Archive for the ‘Judiciary’ Category

This article should frighten Constitution-loving Americans across the political spectrum. Here’s why:

Schumer during remarks to the Center for American Progress argued that Tea Party groups have an unfair financial advantage over left-leaning groups because of the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, at one point even suggesting that President Barack Obama go around Congress to impose stricter campaign finance laws.

“It is clear that we will not pass anything legislatively as long as the House of Representatives is in Republican control, but there are many things that can be done administratively by the IRS and other government agencies — we must redouble those efforts immediately,” Schumer said.

“One of the great advantages the Tea Party has is the huge holes in our campaign finance laws created [by] the ill advised decision [Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission],” he added. “Obviously the Tea Party elites gained extraordinary influence by being able to funnel millions of dollars into campaigns with ads that distort the truth and attack government.”

First, it’s worth noting that Sen. Schumer’s speech is intellectually dishonest. Next, it calls into question whether he or the other signatories to his letter cherish the Constitution or whether they’re willing to sacrifice the Constitution for political expediency.

These questions are aimed specifically at Sen. Schumer and Sen. Franken:

  1. Do all political organizations have the right of free speech or do only some political organizations have First Amendment protections?
  2. If only some political organizations have First Amendment protection, who determines which political organizations have First Amendment protections and which political organizations don’t?
  3. Why do you think that the IRS is the right enforcer of who’s protected by the First Amendment?
  4. What part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights can you cite that prohibits political speech for some organizations but protects poltiical speech for other organizations?
  5. Shouldn’t the Supreme Court be the final arbiter of what’s constitutional and what isn’t constitutional?
  6. Finally, why haven’t you demanded that the IRS be investigated for targeting citizens because of their political beliefs?

The reality is that Sen. Franken and Sen. Schumer don’t think in terms of what’s protected by the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. They think in terms of what will help them politically. With them, it’s never been about constitutionality. It’s always been about what’ll help them politically.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

Last night, I heard that the judge dismissed Jim Knoblach’s lawsuit. The twisted logic behind the judge’s ruling has essentially given future legislatures a gigantic loophole that essentially nullifies the Single Subject Clause of Minnesota’s Constitution. Jim Knoblach’s argument, the DFL’s counnterargument and the judge’s ruling are found in this document:

Here’s where the judge created a gigantic loophole:

The crux of the plaintiff’s argument is that, based on legislative custom and history, the passage of Section 21 was a significant deviation from traditional practice — by its inclusion in a tax bill and consideration before a tax committee — and was the product of impermissable logrolling that violates the Single Subject and Title Clause. Where the court has found that legislation is germane to a single subject, however, allegations of legislative improprieties cease to be a proper subject of judicial review. Certainly Plaintiff has highlighted significant oddities about this legislation and its passage, but such factors only become relevant if the legislation has failed the mere filament test.

What this judge just did was rule that the DFL could’ve put other capital projects into last year’s Tax Bill:

But Judge Lezlie Marek rejected that argument, writing in her order of dismissal that the legislation did not violate the single subject requirement. The $2 billion tax bill was a sprawling piece of legislation, but Marek ruled that the office building provision is linked to the rest by a common thread of “financing and raising revenue to fund state and local government operations.”

In other words, it’s a single subject because the tax bill finances government operations. That’s absurd illogic. The Senate Office Building project isn’t part of government operations. It can’t be part of government operations until it’s actually built, if then.

By this judge’s ruling, anything can be justified if it’s ruled to be part of state or local government operations and it’s included in the tax bill. That’s a gigantic loophole for the DFL to exploit.

The lesson taxpayers should take away from this is that the DFL won’t hesitate in spending hard-working families’ money on things that aren’t needed. Last spring, the DFL voted to spend $63,000,000 on an impractical building. Here’s what we’re getting forced down our throats:

Under the approved design, 44 senators from both parties and their staffs would relocate to the new building, and 23 others — the DFL and GOP leaders and committee chairs — would keep offices in the Capitol.

The “heart” of the new building would be the main floor with large, open public gathering spaces that look out on the Capitol through a “sweeping curve” of a glass and stone wall, said Jon Pickard, the principal designer with the Pickard Chilton architectural design firm. Large committee hearing rooms, which the Capitol lacks, also would be located on the main floor.

Senators and their staffs would have offices on the top two floors. A two-level, 265-stall parking garage would be built under the building.

The House Rules Committee hasn’t voted to approve this monstrosity. DFL legislators can stop the building of this disfunctional, ill-advised project by not approving this project. If they approve Sen. Bakk’s palace, they will have proven that they’re irresponsible stewards of the public’s money. Only a fool thinks that spending $63,000,000 on this ill-advised SOB (Senate Office Building) is a wise investment.

Anyone voting for the SOB isn’t a trustworthy watchdog of the taxpayers’ money.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

George Will is right. It’s possible that 4 little words might doom the Anything But Affordable Care Act:

The four words that threaten disaster for the ACA say the subsidies shall be available to persons who purchase health insurance in an exchange “established by the state.” But 34 states have chosen not to establish exchanges.

From a plain language standpoint, this isn’t difficult to predict. If this lawsuit makes it to the Supreme Court and if the justices rule that the plain text of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which I’ll call the Anything But Affordable Care Act from this point forward, means what it says, then I’d expect a 9-0 ruling that the IRS doesn’t have the authority to change the plain text of the ABACA:

So the IRS, which is charged with enforcing the ACA, has ridden to the rescue of Barack Obama’s pride and joy. Taking time off from writing regulations to restrict the political speech of Obama’s critics, the IRS has said, with its breezy indifference to legality, that subsidies shall also be dispensed to those who purchase insurance through federal exchanges the government has established in those 34 states. Pruitt is challenging the IRS in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, and there are similar challenges in Indiana, Virginia and Washington, D.C.

The history of the bill matters:

Congress made subsidies available only through state exchanges as a means of coercing states into setting up exchanges. In Senate Finance Committee deliberations on the ACA, Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), one of the bill’s primary authors, suggested conditioning tax credits on state compliance because only by doing so could the federal government induce state cooperation with the ACA. Then the law’s insurance requirements could be imposed on states without running afoul of constitutional law precedents that prevent the federal government from commandeering state governments.

In other words, Sen. Baucus understood that the Supreme Court would likely rule the ABACA unconstitutional if the legislation required states to create health insurance exchanges. Without that coercion, only states with out-of-touch far left governors (like Minnesota, New York and Vermont) would’ve created state-run HIXs.

As big a deal as these things are, there’s an even bigger principle at stake here:

If courts allow the IRS’s demarche, they will validate this:

By dispensing subsidies through federal exchanges, the IRS will spend tax revenues without congressional authorization. And by enforcing the employer mandate in states that have only federal exchanges, it will collect taxes; remember, Chief Justice John Roberts saved the ACA by declaring that the penalty enforcing the mandate is really just a tax on the act of not purchasing insurance, without congressional authorization.

If the IRS can do neither, it cannot impose penalties on employers who fail to offer ACA-approved insurance to employees. If the IRS can do both, Congress can disband because it has become peripheral to American governance.

If the Supreme Court gets this one wrong, then it’s over. There are tons of constitutional principles at stake here. That’s before taking the plain language of the bill into consideration.

Let’s be clear, though. I don’t mean to sound pessimistic. I’m not. This is exceptionally straightforward. While it’s important from a constitutional standpoint, it also revolves around whether the justices will pretend that the plain text of the bill doesn’t mean what it means.

The original lawsuit was almost entirely about constitutional principles. This lawsuit is primarily, though not entirely, about the plain text of the ABACA. It’s difficult to think that Chief Justice Roberts will rule that the bill’s text doesn’t mean what it says.

This morning, Judge Lezlie Ott Mareck will hear the lawsuit Jim Knoblach, former chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee, filed challenging the constitutionality of Sen. Bakk’s Omnibus Tax Bill. Specifically, Chairman Knoblach’s lawsuit argues that the 2013 Tax Bill violates Article IV, Sect. 17, informally known as the Single Subject Clause. Article IV, Section 17 states that bills can only be about a single subject.

For example, if the plain letter of the law is followed, it would be unconstitutional for a bill funding veterans programs to also include tax increases to raise money for Minnesota’s general fund. Funding veterans programs obviously is a different subject than setting marginal income tax rates.

The purpose of the Single Subject Clause is clear through this. Minnesota’s Constitution was written to prevent people from putting an unpopular provision on one subject into a popular bill of another subject.

Chairman Knoblach’s attorney, Erick A. Kaardal, stated the purpose of this lawsuit clearly when he said this:

Believing that a separate bill could not have survived the scrutiny of both houses, or taxpayer wrath, the leadership simply avoided the state constitution, rules of both houses and responsible fiscal policy and put the senate office measure within the tax bill that had to pass to balance the budget within the last days of the 2013 session.

Kaardal is exactly right on each part of his statement. Sen. Bakk knew that a standalone bill building a Taj Majal monument to Sen. Bakk wouldn’t pass the House. That’s why he put the funding in the Tax Bill. He knew Speaker Thissen wouldn’t torpedo his provision in that context.

Next, Kaardal is right that a standalone bill would’ve incurred the taxpayers’ wrath. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if taxpayers took out their wrath on DFL legislators this time if they find out about Sen. Bakk’s gimmick.

Third, Sen. Bakk’s gimmick attempts to skirt the Single Subject Clause. That doesn’t guarantee the courts reaching the right ruling. It just says that they’ll rule against Sen. Bakk’s gimmick if they follow Minnesota’s Constitution. FOOTNOTE: If Judge Mareck rules against Sen. Bakk, that will essentially finish Sen. Bakk’s funding for what I’m calling the “Politicians’ Pork Palace.” There isn’t a chance Sen. Bakk will want to appeal that ruling because that will raise the profile of the lawsuit. That’s the last thing Sen. Bakk wants to do going into a political campaign.

Finally, Sen. Bakk knew that his gimmick wasn’t popular. That’s why he didn’t propose it earlier in the session. Had it been proposed in February as a standalone bill, it wouldn’t have passed any committees because of the toxic nature of the bill. That’s why he’s attempting this end run around Minnesota’s Constitution.

Sen. Bakk is a nasty man when it comes to ignoring the Constitution:

Recent laws struck down under this single subject provision include:

1) a prevailing wage provision authored by then Rep. Tom Bakk in the 1997 Omnibus Tax Bill (Associated Builders and Contractors v. Ventura; Minnesota Supreme Court, 2000);

Apparently, trusting that Sen. Bakk will follow the Constitution isn’t a safe bet. The courts have already ruled that he ignored this same provision before. Apparently, Sen. Bakk just won’t learn.

Technorati: , , , , , , ,

Perhaps, I’m a bit sensitive about the Senate Office Building lawsuit because Jim Knoblach is a friend of mine. Still, it’s puzzling to me as to why conservative activists and organizations haven’t jumped on the Stop the SOB bandwagon.

Jim’s lawsuit has something in it for all different stripes of conservatives. For the liberty movement, Jim’s lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of a Tax Bill that does more than address tax policy. In other words, the lawsuit accuses Sen. Tom Bakk of violating the Single-Subject Clause in Minnesota’s Constitution. (Building pork palaces for politicians doesn’t fit with setting tax rates and policies.)

For fiscal conservatives, Jim’s lawsuit highlights the DFL’s propensity for proposing pork projects. Simply put, the proposed Senate Office Building is pure pork. The notion that a new office building is needed is foolish. Taxpayers need to fund politicians’ palaces like Minnesota needs a $4/hr. increase in the minimum wage.

For political candidates, Jim’s lawsuit offers a great opportunity to highlight the fact that Democrats love pork projects, especially pork for pompous politicians. I’d be surprised if 80% of Minnesota’s taxpayers didn’t agree that politicians don’t need to spend $90,000,000 on a building that’s occupied 140 days during each biennium. Further, taxpayers don’t need a palace that includes “a reflecting pool, skylights and a fitness center.”

For GOP political strategists, it’s a fantastic opportunity to prove the DFL is the party of pompous politicians, not the party of the people. Think of the opportunity to paint Sen. Bakk and the DFL legislators who voted for the Tax Bill as pork-loving, tax-raising politicians who are out of touch with Main Street Minnesotans. Frankly, this is a gift that might keep giving, at least until judges rule that Sen. Bakk’s pork project is unconstitutional.

It’s a great opportunity for GOP legislators to push a defunding bill when the session re-opens in February, 2014. If Sen. Bakk bottles up the GOP repeal bill, they can use that against Democrats in their campaigns. If their legislation repeals funding for Sen. Bakk’s pork palace, it will be a stinging defeat for Sen. Bakk.

I understand why the GOP leadership in the Senate hasn’t expressed outrage thus far. Now that Gov. Dayton has criticized the bill he signed, he’s essentially given Senate GOP leadership ‘permission’ to criticize Sen. Bakk on this issue.

Finally, organizations like the Taxpayers League and Minnesota Majority should have a field day with this. It’s right in their wheel house. The great news is that there’s tons of potential political upside. The fantastic news is that there’s virtually no political downside to criticizing Sen. Bakk’s pork palace.

After all, how often do conservsatives get the opportunity to criticize a powerful Democrat for punishing taxpayers twice within a single bill? It’s important to remember that this year’s Tax Bill raised taxes on “the rich”, the middle class and working poor while spending money on palaces for politicians.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Patrick Condon’s article about Jim Knoblach’s lawsuit is rather curiously worded. Here’s the opening of the article:

A former Republican state representative sued Gov. Mark Dayton and the state of Minnesota on Thursday in an attempt to block the construction of a $90 million office building for the state Senate.

“To me, this is such a ridiculous case of a glaring waste of money,” said Jim Knoblach, a St. Cloud businessman who served in the state House from 1995 to 2006.

But Knoblach’s lawsuit does not address whether the new building is a worthwhile use of taxpayer dollars. Rather, it claims the Legislature’s Democratic majority violated the state Constitution by authorizing its construction in the tax bill, which isn’t a typical means of approving large building projects.

Lawsuits challenging a bill’s constitutionality aren’t supposed to address whether something is “a worthwhile use of taxpayer dollars.” Lawsuits are supposed to talk about whether the DFL’s decision to include a $90,000,000 bonding project in the Tax Bill violates Minnesota’s Constitution. Specifically, it’s supposed to address whether it violates Article IV, section 17 of the Minnesota Constitution, aka the Single Subject Provision.

In the past, courts have given the Legislature some latitude on things involving the Single Subject Provision. Recently, though, they’ve ruled that the legislature has taken some egregious liberties. Here are two examples cited by Representative Knoblach:

Recent laws struck down under this single subject provision include:

1) a prevailing wage provision authored by then Rep. Tom Bakk in the 1997 Omnibus Tax Bill (Associated Builders and Contractors v. Ventura; Minnesota Supreme Court, 2000);
2) the Minnesota Personal Protection Act when first included in a DNR technical correction bill (Unity Church v. State of Minnesota; Minnesota Court of Appeals, 2005). The bill was struck down even though the Personal Protection Act was mentioned in the title.

Apparently, Tom Bakk ignored his oath of office when he included a prevailing wage provision in the 1997 Tax Bill. We’ll come back to that in a minute. Rep. Bakk took an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution and the Minnesota State Constitution.

While there’s no doubt that Bakk is a neanderthal, there’s no doubt that he isn’t ignorant, either. He’s a big supporter of labor unions, which is likely why he included the prevailing wage provision in the 1997 Tax Bill. It’s likely that he knew the prevailing wage provision wouldn’t have passed on its own.

Fast forward to today:

Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk, who championed the project, said previous state building projects were financed similarly and that legislative counsel vetted the financing for this project. “I fear the only result of this suit will be the waste of taxpayer resources on legal expenses and the potential costs associated with delaying” the project, Bakk said.

Sen. Bakk wanted to spend this money in the worst way because he wanted a shiny new office for himself. If it isn’t his biggest fear, Sen. Bakk’s biggest fear should be that the courts rule in Rep. Knoblach’s favor.

If that happens, that’ll be the second time the courts have slapped Sen. Bakk for ignoring the same provision of the Minnesota Constitution. That isn’t the only thing Sen. Bakk should be worried about. Rep. Knoblach said that he could’ve filed the lawsuit on the basis that this is a bonding project. Bonding projects require getting 60% of the House to approve a project, then get 60% of the Senate’s vote.

Sen. Bakk isn’t the only Democrat who should be worried about Rep. Knoblach’s lawsuit. Gov. Dayton should be worried, too. He could’ve line-item vetoed the new Senate Office Building’s appropriation. He didn’t, which means he a) didn’t care about the Single-Subject Provision and b) thought spending $90,000,000 on a shiny new Senate Office Building was a worthwhile expenditure of taxpayers’ money.

Knoblach said he only wants the office building stripped from the tax bill, but acknowledged a judge could decide to throw out the entire thing. That would undo this year’s income tax increases on upper income earners, and a state subsidy of up to $525 million to aid in a multibillion dollar Mayo Clinic plan to grow the city of Rochester.

I don’t know the likelihood of the Minnesota Supreme Court throwing out the entire Tax Bill. If they did that, though, it’d create an incredible mess. It would mean the legislature would have to pass the business-to-business sales tax increases during an election year. It’d mean they’d have to pass all of the major tax increases again just prior to an election.

Sen. Bakk and Gov. Dayton have their fingerprints all over this waste of money. While I hope the courts strike this down, this is a huge millstone around the DFL’s necks, especially Gov. Dayton and Sen. Bakk. If Gov. Dayton tries telling people he didn’t veto out the expenditure because he wanted to sign the Tax Bill, I’ll clobber him by saying he had the authority to veto the bonding money because it’s an appropriation. He could’ve kept the law intact.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

This article asks a ton of questions that the Obama administration doesn’t want to deal with. Thanks to this lawsuit, President Obama is put in the unenviable position of defending his signature accomplishment in an uphill fight:

The Affordable Care Act forbids the federal government from enforcing the law in any state that opted out of setting up its own health care exchange, according to a group of small businesses whose lawsuit got a key hearing Monday in federal court.

The Obama administration, according to their lawsuit, has ignored that language in the law, enforcing all of its provisions even in states where the federal government is operating the insurance marketplaces on the error-plagued website.

Thirty-six states chose not to set up their exchanges, a move that effectively froze Washington, D.C. out of the authority to pay subsidies and other pot-sweeteners to convince citizens in those states to buy medical insurance.

But the IRS overstepped its authority by paying subsidies in those states anyway, say the businesses and their lawyers.

The subsidies serve as a trigger that determines who has to comply with the now-famous individual and employer mandates. So, the lawsuit claims, the Obama administration illegally enforced the Affordable Care Act – suddenly making millions of taxpayers and small employers subject to paying fines if they don’t play ball.

The Affordable Care Act authorizes subsidies only for policies purchased ‘through an Exchange established by the State.’

The clearly written language of the bill says that the only people who are eligible for federal subsidies are people who purchase their health insurance through state-run health insurance exchanges.

This lawsuit won’t get the Affordable Care Act ruled unconstitutional. That isn’t what the Obama administration is worried about though. If the federal government isn’t able to force people in those 36 states to obey the individual or employer mandates, the financing of the bill will collapse.

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of these plaintiffs, there’s a bigger worry facing the administration:

Kazman is general counsel for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market think tank that is coordinating the case.

‘The IRS cannot rewrite the law that Congress passed,’ said Tom Miller, resident fellow at another think, the tank American Enterprise Institute. Its regulation expressly flouts the statutory text of the Affordable Care Act, the intent of Congress and the reasoned choices of [36] states.’

‘The fiscal impact’ of denying the Obamacare system millions of dollars in lost fines, ‘while sizable, wouldn’t be large enough to bring down the house,’ Kazman added. The poltical one, however, is. You’d have 34 “refusenik” states exempting their employers and many of their citizens from the employer mandate and portions of the individual mandate,’ he explained.

‘You’d have companies in participating states considering whether to move their operations’ to states where they don’t have to obey the Affordable Care Act. ‘And you might even have some of those states seeking to undo their choice to participate.’

The law is clearly written. Still, I’m unsure because John Roberts screwed things up pretty badly when he had the chance to kill an unconstitutional law. Make no mistake about this fact: this lawsuit will be dedided by the Supreme Court.

Forgive my cynicism but that’s what happens when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court rules that it isn’t his place to undo a political catastrophe. HINT TO CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: The Affordable Care Act wasn’t just a political catastrophe. It was about whether the Constitution put a limit on the federal government’s authority and reach. Chief Justice Roberts punted on that.

Perhaps he’s ashamed of that ruling. I hope he is. He should be. This time around, the lawsuit is clear. It’s about whether the clearly written language of the Affordable Care Act means what it says. Chief Justice Roberts better not botch this one. That might be the only clearly written part of the Affordable Care Act.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

A federal judge dismissed 2 lawsuits in-home child care small businesses filed after Gov. Dayton signed the bill into law. Here’s part of what the judge wrote of the dismissal:

Chief Judge Michael Davis wrote the “plaintiffs express a fear that, one day, there may be a certified union for family child care providers who accept State subsidies and that, one day, such a union may decide to impose a fair share fee on nonmembers of the union… Plaintiffs request that the Court peer into a crystal ball, predict the future, and then opine on the constitutionality of a speculative scenario…Courts may not give such advisory opinions. Plaintiffs’ claims are not ripe.”

Gov. Dayton issued this statement on Judge Davis’ dismissal:

I am very pleased that both lawsuits seeking to prevent child care providers from deciding for themselves whether or not to form a union have been dismissed by the Chief Judge of the United States District Court. I believe that working men and women should have the right to vote on forming a union, and that the Court’s decisions will permit such an election to be held.

Gov. Dayton’s victory might be temporary. The judge didn’t say the small business leaders’ lawsuit was without merit. He simply said it wasn’t ripe. That’s something echoed by the plaintiffs’ attorney Doug Seaton:

He’s dismissed the case but he’s dismissed it on the basis that nothing is ripe, nothing has happened yet in his view. We think enough has happened so the judge can decide and he shouldn’t dismiss the case but because of that part of the decision it’s possible that our evaluation will be- we’re better off to wait until there’s a filing by AFSCME or some part of the process in the election takes place and then it’s very clear- it is ripe. So that would be one avenue to re-file after a matter of time and developments or directly go to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to file an appeal of this decision.

Hollee Saville, one of the leaders of the anti-unionization fight, issued this statement on Judge Davis’ dismissal:

This is NOT over! We believe the Judge has erred and are considering our options to appeal or refile as the election process proceeds, but this challenge is not over. We remain convinced that home child care providers are not subject to unionization by the state under this statute.

Providers, PLEASE register to accept CCAP NOW so that you would get a vote.

We still need help adopting licensed family child care providers for mailings (any amount makes a difference) and will need help calling eligible voters soon, since we’re sure that AFSCME will present their 500 cards soon.

PLEASE visit to see how you can help.

At the heart of this fight is whether a legislature can write legislation that changes a private sector employer into a public sector employee without the employer’s consent. If the court rules that legislatures have that authority, then there’s nothing that legislatures couldn’t do.

As for Gov. Dayton’s statement, he’s intentionally omitting a pair of important points. First, legislatures shouldn’t have the right to call for a vote when existing federal legislation prohibits that vote. Also, legislatures shouldn’t have the right to write legislation that says private sector employers aren’t private sector employers. That’s what the DFL’s bill essentially does.

Finally, the DFL is playing with political fire with this issue. Anti-unionization activists are upset with the DFL for essentially throwing them under the bus to pay off the DFL’s political allies. The DFL stepped on a political landmine with this. Passing this legislation is motivating voters to vote against the DFL.

UPDATE: Here’s how Sen. Dave Thompson responded to last night’s child care ruling:

“On Sunday, July 28, 2013, The Honorable Michael Davis issued an order dismissing claims against Governor Mark Dayton pertaining to the childcare unionization legislation that was passed and signed into law during the 2013 legislative session. Of course, I am saddened by the decision, but am glad Judge Davis left the door open for the childcare providers to re-assert their claims at a later date.

“It is sad that these independent business people must work through the courts to try and stop the impact of this damaging law. This is what happens when elected officials put political interests ahead of the people. Governor Dayton and Democrats in the legislature have chosen to reward campaign contributors and union bosses while at the same time bullying childcare providers, most of whom are self-employed women.

“Rest assured if I am honored to be your next governor, I would make it a priority to repeal this ill advised and harmful law. This is an example of special interest politics at its worst, and Minnesotans should not stand for it.”

Here’s a quick quiz for voters: when was the last time the DFL didn’t side with their special interest allies?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Yesterday, Al Sharpton said that he hopes continued pressure on the DOJ would force them to file a civil rights case against George Zimmerman:

Sharpton has said he hopes continued public pressure will force the Justice Department to bring a civil rights case against Zimmerman.

That isn’t surprising. Sharpton’s been a hustler and liar for decades. He’s most famous for the Tawana Brawley fiasco. Since the verdict, he’s a) advocated for ignoring Florida’s manslaughter, b) brushed aside the fact that proof doesn’t exist that George Zimmerman acted with racial malice and c) insisted that Eric Holder ignore federal hate crimes laws.

From the start, the media, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and the special prosecutors who tried the case have tried painting Trayvon Martin as a cherub-faced 12-year-old boy. They’ve omitted the parts about how he was prone to violence, that he was 4 inches taller than George Zimmerman and that the items he bought at the neighborhood store are ingredients to a drink that causes paranoia and fits of violence.

This video by Bill Whittle highlights the things Al Sharpton and the prosecutors didn’t and won’t tell people:

Setting those things aside, justice can’t be achieved through mob rule, which is what Sharpton specializes in. Sharpton also specializes in omitting key truths if they interfere with his storyline. That isn’t just speculation. Here’s what he omitted during the Tawana Brawley fiasco:

Much of the grand jury evidence pointed to a possible motive for Brawley’s falsifying the incident: trying to avoid violent punishment from her mother and her stepfather Ralph King. Witnesses testified that Glenda Brawley had previously beaten her daughter for running away and for spending nights with boys. King had a history of violence that included stabbing his first wife 14 times, later shooting and killing her. There was considerable evidence that King could and would violently attack Brawley: when Brawley had been arrested on a shoplifting charge the previous May, King attempted to beat her for the offense while at the police station. Witnesses have also described King as having talked about his stepdaughter in a sexualized manner. On the day of her alleged disappearance, Brawley had skipped school to visit boyfriend Todd Buxton, who was serving a six-month jail sentence. When Buxton’s mother (with whom she had visited Buxton in jail) urged her to get home before she got in trouble, Brawley told her, “I’m already in trouble.” She described how angry Ralph King was over a previous incident of her staying out late.

There was evidence that Brawley’s mother and King participated knowingly in the hoax. Neighbors told the grand jury that in February they overheard Glenda Brawley saying to Mr. King, “You shouldn’t have took the money because after it all comes out, they’re going to find out the truth.” Another neighbor heard Mrs. Brawley say, “They know we’re lying and they’re going to find out and come and get us.”

Ultimately, the man Sharpton accused of raping Ms. Brawley filed a defamation lawsuit against Sharpton. Here’s that lawsuit’s outcome:

In 1998, Pagones was awarded $345,000 (he sought $395 million) through a lawsuit for defamation of character that he had brought against Sharpton, Maddox and Mason. The jury found Sharpton liable for making seven defamatory statements about Pagones, Maddox for two and Mason for one.

Now Sharpton has a semi-national TV audience (He’s got a show on MSNBC) from which to spew his hatred and lies. Sharpton’s platform is different but his lies and omissions remain consistent.

In any other administration, I’d say I’d be surprised to see the DOJ file charges against Zimmerman. With the Obama/Holder DOJ, I’d be upset but not surprised if they filed charges against George Zimmerman. The facts and the law just don’t support the prosecution of George Zimmerman.

Then again, the facts and the law haven’t stopped Al Sharpton, President Obama or Eric Holder in the past.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

This video says everything about the Left’s agenda:

This lawyer essentially admitted that Zimmerman didn’t commit a crime. She definitely admitted that this prosecution wouldn’t have happened based on the merits. Ms. Rand essentially espoused mob rule because millions of ill-informed people didn’t agree with the verdict.

Since when was justice delivered when ill-informed people tell the people who weighed the evidence and applied the specifics of the law that the law isn’t good enough? What Ms. Rand is saying is that convicting people without evidence is ok. She’s saying that it’s ok to ignore the law if it fits with her worldviewe.

That isn’t justice. That’s vigilantism, which is essentially evil with a different name. Here’s the definition of justice:

judgment of persons or causes by judicial process.

Justice necessarily means not playing by rules you make up as you go along. In this interview, Ms. Rand essentially advocated for convicting George Zimmerman because a tragedy happened. The prosecution didn’t provide the jury with evidence that Mr. Zimmerman broke a specific law. That isn’t to say Mr. Zimmerman acted wisely. He didn’t. He should’ve stayed in his car.

That said, he had the right to defend himself when Martin attacked him. Let’s remember that one of the jurors said they were convinced by the evidence, specifically because of eyewitness testimony by John Good, that Martin threw the first punch.

Finally, this video is proof that people shouldn’t argue with Greta. In less than a minute of talking time, she sliced Ms. Rand into tiny little liberal ribbons.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,