Bring It On!

An Obama Supreme Court Would Ruin America

July 5th, 2008 | by Tom Harper |

When the Supreme Court ruled that child rapists cannot be executed, John McCain issued a somber warning to all Americans. Criminal-coddling decisions like this will become much more common if Barack Obama gets elected.

This anti-war leftist doesn’t even wear an American flag lapel pin for God’s sake. One can only shudder to think of the limpwristed socialist judges that President Obama would nominate to the Supreme Court.

Criminals going free, homosexuals running rampant, Islamofascism being taught in our public school system — God help us!

Our Great Leader has also given us something to think about. When his own hand-picked Supreme Court ruled in favor of those bloodthirsty terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, Bush had a terrifying message: Some of those crazed jihadists might end up moving into YOUR neighborhood.

We Americans can run but we can’t hide. We won’t be safe anywhere. PTA meetings, the yacht club, church services — these terrorists will be EVERYWHERE! They’re gonna hunt us down like animals and there’s nothing we can do about it and it’s all because of those Goddamn French-loving commies on the Supreme Court!

America cannot keep veering to the left. We have to make sure that no more terrorist-coddling judges ever get onto the Supreme Court.

Unfortunately our Great Leader can’t stay in office after next January. But if we all vote for his Significant Other this November, our Great Crusade will continue for at least a hundred years.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • e-mail
  • YahooMyWeb
Sphere: Related Content

  1. 6 Responses to “An Obama Supreme Court Would Ruin America”

  2. By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 5, 2008 | Reply

    Obama objected to the ruling so I don’t have compelling reason to think that he’s lying about that.

    On the other hand, I very much doubt that his decision about what sort of person he would nominate for the SC depends upon agreeing with Obama on this issue. From my understanding, the sort of nominees that Obama would put forward would, indeed, produce more of the same.

    I don’t believe that his nominees would ruin America, since the Justices he’s likely to replace are likely already the most liberal Justices on the court so replacing them with more liberals is not likely to change much but they aren’t the sort of Jurists that are likely to produce many decisions I would agree with and is the primary reason I won’t vote for Obama and will vote for McCain.

  3. By manapp99 on Jul 6, 2008 | Reply

    A couple of things:

    If McCain is elected the senate will have to confirm his choice. Since the senate is likely to be controlled by Dems his choice is unlikely to hard core right wingers.

    If Obama is elected the timing of the retirement of a justice is key. If a member of the court retires before the end of his first term his choice is likely to be more conservative than if the retirement takes place in his second term. Obama has shown us that in a general election campaign he moves away from the left and towards the right. His first term will be a 4 year general election campaign for his second term and he will not want be tagged with having nominated a hard left candidate.

  4. By Jersey McJones on Jul 6, 2008 | Reply

    Let’s look at the ages of the current scotus members:

    Roberts - 53
    Stevens - 88
    Scalia - 72
    Kennedy - 71
    Souter - 68
    Thomas - 60
    Ginsberg - 75
    Breyer - 69
    Alito - 58

    Given the average life expectencies of men and women in America, and assuming that SCOTUS members probably have about the healthcare money can buy (this is America, where only the wealthy and elite get the best healthcare) there are six possible retirements in the not-so-far future. Stevens is a swing vote, and is most likely the next to go. Some idiots who have not a clue about American history would call him a lib, but he’s not. Replacing him with a more quality justice would go a long way toward wiser jurisprudence in America.

    Replacing Scalia would be a coup d’tat to say the least. His disgusting, degenerate presence on the bench has been a curse and a scourge on this land. Hopefully his heart will give out at an orgy one day and we can be rid of that scumbag piece of shit forever. Replacing that pile of rat excrement would truly change the course of the judiciary for years to come.

    Kennedy is no lib by a long shot, though rightwing extremists would tell you otherwise. When you look at his key “swing” decisions over the years, you’ll note that they tend to fall along a sort of corporate/libertarian line that is unacceptable to any true progressive. Replacing him would help to balance the people against the corporatocracy.

    Ginsberg’s and Breyer’s ages are frightening. They are by far the best justices on the bench. They’re qualifications and jurisprudence are impeccable. Replacing tham will be a real trick. Clinton was a genius when it came to nominations. Hopefully Obama would vet future nominees with at least some of the team Clinton utilized.

    And Craig and Mannapp - I’ll tell you this: I would NEVER EVER want me or anyone I love to live in a country you two would run. On the other hand, you could be sure that if you lived in JerseyMcJonesland your rights would ALWAYS be protected - even the right to be wrong.

    JMJ

  5. By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 6, 2008 | Reply

    Jersey,

    You would have the right have and express your bald, unsupported and risible assertions in any country I would be in charge of. Your opinion would carry exactly as much weight as any bald, unsupported and risible opinion should be given in any argument but you’d have the right to have and give them.

  6. By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 6, 2008 | Reply

    Kennedy has, as I understand it, ruled more often with the conservatives on the court than with the liberals so I wouldn’t call him a liberal Justice. But his reasoning is so odd-ball and so unpredictable as to make it nearly impossible to judge which way he’s likely to rule on any issue and his reasoning (if one cares to abuse the word by applying it to Justice Kennedy’s rulings) is so peculiar and circuitous as to confuse lower court judges more than enlighten them even when he decides to rule with the conservatives on the court.

    So when I said that I would not have another Kennedy on the Court, it was not that I count him a liberal; I don’t want another Justice Kennedy on the Court because I count him an idiot.

    And Justice Stevens might have been sort of conservative in his early years on the Court but he left that behind him ages ago. He is now a nearly dead-on sure bet to rule with the solidly liberal Justices on any particular ruling.

    From Wikipedia’s article on John Paul Stevens:

    A 2003 statistical analysis of Supreme Court voting patterns, however, found Stevens the most liberal member of the Court.

    So yes, I don’t want another Stevens on the court because he is a liberal, whatever he might have been early on in his tenure.

  7. By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 6, 2008 | Reply

    As for Ginsburg, I respect her jurisprudence more than I do that of Stevens or Kennedy but there’s no question she’s a liberal.

    Breyer, at least, has a fairly coherent jurisprudence, admirably stated in his book, Active Liberty. I may not care for where his jurisprudence leads him for the most part but I can respect someone who can spell out his philosophy of law in a small, easy to read and follow book. Kennedy’s jurisprudence couldn’t be spelled out short of a multi-volume set the size of the Encyclopedia Britanica and even then there would be no coherence to it.

Post a Comment

Fish.Travel