January 27, 2011
Another 9th Circuit Smackdown from the Supremes
The only certain things in life are death, taxes, and the U.S. Supreme Court delivering (with metronomic regularity) a rolled-up-per-curiam-opinion, smack-on-the-snout "No! Bad dog!" correction to the incorrigible, hard-left members of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
In the latest "Bad court!" reversal, Swarthout v. Cooke, the U.S. Supreme Court delivers a stinging rebuke to a panel led by the execrable Justice Stephen Rheinhardt, ACLU head Ramona Ripston's lesser half.
The facts are these:
Two convicted killers were denied parole. They appealed those decisions to the California Supreme Court; their appeal was denied. The killers then sought a writ of habeas corpus in the federal courts, which was granted.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed that decision, holding that the governor was wrong to rely on the heinous nature of the murder in denying one killer parole, and that the state court was wrong to deny parole to the other murderer as a result of incorrectly deciding he still presented a threat to public safety.
The U.S. Supreme Court was not amused.
In granting habeas relief based on its conclusion that the state courts had misapplied California’s “some evidence” rule, the Ninth Circuit must have assumed either that federal habeas relief is available for an error of state law, or that correct application of the State’s “some evidence” standard is required by the federal Due Process Clause. Neither assumption is correct.
[...]
The Ninth Circuit’s questionable finding that there was no evidence in the record supporting the parole denials is irrelevant unless there is a federal right at stake, as§2254(a) requires.
The short of the matter is that the responsibility for assuring that the constitutionally adequate procedures governing California’s parole system are properly applied rests with California courts, and is no part of the Ninth Circuit’s business.
The opinion's only eight pages long, filled with barely concealed frustration. And there's even a concurrence from Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
There's a reason some of us call it the Ninth Circus.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:06 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 17, 2011
Michael Ramirez helps explain Tucson
Posted by Mike Lief at 10:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 14, 2011
Sissy, thy name is Brokaw
Tom Brokaw -- who once wrote about the manly men who fought and won World War II, dubbing them "The Greatest Generation" -- demonstrates that a lifetime spent in New York, Washington, D.C., and Hollywood, and hobnobbing with the political and media elite has rendered him a thumb-sucking sissy, terrified of law-abiding Americans who might be packing heat.
TOM BROKAW: Here is why I think there are a lot of Glocks being sold: because gun owners are worried that they're going to be outlawed. That's what happened when President Obama first took office is that people were buying ammunition and storing it in underground bunkers because they thought he was going to outlaw guns and ammunition. Gun control is too simple a phrase to define all the complications and nuances of it, frankly. In Arizona they have a wide open system. I would be nervous about going into a bar or restaurant in Arizona on a Saturday night where people can carry concealed without permits.
Sigh.
Does Brokaw understand that criminals have been carrying concealed without permits since the beginning of time? Washington, D.C., and Chicago have had the most draconian gun bans in place for decades. Brokaw would have felt comfortable going out on a Saturday night in those towns, because, as everyone knows, making something illegal prevents the behavior from occurring. Which explains why there were virtually no gun-related homicides in those cities, right?
The reality is, of course, that Chicago and D.C. have had homicide rates significantly higher than in cities which allow concealed carry by law-abiding citizens because -- are you sitting down? -- crooks often ignore laws, including those that prohibit felons from owning and carrying firearms.
What a pathetic display.
Found via NewsBusters.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:01 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
January 01, 2011
County supervisor reveals her priorities for 2011
Republicans are outnumbered on the Ventura County Board of Supervisors, where the liberals -- led by Supervisor Steve Bennett -- run the table. Linda Parks, the Republican who represents Thousand Oaks (and portions of other cities) was challenged by Audra Strickland during the primary; Strickland campaigned as the "true" Republican, charging that Parks was a RINO, a Republican in Name Only.
Parks defeated Strickland handily, going on to win in the general election, too. And, as she makes clear in the latest edition of the Ventura County Reporter, she's eager to prove Stickland and other conservative critics wrong in 2011, putting business-friendly policies and job creation at the top of her agenda.
Just kidding.
Check out Parks' top priorities for the new year:
I’d like to see a greater commitment to protecting natural resources for future generations, providing more help for our aging population, increasing access to alternative transportation, and supporting those things that add to our community’s quality of life. In county government, I look forward to new and invigorated programs to protect public safety as we transition to our county’s new sheriff, Geoff Dean; and I look forward to working with our new county executive officer, Michael Powers, to further strengthen our county’s economic health.
Let's see, that's (1) happy-talk environmentalism; (2) pandering to seniors; (3) taxpayer-funded public transit; and (4) inane generalities about "quality of life," all of which have me reaching for my wallet.
In fifth place is public safety, and dead last on Park's agenda is doing something about our lousy economic situation.
Parks goes on:
In terms of land use, our children will see the world’s population double in their lifetimes; and while housing and shopping centers can be built anywhere, high-quality, farmable land is finite, as is water, and these natural resources need to be protected.
While the worlds population might conceivably double in the next 80 years, it won't be because of rapid population growth in the U.S., so her concern about maintaining open space has nothing to do with the birthrate in the rest of the world. More to the point, when you get away from urban population centers, it becomes apparent to the most casual observer that the United States is covered with enormous swathes of undeveloped land, huge regions with few towns and fewer people.
Is there anything Parks hasn't covered in her free-spending wishlist?
Glad you asked.
Additionally, I’d like to see more efforts to develop with foresight, including protection of wildlife corridors so wildlife will continue to thrive in open-space lands in our county.
Wildlife corridors? Seriously?
Sigh.
Ventura County is in the very best of hands.
Happy new year.
Posted by Mike Lief at 08:36 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack