Thursday, 11 June 2015

El Zorro watches SCOTUS from behind the curtains, and reports:


 (from the pen of El Zorro)

This is pretty disgusting.  No edification is necessary except to say:  This is another example of how Obama has infected all branches of Government and the damage may not be reversible.

“(1) Zivotofsky v. Kerry
Date Filed: June 8, 2015
Case #: 13–628.
KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a concurring opinion. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ALITO, J., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO, J., joined.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: The Constitution grants the Executive Branch alone the power to determine national policy on the status or recognition of foreign sovereigns.
Petitioner's son was born in Jerusalem and Petitioner requested that the son’s place of birth be listed as “Israel.” The American Embassy refused to grant the request because of the Executive Branch’s policy to not acknowledge any country’s sovereignty over Jerusalem. Petitioner sued, arguing that the Foreign Relations Authorization Act (FRAA) §214(d) permits the son’s place of birth to be listed as “Israel” on his passport. The FRAA grants authority to the Secretary of State to list the place of birth for a US citizen born in Jerusalem as “Israel.”
The D.C. circuit found this statute unconstitutional because it conflicts with the powers granted to the Executive Branch in the Constitution to determine the status of foreign sovereigns.  U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that this national policy determination is granted to the Executive Branch because of the Reception Clause, combined with the Article II foreign policy powers. The Court held that this power is both exclusively and conclusively delegated to the Executive Branch and Congress does not have the authority to require contradictory foreign policy.”
Dissenting opinions:


     Of course, if in fact there are two points that allow this wide discretion on the part of the Executive, there are several more that point to the ability of a sovereign, be he/she foreign or domestic to perceive of him/her self in a rational way that can reasonably be considered truthful.

     An Israeli born in Jerusalem can obviously declare such to be the case, if in fact he is an Israeli born in Jerusalem.  As well, there are obviously several, even many, places where an Israeli could have been born in Jerusalem.   And it is indisputable that Jerusalem is within the effective territory of Israel, and it is also indisputable that, being in the control of the Israelis, it is materially and spiritually in better condition than were it to be under the control of the dual mafias of Hezbollah and Hamas.

      Wherever seated, in Congrefs or in Court or in the halls of Colleges and Universities laden with undeserved tenure or World Councils ,  this matter of the Leftists always seeking to either kill, humiliate, injure or denigrate the Jew is a sad commentary on the moral bankruptcy of the Left...worldwide. 

     We urge the OROG to read Justice Thomas's concurrence and affirmation arguments.   In that he both concurred and dissented, his vote would have been (and was, I believe), counted as a dissenting vote.   Chief Justice Roberts wrote a very strongly worded paragraph in his dissent included below.   We do urge a reading of the entire summary of the dissent, it is mercifully brief:

       "Resolving the status of Jerusalem may be vexing, but resolving this case is not. Whatever recognition power the President may have, exclusive or otherwise, is not implicated by §214(d). It has not been necessary over the past 225 years to definitively resolve a dispute between Congress and the President over the recognition power. Perhaps we could have waited another 225 years. But instead the majority strains to reach the question based on the mere possibility that observers overseas might misperceive the significance of the birthplace designation at issue in this case. And in the process, the Court takes the perilous step—for the first time in our history—of allowing the President to defy an Act of Congress in the field of foreign affairs.
I respectfully dissent...."

     We concur and agree with the Chief Justice in that, even if it were the United Kingdom, Mexico, Canada, and Japan telling us not to recognise Jerusalem as a true entity within the nation of Israel, the United States and the individual Israeli(s) concerned, coupled with the facts - not fantasies - on the ground trump the majority's arguments in this case.  There are other arguments, but please read the brief summary of dissents.

El Gringo Viejo