SCOTUS favors business over consumers…who woulda thought?

With the confirmation of Elena Kagan now supposedly a slam-dunk, the Supreme Court will have to deal with another liberal such as the Justice she is replacing, John Paul Stevens. Even then, the court is still slanted to the right in favor of business, according to an analysis by the Constitutional Accountability Center. It remains 5 to 4, and not likely to tilt back left for awhile, based on the ages of the conservative justices. Is that bad?

Yes, for consumers, when you consider what they had to endure in the 8 years George W. Bush was in office. The GOP has no use for the rights of consumers, and it is left up to activists to protect them from the greedy business community. Yes, when it comes to politics, considering the Court’s January 2010 decision to open the floodgates to big money business interests. The typical individual voter cannot compete against this, thus, suffers in congressional legislation.

The study goes on to say that business has won a wide majority of cases recently, even though Justice Sonia Sotomayor is less likely to support business than David Souter, whom she replaced. With 5 justices on the hard left, the corporate world will continue to get its way, and the “Little People” will have to fight for everything they get.

Please visit my writing at Examiner.com

Report on Arizona’s new Immigration Law, SB1070, right from the trenches


I have been writing about this new law passed recently in Arizona in my Phoenix Examiner.com column. And…taking a lot of hits from comments that would take the varnish off your coffee table. People in Phoenix are passionate about the immigration issue, most non-Hispanics for, and most Hispanics against. I say “most” since some Hispanics are in favor of the bill, some non-Hispanics against.

Here’s a summary of the substance of SB 1070 according to the Arizona Senate:

Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.

The key word is “legitimate,” which is defined by a person committing a felony, misdemeanor, involved in a traffic accident, or other acts giving the police probable cause to suspect the person. That explanation, in itself, holds a litany of possibilities for officers to either mishandle a situation or, at the very least, be accused of it. And from what I have heard and read, there is considerable confusion over the interpretation of this law.

Its author, Russell Pierce, hangs around with the likes of J.T. Ready, known neo-fascist, also from Mesa, according to Phoenix New Times blog, Feathered Bastard. Pierce’s anti-Mexican attitude is a matter of record, so the burning question here is, was SB1070 born of this racist belief? Many think it was, but don’t seem to care as long as it gets rid of the illegals.

Something Arizona residents might ask themselves before pouring their support behind the law is: 1) who will clean your house? 2) Who will take care of your yard? 3) Who will cook your food in local restaurants? and 4) Who will work the agricultural fields, both in Arizona and nationwide, if this lunacy catches on? And even with a down economy, most unemployed whites won’t take those jobs, if past history is any indication.

What we need is for the White House and Congress to get off their duffs and pass meaningful immigration reforms. But this isn’t likely in an election year. Business as usual.

Please visit my writing at Examiner.com

We’re back!

Yes, we’re back with a new look and format that should appeal to a wide array of readers looking for answers on what is going on in our everyday life. Check the new Dunning Letter Mission, above, and join us daily for the fray.