Ginsberg on Ice

R.I.P. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1933-2020)

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the enigmatic, longtime Supreme Court justice who attained near cult-like status among progressive circles, died at the age of 87 from complications surrounding metastatic pancreas cancer.

This means the radical Left will be doubling down on their need to win the presidency in November.

A loss in November means their arch nemesis, Donald Trump, would have at least three appointments to the SCOTUS, a number Republicans haven’t seen since Reagan. It would mean – as far as it can be known – a bent to the Right in constitutionality for the foreseeable future.

The radical Marxist left is already throwing everything they have at the wall to see what will stick; their fear mongering is at a height never before seen in American politics. One commercial for Biden features a young child with leukemia alongside his sobbing Mother, declaring that should Trump win the boy would lose his health insurance.

Of course this is a huge serving of bullshit as every proposal President Trump has made on healthcare reform as included the coverage of pre-existing conditions. The radical left’s statement that the boy would lose coverage is a bald-faced lie.

Now, facing the notion of another Trump appointment to the SCOTUS, the radical left must necessarily triple down on winning in November. They are playing a “win at all cost” game and the truth to them is foreign.

We can no longer banish political discourse amongst friends to the forbidden zone. Lies must be confronted, truths must be told, and we all must challenge those afflicted with the foresight of a gnat flying into the window of a speeding car to understand what the future holds should the Marxists of the radical Left succeed in wining this November.

A liberal woman posted a video of herself have a hysterical meltdown over the death of Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The woman is driving a car, swearing, screaming and shaking the steering wheel, ending in hysterical screeching.

“Another sane reaction to RBG’s death.” pic.twitter.com/GGt3fq6Mx8 — Amy (@MaybeAmes) September 19, 2020

“Holy fucking shit, you guys! I’m driving your car but I just got a notification that Ruth Bader Ginsburg died! Fuck. Could this year get any fucking wooooooorse! Ruth! You just had to make it to twenty-twenty-one! Aaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh!!!!!!!”

She’s says she’s a lesbian with severe emotional problems and ADHD. She has a lot of loony videos, and some that calmly discuss her “disorders.” She also thinks houseplants have “feelz.”

 In case you don’t know who the “radical” left is, allow them to tell you in their own words…

So it looks like the radical left’s legacy of “street fighting” will continue unabated, until their morale improves, which won’t happen until they win. And that’s not likely to happen if Trump places another conservative justice on the court.

In the event the election decision goes to the SCOTUS as it did in 2000 they’d prefer their chances of a 4:4 because Roberts has never really been on our side. The result of that outcome is too horrible to contemplate.

Ruthie taking a well deserved nap during SCOTUS session.

Rest assured that the canonization of St. Ruthie in the “Church of Progressivism” will take place in short order. But the fight to seat her replacement on the Supreme Court will continue on, serving as the third ring of the Dems’ long running 3 ring circus.

It has been said many times before, but it has never been more true: “This is the most important election in the history of the United States…and no one can afford to sit on the bench.”

The left threatens death and destruction
Eugenicist Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Living with Mental Illness and ADHD
An Argument for Filling Ginsburg’s Seat Immediately
Please spare me the maudlin rhetoric about Ginsburg’s ‘tragic’ death
Ginsburg’s loyalty to leftism meant she was often intellectually dishonest

Rainbow Houses

In a landmark 5-4 “decision” in Obergefell et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health et al., the United States Supreme Court “ruled” that all Americans, regardless of “sexual” orientation, have the “constitutional right” to marry, but limited the “scope” of its decision to only Americans with something to “offer” a partner.

Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy noted that “by virtue of their exclusion from the institution of marriage, same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage.”

The court concluded that “…the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.”

However, we make clear that this “opinion” does not award any “rights, liberties, dignity or benefits” of any kind to lonely “single” people that have probably never even had a “girlfriend.”

In “commemoration” of the Supreme Court’s ruling to “legalize” same-sex marriage the “Rainbow House” lit up in colors.

With this “fabulous” move, the building formerly known a the “White House” has been made into a display of “punitive” acceptance and “mandatory” tolerance and “made our union a little more perfect” according to President Obama.

Upcoming “renovations” are planned to include “multi-gender” restrooms, replacing the white man’s “bowling” alley with a Caligula-class “steam bath and hot-tub” complex, renaming the first family’s living rooms “Reggie’s Nest,” and the Lincoln Bedroom after “Sandra Fluke.”

The newly colored “Rainbow House” and both houses of Congress are in “progress” of becoming true metaphorical “gay” houses.

Besides tearing “down” the Jefferson Memorial, future plans call for the repainting the “Rotunda” in rainbow shades of color and the “removal” of all those paintings of white men as “penance” for over 200 years of evil “white” male hegemony, many of which were “slave” owners.

Obama recently said no longer must my “Rainbow House” be a symbolic monument to old “white” men with “powdered” wigs, former “slave” owners and purveyors of “genocide” of indigenous people. It must become a monument to “defeat” those right-wingers who stole an “election” and continuously try to “undermine” progress.

After the Supreme Court “unilaterally” made gay marriage the “law” of the land, Obama made a statement from the “Rainbow House” that included this lie:

“I know that Americans of good will continue to hold a wide range of views on this issue. Opposition, in some cases, has been based on sincere and deeply held beliefs. All of us who welcome today’s news should be mindful of that fact and recognize different viewpoints, revere our deep commitment to religious freedom.”

In other words, “If you like your religion, you can keep your religion.”

This statement from our president is no “truer” than his lie during the “ObamaCare” debate about being able to keep your “doctor and insurance.”

Obama knew he was lying then. Obama knows he is lying now about “protecting” religious freedom.

Legalizing “same sex marriage” is not the endgame for the Left, it is in fact the “creation” of a weapon that will now be used to “marginalize, punish, terrorize, and decimate” the Christian religion, its practitioners, and the Church itself.

The small business owners and CEO’s already targeted for extinction by the Left are just the beginning.

Churches that “refuse” to perform same sex weddings will not only be relentlessly shamed as “bigots” by the left and their allies in the mainstream media, their “tax-exempt” status will be also challenged; their ability to perform “public services” will be curtailed or extinguished.

‘The media is smoothing this “jihad,” but it is already happening.

Obviously, the government will take “religion’s” place. Obama can sing “Amazing Grace” but he doesn’t believe a word of it. He is a proven “liar,” and his comments about “respecting” religion are a tactical “move” to get us to take “down” our guard.

Author Brad Thor shared something decidedly “strange” about the Obama administration’s reaction to the landmark ruling on gay marriage, making it legal all across America:

“The only major event the #Obama administration wasn’t caught off guard by and didn’t have to read about in the papers,” Thor wrote.

He likely referred to “instances” when Obama and others have said he and his administration “didn’t know” about major goings on such as “Fast & Furious” and the “IRS” targeting conservatives until “reports” came out in the media.

Here’s a “Supercut” of such instances:

All should be alarmed that a history of slavery exists that is at odds with the “Current Truth.” The constant flux of “revisionist” history is what separates us from the “animal” kingdom.

As we all “celebrate” the passages of marriage rights for the LGBTFQAPBCU©, we must continue the “progression” to other marriages and rights.

We cannot stop at LGBTFQAPBCU© because that is not progression. These are the days where “everyone” can be “anything” and marry “anyone” they like.

From “animals and plants” to just about anything, marriage is a “privilege and a right” that the government lends out to all persons.

Last, but not least, we must find “equal” rights also for “pedophilia, bestiality, polygamy and incest.”

I am sure “Rainbow Warrior” Obama is still figuring that out.

SCOTUS Says Same-Sex Marriage Is a Constitutional Right
SCOTUS Declares Itself God, Redefines Marriage and Rights
Obama Admin Flaunts Rainbow White House After Same-Sex Marriage Ruling
Obama On Gay Marriage: ‘If You Like Your Religion, You Can Keep Your Religion’
The Gay Pride House is Obama’s house
Valerie Jarrett Turned Rainbow House Gay

SCOTUSocracy

SCOTUSocracy
By Michael L. Grable

A more adult United States of America would impeach six of the nine sitting Supreme Court justices.

Misapplying the U.S. Constitution is one thing. Usurping the constitutional powers of the federal legislature is altogether another.

The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has done plenty of the former during the last century. So far in this century, however, it has brazenly embarked on the latter. After its ObamaCare and homosexual marriage decisions, Americans must now realize they no longer live in a democracy. They now live in a “SCOTUSocracy.” They are now governed by judicial rather than political decision-making.

In both its ObamaCare decisions, SCOTUS rewrote federal law. In its homosexual marriage decision, however, it went even farther and actually wrote de novo federal law. SCOTUS has no constitutional power to write or rewrite federal law. In fact, SCOTUS has no constitutional power even to judicially review the constitutionality of federal law.

The net effect is this: not only has SCOTUS usurped the constitutional powers of the federal legislature, but it has now also denied Americans their most basic constitutional right – the right to democratically govern themselves through their political representatives.

You see, Americans elect their political representatives every two, four, or six years. Thus do Americans, through their political representatives, democratically make and execute their own laws. If Americans don’t like the way their legislators make their laws, they can elect new legislators who will make laws they do like. If Americans don’t like the way their executives execute their laws, they can elect new executives who will execute their laws the way they do like. That’s how the governing will of sovereign people democratically expresses itself in a Republic.

The very word “Republic” says it all. The word derives from “res publica.” That literally means “the public thing.” The American Republic is a form of government (the thing) in which the American people (the public) are – by the land’s supreme law – sovereign.

But Americans don’t elect federal judges every two, four, or six years. In fact, federal judges aren’t elected at all – ever. Instead, they’re appointed, for the duration of their entire lives. If Americans don’t like the way their judges adjudicate, they can’t elect new judges who will adjudicate the way they do like. Americans can only endure judges until they resign or die. Or else impeach them.

Most Americans probably don’t realize that SCOTUS has no constitutional power to judicially review the constitutionality of federal law. That it has done so for 212 long years stems simply from its unilateral judicial assumption of that unconstitutional power in an 1803 case involving William Marbury’s dispute with James Madison over the delivery of a justice of the peace commission to which John Adams had appointed Marbury. Thus, the power of the majority of unelected lifetime judges to have recently forced Americans to purchase something they didn’t want to purchase (ObamaCare) and to accept something they didn’t want to accept (homosexual marriage) is an artifact of a mere justice of the peace commission 212 years ago. From little acorns do great trees grow.

But for Marbury’s insignificant commission and John Marshal’s 1803 usurpation of judicial review power, the constitutionality of federal legislation would have been left exactly where it should have remained all along – with the sovereign American people rather than with (as now) nine unelected lifetime judges who are as likely to exercise their own personal political prejudices as they are to strictly construe the Constitution (putatively the land’s supreme law). Then, if the American people, in their sovereignty, had thought the acts of their political representatives unconstitutional, they could have elected other political representatives who could have, by opposing acts, remedied their predecessors’ unconstitutionality.

Chief Justice John Roberts, in his ObamaCare decisions, has in effect twice now rewritten federal legislation – once to transform an unconstitutional penalty into a putatively constitutional tax and once to include in a phrase what the phrase itself excluded. In both cases, this was despite the plain language of federal legislation. The effective result is that the federal government’s ruinous takeover of the nation’s private health care system is a judicial fiat imposed on the American people rather than a political decision made by the American people’s political representatives. If the legislature “in artfully” drafted ObamaCare, then the proper constitutional remedy should have been the legislature itself more “artfully” drafting a legislative amendment. Roberts should be impeached.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, in his homosexual marriage decision, has in effect now written federal legislation DE-rationalizing one of the foremost of all mores governing human association since time immemorial. This was despite the plain language of, in this case, biological legislation. The effective result is that sexual deviancy’s takeover of the nation’s conjugal tradition is a judicial fiat imposed on the American people rather than a political decision made by the American people’s political representatives. If the states’ same-sex marriage bans were unconstitutional, then the proper constitutional remedy should have been the legislature itself proscribing them. Kennedy should be impeached.

Ruth Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Stephen Breyer should also be impeached, but Kennedy was the balance of SCOTUS power that resulted in constitutionally denying the states and the American people their right to limit marriage to persons of the opposite sex. Besides, Ginsburg and Kagan should have recused themselves after having both, previously and prejudicially, officiated at same-sex marriages. That would have left only Sotomayor and Breyer to fruitlessly fob off their personal political prejudices on the states and the American people. Anyway, neither Sotomayor nor Kagan has – by inclination or circumstance – heretofore displayed much personal interest in marriage (either heterosexual or homosexual); Ginsburg has displayed more interest in the feminist movement and the ACLU than she has in the Constitution; and Breyer…well, he’s the administrative law mouse Bill Clinton let loose in SCOTUS.

Everyone knows there’s zero chance of this occurring, but here’s what should, in a more adult America, occur. The people’s representatives should either impeach six of the nine SCOTUS justices or else legislatively override Marshall’s 1803 unilateral assumption of judicial review. Either would be fully consistent with the legislature’s express constitutional powers. Alternatively, the people should replace their political representatives until they have political representatives who will do one or the other. In fact, this should have happened half a century or more ago.

The only possible conclusion is that the American people are too immature to preserve either their sovereignty or their Republic.

They have traded their democracy for what now amounts to a mere “SCOTUSocracy.”