Why does the administration continue to lose?
Because it doesn’t care about, or understand the Constitution.
8 thoughts on “The Supreme Court”
Comments are closed.
Why does the administration continue to lose?
Because it doesn’t care about, or understand the Constitution.
Comments are closed.
You’d think that they’d take a hint from the small, but obvious, fact that even the Liberal Judges are finding against them, time after time, after time, after…
Even the liberal judges that Obama appointed. When even Sotomayor or Kagan can’t get on board, then there’s a serious need for clue.
I think the Liberal Judges know they’ve got to keep some semblance of considering the Constitution when handing down decisions. There can be moves for Impeachment if they go too far off the reservation on decisions. It’s been 200 years since it happened, but it could and they know it!
But the Obumblers never consider trying to sneak a new law through though, do they? They don’t try to weasel word it past the Justices and use fancy verbiage to win the Liberals to their side.
Nope, they shine up the chrome, paint it international orange hit it with nine layers of of clear coat, throw on some flashing lights, a few sirens and air horns. Then they drive it 300mph through a school zone, scattering the populace from cross walks, crushing small animals threatening to run over us on purpose if we don’t stand aside and shut up.
All the while, they tell us it’s for our own good. I’m amazed at how many people just don’t get any smarter as they get older.
Why should they get smarter. They were smarter than everyone when they were a teenager. So obviously they’re smarter than everyone now. Every teenager knows that, which is why they voted overwhelmingly for the one.
Thinking about it, some of it is probably a negotiation strategy. Start with a very extreme position constitutionally so that your opponents settle for a better end state than you’d otherwise get.
What’s interesting in two of these cases, Hosanna-Tabor Church v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, is that the government’s actions which led to court affected only a very small number of people directly. Perhaps, they’re testing the waters? Assaults which work at the small scale would generate some sort of legal precedent which they could then leverage against a larger set of victims.
I think Karl is pretty close. I’m not sure if is a left/right thing as much as a state power thing. For example, the GPS tracking case, in which the Executive Branch’s idea was struck down unanimously. So what’s the Executive Branch do? They read want they want to read and try to do it again against another citizen. It’s like the Maryland judge and his “Well forget Bradenburg, let’s go with Vaughey.” Without even going into the 9th Circuit issues, the GPS tracking case and the Maryland’s judge’s actions should have real Liberals protesting in the street.
What baffles me is why the progs don’t even consider what the Republicans could do to them, personally, when they regain power — under the precedents set for state strong-arming of the citizen. It’s like unleashing Golem on the world, thinking it will destroy only one’s enemies…
Historically, they let them off the hook. We need republicans to actually be at least half as mean as they are accused of being. Or ten times meaner than Breitbart.
If we don’t root out those that care not for the rule of law (or using those rules as they were not intended) we will never get to a reasonable place.
This means impeaching a lot of judges. Eliminating a lot of department. Chasing every tax dollar to see what corruption can be found and eliminating it.
Fat chance.