Wealthy ‘Lucas Oil’ Founder’s Facebook Rant: ‘I’m Sick And Tired of Minorities Running Our Country’
A Facebook post written by Charlotte Lucas, the wife of Lucas Oil founder in Indianapolis, displays disparaging remarks about minorities. Mrs. Lucas is “sick and tired of minorities…”
Lucas claims minorities are “running the country,” however, her oppressed white husband Forrest has a net worth of $300 million and their company brings in an annual revenue of $150 million, according to Addicting Info.
Charlotte and her husband live in a sprawling 25,000 square foot home. To put that in perspective, I live in a 1,300 square foot home which has 3 bedrooms. So, the poor beaten down couple is really living in a modest home which is about 10 times the size of mine. I live in one of those “minority” neighborhoods which according to her, is full of residents who are “running our country”.
The 33.6 acres where the Lucases reside, include an infinity swimming pool with a cascading waterfall and five buildings. Their estate has been the site of community benefits such as the Young Presidents Organization with guest speaker former President George W. Bush. Their home houses a 60-spot parking lot.
In total, they own five residences so they’re really just scraping by.
Charlotte whitesplained her Facebook post to RTV 6. “I was very upset when I wrote that,” she said. “I will not elaborate other than to say that there are certain people who are trying to make the whole world eat what they want to eat and do what they want to do. I don’t think it’s any of their business what I put in my mouth. Thank you.”
Whatever that means.
Watch courtesy of RTV 6:
Please, for the sake of all that is good and decent, quit holding the rich white people down.
Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Anomaly100
Denise October 5th, 2014 at 10:32
did I miss something while asleep? when did minorities start running the country?
Hogandda October 5th, 2014 at 14:00
Maybe she is really talking about a black man in the White House running things.
Yenta October 5th, 2014 at 14:47
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!
Denise October 5th, 2014 at 10:32
did I miss something while asleep? when did minorities start running the country?
Hogandda October 5th, 2014 at 14:00
Maybe she is really talking about a black man in the White House running things.
Yenta October 5th, 2014 at 14:47
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!
fifthdentist October 5th, 2014 at 10:45
She should try living for a month on minimum wage — in a fancy government housing unit — and see just how much she “can and cannot do.” She also would find the choices of what she can stick in her (greedy) mouth would be somewhat limited.
fifthdentist October 5th, 2014 at 10:45
She should try living for a month on minimum wage — in a fancy government housing unit — and see just how much she “can and cannot do.” She also would find the choices of what she can stick in her (greedy) mouth would be somewhat limited.
lordboaz October 5th, 2014 at 12:04
What a dumb bitch
lordboaz October 5th, 2014 at 12:04
What a dumb bitch
Nzo Nelson October 5th, 2014 at 13:34
any words from a disconnected bitch, an ignoramus, cant be takin seriously… the minority quotient of millionaires and such is so small that I wouldnt let them suck my socks or eat my chittlins… pleas ask her to go frack herself….
Nzo Nelson October 5th, 2014 at 13:34
any words from a disconnected bitch, an ignoramus, cant be takin seriously… the minority quotient of millionaires and such is so small that I wouldnt let them suck my socks or eat my chittlins… pleas ask her to go frack herself….
burqa October 5th, 2014 at 18:13
So you’re sick of minorities, Mrs. Lucas?
Here are my thoughts regarding you, courtesy of the Mightey Pop:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZzd2e86G4A
burqa October 5th, 2014 at 18:13
So you’re sick of minorities, Mrs. Lucas?
Here are my thoughts regarding you, courtesy of the Mightey Pop:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZzd2e86G4A
Pundit456 October 5th, 2014 at 19:16
Alan the fact that you can only rebuke her because of her wealth and not refute the truth or her statements is testament to the fact that even you must concede her points are valid.
Some states are recognizing sharia law; the judiciary and lgbt are riding roughshod over our Constitution; our schools are absurdities suspending children for saying grace, sharing food or having normal beliefs and then making everyone else responsible for one or two children’s personal dietary restrictions.
She is absolutely right that the country is being dictated to by sub cultural groups which she correctly refers to as minorities because minority is a numeric designation not a racial or religious one.
OldLefty October 5th, 2014 at 19:37
Alan the fact that you can only rebuke
_______
Unless the minority is the 1%, the burden is on her.
As for what you said above, most is hooey when looked at more closely.
Tammy Minton Haley October 5th, 2014 at 20:47
what a bunch of racist-apologist bullshit…for the life of me, i cannot understand why you haven’t been banned–especially for some of your gay-bashing rhetoric…you’re a nasty, sour man…i don’t like you…
Anomaly 100 October 5th, 2014 at 21:32
Do I look like Alan? Is it the hair, or the smile?
I wrote the post. She is a racist of the highest order and you are her apologist.
Best regards,
That Anomaly woman
Carolyn Hardy-Asfour October 6th, 2014 at 00:50
If Christians who believe their belief system should be followed by all, would open their eyes, every time they scream this is a Christian land and religious law should be followed, they need to understand THEY are opening the door to Sharia law. And even tho this is a country of freedom of and from religion, the Constitution is a secular document, god is not mentioned, there is a reason for that and the proof is Sharia law.
If you want to pray, fine do it, but follow what your bible teaches you about praying, that it should be in private.
Gays and Lesbians are not riding roughshod over the Constitution, they are fighting for their equal rights which they are entitled to just like you or I. Your comments show you are bigoted and confused over what the Constitution truly says.
Who are you to decide what a “Normal” belief is, if someone is Muslim, Catholic, Buddhist, etc. do you not consider them “Normal”. You do not choose where you are born, or even which religion you chose, these have been selected for you by your surrounding culture. if you were from another back ground and religion, how would you feel about the statements you have made?
It’s ignorance that breeds hate, is this really something you want to teach your children, of which perhaps just might be gay.
Read, learn, understand what the constitution says and means before you fall any further in to the rabbit hole.
Although I am all about sharing food, the school did need to consider, if the child had say a peanut allergy, could have been fatal. I can see their point, which makes me wonder even more why people support Republicans, they are the ones cutting these free lunch programs/food stamps/housing for these children, so if you want to be mad at some one for a good reason, why don’t you start with your Congressman.
Thank you for reading,
From a very happy Atheist
2tall4u2 October 7th, 2014 at 12:59
Bravo!!! from an equally proud and happy Atheist. :)
Pundit456 October 10th, 2014 at 18:12
You do not sound very happy.
It is normal to believe that which is supported by physical evidence. It is normal to disregard beliefs which are unequivocally contradicted by all physical evidence. For example, it is not normal for a person to believe themselves to be one gender despite chromosome and DNA evidence to the contrary. This is not my judgement; it is simply a fact with which I take no exception.
I made sure that my children knew that people choose whether or not to live a deviant lifestyle. They know that if they ever choose to live such a lifestyle they are expected to respect the family and keep that portion of their lives outside the family home. Fortunately my children are quite comfortable with their respective genders so that the issue is moot.
It is ridiculous for a school to prohibit food sharing because is the school deems one child old enough to be culpable for sharing then the child with whom the food was shared is old enough to be aware of his/her dietary restrictions and bears responsibility for compliance. He/she can simply refuse the offer.
Not only have I read the entire Constitution (not just the 1st, 5th and 14th amendments) I have also read the notes and minutes from the convention to draft the Constitution which contain records of discussions and debates which lead to the inclusion or exclusion of certain elements as well as the intentions of the convention. Should you decide to do likewise I suppose we could have an informed and intellectually stimulating discussion.
Thank you for your thoughts.
flopdog October 10th, 2014 at 18:31
You’ve read the entire constitution? Wow. I had to do that in middle school.
Now, have you read the 250,000 pages of the entire SCOTUS Reporter dating back to West v Barnes 2 U.S. 401 (1791.) Do you know the case law in Gibbons? Johnson v M’Intosh? Runkel? Plessy? Kepner? Kellogg? Griswold? Jones? Lopez? Raich?Have you Shepardized each one to see if more recent law has mooted each case? I have, and continue to do so every day.
“Reading the constitution” is pointless without knowing the law derived from it.
I suspect you actually know very, very little about Constitutional law as of 2014.
Pundit456 October 12th, 2014 at 11:17
Was not necessary because there is nothing in the US Constitution that accords the force of law to any judicial ruling because all legislative power is vested in congress. The court has no constitutional authority to legislate; its rulings inform and bind lower courts; not the country.
Try rereading the Constitution. It’s short and unequivocal.
If you do, and you find anywhere in the Constitution or the Judiciary Act that court rulings constitute legislation, I would definitely be interested.
OldLefty October 12th, 2014 at 11:32
The court has no constitutional authority to legislate
______
This is correct.
You need to tell that to the 4 conservative justices who think they are super-legislators.
flopdog October 12th, 2014 at 20:42
Indeed. Citizens United isn’t de facto legislation?
OldLefty October 12th, 2014 at 21:12
I always refer to Citizens United as the new campaign finance laws that the Supreme Court passed in 2010.
flopdog October 12th, 2014 at 21:37
I agree. I put Citizens United and MCCutcheon in the same crap law bucket as Plessy and Dred Scott. Wildly unconstitutional law specifically designed to buy elections.
“The Court’s conservative majority believes that the First Amendment gives wealthy donors and powerful corporations the carte blanche right to buy an election but that the Fifteenth Amendment does not give Americans the right to vote free of racial discrimination.”
Instead of sending (and “losing”) $20 billion+ in shrink wrapped pallets of $100 bills to Iraq, we could have given every citizen a verified ID w/ RFID free of charge. Then passed legislation that every single US citizen over 18 MUST vote, and that polls stay open for 48 uninterrupted hours, including one weekend day. Make it a national holiday. And if banks have kept ATM systems on essentially 100% uptime for decades, I think we can figure out secure electronic voting, hm?
I suspect Congress would look very, very different if all Americans participated in the voting process instead of the pitiful turnouts our paleolithic elections draw.
flopdog October 12th, 2014 at 20:23
Ah, so Mapp does not regulate evidence obtained in searches? Roe does not regulate abortion? Terry does not regulate traffic stops? Lopez does not regulate federal power to declare gun-free zones? Raich does not give Congress power to regulate anything they want? Do you understand how Shepardizing works in litigation?
You don’t think Plessy was de facto legislation?
Do you understand the difference between regulation and legislation? Do you understand stare decisis and its effect on litigation? Ever read a brief? How are they argued? They argue precedent and case law. Your entire argument was concerning a single court case, not legislation.
You think “it is not necessary” to read and understand case law in order to litigate? As I suggested, I suspect you actually know very, very little about Constitutional law as of 2014.
Where, pray tell, did I imply that SCOTUS legislates?
Pundit456 October 12th, 2014 at 23:13
“…de facto legislation…” hmmm; I missed that provision in the Constitution; do you have a citation?
Stare decisis is an internal scotus policy that is not even binding on the court as Kennedy demonstrated in Lawrence v Texas when he used a convoluted rationale to overturn Bowers v Hardwick.
This is why the Constitution vests all legislative power in congress and outlines the procedure for enacting and repealing laws as well as amending the Constitution. It is not a quick or easy process because the law is not intended to be variable nor made on the whim of a few unelected individuals.
As to your question, what exactly do you think de facto legislation means?
flopdog October 13th, 2014 at 00:43
I really need to explain de facto law to you? Abortion is de facto legal due to SCOTUS case law. Shelby gutted and mooted the Voting Rights Act, because Roberts simply substituted the court’s judgment for Congress’s in deciding which states should be covered under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which required voting rules in states with a history of discrimination to be pre-cleared by the Justice Department. Actual Congressional legislation is no longer enforced because SCOTUS decided it shouldn’t WITHOUT reconsideration by Congress. You really want me to continue?
There is no section of US Code which prevents or permits unlimited, anonymous campaign contributions to political parties or candidates. Yet two major recent cases have made such law. There is no mention of such funding in the Constitution, there is no Congressional legislation about such funding: it is legal only because SCOTUS says it is. So if I donate $200 million to the next Republican Presidential Candidate, and request total anonymity, what law permits me to do this and not be prosecuted? Only a SCOTUS ruling: therefore de facto law.
And as for that mumbo jumbo about stare decisis being an “internal SCOTUS policy;” you are of course, incorrect. Stare decisis is simply precedent; established and accepted case law throughout all US courts.
You are talking philosophy and a world of fantasy that doesn’t exist. I could fill volumes with law that has nothing to do with Congress. I am talking about the law as it is enforced and litigated today. IOW, the real world. YMMV.
Pundit456 October 13th, 2014 at 07:28
If you actually read the voting rights act you would know that it includes a provision for the court to take the action it took.
Apparently you subscribe to the misconception that unconstitutional means unfair.
Unconstitutional means a direct conflict with the US constitution.
The FIRST article of the US Constitution says all legislative power is vested in congress. Therefore “de facto legislation” is a violation of the Constitution.
There is no constitutional provision that accords the power of law to precedent; precedent is not law and “case law” is not legislation.
Schoolhouse Rock produced a video on how a bill becomes a law. It may help you to understand the legislative process.
OldLefty October 13th, 2014 at 07:52
provision for the court to take the action it took
______
Can you cite that ‘provision’?
Many believe that the majority of the Robert’s court ruling constitute “de facto legislation”.
flopdog October 13th, 2014 at 14:53
Unconstitutional means unconstitutional. Don’t be foolish, and don’t assume you know what I think.
Voting Rights Act? You are incorrect. Change requires approval of the AG or DC Circuit. The Petitioners did an end run around the law by having that coverage struck down in Shelby. New law. Next.
What law permits me to give huge sums of money anonymously to political figures and organizations? Got the US Code cite?
What law forbids me from building a school for whites only? Cite please?
What law interned Japanese Americans in WW2? Cite?
Everson created the wall of separation between church and state. Griswold created the right of privacy. In fact, have a lesson:
· Mapp v. Ohio (1961) – held that evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment shall be excluded from evidence at trial. The “exclusionary rule,” originally devised by the Court in Weeks v. United States (1914), is now the primary way that the Fourth Amendment is enforced. It is not mentioned at all in the text of the Fourth Amendment.
· New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) – the Court required that public officials suing others for defamation must prove actual malice – a requirement that was not previously in the defamation torts. This radically altered the defamation torts of libel and slander which had existed for centuries.
· Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) – the Court struck down a law restricting contraceptives as violating the constitutional “right to privacy.” The right to privacy was not explicitly mentioned in the text of the Constitution, but the Court held that it could be inferred by reading several of the rights in the Bill of Rights in combination.
· Miranda v. Arizona (1966) – the Court held that the Fifth Amendment requires that a defendant be informed of his rights before being subjected to custodial interrogation. The Fifth Amendment does not explicitly say this; the Court held that the clause prohibiting being forced to incriminate oneself required that defendants be warned about waiving their rights before being questioned.
· Katz v. United States (1967) – the Court held that the Fourth Amendment protected against electronic eavesdropping even though it was carried out without a physical trespass into the home, dramatically reversing Olmstead v. United States (1928), a case decided nearly 40 years before.
So, in your opinion ALL that law is unconstitutional. Guess what. SCOTUS disagrees.
You seem to have the weird misconception that all law comes directly from Congress, and “corrections” must go through Congress. Wrong. In Marbury the Court appropriated the right of the Supreme Court to void legislation passed by Congress if the Court determined it to be at variance with the Constitution. If that isn’t legislating from the bench I don’t know what it.
Your problem is that you assume what the constitution says is how things are done, and you seem to be unaware of the details of exactly how law is made and rejected in the real world. That’s your choice, but it’s not how the country is actually run.
deckbose October 6th, 2014 at 10:45
Do you have even one single link to corroborate your claims?
mammasgirl October 6th, 2014 at 10:59
What states are recognizing sharia law? Tell me please.
Larry Schmitt October 6th, 2014 at 20:27
Crickets
Pundit456 October 10th, 2014 at 15:32
You tell me
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/oklahomas-ban-on-sharia-law-struck-down-by-federal-appeals-court/
flopdog October 10th, 2014 at 18:23
The answer is “none.”
RoughAcres October 6th, 2014 at 17:55
You sound like that “housewife in Florida” whose YouTube video is making the rounds. She talks about “articles” she’s read which prove all of this paranoid stuff – you must be reading and hearing the same information.
2tall4u2 October 7th, 2014 at 12:57
which one?
Larry Schmitt October 6th, 2014 at 20:28
LGBT managing to obtain the rights they’re entitled to is running roughshod over the constitution? Please explain, we have all night.
Superhamster Superhamster October 9th, 2014 at 12:56
Stop watching Fox News. Those Fox anchors sure are hot, though, even if they probably aren’t human.
Jahmaykah October 11th, 2014 at 13:38
I dislike everything about fox news the word fox says it all those racist pigs on it chose to broadcast things that favors them alone I wouldn’t watch a show on fox if it’s the only station that exists
Pundit456 October 5th, 2014 at 19:16
Alan the fact that you can only rebuke her because of her wealth and not refute the truth or her statements is testament to the fact that even you must concede her points are valid.
Some states are recognizing sharia law; the judiciary and lgbt are riding roughshod over our Constitution; our schools are absurdities suspending children for saying grace, sharing food or having normal beliefs and then making everyone else responsible for one or two children’s personal dietary restrictions.
She is absolutely right that the country is being dictated to by sub cultural groups which she correctly refers to as minorities because minority is a numeric designation not a racial or religious one.
OldLefty October 5th, 2014 at 19:37
Alan the fact that you can only rebuke
_______
Unless the minority is the 1%, the burden is on her.
As for what you said above, most is hooey when looked at more closely.
Tammy Minton Haley October 5th, 2014 at 20:47
what a bunch of racist-apologist bullshit…for the life of me, i cannot understand why you haven’t been banned–especially for some of your gay-bashing rhetoric…you’re a nasty, sour man…i don’t like you…
Anomaly 100 October 5th, 2014 at 21:32
Do I look like Alan? Is it the hair, or the smile?
I wrote the post. She is a racist of the highest order and you are her apologist.
Best regards,
That Anomaly woman
Carolyn Hardy-Asfour October 6th, 2014 at 00:50
If Christians who believe their belief system should be followed by all, would open their eyes, every time they scream this is a Christian land and religious law should be followed, they need to understand THEY are opening the door to Sharia law. And even tho this is a country of freedom of and from religion, the Constitution is a secular document, god is not mentioned, there is a reason for that and the proof is Sharia law.
If you want to pray, fine do it, but follow what your bible teaches you about praying, that it should be in private.
Gays and Lesbians are not riding roughshod over the Constitution, they are fighting for their equal rights which they are entitled to just like you or I. Your comments show you are bigoted and confused over what the Constitution truly says.
Who are you to decide what a “Normal” belief is, if someone is Muslim, Catholic, Buddhist, etc. do you not consider them “Normal”. You do not choose where you are born, or even which religion you chose, these have been selected for you by your surrounding culture. if you were from another back ground and religion, how would you feel about the statements you have made?
It’s ignorance that breeds hate, is this really something you want to teach your children, of which perhaps just might be gay.
Read, learn, understand what the constitution says and means before you fall any further in to the rabbit hole.
Although I am all about sharing food, the school did need to consider, if the child had say a peanut allergy, could have been fatal. I can see their point, which makes me wonder even more why people support Republicans, they are the ones cutting these free lunch programs/food stamps/housing for these children, so if you want to be mad at some one for a good reason, why don’t you start with your Congressman.
Thank you for reading,
From a very happy Atheist
2tall4u2 October 7th, 2014 at 12:59
Bravo!!! from an equally proud and happy Atheist. :)
Pundit456 October 10th, 2014 at 18:12
You do not sound very happy.
It is normal to believe that which is supported by physical evidence. It is normal to disregard beliefs which are unequivocally contradicted by all physical evidence. For example, it is not normal for a person to believe themselves to be one gender despite chromosome and DNA evidence to the contrary. This is not my judgement; it is simply a fact with which I take no exception.
I made sure that my children knew that people choose whether or not to live a deviant lifestyle. They know that if they ever choose to live such a lifestyle they are expected to respect the family and keep that portion of their lives outside the family home. Fortunately my children are quite comfortable with their respective genders so that the issue is moot.
It is ridiculous for a school to prohibit food sharing because is the school deems one child old enough to be culpable for sharing then the child with whom the food was shared is old enough to be aware of his/her dietary restrictions and bears responsibility for compliance. He/she can simply refuse the offer.
Not only have I read the entire Constitution (not just the 1st, 5th and 14th amendments) I have also read the notes and minutes from the convention to draft the Constitution which contain records of discussions and debates which lead to the inclusion or exclusion of certain elements as well as the intentions of the convention. Should you decide to do likewise I suppose we could have an informed and intellectually stimulating discussion.
Thank you for your thoughts.
flopdog October 10th, 2014 at 18:31
You’ve read the entire constitution? Wow. I had to do that in middle school.
Now, have you read the 250,000 pages of the entire SCOTUS Reporter dating back to West v Barnes 2 U.S. 401 (1791.) Do you know the case law in Gibbons? Johnson v M’Intosh? Runkel? Plessy? Kepner? Kellogg? Griswold? Jones? Lopez? Raich?Have you Shepardized each one to see if more recent law has mooted each case? I have, and continue to do so every day.
“Reading the constitution” is pointless without knowing the law derived from it.
I suspect you actually know very, very little about Constitutional law as of 2014.
Pundit456 October 12th, 2014 at 11:17
Was not necessary because there is nothing in the US Constitution that accords the force of law to any judicial ruling because all legislative power is vested in congress. The court has no constitutional authority to legislate; its rulings inform and bind lower courts; not the country.
Try rereading the Constitution. It’s short and unequivocal.
If you do, and you find anywhere in the Constitution or the Judiciary Act that court rulings constitute legislation, I would definitely be interested.
OldLefty October 12th, 2014 at 11:32
The court has no constitutional authority to legislate
______
This is correct.
You need to tell that to the 4 conservative justices who think they are super-legislators.
flopdog October 12th, 2014 at 20:42
Indeed. Citizens United isn’t de facto legislation?
OldLefty October 12th, 2014 at 21:12
I always refer to Citizens United as the new campaign finance laws that the Supreme Court passed in 2010.
flopdog October 12th, 2014 at 21:37
I agree. I put Citizens United and MCCutcheon in the same crap law bucket as Plessy and Dred Scott. Wildly unconstitutional law specifically designed to buy elections.
“The Court’s conservative majority believes that the First Amendment gives wealthy donors and powerful corporations the carte blanche right to buy an election but that the Fifteenth Amendment does not give Americans the right to vote free of racial discrimination.”
Instead of sending (and “losing”) $20 billion+ in shrink wrapped pallets of $100 bills to Iraq, we could have given every citizen a verified ID w/ RFID free of charge. Then passed legislation that every single US citizen over 18 MUST vote, and that polls stay open for 48 uninterrupted hours, including one weekend day. Make it a national holiday. And if banks have kept ATM systems on essentially 100% uptime for decades, I think we can figure out secure electronic voting, hm?
I suspect Congress would look very, very different if all Americans participated in the voting process instead of the pitiful turnouts our paleolithic elections draw.
flopdog October 12th, 2014 at 20:23
Ah, so Mapp does not regulate evidence obtained in searches? Roe does not regulate abortion? Terry does not regulate traffic stops? Lopez does not regulate federal power to declare gun-free zones? Raich does not give Congress power to regulate anything they want? Do you understand how Shepardizing works in litigation?
You don’t think Plessy was de facto legislation?
Do you understand the difference between regulation and legislation? Do you understand stare decisis and its effect on litigation? Ever read a brief? How are they argued? They argue precedent and case law. Your entire argument was concerning a single court case, not legislation.
You think “it is not necessary” to read and understand case law in order to litigate? As I suggested, I suspect you actually know very, very little about Constitutional law as of 2014.
Where, pray tell, did I imply that SCOTUS legislates?
Pundit456 October 12th, 2014 at 23:13
“…de facto legislation…” hmmm; I missed that provision in the Constitution; do you have a citation?
Stare decisis is an internal scotus policy that is not even binding on the court as Kennedy demonstrated in Lawrence v Texas when he used a convoluted rationale to overturn Bowers v Hardwick.
This is why the Constitution vests all legislative power in congress and outlines the procedure for enacting and repealing laws as well as amending the Constitution. It is not a quick or easy process because the law is not intended to be variable nor made on the whim of a few unelected individuals.
As to your question, what exactly do you think de facto legislation means?
flopdog October 13th, 2014 at 00:43
I really need to explain de facto law to you? Abortion is de facto legal due to SCOTUS case law. Shelby gutted and mooted the Voting Rights Act, because Roberts simply substituted the court’s judgment for Congress’s in deciding which states should be covered under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which required voting rules in states with a history of discrimination to be pre-cleared by the Justice Department. Actual Congressional legislation is no longer enforced because SCOTUS decided it shouldn’t WITHOUT reconsideration by Congress. You really want me to continue?
There is no section of US Code which prevents or permits unlimited, anonymous campaign contributions to political parties or candidates. Yet two major recent cases have made such law. There is no mention of such funding in the Constitution, there is no Congressional legislation about such funding: it is legal only because SCOTUS says it is. So if I donate $200 million to the next Republican Presidential Candidate, and request total anonymity, what law permits me to do this and not be prosecuted? Only a SCOTUS ruling: therefore de facto law.
And as for that mumbo jumbo about stare decisis being an “internal SCOTUS policy;” you are of course, incorrect. Stare decisis is simply precedent; established and accepted case law throughout all US courts. All SCOTUS rulings are nationally binding, as is Circuit precedent within that Circuit. It is not mere “policy.”
You are talking philosophy and a world of fantasy that doesn’t exist. I suspect your opposition to Bowers being overturned is a personal opinion, rather than a legal one, and I would love to hear your argument supporting Bowers while discounting Dred Scott. I could fill volumes with law that has nothing to do with Congress. I am talking about the law as it is enforced and litigated today. IOW, the real world. YMMV.
Pundit456 October 13th, 2014 at 07:28
If you actually read the voting rights act you would know that it includes a provision for the court to take the action it took.
Apparently you subscribe to the misconception that unconstitutional means unfair.
Unconstitutional means a direct conflict with the US constitution.
The FIRST article of the US Constitution says all legislative power is vested in congress. Therefore “de facto legislation” is a violation of the Constitution.
There is no constitutional provision that accords the power of law to precedent; precedent is not law and “case law” is not legislation.
Schoolhouse Rock produced a video on how a bill becomes a law. It may help you to understand the legislative process.
OldLefty October 13th, 2014 at 07:52
provision for the court to take the action it took
______
Can you cite that ‘provision’?
Many believe that the majority of the Robert’s court ruling constitute “de facto legislation”.
flopdog October 13th, 2014 at 14:53
Unconstitutional means unconstitutional. Don’t be foolish, and don’t assume you know what I think.
Voting Rights Act? You are incorrect. Change requires approval of the AG or DC Circuit. The Petitioners did an end run around the law by having that coverage struck down in Shelby. New law. Next.
What law permits me to give huge sums of money anonymously to political figures and organizations? Got the US Code cite?
What law forbids me from building a school for whites only? Cite please?
What law interned Japanese Americans in WW2? Cite?
Everson created the wall of separation between church and state. Griswold created the right of privacy. In fact, have a lesson:
· Mapp v. Ohio (1961) – held that evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment shall be excluded from evidence at trial. The “exclusionary rule,” originally devised by the Court in Weeks v. United States (1914), is now the primary way that the Fourth Amendment is enforced. It is not mentioned at all in the text of the Fourth Amendment.
· New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) – the Court required that public officials suing others for defamation must prove actual malice – a requirement that was not previously in the defamation torts. This radically altered the defamation torts of libel and slander which had existed for centuries.
· Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) – the Court struck down a law restricting contraceptives as violating the constitutional “right to privacy.” The right to privacy was not explicitly mentioned in the text of the Constitution, but the Court held that it could be inferred by reading several of the rights in the Bill of Rights in combination.
· Miranda v. Arizona (1966) – the Court held that the Fifth Amendment requires that a defendant be informed of his rights before being subjected to custodial interrogation. The Fifth Amendment does not explicitly say this; the Court held that the clause prohibiting being forced to incriminate oneself required that defendants be warned about waiving their rights before being questioned.
· Katz v. United States (1967) – the Court held that the Fourth Amendment protected against electronic eavesdropping even though it was carried out without a physical trespass into the home, dramatically reversing Olmstead v. United States (1928), a case decided nearly 40 years before.
So, in your opinion ALL that law is unconstitutional. Guess what. SCOTUS disagrees.
You seem to have the weird misconception that all law comes directly from Congress, and “corrections” must go through Congress. Wrong. In Marbury the Court appropriated the right of the Supreme Court to void legislation passed by Congress if the Court determined it to be at variance with the Constitution. If that isn’t legislating from the bench I don’t know what is.
Presidential Executive Orders have the full force of law, and are not even mentioned in the Constitution.
Your problem is that you assume what the constitution says is how things are done, and you seem to be unaware of the details of exactly how law is made and rejected in the real world. That’s your choice, but it’s not how the country is actually run.
deckbose October 6th, 2014 at 10:45
Do you have even one single link to corroborate your claims?
Retired mamma. October 6th, 2014 at 10:59
What states are recognizing sharia law? Tell me please.
Larry Schmitt October 6th, 2014 at 20:27
Crickets
Pundit456 October 10th, 2014 at 15:32
You tell me
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/oklahomas-ban-on-sharia-law-struck-down-by-federal-appeals-court/
flopdog October 10th, 2014 at 18:23
The answer is “none.”
RoughAcres October 6th, 2014 at 17:55
You sound like that “housewife in Florida” whose YouTube video is making the rounds. She talks about “articles” she’s read which prove all of this paranoid stuff – you must be reading and hearing the same information.
2tall4u2 October 7th, 2014 at 12:57
which one?
Larry Schmitt October 6th, 2014 at 20:28
LGBT managing to obtain the rights they’re entitled to is riding roughshod over the constitution? Please explain, we have all night.
Gary C. Stein October 7th, 2014 at 00:55
No states are recognizing sharia law, you have no knowledge of our Constitution or its history, and the only “sub cultural groups” around are conservative Republicans and TeaBaggers.
Pundit456 October 10th, 2014 at 15:29
Here is your link on Sharia Law
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/oklahomas-ban-on-sharia-law-struck-down-by-federal-appeals-court/
This blog contains links to the US Constitution and the Judiciary Act
http://thepundit456.wordpress.com/2014/10/07/told-you-so/
I will not bother to link you to the definition of subculture.
As to your absurd assertion, which is obviously intended to disparage groups who do not subscribe to the lgbt delusion, republican and democrat were once simply disparate ideologies in a political context. Now they and the tea party are ploys to garner political support for the sake of (their) job security. However people are not required to accept an alternate view of reality in order to interact with any non-lgbt member of any political party.
Conversely, lgbt embraces sexual behavior which is antithetical to normal human sexual behavior; and is disdained by the predominate culture to which lgbt refuses to comport which relegates it to sub cultural status.
flopdog October 10th, 2014 at 18:23
Well considering the Sharia law case you quote took place two years ago, and it is unconstitutional to make a law respecting of any religion, the fed court was correct in striking down the law.
The blog to which you refer is your own, and has nothing on it but a rehash of your post.
Pundit456 October 12th, 2014 at 11:21
First of all I do not believe I addressed you before you replied to me but had you read my comment it was not the blog but the links within the blog that the point.
The ruling has yet to be overturned.
flopdog October 12th, 2014 at 20:49
“The blog?” It’s your own blog, so you can lose the attempt to present it as a source of anything but your own opinion.. There are three links within. One to the Constitution, one to the Judiciary Act and another link back to your blog. What, exactly, do you think that proves?
You didn’t address me? So what? Are you new to online political discourse? This isn’t a private discussion between you and anyone, and all are free to reply to any post they choose.
The Awad District ruling has yet to be overturned because no one has appealed it to the Circuit, nor is it likely. Why? Because the case is TERMINATED. Here is the PACER record:
https://ecf.okwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryParties.pl?78637
and here is the actual ruling:
https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/awad_v_ziriax_–_order.pdf
You seem very unfamiliar with how the US legal system actually operates, and are way out of your league.
flopdog October 13th, 2014 at 15:20
I notice that when someone debunks one of your claims “the ruling has yet to be overturned” you cut and run.
In the post below I list the PACER listing for Awad and the actual ruling itself, which neatly smacks your “Sharia is coming to America!” claim. Yet you have nothing to say.
Any reason for that?
Pundit456 October 15th, 2014 at 10:36
As long as you choose to debate irrefutable facts there is no foundation for meaningful discussion.
flopdog October 15th, 2014 at 13:00
Sharia law is coming to America is an “irrefutable fact?”
I suspect you’re really saying “I have no idea how to use PACER, and don’t feel like reading the actual ruling, which is very clear proof that Sharia law is NOT coming to America.”
As for your claim “all law comes from Congress,” you don’t seem to understand enough about how the law works in the US today, though you do write well.
Yes, it is indeed also irrefutable that judges legislate from the bench, and have since John Marshall and Marbury. Constitutional or not, it is done, and much of what regulates our daily lives is the product of jurisprudence, not congressional legislation.
Next time a cop stops you and asks to search your car, try and remember what section of US Code permits you to tell him he may not.
You have a nice day now.
Superhamster Superhamster October 9th, 2014 at 12:56
Stop watching Fox News. Those Fox anchors sure are hot, though, even if they probably aren’t human.
Jahmaykah October 11th, 2014 at 13:38
I dislike everything about fox news the word fox says it all those racist pigs on it chose to broadcast things that favors them alone I wouldn’t watch a show on fox if it’s the only station that exists
nadiasindi October 5th, 2014 at 21:25
Ms. Lucas how about criminal official who are committing fraud, forgery and big time crimes, by stealing our homes, etc..etc..etc..???!!!
Oregon’s former A.G.Frohnmayer is preventing me getting employed, made me homeless! Put a lien fully paid Condo and sold it!
http://private-person.com/blog/2014/05/us-supreme-court-rules-government-officers-liable/
He is charging $550.00 an hour and his law firm Harrang is the D.A. of Lane County, City Attorney and the U of Oregon too!!
Frohnmayer’s committed more fraudulent crimes,forgery than any elected/nonelected official! And noone is holding him accountable!
http://www.uomatters.com/2011/12/why-dave-frohnmayer-is-not-acceptable.html
http://www.uomatters.com/tag/frohnmayer-salary-and-perks
http://www.uomatters.com/2010/05/frohnmayer-speaks.html
http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-21195-reputation_for_rent.html
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19900215&id=sUNWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=huoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6655,3369919
Frohnmayer against Smith “Peyote Persecution Shows Societal Racism!
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1213
Please sign both petitions.
https://www.change.org/petitions/a-g-eric-holder-sent-jeff-merkley-gov-john-kitzhaber-investigate-abuse-of-power-and-criminal-forgery-by-former-oregon-a-g-david-frohnmayer-and-lane-county-government#share
And this one with Causes too. Thanks!
https://www.causes.com/posts/899197
rat618 October 5th, 2014 at 22:23
Like she built Lucas Oil…hey I’m tired of rich white folks who inherit their money and then act like they actually did something to gain that wealth.
rat618 October 5th, 2014 at 22:23
Like she built Lucas Oil…hey I’m tired of rich white folks who inherit their money and then act like they actually did something to gain that wealth.
The last of the Thousad Sons October 6th, 2014 at 09:57
If you are really upset with all this harridan has to say then maybe it’s time to really hurt her in a way that she’ll notice and let’s collectively push for alternative fuel sources.Trust you me, this c%^t doesn’t give two hot squirts of piss about our belly aching but she does care about her money and station.
disqus_6ydDNcJcx6 October 11th, 2014 at 09:30
That’s all they know is money. That is there God. MONEY is their God and this is their symbol $.
Carmen Jones October 6th, 2014 at 11:05
Lmao…she’s a dummy…doesn’t she know white people are the minority now..
Carmen Jones October 6th, 2014 at 11:05
Lmao…she’s a dummy…doesn’t she know white people are the minority now..
Nicholas Russell Harris October 6th, 2014 at 11:16
She just almmed into a brick wall on that one!
Nicholas Russell Harris October 6th, 2014 at 11:16
She just slammed into a brick wall on that one!