2017

Refugee Ban intact as Supreme Court Blocks Lower Ruling

By |September 13th, 2017|Judicial, National, Politics|Comments Off on Refugee Ban intact as Supreme Court Blocks Lower Ruling

President Donald Trump scored yet another victory with his controversial refugee ban after the Supreme Court blocked a lower court’s ruling on Tuesday. The blocked ruling would have allowed up to 24,000 additional refugees into the country by October via forcing the United States to admit those who had been offered entrance by resettlement agencies. The Supreme Court’s order to block the ruling came at the request of the Trump administration.

While this means that the refugee ban will be more effective for the time being, the issue is not entirely settled yet. The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments regarding the legality of the ban on October 10, just a few short weeks before the refugee ban is set to expire, and several weeks after President Trump’s original travel ban – which the refugee ban replaced – is set to expire. Should the Trump administration decide not to renew either ban, the ruling may become a moot point either way, save for whatever precedent it could establish for future administrations to act on these issues.

Previously, the Supreme Court instructed the Trump administration on how to proceed until the full hearing could take place, with the justices deciding that refugees with “bona fide” relationships to people or entities in the United States must be allowed entry. The justices did not, however, give specific definitions as to what qualifies as a “bona fide” relationship, thus leaving room for further conflicts. The Trump administration has interpreted the ruling to mean close family members, for the most part, but lower courts have succeeded in getting grandparents and cousins included on the list of what is considered a close enough relationship. While this is not what the Trump administration […]

1209, 2017

‘Monkey Selfie’ Lawsuit Ends; Famed Photo Considered Public Domain

By |September 12th, 2017|General News, Judicial, National, Property Rights|Comments Off on ‘Monkey Selfie’ Lawsuit Ends; Famed Photo Considered Public Domain

In 2011, a bizarre selfie taken by a black macaque monkey named Naruto gained global fame–how often does one see a monkey selfie, after all? Naruto took the now famous picture of himself, along with several other less circulated pictures, using the unattended camera of photographer David Slater. Slater had left his camera on the ground, well within Naruto’s curious reach. Naruto, to his credit, turned out to be quite the photographer, as the images came out very well. There was just one problem:  who owned the copyright on the images Naruto took? The result of a lawsuit surrounding this situation has finally produced some answers.

Typically, the copyright on any photograph is assigned to the individual who takes the photograph, but until Naruto snapped those pictures the U.S. legal system had never faced any situations in which that individual was an animal. Some insisted that the photographs should be considered Slater’s intellectual property simply because the camera used to take them belonged to him, and Slater proceeded as if this was the case. Others insisted that the images should be considered public domain, as an animal did not have the legal ability to hold a copyright (this is still the official stance of the Wikimedia Foundation, and the image is listed as a public domain work on their Wikimedia Commons website to this day, despite Slater’s demand that they cease doing so). However, some fringe groups thought that the issue should be handled differently:  it was time to allow animals more legal rights.

Then, in 2015, infamous animal rights organization PETA decided to step in by filing a lawsuit against Slater on Naruto’s behalf. PETA has a long history of outlandish behavior, such as releasing violent […]

902, 2017

Judicial Coup d’état by 9th Circuit

By |February 9th, 2017|Judicial, National|1 Comment

The rights of State Universities (to not be inconvenienced) outweighed the rights of US Citizens to be protected from terrorists.
The 9th Circuit Court usurps its Constitutional authority, effectively taking over national security in their ruling to uphold the lower court’s suspension of a travel ban from seven dangerous countries. The three-judge panel (Judges Richard R. Clifton, William Canby and Michelle T. Friedland ) has effectively given a green light for terrorists to pour across our borders. This court is playing with American lives and any blood that follows will be on their hands.

Not only has the 9th Circuit overridden the Executive Office, they have effectively overridden Congress as well. Congress adopted a provision in 1952 saying the President “may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens and any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants” whenever he thinks it “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

The courts are clearly out-of-control and we no longer have three equal branches of government with this being the latest of many out-of-bound decisions by the courts. Americans have truly become subjects of those who wear robes.

The seven nations identified in President Donald Trump’s travel ban were also “identified by the Obama administration as the seven most dangerous countries in the world in regard to harboring terrorists,”  as previously stated White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus.

The seven countries included in the Executive Order which implemented the temporary ban are:
Considering there are 50 Muslim countries in the world, the continuous claims of Main Stream Media (MSM) that this is a ban on Muslims, is blatantly dishonest (#FakeNews).

The full 9th Circuit Court brief can be read by clicking […]

2702, 2016

Supreme Court Appointments

By |February 27th, 2016|Judicial, National|1 Comment

Vice President Joe Biden making the case for NOT
appointing a judge to the Supreme Court in an election year.


Biden Opposes Filling SCOTUS OpeningPosted by Tim Scott on Thursday, February 25, 2016


So many people are clamoring for the Republican controlled senate to “do their job” and let Obama make an appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). There are others telling the senate to block at all costs because they want us to hold out for a Republican president and they are all wrong.

On Facebook, US Senator Tim Scott stated in regards to the clip above, “Remember when then-Senator Joe Biden opposed filling a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year? The ideological balance of the Court is essential to the future of our nation. This November, the American people should decide who will choose the next Supreme Court justice.”

I like the good Senator from Charleston, and where he is making a good statement, it is not an argument for holding up a nominee.

There are those who make the argument that the Democrats blocked President George Bush’s nominees 18 months before his term was up so we (as Republicans) should do the same to Obama. Again, that is not the argument.

Some want to cite the last time an election year vacancy occurred and an appointment was confirmed (Herbert Hoover’s nomination of Cardozo in 1932). Again, not a valid argument to be made. Fact is, there haven’t been any election year vacancies since them.  Now there have been some vacancies prior to election years which were not confirmed until during the election year, but still no argument to be found in pointing this out.

One of the worst arguments was seen on Facebook by […]

911, 2015

Judge Orders Bindi to Prove Dad is Dead

By |November 9th, 2015|Entertainment, Judicial, National|Comments Off on Judge Orders Bindi to Prove Dad is Dead

Global news apparently doesn’t reach Los Angeles courtroom
I don’t really care for reality shows like ABC’s Dancing with the Stars (DWTS), but this situation is just too odd to ignore.

Remember Steve Irwin (Crocodile Hunter)? Almost hard to believe it has been nine years since his tragic and bizarre death when a stingray thrusted a barb into his heart and killed him at just 44 years old.

His daughter Bindi Irwin was just eight years old at the time. She is now 17 and because she is a minor, a judge (who apparently lives under a rock) has actually ruled that Bindi prove to the court her father is really dead in order for her contract with DWTS to be approved.

“It’s unclear if the judge is unaware Steve died in 2006, or if she’s just a stickler for a death certificate,” reported TMZ.

2606, 2015

Mental Illness Legalization

By |June 26th, 2015|Culture, Judicial, National, Politics|1 Comment

Highest court makes it legal for the mentally ill
to push their deranged fantasies upon the masses.
In another slap to Christianity and the will of the majority of people in this country, the Supreme Court decided in a 5 to 4 split that the Constitution creates special rights for sexual deviants to redefine marriage.

The Supreme Court, up until today, had never in the history of this country taken up a case on marriage or family law.

Scalia dissented with:
I join the chief justice’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy. The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best. But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law.

The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity.

The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.

And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation. But what really astounds is the hubris reflected […]

1010, 2014

What’s Wrong with Gay Marriage

By |October 10th, 2014|Education, Judicial|Comments Off on What’s Wrong with Gay Marriage

This is so far from a conversation we should continue to be having, but there is an agenda at work and it is not going to go away. After watching the extraordinarily lengthy segment on WYFF News 4, I realize we are going to be beat over the head with this issue until we cave in. The web segment for WYFF is 2:27 in length and is MUCH shorter than what actually aired.   As they normally speed through the news, how often do you see a segment that long? You can search through their videos online and the majority are between 6 and 30 seconds.

Note to WYFF: Do you realize that approximately 80% of your South Carolina audience recently voted that marriage should be recognized only between a man and a woman? You presented the exact opposite to your audience in your extended version, showing 83% of people on social media disagree with the SC stance on gay marriage. Your presentation was dishonest and manipulative.

I am very much a live and let live type person. Most seem to want to turn this into an issue of “hate” and liken Christian’s opposition to gay marriage to the crusades, civil rights, or other absurd things in an attempt to divide and make this a difficult or uncomfortable discussion. After all, who wants to discuss something if they are going to be labeled hateful or made to feel uncomfortable for expressing their opinions or beliefs? This way fewer and fewer stand up and those pushing the agenda eventually win.

Some interesting statistics:
96.6% of people identify themselves as straight.
1.6% of people identify themselves as gay.
0.7% of people identify themselves as bisexual.
1.1% fell into other categories.

Only 1.6% of […]

2602, 2014

Judicial Activism and the Need for Reform

By |February 26th, 2014|Judicial|1 Comment

Judicial activism is simply a vehicle by which more liberalism is imposed upon our society. In no way is “justice” served when a liberal judge imposes his or her views above the actual law. Why is it we never hear of “conservative courts?” Because that would simply be judges doing exactly what they are supposed to do, upholding our laws and our constitution, not legislating from the bench. Legislating from the bench undermines the will of the majority as judges are not appointed to legislate and remain unaccountable to the governed.

South Carolina has nine Constitutional offices which are all held by Republicans. The South Carolina Legislature also has a wide Republican majority.  So how is it that our Supreme Court remains in the hands of the Democrats?

South Carolina legislators recently had a choice to reconfirm Chief Justice Jean Toal or to replace her with Costa Pleicones (who currently serves as a justice on the Supreme Court). It was just a choice between two democrat leaning judges, so what should it matter? Retiring Jean Toal would have opened a spot on the court and at least given us the opportunity to change the makeup of the court.

South Carolina couldn’t accomplish this change because there is not enough will among our elected legislators to bring about positive change like this. We are already hearing that if Toal will retire in two years, the two up for consideration will be Pleicones again and Don Beatty (another democrat).

For those who voted for Toal, do you not remember the 2012 election debacle imposed on us by her court and disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of voters across the state? Do you not remember in 2001, when Toal was cited for leaving […]

311, 2010

Lindsey Graham and Senate Judiciary Committee

By |November 3rd, 2010|Judicial, National|2 Comments

SIConservative writing at Redstate has an interesting and important post today about Lindsey Graham.

He points out Graham’s SHAMEFUL votes on the Supreme Court nominees …

For the last two years, the Senate Judiciary Committee has had twelve Democrats and seven Republicans. Over that time, they have recommended two people to the full Senate for confirmation to the Supreme Court. Both of those votes were 13-6. In both cases, Sen. Lindsey Graham was the sole member to break with his party. In doing so, he aided and abetted in the confirmation of two people who showed utter contempt for the proper role of the judiciary, the legislative branch, and the Constitution itself.

and concludes with this…

Sadly, though, believers in limited government, separation of powers, and the Constitution did not have the opportunity to punish the Senator for his dereliction of duty in these elections. Now we do. I propose that we make it our cause over the next couple of weeks to see to it that the Senate Republicans remove Senator Graham from the Judiciary Committee and replace him with, among others, Senator-elect Mike Lee. The voters have shown that they are serious about restoring the sorely lacking respect that is shown for the Constitution. Now it is time for Senate Republicans to demonstrate that they understand that message.