April 14, 2010

I May Be Jumping The Gun…

…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.

by @ 8:59 pm. Filed under Liberal Agendas, The Court, The President and Congress
Trackback URL for this post:

4 Responses to “I May Be Jumping The Gun…”

  1. BB-Idaho Says:

    Well, don’t expect Robert Bork…

  2. Seth Says:

    BB –

    It’s a good thing that this person


    doesn’t have a Law degree, or she’d probably have the Obama nomination hands down.

  3. BB-Idaho Says:

    “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.”
    ..he is absolutely right. Where do I get the Thorazine?

  4. Seth Says:

    BB –



    The court moved left a few years ago: Remember the New London deal, where the SCOTUS liberals ruled in favor of eminent domaining away those poor folks’ houses so some ruthless, undoubtedly “progressive” Snidely Whiplash types could build a shopping mall and a hotel?

    Or, much to the chagrin of many a Californian, in 2004, I think, when California squared off with the DEA in front of the Court, California fighting to get the DEA to cease and desist from arresting purveyors and growers of medical marijuana? The Court, once again the southpaws, ruled in favor of the DEA.

    Clarence Thomas and the other right thinkers wrote dissents, citing that California’s medical MJ program falls under the heading of states’ rights and, Constitutionally, the DEA has no jurisdiction.

    Imagine that! Conservative justices defending a liberal procedure — from liberals! :-)