Jim Inhofe Obama Amnesty Plan Video

In the video below, Senator Jim Inhofe gives a very detailed explanation of Obama's amnesty plan. He also released the following statements today:

Jim Inhofe

From The Inhofe Informant:


As the Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I recently released a report titled “Failure of Leadership: President Obama and the Flawed Federal Response to the BP Disaster.”

This report concluded that President Obama did not provide adequate resources to the citizens located off the Gulf of Mexico in response to the BP disaster. In the report, I listed specific examples of the Obama Administration’s failure to act during the Gulf spill.

It is my continued hope that the residents close to the Gulf of Mexico start receiving adequate resources in order to rebuild from this disaster.

I am disappointed that the liberal majority in the United States Senate confirmed Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.

As the first Senator to register my opposition to her nomination to this lifetime position, I remain alarmed with her lack of judicial experience as well as her continued disdain for our nation’s military, her views on civilian trials for terrorists, and her disregard for the second amendment.

After the earthquake that devastated Haiti last January, orphans who were already involved in the adoption process were permitted inside the United States on humanitarian parole while their American families finished the adoption process in the United States courts. Due to unnecessary bureaucratic red tape that the adoptive families of this group of orphans faced, I introduced the Help Haitian Adoptees Immediately to Integrate Act of 2010 (HELP Haiti Act) with U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.). With bipartisan support, this bill passed the U.S. Senate before Congress left for August recess. This legislation will provide much needed relief to these adoptive families as it authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to make a one-time adjustment of status to this set of Haitian orphans.

Recently, a public internal memo was released by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officials which indicated that President Obama wants to grant amnesty to thousands of illegal immigrations. I find this immensely troubling, and will continue to oppose legislation that allows any form of amnesty to illegal immigrants.



Jim Inhofe on Obama Amnesty Plan (Video)
Thanks to my littlest Brother:-)

Jeff Sessions: America Will Not Forgive this Senate for Confirming Kagan

Minutes before the vote to confirm Elena Kagan, Senator Jeff Sessions said "The American people will not easily forgive this Senate if we confirm Ms. Kagan to the Supreme Court." Think about waking up on November 3rd, 2010 without the significant change needed to keep another Elena Kagan off the Supreme Court.

Jeff Sessions

Those voting for Kagan wonder what all the fuss is about, and try to ignore the fact that 37 members of the Senate voted against her. Only three additional votes were needed to filibuster, yet five Republicans voted yea for a nominee: who has never been a judge; they knew manipulated abortion facts, and turned them into lies which overturned an abortion ban in Nebraska; who at Harvard refused Military recruiters on the grounds, and welcomed Islamic Shariah financing, which funds terrorism, into the law school along with three Saudi-funded studies of Shariah.

Republican Senators voting for Kagan were Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe (Maine), Lindsey Graham (NC), Dick Lugar (IN), and unbelievably Judd Gregg of New Hampshire. Senator Ben Nelson (NE) is the lone Democrat voting against Elena Kagan.

By modern standards, Justice Kagan's 63 confirmation votes isn't exactly an overwhelming display of support. Of the Supreme Court's nine current justices, 63 ranks fairly low -- Stevens (98), Kennedy (97), Scalia (98), Ginsburg (96), Breyer (87), Roberts (78), Sotomayor (68) had more, while only Thomas (52) and Alito (58) had fewer.

Today we talk about fighting for the America that we know and have known. If Obama is allowed to make another appointment, that America is gone. Justice Anthony Kennedy says he will put-off his retirement until after the 2012 presidential election. Hallelujah for that, but we still cannot assure through this court appointed for a lifetime that the Constitution will guide the way our government works. We must understand that the Supreme Court is the most important issue we face today. Senator Sessions' prediction that this appointment will not be forgiven is insightful.

Elena Kagan and Islamic Shariah Law

The emotions around the appointment of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan are raw. I can hardly bear to write about what our Senate is doing to our country by placing Kagan on the highest bench in the land and for the term of her lifetime. Andrew McCarthy highlights Kagans' acceptance of shariah law and her sheer stupidity in understanding it.

Elena Kagan

 Here's a snippet, speaking of Dean Kagan at Harvard by McCarthy at NRO:

 Real courage at Harvard would have called for condemning the university’s profoundly immoral, gluttonous promotion of sharia. While Kagan was at the law school her patron, Harvard’s president Larry Summers, accepted stunning $20 million donation for the creation of a program of studies to lionize Islam’s history and jurisprudence. The cash came from the Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal, the billionaire investor whose attempted $10 million contribution to the Twin Towers fund had been refused by New York mayor Rudy Giuliani when bin Talal blamed the 9/11 atrocities on American foreign policy. Summers, the anti-Giuliani, not only took the money but named the program and an endowment in the prince’s honor. And why not? By then, as Ben Shapiro reported, Harvard’s law school already had three Saudi-funded institutions devoted to the study of sharia...

Yet there were no condemnations from Dean Kagan over the prince’s lavish gift. To the contrary, she proceeded to forge the law school’s “Islamic Finance Project.” Its purpose is to promote sharia compliance in the U.S. financial sector....

Kagan and other apologists for SCF would absolve themselves from the real-world consequences of their allegedly well-intentioned diversity fetish. But legitimizing any aspect of sharia is the endorsement of all of it. Moreover, there is no cut-and-dried separation of sharia brutality from the tidy, white-collar world of financial transactions. 

The article is long and detailed. Please clink the link above to read.

From The Daily Caller:

Robert Spencer, the director of Jihad Watch, told The Daily Caller that Kagan would help advance Sharia law in America out of ignorance. “[Kagan] would knowingly and wittingly abet the advance of Sharia, but she wouldn’t do it understanding anything about Sharia. She would do it out of her ignorance.”

Spencer attributes Kagan’s fondness for Sharia to naïveté and liberalism. “There is a general tendency on the part of political liberals in the United States today to take a benign view of Islam and Islamic law,” he said. “They are generally uninformed and share a hatred of the West and Western civilization.”

According to Spencer, Kagan will be a willing accomplice in the ongoing stealth jihad — or the institution of Sharia into non-Muslim societies via non-violent means, such as the courts and mainstreaming Islamic customs — currently underway against the “The goal of the jihad is to assert the primacy of Islamic law over non-Muslim society and over Muslim societies where it is not fully enforced, and that can take place either through violent or non-violent means and the goal is the same,” he said.

Linked by
 Le Fleur de Lys too - Thank you.
The Current - America, Baseball and We the People - Thanks to John Carey!

ACLU Sues Every City with Illegal Immigration-Related Measures

With today's decision of federal Judge Susan Bolton to disallow the portions of the Arizona immigration bill  (SB1070) that would allow illegal migrants to be put in ICE custody, at least one city, Freemont, Nebraska, has rescinded their own bill mimicking Arizona's. The ACLU and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) were threatening lawsuits, and so Fremont caved. Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies says the ACLU hopes Fremont will start a trend.

[Krikorian] But I'm not aware of any city that has passed an immigration-related measure and that hasn't been sued by the ACLU, said Krikorian. "Their goal is intimidation. They are going to sue you until you cry 'uncle.'"

And so it goes with the communists at the ACLU. It is time to separate basic human rights from civil rights. If you are in the country illegally, there should be no right to civil rights. Human Rights, yes. Civil Rights no.

Arizona governor Jan Brewer says this is far from over. She is filing for an expedited appeal to the 9th Circus Liberal Court of Appeals in San Francisco. That's a complete time waster but necessary, as she can't get to the U.S. Supreme Court without the Marxists on the 9th Circuit rendering their decision first. The decisions coming out of the 9th are routinely overturned by the Supremes.  Let's hope SCOTUS  will agree to hear the case after the 9th Circus embarrasses themselves as usual, and thumbs their noses at the Rule of Law.  From Governor Brewer:

“I will battle all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary, for the right to protect the citizens of Arizona. Meanwhile, I also know we still have work to do in confronting the fear-mongers, those dealing in hate and lies and economic boycotts that seek to do Arizona harm.

“We have already made some progress in waking up Washington.  But the question still remains:  will Washington do its job, and put an end to the daily operations of smugglers in our nation, or will the delays and sidesteps continue?  I believe that the defenders of the rule of law will ultimately succeed with us in our demand for action.”

I support the ACLU when defending constitutional rights, but they routinely oppress the rights of others by simply suing, intimidating and waiting for the cry 'uncle.' How many winnable law suits have been dropped because of ACLU threat tactics? Being illegal in America is not a civil right.

Lindsey Graham Supports Elena Kagan Doctoring Medical Opinions on Partial Birth Abortion

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) was the lone Republican vote on the Senate Judiciary Committee to allow Elena Kagan to go forward in her confirmation hearings. Graham said Kagan would not be "his choice," but said he thought Obama "chose wisely." Now, understand that this woman actually convinced a task force of physicians to falsify their own statement which would be used to decide on the legality of partial birth abortions at the Supreme Court. How does Senator Graham think his vote is appropriate?

Elena Kagan

Lindsey Graham 

Because of this falsified statement, credited to a task force referred to as a "select panel" of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban in 2000.

The falsified statement basically said, in the name of physicians, the partial-birth abortion "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman," which is not what the physicians said. Kagan replaced a medical judgement with a political agenda.

The ACOG said exactly the opposite. Unborn children have died because Elena Kagan lied:

The task force's initial draft statement did not include the statement that the controversial abortion procedure "might be" the best method "in a particular circumstance." 

Instead, it said that the select ACOG panel "could identify no circumstances under which this procedure...would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman."

ACOG, although said to be apolitical, gave their statement to the Clinton White House, where Elena Kagan lurked:

Miss Kagan, then a deputy assistant to the president for domestic policy, already knew ACOG’s stance as a result of a July 1996 meeting at the White House, at which ACOG representatives told administration officials — according to a Kagan memorandum [PDF] — that “in the vast majority of cases, selection of the partial birth procedure is not necessary to avert serious adverse consequences to a woman’s health.”

Kagan told the White House this statement "would be a disaster:"

Her notes, produced by the White House to the Senate Judiciary Committee, show that she herself drafted the critical language hedging ACOG’s position. On a document [PDF] captioned “Suggested Options” — which she apparently faxed to the legislative director at ACOG — Kagan proposed that ACOG include the following language: “An intact D&X [the medical term for the procedure], however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.

ACOG did exactly as she asked and added her statement, exactly as she wrote it, to their own. The statement went to the Supreme Court and her part in it was not disclosed to the Supreme Court Justices.

Slate writer William Saletan said Kagan was "only doing her job," but he did slam ACOG for so willingly and silently being a White House tool.

In Committee hearings, the note she wrote in her hand was identified by Kagan. She said she was "clarifying a position." How vile does one have to be to change medical science to allow a late term abortion, and how incredibly evil does Congress have to be to put this woman on the Supreme Court?

Justice Anthony Kennedy Preserving Supreme Court of the United States

Today brings some news, for which I am grateful, if it is true. Justice Anthony Kennedy says he will not step down from the Supreme Court until after the 2012 elections, possibly preserving the fabric of America.

Justice Anthony Kennedy

Justice Kennedy, appointed to SCOTUS by President Ronald Reagan, is the swing vote that often, but not always, preserves a conservative voice on the Nation's highest Court. According to the New York Daily News, Kennedy has told family and friends he will stay on the court until after the 2012 presidential election.

From the beginning of Obama's presidential campaign, it was obvious if he was elected, the most dangerous thing about the man (other than breaking us financially) would be his opportunity to load the Supreme Court with radical judges like Sonia Sotomayor, a member of LaRaza, and Elena Kagan who lied to make abortion more palatable to SCOTUS, and thinks the U.S. Constitution is a "living breathing" document, just gasping for a Progressive "fix." Kagan will no doubt be seated. If Kennedy, now 74 years young, doesn't leave the bench during The Time of Obama, we have the opportunity to preserve our Constitution and our Republic. Thank you Justice Kennedy!

Kagan Stalls on Commerce Clause

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) asks Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, if a law saying Americans had to eat three fruits and three vegetables every day is supported by the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution. Coburn's question is analogous to the healthcare law passed, and supposedly made legal by the Commerce Clause. See the video below.

Elena Kagan

Kagan would not answer the real question. She understood that Coburn was asking about healthcare legislation, but said passing a law requiring everyone to eat three fruits and vegetables a day would be a "dumb law."  Her answer? She thinks:

 "courts would be wrong to strike down laws that are senseless just because they are senseless."

Many do not believe the healthcare law will pass Supreme Court scrutiny, because it allows the government to require everyone in the U.S. to buy a produce (health insurance), and if they do not, they will be penalized by the government. In other words, citizens will be penalized for DOING NOTHING.

Related is this article on Elena Kagan changing expert witness' recommendations on partial-birth abortion - lies that made it all the way to the Supreme Court.

.







Elena Kagan and Senator Tom Coburn on Commerce Clause (video)

Clarence Thomas Wife Virginia Thomas Launches Tea Party Linked NonProfit?

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' wife, Virginia Thomas, launched Liberty Central Inc. in January, which is referred to by the LATimes as a "tea-party-linked" organization. I don't see her specifically connecting her nonprofit to the "Tea Party"movement in the LATimes piece. Mrs. Thomas, known as "Ginni," says her organization is a nonprofit lobbying group formed to organize activism around a set of conservative "core principles."

Clarence and Virginia Thomas

Listen to this from Ginni, who certainly has some spunk. In an phone interview with the LATimes, she was asked if she had "discussed the effects" of Liberty Central on her husbands "perceptions of ...impartiality."

"I don't involve myself in litigation. Are you asking that because there's a different standard for conservatives? Did you ask Ed Rendell that question?" she said, referring to the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, who is married to a federal appellate court judge.

Ginni says "she adores all the new citizen patriots who are rising up across this country." She and Justice Thomas will be excoriated by the Left for this new venture, but  there is little doubt that she has looked at every possible objection and found nothing illegal or inappropriate.

The Liberty Central website shows it's plan to Educate, Motivate and Activate. First on their list is understanding core founding principles and their foundations. The organization will issue score cards for members of congress, and plans to be involved in the November election:

 She said it would accept donations from various sources, -- including corporations -- as allowed under campaign finance rules recently loosened by the Supreme Court."

Virginia Thomas has worked for the Heritage Foundation and former Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX).

Read more at Memorandum

Check out Hot Air for commentary from Ed Morrisey

Linked by
 ReTeaParty
The Lonely Conservative: Oh the Scandal! Justice Thomas's Wife is a Conservative




Virginia Thomas at CPAC (video)

The Tillman Act and Clarence Thomas: The Tillman Act The Rest of Story?

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas spoke to students at Stetson Law School this week and made some comments that have caused some fireworks. He spoke of the striking down of some of the Nation's campaign finance laws, and the conservative Justice just happened to mention "race."

Thomas said the Tillman Act, which banned campaign contributions from Corporations, had a "dark side."

“Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation,” Justice Thomas said, referring to Senator Benjamin Tillman. “Tillman was from South Carolina, and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them.”

It is thus a mistake, the justice said, to applaud the regulation of corporate speech as “some sort of beatific action.”

Since Justice Thomas made the comments, I've been looking for information on the Tillman Act and trying to piece it together. The Center for Competitive Politics has republished their own article from December 1, 2006 by Brad Smith.

Smith points outs that Senator Benjamin Ryan "Pitchfork Ben" Tillman "was one of the most despicable men ever to serve in the Senate, and "did more to put in place the Jim Crow system in the South than any other single person. Here are some highlights:

--) Tillman was a leader of the "Red Shirts," "a terrorist paramilitary group,"  who attacked and intimidated Republicans and Blacks

--) While Governor of South Carolina, he "pledged" to "personally lead a mob in lynching a negro."

--) Tillman is quoted saying "the negro" was "a fiend in human form.

--) He worked thoughout the South for the "suppression of Blacks."

According to Smith's analysis, one of the purposes of The Tillman Act was to:

"cut the power of northern industrialists, whom Tillman hated in part because of their more liberal attitudes on race."

Thomas suggested we go back and study the Tillman Act. I think you will find at least a portion of that "story" at the Center for Competitive Politics: Ben Tillman, The Forgotten Founding Father of Campaign Finance Reform.

Linked by Doug Ross and Larwyn's Linx - Thank you!

Clarence Thomas Benjamin Tillman: Campaign Finance Laws Designed to Hurt Blacks

Justice Clarence Thomas spoke to law students at the Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport, FL. yesterday and gave the Court's Constitutional reasoning for the controversial striking down of some portions of the country's campaign finance laws. His explanation is dissimilar from any other you've heard, and guess what? It has to do with "race." He also paints a picture of what it is like to sit with the Supremes in a State of the Union address - a picture you and I do not see or hear. He wanted no part of it. See a video below.

 If you need background on campaign finance laws and why it is in the news today, read this, which in short, has a former FEC chairman, Bradley Smith, defending the Supreme Court's ruling, saying unequivocally, the law after the ruling "continues to forbid election spending by foreign corporations. Smith also said the President's decision to reprimand the Court in the middle of a SOTU address was "pure demagoguery."

The remarks of Justice Thomas are always devisive, because he is a conservative Black man, and Lord knows, we can't have that. Just wait until you hear this, which boils down to Democrats trying to restrict the free speech of those favorable (Republicans) to our Black neighbors back to 1907. Source: New York Times:

He added that the history of Congressional regulation of corporate involvement in politics had a dark side, pointing to the Tillman Act, which banned corporate contributions to federal candidates in 1907.

“Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation,” Justice Thomas said, referring to Senator Benjamin Tillman. “Tillman was from South Carolina, and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them.”

It is thus a mistake, the justice said, to applaud the regulation of corporate speech as “some sort of beatific action.” 

Justice Thomas said the First Amendment’s protections applied regardless of how people chose to assemble to participate in the political process.

“If 10 of you got together and decided to speak, just as a group, you’d say you have First Amendment rights to speak and the First Amendment right of association,” he said. “If you all then formed a partnership to speak, you’d say we still have that First Amendment right to speak and of association.”

“But what if you put yourself in a corporate form?” Justice Thomas asked, suggesting that the answer must be the same.

Asked about his attitude toward the two decisions overruled in Citizens United, he said, “If it’s wrong, the ultimate precedent is the Constitution.”

In other words, Justice Clarence Thomas chooses to be a servant of Constitutional Law. God Bless this man, Amen.

It was odd to see the Supremes gathered at the SOTU and note the absence of Clarence Thomas. Here is his explanation:

I don’t go because it has become so partisan and it’s very uncomfortable for a judge to sit there,” he said, adding that “there’s a lot that you don’t hear on TV — the catcalls, the whooping and hollering and under-the-breath comments.”

“One of the consequences,” he added in an apparent reference to last week’s address, “is now the court becomes part of the conversation, if you want to call it that, in the speeches. It’s just an example of why I don’t go.”

Others talking about Justice Clarence Thomas and Campaign Finance Laws:

Hot Air -take a look at who did and did not vote to affirm Thomas to SCOTUS

Weekly Standard Blog - suggests Supremes should refuse to attend SOTU in the future:

The presence of the justices is purely a courtesy to the president; there is no statutory requirement or historic precedent which obliges them to sit in the audience. However, as long as their presence is a factor in the executive/legislative "conversation," as Thomas calls it, the justices, en masse, would be to wise to uphold the constitutional principle of the separation of powers, and stay away.

Conservatism with Heart

I also didn't realize that he has stopped attending the State of the Union Addresses all together. He said the latest incident with Obama attacking their decision and Alito's response was a great example of why.

TundarTabloids

Here is Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, setting the record straight, and by doing so, inadvertently reveals the depth of support by traditional Republicanism for the African American community.

Linked by:
The Anchoress - 90 Minutes with Clarence Thomas
Doug Ross and Larwyn's Linx
Linked by teresamerica

Chuck Schumer Supreme Court Investigation on SCOTUS UnAmerican Decision on McCain-Feingold

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) says he will investigate today's decision by the Supreme Court striking down portions of McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance laws.

So what will Senator Chuck Schumer do to the Supreme Court if his little investigation finds that McCain-Feingold is unAmerican? Today, the most "American" we can get, outside of our military, is the Supreme Court, although American justice through the Court is in peril with continuing Obama SCOTUS appointments:

I think it's an un-American decision," Schumer said at a press conference Thursday. "I think when the American people understand what this radical decision has meant they will be even more furious and concerned about special interest influence in politics than they are today.

Honestly, will any other Senators show up at this embarrassing call to punish the Supremes. Who would want to sit on that?

The Democrat machine churns on the oppression of voices that dissent their machinations. Schumer said "we will regret the day this decision has been issued," and he's probably correct about that. Democrats have no fondness for free speech when that speech gets in the way of their goals for power and manipulation. I can't wait to see how this investigation of SCOTUS goes. It must be history-making.

Patrick Leahy, Sotomayor Misquote: Leahy Misrepresents Sotomayor

Senator Patrick Leahy gave Sonia Sotomayor an opportunity to explain one of her now infamous remarks, and in doing so Leahy chose to misrepresent Sotomayor's own words - leaving out that stuff about her capability in a court of law to reach "a better conclusion than the white male."

Patrick Leahy
 

The exact Sonia Sotomayor quote, in a 2001 speech, and then in another 7 instances is:

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.

But if you were watching the Leahy-Sotomayor exchange, as was I and the Washington Examiner was, you noticed that Leahy specifically left out the racial and ethnic point of her comment. As the Washington Examiner said, "one way to lessen the impact of Sonia Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comment is to misquote it."

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.: "You said that, quote, you would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would reach wise decisions. ... So tell us, you've heard all of these charges and countercharges, the wise Latina and on and on. Here's your chance. You tell us — you tell us what's going on here, Judge."

Senator Jeff Session (R-AL) set the record straight when it was his turn at the microphone:

I would suggest that the quotation he [Leahy] gave was not exactly right of the wise Latina comment." Sessions then read the correct quote. It was only then that Sotomayor said her remark "fell flat" and "left an impression that I believed that life experiences commanded a result in a case, but that's clearly not what I do as a judge.

Of course, it is exactly what she meant. It was what she intended and it was exactly the impression that she hoped to leave with the audience on those occasions when she spoke the words. Sotomayor explained [paraphrased - but a very close paraphrase] that when she was speaking to women lawyers or young Latino lawyers or students, she intended to inspire them, to show that their life experiences could enrich the legal system, and that they should believe that they could become anything they wanted to become. So the question is, what does a white man's conclusions have to do with inspiring other women? The answer is that she intended to inspire them through encouragement that a Latino woman's conclusions are better than a white man's conclusions.

It is not difficult if you cut through the misrepresentations of Leahy's and Sotomayor's part, and then apply a slight bit of common sense. Jim Kouri at examiner.com has some interesting comments about Leahy, his warnings to the GOP and his legacy as "Leaky Leahy," when it comes to "top secret communications," (in other words - government secrets). It is worth reading, and being reminded who so many of these powerful Democrats are somewhere inside their shallow souls. Are you contacting your Senators?

Whether Republican or Democrat, whether you think you know how they will vote on Sotomayor or not, give them a call today, another tomorrow, send an email, send a fax, give them another call.

Dianne Feinstein on Sotomayor: Sotomayor So Amazing!

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) were the guests on today's Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. The Sotomayor confirmations were the topic of the day. What a complete joke these confirmation hearings are unless, you are a Democrat planning to dismember a nominee, as they did Clarence Thomas. If that's the plan, then the hearings are important.

Both Cornyn and Feinstein sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee. We can assume that both have had the same access to whatever material Sotomayor finally gave up to the Committee. So, why does one Senator feel that a hearing and some thoughtful examination is important and the other Senator already have her mind made up? Well, as you'll read below, it's because one Senator believes Sotomayor is "amazing." Wallace starts by asking Cornyn if Sotomayor's nomination will be blocked by a Republican filibuster.

CORNYN: Well, of course, it was unheard of to filibuster judges until our friends on the Democratic side filibustered a number of nominees. And unfortunately, a gentleman who might have been the first Hispanic nominee to the United States Supreme Court, Miguel Estrada, who filibustered seven times and denied an up or down vote -- I don't think that will happen to Judge Sotomayor, even though that precedent has now been established. I just don't see it happening in this case.

So knowing all that Cornyn already knows, he does not see a Republican stand against this racist judge.

WALLACE: And do you see any way, just on an up or down vote, to block her nomination?

CORNYN: I think she'll be given a fair hearing. I personally and all of my colleagues have made the commitment to give her a fair hearing, treat her with the dignity we would expect every nominee to be treated. But unfortunately, that seems to be more the exception than the rule. But yes, I think she'll have an up or down vote.

So now it is Feinstein's turn:

WALLACE: Senator Feinstein, is the judge's ascension to the Supreme Court a sure thing?

FEINSTEIN: I believe it is. She is an amazing, warm and intelligent woman, and she actually brings to the court more experience in courts -- trial courts, appellate courts -- than any sitting member of the Supreme Court. And what has been amazing to me is how she's overcome adversity and disadvantage and carried on and done it basically by herself.

She's an amazing story, and I think that's been written up now. I think people are beginning to understand her. And you know, she's entered into some 3,000 appeals. She's tried 400 cases. She's written opinions. Obviously, people will find this or that they don't like. But overall, the story is so encouraging -- it is so much a part of the American dream -- and she has done so well at what she's done, it's really -- I take enormous pride as a woman in voting for her. And I never say how I'm going to vote before a hearing, but in this case, I -- John, I find her amazing. I really do.

Senator Feinstein NEVER endorses a candidate before a vote...except this time, because after all, Sotomayor is just so amazing. No need for Feinstein to hear the questions from Republicans, or the answers. Her mind is made up. She's going to vote for her. Cornyn, however, wants to question her "judicial philosophy." I'm sure Cornyn already knows at least what I know, and if he does, he should be able to say "I won't be voting for her, because of her judicial philosophy," but no, he is a Republican and he will play the Democrats game. He obviously respects the confirmation process. Feinstein doesn't need it. When Wallace asks Feinstein what to expect when Sotomayor is asked is asked to explain this comment:

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."

Feinstein said she is looking forward to hearing the "context" in which Sotomayor said the fateful words. Democrat lingo like "not the most artfully put together sentence," popped out along with the wise words of this California Senator who said:

I've been one, who often thinks a woman has to be twice as good to be thought of as equal.

Well, maybe so, but what justifies Sotomayor being twice as good. Sotomayor is a racist and Feinstein knows it. Nevermind.

Related: read the entire transcript at RealClearPolitics.
Sonia Sotomayor Loses to Firefighters: Supreme Court Overturns Sotomayor
Sonia Sotomayor on Felon's Right to Vote
Sonia Sotomayor Death Penalty: "Racist," Violates "Humanist" Thinking Frank Ricci is Sotomayor Target: Frank Ricci the new Joe the Plumber

Help Wanted: Supreme Court Justice

Cross Posted from The Lonely Conservative

Job Title: United States Supreme Court Justice

Job Description: The duties of this position are living, breathing, and evolving; often at the whim of courts around the world. Typically the position involves interpreting the Constitution of the United States of America based on political beliefs and emotion and applying said interpretation to cases before the Court.

Qualifications: Candidates should have at least 5 years experience as a jurist within the United States of America. Having an ACLU card is strongly encouraged but is not necessary. ACLU membership requirement will be waived for candidates experienced in deciding cases in favor of groups such as ACORN, unions, the Gay and Lesbian Coalition, Planned Parenthood or any state or municipality looking to take over private property via eminent domain. The ideal candidate will possess the intellectual ability to disregard common sense while at the same time sounding brilliant.

Perks: The United States Government offers a generous compensation package. Benefits include lifetime tenure - barring conviction or impeachment.

Application Process: This just got a lot easier. With a near fillibuster proof majority any qualified candidate (see above) would surely pass muster. Please submit curriculum vitae to the White House.

Obama and Dunham Divorce Decree Found Showing a Kenyan-born Child?

UPDATE: 2:45 PM CST

2:30pm CT From Investigating Obama: Ed Hale has sent an email stating that his delivery has been delayed until Friday, 1/2. We wait another day for what he has to show.

Readers: as many of you know, I have been offline, off and on for a couple of months, and mostly offline for the last two weeks, due to internet connection problems. In the meantime, the quest for the truth about Barack Obama's natural born status continues, and as of December 30th, I think my connection problem is solved.

The latest from Investigating Obama reports the possibility of a "found" divorce decree, filed by Barack H. Obama, Sr., showing that he and Ann Dunham had "one child under the age of eighteen, born in Kenya." Investigating Obama gives the details of the reveal of this document sometime today, New Year's Eve, 2008, and equally important is this information near the end of the following article:

The Supreme Court has turned down cases which make this point [Obama is not natural born], but according to a September decision in a lower federal court (regarding John McCain's eligibility problem) this would be due to a question of jurisdiction, until Congress is to certify the Electoral College vote on January 8. Further action is to occur, after this date. You may read about this in previous I.O. articles and the sites linked in its sidebar.

My thanks to Jenn at Ft. Hard Knox for the tip.

*****

December 31, 2008 Obama's Kenyan Birth Evidence to be Revealed Today, Online By Arlen Williams at Investigating Obama A private investigator in Hawaii has uncovered the divorce decree for Barack Obama's father and mother, which indicates they had "one child under the age of eighteen, born in Kenya." That is the report of Ed Hale of PlainsRadio.com, an Internet radio site which has focused upon the natural born Citizen challenges to Obama's presidential eligibility. Hale announced this during his evening Internet broadcast on PlainsRadio.com, Tuesday, 12/30 and confirmed it with I.O. in an online interview, later that night. He reported that certified copies of this documentation have been sent from Hawaii by the investigator to himself and four others. Hale is to receive his copy today, Wednesday, 12/31 and plans to post it graphically on the site, during the day. He will also discuss this on a special Internet broadcast, between 6pm and 10pm Central Time, tonight. The site streams audio as soon as it is accessed via Web browser.

Link to PlainsRadio and their message forum Link to PlainsRadio and chat window

The Texan Internet entrepreneur relates he got fed up with the lack of documentation on Obama and decided to discuss ideas with his radio audience. His offer to hire an investigator was met with piecemeal sums of money from listeners to his broadcasts. Hale said some of the information one would expect to find was not available. For example, documentation from Obama's mother, Stanley Ann's divorce to her second husband, Lolo Soetoro had vanished. Hale speculates, the reason this forthcoming 1964 divorce decree had not also been "scrubbed" could be that the divorce had been filed not by Obama's mother, but by Barack H. Obama, Sr. Thus, it may have been overlooked by any plumbers for Obama. Hale does admit to incomplete certainty of his investigator's work until he receives it, partially due to the PI's accent, the telephone connection, and his slight hearing impediment. However, he is very confident of what he will receive during the day. Mark S. McGrew, who writes about Obama's natural born Citizen problems for Pravda.ru, accompanied Hale in his broadcast and also expressed confidence. McGrew had sought publication in numerous American news outlets, but they turned down his articles referring to Obama's apparent ineligibility. Russia's Pravda however, decided his effort to find and report the truth was not to be redlined. As often related, Barack Obama, due simply to his U.K. citizenship at birth via his Kenyan father, is not a natural born Citizen of America, by definition and the original intent of that term. The Supreme Court has turned down cases which make this point, but according to a September decision in a lower federal court (regarding John McCain's eligibility problem) this would be due to a question of jurisdiction, until Congress is to certify the Electoral College vote on January 8. Further action is to occur, after this date. You may read about this in previous I.O. articles and the sites linked in its sidebar. Meanwhile, on the question of Obama's place of birth, professionals dealing with documents and forensic evidence have testified that the online "certificate of live birth" provided by Obama is not identifiable evidence of American birth. Now, if Obama's parents' divorce decree states that he was born in Kenya (as his Kenyan grandmother has repeatedly stated) the second epistemological wheel is coming off his vehicle to the White House. Will Congress pay attention and do its Constitutional duty? End Investigating Obama article. Visit Investigating Obama. Take a look at the sidebar. It's loaded with interesting background and this intriguing question:

Why has SCOTUS allowed Donofrio's NJ case to remain " pending," while they denied his petition for a stay? Or have they?

Click on the question at Investigating Obama and read the discussion.

Of Presidents and Constitutional Republics

First, a small update on the Supreme Court Conference on the Leo Donoforio case challenging Obama's citizenship status. There's no news on what the Supremes plan to do, but WorldNetDaily has the best, easily understood discourse on what Donoforio is alleging. If you are confused about the issues and specifically about Donoforio's suit, this will be of interest. The following, written by Alan Keyes, is a finely crafted look at our Constitutional Republic and specifically at the authority under which our President governs:

The events that mark the end of one form of government and the beginning of another are more easily perceived and understood in the aftermath than by those caught up in the events and circumstances that constitute the transformation. The passions and affections of the moment interfere with the detachment that makes it possible for the mind to see the true significance of issues and decisions. Some things that seem large and momentous are in fact the exaggerated mirages of transient passion; others dismissed as sideshows will be seen in retrospect as crucial to the main event.
At the moment, these different possibilities may be ascribed to the same occurrence. A great storm of interest and celebration rages at the prospect of the first "African-American" president, and the supposed implications of his election as a breakthrough in the history of "race" relations in the United States. Yet, because it centers on a man who has in his background and character no ties to the actual people and events of that history, historians will have to look elsewhere for the event that truly represents the denouement of the story whose greatest turning point remains the first American Civil War. By contrast, scant attention is being paid to the unfolding constitutional drama, also connected with his inauthentic personal history, even though it clearly represents a potentially fatal crisis for the regime of constitutional, democratic self-government that has heretofore determined the government of the United States.
Until now, the government of the United States has been a constitutional republic based on the sovereignty of the people. The Constitution of the United States, as the ultimate and permanent expression of that sovereignty, has been respected as the Supreme Law of the Land. Some people, myself included, would certainly argue that in some matters this respect has been a merely formal camouflage for actions and decisions that contradict, embroider or simply ignore the plain text of the Constitution, but until now this has been done with arguments (however groundless and illogical) that formally preserve its authority.
Now a question has arisen with respect to what may be in a practical sense the most critical allocation of power in the Constitution, that of the President of the United States. Though by election that power is in the gift of the American people, the Constitution clearly imposes two restrictions or conditions upon it. It cannot be extended to someone under 35 years of age. It cannot be given to anyone who is not a natural born citizen of the United States.
Evidence has emerged, including recorded statements by his Kenyan grandmother, that raise doubts as to whether Barack Obama is in fact a natural born U.S. citizen, eligible to be president. Whatever the facts are, there can be no doubt of the constitutional requirement, and no doubt that a conscious decision to ignore it involves open and destructive disregard for the Constitution's authority. If Obama is accepted as president of the United States in a context that sets aside the Constitution of the United States, by what authority will he govern?

Read Mr. Keyes article in its entirety at WorldNetDaily, along with the words of Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. Note Keyes' comments about the the civil rights cause and the authority given to civil rights and citizenship, which depend solely on the Constitution. Thanks to Thoughts on God for leading me to Mr. Keyes and other discussions of the citizenship issue. This is an amazing blog. Be sure to visit.
In the meantime, we must await the Supreme Court decision on a yay or nay for hearing Donofrio's case. You'll find some interesting commentary on that likelihood at America's Right. Related: More from Donofrio at Natural Born Citizen blog And research on other possible ineligible Presidents, and the one who probably was ineligible, by virtue of a calculated lie: "President?" Chester Arthur et al - Why they aren't precedent for Obama's Eligibility

Supreme Court Sends Citizenship Appeal to an Anthrax Lab

Who is this man?

U.S. Supreme Court Building in Washington D.C.

U.S. Supreme Court Justices

As expected, President-elect Barack Obama and the Democrat National Committee (DNC) let yesterday's Supreme Court deadline to respond to Philip Berg's Writ of Certiorari slip by unanswered, but it appears even at the Supreme Court, a deadline is not really a deadline as the Court allows two additional days for "mail service." Associate Justice David Souter denied an emergency appeal for the Court to halt the Electoral College's tabulation of votes to officially declare Barack Obama the President, until proof of his eligibility is affirmed. While Souter denied the appeal, he did set the above mentioned requirement for a response from Obama and the DNC. Attorney Philip Berg, this morning, filed an emergency injunction with the Court to bar Obama from taking the oath of office of the Presidency. Jeff at America's Right interprets Berg's motion as follows:

From what I could gather, the emergency motion for immediate injunction contains two main parts -- in filing the motion, Berg is looking for the Court (1) to prohibit the certification of electors by the governors of each individual state in order to stay the Electoral College from casting votes for Obama on December 15, and (2) to stay the official counting of any votes for Obama by Vice President Dick Cheney, the House of Representatives and United States Senate on January 6, 2009, pending any decision on his appeal.

Berg is quoted as saying that he is one-thousand percent certain that Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. Obama and the DNC are not "obligated" to file an answer, and Berg says that he "believes that the lack of response could be rooted less in procedure and more in audacity..." "The feeling may be that, if they respond, they could hold themselves out for perjury later on when we're successful." As November 4th neared, a few of us were desperately attempting to get this information to the public. Surely, we thought (bloggers) this was an important and valid issue. After all, the Supreme Court ordered Obama to provide proof of his U.S. birth. How many times has that happened? But the MSM wouldn't touch it. I thought the media, including cable television, viewed this as too ludicrous to even consider, but as time passed, credible reasons to believe that Obama could not provide proof of his U.S. birth, began piling up. Someone, for some reason, was able to keep this out of the MSM. Here are other actions at work at the Supreme Court: Donofrio v. Wells will be heard by the full Court with Justice Clarence Thomas chairing the Conference on December 5th. The purpose of the Conference is to consider granting Certiorari, which allows further review of the original lawsuit.

If 4 of the 9 Justices respond in the affirmative to Leo’s [Donofrio] case, there will be an oral argument and further briefing. If 5 of the 9 Justices respond in the affirmative, they could grant a stay of the Electoral College vote.

Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz "has been officially tendered to the Supreme Court..." All things get weirder when it concerns Barack Obama. Wrotnowski, allegedly, was told by the Court that his emergency stay renewal was referred to an ANTHRAX CONTAINMENT FACILITY! A reader left this information on a Maggie's Notebook post, and it appears that is exactly what Wrotnowski is saying he was told in a telephone conversation (read more below). Hunter v. Obama sent to the Supreme Court For detailed information and commentary read the terrific work by The Right Side of Life which also reports this intriguing information:

There is also a rumor that the full Court may be seriously considering staying the Electoral College vote until after Barack Obama’s eligibility can be confirmed (the following excerpt from Bob Vernon of Honest American News (Plains Radio Network):

Today I spoke with Patricia McCabe Estrada, Deputy Director of Public Information at the United States Supreme Court. She informed me that Mr. Donofrio’s application was first referred to the full Court by Justice Clarence Thomas on November 19, 2008. After that referral took place the full Court, and not Justice Thomas alone, distributed the application for an emergency stay for Conference of December 5, 2008. [emphasis mine]

We now know that the renewed request to halt the election was not denied and is actively being considered at the Supreme Court.

The We the People Foundation placed a full page in the Chicago Tribune, running on December 1st and 3rd:

The Open Letter to Mr. Obama is a formal Petition for a Redress (Remedy) for the alleged violation of the "natural born citizen" clause of the Constitution of the United States of America. Mr. Obama is respectfully requested to direct the Hawaiian officials to provide access to his original birth certificate on December 5-7 by our team of forensic scientists, and to provide additional documentary evidence establishing his citizenship status prior to our Washington, D.C. press conference on December 8. A First Amendment Petition to any official of the Government for Redress of a violation of the Constitution is substantially different from the garden-variety political petitions frequently received by government officials. This Petition demands it be given the highest priority for an expedited review and official Response by Mr. Obama. As a formal "Notice of a Constitutional Violation," the Petition naturally includes the People's inherent Right to an official Response. As a time-sensitive, election related Petition involving the Office of the President, failure to Respond as requested would constitute an egregious breach of the public trust and confirm the certainty of a Constitutional crisis.

Dr. Orly Taitz reports numerous phone calls to the SC demanding to know why Cort Wrotnowski's Petition for Stay of Elections was delayed by 7 days because it was sent to an anthrax lab:

Mr. Wrotnowski is a law abiding citizen, a business owner, was never in trouble with the law. Why was his petition delayed by a week via sending it to the Anthrax lab. No response was received, no name of the clerk was given. These clerks are sabotaging anti Obama cases to put a foreigner in the White House, this is bordering on aiding and abetting treason.

Dr. Taitz is asking for our help:

Please write to all 9 judges, let them know what is going on, demand to join all 5 cases currently in the Supreme Court, you can send them a copy of our Keyes v Bowen petition for Writ of Mandate as a supporting document. Currently I am working on filing a second case, representing another group of candidates, party officials, Certified Electors and Registered voters and I am assisting other attorneys all around the country, that are preparing similar actions and trying to match voters and electors in different states with attorneys that can represent them.

Here's contact information (if you have previous written, please continue to do so):

The Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas United States Supreme Court One First St. N. E. Washington DC 20543 Put docket # on Envelope 08-A407 Ask him UPHOLD our Constitution with Full Disclosure as the only Constitutionally viable answer.

Also, send identical requests to the remaining Justices: Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Antonin G. Scalia, John Paul Stevens, Samuel A. Alito, Anthony M. Kennedy, Stephen G. Breyer

Read more about Dr. Taitz's attempts to hold Barack Obama accountable. America, this is no small thing.

Vote for this article at JBlog

Tenacious Liberalism: Obama Supreme Court Judges

Graphic credit: Chad Crow - Wall Street Journal

If Barack Obama wins the Oval Office, will America be so fed-up with Liberalism after four years of a Democrat President and Democrat-held Congress that we make a significant move back to Conservatism? Oh, if it were that simple. Four years of Obama, Pelosi and Reid will entrench this country so deeply in Liberalism that it may take generations to turn the country around. Within the first year of an Obama Presidency, three Supreme Court justices will likely retire, maybe four, and be replaced with Barack Obama's vision of political, social and economic justice. I've listened to Greta Van Susteran's discussion of the replacement of Justices, and she believes two will retire, Obama will replace them with Liberal justices, and the current balance of Liberal judges will not change. Greta is discounting the tenaciousness of Liberalism. I predict the older justices will retire sooner, rather than later, to enable Obama to stack the court in his first four years, infecting the remainder of our lives with social and economic justice. With a Democrat Congress and Obama as President: 1) there goes property rights to imminent domain 2) there goes the death penalty 3) there goes the Second Amendment and our guns 4) there goes the rule of law 5) there goes any semblance of judicial restraint 6) there goes any hope of stopping voter fraud 1) HERE COMES a bias for the treatment of enemy combatants 2) HERE COMES Constitutional rights to same-sex marriage 3) HERE COMES a thumb-of-the-nose to long-held State's rights 4) HERE COMES "redistributive changes."

Barack Obama expressed his regret that the Supreme Court hadn't been more 'radical' and described as a 'tragedy' the court's refusal to take up 'the issues of redistribution of wealth.' No wonder he wants to appoint judges that legislate from the bench," Holtz-Eakin continued [McCain spokesman].

In July 2007, Barack Obama speaking at a Planned Parenthood event said, speaking of the persona of a Supreme Court justice of his choosing:

We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges.

Speaking of the ruling of Gonzales v. Carhart, which upheld the ruling on partial birth abortion, Obama said the decision was "a concerted effort" on behalf of the Court to deny access to abortions. He was particularly harsh on the majority opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, saying:

He knows many things but my understanding is that he does not know how to be a doctor.

Last I noticed, Obama lacks a medical degree. This was dishonest and inflammatory rhetoric but nevertheless, it brought favorable reactions from the activists attending the meeting. Remember, this was a decision made on the merits of partial birth abortion, not abortion as protected by law. Let us give serious thought to Senator Obama's vision of a Supreme Court judge That judge will be empathetic to someone...to you? to me? because I'm young? I'm pregnant? I'm gay? I'm Black? I'm poor? I'm old?

"Our Constitution is colorblind,
and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens."
John Marshall Harlan
*
Civil government cannot let any group ride roughshod over others
simply because their consciences tell them to do so."
Justice Robert H. Jackson
Let us give serious thought to Obama's belief that our Constitution is a living, breathing document:

The layman's constitutional view is
that  what he likes is constitutional and
that which he doesn't like is unconstitutional.
Justice Hugo L. Black

*

One's right to life, liberty,
and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and
assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote;
they depend on the outcome of no elections."
Justice Robert H. Jackson

*
It is my belief that there are 'absolutes' in our Bill of Rights,
and that they were put there on purpose by men who knew what the
words meant and meant their prohibitions to be 'absolutes.' "
Justice Hugo L. Black

*
The Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government 
off the backs of people. 
William O. Douglas

An Obama quote from his book, The Audacity of Hope, page 92-93 in my trade paperback:

What the framework of our Constitution can do is organize the way by which we argue about our future. All of its elaborate machinery - its separation of powers and checks and balances and federalist principles and Bill of Rights - are designed to force us into a conversation, a "deliberative democracy"...law in America compels us to entertain the possibility that we are not always right and to sometimes change our minds;...

Definition of "deliberative" from Dictionary.com: having to do with policy; dealing with the wisdom and expediency of a proposal. Senator Obama wants America to have a discussion, and to deliberate, about the wisdom of The Constitution and the Bill of Right. Think about it - deliberate on it. Others talking about an Obama Supreme Court:

Conservatives Slam Obama's Misunderstanding of the U.S. Constitution WSJ - Obama's "Redistributive" Constitution Supreme Court Will Change Under New President

U.S. Supreme Court Justices - Retaining Integrity

Living in the rarefied air of Washington D.C. as a Congressman, Senator or Supreme Court Justice, makes it difficult to stick to your claimed principles. Lobbyists and powerful activists may live next door or down the street. A simple lunch in a local restaurant, cocktail parties, your daughter's soccer game - everything in daily life exposes the "mighty" among political servants to political pressures. How do they "mingle" with their community and stay true to the core beliefs they professed - the "professions" that got them the job in the first place? The answer is, in all-to-many cases, they do not. While Congressmen and Senators may be voted out of office, Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life. How difficult it must be to sit on the highest court in the land and uphold a private person's right to keep the land they own. How difficult it must be to protect America's sovereignty when you adore everything European and see Europe as "the" desirable model for this country. It is not only difficult to reside in Washington D.C. and retain political integrity, integrity seldom seems to be a goal. Power is the goal, and the extremely liberal social environment of our Nation's capital breeds power as well as the mongers seeking to use that power to control you and me; seeking to protect us from everything but their principle-less decisions and laws. Doug Patton makes a case for reducing the court to perhaps, just Justice Roberts "reading briefs at a card table in his chambers...." I don't think one Justice is the answer, and I don't think Mr. Patton does either, but for the privilege of sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court, Congress might mandate Justices to live in middle America, and NEVER attend a social function in our Nation's capital, especially at the invitation of a lobbyist, a Corporation or Congress.

New Oversight of Supreme Court Needed By Doug Patton June 30, 2008

My old boss, U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, one of the few non-lawyers on the House Judiciary Committee, used to tell me about how Congress has the power to regulate the federal courts. "Constitutionally, we could reduce the Supreme Court to the Chief Justice sitting in his chambers at a card table if we wanted to," he would say. I thought of that unused congressional authority as I pondered why it is that the Supreme Court tends to pull its members to the left. In recent decades, from Abe Fortas and Thurgood Marshall, appointed by Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s, to Clinton appointees Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the 1990s, liberal Democrats are rarely disappointed in the left-wing positions of their appointees on virtually every issue. Not so with justices appointed by Republican presidents. Certainly there are reliable minds on the court that can be trusted with the strict interpretation of the constitution. Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas have proven themselves worthy of our respect in that regard. Similarly, Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito are slowly building a reputation for eschewing judicial activism and for defending the concept of original intent. But Republican nominees frequently fail to live up to the hopes of those who believe in strict adherence to the Founders' constitutional intentions. In modern times, perhaps the biggest disappointments began with former California Governor Earl Warren, a Republican appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower to serve as Chief Justice. Richard Nixon's appointments of Warren Burger and Harry Blackmun were a disaster. Both men voted in the majority on the most infamous Supreme Court ruling of the 20th Century, 1973's Roe vs. Wade, with Blackmun writing the majority opinion. The result is forty million Americans aborted. David Souter, appointed by President George H. W. Bush, has so abandoned any semblance of conservative jurisprudence that he is now counted consistently with Ginsburg, Breyer and John Paul Stevens on the left end of the court. Two Reagan appointees, Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, turned into two of the biggest disappointments of the era. O'Connor's left turn culminated two important recent cases, Carhart vs. Stenberg and Lawrence vs. Texas. The Carhart case struck down Nebraska's ban on partial birth abortion. Lawrence created a constitutional right to sodomy, thereby throwing the door open wide for the movement to legalize same-sex marriage. With O'Connor now retired, Kennedy is widely considered to be the court's "swing vote." But increasingly, Kennedy's decisions are viewed as activist liberal votes. He wrote the majority opinion in the aforementioned...(read more)...

Doug Patton is a freelance columnist who has served as a political speechwriter and public policy advisor. His weekly columns are published in newspapers across the country and on selected Internet web sites, including Human Events Online, TheConservativeVoice.com and GOPUSA.com, where he is a senior writer and state editor. Readers may e-mail him at dougpatton@cox.net. More on controlling Americans: Obama's Senate Bill S.2433 - A UN Global Tax on the U.S. Technorati Tags: U.S. Supreme Court,Constitutional Law, Supreme Court Justices