What’s up with that?
The issue at hand revolves around the fact the United States of America is a government controlled by a system of Checks and Balances. That means no one part of the government separated into three constituent elements: the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary, shall hold ascendancy and power to negate the powers attributed to the others. This isn’t an idea. It’s not an ideal.
It’s a fact.
And nothing Obama says will change that. No Executive Order he may issue based on his limited understanding of the Constitution developed while a secondarily, part-time employed adjunct instructor will change that fact. There’s a strange culture of elitism in the hierarchy of our nation strikes me as dangerous and, it goes back to the point where the nation was first established post-Revolution.
The Founding Fathers (which is getting to be a tired cliché denoting the paternalistic nature of the elite directing development of this country) decided in a wisdom that must now be questioned; that the Executive Branch and the Legislative should be elected and as such restricted in their powers. They in turn allowed, after argument and debate that the Supreme Court and collaterally ALL Federal Appellate and District Judges should hold lifetime appointments. You can’t get rid of them. It was lawyers protecting lawyers.
WTF IS UP WITH THAT!
If you look at the photos of the Supreme Court you find an assemblage of people noted more for their impending decrepitude than you can assume is a heightened level of Constitutional expertise. While I appreciate they all have enough age between them to reach backward to the Munroe Administration, we’re stuck at sword-point when the president selects one of his cronies to climb the steps to be anointed as one of the greatest solons to decide the course of justice.
That bothers me more than it makes me feel safe in their hands. This is because the court is populated by people selected for the fact they can lock and goose-step to the tune played by the administration selects them and offers them up for the job. These people on the court are all members of a crew set to decide the prolongation and adoption of dogma, doctrine and agenda decided by political parties having no greater spectrum of diversity other than the differential between their names: Democrats and Republicans.
Democrats are more or less Socialist in their leanings in the fact they want to solve perceived social injustice immediately and Republicans want to do the same thing in a slower, more incremental way. They both want to redistribute your wealth some just want to do it slower than others.
And where the problem comes about is the way the people misperceive their wealth. It doesn’t as much involve their money and personal holdings as much as it does their legacy they’re allowing to be squandered and cast aside with virtual impunity. The people are allowing these politicians to redistribute the wealth that is their freedom to control their government. One party wants to deny you that freedom immediately and the other wants to do it slowly so you can’t see the left hand stealing from the right.
Now, as Obama announces his plan to supersede the Congress and establish Immigration Policy directly from his desk, we’ll see the potential for the issue to be placed before the Supreme Court, a court heavily stacked by the likes of Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsberg, Breyer and potentially Kennedy who regularly vote in the liberal camp. They have a responsibility to pay attention to the agendas of those who supported them in their appointments to the court. There’s no expectation the justices won’t vote for the agendas brought them to the post in the beginning.
The following represents a breakdown of most liberal to most conservative justices on the Supreme Court: Ruth Bader Ginsberg: very liberal, consistently votes against conservatives. Sonia Sotomayor: consistently votes with Progressives. Elena Kagan: consistently votes with the liberal bloc since joining the bench. Stephen G. Breyer: usually votes liberal. Anthony Kennedy is the swing vote sometimes voting with the liberal faction.
Samuel A. Alito is consistently conservative. Chief Justice John G. Roberts is consistently conservative. Antonin Scalia: extremely conservative as is Clarence Thomas. None of the above liberals is beyond finding in favor of government growth over the rights of the people.
As an example of the aforementioned decrepitude of the court we find Ruth Bader Ginsberg, a noted proponent of the South African Constitution and using it to replace the American Constitution. She looks like a decaying doll clad in the black crepe indicating her potential demise and will be used to cover her funerary bier. Her stridency in commentary is epic. Elena Kagan is a product of liberal, Progressive education and elite employment in government under the present administration. Sonia Sotomayor admitted her prejudice concerning Hispanic issues and her superior suitability for the position when she said: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
The representatives of Americans on the Supreme Court should be wise “AMERICANS “ and not people seeking to advance the causes of specific social and racial strata.
Obama’s trying to “create law” by his singular interpretation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court will probably be called upon to decide whether or not he holds the power to do so unilaterally. With at least two of the justices owing fealty to Obama and their personal agendas as they apply to the Progressive element of American social progress, there’s a potential for a tectonic shift in the way we’re protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Understand; where Obama’s a major problem; the Liberal, Progressive construct of the Supreme Court will test the integrity of the Constitution and America as a whole.
Thanks for listening