Sensible Views Weblog

Sensible – [sen-suh-buhl] – having, using, or showing good sense or sound judgment

Archive for August 2010

Blatant anti-semitic remarks at 9-11 Mosque counter protest protected by crowd – Citizen Reporter who called attention to the remark attacked and ejected

leave a comment »

At a 9-11 mosque counter-protest, several speakers called for support of the mosque as an expression of the Constitutionally protected freedom of religion, and passionately urged an end to racism against Arab Americans and other ethnic groups that might practice Islam. But why the counter protestors didn’t throw the racist in their midst out, but instead tried to eject a citizen reporter who was filming the speakers seems confusing to me.

During a speech by a Pakistani ‘counter protestor’, he objects to those in opposition to 9-11 mosque, saying this was not a time to be supporting “zionist jewish Israel”.

When the reporter properly called attention to the man’s revealingly blatant anti-semitic remark (3:55), another man sympathetic to the man’s anti-semitism cursed at the reporter, saying, “F*ck you. Go F*ck yourself” etc. then he grabbed at and hit the reporter’s camera while trying to strike the reporter.

When the reporter tried to defend himself, the crowd turned on him, apparently ready to protect the hostile anti-semite rather than find out what actually happened. I think perhaps some true colors are shining through.

The action begins to take place from about the 3:55 mark and then it just deteriorates from that point in the video.

Related article:

Anti-Semitic Incident at Ground Zero Mosque Counter Protest

Advertisements

BREAKING: Christian Aid Workers Killed in Taliban Ambush in Afghanistan

leave a comment »

Written by sensibleviews

August 7, 2010 at 10:07 am

Arizona Court Decision S.B. 1070: Does anyone ever READ the Constitution anymore??

leave a comment »

Arizona - The Grand Canyon State - State Motto: (Latin) Ditat Deus ~ "God Enriches"

I’m not real sure why Governor Brewer has not asked that the ‘decision’ against them by an Arizona judge over their new illegal immigration law be thrown out on grounds that said court does not have jurisdiction over the State of Arizona. Only the Supreme Court does.

In contrast to the Supreme Court, which was established by Article III of the Constitution, the district courts were established by Congress. There is no constitutional requirement that there be any district courts at all.

(Source: Wikipedia – District Courts)

Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution says:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction…

Check out Federalist No. 81 (13th para), Alexander Hamilton comments on Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2:

…Let us now examine in what manner the judicial authority is to be distributed between the supreme and the inferior courts of the Union. The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only “in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party.” Public ministers of every class are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns. All questions in which they are concerned are so directly connected with the public peace, that, as well for the preservation of this, as out of respect to the sovereignties they represent, it is both expedient and proper that such questions should be submitted in the first instance to the highest judicatory of the nation. Though consuls have not in strictness a diplomatic character, yet as they are the public agents of the nations to which they belong, the same observation is in a great measure applicable to them. In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal….”

Frankly I wonder if this would also apply to Prop 8 in California since both Judge Susan Bolton (AZ) and Judge Vaughn Walker (CA) are just U.S. District judges… Another really good reason our nation’s leaders need to read and understand the U.S. Constitution. Oh, if they only felt the document was actually applicable today.

(Article reference source – Canada Free Press: ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial)

“Educate and inform the whole mass of the people… They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.” ~~ Thomas Jefferson

Is Kagan Congress’ LEAST favorite SC appointee in history? Almost.

leave a comment »

Elena KaganOn Saturday, August 7th, 2010, in the midst of the Dog Days of Summer, Elena Kagan will be sworn in as the next justice of the SCOTUS, and one of three woman concurrently serving on what has historically been a court dominated by men. A momentous occasion to say the least, and one that Barack Obama is no doubt proud of.

But is there another historic (and a bit embarrassing) aspect to this particular appointment that a lot of people know about? Why, yes. Yes there is.

Only ONE Supreme Court appointee before her has been less popular with the Congress voting on their appointment.

Check this out: Kagan Corollary: Victory for Judicial Restraint and Bring on 2012

Maybe not such a thrilling appointment for the dems after all, is it Chris Matthews?

Written by sensibleviews

August 6, 2010 at 12:35 pm