Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare (Mostly)

In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate, but it ruled that a mandate using the commerce clause is unconstitutional. Instead the mandate was upheld as a tax, something that President Obama repeatedly denied it was until it went to the Supreme Court, then his Solicitor General argued that it was a tax. Chief Justice John Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee sided with liberals giving them the votes they needed to uphold the mandate.
The court also ruled that the Federal government could not take away current medicaid funding from states that choose not to participate in The Affordable Care Act's (Obamacare) new requirements.

I applaud the latter ruling while strongly disagreeing with the former. The Supreme Court have now ruled that there is no limit to the coercion that the government can use by it's taxing power to control the lives of individuals. It is now more important than ever to defeat President Obama and elect a Republican Senate as well as hold a solid majority in the House.

California Supreme Court Upholds Prop 8

In a 6-1 decision the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. At the same time they ruled that the 18,000 marriages of same-sex couples will not be voided.

This was the right call. The people passed a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, overturning it would be declaring a part of the state constitution unconstitutional. It would have been a dangerous court precedent and a new low for judicial activists. Fortunately they made the right decision.

Proponents of same-sex marriage have already started collecting signatures for their own ballot proposition to repeal prop 8. I wish them luck. Prop 8 only passed with 52% of the vote, and this was with the backlash of judicial activism, I think it stands a decent chance of passing.

Obama Picks Sotomayor for the Supreme Court

President Obama made his first pick for the Supreme Court today, judge Sonia Sotomayor. Like the Justice she replaces, David Souter, she is a liberal. Not only is she a liberal, but she is a judical activist who thinks the courts are there to make policy.
Conservatives must make a case to oppose her. Although it is likely hopeless, conservative must make an active effort to inform the people of her record and her philosophy as a judicial activist. This can be used to boost Republican turnout in the 2010 congressional elections, and help conservatives prepare for the judicial pick, which could well be a replacement for a conservative Justice.
The left's arguments to Conservative opposition are predicable:
1. Republicans are the party of no.
This is easy to rebut, liberals oppose practically every conservative appointed to the supreme court, and many to the lower courts. Why is opposition to a supreme court pick wrong when liberals do it every time to a conservative? Hypocrisy? I think so.
2. But she was appointed by a Republican, the first President Bush.
This is true, but it doesn't matter. Her voting record and public statements are those of a liberal judicial activist.
3. The 3rd argument will be a base and despicable attempt to paint Republicans as racists and/or sexists for opposing a Hispanic woman.
Liberals opposed Janice Rogers Brown's appointment to a lower court, stalling her appointment for years. She is a black woman. Were the liberals who opposed her racist or sexist? If the answer by a liberal you ask is no, then why are Conservative who oppose Sotomayor racist and/or sexist? The answer is they are not.
These arguments need to be shot down before they are made. The left knows that if they repeat a lie enough times it will stick, and that is precisely what they hope to do.