…of what we can expect from a totalitarian regime, such as the one O, the emperor wannabe in the Oval Office, would like us to have.

This incident is merely a portend of what we could expect if Obama and his portside cronies are permitted to stay in power:

On the first Tuesday in November, two uniformed men arrived at a voting place and took up positions by the entry doors. In the hours that followed, they harassed voters and election officials, hurled racial epithets and physically blocked persons of other races who sought to cast their votes On the first Tuesday in November, two uniformed men arrived at a voting place and took up for president of the United States. One of the men brandished a nightstick.

Bartle Bull, a civil rights movement veteran, was there. He says it was “the most blatant form of voter intimidation I have encountered in my life in political campaigns in many states, even going back to the work I did in Mississippi in the 1960s.” The crimes Mr. Bull witnessed that day were not committed in 1960s Mississippi, however. Those crimes took place in 2008 in Philadelphia.

It is regrettable that on the day when the United States elected its first black president, two thugs in Philadelphia perpetrated acts of race-based voter intimidation of the type that marred elections in segregation-era America. It also is inexcusable that President Obama’s Justice Department refuses to fulfill its duty and bring those racists to justice. Led by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., political appointees at the Obama Justice Department overruled career federal prosecutors and dropped voter-intimidation charges against the men.

The Justice Department obtained only a narrow, meaningless injunction against the man who taunted voters with the nightstick. He has been enjoined from brandishing a weapon within 100 feet of the entrance to any polling place (an act which was illegal to begin with) but only until November 2012.

Now the Justice Department is obstructing the U.S. Civil Rights Commission’s investigation into this case. If two white men had donned police uniforms or white robes and terrorized a voting place, we can be certain the Justice Department would have brought the full force of the law to bear against the perpetrators and vindicated the right to vote - and properly so. In this case, however, the perpetrators were black, and the uniforms they wore bore the insignia of the New Black Panther Party, a black supremacist organization.

Yup, the way this has played out, the Obama Brand © Brown Shirt, completely acceptable to the Obama Administration. If Barack Hussein and his leftist machine didn’t approve, these two thugs would be in beeeeeeg trouble!

But O approves, so what the hay?

Mr. Obama, his attorney general and his Justice Department should reverse course, comply with the Civil Rights Commission’s requests for information and aid - not obstruct - its investigation. This is the only way to restore public faith and confidence in the impartial enforcement of our civil and voting rights laws, which has been seriously damaged by the Obama administration’s actions in this case.

Lots of luck, unless Barack Hussein sees some political advantage in it, but for now, he simply ain’t going after a couple of folks for thugging on his behalf.

Wouldn’t want to offend the black voters…

… I thought I’d share a Wesley Pruden column that came out today, called Won’t Anybody Here Read The Constitution?

The House of Representatives takes up the legislation this week to grant voting rights to the residents of the District of Columbia, and among all the contentious voices there’s none to speak up for the Constitution.

That’s because the contending parties have devised a squalid little game of “you scratch my itch and I’ll scratch where you itch.” But granting the right to congressional representation for the District is a granting authority the Congress does not have, if words have meanings. The Constitution was deliberately written so that the common man could understand it without the mumbo-jumbo that lawyers invented to manipulate the law.

Article 1, Section 2: “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.” Congress, this makes plain and clear, is a legislative body made up of representatives of States, not of States and Districts (or townships and precincts). The capitalization of certain words, which seems so quaint to students of our present day, was hardly coincidental.

The 23d Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1961, grants the vote to qualified District residents in presidential elections, but there’s nothing in XXIII about congressional elections. The right to representation in Congress is reserved for “States,” and the District of Columbia is not a “State.” What could be plainer than that?

The entire column is here.

Now, having posted the above, I will say this: Over the last few years, I have ceased to consider myself a Republican.

Sure, I’ll vote Republican, but only because the GOP offers up a product closer to my personal political beliefs than the Democrats (Durn Tootin’!!!!). On the same token, however, the Republicans have become no better than their opposition where complacency, career-above-country and hell-bent-for-leather spending are concerned.

I simply don’t trust them.

Yes, they’re fighting tooth and nail on our behalf now, but are they doing it for the single-minded Democrat objective of being voted back into power by their skeptical conservative base, or have they truly learned the lesson dished out, with disasterous results, by the 2006 midterm elections?

No, my political beliefs at this point can be narrowed down to a single item, called The U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. wasn’t anywhere near the precipice at which she now leans before our elected representatives on Capital Hill decided to start either ignoring it or “creatively interpreting” it.

Today, under B. Hussein Obama and the far left run Democrat majority in Congress, the Constitution has been tossed onto the dung heap altogether, and as we can see, things are getting worse, prospects, as they (whoever “they” are) say, looking bleaker as the days pass.

There was a reason the Constitution was written just as it was, and it worked while we were following it.

I was chatting with an immigrant acquaintance about that earlier, and as he didn’t understand, I laid it out thus:

We have all seen mom & pop businesses flourish in the hands of their founders, seen them grow large and prosperous, then watched as the children of the founders inherited them.

The children, believing they knew better than Mom and Dad and that their methods of operation were “outdated, meant for a different time”, decided to change the the way they ran the business, and in short order they were out of business.

This is what’s happening here to America today. It would seem that it has become unfashionable to teach the Constitution and any but revisionist history in the school system, for that matter to even impart how the government works, so millions of young people come out of school with the same attitude toward the Constitution they have toward, say, the Treaty of Versailles — “so what? how does that treaty affect me?” — it doesn’t, but the Constitution sure does! Or should, at any rate.

So like the inheritors of the ill fated business, we are tossing out the rules that made the business successful, only in this case, we are rejecting the Constitution, stupid kids that we are, pissing away the greatest inheritance in the history of the planet by adopting a set of rules that have already, in other countries, manifested themselves as a formula for failure..

Dumb!

…for today.

When I was in New York a couple of years ago, I was approached by some guy with a clipboard who wanted me to sign a petition advocating homosexual “rights”, specifically same sex marriage — as a federal issue.

I told him that I believed such issues, which are not Constitutionally within the purview of the federal government, belong to the individual states to decide upon.

He, of course, disagreed, but that’s about what you can expect from a “progressive”, part of a left wing bastardization of the Democrats, in fact now the owners of that once patriotic, mostly Constitution-respecting party, who endorse micromanagement of our nation through oversized, overregulating, overtaxing government and the abolishment of states’ rights as they interfere too much with the facist ambitions of these portsiders.

While I do not endorse dictating what consenting adults do behind closed doors, I strongly object to the sexual deviations of a few being made into a subject of federal legislation, in effect the legalization of forcing the American people, by law, to accept and absorb carnal behavior that neither their religious beliefs nor their sensibilities condone.

And heeeeerer’s ENDA.

Pro-family advocate Andrea Lafferty is warning about the potential ramifications of ENDA, pro-homosexual legislation that has been revived in Congress.

Congress is moving ahead on plans to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009 (H.R. 3017). The bill presents a lot of problems, according to Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition, who says it requires that every state, local, and federal government and businesses with 15 or more employees comply with the law.

“A lot of people have heard of ENDA. What they’re not aware of is that they’ve added a term — ‘gender identity’ — to the bill,” she explains. “[That] means that every school in America will be forced to comply with the hiring of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgenders.”

And what about states’ rights? Lafferty tells OneNewsNow the bill will stifle laws in many states.

“Currently these 38 states do not allow for transgendered teachers in the classroom or ’special protections’ for transgenders,” she points out. “[But] what ENDA will do is…tell these 38 states ‘We’re overriding your law — and you must comply.’”

Lafferty says although transgendered people have a serious mental disorder, President Obama and congressional leadership want to protect them through ENDA. She suggests voters let their elected representatives know how they feel.

A committee vote on the legislation could come as early as Wednesday.

What’s needed is some sort of spray that will make these people go away!

…seems to have arisen, involving, among others, our good friends the TSA.

Federal security workers are now free to snoop through more than just your undergarments and luggage at the airport. Thanks to a recent series of federal court decisions, the digital belongings of international fliers are now open for inspection. This includes reading the saved e-mails on your laptop, scanning the address book on your iPhone or BlackBerry and closely scrutinizing your digital vacation snapshots.

Unlike the more common confiscations of dangerous Evian bottles and fingernail clippers, these searches are not being done in the name of safety. The digital seizures instead are part of a disturbing trend of federal agencies using legal gimmicks to sidestep Fourth Amendment constitutional protections. This became clear in an April 8 court ruling that found admissible the evidence obtained by officials who had peeped at a passenger’s laptop files at George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston.

According to court documents, FBI agents had identified an individual suspected of downloading child pornography on an Internet chat room. The G-men, however, did not want to take their evidence before a judge to obtain a search warrant, as the Constitution requires. Instead, they flagged the suspect’s passport and asked officials at the Department of Homeland Security to seize and search his computer at the airport - without a warrant. Three incriminating images were found during the examination, but this case is not about whether a particular person is a scumbag. It’s about abusing a principle that applies to all Americans.

Well, with all the rhetoric that came out of B. Hussein Obama and the rest of the Democrats in their malevolent attacks criticisms of the Bush Administration in regard to what they termed callous invasions of the privacy of U.S. citizens (monitoring of certain suspect international telephone communications and accessing bank accounts believed to be part of terrorism financing networks), this one sure is a shocker, isn’t it?

I’ve heard the accusations that the “Bushies” were using the War on Terror as an excuse to allow Uncle Sam’s nose into our personal business, according to the political left, keeping an eye on how much our nine year olds have accumulated in their savings accounts and keeping track of whom we were taking out for dinner and a show on Friday night, but this one’s a taker of the proverbial cake!

The fun part is that Obama and his henchpersons do worse without even a grimace that they are doing exactly what they purported not long ago to be anathema to any semblance of decent humanity.

Can you say, “hypocrisy”?

Actually, coming from the leadership of the Obamanation, seeing how much more marxist-like and anti-Constitution they have proven themselves in the last 15 months, I would have to say that they are acting well within the parameters of their established character.

It’s interesting to note, however, that though 99.99999% of today’s terrorist threats come from Muslims of Southwest Asian and Middle Eastern decent, every increasingly oppressive anti-terrorism screening measure they take targets everyone but Muslims of aforementioned descents.

Obama philosophy: When the best odds on preventing a terrorist act can be found in the profiling of Muslims, we must make every effort to avoid profiling Muslims.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right of Americans to be “secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects” from unreasonable and unwarranted government intrusion. It is obvious that this right is meant to apply equally to papers that happen to be stored in digital form on a personal hard drive. Such protections do not disappear merely because one happens to be at a real - or imaginary - border.

Because the courts have been derelict in their duty to uphold this fundamental right, it is up to Congress to prohibit the thinly veiled attempts to create Constitution-free zones where Americans find their privacy invaded.

…with the same kind of approach, you know, the kind that incorporates political correctness and, given the nature of our incumbent commander-in-chief, Islam-not-a-factor, even if the perpetrator, along with the evidence, was draped in the fanaticism of the militant Muslim.

The Pentagon vowed yesterday to work closer with law enforcement agencies about potential terrorist threats after a study commission criticized the military for poor coordination in the case of Army Major Nidal Hasan, who is accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, last year.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates also said the Pentagon will adopt a uniform policy on personal gun ownership at military installations.

Yes, good start — first tighten the regulations for gun owners in the military, especially the white Christian ones who are staunchly patriotic and proud to be serving their country. It couldn’t be more obvious that these are the folks who’ll be committing the next terrorist action.

The policies were announced as Senator Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent and chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, accused the Pentagon and Justice Department of stonewalling his investigation into the shooting by refusing to provide documents and witnesses.

“We have been met with much foot-dragging, very limited assistance, and changing reasons why the administration cannot provide us with the information,’’ Lieberman said. Lieberman and Senator Susan Collins of Maine, the top Republican on the panel, said they would issue subpoenas next week for FBI agents and Defense Department officials who were aware of Hasan’s contact with a radical Yemeni cleric before the shootings on Nov. 5.

The Obama junta must hate Lieberman by now. While the man’s a liberal’s liberal on most issues, he’s also an independent who’s already enjoyed a sample of the loyalty he could expect from the Communist Democratic party.

So he and Senator Collins are looking to get the facts, not the PC protectionist exclusion of reference to the actual responsible parties, who would seem to be of the Islamic “faith”.

Hasan is awaiting court martial on 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder. He suffered gunshot wounds in the attack and remains paralyzed in jail at Bell County, Texas.

At least two of these people have come away from their episodes of applied Islam scathed, Hasan paralyzed and the underwear bomber the bearer of deep fried, human-substituted mountain oysters.

Hasan is undoubtedly expecting to spend eternity making whoopie with his earned ration of virgins, somewhere in Paradise. The fantasies of Islam, that false and utterly murderous religion, won’t likely apply in Hasan’s case, however. The terrorist will, as all his comrades, burn in hell.

An independent review of the shooting completed in January by former Army secretary Togo West Jr. and retired Admiral Vern Clark led to a critical report about lack of communication between the military and US security agencies. It included 79 recommendations to better protect against future attacks. Gates this week ordered the military to immediately adopt 26 of the changes and said he would decide on the others by June.

The Pentagon also said that it was expanding an FBI and military threat reporting system to flag suspicious incidents. The announcement added that Gates wanted to work with the FBI and to establish a database to share information.

Another change would be to implement a department wide policy on how private weapons are stored and carried on military installations.

And again: implement a department wide policy on how private weapons are stored and carried on military installations.

No, don’t even think about more carefully screening Muslims who serve in the Armed Forces, or paying closer attention to (acting on) any evidence that they may have become “radicalized”, which would make infinitely more sense but, G-d forbid, might offend them.

Just enact strict gun control regulations against those who wouldn’t think of shooting their fellow soldiers. Look at the bright side: Next time a soldier goes Islamic on his fellow servicemen, none of them will be able to produce a weapon in time to stop him from a similar butcherfest to the one Hasan put on. More infidels dead, a happier Obama Administration, right? Doesn’t matter whose side they’re on, they simply ain’t among the Faithful, so go for it…

…have a really rough time trying to balance a fundamentalist Muslim agenda with a marxist point of view — two mostly uncompatible (except in the realm of authoritarianism) dogmas, yet he balances them with the aplomb that only a man raised in the first and mentored in the second could pull off.

That, and the ease with which he disses our ages old friends and allies while cuddling up to our enemies and potential enemies, bespeak an individual whose serving (if that’s the operative word) as president has probably caused any of the true patriots who have fought for this country to turn in their graves.

Yeah, yeah, I know I’m sort of flogging a dead horse, seeing as I’ve posted on the latter before, and between the education system, the far left mainstream media and the politicians over there on the port side, the dumbing down administered to the younger generations has already given value to the traitors among us — they got one elected president and keep the speaker of the house in dog biscuits.

But where treating our friends like garbage and our enemies like gold is concerned, Barack al-Osama is a master.

Barack Obama has come up with an interesting strategy for dealing with the evildoers of the world. If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em. Surrender your friends, if necessary.

He wants to make Israel, our oldest and only reliable friend in the Middle East, the guinea pig to see whether the strategy works. What appeared to be a minor flap between old friends only a fortnight ago now looks like an exploitable opportunity for the man who learned about who’s evil in the world from a crazy Jew-baiting preacher in Chicago.

The public scolding of Israel and the warning that it must make nice with those determined to “wipe it off the map” are now revealed to be tactics in the plan to make the Middle East over in a way to please the Islamic radicals. The observant among us have seen this coming. America’s true friends - Britain, Canada, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Norway and Poland in addition to Israel - have been getting the back of Mr. Obama’s hand from the day he took his oath. The commitment to constitutional government and the ancient traditions of intellectual freedom that make up the cultural heritage of the West have been snubbed when not ignored, the natural allies of America lectured to when not insulted.

We’re told that it’s not nice, and maybe even racist, to notice that Michelle Obama, the elegant first lady who does so many things well, has cultivated her husband’s talent for strategic snobbery. She once conceded that she only became proud of America when her husband got to the brink of the presidency, and in a remarkable video of a 2008 appearance that surfaced only this spring, she told of their visiting “his home country in Kenya.” Unless she was conceding that she, too, is a “birther,” she meant that Kenya is his ancestral and cultural home. This could explain a lot, and it certainly offers insights now into his determination to discard the Israelis in the affections of Americans and replace them with nations alien to the affections of most Americans. Why retain an emotional attachment to the sources of American law and literature when you could bow to the Saudi king and court the leaders of Iran, Syria and Venezuela?

I’d be willing to bet that even under the above circumstances, denizens of the left are ignoring the snubbing of our friends by the President and still blaming Bush for “America’s unpopularity in the world today.”

…Let’s see, what am I thinking about today?

Well, a column I read today by Michelle Malkin comes to mind…

The House Democrats’ Torquemada got cold feet. Self-styled “chief inquisitor” Henry Waxman announced this week that he’s canceling a planned show trial of corporate executives who called public attention to the financial hit they’re taking as a result of President Obama’s health care mandate. Business owners can breathe a small sigh of relief. But the witch hunt isn’t over.

You’ll recall that Waxman fired off nasty-grams to the heads of Deere, Caterpillar, Verizon and AT&T last month, demanding their presence at a congressional auto de fé. Their sin? Publicly reporting the costs and consequences of federal health care taxes on their firms’ bottom lines. A vindictive Waxman sought internal documents and e-mails from the CEOs about the profit charges. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke took to the White House blog and TV airwaves to condemn the “premature” and “irresponsible” disclosures.

I’m reminded of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” here, when the America hating, communist scumbags who have infiltrated the House and Senate “progressives” in Congress attempted to bring about legislation that would — or so they hoped — bring about the demise of conservative talk radio.

Of course, any fool could see what these maggots distinguished ladies and gentlemen would really like to see happen — between the “Hate Crimes” bill, the “Fairness Doctrine” and the rest of their repertoire, it’s more than obvious that having a propaganda department (they have the mainstream media, but they want more) and a few squads of Ton Ton Macoutre types on call to still dissent via “disappearing” naysayers in the small hours of the morning, spouse, infants, dogs, finches, goldfish and all.

These are the same folks that place their hand on a Bible while swearing to “protect and defend the Constitution”.

Speaking of which the National Day of Prayer kerfuffle, y’know, another piss-pot judge with another Atheist 101 version of the Constitution sitting in his desk drawer, ruling America from the bench…Welllll, we weren’t speaking of it, but since I brought it up, let’s run with it. This quote would better define my own opinion as well as, if not better than, I myself could:

Congressman Randy Forbes (R-Virginia) is one of the 31 members of Congress mentioned by Sekulow. He says Thursday’s decision “represents a movement we are seeing across the country of a small minority who want to exclude faith, religion, and morality from the marketplace of ideas” and “seeks to unravel [the] very foundation our nation was built upon.”

The entire article is here.

…by posting on this before the fact, as it were, but on contemplation I thought, “What the hay…”

Justice John Paul Stevens is talking walking, and as is expected, there will be a confirmation war at least as vicious as the conniving, corrupt, sleazy, feloniuos, treasonous campaign waged by B. Hussein Obama, Komrades Pelosivitch and Reidsky to force that “stealthcare” bill on an unwilling America — you know, the one with all that non-health related, anti-Constitutional socialism woven into the legislation, the contents we needed, as Pelosivitch informed us ahead of time, to pass the bill in order to learn about.

Well, now we’ve (not me, and thankfully no conservatives and/ or Republicans, nor even a small number of Democrats for one reason and another, just a whole bunch of doodies who are unfit to call themselves Americans) passed the bill and we’re learning, much to our chagrin, what’s in it, just as CommuNancy said.

But I digress, back to Justice Stevens and the imminent favor he’s doing for the American people by retiring from the Court.

As The Hill reports:

Senate Democrats want confirmation proceedings for a new Supreme Court nominee to take no longer than Sonia Sotomayor’s.

Democrats are already readying arguments and data to press for as quick a confirmation as possible.

Aides close to the process say they want the confirmation of Stevens’s successor to follow the same general schedule as last year’s debate over Sotomayor — which in turn was patterned after the timeline for Chief Justice John Roberts’s confirmation.

Justice David Souter announced his retirement on May 1 of last year, and Sotomayor’s confirmation vote was held on Aug. 6 — a total of 97 days from the vacancy announcement to the final vote, compared to 90 for Roberts and 95 for Justice Samuel Alito in 2006.

“Sotomayor’s process mirrored that of Roberts, and we’re aiming for the same timeframe,” said one senior Democratic aide.

President Barack Obama on Friday said he wanted the successor to Justice John Paul Stevens to be confirmed so that he could take office by the court’s session beginning in October.

But that’s likely to be difficult for a number of reasons. The healthcare battle has left Republicans and Democrats in a nastier mood, and in an election year both sides will be under pressure from interest groups to draw lines in the sand over a Supreme Court nomination.

In anticipation that Senate Republicans will call for a lengthy, drawn-out confirmation process, Democratic aides point out that since 1981, it has taken an average of 102 days for the Senate to confirm a Supreme Court nominee from the initial announcement of a vacancy.

A similar timeline for Stevens’s successor would put the final vote around mid-July, meaning it should be easy to meet Obama’s request that the justice be seated before the court’s fall term.

Yeah, there’ll be one hell of a fight. In the words of the seventh commenter on the above article, one W.H. Clark:

Obama has not yet once missed a single solitary opportunity to force his activist liberal agenda upon the electorate. This is his chance to force his Black Marxism upon the American people for a whole generation. I guarantee you, Obama will find the most left-wing judge in the country and exhort his/her virtues until the sun goes down. His Chicago-style machine is out of the dog house and running smooth, in top shape. Look for months of arm-twisting, neck-breaking, reality-altering, mind-boggling name-calling first of the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, then of Democrats at large as the whole fiasco poisons the political climate leading to the mid-term elections. In the words of Saint Pelosi, ask not what you can do for your constituents, but what you can do for your king and emperor…

Amen, Mr. Clark!

Having a justice with a knack for left-wing Constitutional interpretation, that is, giving Justice Stevens the benefit of the doubt based on the assumption (I know, assume makes an a$$ out of UME) that the Constitution has played some part or other in his deliberations as a member of the Court, has been of great comfort to liberals for a very long time, as having a pet justice who embraces their views helps them in their unending toils at turning the United States into another France (Spit!).

So yes, O and his marxist machine will surely streetfight, no holds barred, jungle rules, biting, clawing, hitting below the belt, bribing, anything it takes to get the most extreme left winger into the court as the associate justice replacing Stevens.

We can look forward, therefore, to still more downright embarrassing behavior on the part of the Democrats — by embarrassing I mean in the eyes of the rest of the world, or at least those countries who believed, before the Dems’ healthcare debacle, that the United States is blessed with honest, moral, patriotic or, for thjat matter, adult leadership at this point in history.

With Obama and his ilk running the country, any foreign government looking to the United States for leadership as they have previously would have to be comprised of idiots.

I entertain no doubts but that the Democrats’ efforts to replace Justice Stevens with any offering that even resembles what they have become since selling their souls to the far left will be as demeaning for America as, given the bulk of the candidates involved, the recall election when California fired Gray Davis.

Ann Coulter’s latest column weighs in on Justice Stevens and his “accomplishments” as an associate justice.

Two observations about retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens are about to become established fact by sheer repetition. The first — that Stevens is the last Protestant on the court — is not true in any meaningful sense. The second — that Stevens didn’t move left, the court moved right — is madness.

While it’s true that there are no other Protestants on the court — now composed of six Catholics and two Jews, making the Supreme Court only slightly less diverse than cable news hosts, 75 percent of whom are Catholic or Jewish, but also include a Scientologist, a Mormon and a gay — it’s difficult to believe Stevens is any kind of Protestant.

Stevens is more like a pre-road to Damascus Saul. Or maybe the late Justice William Brennan.

It has been said that when asked during his confirmation hearings if he would follow his Catholicism or the Constitution, Brennan should have answered: “Neither.” (Only one senator voted against that cheap leprechaun. Guess who!… That’s right: Joe McCarthy.)

Stevens’ overall career-average may be less ridiculous than Brennan’s, but in one respect, Stevens was a standout: He was the most fanatically anti-religious justice in modern times.

In the 1989 abortion case, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, for example, Stevens argued that a state law that defined life as beginning at conception violated the First Amendment by — yes, establishing a religion. The abortion law, he said, gave “a theological answer to the question of when life begins.” (You’ve all heard of the First Church of When Life Begins, United, haven’t you?)
Fortunately, Stevens didn’t read far enough to see that the Bible also condemns murder generally, or he might have voted to strike down all laws against murder.

In the 2002 school voucher case, Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, Stevens argued that an Ohio program giving poor parents tuition aid to send their children to schools of their choosing also violated the establishment clause. Stevens admitted that the public school system in question was in “crisis” and also that the new schools were freely chosen by the parents.

Still, he said, because the program did not forbid parents from using the tuition payments at religious schools, the state was using “public funds to pay for the indoctrination of thousands of grammar school children in particular religious faiths.” That money should have been used to indoctrinate children in subjects such as animal rights, Gaia theory, anti-Americanism and fisting etiquette!

Speaking as a Protestant, and not a “Protestant,” we’re happy to see Stevens leave the court.

Stevens’ claim that he hasn’t moved left, the court has moved right, if stated during a mental competence hearing, would have earned him a straitjacket and a handful of Thorazine.

Heh heh… There’s more.

Read Ann Coulter’s entire column here.

Anticipating the coming confirmation efforts for whichever creature O nominates, I wonder how low will the Dems go to force another square leftist peg in a round American hole.