Supreme Disappointment

I received an e-mail from a Tea Partier urging me to write the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States asking them to find ObamaCare to be unconstitutional.  I had never thought of writing the Supreme Court Justices previously on any issue as it seems the Constitution is quite clear on the role of government in our lives.  Thus, it would be folly to expect a member of this panel to be swayed by my impassioned plea.

However, I made the trip to the Supreme Court’s web site.  What a disappointment that (likely 20 million dollar) web site is.  Sections don’t overlay their background properly, calendar gives novice error messages, and colors make certain text nearly unreadable.  It’s clear that this web site was created with Obama Stimulus money.

But, the biggest disappointment is the entries on the calendar – or lack thereof.  As I write, we are in the 153rd day of the year on June 1st, 2012 – 41.9% of the way through the year.  To date, the Supreme Court has heard oral arguments on – wait for it – 27 days.  27 days.

On the day I visited the Supreme Court in 2010 and happened to get inside to witness 5 minutes of the arguments, they were done by noon.  I don’t think they started at 6:00am, but let’s assume they started at 8:00.  We’ll pretend they hear arguments for 4 hours per argument day.  That means of the 153 days of 2012, they have used 2.9% of the available hours to hear arguments.  If we assume a hard working 10 hour day, then they’ve only heard arguments on 7% of the hours available (I seem to work every weekend).

I realize there is much to do with each argument held on each case reviewed.  The process of selecting cases for judicial attention is a gauntlet.  But, 27 days.

To the urgings of my fellow Tea Partier’s, I did not find a method of directly contacting the Justices.  There is an address for general mail, but I do not get the idea that my logical arguments on any case will be under the Justices’ consideration… …which is probably the way things should be.

Can you imagine a country where laws are upheld based on the number of letters received in the mailbox?  Or, angry crowds surrounding the court house threatening upheaval if a case is decided against their wishes.

But, alas, here is their general mailing address:

Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

 

The 2012 Party Of ‘NO!’

It’s a pretty simple question, Justices.

Would the American People change the Constitution to explicitly allow the (limited) government of the people, by the people, and for the people to force them to buy a product under penalty of taxation OR law?

The answer, is a resounding, NO!

I’m definitely a member of that Party of ‘NO!’

 

Go-Along Grahams

Yesterday, RINO Lindsey Graham voted with the Democrats in the Judiciary committee to present radical justice nominee Elena Kagan to the full Senate for confirmation vote.  Conceding that Elena Kagan is his philosophical Antichrist, he related the pathetic argument that “elections have consequences”.  Then, he quoted Phil Graham from whom he copied his logic for his Kagan vote:

“So I’m going to vote for this nominee not because I agree with him philosophically, but because I believe he is qualified. I believe he is credible. I believe his views, though they’re different than mine, are within the mainstream of thinking of his political party.

“Whether I like it or not — and I do not — I do not — the American people put Bill Clinton into the White House. This nomination is a result of that. I’m not going to stand in the way of it because I differ philosophically with this nominee.

“I’m going to vote for him, and that doesn’t mean I’m pro-choice. I’m very pro-life. I’m going to vote for him because I believe that the last election had consequences and this president chose someone who was qualified, who has the experience and knowledge to serve on this court, who’s in the mainstream of liberal philosophy and understands the difference between being a liberal judge and a politician.”

Lindsey Graham will pretend Kagan is in the mainstream when she already said she will be glad to try to fill the shoes of the liberal Justice John Paul Stevens (who is retiring) AND JUST VOTED twice to remove our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.  Graham Redux feels that elections have consequences and thus we rubber-stamp the President’s nominees.

Well, Lindsey, then why fight? Don’t we just want to rubber-stamp his policies on all issues?  Bail-outs, Health Care, Cap and Tax, Financial Reform, Extending Unemployments and Deficit Spending?  Why put up a fight on any issue?  Why not be like Missouri’s Memorex-McCaskill and do Harry Reid’s bidding?

If you didn’t notice, the people of South Caroline voted you into office to be THEIR voice — not the voice of Washington politics.  Do you think for one minute the majority of South Carolinians want you to vote for someone that would strip them of their right to bear arms — someone also with radical views on free speech?  Don’t answer; you know it was a rhetorical question, and everyone knows the answer.

Senator Barack Obama didn’t play the “elections don’t matter” card when he voted against George Bush’s nominees Alito and Roberts.  Now he laughs as you pathetically play Washington insider instead of voting South Carolina’s conscience!

Think ya been there too long!

 

Bond, McCaskill, and Kagan

This was sent to the Southeast Missourian as  a Letter To The Editor on 7/12/10:

In the near future, Missouri’s Senators will have an opportunity to vote to confirm Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court. The question this time is whether or not Bond and McCaskill will vote with Missouri values or with Washington Politics.

Both Missouri Senators voted to confirm Sotomayor. During her nomination hearings, Sotomayor, under oath, testified that she believed in the 2nd Amendment. “I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller.”

However, in the McDonald vs. Chicago case, which extended Heller to a state-level gun-ban, Sotomayor joined the dissent saying:

“In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense.”

Here (http://www.redstate.com/brian_d/2010/07/01/fact-kagan-is-anti-second-amendment/) is a great review of Kagan’s anti-gun stance!

We know that Sotomayor lied during her confirmation about her anti-gun stance; we know Kagan will do the same in dancing around the issue. Will Bond and McCaskill this time face the reality of her views against the text of the Constitution and Missouri’s values?

I pray this time they’ll vote NO! You already have one reason to vote out McCaskill (Sotomayor); her vote to confirm Kagan will just be more fuel for the fire. And, the RINO Kit Bond… …he can’t retire fast enough for me.

Take some time and look into her thoughts on the 1st Amendment if you want a REAL scare!

 

4 Out Of 5 Dentists Say…

…Crest or Aquafresh or Colgate is the best toothpaste.  No biggie.

How about when 4 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices decide you do NOT have the right to own or carry a gun?  Still no biggie?

What happens when that 5th Justice signs on with the rest of the liberal Justices?

Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision returned a ruling to lower court that effectively did away with the gun ban in Chicago.  Earlier in 2010, the Heller case undid the Washington, DC gun ban.  Conservatives and Gun Owners finally felt the Constitution was actually being enforced, and that the Founders’ advocacy of the right to life — protecting that life — was enshrined in American law.  But, 4 of the 9 Justices deemed a ban on gun ownership as constitutional.  Let me repeat:  Disregarding the text of the 2nd Amendment below, 4 of the 9 Justices deemed a ban on gun ownership as constitutional!!

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Over the 4th of July weekend 2010, Conservatives and 2nd Amendment Advocates should have felt heart-wrenching-cold-shudder as a rumor spread that Justice Anthony Kennedy would soon retire — a move that (after Obama appointed another Progressive) would put the left-wing slant of the Supreme Court firmly in control (again 5-4).  And, this is what the Progressives have been praying for since the advent of candidate Barack Obama — that they would win the Presidency and change the makeup of the Supreme Court to allow a rubber stamp of their agenda… …which includes the destruction of free speech (except theirs) and the destruction of the right to keep and bear arms (except the government).

This is why voting for the platform of the candidate is SO important, and why Conservatives are screaming about the truth behind the facade that is Barack Obama.  We knew that he believed it okay to kill babies after birth; we knew that he didn’t believe in the sanctity of the Constitution; we knew that he would raise taxes; we knew that he would exponentially increase the size of government, and we knew that he would destroy the coal and oil industries.  People firmly against Abortion, firmly for Gun Ownership, firmly for low taxes, firmly for small government, and firmly for all Energy Types… …still voted for him.

Elections have consequences, and when you lose the right to defend yourself legally against the gun-toting-maniac-criminal that is crawling through your window to rape your daughter, kill you and steal your wallet… …remember your vote for Barack Obama!

 

Supreme Justice

Someone on the radio mentioned that, without the Declaration of Independence, there would be no U.S. Constitution.  Absent the former document, there would have been no Revolutionary War, Constitution, Louisiana Purchase, Manifest Destiny, Civil War, Bush Doctrine or President Obama.

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.”

In the eloquence of the two sentences above, a new nation was borne – free of the tyranny of cerntralised government; free of the burdensome taxation; free of the oppression of laws benefiting the government at the detriment of the people;  free of swarms of officers sent to harass the people and eat out their substance… …and built on the tenant that men and women are the most well equipped to realize their destiny, perform responsibly within as society, and pursue happiness.

Two Hundred Thirty-Four years later America fifty colonies are once again dwarfed by the behemoth that is the Federal Government.  Again, America sees those that would call themselves representatives of the people enacting legislation that disregards the people’s true will and desire, and with a complicit Supreme Court, such laws allow the officers to continue to eat from the people’s substance.

The final protectorate of the Constitution, the Supreme Court, will find itself again at the center of attention through the summer of 2010 as a current Justice retires , a new Justice is nominated, and a new Justice is confirmed.  This process has been completed 111 times before including the nomination and confirmation of the arguably racist Sonia Sotomayor.  The complicit press will again ignore the left-leaning judicial activism of the nominees, and a circus will appear on C-SPAN that would bore you even if your favorite past-time was to watch grass grow.

At times over the past 30 years, various judges, lawyers, and nominees have decreed the Constitution as highly pliable and moldable for the situation at hand.  Similarly, judges, lawyers, and nominees have looked to the laws of Europe and the rest of the world for guidance in their decisions.

According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:

“I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.

When the Supreme Court re-convenes in the Fall of 2010, the new Justice along with the rest of the Court will hear cases of constitutionality that affect every human being in America.  They will be asked to reflect on the words of the Constitution, their meaning, and dispense rulings monumental in nature.

Instead of looking to Europe for guidance, instead of looking to the world for direction, and instead of plying and molding the Constitution to the will of the Congress and the President, let us pray that the Justices of the Supreme Court will look back to our most critical founding document, The Declaration of Independence, to determine the veracity and Constitutionality of the law at hand.  And, based on their Oath of Office, let us pray that they will protect the true meaning of the Constitution as written.