Tag: Judicial Activism

THE FIX WAS IN: Attorney General Tanked SB3 Case – Judge Says No Proof of Domicile Needed to Vote in New Hampshire

April 9, 2020

by Ed Mosca

This: Here is the link to the decision, which is a joke. If you want to see a liberal-activist judge ply his trade, give it a read. But all I think you need to know in order to know why it is once again legal for someone to show up in New Hampshire at a … Read more

Former Judge and Clinton Advocate Fined, Disbarred

September 18, 2019

A now-former judge fined and disbarred. The discipline stems from being found to have violated the Hatch Act. From the bench, she was an advocate former candidate Hillary Clinton.

‘Not Our Job to Allocate Political Power’ – SCOTUS Won’t Intervene in Gerrymandering

June 27, 2019

by Steve MacDonald

US Courts mess with political power daily, so this is probably little more than a hiccup. But the US Supreme court just said it wouldn’t interfere in State level issues with gerrymandered districts. At least for today, this is not their job.

And the Demcrats have given us…..The MOST Conservative SCOTUS since 1934!

October 7, 2018

by Skip

Law of Unintended Consequence is how the Democrats did it – starting with the passage of Obamacare when they owned the Presidency, the House, and the Senate by majority proof margins. The TEA Party movement flashed into being and the pushback on the Right hasn’t stopped. With the recent capturing of all three by Republicans because of the Democrat overreach during the Obama years, we got one of its goals:

Saturday’s confirmation marks more than the dramatic conclusion to a political battle that has waged for more than three months, and instead could mark an inflection point in a philosophical war that has raged for decades. The Supreme Court has not had a conservative majority since 1934, when the New Deal took hold and the Court moved to the left, giving the federal government vast new powers over economic issues. The Court massive broadened federal powers over commerce, taxing, and federal spending.

The New Deal did turn from being a court into being a supra-legislative body and the New Deal also started the process of turning the lower part of the Judiciary to the Left as well. it also served as a bulwark for Democrats that when they lost those New Deal majorities, they could always depend on the courts to uphold its agenda (re: the decisions against Trump shutting down immigration from suspect countries). Now that is at risk:

Do Americans Want Government by Consent of the Governed or by Judicial Tyranny?

September 26, 2018July 24, 2018

by Don

The kind of Supreme Court Justice someone wants indicates the kind of country he or she wants. Does one want a government that abides by the consent of the governed, as envisioned by the authors of our Declaration of Independence, Constitution and laws passed by Congress, or a government controlled by a Judicial Oligarchy, five or more unelected, unaccountable, and fallible people that impose their will on the American people?

Donning a black robe doesn’t confer wisdom or divinity. Supreme Court Justices made many bad decisions, e.g., approving slavery, “separate but equal”, and interning Japanese-Americans during WWII. Recent decisions outrage Conservatives and Progressives, e.g., eminent domain (Kelo), Citizens United, gun control (Heller), and Obamacare.

Grok Poll Results: Amend the NH Constitution to Get the Courts Out of Education Funding?

September 26, 2018July 5, 2018

by Steve MacDonald

Not a lot of votes on this one but the overall consensus of those who took the time is that they would “support an effort to get the courts out of the educational funding morass.”

Brave souls, knowing as they do that Constitutional amendments – heck, Constitutions – are not what they once were.

To that end, there were a few comments added in the ‘other’ field which I’ve shared on the jump.

NH AG to Challenge Judge Lewis Decision On Domicile

September 26, 2018September 27, 2012

by Steve MacDonald

I confess I am surprised. The New Hampshire Attorney General will appeal the decision earlier this week, that would have suspended the new voter registration requirements for Domicile to vote in New Hampshire.

One quick note: The articel suggests that the ruling had no affect on the Voter ID law, but I would take issue with that. On paper the ID law is not affected, but if domicile does not matter, then Voter ID does not do everything it is intended to do. The point of Voter ID is to ensure that the person voting is the person they claim to be; a legal, eligible voter, and state resident of the precinct in which they are voting. If it makes no difference where you are from, then all the ID law does is affirm that the out of state voter stealing New Hampshire votes is who they say they are. I have called it a blow to Voter ID law because I believe it is. And I’m not alone.

To quote Secretary of State Bill Gardner, who apparently supports the Domicile law as passed…

“You can be a resident of many places but with domicile, you are establishing one unique place as your home to the exclusion of all others,” Gardner said. “If you establish domicile here, it means something, it means you have certain rights and responsibilities.”

CACR-12 must be DEFEATED. It is poison.

September 26, 2018June 4, 2012

CACR-12 is the much-touted “educational amendment” that is said to aggresively deal with the egregious and outrageous “Claremont decisions” by the New Hampshire state Supreme Court. It does nothing of the sort. Here’s why:

No more anti-constitutional activist-judges! Executive Council to Vote on State Supreme Court nomination tomorrow.

September 26, 2018May 22, 2012

This is what I said about it today, on behalf of the New Hampshire Legal Rights Foundation (NHLRF):

Everyone, the New Hampshire Legal Rights Foundation (NHLRF) put out a press release as of yesterday explaining why the Executive Council should refuse to confirm Mr. Jim Bassett as a NH Supreme Court Justice. That press release can be found online HERE. In the meantime, as the chairman of the NHLRF board of directors, I have been interviewed…

Read more

Where Do We Draw The Line?

September 26, 2018August 5, 2010

by Steve MacDonald

No, It's not marraige. All you folks (regardless of your sexual disorientation) who’ve gone and gotten yourselves hitched by a JP or someone else who performs a legitimate civil union just got hosed by one federal judge in Northern California. According to him, you’re not married. That’s right, civil unions are not marriages. (That is to say, they are not contractually equivalent.)

It will get appealed for good reason, and it has no affect anywhere else, but you know how the left likes to think of every little thing some elitist radical judge does as a sign of whatever it is they want that no one else wants. It’s the beginning of a transformation of the culture. Actually it’s not.

Massachusetts Goes After DOMA

September 26, 2018July 9, 2010

by Steve MacDonald

The Union leader is reporting this morning that a US judge in Boston has found DOMA, the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, to be unconstitutional on the grounds that it prevents the state from administering federal aid to gay married couples. His ruling only affects Massachusetts but clearly has broader implications. I both agree … Read more