RedStateVT: Cloud-Based Solutions to Fight Liberals

Scalia
“The court’s decision reflects the philosophy that judges should endure whatever interpretive distortions it takes in order to correct a supposed flaw in the statutory machinery.” 

"...this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State” means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites."


More Scalia
“These justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry.” 


Pseudo-Conservative Roberts
“The court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the states and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?”


More Pseudo-Conservative Roberts
“Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.” 


Some Alito
“It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.”

The conservatives on the Supreme Court argue positions based on logic. Liberals argue based on emotion.

Among the next cases to come before the Court:

- A man wants to marry his cat.
- Gay couple sues priest for refusing to perform church wedding.

Not if, when. 


Meanwhile Back in Corruptland
The State Department said on Thursday that 15 emails sent or received by Hillary Rodham Clinton were missing from records that she has turned over, raising new questions about whether she deleted work-related emails from the private account she used exclusively while in office. (New York Times, 6/27/2015)

OK, here's the thing. We don't think Hillary Clinton should be president for the following reason:

She is always losing things. We cannot have a president who is so careless. First it was the Rose Law firm billing records. Now it is the Benghazi e-mails. 

Presidents should be more organized.

Supreme Court Makes It Official: Words No Longer Mean Anything

“The system that our founders put together, which was follow the Constitution and three equal but separate branches of government that each have their own specific role, is over. We no longer live in that America. That is done now.” 
Glen Beck


"We live in a different country, and I don't remember moving."
Ann Coulter, channeling Ronald Reagan


"I dissent."
Justice Anton Scalia

Belief System

Revelation
After his recent lunch with Obama, Ryan (R-Wis.) revealed that it was “the first time I’ve ever had a conversation with the president that lasted more than two minutes.” Think about that. We’ve been through debt ceilings, super committees, sequesters and fiscal cliffs, yet the president waited until his fifth year in office to actually sit down and talk with the Republican chairman of the House budget committee? That is simply beyond comprehension. (Marc A. Thiessen, Washington Post, 3/18/2013)

A common theme of Republicans, but one that even Democrats have privately admitted. When the history of the Obama years are written, honest biographers will note the strange aversion that he displays toward working with other politicians. 


Subjective
The Supreme Court returns to the subject of same-sex marriage for a second day on Wednesday, when the justices hear arguments about the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996. (NYT, 3/27/2013)

--It's cover to cover at the New York Times on gay marriage  An issue that directly affects the less than 2% of the country that is gay. 

--Said to be following the issue closely are both former President Clinton who signed into law the Defense of Marriage  Act which formally defined marriage as between a man and a woman and President Obama who opposes gay marriage. Clinton and Obama are both Democrats.

UPDATE: Both Clinton and Obama have changed their minds!

--Heard this one: Gays had absolutely no interest in marriage until they realized that it was a good excuse to get dressed up and have a party! We cannot remember if we thought that one up or if it came from Ann Coulter. Probably Coulter. 


Brave New World
During Wednesday's oral arguments, Justice Antonin Scalia remarked on that contradiction, saying it was a "new world" when the attorney general could decide a law is unconstitutional but still enforce it. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, considered a potential swing vote in the case, called that a “questionable practice.” (Washington Post, 3/27/2013)

How would you like to see a head-to-head with AG Eric Holder and Justice Scalia? Our prediction? First round knockout for Scalia.