Monday, May 10, 2010

Obama Picks Left-Wing Extremist For SCOTUS

Story here.

Obama Solicitor-General Elena Kagan, notorious Left-Wing Extremist and His Messiahness's pick for SCOTUS.

Well, of course he's picking yet another well-known left-wing extremist activist to help him impose his radically revolutionary neo-communist agenda.  No surprise... the guy has no appetite for moderate folks, and prefers to pick dangerous neo-communist ideologues.

No way can this person be reasonably expected to do the job impartially.  For sure this person will rule according to left-wing dogma.  What would stop her?  Nothing.  She'll be "free" to rule howsoever the Left tells her.  We've been watching judges stomp all over the Constitution and Bill of Rights... and get away with it every time, with no personal or professional consequences whatsoever.  Judicial activism is very real.  Oh, yes, this criminal thing is a part of American reality, and it's not being stopped.

Unacceptable, this person is.

But a shoe-in, I'd predict.  Because there won't be enough opposition pressure to force Obama to reconsider.

Imagine if Bush had nominated a lawyer with a record of right-wing extremist activism paralleling, in magnitude, Obama's nominee.  You just know that there'd be no way in hell Bush would be able to get such an individual confirmed.  You just know... from experience.

But the Republicans don't have the fortitude, nor the gonads, to nix the nomination of this dangerous left-wing extremist bigot to the Supreme Court.

Only people with scrupulous, spotless records of impartiality and absence of evidence of ideological extremism-activism, adhering to the law and the Constitution and Bill of Rights AS WRITTEN, should ever be permitted to serve as Supreme Court judges!

This person doesn't even enter the universe of this standard!

Of course, Obama probably doesn't even qualify to be President, but that's a developing story, which he could bring to an end by simply proving that he was born on American soil.

What's going on is surreal.  It's like a movie, not real life.  It's like an historical documentary reminiscent of the early days of the Third Reich and the beginning of the Bolshevist Revolution and the Iranian Revolution, that sort of thing.

No doubt about it... sure as shit's already been happening since the Obamacracy assumed absolute power, far worse shit's going to be happening.

Of course, don't expect the Big Media to tell us that shit's happening.  After all, would we expect the Reich Ministry of Propaganda to tell us that Hitler was a horrible monster who had to be stopped?  Would we expect Pravda to tell us that the USSR/Russia/Putinistan is an Evil Empire that must be destroyed?  Would we expect Xinhua to tell us that the Chinese Communist regime is even more dangerous than the Nazis were?  Of course not!

Somebody has to say something.  This is my two cents, like Winston Churchill delivered his two cents about Hitler and the Nazis, was ridiculed and dismissed... and then, by subsequent events, proven right...

Edwin Meese examines Kagan here.
First and foremost, any nominee to a lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court must demonstrate a thorough fidelity to apply the Constitution as it was written, rather than as they would like to re-write it. Given Solicitor General Kagan’s complete lack of judicial experience, and, for that matter, very limited litigation experience, Senators must not be rushed in their deliberative process. Because they have no prior judicial opinions to look to, Senators must conduct a more searching inquiry to determine if Kagan will decide cases based upon what is required by the Constitution as it is actually written, or whether she will rule based upon her own policy preferences.

Though Ms. Kagan has not written extensively on the role of a judge, the little she has written is troubling. In a law review article, she expressed agreement with the idea that the Court primarily exists to look out for the “despised and disadvantaged.” The problem with this view—which sounds remarkably similar to President Obama’s frequent appeals to judges ruling on grounds other than law–is that it allows judges to favor whichever particular client they view as “despised and disadvantaged.” The judiciary is not to favor any one particular group, but to secure justice equally for all through impartial application of the Constitution and laws. Senators should vigorously question Ms. Kagan about such statements to determine whether she is truly committed to the rule of law. Nothing less should be expected from anyone appointed to a life-tenured position as one of the final arbiters of justice in our country.

President Obama's controversial Supreme Court pick Elena Kagan has advocated for an increased presidential role in regulation, which, she conceded, would make such powers more and more an extension of the president's own policy and political agenda, a new book reveals.

That book is...

Buy this explosive, exhaustive, expositive blockbuster-bestseller book here.  
Yup, this is free advertising, because I care.

1 comment:

∞ ≠ ΓΈ said...

Janet Reno now rivaled.

Academic ideologue.