The Supreme Court strikes again

Obviously this has been a big week for the nine people who currently inhabit the seats of the Supreme Court.   And while the Gay Marriage decision makes HEADLINE news....there are a few other issues that are REALLY IMPORTANT.

THE VOTE WAS 5-4

THIS ISSUE IS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR GAY PEOPLE

EQUAL RIGHTS FOR HUMAN BEINGS WHO JUST HAPPEN TO BE GAY SHOULD NOT BE THIS BIG OF AN ISSUE

IT'S JUST THE WAY IT SHOULD BE

NOT BEING ABLE TO SUE A PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY THAT MANUFACTURES A FAULTY GENERIC DRUG
IS AN ISSUE THAT AFFECTS.......

.......EVERYBODY

80% OF THE PRESCRIPTION DRUGS CONSUMED IN THIS COUNTRY ARE GENERIC

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES RULED THIS WEEK THAT NO ONE CAN SUE FOR MANUFACTURING A FAULTY GENERIC DRUG BECAUSE THE DRUG WAS APPROVED BY THE FDA.

THAT'S A MUCH BIGGER ISSUE BECAUSE IT AFFECTS THE ENTIRE POPULATION

I personally don't know any gay monogamous couples and it's true I don't have many gay friends (there are a few that I wonder about) but almost everybody I know over the age of 10 takes some form of prescription drugs.  EVERYBODY.



And then there is the decision to change parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  This is a very interesting decision that I've had to read three times to fully understand and I'm still not sure what it really means.

I DO KNOW THAT IT'S A CONSERVATIVE VS LIBERAL ISSUE AND REPUBLICAN VS DEMOCRATS AND 7 SOUTHERN STATES AND ALASKA AND ARIZONA VS THE REST OF THE COUNTRY.

I've got to read it again but the fact that Governor Rick Perry of Texas called it a "clear victory for Federalism and the states" and that "Texas may now implement the will of the people without being subjected to outdated and unnecessary oversight and the overreach of Federal power." truly makes me think that this a big victory for full blown assholes.

The Republicans have needed a boost into the arena of civil rights issues since Lincoln went to the theater and by all accounts this is a full step backwards........but of course I'm just reflecting what I'm not sure I'm reading and so if anyone wants to clear this up for me I'd be very appreciative.

THE VOTE WAS 5-4

AND THEN THERE'S THE CUSTODY RULING.

A three and half year old named "BABY GIRL" by the court was ordered returned to her adoptive parents after living with her biological father for the last year and half.  Known as Veronica, by the rest of the planet, she will be leaving her father and returned to her adoptive parents where she lived for the first two years of her life because the mom, who was not named, gave the baby up for adoption. The father signed the parents, in a text message, for adoption but recanted the next day because he claims he didn't understand what he had signed. He sued and got custody of his daughter then the adoptive parents sued and a year and half later the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the adoptive parents.  The father was claiming because Veronica was "3/256 Cherokee" that he was entitled to keep her according to the Child Welfare Act of 1978 that was created to prevent the breakup of Native American families. 

I suppose before then there were a bunch of Anglo parents trying to own Native American babies......seriously how rampant could that trend have been? 

If the father was being a good father, and apparently he was, then there is no way Veronica should be sent back to her non-biological parents. 

The Supreme Court ruled that "Baby Girl" should be with her adoptive parents BUT the case was sent back to the South Carolina courts who originally had granted custody to the father.

Think of the child's age and how development changes from 2 to 3 and one half.  She might have been bothered when she left at two but at 3 1/2 SHE'S FREAKING OUT.

IT SOUNDS LIKE MARK BURNETT NEEDS TO GET INVOLVED and I can see it already on CBS

"VERONICA.....BABY GIRL"   Daddy or no daddy.  Tuesday 9pm.

AGAIN THE VOTE WAS 5-4

Regarding the Private Property issue

For those of us in California this ruling will have an impact on Coastal Commission decisions that required landowners to give up some property in exchange for building permits....and that could have something to do with low income housing and public beach access along the coast.

It's going to take awhile to sort out what this means.

THE VOTE WAS 5-4

MY MAIN POINT OF THIS ARTICLE IS THAT WHEN WE VOTE FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WE ARE VOTING FOR WHO SITS ON THE SUPREME COURT.  BECAUSE AFTER EVERYTHING IS SAID AND DONE.....THERE ARE NO CHECKS AND BALANCES ON SUPREME COURT DECISIONS....and trust me when I say that the people trying to win a Presidential election know that fact completely.........and while they won't admit it....IT MIGHT BE THE MOST IMPORTANT POWER THAT THE PRESIDENT POSSESSES.

The votes always 5-4

Google or Bing each one and note when they were appointed and the 5-4 vote makes perfect sense.

And just for the record....I've never seen the front page of THE LOS ANGELES TIMES  show pictures of each Justice and how they voted on a particular case.....UNTIL THE GAY MARRAIGE RULING.

Of course I'm a guy who is just still trying to figure out how they manged to control
The Rainbow.

Michael Timothy McAlevey