545 People Run This Country

I did not write this, it is from an e-mail I received. I don't know if Charlie Reese is the actual author or not, but I don't think it matters, the message is the same. Those in congress, the senate, the President and the Supreme Court have far to much power, and it is too often abused.

545 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred Senators, 435 Congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices -- 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party. What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes.

Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red ..

If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ .

If they do not receive Social Security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power..

Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

Supreme Court Reversed 60% of Sotomayor's Rulings

With Judge Sonia Sotomayor already facing questions over her 60 percent reversal rate, the Supreme Court could dump another problem into her lap next month if, as many legal analysts predict, the court overturns one of her rulings upholding a race-based employment decision.

Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed, providing a potent line of attack raised by opponents Tuesday after President Obama announced he will nominate the 54-year-old Hispanic woman to the high court.

"Her high reversal rate alone should be enough for us to pause and take a good look at her record. Frankly, it is the Senates duty to do so," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.

Uh... 60%? So how do we look at this? Does she have a differing ideology from the SCOTUS majority? Does she have poor judgement? Does she make stupid decisions? I mean who knows. But I think the fact that she has such a high reversal rate, definitely warrants a much, much harder look into what kind of justice she would be.

Obama’s racist, liberal Sotomayor, God help us.

By Robert The Silent Majority

From an MSNBC Article (Excerpts in bold):

GOP faces delicate task in fighting Latina pick
All-out assault on Sotomayor could alienate Hispanic and women voters

President Obama nominated federal judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court yesterday, putting her in line to become the nation's first Hispanic justice and creating a difficult political equation for Republicans as they weigh how aggressively to fight her appointment.

Let me help the “republicans” along a bit; fight her with every ounce of your being. This choice is one of those moments when the conservatives can set themselves apart from the moderates and give the voters a choice in the next election.

An all-out assault on Sotomayor by Republicans could alienate both Latino and women voters, deepening the GOP's problems after consecutive electoral setbacks. But sidestepping a court battle could be deflating to the party's base and hurt efforts to rally conservatives going forward.

This is not a “Latino” thing or a “woman” thing and where Republicans will get in trouble is by accepting this premise to begin with and going on the defensive. Obama has set the trap with his willing accomplices in the media. The Republicans need to avoid stepping in it with both feet. They need to attack this appointment on her merits and completely ignore the ancillary issues that will act as a distraction to the true issues.

In introducing Sotomayor at the White House yesterday morning, Obama hailed the 54-year-old appeals court judge as an accomplished and "inspiring" individual with a compelling life story. She would replace Justice David H. Souter, who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush but became a reliable member of the court's liberal wing.

Senate Republicans responded with restraint to the announcement yesterday and their largely muted statements stood in sharp contrast to the fractious partisanship that has defined court battles in recent decades. Leading conservatives outside the Senate, however, did not hold back, targeting a pair of speeches in which Sotomayor said appellate courts are where "policy is made" and another in which she said a Latina would often "reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

It is clear what kind of judicial activist Sotomayor is and what kind of Supreme Court justice she would make. These are the issues that the conservative Republicans need to be pointing out. She is clearly the racist and to point that out may not be politically correct but she cannot hide from her statements and voting history.

Critics also targeted her support for affirmative action, with Rush Limbaugh calling her a "reverse racist" in his syndicated radio program, citing a case in which she ruled against a group of white firefighters who claimed discrimination in hiring practices.

White House officials argued that the comments in the speeches were taken out of context, and they said that the firefighter’s case was an example of Sotomayor accepting established precedent, something they said conservatives should applaud. Senate Democrats, meanwhile, who are on the verge of controlling a filibuster-proof 60-vote majority in the Senate, warned Republicans of the dangers of pushing too hard against Obama's first court pick.

The only danger lies in allowing the press and the liberals to dictate what conservatives should be for or against. There are true philosophical differences her and an important opportunity to contrast the conservative agenda against the liberal agenda. I hope our conservative leaders take the opportunity to show that contrast.

Strong words
"They oppose her at their peril," Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said of his GOP colleagues and conservative activists who are leading the court fight. "I think this process is going to be more a test of the Republican Party than of Sonia Sotomayor."

For the first time in memory I at least partly agree with Schumer. This is a test of the resolve of the conservatives. If Republicans allow Schumer and others to dictate their agenda then they are doomed to fail. It is as simple as this; if the liberals think we should be doing it, we need to do the exact opposite. I seriously doubt the liberal establishment has our best interests at heart.

Conservative interest groups have been warily preparing for the prospect of Sotomayor's nomination since word of Souter's retirement first circulated last month, viewing her as among the most liberal contenders for the appointment. But some Senate GOP officials privately conceded that, barring a major stumble, the judge will probably be confirmed with relative ease.

That does not mean that they should not object to her nomination with every available means. It may be a foregone conclusion that she will be nominated but it is also a great chance to point out the glaring differences between the conservatives plan for America and the liberal plan for advancing a socialist agenda.

"You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that we need to tread very carefully," said John Weaver, a Republican political consultant who advised Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for years. "The only way we'll find ourselves in a political predicament is if we don't treat her with the same respect that other nominees received."

"If she answers questions in a crazy way, then that's one thing," said one senior Republican aide who participated in strategy discussions. "But the immediate reaction is not to just try and bring her down."

This kind of conciliatory thinking is what has allowed liberals to ramrod through their agenda thus far. We have to take a stand on principle. Sotomayor represents everything that conservatives stand against and to stand around and allow her appointment without objection is to accept that our party is without principle. I hope they choose to stand on principle and let the chips fall where they may.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, did not comment on Sotomayor's qualifications for the nation's highest court yesterday but indicated that he was not inclined to rush the confirmation process.

"We must remember that a Supreme Court justice sits for a lifetime appointment, and the Senate hearing is the only opportunity for the American people to engage in the nomination process," Sessions said in a statement. "Adequate preparation will take time."

Obama's plan
Senior White House officials said the key to what they hope will be a 72-day campaign to confirm Sotomayor by Aug. 7, the start of the Senate's month-long recess, is to ensure that they retain control over the story line of the judge's life and career. A senior White House official said the administration had mapped out four distinct phases of what officials hope will be the path to an easy confirmation: the first 24 to 72 hours of the rollout; the period between the rollout and the start of Sotomayor's Judiciary Committee hearing; the hearing process itself; and the period between the hearing and the Senate floor vote.

"We have to keep control of the narrative, to make sure that her story doesn't get told by someone else," the senior aide said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss strategy. Within hours of the announcement, White House officials and Senate Democrats circulated favorable quotes about Sotomayor from Republicans, including former senator Alphonse D'Amato of New York, who supported her 1992 appointment to the federal bench by President George H.W. Bush.

Every conservative should be outraged by that last paragraph. We are being told unequivocally that they intend to control the narrative. This is not being done in the interest of accuracy but in the interest of expediency. Conservatives are being effectively locked out of the debate. The only question is whether they intend to stand idly by while it happens or stand up and be heard.

Schumer, who is Sotomayor's senior home-state senator, will take the lead in introducing her to his colleagues, officials said. One Democratic aide who is helping to manage the nomination said that to minimize potential missteps, Sotomayor will pay courtesy visits to Judiciary members "and then disappear" until the confirmation hearings begin.

Senate Democratic aides said one factor working in Sotomayor's favor is her long public record as a federal judge. The confirmation of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., for instance, was slowed while the committee sought to extract records from the nominee's executive branch service from the Reagan presidential library. But no such obstacles appear to threaten information gathering on Sotomayor, aides said. White House officials were scrambling to prepare materials to transmit to the Judiciary Committee yesterday. The nominee will submit an extensive committee questionnaire in the coming days, and a law enforcement background check is already underway, as is an effort to gather all of her judicial opinions. But if Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sessions fail to reach agreement on a time frame for moving forward, and Republicans elect to exercise their right to procedural delays, the confirmation process could easily spill into September, giving Sotomayor's opponents four additional weeks to attempt to derail her nomination.

The playbook is being laid out for all to see and yet I predict that there will be not outrage at the political calculation and malicious exclusion of the conservatives by a president who promised “a new spirit of bipartisanship”.

If Republicans bend over and allow themselves to be raped by the process than they get exactly what they deserve. They will do well to remember that we are watching closely; we are keeping score and they will be held accountable to the voters.

Republicans have a chance to draw a clear contrast on an ideological basis. The liberals will most certainly fight hard for their principles the only question unanswered is whether conservatives will have an advocate in the process.

Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor

VIDEO: Sotomayor on the court: 'Where policy is made'...
Sotomayor: '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'...
Prospect's Résumé...
Self described 'Newyorican'...
MAG: The Case Against...NBC: Would Republicans dare vote against first Hispanic Woman?McConnell: 'Senate Republicans will treat Judge Sotomayor fairly. But we will thoroughly examine her record'...
NO BIG OPINONS ON ABORTION...

Back in 2002, Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor wrote an opinion AGAINST a pro-choice group. It involved the controversial Mexico City policy. Read a summary of the case below from the the SCOTUS Blog.

The case was called, "Center for Reproductive Law and Policy vs. Bush.

Although Sotomayor has not had a case dealing directly with abortion rights, she wrote the opinion in Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, 304 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2002), a challenge to the “Mexico City Policy,” which prohibited foreign organizations receiving U.S. funds from performing or supporting abortions. An abortion rights group (along with its attorneys) brought claimed that the policy violated its First Amendment, due process, and equal protection rights. Relying on the Second Circuit’s earlier decision in Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Agency for International Development, which dealt with a virtually identical claim, Sotomayor’s opinion rejected the group’s First Amendment claim on the merits. Turning to the plaintiffs’ due process claim, Sotomayor held that they lacked standing because they alleged only a harm to foreign organizations, rather than themselves. Sotomayor held that the plaintiffs did have standing with regard to their equal protection claim, but she ultimately held that the claim failed under rational basis review because the government “is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position” with public funds.

Her actual ruling is here.

Read more on this from Lifenews.com:

Sotomayor, a member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, has not directly issued any rulings on abortion but she has been involved in abortion cases..

"Despite 17 years on the bench, Judge Sotomayor has never directly decided whether a law regulating abortion was constitutional," the pro-life group Americans United for Life noted in a recent analysis of potential Supreme Court candidates.


Sotomayor participated in a decision concerning the Mexico City Policy, which President Obama recently overturned and which prohibits sending taxpayer dollars to groups that promote and perform abortions in other nations.

Writing for the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor upheld the Mexico City Policy, but AUL says the significance of the decision "may be minimal because the issue was largely controlled by the Second Circuit’s earlier opinion in a similar challenge to the policy."

AUL notes that Judge Sotomayor also upheld the pro-life policy by rejecting claims from a pro-abortion legal group that it violated the Equal Protection Clause.

"Rejecting this new argument, Justice Sotomayor wrote that because the challenge involved neither a suspect class nor a fundamental right," AUL notes. "She then acknowledged the ability of the government to adopt anti-abortion policies, noting, 'there can be no question that the classification survives rational basis review. The Supreme Court has made clear that the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds.'"

At the same time, Judge Sotomayor wrote an opinion overturning, in part, a district court’s grant of summary judgment against a group of pro-life protestors.

Though not concerning abortion policy directly, the case is viewed as a stand against free speech for pro-life advocates.

Well, this ruling at least, is a good sign. I'm interested to see what else comes out about her. Here is potentially some more good news. And please bear in mind, I am not saying she is a good choice, I don't know much about her, I'm just putting info out there.

But despite the praise from some of her former clerks, and warm words from some of her Second Circuit colleagues, there are also many reservations about Sotomayor. Over the past few weeks, I've been talking to a range of people who have worked with her, nearly all of them former law clerks for other judges on the Second Circuit or former federal prosecutors in New York. Most are Democrats and all of them want President Obama to appoint a judicial star of the highest intellectual caliber who has the potential to change the direction of the court. Nearly all of them acknowledged that Sotomayor is a presumptive front-runner, but nearly none of them raved about her. They expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices, as well as a clear liberal alternative.

Souter Retiring, Obama Could Appoint Up to Three Justices

JUSTICE SOUTER RETIRING... DEVELOPING...
To leave 'best job' in 'worst city' ...
Possible Replacements...
FLASHBACK: Obama joins filibuster bid against Alito...
Biden, Clinton, Too...
VACANCY

Supreme Court Justice David Souter is planning to retire at the end of the current court term.

The vacancy will give President Obama his first chance to name a member of the high court and begin to shape its future direction.

Apparently it isn't his health or age, it is his dislike for the city, and for all the politics. Can't blame him I suppose.

Souter was a Republican appointed by President George H.W. Bush in 1990, largely on the recommendation of New Hampshire's former Gov. John Sununu, who had become the first President Bush's chief of staff.

But Souter surprised Bush and other Republicans by joining the court's more liberal wing.

He generally votes with Stevens and the two justices who were appointed by President Bill Clinton — making up the bloc of four more liberal members of the court, a group that has usually been in the minority throughout Souter's tenure.

He definitely isn't a conservative, that's for sure. Goodbye to bad rubbish, that's what I say.

Possible nominees who have been mentioned as being on a theoretical short list include Elena Kagan, the current solicitor general who represents the government before the Supreme Court; Sonia Sotomayor, a Hispanic judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; and Diane Wood, a federal judge in Chicago who taught at the University of Chicago at the same time future President Barack Obama was teaching constitutional law there.

President Obama's choice has an excellent chance of being confirmed by the U.S. Senate, where Democrats now have an advantage of 59 seats to the Republicans' 40.

That's right, anyone he picks will go right on through. Doesn't matter a whole lot in this case, since he will just be swapping liberals. But what about in the future? It is rumored that Obama will have the chance to appoint up to three court justices. THREE. The other two that will likely be replaced are John Paul Stevens, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, both libtards. So, even though there is a chance his appointees will turn out more liberal, it's not like it could get too much worse, right? Am I being sarchastic? I don't know anymore.

It's also important to point out that Stevens and Souter were both Republican nominees, and look how they turned out. Ginsburg had the support of Republican Judiciary Chairman Senator Orrin Hatch. So you never can tell, perhaps one of his nominees will turn out more conservative. One can only hope.

Obama Wants to Ban Assault Weapons, Other Controls...

Obama wants to ban assault weapons. "The Assault Weapons Ban signed into law by President Clinton in 1994 banned 19 types of semi-automatic military-style guns and ammunition clips with more than 10 rounds." Why does he want to ban assault weapons? Well, according to attorney general Holder, "Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.

"'I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum.' Holder said at a news conference on the arrest of more than 700 people in a drug enforcement crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating in the U.S."

Yes, you read correctly. Obama wants to ignore our Second Amendment rights so that Mexico can cut down on crime. What about District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) you ask? Well, apparently Obama doesn't think much of that Supreme Court Ruling. What is that ruling you ask? Well, in District of Columbia v. Heller the "Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individuals right to possess a firearm for private use. It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to directly address whether the right to keep and bear arms is a right of individuals or a collective right that applies only to state-regulated militias." -wikipedia

Will the ban do anything for violent crimes here in the US? Well according to wikipedia: "An unpublished 2004 study commissioned by the Unite States Department of Justice found that assault weapons were used in 2 to 8 percent of gun crimes prior to the ban. Large capacity magazines were also covered by the ban, accounting for 14% to 26% of guns used in crime prior to the ban. Following implementation of the ban, the share of gun crimes involving AWs declined by 17% to 72% across the localities examined by this study. It was also noted that should it be renewed, the ban's effects on gun violence were likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement due to assault weapons rarely being used in gun crimes even before the ban."

Furthermore, empirically banning a desired product leads to black market sales of that product, and the rise in violent crime associated with it, case and point, prohibition. Although I agree with their illegal status, the same could be said of drugs and prostitution. Unsavory types see the opportunity to make money, and will sell and smuggle guns. Tell me, will Mexican criminals be more likely to buy guns from American black market criminals, or from reputable, legal guns salesmen?

Yep, say so-long to your assault rifles, soon they will be no more.

And yes, I know that is a picture of an M9 pistol, not an assault weapon, relax.

Source abcnews.com

An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003 National Institute of Justice

The Obama Citizenship Scandal

SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO HEAR OBAMA CITIZENSHIP CASE...

Anyone surprised? I seem to recall that I said just as much, this will be wholly ignored. Whether or not there is an validity to the accusations, it is the duty of all constitutional respecting persons to look further into the matter, to determine the accuracy or inaccuracy of the claims regarding his citizenship.

Obama and the Saddleback Debates

I have a couple of things I want to touch on regarding Obama and the Saddleback debates.

So I’ll just briefly mention Obama’s quote, which has gone down in history as one of the stupidest, most obviously dodgy comments of all time. When asked “AT WHAT POINT DOES A BABY GET HUMAN RIGHTS IN YOUR VIEW?” Obama answered: “WELL, I THINK THAT WHETHER YOU ARE LOOKING AT IT FROM A THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE OR A SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE, ANSWERING THAT QUESTION WITH SPECIFICITY, YOU KNOW, IS ABOVE MY PAY GRADE.”

Well if it’s above your pay grade, you dumb jerk, then you shouldn’t hold the most powerful office in the world. Being president is all about rising to the calling of the office, and making the tough decisions that need to be made.

But past the famous quote, was I the only one that wanted to kick my foot through the TV when I heard Obama respond to this question: “WHAT'S THE MOST GUT WRENCHING DECISION YOU'VE EVER HAD TO MAKE AND HOW DID YOU PROCESS THAT, COME TO THAT DECISION?”

Answer: “WELL, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE OPPOSITION TO THE WAR IN IRAQ WAS AS TOUGH A DECISION THAT I'VE HAD TO MAKE NOT ONLY BECAUSE THERE WERE POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES BUT ALSO BECAUSE SADDAM HUSSIEM WAS A BAD PERSON AND THERE WAS NO DOUBT THAT HE MET AMERICA ILL, BUT I WAS FIRMLY CONVINCED AT THE TIME THAT WE DID NOT HAVE STRONG EVIDENCE OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND THERE WERE A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT AS I SPOKE TO EXPERTS KEPT ON COMING UP.”

Dude, you weren’t in office to vote for the war in Iraq, you were still in Chicago. How could it possibly be a gut wrenching decision, if it’s one you never had to make? The only decision you had to make was, should I follow my parties view on the war, when I run for senate? Was that gut wrenching? I doubt it, since you follow every other talking point they offer. Furthermore, was it gut wrenching when you voted for funding the war, several times?

My last point is, nothing Obama says is new. He just repeats the Lefty dogma we have all heard a million times. For example, here is Dirty Harry Reed on meet the Press, December 5th, 2004, regarding Justice Clarence Thomas: “I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I think that his opinions are poorly written. I don't--I just don't think that he's done a good job as a Supreme Court justice.”

And Obama’s statement from the Saddleback debate: "I WOULD NOT HAVE NOMINATED CLARENCE THOMAS. I DON'T THINK THAT HE. I DON'T THINK THAT HE WAS A STRONG ENOUGH JURIST OR LEGAL THINKER AT THE TIME FOR THAT ELEVATION. SETTING ASIDE THE FACT THAT I PROFOUNDLY DISAGREE WITH HIS INTERPRETATION OF A LOT OF CONSTITUTION.”

That’s interesting that they both have the same opinion. Could it have anything to do with the fact that a black man isn’t in your pocket? That you hate him because he isn’t thinking or acting the way the democrat party thinks he should? Interesting.

Cruel and Unusual

The Supreme Court recently ruled (again by 5-4) that people found guilty of raping a child cannot be executed. They stated cruel and unusual punishment as the reason behind their ruling. Cruel AND unusual punishment… Tell me, what is rape to the victim? Can you honestly conceive anything more cruel or punishing that raping a child? Furthermore, is lethal injection cruel and unusual? Perhaps you could argue one or the other. But both? It's not cruel, they are put under before they are injected, they don't feel a thing. Unusual, no, we aren't hanging them by their toes, and beating them with trout while they are injected.

The statement by Justice Anthony Kennedy is what really irks me: "The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child," You moron, you flaming liberal, you… I would venture to say that a murder has less negative impact on child victim, than does rape. A murdered child is guaranteed a happy life with God, but a raped child is virtually guaranteed a life of mental torture and fear.

I say, send these people to God, and let him sort them out. These violent, brutish, morally void thugs don’t deserve the gift of life. Rape may not take the life of their young victims, but it does destroy them. For all those people that support the court ruling; would you feel comfortable having a “rehabilitated,” convicted child rapist living next door to you and your kids? I’d love to know your opinion.

The AP article can be found here. But don't forget how liberal the AP is.

The Liberal Five

Recently the Supreme Court of the United States made two controversial rulings, both by the count of 5-4. Both rulings overturn centuries of law and practice, and essentially turn those laws on their heads.

The first ruling ruled that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts. What? Seriously? These people are war criminals. WAR CRIMINALS… What makes these five liberal judges think that non-US citizens, captured and detained as war criminals have constitutional rights, reserved for citizens of the United States? Even John McCain, who was a POW, and is against Club G’itmo, is outraged by such liberal legislating from the bench. Regarding the ruling, he said: “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”

These are criminals that have killed US troops and innocent civilians, these are criminals that have planned homicidal attacks against Americans and American installations, these are people that torture and kill those they deem “infidels.” Really? They deserve constitutional rights? They are war criminals!!! Tell me, what happens if we capture Osama? Say he hires OJ's old crew, and the glove doesn't fit, must we acquit? Would we let Osama go, because the evidence wasn't sufficient, to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

Perhaps I didn’t pay enough attention in my American Civics class, but I understood the Supreme Court’s role, in the whole checks and balances system, as deciding whether or not a certain law was constitutional; preventing the other two branches from stepping outside the bounds of the constitution. That poses two problems: first, where is the constitutional basis or reference that states not only non-citizens, but prisoners of war are protected under the constitution.

Second, where do you draw the line for the Supreme Court, between protecting our constitution, and stepping well beyond it to push a liberal agenda from the bench? The Supreme Court is completely overstepping it’s bounds. Since the founding of this country, military matters were left in large part to the executive branch. Now, flying in the face of 230+ years of law and tradition, the Supreme Court has decided IT will decide who is considered a war criminal, and what rights they have.

In the other controversial ruling “the court ruled 5-4 that someone who is here illegally may withdraw his voluntarily agreement to depart and continue to try to get approval to remain in the United States,” while still here. So essentially the Supreme Court is saying it’s ok to immigrate here illegally. Awesome. This is just another example of the Supreme Court overstepping it’s bounds, and pushing it’s liberal agenda from the bench, instead of doing it’s job, interpreting law.

Immigration has always been the duty of Congress; but the Court seems to feel it knows better.

Let this serve as a reminder of the importance of the Presidential and congressional elections. It is pivotal to get conservative justices on the bench, and that is impossible without a President and Congress willing to do so.