-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.

Comment viewing options

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

No, it is YOU that is a

No, it is YOU that is a moron. I did NOT ask for you to cite Thomas' language. I asked you to provide me with THE Language you relied on. But you are not going to. We both know that, so have a nice day...

i KNEW you were not gonna cite me a damn thing. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

BTW, you have no point. You are a liberal in disguise, trolling around forums stirring up nonsense so you can masturbate in the basement in an effort to satisfy your own perverted affliction.

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

There are numerous cases that

There are numerous cases that he voted to allow your rights to be violated. If you want a list then research it yourself. It might do you some good.

You sir, do not know what you are talking about!

Thomas is one of the more conservative constitutional justices we've ever had!

He's also one of the three justices who signed onto hearing the Obama Birth Certificate issue.

He’s also one of the Justices who voted against Obama Care as being unconstitutional.

You sir are uninformed!

The Winds of Change!

As a 3rd year law student I

As a 3rd year law student I assume I've read more supreme court cases than you have even heard of so no I'm not uninformed. He has consistently voted to allow your 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th amendment rights to be violated. You ever wonder why Thomas rarely has his opinion on record? How many cases have you seen where Thomas gave the opinion of the court? You know why? Because he isn't intelligent enough to articulate it. The uninformed one here is you. Wake the fuck up. Who gives a shit about Obama's birth certificate? If you care so much about liberty you might want to take some time to look through some supreme court decisions having to do with your liberty and see just where these justices you praise really stand. Now, I'll let you get back to jacking off over some justice who says he is a "constitutionalist."

then give us your best

then give us your best case....

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

Best case for what? I already

Best case for what? I already said he doesn't have much of anything. Are you really that stupid?

You are right. You are not

You are right. You are not giving me Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah. I figured that would happen. I can tell by the tone of your writings you are full of hot air...

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

Paul Ryan summed up why I shouldn't vote for Romney.

Pure warmongering.

Obama has been pretty warmongering himself.

We're going to sanction Iran to death, killing tens of thousands of people and putting millions in abject poverty and we're going to arm "friendly" rebels around the world no matter who wins the election in November. Voting third party won't change popular opinion. The American people WANT sanctions on Iran and WANT us to undermine governments that their favorite politicians tell us are "bad guys" in the Middle East. Rand Paul is making much deeper inroads into popular opinion by being a Republican Senator than Gary Johnson is by being an insignificant third party candidate.

I wish Johnson would have run for Senator in New Mexico. He could have gotten so much more accomplished for peace than wasting money, time, and influence on a presidential race that he can't win.

So your solution

to stopping war is to elect Romney? Obama has been no saint, but Romney has been using pro-war rhetoric and for once, I actually believe what he says because being "tough" is popular among Republicans.

With all those pro-Israel foreign aids he is planning to elect, we can expect WW3 much sooner with Romney than Obama.

Romney is a liberal, no doubt about it.

But as much as people want to deny it, Bush was much more preferential than Obama. He appointed true constitutionalists and conservatives to the high court, and we all should thank him for that immensely. However, I do not think Romney will be as generous. Romney has never had a backbone or driving philosphy. I have always believed that Bush was a conservative trapped and controlled by the likes of Cheney and Rumsfeld. A President Romney would be better than a Obama, no doubt about it...but by how much? I dont think he would appoint a Scalia or Thomas, more like a Roberts or Kennedy---not good, but still much, MUCH BETTER than Constitution-deniers Sotomayor and Kagan.

I am planning on voting for Johnson for Prez and the GOP line for everything else. But I am still open to Romney since I do live in Ohio. But that window is quickly shrinking.


so we should vote for mitt so that he...being a good conservative, will appoint a good conservative judge...like John Roberts right?

Try again.

GJ get's my vote and let the chips fall where they may.

This is laughable.

Romney is just as liberal as Obama. His record as gov does not lie. His campaign speeches running for gov do not lie. We will get the same thing with Romney that we have now, just like the BO supporters got the same policies as Bush with BO. I have sympathy for those who cannot see that.

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James


The OP didn't dispute Romney's liberal tendencies. The post was about upcoming appointments to the SC, and I highly doubt Romney would have the balls to appoint a liberal to the highest court.

You do realize that

one of Bush Jr's "conservative" appointees was the 5th vote to uphold a liberal Healthcare scheme right? This left right paradigm is nothing more than a smoke screen. They together make up the big party.

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James

You do also realize that

It was upheld under the power to tax, right? And if you read the opinion the healthcare penalty is no different from any other tax implemented in the past century.

You do realize that

Obama sold his healthcare plan to voters & congress under the guise that it is not a tax, and it was a bush appointee that was the vote that upheld it as a tax right? So if he would have voted against it, it would not have been upheld as a tax. 4 conservative SCJ's voted against it, and one voted for it. If that 5th Justice who was appointed by bush would have voted against it, it would not have been upheld. Calling it a tax is a moot point.

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James

Calling it a tax isn't a moot point

Because it is a tax, regardless of what Obama said it is. The fine they charge is no different from the taxes that are automatically deducted from your paycheck.

No, it isn't.

They automatically take SS/Medicare straight out of m paycheck. Obamacare does not, if it did, it would be called "universal healthcare" which it most certainly is not. Now I am not concerned arguing whether it is a tax or not, that is not my point. My point is, there were 4 votes against the law, which means they viewed it as unconstitutional. Were they wrong? If the 5th "conservative" voted no, we would not be having this debate. That is my point. Just as if Spector was not endorsed by "conservatives" who said he is a "fellow conservative," then the bill would have never been passed in the first place. That was my original point. Those who think the SCJ's will be better than those of Obama's have got to realize they are wrong. The only people who belong on the bench are strict constitutionalists, not liberals or conservatives.

Edit: Not getting health insurance under AFA is considered breaking the law, and if you break that law you get fined. Okay. Now those who call that a tax (I don't care who they are, SCJ's or not) need to ask themselves, how is that different from failing to follow the speed limit and getting a fine in doing so?

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James

So you're arguing that because

they give you a grace period and a chance to avoid the fine, it is worse than the fine being automatically deducted? And that somehow makes it less of a tax? How about income taxes? Are those no longer taxes because most people pay them annually? Brilliant.


income tax is different because everyone has to pay (who makes money,) not just those who "break the law." Where I come from, when you break the law you get a "ticket" also known as a "fine," but I never heard of it being called a tax.

Now, if one fails to pay their income taxes, they get fined, and if they fail to pay the fine they get imprisoned.

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James

The broad power to "tax"

includes all aforementioned terms (e.g. fine, ticket). You're attempt to distinguish the income tax was immediately self-defeating due to an exception you provided for what you claim to be a universal rule. Just as only people who make money pay income taxes, only people who inherit property will pay an inheritance tax, only people who speed pay speeding tickets, and only people who do not have health insurance will be subject to a fine.

My original

stance was it makes no difference as to who (BO or Mitt) gets to appoint a SCJ or two, they are all on the same team.

Tickets are not a tax. Taxes are collected by the IRS, tickets are not. I understand the SC ruled Obamacare is a tax, there is no changing that, but it does not mean I have to agree with them. The SC is not what it used to be, and to call it a tax imo is absurd.

Medicare is a tax, but everyone receives their medicare upon reaching 65 years of age. SS is a tax, everyone receives their SS by age 62. Obamacare is a tax, but you have to buy your own insurance and if you don't, then you get taxed? Sounds like a fine / penalty to me.

I do not see how if Roberts voted against the law along with the other 4 conservatives it would have set a precedent showing Medicare and SS to be unconstitutional (even though I believe them to be.)I know of no other circumstances where if you fail to purchase something that is stipulated by law you have to pay a "tax."

People accepting Obamacare as a tax are leaving the door wide open for other "taxes" on things govt does not approve of, we are already seeing it in Chicago with the "violence tax."


If you choose to reply, do it here http://www.dailypaul.com/258531/biden-summed-up-why-obama-mu... so the comment box isn't so narrow ;)

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James

You're not getting it

The power to collect money is called the "taxing power" under the Constitutional. You trying to distinguish between whether that money is collected as a fine or to provide a particular service is irrelevant. Also, the "door" you refer to was opened a long time ago, people overlook this small fact for some reason. You have been required to purchase car insurance (subject to a fine for failing to do so) for a long time. This just extends that requirement, and although I do not agree with Obamacare policy-wise, it is hardly unconstitutional considering the powers enumerated to the federal government in the Constitution along with the Court's precedent.

Having to purchase

auto insurance is state law, not federal. Article 1, Sec 8, clause 1 grants the feds the power to lay duties (a tax on certain items purchased abroad,) imposts (import or export duty,) and excise (a tax charged on the sale of a particular good.) The 16th Amendment only grants the Feds to tax our income. Thus all other means of taxation are not allowed by the feds, and reserved to the states respectively (10th Amendment.)

The taxing power in the constitution is well defined, and spelled out quite simply in on sentence, limiting the "taxing power" to Duties, imposts, and excise taxes, which the AFA tax is none of those. (not to mention the 1913 income-tax, which was sold as a tax on those who make money off gains / investments, not money people traded for labor.)

No, I think it's you that are not getting it. And if you fail to purchase auto insurance, you do not have to pay a "tax" for it, you have to pay a fine. All taxes are collected by the Internal Revenue Service, where fines are collected by federal (or in the failure to purchase auto insurance) state courts.

Is the AFA a tax if you don't pay? Well, since the SC ruling, yes because now the IRS is being expanded so they have the manpower to collect the tax from those who do not pay, although it is unconstitutional.

Again, if the GWB appointee voted with the other 4 "conservative" justices, we would not be having this conversation. My original point was it does not matter who appoints the SCJ's, they all treat the Constitution as if it were a "living breathing document," and do not enforce it at all, but merely enforce it as they see fit.

Edit* Some states do not even have laws forcing people to purchase Auto Insurance, although those that do not, certain jurisdictions within the state do. That is how the govt should work, there is nothing wrong with that.

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James

You just attempted to make a bunch of random distinctions

You just attempted to make a bunch of random distinctions that mean absolutely nothing and now you really have no idea what you are talking about. First of all, there is no enumerated power allowing the federal government to FINE people, any collection of fines or penalties is done through the broad power called the TAXING AND SPENDING POWER in the U.S. Constitution. There is no FINING power, you just made it up and ran with it. The distinctions you make between fines and taxes and penalties are only valid in your head and have never been recognized as different federal powers by anyone besides you because they do not exist.

If anything, you may be trying to draw a distinction between regulatory taxes and revenue raising taxes, but this is not valid because a tax can be both at the same time. ACA is considered a "regulatory tax" because it regulates the market place, but it is also a "revenue raising tax" (just like an income tax) because it does just that, even if its primary purpose is not raising revenue. In Veazie Bank v. Fenno, the Court upheld a federal "tax" (i.e. penalty) on state bank notes, even though the primary purpose of the tax was to eliminate the use of those state notes. In U.S. v. Doremus, the Court stated, "If the legislation enacted has some reasonable relation to the exercise of the taxing authority conferred by the Constitution, it cannot be invalidated because of the supposed regulatory motives which induced it." In McCrary v. United States, upheld a penalty on colored oleomargarine that was created to discourage an action and expressly rejected the argument that the tax was unconstitutional because it was a penalty and intended primarily for regulatory purposes. "Since the taxing power conferred by the Constitution knows no limits except those expressly stated in that instrument, it must follow, if a tax be within the lawful power, the exertion of that power may not be judicially restrained because of the results to arise from its exercise."

So essentially, you are imposing your own made up limits on the broad federal taxing power enumerated in the Constitution, while also creating a brand new, previously unheard of Constitutionally enumerated power to "fine" that has never before been recognized nor is it explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Amazing.

I don't really get your rant on the IRS expanding. The IRS is part of the executive branch, its job is to carry out the laws created by Congress under its enumerated powers. So Congress creates a tax, and the IRS enforces it. You also sound like a fool claiming that Roberts should have voted with the other 4 "conservative" justices. The last thing they will do--and the last thing we want them to do--is vote along party lines or affiliations. They are given life appointments for a reason. And by the way, the "4 conservative justices" you want Roberts to join so badly were all appointed by Republican presidents. And the other 4 votes upholding the law were appointed by Democratic presidents. If your theory of it "not mattering who appoints the justices" were true, shouldn't the justices have all voted the same way? These aren't just simple issues with easy answers that justices "enforce as they see fit," and you claiming they are just shines an even brighter light on your complete ignorance. You make no sense, you have no idea what you are talking about with regard to the federal taxing power, and you trying to pretend like you do really isn't fooling anyone.

John Roberts did not rule with the liberal minority on O'Care.

In order to strike down Obamacare as unconstitutional, you would practically have to strike down Social Security as unconstitutional. I would love that, but, even Alito and Scalia would never go that far. Talk about causing a geezer revolt on the SCOTUS. SS was ruled constitutional on similar grounds - that the Congress had the right to tax the American people directly and that the payroll tax was completely separate from the SS retirement plan.

Roberts did not sell us Constitutionalists out on the key issue of Obamacare - the commerce clause.


The liberals in the supreme

The liberals in the supreme court are the ones allowing you to not get arrested anytime the cops please. This is what you people are not understanding. Conservative judges might vote down agencies (SOMETIMES) but it is actually the liberals in SCOTUS that are voting against 4th, 5th, 6th amendment violations. So do yourself a favor and do some research before you go on about supreme court appointments. (Oh and sometimes Scalia respects the bill of rights too)

Can you give a couple of examples

as to what you're referring to?

Romney won't tip the balance

Hate to burst your bubble, but who Romney places on the Supreme Court will likely depend on who he's replacing; he is likely to put justices on to keep the status quo balance... especially if he faces an opposition senate, but even if he doesn't he's most likely to replace like-minded justices with like-minded justices... because that's just the type of guy he is and that's just the way the Republican Party Elite likes it (especially on Roe)