Posted on 11/14/2014 5:45:28 AM PST by Petrosius
Today’s Court contains four of the most liberal justices to sit on the Court ever. Two were Obama appointments and Obama will almost certainly get to replace the other two with much younger and even more radical justices before he leaves office.
Obama’s appointments will be legislating from the bench for the next 30 years.
She and Gruber should partner on a book about STOOPID liberals ...
Anything remotely connected to odumbo scares the hell out of me. He still has time to pile more “garbage” onto his already “stinking pile” before he is put out to pasture.
I still believe there should be term limits for those court positions.
“Paradoxically, the Court that has gutted minority voting rights in Shelby County and limited women’s access to birth control in Hobby Lobby “
Here is a writer giving an opinion on the Supreme Court and she just doesn’t get it.
Women’s access to birth control WAS NOT LIMITED.
The stupidity astonishes me.
.
.
The author is smoking crack.
The fact that they're employed by the same body whose tyranny you're expected to appeal to them?
Under Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court has emerged as one of the most ideologically aggressive in decades, and its rightward trajectory is usually attributed to this simple fact: a majority of the justices are very conservative.
[eyeroll] Yeah, these guys are real right-wingers. Not only do they lay down for authoritarian leftist tyranny with great reliability, I'm not aware of any recent cases where they've upheld any authoritarian laws with a conservative bent. You know, the kind the left used to be able to protest with a little actual legitimacy. Raich would probably be the most recent. Kelo maybe, but I bet most leftards have become so corrupted they actually LIKE Kelo now that they're in charge. Besides, none of those examples I can think of are Roberts Court decisions anyway, which is what this moron is bemoaning.
“
It would be nice if Dahlia Lickchick, or whatever her name is, would provide some EVIDENCE of these assertions.”
There is ample evidence that women who work for hobby lobby are banned from entering Wal-Mart and thus are prevented from buying a $9 dollar box of contraceptives
Wow! I did not know that.
I stand corrected...
;-)
What worries ME most is these Libturds (Hagal) want to "Revamp our Nuclear Deterrent!"
The obummer administration is FULL of spies, thieves, liars, damned fools and outright commie traders and we are going to let them remake our nuclear arsenal....
Ain't that just peachy....
This clueless Canadian liberal, Dahlia Dicklick....Lithwick....whatever the hell her name is....should go back to Canada.
We have more than enough homegrown moonbats here in America.
IOW, what she fears most is that the Supreme Court will rule against her moonbat, progressive agenda.
I am not aware that women, who work at Hobby Lobby can’t buy birth control by law.
I like her contention that liberals can’t get a fair hearing anymore because of the lack of drunks and scoundrels on the Supreme Court. She probably has a valid point there.
When a flaming Lib is scared of the make up of the USSC, I get a “thrill up my leg”.
Does she agree with me that the homosexuals on the court should recuse themselves in a hearing regarding homosexual “rights”?
Liberals just lie in their writings. Liberals are totally fine with lying to make a point.
Every failed SC nomination since 1970:
While disagreeing that we need more social workers on the bench, she has a point. Like other “elite” institutions the recent appointments to the SC have been from the same shallow gene pool (the Ivies) as the mandarins of government, banking, academia etc. I’d agree with the author to that extent, but rather than going for pro bono social justice types, how about some good country lawyers or judges with level heads? How about a non-lawyer or two even. Nothing says you have to be one of the priesthood to get in there.
I can boil this opinion piece down to a simple statement:
“Justices that support the law rather than the current and future leftist agenda are ‘extremists’.”
This is seen increasingly among leftist agitators. Forcing extreme ideological experiments on the people, then declaring that those who resist their bad and harmful ideas are “extremists”.
Obamacare is just the latest example of this. Created in bad faith, with the idea of forcing socialized medicine on the public, because socialized medicine is an article of faith with the left, though it has *never* worked, *anywhere*.
And yet, done exclusively with leftist politicians, with not a single Republican supporter, they now accuse those who want to tear it down because it has hurt tens of millions of people, as “extremists”.
The truly frightening parts of this are first, they are so bound up in their fanatical faith-based philosophy, that they either don’t *care* that tens of millions of people have been harmed, with prospects to harm tens of millions *more* people. Or they actually *want* all those people to be hurt, and even killed. Hell, some of them adore the idea of slaughtering 9 out of 10 people on Earth. All for “the cause”.
That is, the left would justify the most inhuman and murderous things imaginable the same way. They are more than willing to do everything the Nazis did, and more.
Genocide? No problem for the left.
Taking children from their parents to forcibly indoctrinate them? Of course, say the leftists, this is what ‘any’ “good government” should do.
Opening up our nation to nuclear attack and invasion? No problem, as long as it moves the goal of “internationalism” along in a “progressive” manner.
There is no legitimacy or grace or sense in anything they have ever done, so there should be no hesitation in tearing it down and burning it into ash.
Those they have turned into dependents need to be gently moved to a place of safety, while minimizing the harm that could come to them while privatizing their support. But the dependency of government must end, like any addiction to harmful substances.
Yes, her point about the detachment of an overly Ivy League court is valid, but her contention that they are overly conservative because of it is ludicrous.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.