Now that Sandra Day O’Connor and other sodomizers (people who may or may not bugger each other but applaud the perversion) on the Supreme Court have openly revealed their activist collusion with the present communofascist Revolution, people of normal sexuality along with classical liberals who advocate equal treatment for all are desperately seeking a way to punish them short of dragging them into the street and impaling them on a phallus.
Some patriots have suggested impeachment, a solution the Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution. Yes, impeachment is possible – on paper – and it has been tried. Many years ago, Robert Welch and the John Birch Society, alarmed by the Supreme Court’s 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, which was based not on law, but on the pseudo-findings of a Swedish Red named Gunnar Myrdal, popularized the slogan, “Impeach Earl Warren.”
Warren was of course Chief Justice at the time, and was a leader in the continuing scheme to subvert and pervert the Constitution. The campaign to impeach him continued for many years and did draw considerable media coverage, but, of course, it eventually petered out. Warren never got the punishment he deserved in this life.
Later, the people of California did succeed in removing Chief Justice Rose Bird, who refused to sustain a death penalty however gruesome the crime. But of course she was a state judge. Convicting an Injustice of the U.S. Supreme Court would take an eon, even could it be done. By the time it was accomplished we would all be dead, especially Sandra the Sodomizer and the other Unequalizers on the Court, which would make the issue moot.
There is a way to get immediate action, short of shaving Sandra’s head like the French women who collaborated with the Nazis. Indeed, with enough intent it could be accomplished in a single day. Congress has concluded other matters of similar moment, in just one day, like our declaration of war on December 7, 1941, a good comparison because we are at war today.
Since the court’s ruling in favor of buggery despite the noble efforts of Justice Scalia, I have been waiting for one of my brilliant Americanist colleagues to suggest it; as this commentary goes to press, none has that I know of, so I shall. Like impeachment, this solution is part of the constitution. Here it is:
Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution says this: “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” (emphasis added)
This clause is about jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is a crucial issue in law. If you have read any transcript of a court proceeding, you know that the first thing the judge says on page one is that he has jurisdiction to hear the case because a certain section of a certain statute gives it to him. If he doesn’t have jurisdiction he will say so and throw the case out. Often a court will tell a plaintiff that he may even have a good case but that he has come to the wrong court. If you contest a will by filing a complaint in Tax Court, that is what the court will tell you. If you sue someone for a million dollars in Small Claims Court, you will be thrown out, because that court lacks the jurisdiction to hear such a case.
In Clause 2, above, the Constitution says that when a case involves a diplomat or one of the American States, it goes automatically to the Supreme Court. In all other cases, Congress can make exceptions and impose regulations. Exactly what part of a-l-l don’t you understand? This means that a Congress so inclined can limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, forbidding it to consider cases that involve education and sex and abortion, among other things. In other words, Congress can tell the court to mind its own business.
Remember that if Congress is mad enough about something, it can override a presidential veto, which is an expression of our power to keep the President under control. The clause we are looking at now gives Congress power to override a Supreme Court ruling, an expression of our power to keep the court under control.
Conviction of impeachment would of course remove an Injustice from the court. Restriction of jurisdiction would be less drastic and therefore more practically doable – but it would have the same effect. It would tell Sandra the Sodomizer and Tony K., and other champions of buggery that henceforth they would sit around staring at each other. They would certainly get the message.
And Congress could send that message in just one day. No constitutional amendment would be required. It would be tantamount to a declaration of war on the perversion of the court. Would Congress do that on its own? You’re kidding, right? Congress would do that on its own right after Franklin Graham converts to Islam-or when enough normal people convince enough members that they will be thrown into the toilet where they belong if they don’t do as we the (normal) people tell them.
This is also the right place to mention one of the favorite tactics Republican Party shills use to frighten already worried Americans into electing Republicans. The national election is still almost a year and a half away, but they are already saying it: “Whatever your complaints about George W. Bush, you must vote for him because he will nominate good people to the courts, and, as we have seen, the courts are where the action is.
“Supreme Court justices are getting ready to retire. Some who incline to liberalism and the Democrats may be waiting to see who wins in November next year. If it is Bush, he will nominate good people to replace them. If you don’t vote for Bush, and if a Democrat is elected, we’ll get more bad judges like O’Connor and Kennedy.”
Really? Who nominated Sandra and Tony? Who nominated most of today’s Injustices? In fact, who made Earl Warren Chief Justice? Wasn’t it Republicans? Don’t putative Republicans dominate today’s Supreme Court? Republican Presidents nominated seven of today’s nine judges. Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy, the sodomizer who wrote the ruling in Lawrence. Reagan also nominated Sandra Day O’Connor, the sodomizer who wrote in support of Tony the K.
Sandra is a politician. In Phoenix she was Senate Majority Leader. She also was active in the Arizona Council on Intergovernmental Relations, a Rockefeller extrusion designed to destroy local government. The ruling in Lawrence substitutes the federal government’s perverted opinion for the wishes of the people of Texas.
Both Clinton judges voted of course for sodomy and against those wishes. So did Stevens, another putative Republican put there by Gerald Ford, and Souter, a bachelor, nominated to the court by George “New Vorld Order” Bush the First.
Indeed, what kind of Republicans would George W. Bush, Traitor, nominate? He has nominated Miguel Estrada, whose appeal apparently is that he is a Latino. He certainly isn’t what we could lamely call a “conservative.” Yes, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas are happy exceptions, but, as the old cliché puts it, they are the exceptions that prove the rule.
This completely negates the argument that we must elect Republicans to get conservative judges. With a Republican President, we are just as likely to get an O’Connor or a Kennedy as we are to get a Scalia or a Thomas.
Finally, let’s say a word about the “living constitution.” The Founding Fathers made the Constitution very difficult to amend. The process requires a long time and considerable effort. They did it that way to ensure that any change in the founding document would be the product of sober deliberation, not whim or anger or some base motive, and that the change was something the country really wanted. The system has worked tolerably well.
By “living constitution,” the subverters mean a rulebook they can change easily whenever they like, which in effect means no rulebook at all. The practical effect of the “living constitution,” is that they pay “lip service” to the Constitution; then they ignore it, which in practical effect means that the Constitution itself has been repealed and replaced by the politics of the day.
When a “strict constructionist” writes a ruling, he cites the Article and Clause of the Constitution that supports it. When a “living constitutionist” writes a ruling, he concocts contradictory political and sociological explanations to support it. He even contradicts himself.
In his brilliant dissent in Lawrence, Justice Scalia dissects the Kennedy contradictions, and points out that the same judges who now concoct a spurious legal principle to give us national sodomy, concocted an utterly contradictory legal principle to preserve national abortion just a few years ago.
Among the things sodomite monsters are pushing for today is raping little boys. Of course, they call it something else. Now it’s “intergenerational sex.” Soon, very soon, one of these monsters will argue for such sex before the Supreme Court, and the “living constitutionists” who occupy the chairs there will concoct a reason to support it.
George W. Bush, Traitor, has done more to advance the cause of buggery than the rapist he succeeded. He said nothing when the chairman of the Republican National Committee met in secret with the sodomites. He let Senator Rick Santorum twist in the wind. He hasn’t condemned Lawrence. How much time should we waste dreaming about the judges he would appoint?
“Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”