Home » More SCOTUS: public sector union dues

Comments

More SCOTUS: public sector union dues — 11 Comments

  1. I couldn’t agree more, although I think the majority of voters are a huge obstacle to putting even a rino in the oval office. 2012 has made me very skeptical of the ability my fellow citizens, both legal and illegal, to turn away from the allures of the nanny state.

  2. parker,

    I don’t think it’s so much that our fellow citizens are unable to “turn away from the allures of the nanny state” as it is that they are badly misinformed.

    With the issue of contraceptives, for instance, they’ve been led to believe that the big, bad conservatives are determined to outlaw them. The Democrats/MSM have deliberately conflated contraception with abortion, the same way they conflated fetal stem cell research with other stem cell research.

  3. The Supreme Court, and the entire State and Federal Court System, as well as the Courts in many Cities has mostly delegitimized itself.

    The days are soon coming when Supreme Court Rulings are treated with the same disdain that half of the Justices have for the Laws and People of this once great nation.

    Hello. Anybody out there have a history or philosophy book handy!!!

    An unjust law – so sayeth Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Martin Luther King – is no law at all.

    Courts regularly impose their will on the people, and wantonly ignore the Constitution. They are no different than Obama and Democrats.

    We the People will do again what we did once before and those will be interesting times…

  4. The internet exists. What could they possibly be misinformed about?

    This ain’t the dark ages where women could only learn about tampons and sex from authorities in power, and then get misled by their only sources.

    The people have sources and options. They are just participating in evil not to use them. No free will, no humanity.

  5. Ymarsakar:

    But a great many people have no idea they’re being misinformed.

    I used to read the Times’ headlines and ledes, and those of the Boston Globe, and often even articles, as well as The New Yorker. I thought I was very well informed and had done my due diligence.

    People are out living their lives, and most don’t have time to be intensive news detectives. No, the misinformation is squarely on the heads of the MSM.

  6. It is the citizen’s duty to protect their civilization and cast the correct votes. If they cannot do so, their duty is to cast support to no political party and remain neutral.

    Those that obey evil, thinking it is not their problem, will learn what the difference between human judgment and nature and divine judgment soon enough.

  7. The problem is that the franchise to vote does not require that the voter be informed in a well balanced manner or have a long term stake in the maintenance of a republic based upon the rule of law and the fundamental importance of the sovereignty of the individual citizen.

    The majority no longer understands the foundation of what made America, with all its flaws, the pinnacle of man’s quest for freedom. Without freedom there is only servitude to those who would be your master.

  8. My question is about Justice Ginsburg. There have been attempts to “gin up” the media and pressure her to retire so that Obama could appoint another liberal in her place. She continues to serve and officiate with no indication that she intends to retire, yet she has certainly not been in the best of health.

    My rhetorical question: Is it possible that, like Jonathan Turley and in spite of Ginsburg’s own decidedly leftist leanings, she sees the danger which Obama represents in his lawlessness and is holding out for his successor whomever that might be? Are 13 unanimous anti-administration SCOTUS rulings a hint?

  9. T:

    Here’s my guess about Ginsburg. She really likes likes being a SCOTUS justice, and doesn’t want to retire unless she has to. If her health declines between now and the end of Obama’s term, she resigns and he gets to appoint her replacement. So there’s no reason to retire while Obama still has two and a half more years in office.

    However, if a Republican were to win the 2016 presidential election, I believe she would retire between November of the year and the Republican’s inauguration. Unless I’m misunderstanding the process, that would give Obama the right to appoint her successor. That person would have to be approved by the Senate by a simple majority. Although the filibuster is still in place for SCOTUS nominations, that could probably be changed by Reid in the same way he changed the rule for other judicial nominations. What’s more, no SCOTUS nomination has ever been successfully filibustered (with the exception of an elevation of an Associate Justice to Chief Justice).

    If I am correct and Ginsburg could resign after the 2016 election if a Republican were elected, and have Obama appoint her successor, I believe that’s what she would do.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>