The Supreme Court is not a group of people who can (or even should be) trusted to “interpret” the Constitution. I think both sides amply attest to that.
Thomas Jefferson certainly warned us about the danger of unelected black robed masters having the power to decide what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is in the U.S. Constitution:
“This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114
“The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51
“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
When the founders’ original intent gets thrown out the window – as liberals long ago threw it out – do you want to know what the Constitution “means”? It means whatever the hell they WANT it to mean. And nothing more. That’s why homosexuality is suddenly the wonderful thing that is sacred and holy and “constitutional” and it doesn’t mean a damn thing that the men who wrote the Constitution are spinning wildly in their graves over the insult to everything they believed in.
If you live with the Supreme Court says, you should die with what it says as well, I suppose. I myself certainly have no confidence in these goons after John Roberts rewrote the ObamaCare law to make what was very clearly described as a PENALTY AND NOT A TAX into a TAX AND NOT A PENALTY (see here and here).
I suppose if Obama gets to “fundamentally transform America,” John Roberts ought to be able to “fundamentally transform” ObamaCare. And of course both are “fundamentally transforming” the Constitution.
I remember a quote from Obama’s favorite Supreme Court “Justice” Thurgood Marshall who said, “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up.” These people don’t give a flying DAMN about “the law” or the Constitution. It is completely besides the point to them. It is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter. They do what the hell they want.
And they want hell. Their destiny is to burn in it forever and ever. And they want to bring that hell to earth as much as they can. It’s their gift to Satan.
I often hear people use the fact that if both sides disagree with you, that you must somehow be right – or at least “moderate.” That is simply asinine.
As an example, take Adolf Hitler (please! as the joke goes). Do you know that there were Nazis who believed Hitler didn’t go far enough? As just one example, Hitler removed (liberal hero) existentialist philosophy Martin Heidegger as rector of the prestigious University of Freiburg because he literally took his Nazism too far (see here and here):
Eventually, Heidegger did fall out of favor and had to give up his rectorate, not, however, out of enlightened opposition to fascism but because he came out on the losing side of a major ideological battle within the Nazi Party. As Farias shows, in aligning himself with the Storm Troopers of Ernst Rohm and insisting on persecuting Catholic student groups, Heidegger was considered too radical even for Hitler. – Modern Fascism, by Gene Edward Veith, Jr., pg 87
So would we be right to conclude that Hitler was therefore a “moderate” or that he must have been right because there were loons to either side of him? According to the “logic” Obama frequently uses, he sure was a “moderate.”
And that is just the way Obama is a “moderate.” He’s a “moderate” just like Hitler was a “moderate.” Because Adolf had people on both sides of him, too. So clearly he wasn’t “extreme.” Just like Führer Obama.
Hell, there are people who are crazier than the whackjob who just shot up Fort Hood. I guess that must make the guy “normal.”
Yeah, it turns out that both sides can disagree with you and you can still be wrong, wrong, WRONG. And just because you can point to a nutjob on either side of you doesn’t mean that you yourself are not ALSO a raving nutjob.
So I’m not going to play that idiot’s game of claiming the Supreme Court was right just because it disagreed with the left (even though the left is always [morally] wrong by definition. Rather, I’m going to point out that the Supreme Court’s decisions regarding Citizens United and now in McCutcheon were a reaction to the worst and biggest campaign whore who ever lived (that would be Barack Hussein Obama).
Allow me to explain by citing no other authority than the uberliberal Los Angeles Times:
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court struck another major blow against long-standing restrictions on campaign money Wednesday, freeing wealthy donors to each give a total of $3.6 million this year to the slate of candidates running for Congress.
Rejecting the restriction as a violation of free speech, the 5-4 ruling struck down a Watergate-era limit that Congress wrote to prevent a single donor from writing a large check to buy influence on Capitol Hill. It was the latest sign that the court’s conservative majority intends to continue dismantling funding limits created over the last four decades.
Okay, so this was a really, really bad thing because this was “long-standing” in that it reversed stuff that dated back to the damn Watergate era and had lasted for “the last four decades.”
Would you like to know about something else that someone ELSE blew away that had all of those hallmarks?
For the official, historical record, I was pointing this crap out as it happened back in 2008 - so please don’t accuse me of revisionist history. A few bits from a few news articles I pointed to then:
Barack Obama made it official today: He has decided to forego federal matching funds for the general election, thereby allowing his campaign to raise and spend as much as possible.
By so doing, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee becomes the first candidate to reject public funds for the general election. The current system was created in 1976 in reaction to the Watergate scandal.
Hmmm. 1976. How many decades ago was that? Let me get out Mister calculator and… yep. It was the same four decades that the LA Times says was so sacred and inviolate regarding laws limiting corporations from participating in political campaigns.
Just 12 months ago, Senator Barack Obama presented himself as an idealistic upstart taking on the Democratic fund-raising juggernaut behind Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
That was when Mr. Obama proposed a novel challenge aimed at limiting the corrupting influence of money on the race: If he won the nomination, he would limit himself to spending only the $85 million available in public financing between the convention and Election Day as long as his Republican opponent did the same.
Obama promised to only spend $85 million at the same time he promised to use public matching funds. Well, maybe that’s all he spent after he broke the matching funds promise? Try NOT. He lied. “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” was nowhere even CLOSE to this liar’s first lie. He actually began his campaign in a lie – when he went on ABC’s This Week program and promised the American people he would NOT run for president in 2008 but would serve his Senate term (which of course the liar didn’t do).
In November 2007, Obama answered “Yes” to Common Cause [and to a questionnaire by the Midwest Democracy Network] when asked “If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?”
I pointed out in that 2008 article:
Barack Obama isn’t just a hypocritical liar; he’s a self-righteous hypocritical liar, which is the very worst kind. It’s bad enough when someone breaks his promises, but when he does it with a smarmy “holier-than-thou” attitude, that’s when you know you’ve got the rarest breed of demagogue on your hands.
And we can now look back at history and realize that Obama has not only been the most documented liar who ever lived, but that this is how he has ALWAYS lied: with an arrogant, holier-than-thou self-righteousness that I have little doubt is second only to Lucifer’s appalling gall.
Again for the historical record, John McCain accepted public matching funds – as ALL nominees from BOTH parties had done since “the Watergate era.” Guess who refused to either keep his own damn word OR accept the matching funds that had kept the system from flying apart?
The guilty culprit’s name bears the initials B.H.O. Which apparently stands for “Beyond Hypocrite Orator” if not something more snide.
No human being who has EVER lived in ALL of human history EVER amassed such a massive campaign war chest as the guilty culprit whose initials are B.H.O. There has NEVER been IN ALL RECORDED HISTORY a bigger whore for political money than anyone who ever lived from any civilization in any place or in any time.
Which is why I proceeded to write articles such as this one:
And this one:
And then a little later this one:
Anybody want to defend the turd who as candidate for president whored for more campaign money than any politician in all of human history and then as president did more fundraising than the previous five presidents combined???
Again, for Obama and his demonic party to raise more money than any money-grubbing political whores who had EVER LIVED and then demonize the Supreme Court for allowing the other side to do the same makes them such appalling hypocrites that it is simply beyond unreal.
Simply put, Democrats perverted unions and unions perverted the Democrat Party such that more campaign funds could be and were raised than any human being or any party EVER raised in all of human history. Barack Obama raised more than a BILLION DOLLARS in 2008. He did it by breaking his word and he did it by being the biggest and worst whore who ever lived. You go back to the freaking pharaohs and no one ever did anything like this.
Barack Obama blew the doors off of public matching funds. I stated at the time that the system was dead thanks to Obama and would never be used again.
Democrats don’t want to limit campaign money: they want to limit REPUBLICANS from being able to raise campaign money while they roll in the money they raise like pigs wallow in filth. Because they are fascist hypocrites.
Barack Obama has fundamentally perverted America on every issue under the sun. He has abrogated the Constitution and ruled as a tyrant fascist god king. He has perverted health care. He has perverted immigration. He has perverted foreign policy. And yes, he perverted the campaign finance system.
You just go ahead and white about the evil of the Koch brothers and the evil conservatives on the Supreme Court, Democrats. You go ahead and wax more and more and more hypocritical so the temperature in the hell you will one day soon be burning in for murdering more than fifty-five million babies and worshiping homosexual sodomy will be all the hotter when you show up for your eternity.
But the rest of you need to know that the Supreme Court was forced to re-tilt the scales after Barack Obama the fascist stuck his thumb on them in 2008 and then kept his thumb on them as “the whore president.”
As liberals say that the Supreme Court is an unjust body, just remember that it was this same august unjust body that imposed sodomy on America and the same august unjust body that made the holocaust of babies the law of the land.
And realize that the beast is coming to finish what Obama started.
Here’s another thing to realize as liberal “journalists” who work for BIG CORPORATIONS demonize corporations for being allowed to participate in politics:
The law drew a line between two types of corporations: media corporations, and everyone else. Intentionally or not, it tilted political power toward the media and away from every other type of corporation (many of which, as Justice Kennedy observed, have limited resources, unlike, say, CNN). The mere fact that media organizations were able to speak at all in the 30 days leading up to an election gave them an advantage over other corporations. Even if a media corporation tries to be scrupulously fair in its coverage of an election, the inevitable choice to cover one story over another gives an advantage to one side. By removing the government’s muzzle from corporations, the Supreme Court has restored some balance to the playing field.
Surely the little guy has an interest in hearing election messages from corporations. The government gets its message out, and the media gets its message out. Why shouldn’t ordinary, private-sector corporations be able to speak as well? Unless he is a member of the Civil Service or a public-employees’ union, the little guy’s livelihood is usually dependent on a corporation — not the government or the media. Why shouldn’t he be able to hear that Candidate X’s support for cap and trade will destroy his employer?
That kind of changes the liberal demagoguery, doesn’t it? People who write for big corporations are denouncing other people who work for big corporations from doing the same thing THEY do.
And so I pointed out:
Why hasn’t Obama decried that ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN – corporations all – have exercised their rights to free speech??? Why hasn’t he demanded that THEY be marginalized along with Fox News? And who do those corporate bastards at the New York and Los Angeles Times think they are spouting their views and influencing our elections? Do you realize that they depend on advertisements from OTHER corporations that are quite often foreign-owned?
Let me expand on that slightly. I went out to my garage and instructed my car and my motorcycle to pay taxes. Neither said anything, because only PEOPLE can pay taxes as opposed to inanimate things. So I have to pay taxes on my motorcycle and my car rather than my motorcycle and car paying anything. Liberals say corporations are inanimate things and yet somehow they can be expected to pay taxes. If corporations have to pay taxes – which unions that get to participate in elections to the hilt DON’T have to pay – then why should corporations be denied the right to influence the political system that they have to pay MASSIVELY to fund??? Why should corporations that pay taxes be banned from doing what unions that don’t pay taxes get to do??? This is just an extension of the above hypocrisy as “journalists” who work for corporations decry other corporations from getting to do what they have always been allowed to do. And on the same vein, if corporations can pay taxes as only people have to do, then why can’t corporations do OTHER stuff that only people can do – such as worship God???
I’m not through with the whopping extent to which Barack Hussein Obama is a dishonest fascist. Let’s drag the IRS scandal into this. Do you know what that was? It was nothing short of an end run around the Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United verdict. Obama didn’t like it and publicly demonized the Supreme Court on national television. You might remember Samuel Alito mouthing “That’s not true” as Obama slandered the highest court in the land. Every single American got to see Obama’s naked contempt for the Supreme Court of the United States. And then what did Obama do? Well, after deciding, “I’m the Pharaoh-god king and only I should get to decide what the law is,” he instructed his IRS thug agency to target nearly 300 conservative groups who had the gall to believe that the Constitution (or the highest court in the land) mattered. He had his IRS specifically target groups on the basis of blasphemy – or more specifically for the “anti-Obama rhetoric” that amounted to blasphemy in the mind of the malignant narcissist-in-chief.
If you liberals want to sever corporations from having the ability to influence elections, all you’ve got to do is a) make corporations tax exempt and b) ban labor unions from having the right to participate. And impeach your fascist monster. And until you do these things, please shut the hell up about the outrages and injustices of corporations getting to do what YOUR groups get to do.
Just realize that liberals are ALL fascists. And the first order of business for a fascist is to make sure you get to stay in power so that you and ONLY you have the power “to control the people.”