What’s interesting in the news today?
Slow news day.
1. The Supreme Court has thrown out a Mass. “Buffer Zone” law. Surprisingly it was unanimous.
From TheBostonGlobe “The US Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously struck down a Massachusetts law that banned protesters within 35 feet of abortion clinics, ruling that the law infringed upon the First Amendment rights of antiabortion activists.
The decision effectively overturns about 10 fixed-buffer-zone laws across the country, from San Francisco to Portland, Maine, but offers a framework for more limited restrictions around clinic demonstrations, legal experts said.
“They’ve approved the idea of this kind of law, just not the mechanism,” said Jessica Silbey, a Suffolk University Law School professor. “It was too broad.”
State lawmakers said they would act quickly to pass legislation to provide protections for women seeking abortions and counseling. It was unclear what form the legislation would take.”
______________________________________________
2. The Constitutional “scholar” doesn’t seem to understand it very well. He can’t even get his own liberal appointees to agree with him.
From NationalReview “Did you know the Obama administration’s position has been defeated in at least 13 – thirteen — cases before the Supreme Court since January 2012 that were unanimous decisions? It continued its abysmal record before the Supreme Court today with the announcement of two unanimous opinions against arguments the administration had supported. First, the Court rejected the administration’s power grab on recess appointments by making clear it could not decide when the Senate was in recess. Then it unanimously tossed out a law establishing abortion-clinic “buffer zones” against pro-life protests that the Obama administration argued on behalf of before the Court (though the case was led by Massachusetts attorney general Martha Coakley).
The tenure of both President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder has been marked by a dangerous push to legitimize a vast expansion of the power of the federal government that endangers the liberty and freedom of Americans. They have taken such extreme position on key issues that the Court has uncharacteristically slapped them down time and time again. Historically, the Justice Department has won about 70 percent of its cases before the high court. But in each of the last three terms, the Court has ruled against the administration a majority of the time.
So even the liberal justices on the Court, including the two justices appointed by President Barack Obama — Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor — have disagreed with the DOJ’s positions. As George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin told the Washington Times last year, “When the administration loses significant cases in unanimous decisions and cannot even hold the votes of its own appointees . . . it is an indication that they adopted such an extreme position on the scope of federal power that even generally sympathetic judges could not even support it.”
______________________________________________
3. The IRS scandal is getting hard for the press to ignore.
From HotAir “A handful of former IRS executive Lois Lerner’s emails released by the House Ways and Means Committee seem to be serving as a Rorschach test for political actors and members of the press alike. For some, the early reaction to those emails revealed more about an individual’s thinking about the IRS scandal, and the Republican-led House committees, than it did about the alleged misconduct of one of the country’s most powerful law enforcement agencies.”
“This does not help her case, which is already pretty bad to begin with,” CNN’s John King observed on Thursday.
“It fuels the speculation that there was actually a political witch-hunt which was motivated by politics,” Politico’s Manu Raju agreed. “It’s exactly what the administration does not want.”
“Makes it hard for the White House to say ‘This is Republicans trying to make a big partisan issue out of a mistake,’” King noted.
“And it raises the question of if this is something that’s in the emails that we have, what’s in the emails that have disappeared, that don’t exist anymore?” Associated Press reporter Julie Pace observed. “And it provides some actual tangible fodder for these hearings that are going to be happening on the Hill.”
______________________________________________
Wandering Views 
Matt Walsh immigration post that might be interesting:
” … many are, in fact, searching for a better life. I get it. I sympathize. Unfortunately, though, a man’s pure intent does not erase the law, nor does it negate the necessity of things like borders and organized, lawful immigration procedures. … ”
I think there can be two discussions with regard to the crisis now growing on our southern border, one involving a Christian’s response to the stranger (compassion) and another that acknowledges that there is an existing (and necessary) civil law that controls the sovereign border of a nation.
http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/06/27/isnt-mean-hateful-deport-illegal-immigrants/
LikeLike
http://www.worldmag.com/2014/06/stop_human_trafficking_look_at_your_neighbor
LikeLike
I actually approve of the Supreme Court decisions but to be consistent they need to strike down any law limiting public speech on public property — starting with the sidewalk and and plaza outside the Supreme Court building itself. And after that, limits on protests at G7, G20, party conventions etc should be struck down.
http://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-abortion-buffer-zones-decision-2014-6
However, as public protests are allowed and opposing sides are near each other when do self-defense positions and stand your ground laws become applicable? In light of today’s decisions, lets look at a hypothetical incident — a pro-life demonstrator is exercising his/her free speech outside an abortion clinic in Florida and meets a women going to a clinic; a verbal exchange along with some pamphlets given out, things escalate, voices become heated, and the woman attempting to access the clinic pulls out a gun and shoots the protestor. In court she claims she felt imminent
danger and was forced to stand her ground. Or if this scenario isn’t to your liking what if a businessman is denied forward movement by Occupy-type protestors on Wall Street who are exercising their free speech and he too reaches for a gun and claims self defense.
As I stated before I’m in favour of the recent decision and want it extended but at what point are protestors yelling fire in a crowded theatre?
LikeLike
And here’s Krugman on the ACA
LikeLike
hwesseli,
To what extent do hours worked by those at the lowest end of the wage range reflect the ACA limits?
How many people are kept below 30 hours of work so they won’t be covered by the ACA?
We are very good friends (she lived with us for 7 months) with a manager of one of those small businesses inside the front of the major US retailer’s stores. She is allowed to work 40 hours a week. The other ladies are supposed to work less than 30 hours a week. She hears about it if they work over 30 hours.
We can gripe about this style of management but look at it from the employer’s perspective. Their expenses would go up an astronomical amount. Another friend opened a local coffee shop at the other end of the front inside. they had to pay $40,000 just to get in. Assuming the first place, in many of this retailer’s stores, gets a discount, They still have to make money to pay for getting in and for monthly rent. And utilities, and paychecks and …
Many of these workers might like to work more but, thank you ACA.
LikeLike
Short term gain long term pain. Compare Walmart and Costco; the latter is doing much better than Walmart as of late. Those companies which seek to avoid ACA responsibilities will eventually lose in the labour market and when you lose in the labor market as a retailer your sales and profit will decline.
LikeLike