Liberals pack the Judiciary with Liberal Judges to Write Law they can’t Write in Congress
Harry Reid and the Democrats went nuclear today. Changing the Senate rules for the first time since the Founding. To increase the power of those in the majority. So they can run roughshod over those in the minority. Thanks to the poor launch of Obamacare. And the sinking realization that because the Democrats have so angered the people in the process of implementing the Affordable Care Act (the president and Democrats lied and people are losing their health insurance and doctors) that Democrats up for election in 2014 are going to be thrown out with extreme prejudice. Turning the Senate over to the Republicans. Hence the need to go nuclear now.
It’s no secret the left legislates from the bench. Using judges to write legislation that Congress won’t. Such as making abortion legal via Roe v. Wade. That was a law made not by the law-makers. The legislature. Congress. But by liberal judges on the bench. Who are to interpret law. Not write it. But in Roe v. Wade, as in so many other laws that came to be that Congress refused to write, judges wrote law in their legal rulings. Allowing the liberal minority to make their will the law of the land.
America is a center-right country. Which means there are more conservatives than liberals. In fact, only about 21% of the people identify themselves as liberal while about 40% of the people identify themselves as conservative (see Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S. by Lydia Saad posted 1/12/2012 on Gallup). Yet this 21% has implemented a lot of their liberal agenda. How? Liberal judges. The key to changing the country against the will of the people. When you can’t get the people’s representatives to write your laws you turn to the judiciary. Which is why Harry Reid went nuclear today. So they can pack the judiciary with liberal judges. Before they lose the Senate. So they will be able to write law from the bench that they won’t be able to do after they lose the Senate.
The Filibuster is the Last Line of Defense for the Minority
The filibuster is a stalling tactic. A tool the minority can use to prevent the majority from running roughshod over them. To protect minority rights. For majority rule can be dangerous. The majority could write law that restricts the rights of the minority. Don’t like the internal combustion engine? Well, the majority could write legislation for a costly carbon tax. Of course, the Democrats don’t have a majority in the House. But they do have one in the Senate. Which confirms the president’s judicial appointments. So if the president stacks the courts with liberal judges the left can get their carbon tax. By writing regulations for a carbon tax instead of legislation. And having the courts make that regulation law. With the left saying that they had that right under their environmental regulatory powers. And if you don’t like that sue us.
This is why the left wants to stack the courts with liberals. Who may or may not be actual judges. For they don’t want judges to interpret law. They want them to write law that Congress won’t. If the right sues the government for exceeding their constitutional authority and the case ends up in a court packed with liberal judges the right will lose. And the unconstitutional regulation will become law. Despite the Republican-controlled House.
The right has been holding up some exceptionally liberal Obama appointees to the bench. Frustrating the left. Because they can’t move their liberal agenda through the Republican held House of Representatives. While their plan B—stacking the courts—was being blocked by the Republicans because the Democrats did not have 60 Senators in the Senate. For if they did they could invoke cloture. End debate. And force a vote. Which they would, of course, win. Making the filibuster the last line of defense for the minority. For if the judicial appointment only appeals to the 21% of the population the minority can filibuster until they withdraw the appointment. And appoint someone that doesn’t appeal ONLY to 21% of the population.
When the Democrats were in the Minority they said Opposition to the Republicans was Patriotic
Back when the Republicans held the Senate during the George W. Bush administration the Democrats were holding up Bush appointees. The Republicans broached the subject of the nuclear option. And the left attacked Republicans. Calling it a power grab. An affront to the Founding Fathers. The worst thing that could happen to our republic. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and other Democrats spoke on the record opposing the nuclear option. But that was then. This is now. After the rollout of Obamacare. And the very likely possibility that the Democrats will lose control of the Senate in 2014. Now Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, et al are all for the nuclear option.
Because the Republicans are so partisan the left had no choice. They simply wouldn’t rubber-stamp the liberal agenda. So they had no choice but to grab power. To run roughshod over those in the minority in Congress. So the minority in the nation can impose their rule on the majority. When the Democrats were in the minority in Congress they said opposition to the Republicans was patriotic. That it made the republic healthier. Locking the Congress into gridlock because they couldn’t get their way was fulfilling the vision of the Founding Fathers. By preventing one-party rule.
But all that changes when they are in the majority. And those in the 21% are fine with it. Those in the mainstream media. Hollywood. Late-night television. Even the audiences of the late-night television shows. Who are all for debate when they are out of power. But are fine with one-party rule when they are in power. Because they believe that their side is the only side that matters. Which is decidedly NOT what the Founding Fathers envisioned. The left believes everyone should think like they think. And if they don’t there should be laws to compel people to act like they (the left) think they should act. Even if it requires violating the Constitution. Like Obamacare forces people to buy something against their will for the first time in the history of the republic. But expecting people to pay for their own birth control instead of forcing others to pay for it? Why, that’s an affront to the Founding Fathers. Making any law-violating power grab acceptable. As long as it’s the left doing the law-violating and the power-grabbing. For the left believe the end justifies the means. Just like the Nazis did. The communists. And other tyrannical regimes have throughout time.
Tags: Barack Obama, Congress, conservatives, courts, Democrats, filibuster, Founding, Founding Fathers, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, judges, judiciary, legislate from the bench, legislature, Liberal Agenda, liberal judges, liberals, majority, minority, Nancy Pelosi, nuclear, nuclear option, Obamacare, one-party rule, power grab, regulations, Republic, Republicans, Senate, Senate rules
Week in Review
It’s on. The war on women. If a Republican is elected our next president he will force everyone’s daughters into some back alley for an abortion one day (see Biden: ‘War on Women’ is Real, Will Intensify by Devin Dwyer, ABC OTUS News, posted 4/12/2012 on Yahoo! News).
Vice President Joe Biden said tonight that what he called a Republican-led effort to rollback the rights of women is “real” and will “intensify.”
“I think the ‘war on women’ is real,” Biden told MSNBC’s “The Ed Show,” deploying the politically-charged phrase for the first time on the national stage.
“And look, I’ll tell you when it’s going to intensify – the next president of the United States is going to get to name one, possibly two or more, members to the Supreme Court,” he added…
My entire career as a senator and the vice president is to get to one point: when my daughter is able to make whatever choice she wants and no one question it,” he said.
Poor old Joe Biden. He sure has a knack for putting his foot in his mouth. He starts off saying that if the Republicans win the next election that they will appoint judges to the Supreme Court that will not legislate from the bench. Then he insults his daughter.
Anytime a Democrat talks about Supreme Court appointments it’s code for the Republicans will overturn Roe versus Wade. The Supreme Court ruling that made it legal to have an abortion even though there is no abortion law on the books. Just a broad interpretation of due process and the right to privacy. That is, legislating from the bench.
And why is this so important? Apparently without having legal abortions available it would prevent his daughter from making whatever choice she wants. And he’s worried, I guess, that she may end up like those other ‘lazy’ stay-at-home mothers that the Democrats seem to hate these days. Like Ann Romney. This mother of 5 who apparently doesn’t know what real work is like. According to the Democrats. Who just seem to hate women who refuse to abort their babies. Like Sarah Palin. Who had five children of her own. Including one with Down syndrome. Who she refused to abort even though she knew about this diagnosis before he was born. Another reason for the Left to hate her. For bringing an ‘inferior’ baby to term.
For a party who supposed to support women the Democrats seem to hate a lot of them. These uterine Americans. Who use their uteruses to have babies. And then stay at home to raise them. The kindest and most nurturing and the hardest working women in the world. Who are, of course, worthy of scorn and resentment. Though I don’t understand why.
Tags: abortion, Biden, Democrat, Joe Biden, Left, legislate from the bench, Republican, stay-at-home mothers, Supreme Court, war on women
If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit; even if O.J. Simpson did it.
A lie is a lie. No matter how well you say it. Or how often you say it. O.J. Simpson has said over and over that he didn’t kill his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson. Or her friend, Ronald Goldman. Few believe him. Even Oprah Winfrey told Mark Furman recently on her talk show that Simpson did it. And she’s no racist. She even endorsed Barack Obama for president. And he’s black.
But if you repeat the lie enough people will believe it. The Simpson jury apparently believed it. And they believed Furman was a racist and that he lied under oath. But Furman is no more a racist than you are. And although he was a pretty good detective, he actually forgot a thing or two he said in his past. Like using the ‘n’ word during an interview with a writer who was working on a screenplay about cops. A recording surfaced during the trial where Furman did in fact make some pretty nasty racial slurs. But it was probably more bravado than racism. A young cop trying to sound like a tough and gritty L.A. cop in front of a screenwriter. Besides, Furman was a Marine. And Marines aren’t racists. ‘Nuff said.
Anyway, armed with that, the defense repeated the lie that racist mark Furman planted the infamous bloody glove that did not fit. The shrunken leather glove that didn’t fit Simpson’s gloved hand. “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” And they did. Simpson went free, though he’s in jail now for other crimes (armed robbery and kidnapping). And Furman pleaded no contest to perjury. The only criminal sentence in the Simpson/Goldman murders. And very sad testament to the L.A. criminal law system.
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.” Anita Hill cried wolf.
President Bill Clinton looked into the camera and wagged his finger at America. “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.” But the infamous blue dress begged to differ. In some people’s world, playing with each other’s genitals and climaxing on someone may not be sexual relations. But you’re not going to do any of that with a hooker unless you pay for it. And what do hookers do? They sell ‘sexual relations’.
Clinton did, in fact, lie. Though to this day he still says what he said was not untrue. He can say that all he wants but the Arkansas Supreme Court’s Committee on Professional Conduct says otherwise. They suspended his license to practice law because they say he lied about Monica Lewinsky. Makes one wonder about all those other denials about sexual misconduct with Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Sally Perdue, Dolly Kyle Browning, etc. He denies the allegations. But then again, he also denied the Lewinsky allegation.
Then there was Clarence Thomas. During his confirmation hearings, the Democrats brought in Anita Hill to testify. She alleged inappropriate behavior. Nothing illegal, but inappropriate. And they gave him a full-blown public anal exam during his confirmation hearing. Because Hill cried wolf. There was no substantive proof. Just some wild-ass allegations. Of which he was all of a sudden guilty until proven innocent. The feminist stood tall with Anita Hill. But nary a one came to the defense of the Clinton women. Even after the infamous blue dress. They all stood by their man. Bill Clinton. Misogyny and all. (And the allegations against Clarence Thomas were nowhere close to ‘blue dress’ level).
Pragmatist liberals lie to impose their liberal agenda because the ends justify the means.
Everybody lies. It’s the degree of the lie, though, that matters. And the reason. Militant feminists, for example, will accept and perpetuate any lie to protect a ‘feminist’ man. Any by a ‘feminist’ man I mean one who will be a staunch supporter of Roe vs. Wade and abortion in general (which they feared Clarence Thomas was not). And lying in court is especially useful. As the character Louie DePalma (played by Danny DeVito) illustrated so well in the TV show Taxi. When Alex Rieger (played by Judd Hirsch) asked Louie if he knew what it meant to lie under oath in a court of law. Louie replied, “Yeah, it means they gotta believe whatever you say.”
Some liars are just trying to stay out of trouble. Or jail. Others, though, are people who lie for another reason. They’ll fabricate or sustain a lie for a ‘higher’ purpose. We call these people pragmatists. These people believe the ends justify the means. And if the ‘ends’ are important enough, then any means employed are justified. Liberals are pragmatists. They have specific ends in mind. They want legal abortion. Universal health care. More government. Less free markets. Etc. And because only approximately 20% of Americans want the same thing, they have to tell a few lies to impose their liberal agenda.
Ronald Reagan was senile. George W. Bush is stupid. Sarah Palin is stupid and inexperienced. Rush Limbaugh is a hate monger. Glenn Beck is a fear monger. Members of the Tea Party are a bunch of racists. Business owners oppress their employees. Republicans hate the poor. And hate gays and lesbians. Hate minorities. Hate women. And hate just about anyone liberals have a vested interest in. Or so the liberal lies go. Over and over and over again.
The 20% (liberal Democrats) try to rule the 80% (center-right America) with an able assist from the mainstream media, university professors, celebrities and activist judges.
America is a center-right country. That means liberal Democrats are in the minority. Which means they can’t impose their agenda at the voting booth. They can’t legislate their liberal agenda. So they lie to build a coalition. To try to pull independents and moderates to their cause. You know the lies. Republicans will force women into back alleys for abortions. Republicans want to defund Social Security. Republicans will bring back Jim Crowe laws (which, ironically, Democrats put into law). Republicans want to transfer the tax burden from the rich to the poor. Etc.
And they have willing accomplices. Though they are only 20% of the population, they are a very strategically located 20%. They’re in the mainstream media. They teach at our universities. They star in our favorite movies and TV shows. They perform our favorite music. And they sit in our courts (what they can’t legislate in Congress, they legislate from the bench). It’s a small 20%. But they have a hell of a bully pulpit. And they use that bully pulpit with extreme prejudice.
And then you have the politicians themselves. Who will tell any lie. Smear any character. For they feel untouchable. Because they write and enforce the laws. They ARE the law. And they think like Louis DePalma. That the truth doesn’t matter. Because the people gotta believe whatever they say. Or should. Because they are the law. But we, the other 80%, know they lie. The DePalma analogy still fits, though. We see the typical liberal Democrat as a lying, corrupt, despicable scoundrel, lacking any vestiges of integrity who enrich themselves at the expense of the people they serve. And who can’t see Louis DePalma in that?
Tags: 20%, 80%, abortion, activist judges, Alex Rieger, anal exam, Anita Hill, Bill Clinton, bloody glove, blue dress, build a coalition, bully pulpit, Bush is stupid, business owners, center-right America, center-right country, Clarence Thomas, Clinton, confirmation hearing, court of law, cried wolf, Democrats, ends justify the means, fear monger, feminist, free markets, Furman, gays and lesbians, George W. Bush, Glenn Beck, hate monger, I did not have sexual relations with that woman, if it doesn't fit, if it doesn't fit you must acquit, inappropriate behavior, independents, independents and moderates, infamous blue dress, legislate from the bench, Lewinsky, Liberal Agenda, Liberal Democrats, liberal lies, liberals, lie, lie is a lie, lie under oath, Louie, Louie DePalma, mainstream media, Marine, Mark Furman, minorities, Miss Lewinsky, moderates, Monica Lewinsky, more government, O.J. Simpson, pragmatist, pragmatist liberals, President Bill Clinton, public anal exam, racist, Reagan was senile, repeat the lie, Repeating a lie, Republicans, Roe vs. Wade, Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin is inexperienced, sexual misconduct, sexual relations, Simpson did it, smear any character, Taxi, Tea Party, tell any lie, Universal health care, university professors, wagged his finger, women, you must acquit
Your People Did Not Free the Slaves, Mr. President
From Mark Knoller, White House Correspondent, Radio, CBS News:
Obama says people are impatient but “now’s not the time to quit…it took time to free the slaves…ultimately we’ll make progress.”
We would have freed the slaves a whole lot sooner if it weren’t for people like him. Democrats.
The Southern States and Slavery – A Packaged Deal
Democrats descend from the southern planter elite. These slaveholders formed a small minority of the population. But they held the majority of political power. There was a north-south divide at the founding over slavery. Franklin, Adams, Hamilton and Washington were against slavery. Jefferson and Madison were for it. Rather, they were for the southern states. And that meant the planter elite (which they were part of). Which was for slavery.
Slavery was a taboo subject. You won’t find it in our founding documents. The North wanted to abolish slavery. But any discussion of the taboo subject and the South would walk. So they tabled the subject. To get the South to join the Union. And they didn’t speak about it to keep the South in the Union. (When I say the ‘South’, think the planter elite, the ruling minority power in the South. This elite few had the majority of slaves. Most southerners couldn’t afford slaves and worked their own small farms. The yeoman farmers Jefferson would wax philosophical about.)
The majority of slaves were in the south. They also were the majority of the southern population. This was a sticking point at the Constitutional Convention. The South wanted to count slaves in determining congressional representation. But you count citizens to determine your number of representatives. Not property. The northerners did not get to count their cattle in determining their number of representatives. So the South shouldn’t count their slaves. The South, of course, disagreed. For if they were to be a part of the Union, not simply a region ruled by the North, it was necessary to count their slaves. And if they couldn’t? No union. So they compromised. With the Three-Fifths Compromise. They would count a slave as 3/5 a citizen. It gave the South a greater representation in Congress than their citizenry allowed. But it ‘balanced’ the political power between the North and the South. And brought the southern states into the Union.
When the Democrats Did Not Like Immigration
After winning our independence, we got the Northwest Territories (the land north of the Ohio River) from the British. The northerners got their way with this northern land. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 forbade slavery in this territory.
Then came the Louisiana Purchase. The North wanted to exclude slavery from all of this land. The South didn’t. That would tip the balance of power in favor of the North. So they compromised. With the Missouri Compromise of 1820. There would be some slavery in the new territory. But not above the bottom border of Missouri (the 36th parallel). Except in Missouri (a slave-state). Which they added at the same time with Maine (a free-state). To maintained the balance of power.
But the population continued to grow in the North. Those in the South could see the writing on the wall. The immigration into the northern states would tip the balance of power in the House to the North. So they focused on controlling the judiciary. The president (who nominated). And the Senate (which confirmed). What they couldn’t win by popular vote they’d simply legislate from the bench. And dirty, filthy party politics was born. The party machine. And the Democratic Party.
It Takes a Republican
Martin Van Buren created it. And, at the time, he had but one goal. To keep the issue of slavery from ever being an issue again. Which the Democrats did until the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861. The North wanted to abolish slavery from the founding. But the planter elite, then the Democrats, fought them every step of the way. So they could maintain their power.
But it was more than just power. It was that elite status. That they were superior. It had gone beyond King Cotton. The south had manufacturing. Some of which was even more profitable than cotton. But manufacturing couldn’t give you what cotton could. An aristocratic planter elite that was so elite that it could own human life. This was Old World aristocracy alive and well in the New World.
Anyway, all the legislation and court cases that led up to the Civil War had one thing in common. All people trying to maintain the institution of slavery were Democrats. The big ones, the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraskan Act of 1854 and the Dred Scott ruling of 1854 were all pushed/won by Democrats. The new Republican Party finally denied the Democrats. A Republican president (Abraham Lincoln) made slavery a moral issue in the Civil War with his Emancipation Proclamation (which didn’t free a single slave but it made it politically impossible for France or Great Britain to recognize the Confederacy or enter the war on her behalf). Four years of war and some 600,000 dead later, the North prevailed and the Union sounded the death knell for slavery in America. Then the Republican Congress passed and the states ratified the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865. The Republicans had, finally, abolished slavery.
Ignorance or Arrogance?
The Democrats can talk about Civil Rights Act of 1964. Well, a little. More Democrats voted against it than did Republicans. And a Democrat, segregationist and KKK Exalted Cyclops, Robert Byrd, filibustered for 14 hours during an 83-day Democrat filibuster. But a lot of Democrats did vote for the Civil Rights Act. So, yeah, they can talk about that. But they had absolutely nothing to do with the freeing of the slaves. They call slavery America’s original sin. But that’s not fair. It was only the planter elite and then the Democrat Party that practiced that sin. And they fought hard to keep their sinful ways.
A Democrat should not invoke the struggle to end slavery to help his cause. Especially a black Democrat. For to do so marks the height of ignorance. Or arrogance.
Tags: abolish slavery, Abraham Lincoln, Adams, America's original sin, aristocratic planter elite, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Civil War, Compromise of 1850, Confederacy, congressional representation, Constitutional Convention, Democrat filibuster, Democratic Party, Democrats, dirty filthy party politics, Dred Scott, Dred Scott ruling of 1854, Emancipation Proclamation, founding documents, France, Franklin, Great Britain, Hamilton, immigration, Jefferson, join the union, Kansas-Nebraskan Act of 1854, King Cotton, legislate from the bench, Louisiana Purchase, Madison, Martin Van Buren, Missouri Compromise of 1820, New World, north-south divide, Northwest Ordinance of 1787, Northwest Territories, Obama, Old World, Old World aristocracy, party politics, planter elite, political power, popular vote, Republican, Republican Congress, Republican Party, Robert Byrd, slaveholders, slavery, slaves, the North, the South, the Union, Thirteenth Amendment, Three-Fifths Compromise, Washington, yeoman farmers