Comments on: Souter’s Gone. Let the Democratic Carnage Begin!

By: Jimmie

Jimmie — Sun, 03 May 2009 11:24:40 +0000

Your opinion would carry a bit more weight if you spelled my name correctly. Aside from that, you get a C- for your diatribe. You forgot to mention the Jews and the Gnomes of Zurich. Any good anti-Murdoch boilerplate has at lease one of the two. Come back after your Advanced Talking Point Recitation class is over.

By: Larry White

Larry White — Sun, 03 May 2009 01:03:20 +0000

Another hot-air blog from first-name-only right wing extremist, "Jimmy" merely recycles, (oops, sorry for that leftist term)the misinformation that permeates the Fox network and everything Murdoch. How sad that these pathetic fools drape themselves in our flag and proud heritage. The hatred and rampant racism that is promoted around the clock by Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck and the Bush apologists is not just un-American, it's disgusting.

By: SporkLift Driver

SporkLift Driver — Sat, 02 May 2009 19:29:49 +0000

Wow! I thought the constitution's limits on what government can do were protecting this powerless person from those "powerful in society" using the government to impose their will on me. Thanks for setting me straight Obama. /sarc

The quote above looks like something out of a high school valedictorians graduation speech. The ignorance, the stupidity, the emotions over all else senselessness. How can people imagine that this guy is intelligent?

By: Jimmie

Jimmie — Sat, 02 May 2009 12:50:06 +0000

Syntax, I'm afraid that you don't understand the founders intention for the judicial branch. Read a bit of the Federalist papers, or Jefferson's own writing on how making the Constitution a "living" document would be incredibly bad for the country.

The reason we don't have slaves is twofold: the Civil War and the Fourteenth Amendment. Neither of which involved legislating from the bench. Also, Justice Hugo Black attempted to remove the tax-exempt status of churches. His decision was the minority not because of legislation from the bench but the First Amendment.

As for the Al Gore decision, well, you need to read a newspaper on occasion. I suggest the Miami Herald.

By: Syntax

Syntax — Sat, 02 May 2009 12:43:07 +0000

There are over 300 volumes of set law precedent in this country because judges have had to legislate from the bench. The founders planned the system to work like that. If it wasn't for judges legislating from the bench, we'd still have slaves in the backyards and churches would have to pay their fair share of taxes just like everyone else and Al Gore would've been president for the past 8 years.

It's all about dimwits chasing that pro-life carrot and trying to stack the Supreme Court with right-wing activist judges. The 7 Republicans and 2 Democrats on the bench for the past 40 years just isn't enough for them. It's not like there are any abortion cases scheduled to appear before the court. The Republicans of South Dakota resolved all them and made Roe vs. Wade null and void. Still chasing the carrot though even though Republicans set back the pro-life movement three decades in South Dakota. How simple minded the truly simple can be.

Obama will probably pick a liberal to replace the liberal picked by Republicans. The Liberal picked by the same Republican who promised he wouldn't pick a Liberal just like the Republican before him who promised not to pick pro-life judges for the bench and gave us 2 pro-life judges for the bench. It was under the Republican watch that abortion was legalized and its under the Republican watch that abortion remains legal to this day. (cue soundbite of Palin advocating her choice at an anti-choice rally)

By: How Obama will Choose Supreme Court Justices | All American Blogger

How Obama will Choose Supreme Court Justices | All American Blogger — Fri, 01 May 2009 20:43:39 +0000

[...] by Duane Lester on May 1st, 2009 • 1 views Clicks Jimmie at the Sundries Shack reminded me in this post that Obama has detailed what his criteria would be for a new [...]

By: Jimmie

Jimmie — Fri, 01 May 2009 18:34:53 +0000

A fairly and impartially-applied law is anathema to the progressive movement. If judges interpret the Constitution strictly and based on the understandings of the people who ratified it, progressives can never have the power they need to create the world they believe should exist. Our law stands in their way. It is their sworn enemy.

By: Duane Lester

Duane Lester — Fri, 01 May 2009 15:50:45 +0000

Thanks for reminding me of that comment. If the Framers wanted judicial activism, the thing Obama is describing above, why did they include the amendment process?

Don't consult your feelings, consult the Constitution. It really isn't that hard, is it?