|This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.|
|Locked on 04/04/2012 9:03:35 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator, reason:|
Skip to comments.Men in Black
Posted on 04/04/2012 8:37:32 AM PDT by Belteshazzar
How dare President Obama brush back the Supreme Court like that?
Has this former constitutional law instructor no respect for our venerable system of checks and balances?
Nah. And why should he?
This court, cosseted behind white marble pillars, out of reach of TV, accountable to no one once they give the last word, is well on its way to becoming one of the most divisive in modern American history.
It has squandered even the semi-illusion that it is the unbiased, honest guardian of the Constitution. It is run by hacks dressed up in black robes ...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
off the wagon again?
I'm thinking treasonous, and maybe jail time for MoDo...
Read the bylines first!
Save your sanity!
I thought the exact same thing.
Why do you bother to post this crap????
Well Maureen Dowd, those hacks dressed up in black robes were appointed by BOTH Republican and Democrat President and approved by a majority of Democrats and Republicans in Congress.
Oh your poor whiney, dried up bag of hot air, what will you do now?
Does anyone actually need further proof that the quota baby got into Harvard because 1) Harvard has no standards for quota babys, 2) quota babies have no standards for anything, and 3) the MSM has no standards for determining that the Obamaloon is a vapid quota baby who couldn’t even become as janitor at a top school (back when we actually thought that Harvard was a top school).
Fine! Have a constitutional convention and make it a law that Supreme Court Justices have no standing because they were appointed, not elected, and pre-date the law to 2009.
Also, make it a law that czars cannot be appointed by a pResident.
This is the only reason why I’m here!
See post 10. Like moths to a flame, we are.
I'm becoming convinced that Obamacare is doomed.
For what? This very forum's posters call "black robes" tyrants all the time. Should we all be arrested?
re: “This court, cosseted behind white marble pillars, out of reach of TV, accountable to no one once they give the last word, is well on its way to becoming one of the most divisive in modern American history. It has squandered even the semi-illusion that it is the unbiased, honest guardian of the Constitution.”
Oh, that’s rich coming from Maureen - who believes in real federal court judicial activism. I’m sure Ms. Dowd had no problem with the 1973 Court “finding” the “right” to abortion in the Constitution or with federal judges in California and Arizona who annulled the legal elective processes in those states by continually putting on hold election results that liberals don’t like - such as California’s attempt to protect taxpayers from having to pay for illegal aliens costs in schooling and healthcare.
When the majority of California’s voters decided against same sex marriage a single federal judge said they couldn’t do that.
When the DOJ sues Arizona for daring to try to protects its borders - something which the federal government is supposed to do.
Yes, Maureen has no problem with that kind of judicial activism - but, the Supreme Court daring to say a law passed by congress is unconstitutional - which, by the way, they haven’t done yet - no, says Ms. Dowd - that partisan, biased and purely political.
I agree that the federal courts have been/are occupied with judges and courts who are continually creating law from the bench, exercising tyrannical powers against the people of the individual states - but, when the court actually fulfills its true purpose - protecting the Constitution from the “living” constitution advocates - then, that’s bad according to Maureen. Perhaps she needs to read Mark Levin’s book, “Men in Black”.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
These people are their own worst enemy.
Actually, criticizing the Supreme Court is neither treasonous, nor does it invite “jail time”. Your comment is the very reason liberals don’t take us seriously when we conservatives state that we are anti-government.
You can be opposed to expansion of government power, or you can want people thrown in jail for criticizing Supreme Court Justices, but you cannot hold both positions at once.