Supreme Court Sides With Constitution. Tells Nanny State to Take A Hike.

The Supreme Court published its opinion in BROWN v. ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION saying that the state of California had no Constitutional right to restrict the sale of “violent” video games to minors.

The court correctly found that the state of California had no Constitutional basis for restricting the sale of “violent video games” without showing genuine harm to minors. In his majority opinion, Justice Scalia noted that while there might be evidence of a correlation of violence in minors and video games, there is no evidence that video games caused the violence. Because there is no factual assertion that video games cause violence or injuries, California’s law was in fact a restriction of the First Amendment.

Of the decision, California State Senator Senator Leland Yee, who represents San Francisco and San Mateo counties said,

“Unfortunately, the majority of the Supreme Court once again put the interests of corporate America before the interests of our children,” said the law’s author, Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco). “As a result of their decision, Wal-Mart and the video game industry will continue to make billions of dollars at the expense of our kids’ mental health and the safety of our community. It is simply wrong that the video game industry can be allowed to put their profit margins over the rights of parents and the well-being of children.”


Supreme Court Follows Law: People Are Upset. Blame Big Business for Not Lobbying

The Supreme Court on Thursday handed down a decision in PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing in which the Court held that a person could not sue a generic drug maker for failing to warn of the dangers and side effects of a drug.

Gladys Mensing and Julie Demahy had sued Croatia-based PLIVA Inc. and other generic drug manufacturers in state courts in Minnesota and Louisiana over the labels for metoclopramide, the generic version of Reglan. The two women alleged that metoclopramide gave them a severe neurological movement disorder called tardive dyskinesia, but none of the generic drug’s manufacturers and distributors made any effort to include warnings on the label.

One would think that this is a clear case of negligence on the part of the drug makers.

So why didn’t the Supreme Court side with the two women?

Chamber of Commerce Supports Businessess Who Hire Illegal Immigrants. Wait. What?

This week the Supreme Court announced its decision in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting. In doing so, the court affirmed a 9th Circuit ruling that allowed the state of Arizona to fine or revoke the licenses of businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

We here at Raised on Hoecakes have always made the distinction between hiring an illegal immigrant and knowingly hiring an illegal immigrant. With the plethora of fake ID’s and other work documentation, it is difficult for a business to know what is real and what is not. Penalties for simply hiring an illegal immigrant seem wrong to us if the owner of the business has acted in good faith. Otherwise, you may get into a type of racial profiling where a person is not hired because of their nationality rather than their status to be eligible to work. A person may “look” illegal, therefore the business may not hire them for fear of being fined. The E-Verify system allows businesses to hire with the knowledge they have made a legitimate, good faith effort to comply with both the letter and spirit of the law outlawing the hiring of illegal immigrants.

SCOTUS Revisits Judicial Activism

On Monday, the Supreme Court published its opinion in Brown v. Plata, et al The court was sharply divided on a case that confirmed a District Courts ruling that will essentially free anywhere from 30,000 to 46,000 inmates from California State prisons over the next two years. The case is really two cases joined together as one. Inmates had sued the state for inadequate housing, food, and medical treatment which has been interpreted at a violation of the Eighth Amendment which reads:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

One could make a case (no pun intended) that the best way for citizens to reduce over-crowding in prisons is to not break the law. California is currently housing some 170,000 inmates in facilities that were designed to hold 100,000. It is safe to say that the prisons in California are crowded.

To ease that crowding, the Supreme Court has now ordered the state to release prisoners upon the citizens of California.

Westboro Wins – Christ Weeps

The Supreme Court of the United States has published its opinion in the case of Snyder v. Phelps.

For those of you who don’t know, this is the case where the “congregation” of the Westboro Baptist Church protested at the Westminster, Maryland funeral of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder who was killed in Iraq on March 3, 2006.

Rather than honor Lance Corporal Snyder’s sacrifice, the so called “people” of Westboro Baptist Church protested at the funeral with signs saying such heinous things as

“God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11,” “America is Doomed,” “Don’t Pray for the USA,” “Thank God for IEDs,” “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “Pope in Hell,” “Priests Rape Boys,” “God Hates Fags,”“You’re Going to Hell,” and “God Hates You.”

Not exactly a rousing tribute to a fallen Marine.

Next Entries »