LIBERALS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION! - The next President could possibly appoint up to three new Justices to the Supreme Court!
JoeBtfsplk
2012/07/09 14:45:27
|
|
|||||
|
2 votes
|
|
13% | |||
|
13 votes
|
|
87% | |||
Have you ever wondered why Liberals like Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Ayers and Saul Alinsky seem to despise the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? These three documents created the framework for the greatest nation in history and are responsible for more than 224 years of liberty and prosperity by limiting the power of the central government. Unfortunately, many on the left see them as mere obstacles for their version of a new world order.
In spite of the blatant evidence to the contrary, many on the left actually believe that America would be much better if government directed the lives of citizens rather than leave that responsibility to the individual. Of course, these very left wing radicals believe that THEY will be the ones controlling the lives of others!
President Obama would love nothing more than to dissolve the Supreme Court, outlaw conservatism, and seize control of our country in a way that would make the old guard Soviet Union proud. To him, the rule of law seems nothing more than an inconvenience as he spreads his message of "fundamentally changing America" forever. The problem I have is that his "change" destroys the very foundation America was built upon!
In spite of the blatant evidence to the contrary, many on the left actually believe that America would be much better if government directed the lives of citizens rather than leave that responsibility to the individual. Of course, these very left wing radicals believe that THEY will be the ones controlling the lives of others!
President Obama would love nothing more than to dissolve the Supreme Court, outlaw conservatism, and seize control of our country in a way that would make the old guard Soviet Union proud. To him, the rule of law seems nothing more than an inconvenience as he spreads his message of "fundamentally changing America" forever. The problem I have is that his "change" destroys the very foundation America was built upon!
Liberals do not in any way, shape or form seek to control the lives of citizens. That would be the Conservatives who believe they have the right to control every uterus in America, that they have the right to blow up any house of worship that they don't agree with, and that they have the right to let the actual WORKING people in this country suffer in order to further enrich their corporate owners.
President Obama has more respect for the Supreme Court than every Right Winger in this country combined. He believes that their job is to uphold the Constitution, not to create new laws in order to further a political agenda - like Citizens United, District o...
Liberals do not in any way, shape or form seek to control the lives of citizens. That would be the Conservatives who believe they have the right to control every uterus in America, that they have the right to blow up any house of worship that they don't agree with, and that they have the right to let the actual WORKING people in this country suffer in order to further enrich their corporate owners.
President Obama has more respect for the Supreme Court than every Right Winger in this country combined. He believes that their job is to uphold the Constitution, not to create new laws in order to further a political agenda - like Citizens United, District of Columbia v. Heller, and of course Bush v. Gore, when the Supreme Court threw the Constitution into the fireplace and appointed a President the nation did not choose, leading, of course to devastation in this nation.
I do get it.
You say: "President Obama would love nothing more than to dissolve the Supreme Court, outlaw conservatism, and seize control of our country in a way that would make the old guard Soviet Union proud."
When in fact Conservatives have been frothing at the mouth about impeaching Justice Roberts and labeling the Court corrupt, talk about the "Liberal menace" of America as if it were a crime to think differently, and regulate how people ought to live in their own homes.
What is blatantly clear is this. The more Americans trust Liberals and Conservatives, the worse they will be. Liberals and Conservatives are relative terms. They are only as powerful as they are opposite from each other. If Americans were to ever discover that they don't need polarized parties, name-calling and insults, the far-Left and the far-Right would be out of popularity.
The United States of America's creed is "E Pluribus Unum". From many comes one. That means respecting your opponent, it means understanding we're all from the same hardworking stock and that we all share the same values of justice. We have different views of them, but we all come together in the end. End this manic witch-hu...
You say: "President Obama would love nothing more than to dissolve the Supreme Court, outlaw conservatism, and seize control of our country in a way that would make the old guard Soviet Union proud."
When in fact Conservatives have been frothing at the mouth about impeaching Justice Roberts and labeling the Court corrupt, talk about the "Liberal menace" of America as if it were a crime to think differently, and regulate how people ought to live in their own homes.
What is blatantly clear is this. The more Americans trust Liberals and Conservatives, the worse they will be. Liberals and Conservatives are relative terms. They are only as powerful as they are opposite from each other. If Americans were to ever discover that they don't need polarized parties, name-calling and insults, the far-Left and the far-Right would be out of popularity.
The United States of America's creed is "E Pluribus Unum". From many comes one. That means respecting your opponent, it means understanding we're all from the same hardworking stock and that we all share the same values of justice. We have different views of them, but we all come together in the end. End this manic witch-hunt of the other side. I am an American before all else, regardless of my political creed.
Roberts recently ruled in favor of Obamacare. His rulings have been very legit. I even bow to his judgment on that one despite being a conservative. The only rulling I have ever disagreed with Samuel Alito on was the Westboro Baptist ruling. Can you point to a few of the rulings of Alito and Kennedy that you feel violated the constitution? I gave you one already. However it was of little consequence since Alito was overruled 8-1 on the Westboro thing.
Examples?
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010)
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) [*Alito and Roberts were not on the Court, but Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy all voted to block the Florida recount and hand the White House to Bush.]
As for D.C. vs Heller. I agree with that opinion as well. The second amendment support a law abiding citizens right to own and CARRY firearms.
In spite of the fact that there is no specific mention of it in the Constitution, I dont think many people would disagree that it is certainly implied that elections in this country should be fair. Allowing corporations to spend unlimited amounts of anonymous money on political attacks is diametrically opposed to the very concept of a fair election.
And yes, corporations are made up of people and employ people and are run by people. And every one of those people (if they are citizens) has a vote, and has the right to contribute to the candidate of their choice. But if the corporation is allowed "rights" as people are, then those people are getting a SECOND Vote, and you and I, the hypothetical non-investors, only have one. Why does David Koch get two votes when you and I only get one? Is that what you consider fair? Is a rich man's vote really supposed to be more significant than a poor man's vote??
Not only will whomever sits in the big chair after Jan. 20, 2013 have the probability of appointing replacement Justices, they will also be appointing all cabinet members and Dept. Secretaries. Some of these positions require Congressional approval and that's where the Senate comes in.
It is imperative that the progs never again have a 60 vote capability no matter what happens with the House of Reps.
That would give them the power to regulate the SCOTUS nominees and dept. heads.
Through policy directives (as we have seen EPA - DHS) Congress can be completely circumvented and if the SCOTUS is stacked, there will be no relief.
Thank T. Roosevelt and the Progressives.