What’s Happening On The Bench This Month
Posted by Michelle Moquin on June 19th, 2014
Good morning!
Speaking of rulings…
From Think Progress:
Seven Big Cases The Supreme Court Will Decide In June That Could Change America
“The generally accepted notion that the court can only hear roughly 150 cases each term gives the same sense of reassurance as the adjournment of the court in July, when we know the Constitution is safe for the summer.”
It’s Supreme Court month again. According to the Court’s official calendar, the final day of the Supreme Court’s current term is the last day of this month — which means that, barring extraordinary circumstances, we should know how the justices intend to resolve each of the issues currently pending before them by June 30.
Among the issues facing the justices are the president’s power to fill top jobs in the face of a recalcitrant Senate, a legal attack on public sector unions, a case questioning when police can search all the data that can be accessed on a person’s cell phone, and an attempt to give employers sweeping immunity from laws they object to on religious grounds. Here are some of the most important cases to be decided this month:
Recess Appointments
On the eve of the Supreme Court’s oral arguments in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, a case that could effectively eliminate the president’s constitutional authority to temporarily appoint government officials while the Senate is in recess, the Obama Administration’s position looked grim. In the lower courts, judges split entirely on partisan lines when they considered this issue — and there are five Republicans on the Supreme Court and only four Democrats. Yet the oral argument in Noel Canning went even worse for the administration than the partisan results in the lower courts would suggest. Clinton-appointed Justice Stephen Breyer said that he could not find anything in the Constitution that will “allow the president to overcome Senate resistance” to a nominee. Obama-appointed Justice Elena Kagan suggested that “it was the Senate’s job to decide” when it’s in recess.
Though there are two possible ways that the justices could snuff out the recess appointments power, the distinction between them is largely academic — in either event a Senate that was determined not to permit recess appointees from taking office will be able to do so. That means that the impact of this decision could be felt in 2015. If Republicans take back the Senate, and the Supreme Court cuts off his recess appointments power, President Obama will be defenseless if Senate Republicans refuse to confirm anyone that he nominates to any job.
The biggest impact of a decision against the administration, however, could be felt in 2018. The reason why President Obama made the recess appointments that triggered this lawsuit in the first place is because the National Labor Relations Board — which has sole authority to enforce much of federal labor law — was about to lose the minimum number of members it must have in order to operate. Though this impasse eventually broke in 2013 when Senate Democrats threatened to change the Senate’s rules if necessary to confirm nominees to the NLRB, the members of that board only serve five year terms. Thus, if Republicans control the Senate in 2018, they could shut down the NLRB by refusing to confirm anyone to fill its empty seats — andshut down most of the legal protections that allow unions to exist in the process.
Harassment at Women’s Health Clinics
A Massachusetts law creates a 35-foot buffer zone around the entrances to abortion clinics that no one may enter unless they have legitimate business within the clinic or are just passing through to reach another destination. This law prevents abortion protesters, ranging from the plaintiffs in McCullen v. Coakley — who claim that they “try to engage women who may be seeking abortions in close, kind, personal communication, with calm voices, caring demeanor, and eye contact” — to much more aggressive opponents of abortion from getting in the way of women seeking care within the clinic. They also make it harder for clinic workers to become victims of violence. According to one abortion rights activist, “[w]hat began as peaceful protests in the 1970s escalated to blockading clinic entrances, arsons and bombings, acid attacks, stalking and kidnapping doctors and their families, and even murdering reproductive health care staff.”
Nevertheless, it is likely that the Supreme Court will strike this Massachusetts law down. At oral argument, even Justice Kagan seemed concerned that the 35-foot buffer zone may be too large. The biggest question inMcCullen, however, isn’t whether Massachusetts’ law will survive, it is whether any similar buffer zone law will also be declared unconstitutional. In its 2000 decision in Hill v. Colorado, the Supreme Court upheld a Colorado law prohibiting anyone from “‘knowingly approach[ing]‘ within eight feet of another person, without that person’s consent, ‘for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill to, displaying a sign to, or engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling with such other person.’” Hill was a 6-3 decision, but two members of the Hill majority — Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor — have since been replaced by the more conservative Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. If the Roberts Court’s new majority chooses to overrule Hill they probably have the five votes necessary to do so.
Cell Phone Searches
As a general rule, the police must obtain a warrant before they can search a person’s possessions. One long-standing exception to this rule, however, is that police may make a warrantless “search incident to arrest” — that is, when a person is lawfully arrested, the police may search the person being arrested and anything they find on the person.
When this rule was developed, however, cell phones did not exist and modern-day smartphones were not even imaginable. For this reason, the justices who created this rule had no conception of a world where police could arrest someone for a minor crime — potentially something as minor as jaywalking — and then go on a fishing expedition through a person’s entire email inbox, the text messages they sent to their friends and their romantic partners, and any apps they may have downloaded onto their phone to help them manage their finances. One case currently pending before the justices, Riley v. California tees up the question of if and when the police may search the information contained on a suspect’s smartphone without obtaining a warrant. A companion case, United States v. Wurie presents the related issue of whether police may search an ordinary cell-phone’s call log without a warrant.
Public Sector Unions
Public sector unions operate under two legal restrictions: they may not require non-members to fund the union’s political activity and they must bargain on behalf of every worker in a unionized shop — even if a particular worker does not belong to the union. Thus, the union may not encourage non-members to join by bargaining for benefits that only apply to union members. To recoup the costs of bargaining on behalf of non-members, however, the union may charge those non-members what are known as “agency fees.” These agency fees are now under attack in a lawsuit known as Harris v. Quinn.
The purpose of these agency fees is to prevent non-members from free-riding off the dues paid by their co-workers who do join the union. The benefits of collective bargaining through unions are significant — according to one study, unionization raises worker wages by about 12 percent — but, without agency fees, each individual worker would have little incentive to pay for the collective bargaining services that make these high wages possible.
In a 2012 case called Knox v. SEIU, the five conservative justices indicated that they were ready to declare agency fees unconstitutional — at least when it comes to public sector unions. At oral argument, however, Justice Antonin Scalia appeared surprisingly sympathetic to the pro-union arguments. The fate of public sector unions, in other words, likely rests with Justice Scalia.
The Viability of Treaties
Bond v. United States is, if nothing else, a testament to legal conservatives’ ability to play the long game. A vengeful spouse named Carol Anne Bond, who stole toxic chemicals from her employer and used them in a failed attempt to poison her husband’s mistress, is represented by Paul Clement — the de facto Solicitor General of the Republican Party — as part of an effort to undermine the United States’ ability to comply with its own treaty obligations. Bond’s actions violated a federal law implementing the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, which makes it a crime to “receive, stockpile, retain, own, possess, use, or threaten to use” a chemical weapon. Clement argues that applying this law to his client is unconstitutional, because that would require Congress’ power to be read too expansively.
The problem with this argument is that the Court established nearly a century ago that, when the United States enters into a valid treaty, “there can be no dispute about the validity of the statute [implementing the treaty] . . . as a necessary and proper means to execute the powers of the Government.” Should the Court limit or overrule this previous decision, the immediate impact would be relatively small compared to what could follow later — Congress still has considerable power to make laws under its power to regulate commerce and its other constitutionally granted powers, though Clement’s has also fought to shrink these powers as well. If the justices ultimately embrace the broader conservative effort to shrink the government’s authority until it is small enough to be drowned in a bathtub, a decision in Bond’s favor could make it difficult for the United States to comply with environmental treaties and other international obligations.
Your Boss and Your Bedroom
Finally, the most watched case this term is likely to be the Hobby Lobby litigation, which raises the issue of whether religious employers can refuse to comply with a federal rule requiring their health plans to cover birth control. If the oral argument is any indication, supporters of this rule should not be optimistic. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the only member of the five justice conservative bloc who expressed sympathy for the government’s arguments, later accused Solicitor General Don Verrilli of making an argument that could enable Congress to require corporations to pay for abortions. Given that Kennedy, with one exception, has avirtually unblemished anti-abortion record since joining the Supreme Court, this is an ominous sign for the rule at issue in this case.
Nevertheless, the question of how the government loses this case is almost as important as if it loses. Clement, who argued this case on behalf of the religious employers, called for a truly sweeping rule — laws burdening a corporation’s purported religious faith must survive the “most demanding test known to constitutional law.” At times, plaintiffs invoking “religious liberty” have claimed exemptions from a wide range of laws, including laws banning race discrimination, bans on gender discrimination, the minimum wage, Social Security and most recently, laws protecting LGBT Americans. Though these aggressive kinds of religious liberty claims have historically not received a sympathetic ear from federal judges, Clement’s broad rule could give at least some of them a second life.
It’s not at all clear that the Court will give Clement what he asked for, however. Though Kennedy seemed inclined to rule in Hobby Lobby‘s favor, he also worried about what would happen to the rights of employees who might be hurt by their boss’ decision not to follow the law. This suggests that Justice Kennedy may hand a victory to Hobby Lobby without endorsing the sweeping legal immunity for businesses that object to the law on religious grounds that Clement called for in his brief. Nevertheless, however the Court decides, the issue of whether anti-gay business owners can invoke “religious liberty” to discriminate against LGBT Americans is not going away. Indeed, it’s likely that a raft of bills seeking to expand religious conservatives’ ability to ignore the law will follow the Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby, regardless of what the justices decide.
*****
Readers: There are some big juicy issues here. Pick one that is especially meaningful to you and start talking. Blog me.
Peace & Love…
Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog. If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.
Gratefully your blog host,
michelle
Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)
If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)
June 19th, 2014 at 3:31 pm
It has been a while. I hope this bit of action interests you.
The Emperor discovered an Alien ship hiding on the Dione — a moon of Saturn. He had his police trail them for a month until he located their Mother ship hiding out on Titan, also a moon of Saturn.
The ship used a Wave Oscillator to navigate through the hydrogen and helium gases that make up Saturn. They fueled their major weapon — a Wave Energy Magnifier from the abundance of methane on the planet. So as long as they were there they couldn’t be dislodged without the possibility of a prolonged fight.
The Emperor was also worried that the fight could spill over and cross the ring of safety which encompasses Jupiter’s orbital path around the sun. The Emperor has a wall of protection occupying the space between the orbital paths of Jupiter and Mars. They are no-fly-through zones without permission of the Emperor.
Exiting through it to reach Saturn or the other planets in Earth’s solar system or to leave Earth’s solar system is okay, but to enter it to approach Mars, Earth, Venus or Mercury is by permission-granted status only.
The Emperor’s plan was to lure the Txalo Mother ship out towards Neptune and then fire on them and capture one of their Hovercraft in a tow net. The Hovercraft was captured and quickly dragged towards the side of Pluto that faces outer reaches of Earth’s solar system.
When the Txalo Mother ship followed, the Emperor’s Armpor swung the tow to the immediate outreaches of an area outside Earth’s solar system and broadsided the Txalo Mother ship. It pretended it was about to swing the tow back to shield it from retaliation by the Txalo Mother ship, this caused the Txalo Mother ship to enter hyper drive to get behind the possible tow swing of the Armpor so they could engage a clear target.
Once the Txalo Mother ship was no longer inside Earth’s solar system, the Emperor locked the gate of his Matrix and proceeded to have his armada engage the Txalo Mother ship with full force. It was a short battle — about 13 minutes.
The entire Mother ship was destroyed, about 21 million inhabitants. The only survivors are those aboard the Txalo Hovercraft. If after questioning they are found to have no military value to the Emperor, all 11,400 will be put to death.
Vivv was aware that the Emperor intended to lock off entry into Earth’s solar system for everyone during the battle. He did not know the ability of the Txalo to put up a lengthy battle, so he ventured out to warn Madaline to return to Earth’s solar system before the battle or she would be locked out and thus incapable of taking orders from Michelle.
He was late with the notice and Madaline had to scramble to don a suitable armor within which to enter Earth’s solar system at the speed necessary to avoid being locked out. Vivv anticipated that she might have a problem so he positioned his Dantor craft between her vector approach and the Emperor’s web police.
When the Emperor’s tactical squad fired on the Txalo Mother ship to begin the plan to capture one of its Hovercraft, one of the missiles would have hit Madaline’s small Libot Craft if Vivv hadn’t shielded it with his. The impact caused Madaline to lose the upper right part of her and Vivv to suffer left knee damage to the earth body he was using to manipulate Cronian dials aboard his newly designed Resec body armored Kailcraft.
Both entered Earth’s solar system safety. Madaline will have to wait for her Mav Drive to repair her suit and Vivv has discovered that the redesigned solution to using Earth bodies past its asteroid belt is not as safe or functional as he expected.
HOWIE
June 20th, 2014 at 3:08 am
I have been trying to get in for hours. what is with your blog Michelle?
June 20th, 2014 at 3:09 am
That’s what I’m talking about Howie.
June 20th, 2014 at 3:13 am
Michelle, these are all very interesting cases. I am most interested in the Union case where they may stop charging non union members agency fees and the Holly Lobby case which would not force selling birth control pills to folks who do not believe in them. The whole month is going to be interesting to say the least.
June 20th, 2014 at 3:15 am
SCOTUS is so bought and paid for that I believe all will be 5-4 and the only win will be McCullen v Cookley.
June 20th, 2014 at 3:19 am
Even in Russia we know a good alien story when we hear one and Howie this is GREAT.
My question is why don’t you write a book. Your stuff is FAR better that “Star Wars, Star Trek” or any of that other stuff?
June 20th, 2014 at 3:19 am
Howie your writes sometimes just stun me.
June 20th, 2014 at 3:20 am
I cringe with every case this corrupt majority hears. They do what they’re paid to do. The rich have won this battle. ‘The people’ are the losers.
June 20th, 2014 at 3:23 am
Howie, this is what I come here for. I struggle with english to read this blog because of you.
Thank you.
June 20th, 2014 at 3:26 am
Gram#8, we’ll see more rights destroyed by a ‘supreme’ court that is as corrupt as they come. We’re screwed in this country like that proverbial frog in the pot of water. Slowly the heat is turned up, the frog(citizen) never moves until it is dead(lost ALL) human rights.
We allowed this to happen by letting Bush install himself(with the help of some of these insane ‘supremes’)as a fascist dictator.
Patriot act ring a bell? Pitiful!!!! I was loudly calling bullshit and was told it would be okay by some of my peers at the time. Are we okay????????
Civil rights, voting rights out the window. We need to step up to the plate and demand that the politicians we vote into office in our ‘democracy’ pass and uphold legislation that provides us ALL with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Ring a bell? Anyone???
June 20th, 2014 at 3:27 am
Gram#9, until a couple of those S.T.A.R.K. are replaced, I have little faith the court will do what is right.
June 20th, 2014 at 3:31 am
Gram#9, I’m afraid you’re correct…
If you want to know how Scalia, Thomas, and Alito will decide, just read up on what the folks who have them appear at their fund raisers believe.
Last night on Rachel Maddow, I discussed the controversy over Supreme Court justices attending political fundraisers. Specifically, Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito have been criticized for their participation in such events. Most recently, Justice Samuel Alito was identified by Think Progress at a fundraiser for American Spectator. Alito reportedly said that “it’s not important” that he attends such events. I disagree.
Alito has previously attended Spectator dinner and actually was a headliner in 2008 at a dinner used to raise money for the conservative magazine. He has also previously headlined at the fundraising dinner for the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI). Justice Scalia and Thomas have also been criticized for attending fundraisers organized by conservative oil billionaires David and Charles Koch.
I have long criticized the new model of justices represented by Scalia, Thomas and others. I prefer the model of John Paul Stevens who followed the traditional approach of avoiding public speeches except for a narrow category of law schools and circuit speeches. In a prior column, I criticized Scalia for his past speeches at conservative organizations. I feel the same way about liberal justices like Justice Ginsburg appearing in such politically charged events. However, I am unaware of Ginsburg participating in fundraisers like this one.
http://jonathanturley.org/2010/11/16/alito-criticized-for-participation-in-another-conservative-fundraiser/
June 20th, 2014 at 3:33 am
How do you do it Howie. You just keep topping yourself. I never believe as some of my colleagues like to ponder that your absence is because of “writer’s block.”
You just have the knack for saving the best for last.
June 20th, 2014 at 3:34 am
I need some help
Fellow DY’ers, could you please do me a favor a year from now?
Could you do an executive summary of how many additional Constitutional Rights will be nullied as a result of these cases? We are losing so many so rapidly it’s hard to keep up.
But, we all have to sacrifice to keep our Oligarchs, excuse me, JOB CREATORS, happy. In additional to car elevators at home, they now must have boat elevators at the yacht club. (I hear that unfortunates that don’t have a boat elevator are banished from their gated communities!)
But they deserve it because they are superior human beings. You can tell by their dehumanizing excessive wealth. And perfect scores on their “Am I a psychopath?” tests.
-90% Jimmy
June 20th, 2014 at 3:36 am
Howie, your writes make life here in Greece tolerable.
June 20th, 2014 at 3:40 am
Howie, I’m just blown away. You write Alien like no other.
June 20th, 2014 at 3:42 am
Eliminating recess appointments could come back to haunt Republicans.
But as long as it hurts Obama today (and Hillary in her all-but-certain Presidency), all’s good.
Could help shine a big spotlight on GOP obstructionism though
I can’t wait for the legal gymnastics that S.T.A.R.K. will use to give religious rights to corporations.
June 20th, 2014 at 3:46 am
Howie, here in Israel your fans look at each other and say Why shouldn’t Aliens select a Jew to reveal the truth to, God did?
June 20th, 2014 at 3:49 am
Howie we Welsh are a skeptical bunch. But your post ring of truth. I for certainly come here on a daily basis looking for those gems.
Thank you.
June 20th, 2014 at 3:50 am
Cut to the chase headline: Shit Is Going To Get Worse
June 20th, 2014 at 3:51 am
Recess Appointments, sexual harassment, cell phone searches, public sector unions, viability of treaties, religion/health insurance.
Some of those cases should not still be issues in the 21st Century, U.S.A. We can thank the conservatives for the continued interference in human progress.
I often wonder what Obama could have done had the republicans not won the House in 2010.
June 20th, 2014 at 3:53 am
Cell phone searches.
If this passes I am switching to a throw away phone every time I leave town. If you want to know who I call/text you can get a warrant and ask my phone provider.
My private photos are none of your business nor who I have as friends and also you have no business getting access to all my social network history and posts which you would get with an unlocked phone
EDIT: and if this passes I can see a system where the phone content could be destroyed entering a certain code on the unlock screen
“Please unlock this phone”
“…./types code”
Phone content destroyed “oh sorry I must have typed the wrong code”
Morality of the story, use a pre-iphone clamshell no sms throwaway when travelling
June 20th, 2014 at 3:55 am
Sounds like we’re in for an era of:
1. threatening a filibuster making it impossible to appoint anybody,
2. sexual harassment being an acceptable form of motivating (female) employees,
3. the government knowing where you are at every moment you have your cell phone with you,
4. the end of unions as we’ve known them,
5. the start of the United States as a rogue state who doesn’t care about international law and
6. the beginning of an era where every corporation is allowed to define its own religious beliefs for tax purposes.
June 20th, 2014 at 3:57 am
Howie, watching America self destruct is devastating, but I have to say, reading your Alien post is just riveting. It almost makes me believe in the three god theory.
June 20th, 2014 at 3:59 am
Dee#20, Your pessimism saddens me, but not as much as the realization that you’re right.
June 20th, 2014 at 4:00 am
Tuesday#21, Yeah, I’m Swedish and we’ve known for centuries that cell phone searches are an invasion on the universal human right to privacy. From my perspective, the US looks like a third-world country.
June 20th, 2014 at 4:01 am
Joshua#18, you can say that again.
June 20th, 2014 at 4:05 am
Howie, it always makes my military duty here in Israel go by easier when I read your posts. I feel what we do here in the military will not be in vain because we have this great guy who will not allow us to swallowed up by this insanity.
And I love your alien posts. They make life here seem small compared to what is happening in our galaxy.
June 20th, 2014 at 4:07 am
Howie, I am a christian jew here in Israel. My take is if Jesus saw fit to reveal the truth to a Jew why not Carr.
June 20th, 2014 at 4:09 am
Howie, your brit fans would like to invite you to come to England on an alien lecture tour. You would fill the halls, no matter what you charged.
June 20th, 2014 at 4:10 am
Amelia#26, I’d argue the US looks like the future of the rest of the developed world.
June 20th, 2014 at 4:11 am
Amelia#26, Easy for you to say. The only Nordic phone is Nokia. Nobody searches those.
June 20th, 2014 at 4:13 am
Amelia#26:
The U.S. now and again produces frightening versions of conservatism, it cycles around. I think we are about to straighten the hand a bit, to that nice blend of uncomfortable agreement on various limits and freedoms.
June 20th, 2014 at 4:15 am
Trent#23, The scariest second-order effect here of the first point you mention is that for some agencies (like the NLRB the article mentions), if they fall below a certain level of staffing they are dissolved by statute; all the GOP has to do is literally nothing and they can make inconvenient agencies go away.
June 20th, 2014 at 4:16 am
Trent#23, I think you’re describing how things are now.
June 20th, 2014 at 4:17 am
Trent#23, because sexual harassment doesn’t happen to males?
June 20th, 2014 at 4:19 am
We need to start working for the impeachment of Scalia, Thomas and Roberts so that when the House is recovered we can get them out and restore honesty and proper jurisprudence to the Supreme Court.
June 20th, 2014 at 4:23 am
Simon#36:
It does, but I intentionally put female in there to imply that the sexist Supreme Court would uphold a claim against a woman accused of sexual harassment but not uphold the claim if it was a man accused of harassing a woman.
That said, you’ve missed a more important point. I read the list of cases so quickly I didn’t realize they were talking about harassing women going to abortion clinics and not sexual harassment at work.
Also you are the perfect example of what enlightened women on this blog often complain about which is as a man you are constantly so self absorbed you constantly look for slights to your male ego, and immediately take to the blogs and complain you are not being treated fairly.
Come on man find some sensitivity to what is happening to females in this country.
June 20th, 2014 at 4:24 am
Howie, your mind is awesome!
June 20th, 2014 at 4:25 am
Howie, every time I think I have heard your best, you top it.
June 20th, 2014 at 4:27 am
Wyatt#30, most definitely, if Howie was to come here on a lecture, he would be a tremendous hit.
I would sponsor it. So Howie if you are interested let us know.
June 20th, 2014 at 4:28 am
Wyatt#30, I am all for it.
June 20th, 2014 at 4:29 am
Michelle#37, It would require a 2/3 majority in the Senate – I don’t even think we could get 2/3 of the Democrats on board. Those 3 are pretty reprehensible, though.
June 20th, 2014 at 4:29 am
Couldn’t the supreme court maker their decisions only matter for that specific case? I thought I have seen that before. So that they can rule on that case without effecting the rest of the country?
June 20th, 2014 at 4:31 am
Howie, I suit up to defend our beloved Israel every day with dread for its future. Thank you for the gems that make it tolerable.
June 20th, 2014 at 4:32 am
Howie, your greek fan club is growing at a fantastic rate. Fuck the english, bring your lecture tour to Greece.
June 20th, 2014 at 4:34 am
“Bond v. United States is, if nothing else, a testament to legal conservatives’ ability to play the long game.
A vengeful spouse named Carol Anne Bond, who stole toxic chemicals from her employer and used them in a failed attempt to poison her husband’s mistress, is represented by Paul Clement — the de facto Solicitor General of the Republican Party — as part of an effort to undermine the United States’ ability to comply with its own treaty obligations.
Bond’s actions violated a federal law implementing the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, which makes it a crime to “receive, stockpile, retain, own, possess, use, or threaten to use” a chemical weapon.
Clement argues that applying this law to his client is unconstitutional, because that would require Congress’ power to be read too expansively.”
She should never have been charged under the Chemical Weapons Convention…it was ludicrous and the Supreme Court unanimously agreed. This was not about invalidating the treaty.
*spelling
June 20th, 2014 at 4:35 am
I’m going to “go out on a limb” here and say that the opinions will be split along ideological lines and ultimately go in whatever direction the business community and wealthy prefer.
Anyone care to take odds against that predicted S.T.A.R.K. outcome?
June 20th, 2014 at 4:38 am
S.T.A.R.K. started their bold attack upon the majority of the people in Bush vs Gore. From that point on they had destroyed the validity of SCOTUS. Hence what we are witnessing is the on going process.
June 20th, 2014 at 4:42 am
Michelle, I’m going crazy reading backward and forwards through your blog. Why don’t you write after a suitable time – “Comments are closed for this post.” – And then shut down the ability for anyone to post there afterwards.
That would not stifle continued comments on a topic rather it would force them to continue it on the latest day’s blog.
June 20th, 2014 at 4:43 am
Howie, I’m not in the military here in Israel. But I too love reading your Alien Chronicles.
June 20th, 2014 at 4:48 am
Howie, what is the difference from “Dantor craft” and an “aromored Kailcraft?”
June 20th, 2014 at 4:51 am
Howie, how did the Txalo Mothership sneak a ship big enough to hide 21 million inhabitants into our solar system in the first place?
June 20th, 2014 at 4:52 am
Howie, “The impact caused Madaline to lose the upper right part of her and Vivv to suffer left knee damage to the earth body…”
The upper right part of her what?
June 20th, 2014 at 4:56 am
“…bit of action..” Howie, you are the master of understatement. I was absolutely transfixed on your every word for start to finish.
June 20th, 2014 at 4:57 am
Gods or no Gods, your fucking mind is FANTASTIC Howie.
June 20th, 2014 at 4:59 am
“The Emperor was also worried that the fight could spill over and cross the ring of safety which encompasses Jupiter’s orbital path around the sun.”
Did I miss something? Please explain.