Posted on 06/29/2010 5:43:51 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
Perhaps the most startling aspect of the Supreme Court opinions in McDonald v. Chicago was the dissenters' assault on District of Columbia v. Heller. Not only did Justice Stephen G. Breyer vote against extending the Second Amendment to state and local governments, he also argued forcefully and at length for overturning Heller and, therefore, for turning the Second Amendment into a practical nullity. Ominously, Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined the Breyer dissent - contradicting what she told the U.S. Senate and the American people last summer.
Regarding the key issue in McDonald - whether the 14th Amendment makes the Second Amendment enforceable against state and local governments - Justice Sotomayor resolutely refused to tell the senators how she might vote. So in voting against incorporating the Second Amendment, Justice Sotomayor was not inconsistent with what she had told the Senate. But regarding Heller, her actions as a justice broke her promises from last summer.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
All of them. I’m re-reading Hayek’s `The Road to Serfdom.’
He covers socialist realpolitik and “the end justifies the means” in Chapter 6, “Planning and the Rule of Law.” (Keeping in mind their definition of “planning”: centralized control which does not contemplate an armed proletariat.)
They sure are. But, there's nothing we can do if they lie, short of impeachment. We already know how that's going to end.
There is no controlling authority. It may be illegal as all get-out, but there is no way to enforce it.
The wide Latina strikes again.
Leftists cannot lie as they are Marxists. Marxists deal with contradiction by using the technique of thesis, antithesis resulting in synthesis. (From Memory)
When you're smarter than everyone else, it's OK to lie to them for their own good.
*******************************************
It also applies to all levels of law enforcement in America from the beat cop to the prosecutors/lawyers and the president himself. So why not the members of the Supreme Court?
Deck Hand’s point is a good one. She can say virtually anything during hearings, and then “change her mind” later. It’s not perjury. And in any case, people being interviewed cannot guarantee how they will rule on later cases. The operative guideline is “the ends justifies the means.” Say anything, anything at all, just get the position, and then the rubber stamping can begin. The Constitution can then be changed at will to mean anything that the liberals find convenient at the time.
And your point would be what? I said electoral didn't I? That's a good place to start anyway.
Well, this November will be your last first chance to see how well that works out for you. Godspeed...
What will happen, is that these idiots will create a civil
war with the American citizens...they are so ignorant and have no clue of what they are doing....I say bring it on if they can handle it.......
;-/
I agree with you that impeachment would be appropriate and also agree that it is not going to happen.
We seem to have forgotten that members of the judiciary are not granted life tenure, but instead are to serve only during a period of good behavior.
Section 1 - Judicial powers
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior...
Unlike the president, the standard for removal is not high crimes and misdemeanors, but is simply bad behavior. While occasional bad judgment or misinterpretation of a law or constitutional provision may not constitute bad behavior, the flagrant disregard or holding irrelevant of a constitutional provision or amendment clearly does.
Just as we voters need to impose discipline on congress, that body needs to step up and impose discipline on the courts. The founders provided for elections to enable us to control the behavior of congress and gave them the impeachment power to keep the courts from getting out of control. There is not a lack of tools, just a lack of will.
That doesn’t mean anything anymore. The entire process is pointless theater as the Democrat party is interested only in the raw exercise of naked power — and the destruction of America.
Well if it doesn’t we’ll have to cross that bridge when we get there.
Well if it doesn’t we’ll have to cross that bridge when we get there.
What’s Spanish for “Taqiyya”?
“What is clear is that Liberals must be removed from any ability to affect our freedoms. The leftist must be removed from the Executive, Justice and Education (including at the state & local level) it is becoming more clear everyday that a major electoral purge needs to occur with subsequent clean out of all government departments.”
I’ll pose this as a very serious question:
What happens when “major electoral purges” don’t work?
‘...contradicting what she told the U.S. Senate and the American people last summer.’
Hey, this is 2010 - just because you’re a judge, doesn’t mean you can’t lie like a criminal.
“Everything about socialism is sham and affectation.” 23.11 Ch23 Evil; Economic Harmonies; Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850.
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.