New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Five Judges And One President

Flanders

Council Member
Were it not for the Supreme Court the federal government could not have seized every power the states once had. In addition to the Supreme Court joining with presidents they have been working to remove every liberty from private sector Americans. Rights they once believed were theirs.

Basically, FIVE judges and one president —— starting with LBJ —— do whatever they choose to do. Ruth Ginsburg is only one judge, but she would not say the things she is saying without knowing that four of her brethren are already onboard. The peril is that Ginsburg has neither the intellect, nor an understanding of governance; nevertheless, she plows right ahead writing her beliefs into law.


. . . Ginsburg said: “The change in people’s attitudes on that issue has been enormous. In recent years, people have said, ‘This is the way I am.’ And others looked around, and we discovered it’s our next-door neighbor – we’re very fond of them. Or it’s our child’s best friend, or even our child. I think that as more and more people came out and said that ‘this is who I am,’ the rest of us recognized that they are one of us.”

Her arguments appear to bear out a warning from a member of the Supreme Court of California, who wrote a dissent when that court, in 2008, created same-sex marriage in that state.

Calls for Ginsburg to drop out of marriage case escalate
Posted By Bob Unruh On 02/12/2015 @ 8:48 pm

http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/calls-for-ginsburg-to-drop-out-of-marriage-case-escalate/

NOTE: Long-serving senators who did so much to neuter the very states they supposedly represented would have been powerless without the president and the Supreme Court.

The suggestion in this excerpt is more tyrannical than it is humorous:


Some humorously suggest granting to Liberal Statists the Dark Blue States conditional upon their pact to leave us alone in our Dark Red States.​

So long as presidents, and the Supreme Court, can get away with forcing behavior for their sick view of the common good, every American in every Red state will remain mind-numbered robots obeying their tyrannical creators.

Incidentally, the federal government’s political philosophy is not a deep dark secret. Eric Hoffer reduced it to 39 words decades before the country came to where it as today:


The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

Sad to say, a million amendments will change nothing:

Mark Levin recommends Article V action, a Convention of the States for Proposing Amendments.

“Nuts!” Sometimes it’s the only answer
By Dr. Brad Lyles February 13, 2015

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/69740

Parenthetically, Red states would obviously strengthen and improve upon the original Bill of Rights, but I often wonder what kind of a Constitution would Blue states ratify should a civil war establish two separate nations?

The fraud on par with manmade global warming

The same-sex marriage comedy goes to the very difference between God and religion. Liberals claim they believe in the Constitution only, while conservatives believe in God and the Constitution. CNN anchor Chris Cuomo does some fancy footwork. He objects to God, but he does not seem to mind religion in the Constitution. Obviously, he does not know the difference.


In a heated debate over same-sex marriage with Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore Thursday, CNN morning anchor Chris Cuomo exclaimed that Americans’ rights “do not come from God.”

Cuomo’s abrupt response came after Judge Moore stated, “Our rights, contained in the Bill of Rights, do not come from the Constitution. They come from God. That’s clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence.”

Cuomo, a licensed attorney, sharply interrupted Judge Moore, arguing, “Our rights do not come from God, your honor, and you know that.

CNN anchor: Americans' rights 'do not come from God'
Posted By Chelsea Schilling On 02/12/2015 @ 8:50 pm

http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/cnn-anchor-americans-rights-do-not-come-from-god/

Finally, once the parasite class convinces Americans they owe every liberty to the federal government it will only be a matter of time before Socialists will finish demolishing the Constitution. Before you doubt me, count the Rights that vanished for the overwhelming majority in the past six decades, while a tiny minority in that same tine period acquired special privileges paid for by the rest of us. Many younger Americans lost many God-given Rights without knowing they ever had them. Future generations will have none at all.
 
Last edited:

Flanders

Council Member
The country will be better off if Baby Ruth stays starched! Her decisions make more sense when she is pickled than when she is sober.

Ginsburg: ‘I Wasn’t 100 Percent Sober’ For State Of The Union Address
February 13, 2015 7:23 AM

WASHINGTON (CBSDC) — We now know why it appears that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg appeared to fall asleep during President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address last month – she was drinking beforehand.

In a lighthearted moment before an audience at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., Thursday night, the 81-year-old Ginsburg cracked up telling the story that she “wasn’t 100 percent sober” before going to the State of the Union.

“The audience – for the most part – is awake because they’re bobbing up and down all the time and we sit there stone-faced, sober judges,” Ginsburg said. “At least I wasn’t 100 percent sober because before we went to the State of the Union we had dinner.”

Ginsburg said that Justice Anthony Kennedy was the culprit, bringing wine to dinner.

“Justice Kennedy brought in … it was an Opus something or other, very fine California wine that Justice Kennedy brought and I vowed this year just sparkling water, stay away from the wine,” Ginsburg told the audience. “But in the end, the dinner was so delicious, it needed wine to accompany it.”

She continued: “So I got a call when I came home from one of my granddaughters and she said, ‘Bubbe, you were sleeping at the State of the Union.”

Justice Antonin Scalia, who was on stage with Ginsburg, joked, “Well, that’s the first intelligent thing you’ve done.”

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/02/13/ginsburg-i-wasnt-100-percent-sober-for-state-of-the-union-address/
 

Flanders

Council Member
Chief Justice Roberts was one of the five judges that infected the country with the ACA when he had a chance to get rid of it. He will probably be one of the five judges who will do it again:

The Affordable Care Act, President Obama’s signature achievement, will soon face a challenge, in the Supreme Court case known as King v. Burwell, that could conceivably destroy it. In fact, the Act may survive because of a legal doctrine beloved by conservatives and championed by Chief Justice John Roberts.

Every first-year law student learns about the principle of “standing” in civil-procedure class. Under Article III of the Constitution, the federal courts are only allowed to hear “cases” and “controversies.” For decades, the Supreme Court has interpreted those words to mean that plaintiffs must be able to show an “injury in fact” from a law in order to have the right to bring a case challenging the law.

February 12, 2015
Did Chief Justice John Roberts Save the Affordable Care Act?
By Jeffrey Toobin

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/chief-justice-john-roberts-save-affordable-care-act?intcid=mod-latest

NOTE: John Roberts has a sweet gig in the case of King v. Burwell. Predicting the outcome of any Supreme Court case involving tax dollars, and/or Wall Street’s income, is as easy as pie. No Supreme Court will ever rule to reduce or eliminate the federal government’s revenues.

Let’s go back to Ginsburg on this one

As an average American I think I understand standing, although I never understood why for decades Ginsburg’s ACLU got standing in the most absurd cases. It was not until a few years ago that two appellate court judges throw the ACLU out of the building. But then those judges were NOT counted among the FIVE doing a president’s bidding.


Two federal appellate courts said “enough” and have recently thrown out ACLU lawsuits brought to stop prayer before the Indiana Legislature and a school board in Louisiana because the ACLU’s clients had suffered no harm—that is, they “lacked standing” to bring a lawsuit in the first place. So, rulings on “standing” are now protecting public prayer.

The ACLU and Its Allies: Standing in Need of Prayer
By Jared Lorence
Thursday, November 22, 2007

http://townhall.com/columnists/jordanlorence/2007/11/22/the_aclu_and_its_allies__standing_in_need_of_prayer

In denying lawsuits because plaintiffs lack standing the amount of tax dollars going to ACLU lawyers in fees is reduced considerably. The federal appellate court finally reining in the ACLU’s legislative lawsuits is not the end of the ACLU’s destructive interference in other realms of the law although it signaled a major sea change in tax dollar funding. The problem is that the court did not go far enough.

I recall reading that dozens of ACLU lawyers simply show up in state and local courts and bill the town for their “participation” in the suit. Few towns and counties can afford to pay those astronomical fees; so the ACLU often forces a settlement by default. Those cities and states that choose to fight the ACLU should not be forced to pay the ACLU’s fees with tax dollars.

Some will argue that the ACLU is entitled to tax dollars because it fights for everybody’s Rights. Not true. The ACLU defends causes and defendants I do not want to support. Try to imagine those who think the ACLU is a good thing forcing society to support a Christian religion instead of tearing it down. The ACLU defending a Christian religion or private property would give Communists a collective nervous breakdown.

If Ginsburg’s ACLU is so wonderful Americans would see it and support it voluntarily. My Rights disappear completely when I am forced to support the ACLU with tax dollars. That is definitely not in line with the Constitution even though the ACLU always claims it defends the Constitution. J. Matt Barber torpedoed that myth in a 2011 article. In any event, the ACLU defending the Constitution is akin to an atheist defending God in a kangaroo court.

Sad to say the ACLU has been at it for a long, long, time. Long enough to have one of their own on the US Supreme Court in the person of Ruth Ginsburg. Other justices might [Unwelcome language removed] a bit on issues near and dear to their hearts, while liberal justices overtly favor broad themes like Socialism, non-existent International law, and so on. Ginsburg is the only one who represents a specific organization advocating a precise ideology.

Finally, Roger Baldwin, one of the ACLU’s founders and its first director, laid out Ginsburg’s judicial philosophy for all time irrespective of the ACLU barring Communists from leadership and staff positions in 1940.


I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.

March 24, 2011
ACLU v. Religious Liberty
By J. Matt Barber

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/aclu_v_religious_liberty.html
 
Last edited:

Flanders

Council Member
I’ll wager that the title of this thread overrides the Constitution not to mention Judge Hansen:

A federal judge in South Texas on Monday temporarily blocked President Barack Obama's executive order on immigration, giving a coalition of 26 states time to pursue a lawsuit that aims to permanently stop the orders.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen's decision comes after a hearing in Brownsville in January and puts on hold Obama's orders that could spare as many as five million people who are in the U.S. illegally from deportation.

Hanen wrote in a memorandum accompanying his order that the lawsuit should go forward and that without a preliminary injunction the states will "suffer irreparable harm in this case."

"The genie would be impossible to put back into the bottle," he wrote, adding that he agreed with the plaintiffs' argument that legalizing the presence of millions of people is a "virtually irreversible" action.​

I cannot figure out how the High Court determines refusing to enforce immigration laws means NOT ENFORCING IMMIGRATION LAWS:

The White House in a statement early Tuesday defended the executive orders issued in November as within the president's legal authority, saying that the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress have said federal officials can set priorities in enforcing immigration laws.

Judge Temporarily Blocks Obama's Executive Action On Immigration
February 17, 201512:36 AM ET
The Associated Press

http://www.npr.org/2015/02/17/386863032/judge-temporarily-blocks-obamas-executive-action-on-immigration?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=storiesfromnpr
 

EatTheRich

President
The ACLU, of course, has gone to court many times to keep people's liberties under the Bill of Rights from being violated. Usually it's been people on the left supporting the ACLU and people on the right supporting the violators.
 
The judge in question will be overturned, his reputation and decision are not highly regarded by anyone outside of conservative circles. Roberts will not set up a constitutional crisis by attempting to curb executive power. If the GOP wants to fix this problem, pass a bill.
 
Top