The New Hampshire State Supreme Court has overturned a lower court ruling and ruled in favor of Donna Green in her Right to Know suit against The Earl of Metzler and Timberlane Regional Polizeistaat. You can read the entire decision here. H/T Jorge!

Here’s a snippet.

Accordingly, we conclude that the plaintiff was entitled to the requested documents in electronic format. The trial court’s decision to the contrary was, therefore, in error.

Read more

Sir Elton John seems a bit prudish about his family life. For the life of me I cannot figure out why he is taking legal action against the British press for writing about his “husband”.

The lame excuse that his husband’s alleged extra “marital” threesome affairs would embarrass him and his children should have zero weight in any modern court of law.

Read more

Again, we are absolutely amazed and disheartened that socialism has made such a return to American politics – it is the antithesis of what the Founders stood for.  I’ve gone over why I believe it has over and over again, so I’m not going to do it here.  Instead, we mentioned on last Saturday’s show (ok, I started it) that we’ve had some of our friends on GrokTALK! (and its predecessor, Meet The New Press) that grew up and lived under Communist rule – they are aghast at what is happening.  Before, it was the inch by inch model in slouching towards Socialism – and now with the Republicans joining in and Bernie and Hillary promising to enact policies that put Government in charge of everything, what the heck is the difference?

I had come across this and tried to mention it on the show – badly.  So here’s the part that caught my eye (reformatted, emphasis mine):

SOVIET IMMIGRANTS TO SANDERS SUPPORTERS: “HAVE YOU EVER LIVED UNDER A REVOLUTION?”

• Janna Sundeyeva still remembers life in the Soviet Union, where stores in remote regions would lack meat for months at a time and toilet paper had to be snatched up quickly on the rare occasions it appeared.

Read more

Having just sent in my taxes today (actually did all the record gathering and computations last week), where does it go?

And that is about a $4 Trillion budget.  But what would it be IF our leaders had never strayed from sticking to the strictures of the Constitution.  Well, certainly the military (Pentagon) would be in the mix as well as veterans benefits – 31.3%.  Add in paying for the Government itself – 2.9% more (34.2%).  Interest on the national debt – ayup at 13.7% (47.9%).

Like I said, strictly Constitutional?  That would be about it (roughly figuring).  I’d even shave down a couple of those percentages – shucking off all those other things that should be handled at the State level, let’s take a full 0.8% off the cost of Government (47.1%).  Given, too, would be at least half of the national debt payment – I’d go 60% less (better people in the know might have a higher percentage).  So decrease that to 5.5% – a final total of 38.9%.

Read more

President Obama’s executive amnesty represents a “threat” to America’s very system of government, according to House Speaker Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI).  “The Constitution is clear: Presidents don’t write laws, Congress does,” Ryan said Monday ahead of oral arguments before the Supreme Court in United States v. Texas. “Presidents may disagree with the laws, but they are not free to ignore those laws and have unelected bureaucrats write new ones.”  “This is a threat to self-government itself,” Ryan added.

 

…“The Executive may disagree with the laws Congress enacts and may try to persuade Congress to change them. But neither any immigration law now on the books nor the Constitution empowers the Executive to authorize—let alone facilitate—the prospective violation of those laws on a massive class-wide scale,” the brief reads in part. “We have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution, and today at the Supreme Court, we will do just that,” Ryan added.

Hmmm.  true, all true.  In fact, very true – it’s all in black and white in the Constitution.  But why did you go to the bother of going to the Supreme Court?  So let me ask you this, Speaker Ryan, as you have a much better, much more powerful tool at hand – one you can do all by your lonesome:

Read more

And I thought Socialists were against the Right to Private Property?  Seems like someone wants to defend Bernie’s Intellectual Property (a very important part of Private Property)?  From Overlawyered we see some lawyers haven’t figured out that the Internet has a vote in all this.  IMHO, this should be a flat out free speech issue, especially if in the political arena:

Daniel McCall of Liberty Maniacs has put out a parody image in which the likeness of presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is lined up as the latest in a row of figures such as Marx, Lenin, and Mao.

And this is supposed to be surprising? Just LISTEN to the man and the role he wants Government in taking over ruling your life making major decisions for you AND taking most of your money in taxes for the privilege of doing so.  What policy has he enumerated DOESN’T fit in with Marx, Lenin, and Mao?  You go to the Kremlin for your honeymoon and not expect to be called “comrade”?  Stand up for avowed socialists in South America (e.g., the Sandinistas)? Hold up Cuba and Venezuela as models?  Well, he’s already set the stage.  And then a lawyer got upset at this satire and invoked the Streisand Effect:

Read more

Here’s something that I read on the show today as we were talking about laws being passed to keep those with men parts out of bathrooms frequented by those with lady parts (even if the former are delusional about not having such) in the context of Steve’s great post here.  From This Ain’t Hell (a mil-blog I frequent) this is from Poetrooper with a great question:

Here’s my conundrum: if it is immoral, even criminal or civilly liable for these mom-and-pop Christian businesses to deny services based on their fundamental beliefs, why is it not also immoral or legally actionable for large corporations to refuse their services to the citizens of those states where those who govern choose to pass legislation to protect the religious freedoms of their citizenry?

Read more

US garment manufacturers operating on low margins to compete for wholesale or retail clients can’t operate in California if they have to pay all their employees $15.00/hour. To stay in business, they will have to move manufacturing out of the state or more likely out of the country.

Last week American Apparel, the biggest clothing maker in Los Angeles, said it might outsource the making of some garments to another manufacturer in the U.S., and wiped out about 500 local jobs.

Read more

From the Concord Monitor from a little bit ago (reformatted, emphasis mine):

Will hospitals voluntarily pay $40M to keep expanded Medicaid going?

Newly approved plan relies on voluntary contributions from hospitals, insurance carriers.  New Hampshire’s newly reauthorized Medicaid expansion is riding on a hope that hospitals and insurance carriers will voluntarily help foot the bill, or else it’s doomed.  Legislation Gov. Maggie Hassan signed into law Tuesday, which continues the expansion for two more years, relies on those organizations to voluntarily donate an estimated $40 million to the state to help fund the program’s operation.

Really?  Are both Parties that insane to think that a major program is at the whim of a group of large corporations (face it, most hospitals are the biggest businesses in their regions) thinking “should we or should we not”?  Or what’s really going on under a quid quo pro?  Who really benefits?

(shush….it is never we taxpayers, btw)

Read more