Red Sonia, who does not understand the meaning of the Second Amendment, was confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee July 28. She now has to go before the Senate. One Party opinion piece praised Lindsey Graham for voting across party line for confirmation. A few have noted the opposition of Orrin Hatch who is confused on the meaning of the Second Amendment, as well.
The question that remains is does exchanging a Communist with a Communist on the Supreme Court—maintaining Obama’s delicate balance—really matter. Is it going to affect future Second Amendment cases? Would the case of D.C. v. Heller have been different?
The Supreme Court has upheld the position of the federal government—including the detriment of State’s Rights—time and again. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, concerning small pox vaccines, is cited as allowing the government to plug you with whatever they want whenever they want. Courts across the country have agreed that the government can spray whatever chemicals they want across a populace to test their effectiveness. All in the name of “National Security.”
In the celebrated government case of Schenck v. U.S. we got the phrase “You can’t yell fire in a crowded movie theater” and the title of a Tom Clancey novel. Actually, what Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote was,
“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force.”
It does protect falsely taking oaths to support and defend the Constitution, however. The Fourth Amendment apparently protects a person from having to show a birth certificate to be President.
Interestingly, this decision against Comrade Schenck—a Socialist who was printing leaflets attempting to keep American men from joining the World War I effort of Comrade Woodrow Wilson. In this decision, Holmes wrote,
“The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”
What can Obama do with that kind of encouragement? How about an Internet “Czar.” How about “Hate crimes” which is flew through the House and is about to leave the Senate for Obama’s signature? Laughably, John McCain—responsible for shutting up people during election time with the McCain Feingold legislation—is opposed to hate crimes.
Nixon is usually held accountable for overturning the Ninth Amendment in his “drug war.” Just go down the inalienable “Bill of Rights” and you can find any number of violations in Supreme Court decisions. Of course, many comply with the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto.
The question is will any Supreme Court nominee overcome fascist and Communist party line to really represent the people as they are supposed to do under the Constitution?