Posts Tagged ‘law’

Democrat Party: Don’t You DARE Aggressively Question Mass-Murdering Terrorists Who Brutally Behead Americans And Slaughter Children

December 17, 2014

Don’t you DARE touch our precious terrorist friends, you Republican monsters.  We who rabidly despise America and we who rabidly despise any Christian influence over America and who have murdered more than 60 million babies in our abortion mills love and protect our friends who share our desire to impose our dictatorial tyranny via an all-powerful state.

THAT is what DEMOCRATS declared in their so-called “report” which cherry-picked documents and which refused to interview a single professional who was there in a viciously partisan witch hunt.

The experts UNANIMOUSLY declare that 1) waterboarding is NOT torture and 2) the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques WORKED.

ISIS/ISIL is no different from the Democrat Party.  After all, both of these moral monsters claim they are actually saving American lives:

The Islamic State’s bloody campaign of public beheadings is actually intended to save American lives, Britain’s most notorious Islamic cleric declared in a radio interview Sunday.

“One of the primary reasons why you see what you are seeing on your own television and Internet is to try to end the war quickly,” stated radical preacher Anjem Choudary when asked to justify the ISIS beheadings.

“This kind of terrorizing and horrifying the enemy is saying to them, ‘Look don’t engage with them. Stay away.’ This is supposed to be something which drives the enemy away and therefore saves many lives.”

Like the modern Democrat Party, ISIS/ISIL hates Jesus, the WORD, even as they rabidly hate THE WORD OF GOD as they continually prove by being a fire hose of pure evil that imposes wicked, demonic policy atop wicked, demonic policy.

And so Democrats will defend to the last life of the last American citizen terrorists’ right to do this without fear of interrogation:

Reverend Canon Andrew White, head of the only Anglican church in Iraq, described in a recent interview some of the atrocities committed against Iraqi Christians by the Islamic State, including the beheading of four children who refused to convert to Islam and told their killers, “We love Yeshua [Jesus], we have always loved Yeshua.”

THIS is what Democrats prefer to the enhanced interrogation methods that broke terrorists and led to intelligence breakthroughs that kept decent people safe:

PESHAWAR, Pakistan (AP) — The Taliban massacre that killed 148 people, mostly children, at a military-run school in northwestern Pakistan left a scene of heart-wrenching devastation, pools of blood and young lives snuffed out as the nation mourned and mass funerals for the victims got underway Wednesday.

The attack at the Army Public School and College in the city of Peshawar on Tuesday was the deadliest slaughter of innocents in the country and horrified a nation already weary of unending terrorist assaults.

Blood was still splattered on the floor and the stairs as media were allowed inside the school a day after the attack. Torn notebooks, pieces of clothing and children’s shoes were scattered about amid broken window glass, door frames and upturned chairs. A pair of child’s eyeglasses lay broken on the ground.

Prayer vigils were held across Pakistan and in other schools, students spoke of their shock at the brutal slayings in Peshawar, where children and teenagers were gunned down and some of the female teachers burned alive. Army commandos fought the Taliban in a day-long battle until the school was cleared and all the attackers were dead.

The attack began when seven Taliban gunmen, explosives strapped to their bodies, scaled a back wall using a ladder to get into the school on Tuesday morning. Once inside, they made their way into the main auditorium where many students had gathered for an event, military spokesman Maj. Gen. Asim Bajwa told reporters during the tour Wednesday.

The militants then made their way to the hall’s stage and started shooting at random. As students tried to flee for the doors, they were shot and killed. The military recovered about 100 bodies from the auditorium alone, Bajwa said.

Democrats demand that we bow down to the thugs who want to impose Government in place of God because that’s precisely what THEY want to do.

We all know the scenario from the movies: terrorists are just about to launch a monstrous attack that would slaughter hundreds, thousands or even millions of innocents.  But we catch one of the roaches just short of too late and somebody with a vestige of moral courage inflicts a tiny fraction of the misery the terrorist insect would inflict on as many innocents as possible.  And makes him TALK.

Democrats are officially on the record saying don’t you DARE, hero.  Let the millions of innocents perish to protect the sacred liberal value of the people forced to become passive, helpless sheep powerless to avoid a fate imposed on them by those who worship the power to control them.

Go ahead and choose death, America.  Choose death by the tens of millions in the Democrat Party’s abortion mills.  Choose death with Democrats as they bring on the wrath of God upon America for their worship of homosexuality according to the Word of God.  Choose death by demanding that those who are desperately trying to keep this nation safe are hamstrung so that they will not dare do what they need to do to fight monstrous evil.

The heart of the Democrat Party is the heart of darkness.  They are people who have proven again and again that they believe good is evil and evil is good.

Here is the counsel of the Word of GOD concerning this wicked Democrat Party:

The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. – Genesis 6:5

“Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the LORD? Because of this, wrath has gone out against you from the LORD” – 2 Chronicles 19:2

A wise man’s heart directs him toward the right, but the foolish man’s heart directs him toward the left. — Ecclesiastes 10:2

You love evil more than good, Falsehood more than speaking what is right. — Psalm 52:3

But he who sins against Me injures himself; all those who hate Me love death — Proverbs 8:36

There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death. — Proverbs 14:12

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! — Isaiah 5:20

You who hate good and love evil, Who tear off their skin from them And their flesh from their bones — Micah 3:2

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools – Romans 1:22

For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all the ungodliness and wickedness of those who in their wickedness suppress the truth – Romans 1:18

In their case, the god of this world has blinded the minds of those who do not believe to keep them from seeing the light of the glorious gospel of the Messiah, who is the image of God. — 2 Corinthians 4:4

Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron — 1 Timothy 4:2

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come…  — 2 Timothy 3:1

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. — 2 Tim 4:3-4

Now we have Obama the rabid fascist dictator once again urinating on the Constitution and defecating on the will of the American people as he vomits out yet another fascist executive order that unilaterally imposes Obama’s thug nature on America.

Obama acknowledged that he was single-handedly abrogating fifty-three years of U.S. policy regarding Cuba.  What he refused to admit is that Congress in 1996 STRENGTHENED the decades-old law.  It was called the Helms-Burton Act and it was passed by Congress – not that that matters to this anti-American Nazi – and signed into law by President Clinton.  You now, just like the Defense Of Marriage Act that Obama treasonously decided he was above as our Führer-in-Chief.

We have never seen a president or a political part that has been so contemptuous of the law in American history.  You have to go to Hitler and his godless, socialist Nazi Party or Stalin and his godless, socialist Communist Party for any historic parallel to what we’ve seen from Obama and his godless, socialist Democrat Party.

As you consider how evil Democrats are treating our intelligence professionals who desperately tried to do what they had to do to keep America safe after a massive attack in the midst of widespread fear that there was more to come, consider that wicked Democrats are treating our police the SAME EXACT WAY as they chant in the streets, “What do we want?”  “Dead cops!!!”  “When do we want it?”  “NOW!!!”

And the same damned Democrats who demand intelligence professionals be neutered in their mission to keep America safe from terrorist murderers demand that our police professionals be neutered in their ability to keep America safe from every other kind of murderer.  As it is now, our police can’t even keep THEMSELVES safe from these vile, violent Democrat Party fascists.

Amazingly, Democrat NYC Mayor de Blasio will meet with violent protesters… but NOT with cops.

Police are saying, “We don’t need you cockroach liberal fascists coming to our funerals now that you Democrats have sicced your mobs of vicious Democrat thugs on us.

I don’t doubt for one nanosecond that that is PRECISELY the view that our intelligence professionals have toward Obama and his Demoroaches.

There will soon come a moment when U.S. intelligence captures a terrorist who will have detailed knowledge of a massive attack against the citizens of the United States.  And because of Barack Hussein Obama and the wicked party of Barack Hussein Obama, our forces will either field-execute the rat bastard or they will look at him helplessly as he defiantly mocks them knowing that they do not dare touch him.  And Americans will die and they will deserve to die because they voted to cover themselves in the demon-possessed wickedness of Obama and his Democrat Party.  And all I can do is quote the exact words of Obama’s “reverend” for 23 years:

No, no, no!  NOT God bless America!  God DAMN America!”

 

Advertisements

Rabid Arizona Boycotters Continue To Be Boycotted – Blame Obama For The Whole Mess

May 22, 2010

Remember how Obama promised to transcend the political divide and reach out to “move beyond the divisive politics”?

Well, he lied.

Instead we have the most divisive and polarizing president in American history, a man who fearmongers, demagogues, and demonizes without regard for the truth.

Obama deceitfully and maliciously told a story of fathers being deported just for taking their children to get ice cream.  The fact of the matter is that there is absolutely nothing whatsoever in the Arizona immigration law that would produce anything like the fearmongering scenarios our Demagogue-in-chief claims.  And I defy anyone to actually cite the bills as proof of any such argument.

If you really want to go after a bigoted racist on immigration policy, why don’t you go after Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the Democrat Congress?  Because they’re running the federal government, and it is simply a fact that the federal law is FAR more “racist” than the Arizona law.

And, of course, Democrats gave a standing ovation to the President of Mexico, whose immigration laws protecting Mexico from Central American illegal immigrants are about as hard-core as it gets.

But none of that matters.  Not to Obama, and not to Demon-crats.  They’re liars and demagogues, and what else do you expect liars and demagogues to do if not lie and demagogue???

So, in the bipartisan, non-ideological, and transcendent world of Barack Obama, American cities boycott one another in a move to start an economic war that will bring the country crashing down.

The silver lining to it – if there IS one – is that the boycott appears to be hurting the cities of the rabid little liberal rodents even more than it’s hurting Arizona:

Boycott Backlash: Some stay out of city
Growing number vow not to do business in Austin
Friday, 21 May 2010

AUSTIN (KXAN) – The city council’s decision to boycott travel to Arizona is resulting in organizations and individuals boycotting the city of Austin in protest.

A growing number of political organizations, including the Odessa and Burleson Tea Parties, have decided not to do business with the city of Austin until the council rescinds the Arizona boycott they passed a few weeks ago.

“We will try to minimize what the city gets from our stay there,” said Hood county Republican Party Chairman Randy Shelton. “We will not stay in hotels inside the city of Austin and we will not ride the city transit.”

Shelton says they will continue to support Austin businesses but try to prevent any dollars from going towards city revenue. Other boycotts are more extreme.

A search online showed many more individuals vowing not to do business in Austin, including one poster who says they will cancel hotel reservations and a Leander resident who says they will skip having lunch inside Austin city limits.

The boycott apparently is already being felt according to the Austin Hotel and Lodging Association who sent KXAN this statement:

“The AHLA is not a political association and does not in any way support travel boycotts of any kind. Hotels in Austin are now beginning to experience concrete evidence from the many visitors now canceling their leisure or business plans to Austin.”

KXAN was told some of the cancellations include riders who normally take part in the Republic of Texas Rally.

All I can say, residents of Austin, is that you should have thought about this before you elected a bunch of leftwing ideologue loons to your city council.

I wrote an earlier article about San Diego reeling from counter-boycotts by pissed-off Arizonans.  Let San Diego’s tourism industry blow up in flames because Democrats are vile and intolerant people who just have to spread their hate around with boycotts against innocent and decent Arizonans who are just trying to deal with an impossible wave of illegal immigration and the crises created by illegal immigration.

And I frankly hope that Los Angeles is honest enough to cut off a full 25% of their electricity which is produced by Arizona.  And Arizona may help Los Angeles find their missing integrity by cutting off the electricity it supplies.  You want a boycott?  Let’s have at it.  Wonder how many Los Angelinos will die sweltering in the heat without air conditioning this summer as a result of their own city council’s stupid and immoral boycott?

This is all Barack Obama’s fault.  He’s the demagogue who started this.  He’s the one who has set us at one anothers’ throats with his fearmongering and his lies.  Thanks to him, we don’t have to worry about al Qaeda, or Iran, or North Korea; now we’ve got to worry about Los Angeles and Austin and a whole bunch of other cities starting an endless war of mutually assured economic destruction with the people of Arizona.

Maybe one of Obama’s top officials will finally actually bother to read the ten page law they’ve been demonizing.  None of them have so far.  The reason none of them have is because they don’t want to have to be held accountable to the truth.

Obama AG Eric Holder Refuses To Acknowledge That Radical Islam Even AMONG Reasons For Terrorist Attacks

May 19, 2010

We have seen that Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder has been lightening fast to denounce and demonize the residents of an entire state as being racist over a law that he admits he never even bothered to actually read.

But now watch how careful the top American law enforcement official is to not say that radical Islam has even been AMONG the reasons that the recent rash of terrorists have attempted to murder Americans, even after repeated requests to do so:

Reading a transcript should drive you nuts as you plumb the depths of the ignorance, political correctness, and moral cowardice of the highest law enforcement official in the land:

SMITH: Let me go to my next question, which is — in — in the case of all three attempts in the last year, the terrorist attempts, one of which was successful, those individuals have had ties to radical Islam. Do you feel that these individuals might have been incited to take the actions that they did because of radical Islam?

HOLDER: Because of?

SMITH: Radical Islam.

HOLDER: There are a variety of reasons why I think people have taken these actions. It’s — one, I think you have to look at each individual case. I mean, we are in the process now of talking to Mr. Shahzad to try to understand what it is that drove him to take the action.

SMITH: Yes, but radical Islam could have been one of the reasons?

HOLDER: There are a variety of reasons why people

SMITH: But was radical Islam one of them?

HOLDER: There are a variety of reasons why people do things. Some of them are potentially religious…

SMITH: OK. But all I’m asking is if you think among those variety of reasons radical Islam might have been one of the reasons that the individuals took the steps that they did.

HOLDER: You see, you say radical Islam. I mean, I think those people who espouse a — a version of Islam that is not…

SMITH: Are you uncomfortable attributing any other actions to radical Islam? It sounds like it.

HOLDER: No, I don’t want to say anything negative about a religion that is not

SMITH: No, no. I’m not talking about religion. I’m talking about radical Islam. I’m not talking about the general religion.

HOLDER: Right. And I’m saying that a person, like Anwar Awlaki, for instance, who has a version of Islam that is not consistent with the teachings of it…

SMITH: But…

HOLDER: … and who espouses a radical version…

SMITH: But then is — could radical Islam had motivated these individuals to take the steps that they did?

HOLDER: I certainly think that it’s possible that people who espouse a radical version of Islam have had an ability to have an impact on people like Mr. Shahzad.

SMITH: OK. And could it have been the case in one of these three instances?

HOLDER: Could that have been the case?

SMITH: Yes, could — again, could one of these three individuals have been incited by radical Islam? Apparently, you feel that that they could’ve been.

HOLDER: Well, I think potentially incited by people who have a view of Islam that is inconsistent with…

SMITH: OK. Mr. A.G., it’s hard to get an answer yes or no, but let me go on to my next question.

I mean, it would have been easier to teach a pre-schooler  the mathematical intricacies of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.  That’s the way it is with moral idiots.  They simply cannot understand.   Objective morality and common sense are like an alien language to them.  They are so open-minded their brains have fallen out and splattered all over the floor.  They were so committed to their “liberal studies” that all room for any competing idea whatsoever has been utterly discarded and cannot even for the briefest nanosecond be considered.  They have determined themselves to be utterly stupid by sheer brute force of will.

The Obama administration respects the terrorists, their religion, their culture, and their worldview so very, very much.

It’s a bleeping long-string-of-profanities-type shame that Barack Obama and his top law dog don’t have so much as a fraction of the same respect for the American citizens and residents of the state of Arizona.

The National Review had this to point out:

How can you ever hope to stop something when you refuse even to speak its name?

Interesting, by the way, to hear Mr. Holder has become such an expert in Islam that he now purports to know more about the subject than people who have spent years studying it. He referred to al Qaeda recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki as beholden to “a version of Islam that is not consistent with the teachings of it.” I wonder if he will enlighten us on what exactly Awlaki has gotten wrong. Hopefully, Mr. Holder will at least let Secretary Clinton know because the State Department is showcasing the Dar al-Hijra Islamic Center — Awlaki’s old Virginia haunts, where the imam used to minister to 9/11 hijackers and the Fort Hood mass-murderer — as the model depiction of Islam in America. (See Steve Emerson’s reports at the Investigative Project on Terrorism, here and here).

Sun Tzu – in one of the great analyses of warfare, said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles.  Barack Obama and Eric Holder won’t even consider their actual enemy, and it is almost as shocking how utterly ignorant they are concerning themselves and their many flaws.

These people are dangerous and depraved.  And they need to go.

California To Arizona: ‘Please Don’t Boycott Us For Boycotting You’

May 18, 2010

The liberal view: “If we slap you in the face, it’s justice.  If you slap us back, it’s just wrong.”

I can’t help but think how liberals – who were so filled with hatred and anger at George W. Bush and Republicans that it was positively unreal – are now so utterly flabbergasted that conservatives would dare feel the same way now that a liberal guy and a liberal party has total control.

It’s like, “How can you possibly treat us the way we treated you?  That’s just so immoral.”

Some in Arizona canceling trips to S.D.
Outrage over local censure votes may be a misunderstanding
By Lori Weisberg, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
Friday, May 14, 2010 at 12:04 a.m.

San Diego tourism leaders and hoteliers fear they could lose a sizable chunk of business this summer from valued “Zonies” who are so angered by elected leaders’ recent censure of Arizona for its illegal-immigration law that they’re mounting an informal boycott of their own.

The San Diego Convention & Visitors Bureau and several hotels report receiving e-mails and letters from Arizona visitors saying they intend to change their plans to travel here in light of local outcry over their home state’s anti-illegal-immigration stance.

Tourism officials are striking back. In an open letter, they urge Arizona residents to overlook local politics and come to San Diego just as they always have for its mild climate, beaches and attractions. The visitors bureau, in conjunction with the San Diego County Hotel-Motel Association, plans to circulate the letter to media outlets and in advertising this weekend in The Arizona Republic.

The bureau says it has received about 25 to 30 e-mails from Arizona residents reacting to resolutions passed last month by the San Diego City Council and school board, which were little more than symbolic protests aimed at the neighboring state’s lawmakers.

Still struggling from the prolonged economic downturn, San Diego’s visitor industry can ill afford to lose any of the 2 million Arizonans it counts on annually, said ConVis President Joe Terzi.

“We’re in a very tough environment already because of everything else going on, and we don’t need another negative impact to our industry,” Terzi said. “This affects all the hardworking men and women who count on tourism for their livelihoods, so we’re saying, don’t do something that hurts their livelihoods.”

Although the summer months typically are an economic bonanza for the San Diego visitor industry, the recession and continued high unemployment have eaten away at lodging revenue as hotels have steeply discounted rates to fill their rooms. The Convention & Visitors Bureau spent $9 million last year promoting the region for the spring and summer months and is dedicating $7 million toward that effort this year.

“I’ve been approached by a number of hotels who are very concerned because they’ve received cancellations from Arizona guests,” said Namara Mercer, executive director of the county Hotel-Motel Association. “It’s a huge piece of business for not just the hotels but for all of San Diego. Everybody’s excited because they think occupancies will be stronger this summer, and now this.”

I am in Arizona as I write this, and I can assure you that Arizonans are pissed off.  Even the Democrat Arizonans I’ve talked to are pissed off.  70% of Arizonans are in favor of this bill; and they feel singled out and under attack.

And Arizonans aren’t just going to take their ire out on San Diego.  They’re pissed off at Los Angeles, they’re pissed off at the state of California, and they’re pissed off at anywhere else that wants to attack them with a boycott.

As I was driving from California, I ate at an Arizona Burger King.  I have never seen so much stuff embracing a state on the walls of a fast food restaurant in my entire life.

Here is the text of the Arizona law.  Read it.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with this law.  All it does is make what is already a federal crime a state crime as well.  It doesn’t allow racial profiling; in fact it has more stipulations preventing racial profiling than the federal law.

The Los Angeles Lakers are in the NBA Western Conference Finals against the Phoenix Suns.  There is outrage over the fact that a Los Angeles City Council member said that the Lakers should take their own food to Phoenix so as not to spend money in Arizona. 

Los Angeles announced it was boycotting Arizona.  Rather than tell the Lakers to bring their own food, the city should require the Lakers to forfeit the series.  That would at least have the virtue of being consistent.  Instead, the message from liberals in Los Angeles is that they have no intention of hurting BIG Los Angeles issues; rather, they just want to hurt thousands of little people – in both states – who might well lose their jobs over this stupid boycott.

I’m a Californian, but in my atttitude I’m another pissed-off Arizonan.  I’m buying as much stuff as I can in this state to help out a righteous cause against an unrighteous one.

Right now, it costs a full third more to drive a U-Haul truck from California to Texas as it costs to drive one from Texas to California.  Do you want to know why you have to pay a huge premium to drive out of California?  Because you are just one more rat fleeing a sinking ship, that’s why.

And what does California want to do?  Cut off its damn nose to spite its face, that’s what.

Well, in that spirit, allow me to stick a fork in your eye, too, California.

Law Professors Say Arizona Anti-Illegal Immigration Law Is Constitutional

May 16, 2010

We keep hearing people who claim that the Arizona anti-illegal immigration law (SB 1070) is “unconstitutional.”  But it keeps turning out that those who are decrying it on the mainstream media haven’t actually bothered to even read the law.

Well, the Arizona law is ever bit as “constitutional” as the federal law – considering it basically IS the federal law with even more limitations added to it.

Oh, you’ve got the crowd that says that a state can’t protect its own citizens.  The fact that the federal government has refused to do its job and protect Arizona from illegal immigrants for the last 25 years means nothing.  Let an out-of-control situation continue for ANOTHER 25 years, such people say.

Well, baloney, say three law professors who did something that AG Eric Holder and most liberals have refused to do – and actually bothered to read the law before demonizing it:

REGION: Three USD professors say Arizona law is constitutional
By EDWARD SIFUENTES  May 13, 2010 7:44 pm

Arizona’s controversial new immigration law probably would withstand legal challenges on constitutional grounds, according to a panel of three University of San Diego law professors.

However, the professors said the law could create problems, such as racial profiling, if it is not implemented properly.

The professors spoke Thursday during a panel discussion on UC San Diego’s campus in La Jolla hosted by the Institute of the Americas, an organization that promotes cooperation between the U.S. and Latin America.

Arizona’s law, Senate Bill 1070, requires police officers to check a person’s immigration status if they have a “reasonable suspicion” the person is in the country illegally. It makes it a state crime to be in the country without legal documentation; it already is a federal crime.

Critics say the law, which takes effect later this year, could lead to racial profiling of Latinos and other ethnic minorities. Some Latino and civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, say they plan to challenge the law in court.

Those groups say the Arizona law also violates the U.S. Constitution by interfering with federal immigration power and authority.

Professor Lawrence Alexander, who teaches constitutional law at USD, said that argument would fail because the Arizona law does not conflict with federal immigration law. The state law is only seeking to enforce the federal law, he said.

“I don’t see anything in this law that is going to fail a challenge on the grounds of federal supremacy,” Alexander said.

Alexander was a panelist along with professors Donald Dripps, a scholar on criminal law, and Maimon Schwarzschild, who specializes in constitutional law. Former U.S. Ambassador Jeffrey Davidow, who is president of the Institute of the Americas, served as moderator.

Supporters said the law was needed due to the federal government’s failure to secure the border.

In response, several cities across the country have passed resolutions or urged boycotts to protest the law, including Oakland and San Diego. On Tuesday, San Francisco city supervisors approved a resolution that urges a boycott of Arizona-based businesses and asks sports leagues not to hold championship games or tournaments there.

About 50 people attended the panel discussion at UCSD, including students, attorneys and immigration rights advocates. About a dozen people who spoke during a question-and-answer session criticized the law.

“The problem is the application of the law,” said San Diego immigration attorney Lilia Velasquez. “On the ground, (the) Border Patrol or the police officers in Arizona will arrest people based on their race and maybe solely on their race.”

Under the law, police officers who detain a person, such as in a traffic stop, are required to question a person about his or her immigration status if there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the United States illegally.

The panelists agreed that defining what constitutes “reasonable suspicion” could be problematic. But that alone does not render the law unconstitutional, Alexander said.

“Could a police officer overstep the bounds and do something that the Constitution does not permit? Of course,” he said. “Police officers can do that now. They can do that without the law, but the law itself does not authorize anything that is unconstitutional.”

The Arizona law, which said that race or ethnicity cannot be the only factor prompting a police officer to ask a person’s immigration status, was later amended to say that race could not be considered at all in questioning a person’s status.

Dripps said the U.S. Supreme Court has said that a person’s apparent Mexican ancestry can be a factor in stopping someone for an immigration stop by immigration agents. The question, he said, is whether that authority would also apply to police officers asking someone about his or her immigration status.

Schwarzschild also raised questions about whether the law could be discriminatory.

“I think the answer there is: It could. In the way that it is enforced,” Schwarzschild said. “But it certainly doesn’t, on its face.”

CORRECTION: Law professors incorrectly identified

The original version of this story incorrectly stated that the three law professors who took part taught at UC San Diego. They teach at the University of San Diego School of Law.

We apologize.

In any event, ANY law enforcement officer can abuse ANY law.  If the left wants to abolish this law because a police officer could conceivably abuse it, let’s abolish all laws and have total anarchy instead.

We get to the root of the real issue: the people who are protesting this anti-immigration law are not doing it because it’s “unconstitutional,” but rather because they are opposed to any form of action to deal with the soaring and searing crisis of illegal immigration.  They are open borders fanatics; they are leftwing ideologues who want illegal immigrants from Mexico to be able to undermine the vote of legitimate citizens and impose the next failed socialist Utopia.

They don’t want the United States to do ANYTHING to control our borders.

Here is the text of the Arizona law.  Read it.  If there’s something wrong with it, then cite the relevant passage in your argument.  Don’t give me any of your bogus penumbras and emanations in which you gaze into a crystal ball and find things that aren’t even there simply because you want to see them.

Otherwise, let’s have less complaining, and more shutting the hell up.

Obama AG Eric Holder Never Bothered To Read Arizona Law But Demonized It Anyway

May 15, 2010

This is how you can know that an issue has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with facts or principles or justice, and everything to do with political opportunism and blatant demagoguery.

Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder repeatedly appeared on national television to denounce and demonize the new Arizona anti-illegal immigration law, but never bothered to read the ten-page law for himself (a total of sixteen pages, counting all footnotes and addendums!).

Instead he relied upon mainstream media accounts.  Which is another way of saying, instead he relied upon leftwing propaganda, to make his determinations.

Apparently, the highest law enforcement official in the land will arrest you on the basis of some liberal loon’s opinion.  That is beyond incompetent; it’s dangerous.

Youtube video of Holder admitting he hadn’t read the law he demonized and threatened to use the full weight and power of the federal government to attack:

Here is a transcript of that encounter:

REPRESENTATIVE TED POE, (R-TEXAS): So Arizona, since the federal government totally fails to secure the border desperately then passed laws to protect its own people. The law is supported by 70 percent of the people in Arizona, 60 percent of all Americans, and 50 percent of all Hispanics according to the Wall Street Journal/NBC poll done just this week. And I understand that you may file a lawsuit against the law. Seems to me the Administration ought to be enforcing border security and immigration laws and not challenge them, and that the Administration is on the wrong side of the American people. Have you read the Arizona law?

ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I have not had a chance to, I’ve glanced at it. I have not read it.

POE: It’s ten pages. It’s a lot shorter than the healthcare bill which was 2,000 pages long. I’ll give you my copy of it if you would like to have a copy. Even though you haven’t read the law, do you have an opinion as to whether it’s Constitutional?

HOLDER: I have not really, I have not been briefed yet.

Later during his questioning, Poe further challenged the Attorney General:

POE: You have some concerns about the statute. It’s hard for me to understand how you would have concerns about something being un-Constitutional if you haven’t even read the law. Seems like you wouldn’t make a judgment about whether it violates civil rights statutes, whether it violates federal preemption concepts if you hadn’t read the law. So, can you help me out there a little bit, how you can make a judgment call on that, but you haven’t read the law and determined whether it’s Constitutional or not?

Holder’s response will even FURTHER amaze most Americans on both sides of the aisle:

HOLDER: Well, what I’ve said is that I’ve not made up my mind. I’ve only made, made the comments that I’ve made on the basis of things that I’ve been able to glean by reading newspaper accounts, obviously, looking at television, talking to people who are on the review panel, on the review team that are looking at the law. But I’ve not reached any conclusions as yet with regard to. I’ve just expressed concerns on the basis of what I’ve heard about the law. But I’m not in the position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with people doing the review, exactly what my position is.

Eric Holder relied on wildly inaccurate and biased news reports, and then went out and made several wildly inaccurate and biased statements to the press.

On April 28 Holder stated that the Arizona law is an “unfortunate one that I fear is subject to potential abuse” (video).   On May 9, Attorney General Holder was on Meet the Press and said the Arizona law “has the possibility of leading to racial profiling.” And on May 11, he said “I certainly think it’s divisive. I don’t think there is any question about that” (video).

And none of those demonic denunciations were based on the actual facts.  Eric Holder is reading the muckraking journalists and deciding to go to war on their urgings.

Meanwhile, the same Eric Holder who denounced and demonized Arizona refused – even after several requests – to acknowledge that radical jihadist Islam was even among the factors contributing to the terrorist attacks we’ve seen.  Which have ALL had radical Islam as the primary motive.

I just wish that Eric Holder had a tiny fraction of the respect for the rights of the citizens of Arizona that he has demonstrated for the radical jihadist Muslim terrorists who would gleefully murder every single one of us if they could.  Just a tiny fraction would do.


The only thing that there isn’t any question about is that Barack Obama’s attorney general is shockingly incompetent and partisan.  This is not about law, but about the rabid pursuit of political power and demagoguery of the worst kind.

Here is the entire text of the Arizona law (SB 1070).  I defy anyone to actually cite a passage that is racist, or which actively endorses any racist policy.

Arizona Law Working Beautifully – And It Hasn’t Even Taken Effect Yet

May 4, 2010

CBS does it’s ideologically liberal best in the story below to paint the exodus of illegal immigrants from Arizona as an epic tragedy, but most Arizonans are doing a Snoopy dance over the departures:

May 3, 2010
Immigrant Families Leave Arizona, Fearing Law
At Least 100,000 Illegal Immigrants Flee the State Fearing Legislation; Some Citizens Angered by Financial Impact

By Kelly Cobiella

(CBS) On a dusty block in Phoenix, 15 years of the Quintana family’s possessions are for sale.

Manuela Quintana said that they decided to leave when the Arizona governor signed the new immigration law.

For years, their family thrived with jobs in restaurants and construction, reports CBS News correspondent Kelly Cobiella. Their 10 children were born here and are U.S. citizens. Both she and her husband are undocumented, and currently unemployed.

She said that her biggest fear is being put in jail and having her children taken away from her. Just the thought of moving scares their 12-year-old daughter Graciela.

“I think it’s going to be my worst day,” Graciela said.

Two years ago, this park was filled with families every weekend. Arizona was home to more than half a million illegal immigrants. Since then, at least 100,000 have left.

Kyle Kester is the Quintana’s landlord – he’s lost seven tenants in the past week.

“I would say on this block alone we have 20 vacancies at least,” Kester said. “It’s not just illegal immigrants who are affected by this. I was born in the U.S. and it’s hurting me now.”

Graciela’s best friend fled to California with her family Saturday. She didn’t get to say good-bye.

Manuela knows she broke the law when she came here 15 years ago. But she doesn’t see herself as a criminal.

“A criminal is someone who kills,” she said in Spanish. “I just want to work.”

The family packed up before dawn today and headed north to Colorado. Manuela says she’s lost hope in this state. She thinks she’ll find it again in another.

I didn’t realize that rapists who don’t kill their victims aren’t criminals.  I didn’t realize that thieves and molesters and swindlers aren’t criminals.

But if that’s what it takes to claim that sneaking into America and utterly disrespecting our laws and our boundaries isn’t breaking the law, well, I’m not surprised.

Kyle Kester – a man who didn’t mind if he rented to illegals  as long as they paid him – says he’s being hurt by the law now.  Well, cry me a river.

Let’s just say Kester represents a very selfish few:

From Rasmussen:

The Arizona legislature has now passed the toughest measure against illegal immigration in the country, authorizing local police to stop and check the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 70% of likely voters in Arizona approve of the legislation, while just 23% oppose it.

I don’t doubt for a minute that other people, such as employers who pay their employees in cash (at a drastically cute rate to take advantage of their status) are going to be “hurt” by the law, too.

According to a study done by the Heritage Foundation, the average illegal immigrant receives $19,000 a year more in benefits than he or she pays in taxes.  And that adds up to more than $90 billion drained out of the economy every year.

Illegal immigrants are a huge tax drain on Americans.

So I’m thinking as a bunch of illegal immigrants come cruising to California to collect benefits because no one will hassle them here, our near bankrupt state will just keep getting nearer and near to going bankrupt.

The Real Issues Behind Arizona’s New Illegal Immigration Law

April 26, 2010

George Will, on ABC’s “This Week,” hit the nail right on the head regarding Arizona’s new illegal immigration policy, just signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer:

“Reasonable suspicion” that the person is an alien. What does that mean, George?

WILL: Well, the Fourth Amendment says there should be no unreasonable searches and seizures, and we’ve generated volumes of case law trying to sort out what that means over the last century or so. So it’s not clear what that means. Let’s say this about Arizona. They have 460,000, an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants there. So before Washington lectures Arizonans on irresponsibility, perhaps Washington ought to attend to the central attribute of national sovereignty which is to control the borders. We are the only developed nation in the world with a 2,000 mile border with an undeveloped country and we have a magnet of a welfare state to the north.

So this is not Arizona’s fault. Beyond that, this should be said however. Reasonable suspicion is going to put upon the police of Arizona a terribly difficult job. This is what the governor said. “We must enforce the law evenly and without regard to skin color, accent or social status.” I don’t know how do you that. […]

WILL: Again, in defense of Arizona, large majority of Arizonans support this bill and a large majority of Arizonans are not, by definition, the fringe of the state. They are temperate, decent people with a huge problem.

What the Arizona law does is make a state crime out of something that already is a crime, a federal crime. Now, the Arizona police — and I’ve spent time with the Phoenix Police Department — these are not bad people. These are professionals who are used to making the kind of difficult judgments. Suspicion of intoxicated driving, all kinds of judgments are constantly made by policemen. And I wouldn’t despair altogether their ability to do this in a professional way. […]

GLICK: So put the 3,000 troops on the border as McCain suggests.

WILL: Build a fence, do what McCain suggests, and you’ll find that the American people are not xenophobic, they are not irrational on the subject, but they do want this essential attribute of national sovereignty asserted.

TUCKER: And where does the money come from for that, George?

WILL: It’s a rounding error on the GM bailout.

A number of major points come out of George Will’s remarks:

1) This is NOT Arizona’s fault; it’s the federal government’s fault.  The first order of business for any government of any nation-state is to protect their borders from invasion; and the U.S. government has utterly failed to perform that function.  Worse, up to this point, they have even perversely prevented the states from acting to save themselves.

2) Arizona’s illegal immigration policy is NOT some “racist” or “extreme” agenda; it is supported by an overwhelming majority of Arizonans:

The Arizona legislature has now passed the toughest measure against illegal immigration in the country, authorizing local police to stop and check the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 70% of likely voters in Arizona approve of the legislation, while just 23% oppose it.

These are reasonable people put into an unreasonable position by a bunch of extremists who are running our government and who are leading racist organizations such as La Raza (which literally means “the race” – and how racist can you get?).

The “racist extremists are on the other side from the decent Arizona people:

Whenever I’m asked about media treatment of the Tea Parties, I ask myself a simple question: What do you suppose the media would say if tea partiers were biting off people’s fingers?

A new question for today: What would they be saying if even a small group of Tea Partiers physically attacked the police at a rally?

Witnesses say a group protesting against SB1070 (Arizona’s harsh new immigration law) began to fight with a man who was for the controversial immigration bill.

Police tried escorting that man away from the scene, fearing for his safety, when they too came under attack by people throwing items, including water bottles.

And, yes, the police are under more than just rock and bottle attacks from protesters who want to prevent Arizona from keeping illegal immigrants outside their borders:

(CNSNews.com) – Law enforcement officials from the Arizona counties hardest hit by illegal immigration say they want U.S. troops to help secure the border, to prevent the deaths of more officers at the hands of criminals who enter the country illegally.

“We’ve had numerous officers that have been killed by illegal immigrants in Arizona,” Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu said Monday at a Capitol Hill news conference. “And that shouldn’t happen one time.”

Babeu said the violence in Arizona has reached “epidemic proportions” and must be stopped. “In just one patrol area, we’ve had 64 pursuits — failure to yield for an officer — in one month,” Babeu said. “That’s out of control.”

I have seen a number of occasions in which a situation went way too far one way, which ultimately led to it swinging way too far the other way.  I believe that the Democrats under Obama have done that very thing on virtually every issue under the sun.  I would say the following: don’t act like a bunch of rabid leftwing extremists, and then cry when conservatives start acting like a bunch of rabid rightwing extremists.

3) Given the fact that the federal government – aided by a powerful special interest lobby, and aided even further by judicial activists who refuse to make a distinction between citizens and illegal immigrants – have refused to protect our borders, Arizona decided to do the job the federal government has refused to do.  That means that Arizona police officers are going to have to step up and do a tough job.

Being a police officer means making judgment calls, and balancing peoples’ rights with enforcing laws every single day.

Bottom line: if you think police can’t make a reasonable determination whether someone is here illegally, I hope you don’t think law enforcement can make any other reasonable judgments (such as whether I’m driving drunk), either.

4) Finally, if we just built the damn wall like Bush tried to do, we wouldn’t be in this stupid mess to begin with.  And the people who screamed about that wall have no right to complain with Arizona’s new policy now.  They BEGGED for the tough new Arizona law.

The shrill cry of the leftwing was that a border wall was identical to the Iron Curtain.  The only thing wrong with that is that it is beyond ignorant; the Iron Curtain was created to keep citizens from escaping to freedom; a border wall would protect out citizens by keeping illegal immigrants who have no right to be here out.

Liberals also cite the Posse Comitatus Act as preventing the powers of the federal government from using the military for law enforcement.  But that begs the question: just how is protecting our borders from foreign invasion “law enforcement”?  This is a clear situation in which our national security is at issue.  The soldiers on the border would not be arresting American citizens; they would be detaining foreign invaders.

The Chinese built the Great Wall of China to keep the Mongols out; and it worked.  And I’m just guessing that a people who put a man on the moon can build a damn wall that does the job.

Bottom line, I think the Arizona law probably ultimately goes too far.  But like I said, pro-illegal immigration forces DEMANDED a law that went too far by steadfastly refusing any form of reasonable policy.

There is no reason whatsoever that citizenship should not be checked along with identity and residence, under the same conditions and situations in which it is reasonable to ascertain identity and residence.  And if you are here illegally, your ass should be on the next bus out of the country – after serving jail time for violating our borders and breaking our laws.  And the wall that we build should make sure you don’t come back.

Checking citizenship (or immigration status) at every arrest, or at every reasonable situation in which police check for identity, would take away the “racist” profiling issues.

Because, yes, I’m just as ticked off at the illegal immigrant Canadian or Irishman as I am at the illegal immigrant Mexican.

At the same time, building a wall to protect what is yours should be familiar to any child who has ever walked down the sidewalks of his or her own neighborhood.  I’m not “racist” for building a wall; and it is frankly racist to suggest that I am.  It amounts to basic common sense.  And combined with a military patrol that would be able to identify and apprehend anyone climbing over that wall, it would make the issues surrounding “border enforcement” moot.

You can disrespect America’s borders as much as you want – so long as you remain on the other side of them.

Why Obama’s Supreme Court Selection Will Be A Disgrace To The Constitution

May 4, 2009

Does the Constitution mean anything specific, or is it just a “living, breathing” document that means whatever the reader wants it to mean?

And what does it mean if the Constitution is essentially meaningless?  What does it mean if the rule of leftwing “empathy” trumps the rule of law?

Depending on your answer to the first question, and what you think about the second, you are either about to be very angry, or very happy.

Justice David Souter just announced his resignation from the Supreme Court, and Barack Obama had this to say:

“I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book, it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives, whether they can make a living, and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes, and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with peoples hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.”

Back in November, when asked what kind of Supreme Court Justice he wanted, Obama said:

I taught constitutional law for 10 years, and . . . when you look at what makes a great Supreme Court justice, it’s not just the particular issue and how they rule, but it’s their conception of the Court. And part of the role of the Court is that it is going to protect people who may be vulnerable in the political process, the outsider, the minority, those who are vulnerable, those who don’t have a lot of clout.

. . . [S]ometimes we’re only looking at academics or people who’ve been in the [lower] court. If we can find people who have life experience and they understand what it means to be on the outside, what it means to have the system not work for them, that’s the kind of person I want on the Supreme Court.

Obama has said:

We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.

Is that what being a Supreme Court Justice should mean?  Taking the little guy’s side against the big guy?  Taking the outsider’s side, such that we use the power of law to bring the outsiders inside?  Having “empathy” toward liberal voting blocs?  Why should it even matter if the law is on the rich and powerful guy’s side?

Kelly Long, of the Judicial Confirmation Network, said in response to Obama’s statement today:

“What he means is, he wants empathy for one side, and what’s wrong with that is it is being partial rather than impartial.

And she’s right: I didn’t hear Obama mentioning the need to have any empathy toward any traditional or conservative people or groups.  As an example of this highly partial and politicized and partisan “empathy,” a hate crimes bill just passed the House that could target pastors who argue that homosexuality is a sin.  Where’s the “empathy” for them?

Empathy is recast as a political weapon of the left.  And when a judge makes rulings on such feelings, his “empathy” for one group translates into naked contempt for another group.

Contrast Obama’s view with the view of Chief Justice John Roberts:

“I had someone ask me in this process — I don’t remember who it was, but somebody asked me, you know, ‘Are you going to be on the side of the little guy?’ And you obviously want to give an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then, the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution.  That’s the oath.

In other words, Roberts 100% disagrees with Obama: being a Supreme Court Justice is not at all about having “empathy” or taking the little guy’s side; it is about following the Constitution and ruling in accordance to what the founders who wrote it intended.  Something has to ground our laws.  And the purely subjective opinions of nine unelected lawyers should not be what anchors this nation.

We find out something: as much as liberals want to argue that Bush trounced the Constitution, it is THEY who frankly could care less about the Constitution.

Rasmussen found out that:

While 82% of voters who support McCain believe the justices should rule on what is in the Constitution, just 29% of Barack Obama’s supporters agree. Just 11% of McCain supporters say judges should rule based on the judge’s sense of fairness, while nearly half (49%) of Obama supporters agree.

Only 29% of Obama supporters agree that justices should rule on what is in the Constitution.  That is absolutely terrifying.

It is conservatives who care about the Constitution.  Liberals only care about what they want, and whatever ends justify whatever means.  And if the Constitution doesn’t support what they want, so much the worse for the Constitution.

obama_yes-we-can-constitution

That’s why liberal judges can mysteriously find penumbras and emanations supporting the “Constitutional” right to abortion, and simultaneously deny the clear and obvious meaning of the 2nd Amendment’s right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Justice Thurgood Marshall, who is the prototype of the liberal justice, said, “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up” (see Deborah L. Rhode, “A Tribute to Justice Thurgood Marshall: Letting the Law Catch Up,” in the 44 Stanford Law Review 1259 (1992).

The problem with this view is that one can literally do whatever one wants as a Justice without any guide but one’s own desires or convictions.  And yet that is the essence of Obama’s philosophy.  All kinds of horrors have resulted from this approach.

In the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision, likely the worst decision ever, the Supreme Court ignored the overwhelmingly clear mandate of the Constitution in favor of a desired outcome. In writing his dissent to this despicable example of judicial tyranny, Justice Benjamin R. Curtis wrote, “When a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we no longer have a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is according to their own views of what it ought to mean” (Dred Scott 60 U.S. 621 (Curtis, J., dissenting)).

Similarly, in the 1944 Korematsu v. United States decision, the activist Supreme Court upheld the executive orders of FDR requiring forced internment of some 110,000 American citizens of Japanese descent in clear violation of the plain sense of the 5th Amendments prohibitions against deprivation of life liberty, or property without due process.

Activist judges have repeatedly throughout history justified slavery, segregation, and racism, abandoning the plain sense of the Constitution in order to impose their views upon the text.  Let’s not forget that it was Democrats who fought to impose slavery, and it was judicial activists who bound the country up with laws that took the bloodiest war in American history to overcome.

What did Thomas Jefferson say about the threat of Supreme Court Justices imposing their own will upon the Constitution and imposing laws on the nation based on nothing but their own wills?

“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

I don’t hear Jefferson praising “empathy” as the defining quality of of our Supreme Court Justices.  In fact, I hear him turning in his grave over the abomination that Barack Obama’s philosophy is inflicting upon the nation.

Not that Obama cares one bit about what Jefferson realized about the stupidity and folly of judicial activism two centuries ago.  That would be honoring the original intent of our incredibly wise founding fathers, and liberals like  Obama won’t have any of that.

Antonin Scalia and Nadine Strossen debated over the strict constructivist approach, which honors the founding fathers’ view of the Constitution; versus the “living document” approach, which enables justices to impose their will on the Constitution.  A partial transcript of their debate is available.

Toward the end of the transcript, Scalia said this:

Someday, Nadine, you’re going to get a very conservative Supreme Court… And you’re going to regret what you’ve done.

Imagine if “rightwing” justices bought into the “living document” view of liberals, abandoned their historical interpretation of the Constitution, and began to start seeking “penumbras and emanations” justifying whatever laws they wanted to impose upon society.  Liberals, just imagine for a moment what they would do to society by basing their decisions not upon the Constitution and the law but upon whatever they felt like doing based upon their ideology.

Liberal activist judges love to turn to foreign law to “inform” their rulings.  So let’s see a hardcore rightwing justice start referring to sharia to “inform” his rulings against women and homosexuals.  Let’s see how the left feels if the right uses their own “legal reasoning” against them to impose a rabid moral view in the name of and with the force of law.  One thing is sure: no matter how far such a rightwing judge might go, it is yet unlikely he would go as far as the left did against babies.

The farther Obama pushes the envelope toward liberal judicial activism, the greater the ultimate backlash will be when the worm turns.  And if the economy tanks or we are hit by terrorists, the worm WILL turn to the right.

We don’t know who Obama will appoint to fill the Souter vacancy, but the one thing we DO know is that his pick will be a disgrace to the Constitution.