Let me say this about
that. The story you are about to read at
the link below explains in a few pages everything you need to know about why
the left can never be allowed to be a majority in power in this nation if we
are to have a nation, and about why so many decisions of the court are 5-4 and
not 9-0; almost half of the court doesn’t know shit about the Constitution.
By way of a quick reminder…..the
founders did NOT write the Constitution enshrining the Supreme Court as the
ultimate authority of the land. In fact,
the founders gave very little thought to the role of the court other than that
it would be the supreme COURT of the land; all other courts were created by
acts of congress, including the most often overturned ninth circuit court of
appeals (also known as those crazy assholes out west). The philosophy of judicial review, that the
court enshrines is one that the court ITSELF adopted unto itself under John C.
Marshall; the founders actually assumed that the branches of government would
review or “police themselves”, given that the Constitution is written to mean
exactly what the words say, and that very little actual interpretation would be
needed.
And that is pretty much the
way it was until FDR and his fellow travelers turned the ENTIRE federal
government into something that the founders could never have envisioned. Up until FDR, plus or minus a little, the
Supreme Court dealt primarily with issues between the states and the
constitutional impacts of those issues, in short matters of Constitutional law
in the federal system. But, since the
days of FDR, and almost non-stop since the Warren Court, the supreme court
turned its’ attention towards cultural issues, all too often leaning in the
direction of the progressive winds, started in the middle of the last century. Thus the court has become the ultimate,
un-elected, un-accountable LEGISLATIVE authority, on whom frankly we as a
nation cannot trust. You often hear said
of the court that you never know how it will decide, but with the nations’
turning away from the Constitution as the LAW and depending on the Court as the
LAWMAKER, you can generally be sure of how the court will decide. What you cannot be sure of is what rationale
the court will use for its’ un-constitutional rulings.
Which brings me to Ginsburg,
Sota-Mayor and Elena Kagan; three of the least accomplished jurists to serve on
the court in almost 100 years, and three who clearly do not grasp their constitutional
role.
Ginsburg was a key force
behind Roe v. Wade, and gave away her complete lack of understanding on the
issue when she insisted that her support.
After being nominated to the appellate courts by Jimmy Carter, based on
a career of almost exclusively “womens rights” judicial activism, she was
somehow considered a centrist when nominated to the court by Bill Clinton. She set precedent in her earlier nominations
with the “Ginsburg Precendent” wherein a nominee would not answer questions on
specific cases. Though strongly
supported by democrats at the time, it is utterly ignored by the same democrats
when a nominee from a conservative President comes before the senate; abortion
being the prime example. Ginsburg has
said of Roe v. Wade that she would never have supported what has become
abortion on demand if it was to be a form of birth control and not one of
womens’ health and choice. EVERYTHING
Ginsburg believed about the abortion issue has been proven wrong; we now know
it has NOTHING to do with womens health, anymore that a vasectomy has to do
with mens’ health. Ginsburg is
apparently unaware that abortion is the leading cause of death among black
children in this nation; as the original planned parenthood founder (s)
intended for it to be.
Sota-Mayor, and her “exceptional life story”
apparently has ONLY the life story as a qualification for the high court, along
with her running buddy, Elena Kagan.
From the beginning of paragraph five of the article at the link,
beginning with “In the dissent…..” Sota-Mayor and Ginsburg shoe a fundamental misunderstanding
of their role as associate justices of the Supreme Court. The two go on to detail a host of issues
causing them to dissent with the upholding of the Presidents’ travel ban, none
of them having any basis in any legitimate understanding of the Constitution. And they feel comfortable with their dissent
because, as they go on to show, they do not understand the Constitution. In
the statement “Our Constitution demands, and our country deserves, a Judiciary
willing to hold the coordinate branches to account when they defy our most
sacred legal commitments” Sota-Mayor, writing the dissenting opinion is simply
making shit up. Our Constitution demands
nothing of the sort of the Judiciary, and this issue is an odd one for a liberal
to invoke a “sacred legal commitment”.
However, that statement says a lot about the liberal branch of the courts
willingness to serve up to the left, the decisions that progressive, anti-Americanism
demands.
And this is
illustrative. Dick Durbin, that fairly disgusting
and open liar and senator from Illinois has said openly that Presidents’ Trump
pick to the court might be worth fighting so viciously as to possibly discredit
some senators in vulnerable states; give up some seats in the senate and remain
in the minority for the next 6-10 years, in order to get the justice the left
wants on the court; he and others, to include Sota-Mayor, Ginsburg and Kagan,
clearly see the court as the legislative body that will give the left what it
cannot get in the legislative branch.
I am not at
all sure that the court can ever be put back on course……over 50 years of ALL of
our lawyers and judges going through liberal, anti-constitutional indoctrination
in the schools. But I am sure that we
can never hope to be the country our forefathers wrote into being if we allow a
liberal to nominate another supreme court justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment