Friday, June 29, 2007

Fascism: The Roberts Supreme Court

In light of a few of the most recent Supreme Court decisions, namely the upholding of a ban on late-term abortions and the now only few days old ruling against affirmative action, it is clear that the highest court in the United States both cares nothing for precedent – an illusion many abortion rights advocates held on to for dear life – and cares nothing for either women’s or minority’s rights in general.

Many attempted to placate those worried by the appointment of radical conservatives to the Supreme Court – social conservative, Catholic extremists – with sweet talk about the respect Roberts and Alito allegedly had for precedent, a nefarious lie now laying exposed after only a few rulings.
Affirmative action has been a cornerstone of American judicial law for forty five years, and rightly so; there is a reason why Colin Powell, by no means a liberal, and the military wrote an amicas curia in support of affirmative action, without affirmative action we wouldn’t even know Colin Powell’s name.
The affirmative action ruling has served as daunting testament to the irrelevance of precedent in the views of the radical Catholic Judges. There is now no rational reason whatsoever to believe that the Judges will care anything for precedent when they review Roe v. Wade.

The latest vicious attacks on minority’s rights are but a prelude of what is to come in the later decades of the now, on balance, fascist court.


melloncollie said...

Like you said, the idea that Roberts and Alito would care about precedent was a "nefarious lie" that has now been exposed. All they care about is legislating their wrong-headed ideas of morality, which is really just a cover for keeping minorities down.

Quote: ". . . without affirmative action we wouldn’t even know Colin Powell’s name."

Good point.

Affirmative action, hate crime legislation, and now Roe V Wade. These are scary times we're living in.

Anonymous said...

It's amazing how you Jews only talk about "precedent" and never mention the Constitution. You all really are trying desperately to hold onto the un-Constitutional rulings you got through the court system. You Jews could never have fomented your social revolution through the legislature because the people would not have voted for it. So you rammed your anti-Christian trash through the courts. Payback is a bitch! Bring back the Spanish Inquisition!

JDHURF said...


Exactly, the judges clearly give their arch-conservative ideological views top priority, minority rights be damned; which is to be expected from a cadre of Catholic extremists.

Thanks for stopping by and commenting.

JDHURF said...


It is abundantly evident that you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not a Jew and the constitution has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity - except for the "separation of church and state." Your implication that the legislature is somehow a beacon of democratic tendencies and only legislates public opinion is outright laughable, considering the social issues which the civilian population overwhelmingly support - such as universal health care, increased social spending, decreased military spending, the signing of the Kyoto protocol, allowing the UN to take the lead in foreign interventions, etcetera - are virtually unrepresented in the legislature.
Furthermore, you didn't even pretend to support any of your hysterical claims, which means that you don't even have an argument...come back when you do.

LibertySilver said...

This isn't meant to be argumentative, but is a point to consider.

The trouble with Affirmative action
is that it misses the point of
individual rights. It grants rights to a "group", not an individual.

Our Constitution and Bill of Rights
was meant to be used to protect
the inherent "rights" of the individual, not the group.

A right is inherent, it is not
granted by government and can
neither be granted OR taken away.

The government is only used to
"protect" those rights.

This concept is so foreign to
todays thinkers, it makes me wonder
sometimes what country we are in.

I think the concept was lost because the people let the government dictate on such matters.

Though I am pleased to see minority
individuals rise to gain respect and fair treatment, by rights, it should have always been that way.

Bad laws regulating and granting and removing rights is at the root of all the troubles.

If we practiced equal justice
for all individuals, none of these
problems would exist.

LibertySilver said...

an excellent video to watch on this
is "the philosphy of liberty." Which can be found on you tube.

Dave Marlow said...

No leader, despite what they say, appoints "originalist justices". The phrase is devoid of any serious meaning. It's bourgeois politicians appointing bourgeois justices.

I have never had a problem with the idea of the Supreme Court being appointed, even for life, so long as the one appointing them was one truly accountable to the people. The problem arises only from our present society.