Matthew N.
Matthew's Week End Commentary
One aspect of the upcoming Presidential election that has received little attention is the subject of the Supreme Court.
And why shouldn't this topic be getting short shrift? After all, we'd apparently rather argue over who has released more tax returns, or at least that's what your Obamaniac American Press would have you believe really counts, notwithstanding the debate over whether this or that act of Muslim fundaMENTAList murder is terrorism or not, our government deciding to harass and censor a citizen to appease the Arab Street, or celebrating yet another successful Obamatard appearance on Letterman. We're kinda busy, you know, debating the important stuff, and the Supreme Court is about 10,546th on our list.
Or at least it's that low on the media's list.
There is the possibility that the next President of the United States may get to fill as many as three vacancies on the Supreme Court during his term, as old age and illness, one assumes, begin to wear down the court's membership.
These three justices are:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 79, and in poor health (she has battled colon cancer since 1999). This Clinton-era appointee is both the oldest and most liberal member of the court. She is also one of the greater proponents for using foreign legal process and precedent to 'inform' the opinion of the Supreme Court, including Sharia law.
Antonin Scalia is 76, and is currently the longest-serving justice, appointed by Reagan in 1986.Scalia is a stalwart defender of federalism who believes the Constitution means what it says, and where it doesn't say anything, it's not the Court's job to fill in the blanks, especially in a half-assed, seat-of-your-pants fashion, which is how we got the 'right' to an abortion and Affirmative Action, among other things. Scalia (along with Clarence Thomas) has been the most reliable conservative vote on the court.
Anthony Kennedy is also 76, and has been, since his elevation to the court, the one Joker in the deck, the wild card, that has probably done more to keep certain, more egregious, aspects of the Libtard agenda alive. particularly with his expansive and elastic view of the 14th Amendment. Conversely, (or perhaps 'perversely') Kennedy is a great proponent of the ' if the Police want to do it, then it's okay, no matter what it is' school of justice, which means he can be considered a serious threat to civil liberties.
Barack Obama has already installed two Associate Justices, the 'Wise Latina' Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, both of whom have been, for the most part, invisible. In part, because both have had to recuse themselves from quite a few cases, having advocated on behalf of the either the cause or the principles in their past as Libtard judicial crusaders. Obama, basically, has nominated two compromised Justices who cannot do their jobs when it comes to subjects like Gay Marriage, Affirmative Action, First Amendment law, and most recently, ObamaCare (Kagan had been Solicitor general under Obama, and had argued the preliminary ObamaCare folderol before the Court, but still cast a vote in the decision, anyway), however, in true Obama-administration fashion, that apparently doesn't matter since both can be relied upon to at least vote the 'right' way.
The next President has the opportunity to replace two of the more liberal votes on the Supreme Court, while shoring up the republican/conservative/federalist position in a third, and do so for at least the next three decades.
Yes, the current, fragile state of the economy is important. Certainly the debate about Barack Obama's incredibly naive approach towards relations with the Muslim World needs to be talked about, too, but hanging over this like a Sword of Damocles is the possibility that an Obama victory gets to stack the Supreme Court in favor of continued stupidity for decades.
If Romney loses, we lose the America we once knew, and there will be little to no possibility of getting it back. That was an America where the Constitution once ruled, and while the Court might stretch a few penumbras and call into being various emanations in order to justify that which was politically expedient, there at least seemed to be a point beyond which no Justice would go.
If there is anything that my experience with raving lunatic liberals has taught me, it is this: they have no boundaries, no sensibilities, no sense of proportion, no idea of how the real world operates. Even more clueless that the typical libtard is the Ivy-League-Educated Legal Eagle who has made his or her (it's usually a 'her') living within the Ivory Tower, or in the pursuit of ensconcing this or that liberal cause du jour into the living stone of American Jurisprudence, no matter how dangerous, how unhealthy, how ultimately oppressive it might become. Because it's never about fairness and equality with these people; it's always about using power to dictate to others for the benefit of the libtard, and about establishing new frontiers in depravity.
An Obama victory in November puts the institution of the Supreme Court into the hands of people who have no moral compass when it comes to the exercise of power, apparently go through life thinking that consequences are unimportant, and that no matter what stupidity they rain down upon us, they can be excused from it's more onerous circumstances for they hold the 'right'; position, even when that position needs to change one day to the next in order to remain part of the ruling clique.
This cannot be allowed to happen. Which is why Romney ought to take the goddamned kid gloves off, and start tearing Mr. I'm-not-really-a-President-but-I-did-stay-at-a-Holiday-Inn-Last-Night a new one just about every day. There's more at stake here than what meets the eye.
Crossposted @The Lunatic's Asylum
Matthew is a friend and weekly contributor to DMF
Please stop by and give him a shout at the above link
Matthew is a friend and weekly contributor to DMF
Please stop by and give him a shout at the above link
_____________________________________
