They don’t aways get their way on schedule. As one example, it took a long time to get Hillary-Care [aka Obama-care]. And if they do become all-powerful, we might as well make our stand now before modern ‘education’ rots future brains.
Most of their power comes from the federal judiciary, but when the judiciary is subject to excoriation hearings, a lot of wonderful things are possible.
But even if the excoriation idea fails, these ideas are a hydra with heads that keep doubling. For example, tainting court rulings and justices.
Are you sick of:
— Judges cramming ‘gay’ ‘marriage’ down our throats?
— The ‘supreme’ Court blessing of Obama-care?
— Remember Kelo?
— Gun-grabbing judges who oppose the death sentence due to ‘health risk’?
— Judges opposed to voter-ID?
— Judges who infringe religious freedom?
And we can do something about it!
This is another bold idea — a constitutional amendment that names names, taints court opinions, kicks them to the curb, and establishes their legacy. No congressional rules will get in the way when the People realize that we can actually put them in their place.
So we can begin an online impeachment hearing — right here and right now. And if you think we’re outnumbered, think again. We can easily win an uber-majority of states to be DECISIVE about banning gay marriage. And in the process, we can taint federal judges.
I’ll get the ‘ball rolling’ with clear examples of various outrages, coming up ....
Let's start with ‘Justices’ Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer and the Kelo Ruling.
[Justice Kennedy's constitutional interpretation is so unpredictable that not everyone personally cares either way if his name is added. By all means, feel free to suggest throwing him in the list too if you like.]
Sotomayor joined with ‘Justices’ Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg when they dissented against gun rights in McDonald v Chicago. The Bill of Rights clearly states: “shall not be infringed”. The Founders’ intention is indisputable [regarding gun rights].
Now for ‘Justice’ Elena Kagan and her first court opinion. It's unbelievable. Elena Kagan joined in dissenting against a lethal injection for a convicted murderer because it would be a ‘health risk’ for the murderer. Her dissent was in lockstep with the worst ‘justices’ of the supreme Court.
Kagan is overfond of foreign law while her disregard of the Constitution was clearly demonstrated in Harvard. She is opposed to the right to free speech, opposed to other constitutional rights, was fanatical about keeping partial birth abortion legal, and is even opposed to our right to amend the U.S. Constitution — not without supreme Court approval, which might be the most outrageous thing a supreme Court justice has said since Dred Scott. Talk about being a tyrant-in-robes.
So it is reasonable that Kagan too should be tainted and removed in disgrace. And any senator who voted for her confirmation ought to be ashamed of himself.
Roberts was part of the Obama-care ruling. That's just one example. The man is a loose cannon that crushes the Constitution left-and-right.
Recap:
So far that would taint ‘Justices’ Roberts, Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
But we're just getting started.
Just how popular would many federal ‘justices’ be when we bring up the following outrages?
What were their opinions regarding Voter ID? Arizona's ‘illegal immigration’ law? And where exactly did federal ‘justices’ find some magic definition of marriage that somehow has a greater claim to ‘natural law’ than the history of marriage throughout civilization? How many federal justices have stripped away free exercize of religion? You can bet there are a LOT!
[Just imagine the outrages we could find in the 9th ‘Circus’.]
‘Gay’ ‘Marriage’ & Transgender ‘rights’ Tainting
Any judge — federal or otherwise — who blocked gay marriage bans in states is a fanatic who should also be named in the tainting. First off, no ‘settled law’ of the US can possibly override the definition of marriage that is both ancient and recent at the same time with rock solid continuity. Secondly, a sodomous union violates free exercise of religion when a religious judge or pastor is required to preside over an arguably-infernal union. [And frankly, it's even tempting to ban attorneys who were overzealous in their support of ‘gay’ ‘marriage’ from ever being judges either.]
Most justices who support ‘gay marriage’ are progressive tyrants who want to drive a truck through the commerce clause and trample other rights as well because they don't believe in ‘originalism’. It's all part of the same ‘group-think’ that scorns our nation's foundation.
Then there are ‘transgender rights’. We're talking about compulsive ‘wardrobe confusion’, and it's being glorified as a civil right! Even women are happy to get out of women's’ clothes and wear something comfortable. A compulsion to wear improper and uncomfortable attire is not something that merits special rights.
Fanatical judges who try to legislate from the bench to enable wardrobe confusion should be tainted too. Or does America need to construct ‘transgender’ bathrooms in every public building? Isn't our economy being flushed down the toilet enough already? This is a perfect example of judicial tyranny, and over something as absurd as this.
[More coming up ....]