Posted on 06/28/2012 1:50:25 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
I never saw this coming - Roberts lied through his teeth at his hearings and now we have another stealth socialist Democrat on the court - the new David Souter.
Pray for America. Personally, I think we're toast.
Your tag line is wonderful, and it’s true, the Lord absolutely does forgive and answer prayer. But I have to be honest right now and admit that I’m weak. God forgive me, I absolutely hate these people.
I'm feeling a little less bad than I did on 9/11. But when it's all said and done, more people will die per day because of ObamaCare than died on 9/11.
I don't believe Roberts was threatened or bribed. BB and I discussed ~couple months back how it's ALWAYS, ALWAYS the conservatives that flip. Never does a Marxist flip. So, the liberals have a 5-4 SCOTUS majority, period. There is NOTHING, not even ritualistic suicide Roberts can do to unf**k the pooch on this one. Roberts (and his family and friends) needs to be treated like the grotesque walking abortion he is.
The POTUS election being held this November is the most important POTUS election in the nation's history, IMO. This is war and the time to not treat politics as such is long gone. And we have the architect of ObamaCare as the GOP POTUS nominee. And in this truly f**ked up world we live in, this betrayal by Roberts (who I will no longer refer to by name, but, by the moniker “CJ Felcher” going forward) helps Glove.
That being said, and this post may very well get pulled for what I'm about to write, but I'm writing it anyway:
1. The time has come for Einsatzgruppen against ALL liberals.
2. Hopefully, no ones around to help CJ Felcher the next time he has a seizure. Personally, I'd rather go on a cross country road trip with Jerry Sandusky than piss on CJ Felcher if he was on fire. And you can quote me on that.
But tell me how you really feel.
You make an excellent point, and one I'd honestly forgotten about.
I’m openly wishing death on enemies of my country.
We really need a SUPER MAJORITY in both Houses. A tough task, but we have to try as hard as we can to help more conservative, Republican candidates win the next election.
Volunteer, donate if you can afford it, write letters to editors, call talk shows, contact conservatives on your email list, and talk with your family and friends personally. (Don’t waste too much time on drones, as Mark Levin calls them, but at least inform those with an open mind. Maybe they’ll come around later.)
“Ann Coulter when she was on the warpath against Roberts and insisted he was “another Souter”. ..”
I wonder what Roberts did to make her against him.
This week is the first time I saw Roberts go left.
Now, if CJ Felcher is sh*tcanned, that's a different story. IMHO, CJ Felcher is as much an enemy of this country as Obama is. He, his family and his friends must be destroyed. And you can interpret "destroyed" any way you like, but if you look at my posts from today, you know exactly what I mean. I have more respect for Jerry Sandusky than CJ Felcher, I really do.
That is a major problem.
Coulter is wrong when she says that liberal Democrat presidents never "accidentally" appointed a conservative. They'd have fewer opportunities than Republicans in recent decades to make appointments, but they've had their own slip ups. Kennedy appointed Byron White as a favor to big labor (he was a lifelong Democrat and big DNC donor) and the guy turned out to be a closet conservative. Woodrow Wilson appointed James Clark McReynolds because he was some nasty southern Jew-hating bigot like himse, but McReynolds turned out to be a staunch conservative who was one of the "four horsemen" who consistently struck down FDR's socialist New Deal legislation. However, the big difference here is that NONE of the RAT judges "started out" as reliable liberals and drifted more and more to right over their years on the court, but plenty of GOP appointments have drifted the other way. There's that old saying from Winston Churchill about a man being a bleeding heart liberal at 20 and a staunch conservative at age 40. With federal judges, it's the opposite. They may have a track record as faithful conservatives at age 40, but be freakin' marxists by the time they're 75. Some of the prominent examples are Justices John Paul Stevens and Harry Blackmun.
One of the reasons I suspect is that they keep appointing federal appellate court judges in about 70-80% of the SCOTUS appointments. These guys get drunk on power with their lifetime federal jobs and believe they're on an mission to solve social ills in America. I don't know why we do this, we're one of the few countries in the world that chooses Governors instead of federal legislators as President most of the time because we want someone from "outside Washington", so why do we want a professional federal official to serve on SCOTUS? They should elevate more judges from state supreme courts to the U.S. Supreme Court, IMO. Of course, David Souter (former NH Supreme Court justice) is an notable example against my argument, but we don't have a lot of state supreme court judges to compare him to. If I had been in Bush's shoes, I would have elevated Clarance Thomas to CJ and named Florida Supreme Court Justice Raoul G. Cantero to replace Thomas as associate justice.
>> The POTUS election being held this November is the most important POTUS election in the nation's history, IMO. This is war and the time to not treat politics as such is long gone. <<
I've been hearing this "most important Presidential election of our lifetime" stuff since I first voted in 2000, so it's worn thin. I'm told THIS election will tip the balance of SCOTUS every election. I think even in a worst case scenario, Romney's POTUS nominees wouldn't be as bad as Obama, but even if Romney makes a sincere effort to appoint a reliable conservative justice, we're left with the "evolving" problem. I really think the only solution is to amend the constitution and have a fully elected SCOTUS like we have on the state level in several states, but since that's unlikely to ever become law, a compromise solution might be to continue letting the President appoint judges with Senate approval, but give Americans (depending on what federal judicial circuit they live in) the power of retention. That way a turncoat appointed in 2005 could kicked out of his SCOTUS seat in 2015, and so on. Any Republican appointee who "evolved" would face ramifications from voters, especially if they're from a conservative region.
>> “Ann Coulter when she was on the warpath against Roberts and insisted he was “another Souter”. ..” I wonder what Roberts did to make her against him. This week is the first time I saw Roberts go left. <<
Good question. Between this and the AZ decision, I wouldn't place Roberts as "another Souter" yet, but if he keeps this up, he'll certainly be another Sandra Day O'Connor at best. What caused Coulter to go into attack mode against him in 2005 is beyond me. His past history as a member of the Federalist Society, Rehnquist clerk, etc. was certainly better than anything we had from Souter, which were just "assurances" from some blue-blooeded New Hampshire RINOs that he was a "good Republican". But a lot of conservatives backed Charlie Crist for Governor of Florida in 2006 and could have never predicted him becoming a turncoat liberal, either. Fortunately for me, Coulter's groupies would be rubbing this in my face and saying "I told you so", but they've quieted down ever since their hero hitched her wagon to GOProud and Mitt Romney in the GOP primaries.
The fact that you have to go back 50 years to find a Democrat SCOTUS appointee who ended up being more conservative than the president thought proves the point. As I posted a few months ago, only one of the eight Dem SCOTUS appointees since 1952 have ended up being more conservative than the president thought (Byron White, appointed by JFK in 1962), while 9 of the 18 GOP appointees since 1952 have been more liberal than the president thought (I’m not counting Roberts there, since his record was about what was expected until yesterday). That’s a 12.5% disappointment rate for Democrats and a 50% disappointment rate for Republicans. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2849024/posts?page=108#108
As for naming governors or state judges instead of federal appelate judges, I don’t think that would improve our odds of picking conservatives who won’t move to the Dark Side. Earl Warren was a governor, and (as you mentioned) Souter was a state judge (although he did serve a while as a federal Circuit judge as well). It seems to me that picking someone with no federal judicial experience makes it likelier that we’d miss a red flag that would have come up during his service as a federal judge (or during the prior confirmation hearing). Then again, I think that U.S. Senators with legal backgrounds and who have served in the Judiciary Committee could make good SCOTUS nominees, and if Ted Cruz is elected to the Senate from Texas I’d like to see him in the Court some day (Sen. Mike Lee of UT could be a good candidate down the line as well).
LOL
Every-time I am told that we will all die (the end of the USA) if Romney loses I recall being told we will all die if McCain loses in 2008. In fact I remember being told we will all die if the Republican House passes a debt limit extension. Talk about 9 lives.
My sentiments exactly!
>God forgive me, I absolutely hate these people.
Forgive them, and God will forgive you.
Matthew 6:14-15 makes it clear you won’t go to heaven without forgiving them.
I used to work with an ex-con who when sentenced to 14 months in prison, had it set in his mind that when he got our, he was going to murder his ex-fiance.
BUT!
Someone got to him, and got him started on praying for his enemies. So he prayed for his fiance every day.
At first, it was quite mechanical, his prayers for this woman who in his eyes needed to die.
BUT!
His heart softened over time, and during that time in prison, as he continued to pray for her, the murderous feelings toward her left.
He was let out of prison a new man, and moved on.
Jesus told us to pray for our enemies, but I don’t remember where he said WHY to do so.
I have just given you an excellent reason to pray for Obama and the Communists. Plainly, so you can ...
1) obey Jesus
2) be a child of the most high, who sends BLESSING on the just and the unjust, just as the Father sends rain to the just and the unjust
Now, go and do likewise.
I don't think it does, since in the modern era, the RATs have had far less opportunities than Republicans to name SCOTUS judges. They haven't even named a CJ in 60 years. If the RATs president were appointed as many judges as the GOP, there'd be a far great opportunity for slip-ups. It's:
Obama - 2
Clinton - 2
Carter - 0
Johnson - 2
JFK - 2
vs.
GWB - 2 (1 CJ)
GHWB - 2
Reagan - 4 (1 CJ)
Ford - 1
Nixon - 4 (1 CJ)
Eisenhower - 5
If the RATs had 3 times as many judges, I think they'd be bound to have far more slip-ups than Byron White. Plus, alot of the GOP duds didn't become defacto Dems (Souter is only example of that since the mid 70s), but they were right-of-center judges who voted conservative far less than expected (O'Connor, etc.)
I think the biggest problem is the "evolving justice" issue. You're right, Roberts was a pretty reliable conservative for the last 6 years, but if this most recent session is a sign of things to come, we're in trouble. We can't afford to have Roberts go wobbly on us. And I've never seen a RAT justice go wobbly or "evolve" into a conservative. White was a fairly moderate right-of-center justice throughout his tenure on the court. Blackmun, on the other hand, started out as a "Minnesota twin" of Warren Burger, and ended up as the court's most liberal member when he retired in 1994.
One thing I will say is a bad factor on how to choose a judge: the concept that it doesn't matter what their personal views or record is, as long as their "judicial philosophy" is a "strict constructionist" or "originalist" or whatever they're calling it now (I never heard of this term "originalist" until a bunch of freepers started demanding GWB appoint one). Most of the "strict constructionists" that Nixon appointed came back to bite him in the butt big time. I want a lifelong, principled CONSERVATIVE, not some judge whose personal views are unknown but assures the President he is a "strict constructionists" Hell, I think Souter promised Bush that too. Anyone would say that if it meant a lifetime slot on SCOTUS.
I know that Republican presidents have made a lot more SCOTUS appointments than have Democrat presidents in recent decades, which is why I specifically included a *percentage* of appopintments since 1952 that have been disappointing for each party. Since 1952, Republican presidents have appointed 18 Supreme Court Justices, and at least half of them ended up being a lot more liberal than the president suspected: Warren (Ike), Brennan (Ike), Stewart (Ike), Blackmun (Nixon), Powell (Nixon), Stevens (Ford), O’Connor (Reagan), Kennedy (Reagan) and Souter (GHW Bush). During the same period, Democrat presidents have appointed 8 Supreme Court Justices, and only 1 of them ended up being more conservative than the president suspected (Byron White, appointed by JFK in 1962). So even if we consider Justice Roberts not to be a disappointment (I hope yesterday’s ruling was an aberration), 50% of GOP SCOTUS appointments over the past 60 years have been disappointing to the party, while only 12.5% of Democrat appointments have been disappointing to Democrats.50% is a heck of a lot more than 12.5%.
Warren (Ike) -- Was expected to be a "centrist", turned out to be a rabid liberal activist
Brennan (Ike) -- he was a card-carrying Democrat from New England at the time Eisenhower appointed him. That would have told me right away that the guy is probably a liberal and not to trust him. Why Ike appointed the guy is beyond me. Maybe he wanted to give the Dems a token appointment so they'd confirm one of his guys.
Stewart (Ike) -- Was a squishy moderate Republican expected to a centrist, and pretty much did exactly that on the court.
Blackmun (Nixon) -- He was considered a fairly good conservative at the time of his appointment and expected to vote like like Burger (as Alito was considered to be Scalia-like) He started off good, went off the reservation during Roe v. Wade, and became more and more liberal after that, until he was a super liberal by his retirement in the 90s.
Powell (Nixon) -- He was sent to the Senate as a "package deal" with Rehnquist, the idea being it would be a compromise where the conservatives get a SCOTUS seat (Rehnquist) and the moderates get one as well (Powell). He was expected to vote like a moderate Republican, and pretty much did exactly that on the court.
Stevens (Ford) -- Another expected "centrist" who "evolved" into a flaming left socialist during his time on the court. He moved further and further left after Rehnquist became CJ.
O’Connor (Reagan) -- Reagan sold her as a confirmable conservative, social conservatives didn't trust her and didn't like the appointment (had FR been around in '81, a bunch of freepers would have whined "this is NOT the time to talk about social issues!" and "we need to stand behind OUR president") Their fears were correct, she usually voted conservative but was lousy on social issues and couldn't be trusted.
Kennedy (Reagan) -- He was appointed hastily after the Dems had destroyed Reagan's two previous nominees, both outspoken conservatives. He was a low-key, unknown who was expected to vote moderate-to-conservtive on the bench. He's pretty much done exactly that.
Souter (GHW Bush) -- Was considered to be "Bork without a paper trail", a bunch of Democrat Senators figured he was a closet conservative and opposed his nomination. Republicans bought the idea he that he was a "confirmable conservative" that the Dems couldn't find dirt on. Both sides were wrong, he turned out to be a screwy liberal.
Overall, Warren, Blackmun, Stevens, and Souter turned out to be significantly different than was assumed about them during their confirmation, while Brennan, Stewart, Powell and Kennedy were never solid conservatives (they ranged from fairly conservative to liberal douchebag), but they were never advertised as conservatives in the first place and their voting record was not surprising (again, why Ike would knowingly appoint a liberal Democrat from New England is beyond me). Reagan was warned in advance about O'Connor, she raised some red flags, but choose to ignore it and appoint her anyway. Other than that, she voted as expected on other issues.
Still, 4 renegade GOP appointments vs. 1 renegade Dem appointment is still too much. I really think GOP presidents like Nixon and both Bush's placed too much focus on "judicial philosophy" instead of looking at the person's career and personal values (Bush also thought Harriet Miers would be trustworthy for that reason!), and it looks like Ike didn't even TRY during ANY his 5 appointments to name a reliable conservative (Ike's nominees were disastrous overall, I can't imagine Adali Stevenson would do any worse) . And #1 problem is still lifetime federal appointments where these guys get drunk on power. I suspect that's a big factor why none of the Dem appointees "evolved" and decided 30 years later they'd like to decease their authority and the court's reach.
It won't be the last, once you go over to the dark side, you don't return.
I think you overstate the degree to which Brennan, Stewart, Powell and Kennedy voted as expected by the president who nominated them.
Ike certainly did *not* expect Brennan (who, BTW, was from New Jersey, not New England) to become arguably the most liberal Justice in history. Ike wanted to nominate a Catholic Democrat from the Northeast for political reasons, and thought Brennan would be a moderate-to-conservative Justice because he had been appointed to the NJ state Superior Court and Supreme Court by Republican Governor Alfred Driscoll and because Ike’s AG, Herbert Brownell, had been impressed with a speech that Brennan gave about criminal matters. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Brennan,_Jr.. So Brennan certainly belongs on the list of appointees who ended up being far more liberal than the GOP president thought.
Potter Stewart was expected to be a moderate-to-conservative Justice, and started out as such, and dissented in Griswold and Miranda. But then he joined the liberals in the ridiculous Eisenstadt v. Baird case (which, after Griswold forced states that banned the sale of contraception to exempt married people from the prohibition (due to the unique nature of the marriage relationship and penumbras and whatnot), used the Equal Protection Clause to strike down a state law that allowed contraception to be sold only to married persons—I swear I’m not making it up), and then voted with the majority in Furman (declaring the death penalty to be “cruel and unusual punishment”) and Roe v. Wade. Stewart certainly “grew in office,” almost as much as Blackmun.
Lewis Powell was presumed to be a conservative corporate lawyer and became the most centrist of centrists, although he certainly leaned to the left (he voted with the majority in Roe and his compromise opinion in Bakke was a disgrace). I’d count him as a disappointment.
As for Kennedy, no one expected him to become a defender of Roe, or to require special rights for gays, or to discover a “privacy” right to homosexual sodomy, or to strike down both the death penaly and mandatory life sentences to murderers solely because they were under 18 years old. Year in and year out, Kennedy has been far less conservative than President Reagan, or anyone else who weighed his nomination, assumed he would be.
Thanks for sharing that, ROTB. I know that’s what I need to do. God bless.
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.