At least there is some good news today

A bi-partisan House majority just voted Holder in contempt for refusing to turn over his Fast and Furious records.

Individual Maindate is gone as a mandate, but apparently survives as a tax

I will update when I have read the decision.  Right now there are dueling reports, but based upon one excerpt, it looks like Roberts joined the liberals to basically uphold the act.

Update:  It appears as though Roberts said the mandate was unsupported by Congresses Commerce Clause powers, but they are free to tax the crap out of us for a social(ist) program.

Update 2:  I read the decision.  I hate the decision, but Roberts may be technically correct.  He correctly held that the Federal Government cannot compel anyone into commerce.  They can regulate and tax the heck out of commerce, but they cannot force you to engage in it.  However, under their power to tax you, they can basically say that you are going to be taxed if you make a certain amount and you fail to buy insurance.  I could really go off here on Obama's many quotes about how Obamacare is not a tax, but I will not bother to rehash the obvious.  However, I agree with Roberts that Congress can Constitutionally tax the heck out of me and then spend my hard earned money in ways I think are ridiculous.  I have to be intellectually honest and consistent.  I hate an activist Court.  No one gave them the power to legislate from the bench.  My, and your, recourse is at the ballot box.  So as much as I agree with everyone who says vote your principles, I implore you to vote your principles unless the principled candidate cannot win, and in that case to vote Republican.  Romney with a Republican House and Senate will trash Obamacare.

What will the Supremes do today?

I think they will throw the whole thing out, lock, stock and barrel.  Roberts is the key figure for more reasons than one.  However, if he votes with the majority, he will decide who writes the opinion.  If they want to, each Justice could theoretically write their own concurring or dissenting opinion.  They try hard, however, to join in one majority opinion because then it becomes clear what the law of the land is.  No real precedent is set if the majority of the Justices vote the same way, but give different rational for their decision.  And I think Roberts knows that this will be at least one of the decisions that define his court.  He has a tough job trying to get very disparate views in line on this one.  I think his instinct would be to throw out only the individual mandate and let the legislature wrestle with what is left over because his core belief is to not legislate from the bench.  However, if he does that, I believe a number of Justices would fracture off from him.  We would be left with a mess of concurring in part, dissenting in part, and agreeing and disagreeing in part because of the the legal bases for each aspect of the ruling.  So in order to maintain his coalition on the right of the Court, I think he will grudgingly agree to strike the whole law.  For the record, I think that is the correct decision because Congress failed to include a severability clause whereby the rest of the law would remain if part were struck and also because there would be an unfunded mess if they just chucked the individual mandate.  Now let's sit back and see what the only 9 people whose opinion counts decide what to do.

What did Obama know and when did he know it?

OK, I admit it.  I stole the photo from Drudge.  But it is pretty funny.  After Barack "you should never hide behind executive privilege" Obama asserted executive privilege against the House in its subpoena of Holder for Fast n Furious documents in the Justice Department, one has to wonder: why is Obama asserting a privilege over documents he has supposedly never even seen?

Thank the Good Lord and our founding forefathers

For the Supreme Court.  It would appear as though they are set to strike down Obamacare.  Because when you get a government run program, such as in England, that makes decisions based upon actuarial tables and limited budgets, you get the government killing off 130,000 elderly patients every year.

Wow, a rare outbreak of common sense in a Massachusetts court

An atheist couple brought suit to enjoin the utterance of "under God" while reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in a school.  And a actually threw the claim out!

 Middlesex Superior Court judge has rejected a lawsuit by an atheist couple and their children who sued the Acton-Boxbrough Regional School District and the Acton schools challenging the use of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Judge S. Jane Haggerty, in a ruling released Friday, said the daily recitation of the pledge with those words did not violate the plaintiffs’ rights under the Massachusetts Constitution, did not violate the school district’s antidiscrimination policy, and did not violate state law.

The plaintiffs, while acknowledging that the children had the right to refuse to participate in the pledge, asserted that the phrase “under God” was a “religious truth” that contradicted their beliefs, Haggerty said.

The defendants argued that the pledge, rather than a religious document or ceremony, is a patriotic exercise and statement of political philosophy, according to the ruling.

The judge observed that the case presents a “familiar dilemma in our pluralistic society — how to balance conflicting interests when one group wants to do something for patriotic reasons that another group finds offensive to its religious (or atheistic) beliefs.”

The judge ruled in her 25-page opinion that the phrase “under God” was not a religious truth.

Citing previous opinions, she said that the daily flag salute and pledge in schools are “clearly designed to inculcate patriotism and to instill a recognition of the blessings conferred by orderly government under the constitutions of the state and nation.”

“The Pledge is a voluntary patriotic exercise, and the inclusion of the phrase ‘under God’ does not convert the exercise into a prayer,” she wrote.

“As recently as 2002, Congress reaffirmed the terms of the Pledge,” she noted, “making findings that support the conclusion that including the phrase ‘under God’ did not transform the Pledge into a religious exercise but rather was intended to reflect the history and political philosophy of the United States.”

Named as a defendant in the litigation was Stephen E. Mills, superintendent of both the Acton-Boxborough regional and Acton public school systems.

Today, Mills released a copy of the memo he sent to the school committee detailing Haggerty’s ruling in favor of the existing practice inside the systems’ classrooms.

“The court upheld the school district’s longstanding practice of leading children in the Pledge of Allegiance, which is also required under our state law,’’ Mills wrote.

“The school districts have maintained throughout this lawsuit that we have not engaged in unlawful discrimination against its students, specifically with respect to their religious beliefs as was alleged in this case,’’ Mills wrote.

Mills added that “we are pleased with the court’s decision regarding the claim of discrimination and we continue to work hard to provide a positive and accepting educational environment for all of the students in the communities that we serve.’’

The names of the children and their parents who brought the lawsuit was not disclosed in court papers, but they were represented by Fitchburg attorney David Niose on behalf of the American Humanist Association.

Niose is also president of the association, and he promises on his website to appeal Haggerty’s ruling.

“If conducting a daily classroom exercise that marginalizes one religious group while exalting another does not violate basic principles of equal rights and nondiscrimination, then I don’t know what does,’’ he wrote.

During the litigation, Daniel and Ingrid Joyce family stepped forward on behalf of their two children to defend the inclusion of the words, “under God’’ with the support of the Catholic fraternal organization, the Knights of Columbus, and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

“This is a great victory for everyone who believes that human rights come not from the whim of the government, but from a higher power, which is what the Pledge proclaims,” Diana Verm, legal counsel of the Becket Fund wrote on the fund’s website.

The Becket Fund reported on its site that the Acton-Boxborough litigation was the fourth major lawsuit targeting the phrase “under God’’ in the pledge and is also the fourth time that courts have ruled in favor of retaining the phrase.

I wonder if Eric Holder is going after the Massachusetts Democratic Party?

He certainly has been very busy with voting laws down in Florida.  First he went into court to temporarily restrain the State from enforcing its Voter Registration Law which was enacted lat year and was designed to stop the ACORNs of the State from massive--and fraudulent--voter registration drives.  Next he sent a threatening letter to Ken Detzner, the Florida Secretary of State who is leading the effort to purge the voter rolls of illegal (or dead, or moved away, etc.) registrants.  Secretary Detzner has in the past asked the Obama administration for information that would make the process more efficient, only to be stonewalled.  Now Obama's Attorney General is threatening suit to stop the cleaning up of the rolls.  Apparently, after Due consideration, Secretary Detzner told Holder and Obama to go worry about the jobs they were (not) doing in DC and leave voter registration in Florida to Florida.

Then I read on Breitbart that you needed a valid photo ID to get into the State Democratic convention this past weekend.  Surely General Holder will not stand for such blatant disenfranchisement of the poorest and least represented among us!

I always thought this was the case

A Florida man was driving home one day and he saw a Seminole County Sheriff's car parked of the road in a speed trap.  So the man started to flash his lights to oncoming traffic.  Only one of those cars was another deputy, who promptly gave him a ticket.  Well, our hero fought the police action on two grounds.  First he said that the statue they county relied on was not intended for flashing your headlights but rather to prevent average citizens from using flashing emergency lights on their cars while driving down public ways.  Second, he said he was using his headlights to communicate with the on-coming drivers.  Therefore, any attempt to stop him was violative of his First Amendment right to free speech.  Both arguments had great merit.  He could have one on the first grounds that the sheriffs overreached to apply the emergency light statute.  However, the judge took on the Constitutional issues.  And the driver won.  So people, feel free to freely express yourself.  The next ticket that is saved may be your own.

You know the Whitehouse is in trouble when . . .

The toadies in the Main Stream Media are laughing out loud at the Press Secretary's answers.  I am at heart a libertarian in that I do not want you to tell me what to do and I will not tell you what to do.  However, when it comes to gay marriage, please spare me with the equating it to civil rights.  If you and a consenting person are having fun, then great.  Just don't try to tell me that you need the same constitutional protection as someone whose race is readily apparent by their skin color.  It may be a behavioral choice you want to make, but I am not going to march into Selma demanding that the rest of the world has to recognize that choice.  Having said that, I could not really give a hoot if some States want to sanction certain unions or not.  I do think it is funny that Perpetual Foot In Mouth Biden stirred up a hornets nests with his comments about how he could learn to live with gay marriage.  Which of course made everyone look back at Obama's position on the issue.  He isn't for it.  Nor is he against it.  In fact, his position is "evolving" as we speak.  And as the Washington Post points out, the more his Spokesman tried to explain that one, the more the press had fun with him:

Carney tried to parry the same-sex-marriage questions, gamely at first and then testily as reporters began to laugh at his answers. He grew uncharacteristically flustered. When an unrelated question came about whether Obama would support the reelection of scandal-plagued Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), Carney answered: “I mean — well, yes, sure. I just don’t — I haven’t — I haven’t been asked it before so I. . . . The president — I’ll have to — I’ll have to get back to you.”

Is this guy the worst solicitor general ever?

The Solicitor General is basically the President's top appellate attorney.  He or she argue important matters of federal law in front of the Supreme Court of the United States.  The office was first established in 1870.  Among our past Solicitors General are the likes of William H. Taft, Archibald Cox, Thurgood Marshall, Robert Bork and Ken Starr.  Impressive barristers one and all.  Obama chose one Mr. Donald Verrelli, Jr. to be his principal advocate before the Court.  And I am not sure if this guy can even string a sentence together let alone parse through a cogent argument at law.  You may remember that he was universally slammed for stammering his way through the oral argument over Obamacare.  Don't get me wrong, he was dealt a bad legal hand.  Nonetheless, there were arguments he could have and should have made.  He just could not seem to get any of them out.  Well, my brother at the bar Mr. Verrelli is once again showcasing his advocacy skills, this time in arguing to overturn the Arizona immigration law.  And once again he fumbled and stumbled.

Sometimes your clients say very inconvenient things

I know this and, as an attorney, have experienced it too often.  That is why I feel sorry for Dana Lydia Kaersvang.  She works for the Department of Justice.  Yesterday she was all set to argue an appeal before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.  The court was hearing a separate appeal by a group of physician owned hospitals on the Constitutionality of the Obamacare law.  Only poor Ms. Kaersvang never got a chance to argue her case.  Her client, Barack Obama, had just the day before very publicly and very loudly questioned whether there was precedent for a federal court to strike down a law that the court found to be unconstitutional which had been passed by the popularly elected Congress.  So just as my sister at the bar had begun to speak, Judge Jerry Smith interrupted her and asked whether it was her client's, and thus the Attorney General's and her, position that the court had no power to hear the appeal and, if the court felt the challenge had merit, to strike down a law that they determined was not allowed by the Constitution.  She did better than I probably would have.  She cited Marbury v. Madison for the long settled principle and precedent that the courts unquestionably had that power.  Nonetheless, Judge Smith suspended the argument and directed her to file in writing either an admission by the Attorney General and his client, the President, that the court has the power to review a Constitutional challenge to the Federal statute or to explain their rationale for why it did not.  Much backtracking has ensued.

I thought that Obama was a Constitutional law professor in between his stints as a community organizer and a Senator

Chief Justice John Marshall

But apparently he hasn't read much Constitutional Law.  Perhaps the most important case ever decided since the adoption of the Constitution was Marbury v. Madison.  John Adams, an ardent Federalist, lost the election in 1800 to Thomas Jefferson.  Since Jefferson was not to take office until March of 1801, Adams and the lame duck Federalist controlled Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which tremendously expanded the number of members of the judiciary.  Adams quickly appointed 16 new Federal Circuit Court judges and 42 new Justices of the Peace--Federalists, one and all.  The Adams appointees were approved en masse by the Senate the next day.  However, in order to become effective, the appointments had to delivered to the various appointees.  Most were in fact placed in the hand of the newly named officials.  A few, however, did not get there before Jefferson took office.  And the new (most definitely NON-federalist) Secretary of State, James Madison refused to finish those deliveries.  Squire William Marbury, a Maryland Federalist financier had been appointed as a justice of the peace, but without his appointment in hand, he could not sit.  So he sued Secretary Madison, asking the Supreme Court to order him to carry out his duty.  Perhaps the greatest Chief Justice to ever don a robe, John Marshall wrote the opinion of the Court.  He held that Marbury had a claim and that it was remediable.  However, he stopped short of ordering Madison to give over the appointment (which Madison could have ignored since he and Jefferson had the army, and Marshall had naught but a pen).  Instead, Marshall found that the Judiciary Act of 1789, wherein Congress gave the Supreme Court jurisdiction to hear petitions of that nature, was unconstitutional because Congress had therein purported to convey to the Court powers that were beyond Article III of the Constitution.  Article III governs the judicial branch of government.  One has to wonder at what point in time during their celebrations did Messrs Jefferson and Madison realize they had been had.  Marshall seemingly sided with them and kept a Federalist off the bench.  However, the Court had firmly set the precedent that it was the final arbiter in the review of all executive and congressional acts to see whether they were allowed by the Constitution.  Thus was born the concept of judicial review.  So Mr. President, when you state that it would be unprecedented for this Court to strike down Obamacare as an unconstitutional exercise of power under the Commerce Clause, perhaps you should go back and dust off those law books.  The precedent was set over two centuries ago.

There may be some empirical evidence that the SCOTUS will toss Obamacare

Michael Evans has looked at past oral arguments in front of the Court.  It turns out that the number of questions asked/statements made by the various Justices is a reasonably predictive of how they will vote on a case before them.  In essence, if a Justice asks more questions of a counsel, he opposes the propositions made by that counsel.  The counsel at bar in the Obamacare case were Verrelli for Obama on the side of upholding the law and Clement for the 26 States with Cavin for the private business groups that opposed the law on the other hand.  Below is a chart of the number of words in questions for the various counsel by each of the Justices.  Thomas rarely says anything, ever, but we know he will vote with Alito and Scalia to throw the law out.  If form holds true then, the SCOTUS will dump Obamacare by a 5-4 vote.  And that is directly in line with the observations of most of the pundits and legal observers that I have read.

Too much to hope for?

The LA Times is reporting that the Court seems ready to strike down the entire Obamacare law:

The court’s conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.

"One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto," said Justice Antonin Scalia.

Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.

***

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they shared the view of Scalia and Kennedy that the law should stand or fall in total. Along with Justice Clarence Thomas, they would have a majority to strike down the entire statute as unconstitutional.

As I have already said, I think that, once you declare the individual mandate invalid, the correct Constitutional law answer is that the entire statute must be invalidated.  I just thought non-legal constraints might force a compromise.

[Update: CNN's legal analyst has downgraded the SCOTUS review from a trainwreck for Obama to a Plane wreck.  "Hard to imagine how things could be going much worse for the Obama Administration."]

Obamacare Appeal Day 3

This morning the SCOTUS heard arguments on whether, if the individual mandate were to be struck down, the rest of the law should be declared invalid.  This afternoon the focus will turn to whether the unfunded mandates on State spending for Medicaid are permissible.  I haven't paid too much attention to the arguments yet, but have thought about both issues.  My (admittedly simple) thoughts are as follows: The whole law should be thrown out, but that may not happen.  The "savings" or "severability" clause was taken out of the House Bill when the Senate passed it, and the law eventually had no such provision.  Congress will typically put that language in a law when it is enacting legislation that has several parts, any one of which can stand on its own.  Absent such language, the Courts will generally take it as a sign that Congress intended the whole law to rise or fall as one piece because the parts were inseparably intertwined.  In this case, certain of the provisions clearly cannot go forward on their own.  Absent the individual mandate, how can you require an insurance company to insure everyone irrespective of existing medical condition?  They just couldn't pay for it.  However, other sections, such as requiring insurance companies to continue to ensure children past the age of majority could pass muster and be enacted on their own.  The reason I think they ought to be thrown out as a package is three fold.  First, Congress had severability language in the Bill, but took it out.  I take that as a clear indication that the lawmakers thought the legislation was a package deal.  Second, the Court does not have the expertise to parse the fine policy points of the legislation which is a function that is Constitutionally left to Congress.  Finally, most of the remaining provisions were bargained for compromises that never would have passed if they were not linked to the individual mandate.  The reason I think it will likely not be thrown out as a package is because it is in the genetic fabric of the Supreme Court to compromise--because it is important to avoid the appearance of being a political body and because a Justice must work with the other Justices on the country's most important issues in close quarters and for the rest of the their lives.  As to the Medicaid portion, apart from the precedent and policy reasons for the SCOTUS to strike down entire laws as opposed to parts of laws, I think it probably should not be struck down.  A State may always opt out of Medicaid and fund its own programs.  That may be expensive and therefore impractical, but I have a hard time siding with the States who claim that the Fed's coercive program is not Constitutional.  They do it all the time.  For example, a State can change the drinking age to whatever it wants, but if it does so, it will lose a LOT of money from the federal highway programs.

My read on the SCOTUS justices

I have read the transcripts.  If you have an interest in Constitutional law or the healthcare debate I recommend that you do so, as well.  I definitely think the individual mandate is toast.  Too many pointed questions that are too good, not too esoteric or academic, and for which the Solicitor General had no good answer.  I also thought the "swing votes", and specifically Kennedy, seemed far to skeptical to turn around and issue and opinion upholding Obamacare as a legitimate exercise of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause.  I also got the impression that, if any of the Justices cross over to join the "other" side, it may be Sotomayor.  Read the transcript pages starting at p. 21.  The colloquy between Justice Sotomayor and Solicitor General Verrilli is quite interesting.  It culminates on p. 23 where the Justice flat out asks Verrelli if Congress was forcing individuals into commerce and then asks if there are any limits to that power.  Those are the two themes that the conservative wing of the court has really hammered.  And she seems legitimately troubled by them.

I also recommend reading the Kennedy questioning beginning at p. 104.  His early and often hammering of Verrelli got a lot of play yesterday, and deservedly so.  However, this latter exchange with Michael Carvin representing a private business group opposing the law may be more instructive as to how Kennedy will vote. He seems so incensed by the counter arguments that he comes very close to breaking convention and telling counsel how he will rule.  When Carvin questions Congress's method of "regulating" by forcing people to buy health insurance, Justice Kennedy actually says, "I agree--I agree that is what is happening here."  He then goes on to point out that if the "uniqueness" of the healthcare market is grounds for allowing Congress to force people into that market, they could go on and say the same thing about any market in the world of commerce.  I would be very surprised if Kennedy supports upholding the individual mandate.

SCOTUS tea leaves

The only important caveat to assigning predictive value to the  Justices' questions at oral argument is that you do so at your own peril.  Particularly on fun and important novel questions of law, appellate justices often give all counsel, including those they agree with, a rigorous and sometimes brutal working over.  It is the law school professor in them.  They like to ask impossible to answer questions to see what kind of intellectual spark they light when the poor attorney tries to be responsive.  However, it is more common than not that one can catch the flavor, if not the conclusions, of individual justices' thinking.  If so, then the first arguments today in front of the Supreme Court is a foreboding sign for Obamacare's individual mandate.  The individual mandate would purport to require each of us to either buy insurance or pay the government so they can insure us.  In essence, the Democrats justified the law under Congresses power to regulate interstate commerce, but there is no real precedent for a law the requires citizens to engage in commerce as opposed to regulating that commerce once we have become so engaged.  The Solicitor General, who serves as the administration's top lawyer, did not get three minutes into his defense of the law when he started to get ripped.  As importantly as the fact that certain justices were leveling broadsides at him, is who they are.  Alito and Thomas are certain votes to throw at least the mandate, if not the whole law, out.  That means that three other justices are needed to get a majority.  There has been some discussion that Scalia could be turned because of a couple of cases that he had joined in which he recognized an expanded congressional commerce clause power.  Others postulated that Chief Justice Roberts would be leery of tarnishing his legacy by giving the appearance of partisanship by trashing Obama and Pelosi's signature policy legislation.  Most SCOTUS observers, however, placed the highest likelihood of the law being upheld with Justice Kennedy, the most common swing vote, siding with the four liberal judges as he has many times in the past.  Well, guess who started the argument by flattening the Solicitor General?  That's right, Scalia, Roberts and maybe harshest of all, Kennedy.  This post from the LA Times has a good summary:

Even before the administration's top lawyer could get three minutes into his defense of the mandate, some justices accused the government of pushing for excessive authority to require Americans to buy anything.

"Are there any limits," asked Justice Anthony Kennedy, one of three conservative justices whose votes are seen as crucial to the fate of the unprecedented insurance mandate.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested that the government might require Americans to buy cellphones to be ready for emergencies. And Justice Antonin Scalia asked if the government might require Americans to buy broccoli or automobiles.

"If the government can do this, what else can it ... do?” Scalia asked.

It that the sound of liberal wailing and gnashing of teeth I hear in the distance?  Growing louder?

[Update: The Washington Post reads the tea leaves the same way the LA Times did]


The Washington Post is a fairly liberal Newspaper that often carries the Obama administration's water.  Which means this article must be causing more that a little discomfort in the White House:

The Supreme Court’s conservative justices appeared deeply skeptical that the Constitution gives Congress the power to compel Americans to either purchase health insurance or pay a penalty, as the court completed two hours of debate Tuesday on the key component of the nation’s health-care overhaul law.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, traditionally the justice most likely to side with the court’s liberals, suggested that the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act invoked a power “beyond what our cases allow” the Congress to wield in regulating interstate commerce.

 “Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?” he asked.

[Further Update: As did the Clinton News Network]

CNN, another liberal bastion of the MSM had a similar read:

 Jeffrey Toobin, CNN's senior legal analyst, said questions asked at oral arguments often show how justices are thinking, and based on what he heard Tuesday, the health care reform law could be in "grave danger."

It is happening

Or at least Obama is trying to make it happen.  You remember when Obama got elected and we were all worried he was trying to make the US subservient to a new world order led by the UN and the Europeans.  Cuz they are soooooo much more civilized than we are?  He's tried it with things like AGW and carbon taxes/credits, but that whole thing was a house of cards so he had to jump off of the Kyoto through Durban fantasy of equalizing our wealth to everyone else for the greater good.  Well, Leon Panetta may have just crossed the line.  He told Congress the legal basis for enforcing a no-fly in Syria was international permission to do so.  Excuse me!?  Hitler and the Axis powers would have given international permission for us to start massacring Jews.  That is exactly why our founders placed the only limits on Executive military action within our Constitution.  Whether it is through a declaration of war, a separate war powers act or even a treaty (which must by ratified by the Senate to be effective), the Constitution prohibits any President from taking military action unless it is "legal" within these fifty states.  And if Panetta violates the Constitution for the benefit of and at the orders of another country, I believe the technical legal term is "treason."

This is really troubling

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death the right to say it."  That quote is generally attributed to Voltaire, though whoever said it certainly put forth perhaps the most basic principle upon which this nation was founded.  That is why this article in the Daily Mail is so disturbing:

U.S falls to 47th in press freedom rankings after Occupy crackdown

The article is about an annual ranking by a group call Reporters Without Borders.  I know nothing about them and cannot vouch for the reliability of the ranking.  However, the fact is that we should always and unquestionably be the most free of all countries when it comes to the freedoms of expression, including the press (even though I, like Voltaire, often disapprove of what the biased MSM says).  And as to the Occupods, we should let the idiots freeze in unanimity.  Giving them any air time or ink was more than they deserved.  Nonetheless, I will defend to the death their right to be frozen idiots.

Damn straight I maced your Grandma, the chemicals that she used to turn her hair blue may have been freaking explosive!

Big sister and the Keystone Cops are at it again.  Once again you can rest easily.  According to the Leesburg, Florida Daily Commercial, Big Sister is right on the job:

But it was only Federal Protective Service officers with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security who were conducting a random training operation early Tuesday morning when they surprisingly showed up at the Social Security Administration office in downtown Leesburg.

With their blue and white SUVs circled around the Main Street office, at least one official was posted on the door with a semiautomatic rifle, randomly checking identifications. And other officers, some with K-9s, sifted through the building.

 Whew! That's a relief.  Wait a minute, the Social Security Administration office!?  So in addition to tracking the activities of peaceful political advocacy groups, and arresting photographers at political rallies, and let's not forget arresting people who complain to the VA (even though they admit the complainant had never made any threats and admit that even if there were a crime, it was a violation of a State misdemeanor statute) and certainly let's not forget that the DHS is now keeping hockey games safe for America--the Obama Administration's Department of Homeland Security is now pointing automatic weapons at retirees for my benefit and the general good.  OK, then.  That about says it all.