-31 votes

Biden Summed Up Why Obama Must Not Get Reelected.

The next president will most likely get to appoint TWO Supreme Court Justices.

Think about it. If Romney gets elected and puts two anti-Roe Justices on the Court, replacing two pro-Roe Justices, it will tip the balance, allowing the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. Even if one of the Justices replaces one of the current anti-Roe Justices, it it will put us only one Justice away from having an anti-Roe majority.

However, if Obama is reelected, he will put two Justices on the Supreme Court who SUPPORT Roe v. Wade, thereby increasing the pro-Roe Supreme Court majority to as much as 8-1.

Yes, Souter was appointed by a Republican. Yes, Roberts ruled Obamacare legal as a tax (He did not expand the Commerce clause like the liberal Justices wanted.). But, do you want the entire Supreme Court to be made up of Ginsburgs, Kagans, and Breyers?

Folks, if Obama is reelected, NOTHING is going to stop him from forever putting a permanent, Progressive lock on the Supreme Court. With all due respect to Dr. Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Lew Rockwell, and Dr. Woods, who sits on the Supreme Court for the next two to three decades is just TOO IMPORTANT to not care.

Please vote your conscience. But, please also keep in mind that when you vote, you're not just voting for a president, you're voting for two more Supreme Court Justices. Romney is naive and plain wrong on many issues, as were Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. But, I'll take Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito any day over Stephen Breyer and Ruth Ginsburg. Remember, Ginsburg doesn't even agree with our Constitution and recommended that a developing country not use our Constitution as a model.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Thomas is the worst justice

Thomas is the worst justice to ever sit on the bench.

Really?? Like what do you

Really?? Like what do you base that on? he is actually oen of the most constitutional judges we have...

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

What do you base YOUR opinion

What do you base YOUR opinion on?

from hearing him speak and

from hearing him speak and reading his opinions... Why are you asking me? Why dont you answer?

you can always tell when someone doesnt know what they are talking about because they dont answer, but rather pose a question.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Isn't that what you just did

Isn't that what you just did before me, stupid?

Okay, we know when the name

Okay, we know when the name calling comes, the substance of evidence is vacant. You wrote the was one of the worst justices. I asked you why, and then you asked me why I thought he was constitutional.

You like to dance, don't you?

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

I guess I just call it like I

I guess I just call it like I see it.

.

comment deleted

Name callers don't have

Name callers don't have anything to back up their argument, so the resort to personal attacks.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Oh look, I did like a 2

Oh look, I did like a 2 second search and here is a great article confirming much of what I just said. Hmmmmmmm
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/us/13thomas.html?_r=0

Show us where "he has

Show us where "he has consistently voted to allow your 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th amendment rights to be violated." Nothing in that article deals in of what you claim. MORSE v. FREDERICK (No. 06-278) 439 F. 3d 1114 relates to students promoting illegal drugs in school claiming free speech.

"The Court today decides that a public school may prohibit speech advocating illegal drug use. I agree and therefore join its opinion in full. I write separately to state my view that the standard set forth in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503 (1969) , is without basis in the Constitution."

Remind you this is PUBLIC schools. Read the opinion before you make up your nonsense.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-278.ZC.html

I'm not gonna read a book. You made the statements. So back it up with quotes and citations. Didn't they teach you this in law school? Then again, most lawyers I run into, have no clue how to present a coherent case

The only thing that article proves, which we already knew, is that Thomas doesn't engage much on the bench with litigants.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

I actually have read the

I actually have read the decision and he is wrong and once again voting to take away basic rights. 1st amendment? Naaaaaaah the founders didn't mean it to apply to everyone.

Thomas = Worst justice ever.

You didn't read the case.....

You didn't read the case..... you are wasting my time.... like shooting fish in a barrel...

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Oh you found a case where he

Oh you found a case where he spoke good for you. However, you won't find many like I said. He is about as anti-liberty as you can get.

No, fool. I just read and

No, fool. I just read and quoted the case that was included in the article YOU cited, fool.

I am going to give you ONE LAST CHANCE to find a case that backs up your statements that he "has consistently voted to allow your 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th amendment rights to be violated."

if you don't cite me exact language and provide citation, I am not responding anymore.

But we both know the outcome of this.. tool..

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

I already have plenty of

I already have plenty of cases to read. Find them yourself and see if you agree. I'm sure you will because you sound like a freedom hating necon POS. Doing research might do you some good like I said.

EPIC FAIL -- YOU LOSE!! How

EPIC FAIL -- YOU LOSE!!

How does it feel to lose your first case? Quite embarrassing, especially as a "law student." LOL

How was I able to predict the outcome? I am just that good...

"I am going to give you ONE LAST CHANCE to find a case that backs up your statements that he "has consistently voted to allow your 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th amendment rights to be violated."

You just could not do it... LMAO!!! TOOL!!

I'm not responding anymore.. you lose, because you are a loser....

.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

I already did you moron. If

I already did you moron. If you think that is voting on the bill of rights then you a dumb pig and deserve no freedoms anyway. No skin off my teeth. Back anti-liberty judges all you want. You'll soon see the err of your ways. Wait until the bust into your house by accident one night and find whatever they want to call illegal sitting on your coffee table. Have fun not having your rights protected by the worst justice ever.

I just gave it below retard.

I just gave it below retard. Give me one just ONE opinion of his you know and agree with. Just one. Don't try too hard. I'm sure you'll google something up in about 30 minutes but it won't be worth a damn. That is if you can find an opinion. Jeopardy music is playing.

"retard"? Are you sure you

"retard"? Are you sure you are going to law school? No, no, no. YOU give me ONE opinion that you based your statement that he is the worst judge. Just one. You made the statement that he was the worst. This isn't my case.

What you gave below was just a bunch of overly broad conclusions based on your own self-serving interest.

"He has consistently voted to allow your 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th amendment rights to be violated."

Give us ONE case to back that up. Just one. If you pose another question instead of answering we know you have Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Yeah I'm sure I'm in law

Yeah I'm sure I'm in law school. Believe it or not lawyers don't always talk like they are in a court room. I know that might be difficult for you to understand but give it a try. Squeeze those eyes tight, stick out your tongue to the corner of your mouth if it helps and concentrate really hard.

I can tell you are full of

I can tell you are full of it, and that you are just wasting my time. Worst part of it, why I even bothered. Then again, I want to make sure others will see through your pathetic nonsense.

Funny how it is always recent members of this forum that are trolling. Hmmm, I wonder why?

How a good one.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Hudson v. Michigan.... one

Hudson v. Michigan.... one case. There I did work for you. Now try it on your own.

I agree with Scalia's reasoning on this one.

"[ex]clusion of the evidence obtained by a warrantless search vindicates [the] entitlement [of citizens to shield their persons, houses, papers, and effects, from the government’s scrutiny]. The interests protected by the knock-and-announce requirement are quite different—and do not include the shielding of potential evidence from the government’s eyes."

The officers had a warrant. They called out "police, search warrant" before entering Hudson's house. I get Breyer's dissent, but, this is one of those issues that judges just have to rely on their instinct and common law precedent since the Fourth amendment does not specify that officers have to knock before carrying out a warrant. As long as they give notice of their warrant before entering a home and do not unnecessarily destroy any property upon entering or search and seize above and beyond what the warrant specifies, I don't see how based on the text of the Fourth amendment, not knocking first should cancel out the evidence that they find from following the warrant.

The reason for excluding

The reason for excluding evidence is that there must be some way to punish police who violate your rights. It should absolutely fall under the exclusionary rule. Otherwise you just show that you really are not for personal liberty. You are a liar and a fake and should not even be here.

Yeah you agree that police

Yeah you agree that police should be able to barge into your home without any notice. Hence you are not for personal liberty. You are a phony. SImple as that.

Don't cite me a case. Give

Don't cite me a case. Give me the LANGUAGE that you rely on. You are seriously just wasting my time if you continue this dancing around the issue.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

But...

...that is what you asked for.

Wow.

Wait...

...you asked him to give you a case. He does, then that isn't enough.

If what you first ask for isn't enough, then don't ask that question. Be more specific. Otherwise it makes your argument look pretty silly.

HE DID NOT GIVE AN OPINION IN

HE DID NOT GIVE AN OPINION IN IT MORON!! That's the point!!!!! He just went along with the majority. God are you really this stupid?