Entries Tagged 'supreme Court' ↓

McKennan Park Monster House owners ask for remodeling advice from the SD Supreme Court

You can’t make this stuff up;

In these latest documents for a rehearing with the Supreme Court, the Sapienzas’ attorney says that circuit court decision didn’t consider how remodeling, or tearing down and rebuilding will harm his clients.

That is not the concern of the courts. You own the house, you paid someone to design it and build it, so guess what, it’s your problem.

My guess is the SD Supreme Court will deny the re-hearing and inform the Sepienzas’ to hire a good handy man, one that is licensed and bonded of course 🙂

We need to Repeal our State Legislature

Why is the city paying for something the state should cover?

I got a surprise yesterday while attending the City Council working session. As some of you may or may not know, while the state shares revenue with alcohol sales, they don’t reimburse the city police department for conducting alcohol sale stings. I think a solution would be the city PD to stop doing the stings and require the Highway Patrol (which gets state funding) to do the stings.

Kenny Anderson says the problem is that people who fail the stings are not the owners or managers in most cases, it’s the clerks. While this is true, it is also the responsibility of the company to properly train their employees AND hire responsible people.

I have often said the solution is simple. Require anyone who is purchasing alcohol or tobacco to put their ID in a scanner. If they don’t or if the ID is incorrect, the cash register would refuse the sale. Of course, this would piss off a lot of older people who clearly look old enough to purchase. This would also probably get blow back from the malt beverage industry. I know a few years ago I read a study that said over 30% of beer that is consumed in this country is drunk by underage people. That’s a lot of lost revenue if roadblocks are put for these people to purchase.

Texting Ban – Still pointless & Unneeded

When the city decided to pass a texting ban, I agreed with councilor Staggers and some members of the Highway Patrol and SFPD, that it was unneeded because there are already laws in place like distracted driving and reckless driving that cover texting and driving. If you cause an accident while texting or talking on your phone, or  eating a hamburger or scratching your butt while driving, you will get one of these tickets. Don’t get me wrong, I think texting while driving is idiotic, but since the Supreme Court’s ruling yesterday about getting a warrant to search someone’s phone, it is going to be a lot harder to prove someone was texting and driving. That pesky US Constitution and 4th Amendment prevailed once again. Just wondering when our state legislature and city council are going to bother reading it and stop passing pointless laws and ordinances?

Is SC nominee Elena Kagan gay? Who cares.

To tell you the truth I think it would be fantastic to have a gay Supreme Court justice. Heck, we have a (half) black president, why not go all the way . . . (from Gawker);

Verdict: Between the hair, the softball, the “open secret” at Harvard, the purported partner, and the Andrew Sullivan outing, I’m going to go ahead and guess she’s gay. It should be interesting to see how her orientation plays out during the confirmation process and whether or not anyone on the Judiciary Committee will come right out and ask her.

People really need to start worrying about the real issues facing our country; War, environment, healthcare and the separation of classes. If Elena has a girlfriend how does that affect me?

Obama’s SCOTUS nomination

Five Supreme Court judges prove to be corporate tools


What good it the First Amendment if we can’t let non-people use it to?

While I am a registered Indy, I often lean to the left but have supported Republicans in the past, but I think what bugs me the most about Conservative Republicans is how they will bend over backwards to trample on the little guy so corporations can have their way, and this ruling proves it;

Some South Dakota political operatives are wary of a U.S. Supreme Court decision handed down Thursday that nullifies a 100-year-old restriction and allows corporations and unions to spend more money to influence federal elections.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court overturned rules that barred corporations and unions from using their money to sway federal elections and ruled that corporations have the same First Amendment rights as individuals to spend as much as they wish to persuade voters to elect or defeat candidates for Congress and the White House.

This is disgusting on many levels, it would be one thing if the 5 justices that voted for this were just a bunch of regular Joes before they rolled into the SC, but not the case at all. Chief Justice John Roberts was a corporate tool before he got the job, and before that he worked for the second worst president we ever had, Ronald Reagan. He has an agenda, and that agenda has nothing to do with joe-six-pack.

Joel Rosenthal, former chairman of the state Republican Party, said the decision goes against what most people want.

“The public mood today is, ‘Let’s get this money out of politics,’ ” Rosenthal said. “This allows more money in.”

While I agree a 100% with Joel’s STATEMENT I find it ironic that he would say this, since he has assisted city candidates in the past that have taken plenty of money from BIG DEVELOPMENT company owners. But, hey, that’s okay because the companies themselves aren’t cutting the checks 🙂

Mark Anderson, president of the South Dakota Federation of Labor, said corporations aren’t people, and the First Amendment shouldn’t apply. Thursday’s decision “squeezes out the little guy.”

Well, Mark, not sure if you have not noticed, but the little guy has been squeezed out for a long, long, time.

Also, the court affirmed federal rules that require sponsors of political ads to disclose who paid for them.

In small 4 point type, of course.

Most experts have predicted the decision will send millions of extra dollars flooding into this fall’s elections. And they predict Republicans will be the main beneficiaries.

Get outta here! Makes you wonder why people even bother to vote anymore?

The dissenters included the three Democratic appointees: Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. They joined a dissent written by 89-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens. Speaking from the bench, he called Thursday’s decision “a radical change in the law … that dramatically enhances the role of corporations and unions – and the narrow interests they represent – in determining who will hold public office.”

In other words, Bend over America!