Does The Secret Service Protect Supreme Court Justices?

Does The Secret Service Protect Supreme Court Justices?


Not By Design; And Only If The President Orders Them to



By Dell Hill

Who's responsible for protecting the Supreme Court justices from harm?  This question was just one of several that arose during our earlier post concerning the nation’s highest court.

Most people would guess that the responsibility lies with the Secret Service uniform division, perhaps, but that’s not the case.  In fact, unless the President issues an executive order, the Secret Service has nothing to do with security for the Supreme Court Justices.

This piece from Slate answers a few of our questions:

“Perhaps a bit surprisingly, the U.S. Secret Service, whose protectees include a galaxy of other Beltway power players, has nothing to do with the court personnel. Instead, the task of safeguarding the nine justices falls to the Supreme Court Police, a 125-person force that's also charged with securing the court building and grounds. Though the court has long had security guards, a separate police department wasn't formally created by Congress until 1949. However, the law that set up the force specified that the officers' duties should consist solely of patrolling the Supreme Court building and its surroundings. The Supreme Court cops were not authorized to carry guns or to make arrests outside of their tiny Washington jurisdiction. If a justice required or requested a bodyguard, they were either provided with a federal marshal or a member of the Supreme Court Police was temporarily deputized as a marshal.

In May of 1982, however, then-Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, citing a rise in "terrorist activities, assassination attempts, and street crime," asked Congress to give Supreme Court Police officers more marshallike powers. Burger's cause received an important boost that July, when Justice Byron White was assaulted as he delivered a speech to the Utah Bar Association. The only security personnel present were employees of the hotel where the address was taking place, and audience members had to come to White's rescue. (The attacker, a 57-year-old man from Kaysville, Utah, screamed "Busing and pornography don't go!" as he slugged the justice; White, who had been a star tailback at the University of Colorado, finished his speech, quipping, "I've been hit harder than that before in Utah.")

Congress swiftly heeded Burger's wishes, and since then Supreme Court Police officers have been available to guard the justices wherever they may roam. However, when the justices travel around the country, they are sometimes protected by federal marshals rather than Supreme Court cops. Whether a marshal is assigned in lieu of a Supreme Court Police officer depends on the staffing situation at the court building and on who is arranging the trip—if it's another branch of the government, they'll usually provide a marshal or two.”

Given the whacked out world that we live in; where taking the life of a Supreme Court Justice one disagrees with seems like a viable endeavor, it would seem reasonable to me to have all nine of the justices protected - especially with the Obamacare case before the court.

At this point, we don’t know if that has happened, but we do know that the court has requested an increase in funding over the past ten to fifteen years, and that additional funding request was due, in part, to security issues.

Perhaps, as the publicity surrounding oral arguments in the Obamacare case gets ratcheted up, we’ll learn the answer to our question.

Christmas Cards For Pantie-Waist Liberals

Christmas Cards For Pantie-Waist Liberals



By Dell Hill

Want to really tick off a pantie-waist Liberal?

Send him one of these Christmas cards! (Putting “Christmas” in large, bold text will enhance his experience)

It's definitely one way of making sure Christmas goes off with a bang.
A gun club in Scottsdale, Arizona is inviting children to pose for pictures with Santa Claus – and a high-powered firearm.
Each family member carries their choice of weapon, from pistols to $80,000 machine guns.


Toting the gun, and perhaps belts of ammunition around their necks, they smile alongside a rather bewildered-looking Santa.

Children and babies can also get their hands on a firearm of their choice, including grenade launchers, assault rifles and AK-47s.

The picture, taken against a festive backdrop, will then feature on a holiday card.

Afterwards, the families get a chance to test out the machine guns.

Describing the event, the club says: ‘Families and gun enthusiasts from around the Valley will have a one-of-a-kind opportunity to be photographed next to Santa while against a backdrop of a stunning $80,000 Garwood mini-gun and SGC's coolest belt fed machine guns including the M60, M249 and M240.’

‘I think it’s going to be all in fun from those who support the second amendment and those who don’t,’ said gun club member Richard Jones.
‘Whether you’re a gun advocate or not, you should have a lot of fun with it.’

This is the second year in a row the Scottsdale Gun Club has held the startling photo opportunity – although they have now doubled the cost to $10.”

Obviously, the writer at the Daily Mail is NOT an advocate of the Second Amendment!  The entire piece was just dripping in condescension and disdain.

The comments section is even better.  “You gun toting fanatic, lunatic, Bible thumping, killers!”....and other, equally descriptive comments, indicative of what most of us would call “pansies”, back in the day.  If left to them, the Secretary of Defense would be this guy:

Chevy Volt Doubles As Campfire

Chevy Volt Doubles As Campfire


“The battery was determined to be the cause (of fires), after its coolant line was ruptured during the side-impact test. That led the NHTSA to consider a ruling forcing hybrid and electric-car batteries to be drained after a wreck.”


By Dell Hill

Chevy Volt Owners - Listen up.  (all six of you)

“The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued a statement on its investigation into a Chevrolet Volt fire that occurred at the organization's facilities. NHTSA had done a side-impact test on a Volt then parked it outside, and three weeks later Chevy's plug-in hybrid caught fire. The battery was determined to be the cause, after its coolant line was ruptured during the side-impact test. That led the NHTSA to consider a ruling forcing hybrid and electric-car batteries to be drained after a wreck.

On Friday, NHTSA said it is opening "a formal safety defect investigation" to study the risks of fire in Chevy Volts that have been in major accidents. To be clear, though, the larger story is that this isn't just about the Volt, this is about any vehicle with a battery pack, with NHTSA gathering "additional information about the potential for fire in electric vehicles involved in a crash...."

NHTSA conducted three more tests on the Volt's battery packs over three days, each test involving damaging the pack and rotating the car to simulate an accident and rollover. The battery pack in the third test began to smoke and spark almost immediately, the pack in the second test caught fire a week later. It is due to these results that the formal investigation has been opened.”

Dell’s Bottom Line Is Reaching Out - Now On Twitter @GoldenEagle

Dell’s Bottom Line Is Reaching Out

Now On Twitter @GoldenEagle


By Dell Hill

In an effort to reach out to even more potential readers, Dell’s Bottom Line is now on Twitter and you can follow me @GoldenEagle.  Each blog post will get its own tweet and followers won’t have to wait to get home to see what the old-timer has been up to.

In addition, http://www.avnewstalk.com/PC_Radio.html has graciously linked this blog at many of it’s web outlets!  Thanks, Steve!

I’m also “LinkedIn” as “Dell Hill”.  (I’m still trying to get the hang of that place) and you’re welcome to connect with me through that service.

If your site or service has linked to this blog and it has not been noticed, by all means let me know via Email.  GoldenEagle4444@GMail.com.

Thanks!
DRH

Midwest ‘Ambushed’ By EPA Ruling

Midwest ‘Ambushed’ By EPA Ruling


“The result could include “the potential of cascading blackouts... or localized rolling blackouts initiated by utilities within the SPP region, to avoid more widespread and uncontrolled blackouts”

By Dell Hill via Director Blue

“The electric grid is in grave danger thanks to the EPA's arbitrary and draconian new regulations for utilities. Oh, and that's not just according to the utilities impacted by the agency's hastily constructed rules, it's a message echoed by public utility boards and the Midwest's seven-state Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Kansas electric utility Westar Energy contends that meeting a mid-December Environmental Protection Agency deadline on new air emission regulations will result in rolling blackouts for its customers.


“We asked the EPA for more time, but they tell us they're enforcing the Dec. 15 deadline,” said Westar Energy CEO Mark Ruelle. “So we're pushing back. KCPL, Sunflower and us have asked a court to stay the rule. It's not our style, but we've sued through the court in D.C. and the Kansas Attorney General has filed his own lawsuit... We've cut sulfur by 80 percent and NOX (nitrogen oxide) by 50 percent,” Ruelle said, from highs in the years 2002 and 2003. “We've still a ways to go, but we have a plan to get there. Then this rule came out based on emissions crossing state lines. It came out in July and it says we must comply by Jan. 1. You can't.”

...The company can meet the more stringent regulations, but not until 2018, Ruelle said... A separate study by the Southwest Power Pool agrees with Westar's assessment... [the] seven-state regional transmission organization [was] mandated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to ensure reliable supplies of power, adequate transmission infrastructure, and competitive wholesale prices of electricity for its region.


In a September letter to the EPA, which used the word concern seven times, the organization warned an initial “reliability analysis” of utility operations under the EPA timeline pointed to hundreds of potential system overloads in the region and more than a thousand cases of system voltages going too low to meet mandated levels.

The result, the letter advised, could include “the potential of cascading blackouts... or localized rolling blackouts initiated by utilities within the SPP region, to avoid more widespread and uncontrolled blackouts and to remain in compliance with reliability standards... SPP encourages the EPA to work with generation owners to develop flexible compliance schedules to ensure equipment installation is completed in a timely, safe, reliable and cost-effective manner without an arbitrary deadline..."

...Even the Citizens' Utility Ratepayer Board, which represents customers in utility rate requests, voiced sympathy to Westar's situation... “The EPA really kind of ambushed the utility, in terms of the process,” said David Springe, CURB's consumer counsel. “Clearly they're all working toward reducing emissions to the level the EPA wants. In their final order they were really radically different than the preliminary. They changed the mark they were supposed to hit and made it under a timeline that is simply not reasonable.”

Whether the EPA sticks with its deadline or works with utilities, it's ultimately the consumer that pays, Springe said... “Whether it's January or 2015, they have to retrofit the plants and rates will go up,” he said. “I don't know that I've seen a full rate estimate, but it won't be small.”

Read the entire post by clicking right here.

...And, as you can plainly see, Barack Obama will “get right on this issue” right after her putts out.

In The Spotlight - The Supreme Court of the United States

In The Spotlight - The Supreme Court of the United States


Thoughts And Background On The ‘Roberts Court’



By Dell Hill

The makeup of the United States Supreme Court has never been more important than it is today.  And it gets more important with each passing day.  Despite its Constitutional intent, the court is now a semi-political body of jurists at the highest level of law and it shows no sign of drifting back to a body unaffected by political persuasion or activism.

Meet the “Roberts Court”:


Back row (left to right): Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen G. Breyer, Samuel A. Alito, and Elena Kagan. Front row (left to right): Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg

It’s referred to as the “Roberts Court” by virtue of the fact that all editions of the countries highest court have taken on the name of its Chief Justice.

Some dry-reading - but important - background from Wiki:

Tenure

The Constitution provides that justices "shall hold their offices during good behavior" (unless appointed during a Senate recess). The term "good behavior" is well understood to mean justices may serve for the remainder of their lives, although they can voluntarily resign or retire. A justice can also be removed by Congressional impeachment and conviction. However, only one justice has been impeached by the House (Samuel Chase, in 1805) and he was acquitted in the Senate. Moves to impeach sitting justices have occurred more recently (for example, William O. Douglas was the subject of hearings twice, once in 1953 and again in 1970), but they have not reached a vote in the House.

No mechanism presently exists for removing a justice who is permanently incapacitated by illness or injury, both unable to resign and unable to resume service.

Because justices have indefinite tenure, timing of vacancies can be unpredictable...

[..]

As of the October 2010 term of the Court, the Court consists of five justices appointed by Republican Presidents, and four appointed by Democratic Presidents.

It is popularly accepted that Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito comprise the Court's conservative wing. Justices Ginsburg and Breyer are generally thought of as the Court's liberal wing; after one term on the Court, Justice Sotomayor is also seen as a member of the liberal wing, voting much as her predecessor, Justice Souter, might have voted. John McGinnis, a law professor at Northwestern University School of Law, stated that Sotomayor "appears to be a typical member of the liberal wing", but noted that experts have said justices do not come into their own until they have served five years or so, pointing to Souter's first year as an example; however, McGinnis also noted that Sotomayor has a longer judicial track record than Souter did. According to statistics compiled by SCOTUSblog, during the 2009 term Sotomayor agreed most often with Ginsburg and Breyer (90% of the time in full, in part, or in judgment, second only to the 92% agreement between Scalia and Thomas), and disagreed most often with Scalia and Alito (31% of the time).

Justice Anthony Kennedy, generally considered a conservative who "occasionally vote[s] with the liberals", is often the swing vote that determines the outcome of close cases.

[..]

While reams have been written about the makeup and current activism phase of the Roberts Court, it goes without saying that SCOTUS rulings from this panel of jurists will very likely have an enormous effect on the nation’s history...And some would go so far as to say “THE most effect”.

Health Of The Jurists

It’s impossible to predict if and when an Associate Justice or the Chief Justice might be afflicted with debilitating injury, illness or worse, it’s reasonably safe to conclude that with but one exception, the panel is in good health.  That one exception is Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

“Ginsburg was diagnosed with colon cancer in 1999 and underwent surgery followed by chemotherapy and radiation therapy. During the process, she did not miss a day on the bench. On February 5, 2009, she again underwent surgery related to pancreatic cancer. Ginsburg's tumor was discovered at an early stage. Ginsburg was released from a New York hospital, eight days after the surgery and heard oral arguments again four days later. On September 24, 2009, Ginsburg was hospitalized for lightheadedness following an outpatient treatment for iron deficiency and was released the following day.

With the retirement of John Paul Stevens in 2010, Ginsburg became, at 77 years of age, the eldest justice on the Court.  Despite rumors she would retire as a result of old age, poor health, and the death of her husband, she denied she was planning to step down. In an August 2010 interview, Ginsburg stated that the Court's work was helping her cope with the death of her husband and suggested she would serve until at least 2012 when a painting that used to hang in her office is due to be returned to her.  She also expressed a wish to emulate Justice Louis Brandeis, who retired at 82, an age that Ginsburg would attain in 2015.”

[..]

It has also been widely reported that Justice Ginsburg has assured President Barack Obama that she will remain on the court as long as possible to assure the Liberal view of the court is maintained at a 5-4 ratio.  Should Obama be re-elected, of course, she would be then free to retire, knowing that her replacement would also have Liberal leanings.

Such a replacement would give Obama the opportunity to directly appoint one-third of the nine member panel of justices.  And given Justice Ginburg’s own statements, the next president will make at least one Supreme Court appointment.

Under that same scenario, It could be conjectured that if one of the Conservative members were to retire or be unable to perform his duties, Obama would then be in a position to name yet another associate justice, causing a political shift to a Liberal court in the same 5-4 ratio of political makeup.

Assuming NO changes in the makeup of the court over the next several months, the matter of mandatory federal health care (Obamacare) will become the most famous ruling from SCOTUS since Roe v Wade - probably even more famous, considering that the law is the centerpiece and legacy of the 44th President of the United States.  A ruling on Obamacare is expected, possibly as early as late June of 2012.

Recusal

Calls from both sides of the aisle have been made for at least three of the current associate justices to recuse from hearing the Obamacare litigation.

Democrats say that Justice Thomas should recuse because his wife has a history as an activist and opposes such legislation/law.  Republicans say that Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor should recuse because of their close association with the Obama administration - especially during the deliberation phase of the legislation up to the time of its controversial passage.

While recusal is always a possibility, it’s not seen as likely, no matter how strong the argument(s) might be in favor.  And a justice cannot be forced to recuse under any circumstances.  If a case for recusal became so blatant as to rise to the level of “wrong doing”, that justice could be impeached, but it would take one party with total control of the House and Senate to secure a conviction, and, while that is always possible, it’s not currently seen as likely.  Republicans, for instance, would have to retain overwhelming control of the House and take at least a 59-41 margin in the Senate in order for an impeachment to have any chance of success.  (Note:  the president cannot veto or in any way take action to exonerate an impeached federal judge or member of congress.)

Given the criticalaty of the pending court decision(s), it would be reasonable to ask what sort of protection from harm the Supreme Court Justices are given.  We’ll broach that subject in a future post.

Obama Must Be “One And Done”

Obama Must Be “One And Done”


The loss of your Second Amendment Right to keep and bear arms is but one Supreme Court vote from repeal.


By Dell Hill

It’s much closer than you think.

The loss of your Second Amendment Right to keep and bear arms is but one Supreme Court vote from repeal.

                   

               

            
“Nearly three years into President Obama’s first term in office, Michelle Obama finally said something with which I can agree.
At a recent fundraiser for President Obama’s re-election campaign in Providence, Rhode Island, the first lady told her audience:

“We stand at a fundamental crossroads for our country. You’re here because you know that in just 13 months, we’re going to make a choice that will impact our lives for decades to come … let’s not forget what it meant when my husband appointed those two brilliant Supreme Court justices … let’s not forget the impact that their decisions will have on our lives for decades to come.”

This was music to the ears of the small, affluent crowd of admirers who cheered and applauded. But to gun owners, Michelle Obama’s remarks should sound like a warning bell, alerting us to the danger ahead should Barack Obama win re-election and get the opportunity to alter the current make-up of the Supreme Court.

When Americans flock to the polls in 13 months, we will not simply decide which direction our country should take over the next four years. Rather, we will decide whether or not our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms will survive over the next several decades.

Currently, the Second Amendment clings to a 5-4 pro-freedom majority on the Supreme Court. Just one vote is all that stands between the America our Founding Fathers established and a radically different America that Barack Obama and his supporters envision.

If you want to read something scary, take another look at the minority opinions in the Supreme Court’s landmark Heller and McDonald decisions that struck down Washington, D.C.’s and Chicago’s unconstitutional gun bans. In the Heller dissent, four justices concluded that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to own a firearm, nor does it protect our right to defend ourselves, our families, or our property. In McDonald, the same four justices argued that the 5-4 Heller decision should be reversed.

If these four justices had just one more vote on their side, their opinion — that the Second Amendment should not exist in today’s modern society — would be the law of the land today. And assuredly, the anti-gun activist wing of the court knows how close they are to gaining the upper hand. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told a Harvard Club audience in 2009, she looks forward to the day when a “future, wiser court” overturns 5-4 decisions like Heller.

Praying for the health of five justices is not a sound legal strategy for ensuring that our Second Amendment freedoms survive the relentless legal assault that gun-ban groups are waging in courtrooms across America. We need a president who will nominate sound, originalist nominees to the high court — nominees who will preserve the freedoms our Founding Fathers enshrined in our Constitution.

If President Obama gets the opportunity to tilt the balance of the Supreme Court in his favor, we’re unlikely to see another pro-gun victory at the Court in our lifetime. Even worse, the 5-4 majorities in Heller and McDonald will be in serious jeopardy of being reversed, effectively eliminating the Second Amendment.

NRA members, gun owners and all freedom-loving Americans should heed Michelle Obama’s warning. We must spend the next 13 months working to make sure her husband doesn’t get four more years to destroy American freedom for generations to come.

Chris W. Cox is the Executive Director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) and serves as the organization’s chief lobbyist.