This is too important NOT to post

McCain Win Could Mean A “Fundamental Shift” To A Consistently Conservative Supreme Court

I do not want a Supreme Court that gives MORE Power to the govt and LESS RIGHTS to the individual.

We have seen a conservative court make one judgement after another giving the federal govt more and more power on a fairly consistent basis.

This is the single most important issue to the future of our country. It may be the determining factor if we even have a country or whether we end up a govt sanctified fascist state.

Re-elect Bush/McCain in 08! Turning our Democratic Republic into a Fascist state one Supreme Court Justice at a time!

14 Responses to "This is too important NOT to post"

  1. Sandra Price  June 29, 2008 at 11:41 am

    You have touched on the one issue that for me is a critical one. On nearly every Conservative site,on or off line, we are seeing the movement to remove R v W and putting the concept that life begins at conception. Back in California this is what drove the religious movement to evaluate every miscarriage for any signs of abortion.

    This was a terrible breech of privacy for most of us. If we missed even one period we panicked. Many of us did not visit a doctor as the terror of having to give birth to an unwanted child was impossible to explain. At this time the rich gals would fly to France where no questions were asked. Many were not even pregnant but the fear of this government control was horrible. We saw many drive to Mexico and pay for an abortion when they were not even pregnant. After R x W, the GOP wanted this decision removed so every woman would be forced to deliver against her wishes. It is as if the religious right want to punish a women for having sex.

    Every election since 1973 has been designed to bring the punishment of the women back into the courts. This is typical of anyone who believes in Genesis. McCain knows he needs the Evangelicls with their old testament ignorance, for him to win in November.

    Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the federal government permission to prohibit any actions by any American. It was tried and failed with the 18th Amendment. Our Supreme Court is supposed to be balanced behind the Bill of Rights but since the top heavy handed religious Bush, this has been changed. We do not need any Republican who follows the evangelical doctrines to appoint another Christian Justice.

    The government has no legal right to threaten women, homosexuals or gun owners. They were told to leave a terminally ill brain dead Shaivo to the states. But it seems as if the GOP has their own laws to be enforced any way they damn please.

    We need to send the message that most of Bush’s programs are against the Consitution. Where is the opposition to this assault? Do we have to dump both Republicans and Democrats in our Congress in November?

  2. pollchecker  June 29, 2008 at 11:56 am

    Sandra, I could not agree with you more.

    I DO NOT WANT THE GOVT TELLING ME WHAT I CAN OR CANNOT DO WITH MY BODY! PERIOD!

    This is why it is critically important to get rid of as many of the current Republican administration that we can. It is the only way to clean house and take back the party that once long, long ago, BEFORE NIXON, AND THE BUSH’S, that believed in fiscal responsibility and limited govt interference in people’s lives and in business.

    Ron Paul definitely is to be commended and respected for standing up to the neo-con cockroaches.

    But for all us old conservatives that want to see limited govt, the only way we are going to turn this around is to just wipe out the current and bring back the really old principles that so many of us hold dear.

    The last respectable Republican POTUS was Eisenhower, a FORMER GENERAL, who actually WARNED the public about the Military Industrial Complex.

    Today, people are so busy bitching about the oil industries insanely indecent profits at our expense, but we constantly ignore that massive wasteful spending in the Dept of Defense.

    And WHENEVER ANYONE QUESTIONS THAT SPENDING….they are called “soft on National Security.”

    Well, we are facing some choices. Either we want a strong country both economically, personally and militarily, or we want to be safe at ALL COSTS, even if it means losing our Democratic Republic to a fascist, war mongering state.

  3. Sandra Price  June 29, 2008 at 1:02 pm

    Yep, you are absolutely on the money. Why can’t people learn right from wrong without big daddy? I taught my kids how to do it and I was a single mother living in freezing cold cabin. I never let them blame the father and took full responsibility for giving them the basis of survival even it it meant a wood burning stove and no television. The father came back several times carrying his guilt and we simply said “no thanks.” When the girls went off to college they had birth control prescriptions and Roe v Wade has never important. Individual choices took the top of our list.

    I made it very clear that sinning and asking for forgiveness was for fools and it was much easier to choose not to do anything that was wrong.

    I wish the Republicans could figure that out and dump their crazy religious leaders and silly legislation.

  4. pollchecker  June 29, 2008 at 1:43 pm

    As a Chistian myself, I find the antics of what I call “Crazy Christians” disgusting and totally against everything I believe.

    Perhaps what is needed is a BIGGER Evangelical movement made of Christians that understand the Constitution, Delcaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

    Religion and Govt are suppose to be separate. The bad part of it is that this only applies to really stupid stuff like artwork on public sidewalks or govt buildings. Personally, I would say that is art and covered under “freedom of speech” in the constitution and as long as there was no discrimination in the artwork allowing all kinds of religious artwork, then it should be left the hell alone. But, NO, not our current Supreme Court who use words to make judgements that are not even in the Bill of Rights.

    Now I realize you do not believe in religion but the majority of people in this country are Christian and the minority of these Christians….aka neo-con “Crazies” have the loudest voice. That’s because the media gives them the loudest voice.

    Here is the biggest problem that goes totally unadressed….

    The media is owned by the VERY RICH! A large Percentage of that media is VERY RICH! These are the people getting the Bush tax breaks. These are the people who will be hit with higher taxes. Need I continue? These are the same people deciding what is going to be on the news and how the news is slanted.

    Sandra — if you want to change politics, YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE PAID POLITICAL POISON advertising out of the campaining. Until we do, the lies, the hate, the propaganda that is poisoning our society, will escalate until we tear each other apart.

  5. DejaVuAllOver  June 29, 2008 at 4:48 pm

    As someone who worked for a long time in the TV biz, I can tell you this: calling the media Jewish controlled is like saying NBA basketball is played by blacks. It may be inconvenient, and it does involve race, but anyone over the age of 7 knows it’s true. A Jewish media would not be a problem, except for the fact that we’re knee-deep in fighting Israel’s holy wars, and the poop is rising, not falling. THIS IS THE POISON you speak of. And it’s darn well time for Christians to speak the truth and not pander to Israel’s every whim. I know what Christians believe about the so-called end times. But I darn well also know what Christ said about justice, loving your neighbors and the responsibility to do the right thing. It’s time for some real tough love for Israel and personally, I’ve had about enough of Christians who so gleefully throw down their responsibility to justice and instead throw gas on the fire, thinking that they’ll be “saved” at the expense of everyone else. Gandhi said, “Wisdom without courage is worthless.” Justice requires a little courage.

    Just to tie this up, a MORE conservative Supreme Court would spell the end for this country. It was 150 years ago, in 1857, that these geniuses, controlled by the railroads and Big Business, ruled that blacks were not people, they were property and therefore not entitled to sue for their freedom. Let’s not treat the Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, Iraqis and, God Forbid, the Iranians the same way. Stealing land for The Chosen Ones, whether Christian or Jewish, is not the way moral people behave.

  6. Flapsaddle  June 29, 2008 at 6:54 pm

    Everyone seems to be forgetting that a President can only nominate a person for the USSC – approval must come from the Senate. So, if the Democrats retain and even improve their positions in the Senate and the House – quite likely whether or not McCain wins – why would they feel obligated to rubber-stamp a McCain nominee?

    Admittedly, the Democrats have done little in the last 18 months other than indicate their desire to move up higher on the trough; they’ve been very accomodating to the Bush administration. But are they really so brain-dead as to simply wave on through whoever Bush sends them?

    Most sincerely,

    T. J. Flapsaddle

  7. pollchecker  June 29, 2008 at 7:06 pm

    Flapsaddle, You seem to forget that BOTH JUSTICES that Bush nominated were confirmed by a Senate with a REPUBLICAN MAJORITY!

    The Dems didn’t take power in the Senate until 2007. Alito, the last Justice Bush appointed, first day of office was January 31, 2006.

    So PLEASE stop blaming the Dems for something that they had no control over.

  8. Flapsaddle  June 29, 2008 at 8:04 pm

    I’m not forgetting anything nor blaming anyone.

    I was not talking about the last nominees approved by a GOP-controlled Senate. I was talking about the apparent confusion on the part some here that a victorious McCain could send whoever he wanted to the court without a by-your-leave from anyone.

    I blame the Democrats only for their continued gutlessness in confronting the administration and their continuing failure in actually acting as if they were an opposition party. I asked why Democrats – likely to hold the Senate by even more after the election – would automatically pass on a McCain nominee.

    Most sincerely,

    T. J. Flapsaddle

  9. pollchecker  June 29, 2008 at 11:24 pm

    I asked why Democrats – likely to hold the Senate by even more after the election – would automatically pass on a McCain nominee.

    Oh, that’s simple. It’s called Roe vs Wade.

    But that’s NOT what you said even if that is what you meant.

    You said….

    So, if the Democrats retain and even improve their positions in the Senate and the House – quite likely whether or not McCain wins – why would they feel obligated to rubber-stamp a McCain nominee?

    Pass on a nominee is quite different from rubber stamping a nominee.

    and you also said….

    But are they really so brain-dead as to simply wave on through whoever Bush sends them?

    I guess you associate Bush & McCain as one in the same as well. That’s at least good to know. (grin)

    As to not doing much for the last 18 months, did you read this?

    Political Maneuvers Delay Bill After Bill in Senate

    Let’s be real here. We’ll see what REALLY happens when and if the Dems win BIG in the Congress. Until then it’s all assumptions, and everyone knows what happens when YOU ASSUME anything.

    But there is one thing we do know and that is what happened when the lie and steal Republican neo-cons did when they held the majority….and yet they still try to put all the blame on the Dems.

    They never take responsibility for their actions but hold everyone else accountable for their own. This is unacceptable and hypocritcal….PLAIN AND SIMPLE! And that’s NOT the type of person I want picking Supreme Court Justice members that will be deciding the future of our country and my children and grandchildren!

  10. Flapsaddle  June 30, 2008 at 12:20 am

    I should have stated it more precisely to avoid confusion: Pass on was intended as approve of.

    The reference to Bush was a typo.

    Despite the delaying actions, the Democrats have been far too accomodating of the administration; they just went along with a $162 billion appropriation for the Iraq war – do they lack the balls to stop funding of this unnecessary and debilitating war?

    All that being said, I am still concerned that too many seem to think that the President names someone to the Court and that person takes a seat without anything else happening.

    Most sincerely,

    T. J. Flapsaddle

  11. pollchecker  June 30, 2008 at 12:42 am

    The reference to Bush was a typo.

    Some might call that a Fruedian slip! (wink)

    I think most of us here realize that the Senate approves the Supreme Court.

    But, Please tell me the last time they did not approve a Presidential nominee?

  12. old_curmudgeon  June 30, 2008 at 10:33 am

    Don’t remember if he was the “last” but I seem to remember that Robert Bork had a really, really bad time in 1987. In 1987, he was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan, but the Senate rejected his nomination.

    ***********************************
    But, that’s just this old curmudgeon’s opinion…

    “Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ~ Mark Twain

  13. pollchecker  June 30, 2008 at 11:36 am

    Thanks, old curmudgeon, for that information. So in essence it has been 20 years since a Supreme Court nominee was rejected.

    I wonder who was rejected before Bork? Anyone?

    The point I was making that usually they are not rejected which is why most people automatically assume that whoever is nominated will ultimately be on the court.

    It’s nothing but politics. For instance, I do not believe that if Clarence Thomas had been caucasian that he would have been approved either. I think people were afraid to vote against him for fear of being called rascist which is why he got through despite allegations against him.

  14. Flapsaddle  June 30, 2008 at 11:35 am

    Bork received the “full monty” from the left-leaning half of the beast. Within an hour of the publication of Bork’s nomination, Teddy Kennedy was already posturing hyperbolically about “Robert Bork’s America.”

    The destruction of Bork’s nomination resulted in Bork becoming a verb used to apply to similar political evisceration of a nominee.

    Bork is one of only three (3) nominees to be officially denounced by the ACLU.

    Most sincerely,

    T. J. Flapsaddle

Comments are closed.