Posted on 04/27/2012 6:16:12 AM PDT by Starman417
First Lady Obama presumes that her husband's Supreme Court Nominees will protect political rights not enumerated in the Constitution. She made this remarkable claim at Democrat fundraisers by stressing that Sotomayo and Kagan are indeed political appointees and can be counted on to protect the right to "Love whomever we choose" and "the right privacy". This mysterious "Privacy" right is presumably a reference to Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, but these nebulous terms are often invoked to mean anything Democrat strategists want them to mean at a later date.
In a typical Michelle Obama statement, her bathos logic maintained its chaotic and barely decipherable cross word puzzle style:
“Let’s not forget what it meant when my husband appointed those two brilliant Supreme Court justices, and for the first time in history our daughters and our sons watched three women take their seat on our nation’s highest court.But more importantly, let us never forget the impact their decisions will have on our lives for decades to come--on our privacy and our security, on whether we can speak freely, worship openly, and, yes, love whomever we choose. That is what’s at stake here.”
Of course, the appointment of the ACLU lawyer, Ruth Bader Ginzberg was a Clinton appointment and she has since claimed the Constitution to be a flawed document and that we need to look at other countries for laws to guide our judicial process.
Now with the latest political appointments being bragged about as stooges for the Obama regime and the refusal of Kagan to recuse herself from the hearing of the Individual Mandate Clause of Obama Care, the seriousness of the appointments of Sotomayor and Kagan are being viewed with skepticism by people wanting to preserve the integrity of the Constitution.
Ms Obama's speech was not a collection of off the cuff and extemporaneous remarks, she gave the same speech again at another fundraiser in Detroit. She obviously has sound reasons to believe her decidedly un-American speech claims.
We are now left wondering what these Progressive "Plants" are programed to achieve with their "Love who you choose" clause and what other Progressive objectives they are programmed to pursue or do they await directions from the White House. Does this include children, animals, and multiple partners or can we expect an element of reasonable restraint from political operatives within the Supreme Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
what a sandwich those 3 make
and to think these people represent the top of the pyramid of female jurisprudence
/johnny
Why in the world would we think she has sound ideas on anything? From what I have seen, she is a dope.
mIXED UP HEADLINES/text IN THE pRINT rOOOM:
``But more importantly, let us never forget the impact their decisions will have on our lives for decades to come—on our privacy and our security, on whether we can love whomever we choose...including Farewell Intercourse sex with dead wives``
`
Yeah. A crap sandwich. They are the modern equivalent of Saltpeter.
I wonder how they feel about being described this way? Frankly it makes them sound unprincipled and pathetic, and I bet they’re fuming about it (even though the shoe likely fits).
I’d tell FLOTUS to STFU. Maybe they’ll even have to vote conservative on a couple of issues just to prove they’re not political pawns. (Commence holding breath.)
The Constitution is built upon acknowledgment of unalienable rights, only some of which are mentioned such as the right to freely assemble and the RKBA. You will notice that the rights not enumerated (not listed) are reserved to the states and to the people. While I am sympathetic to claims that other rights are “nebulous terms”, you could say that about any of the ones explicitly mentioned.
The right to privacy is recognized by inference in the right to be secure in our persons and papers unless a lawful warrant gives government agents permission to violate it. And that certainly starts with the right to the privacy of our own persons, which we alone own and control. That is the basis for the right to contraception, which is a private matter. And I would include in that, the privacy in sexual matters.
Having said that, a fetus cannot be the property of its mother simply because it while dependent upon its mother for sustenance until she delivers it into the world, it has its own unique genetic identity and personality.
Like Heston said when George Clooney expressed glee over his Alzheimers, “Sometimes class skips a generation”. It looks like the classless society we have become is epitomized by the election of Klinton, and has become even more classless with the election of the most classless President and First lady in our history.
The next President is going to screw us over on many rights for many many years to come - whether it is Mittens or Obama.
The court is going to shift.
Yah....coming from the mouth of a “defrocked” lawyer...
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/12/wtf-michelle-ob.html
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Mrs. Obama is correct on that point. Just because some rights are enumerated in the Bill of Rights it doesn't mean that no other rights exist.
As James Madison put it: "It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution. (quoted here from the Congressional Record, for instance)
She just loves that phrase, doesn't she? Is she implying that having 3 women on the court far outshines appointing the very first woman to the court?
BFLOTUS (Bored.....Brazen.....*&%#@#...take yer pick) is as big an anti American idiot as her fake spouse!
Geez Louise..........
The right to love whoever you want?
See how the left twists issues around?
The issue is not whether you have the right to love whoever you choose. The issue is how we will define marriage in our society. You can still love whoever you choose, even if we don’t allow homosexual marriage. These are two separate issues, but the left over-simplifies it, as if to imply that homosexuals will be persecuted if we don’t allow homosexual marriage.
Heck, our culture has never been more “gay friendly” than it is now in the year 2012, but, to the leftists, not having “equal” marriage rights equals persecution. Go figure.
Michelle, GO AWAY.
Why shouldn't Ruthie Ginzberg, that MENTAL MIDGET, be impeached for such an outrageous remark?!
They actually don’t represent that.
They are examples of incompetence, but political correctness, rising to the top.
The best female jurists will not be found there.
I wish conservatives would do a better job of explaining what "gay marriage" is really about. It's not about "allowing" people to call themselves married to whomever they want--it's about forcing people to make available to same-sex couples any courtesies and favors they might voluntarily bestow upon married couples as part of a generalized reciprocity that's been going on for centuries if not millenia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.