Posted on 10/25/2015 8:21:42 AM PDT by Isara
The amount of power that the Supreme Court was wielded during the Obama years has been disconcerting to say the least.
Not many presidential candidates are focusing on the fact that the Supreme Court has taken a noticeable turn to the left and is slowly being filled with judges that hold some very radical views along with a general disdain for the rule of law.
Senator Ted Cruz is well aware of this shift and has been hammering the message home on the campaign trail.
From The Hill:
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) says the U.S. of today will become unrecognizable if “one more liberal justice” is appointed to the Supreme Court.“One more liberal justice and our right to keep and bear arms is taken away from us by an activist court,” Cruz said at a campaign rally in Iowa on Friday, according to the Des Moines Register.“One more liberal justice and they begin sandblasting and bulldozing veterans memorials throughout this country,” he added.“One more liberal justice and we lose our sovereignty to the United Nations and the World Court.”Cruz was critical of the high court after its decisions to uphold Obamacare and legalize gay marriage last term.He said the Supreme Court should face elections in order to hold the nine-justice tribunal accountable.
Cruz nails it again.
The president, along with Hillary Clinton, has already admitted that gun confiscation would be a good thing.
Who knows what would happen if he knew he had the unquestioned support of the court.
The controversial Supreme Court decisions that have been passed down recently have all been extremely close and have hinged on two of the perceived “moderate” justices, Kennedy and Roberts.
The left is very close to assuming full control over the bench and both Kennedy and Roberts are by no means reliable conservatives.
While Supreme Court elections might not be an attainable goal, it would be nice to have someone in the White House who understands how the balance of power is supposed to work in this country.
Keep fighting the good fight Ted.
Government gun grabbing will lead to a revolution.
My candidate. It is past time to start ignoring the SCOTUS.
He’s right, unfortunately the Trumpophiles will try an spin this negatively.
If Clinton (or any Democrat) is elected, Obama will be nominated to the Supreme Court.
Fortunately, for now, the justices most likely to ‘leave’ the bench first are Libs already.
A number of justices are getting pretty old. So any Democrat elected in 2016 could have three or four Supreme Court appointments in the first four year term. The balance of the court will be tipped if Hillary or any other Democrat is elected.
As we have seen with Kennedy and Roberts, and in years past with Souter, you can’t always count on a Republican president to appoint solid conservative justices. Bush 41 gave us Clarence Thomas, but also gave us Souter. Bush 43 gave us Alito but also gave us Roberts. Reagan gave us Scalia but also gave us Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy.
But Democrat presidents always appoint liberals who stay liberal and are predictably liberal when it’s time to vote on cases before the Court.
Kehoe: America only 1 liberal justice away from CWII.
5.56mm
Me: America only one liberal justice away from Americans being forced to rise up.
And several million rounds of various caliber shot fired in extreme anger at a Bunker Hill 2.0. Obama wants this to justify his suspension of what remains of the Constitution. Every dictator in history has used similar tactics. It will depend upon who prevails as to what the world looks like for the next couple of hundred years. Lock and load kiddies.
Jinx!
Seriously though. It is incumbent on every Nationalist to get a battle rifle and secure at least 500 rounds of ammunition in reserve.
Every bullet fired now must be done with the purpose of gaining skill at marksmanship.
I’m inclined to see it that way.
I think the best way to avoid violent revolution is to nullify any anti 2A rulings by SCOTUS by refusing to comply. People refusing in mass to obey our 9 rulers will work. Honestly, if 90% of gun owning constitutionalists joined in non violent civil disobedience together, it could conceivably bring down the federal government. That said, I don’t think Americans would do that. It’s not the way most think.
However, they may find it necessary to start thinking that way.
If HRC makes it, start buying gun stocks.
If the People living in this country were only intelligent enough to understand that it is not the government’s job to tell us what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights mean. Our Founding Fathers gave us a country in which it is the People’s job to tell the government what those documents mean.
To be replaced by worse liberal judges should Hillary be elected.
Couldn’t they have gotten Ginsburg a phonebook to sit on for that picture?
Honestly. If they do it, the first move should be a tax protest. Rather than shoot the bastards just have the millions who would resist refuse to pay taxes. Pressure locals nearby including businesses.
Overnight the feds would lose their purse. The crisis would tank their credit ability. Those loyal due to their paycheck would flee when the cash isn’t there.
That said, the success of confiscation depends on more than government edict.
Even so come quickly.
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.