Another reason I didn't want Obama elected.

It very well could be that Obama will get to elect one or two new USSC judges and that thought just drives me up the wall. It seems Liberal judges no longer rule by law, but by what they think is right and that is totally wrong. This is what Liberals want, really?

"U.S. Supreme Court again rejects most decisions by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

Judges in the circuit's nine Western states are more liberal than the high court justices, who reversed or vacated 19 of the 26 decisions they examined for the last term.July 18, 2011|By Carol J. Williams, Times Staff Writer



It was another bruising year for the liberal judges of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals as the Supreme Court overturned the majority of their decisions, at times sharply criticizing their legal reasoning.
Appeals from the nine Western states of the circuit dominated the high court's docket, as usual, supplying more than 30% of the 84 cases taken up by the justices during the term that ended last month.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/18/local/la-me-ninth-circuit-scorecard-20110718

 

States have the power to prosecute business owners who hire illegals, but Arizona was sued to stop that. Thank God the USSC threw that suit out. Trouble being, almost all the Liberals on that court voted against Arizona. None of them should have voted against it. Now you see another reason I didn't want Obama reelected. Liberal courts don't seem to vote the law anymore, they vote the Party and that's wrong. We don't need anymore Liberal judges who don't vote according to law.


Supreme Court Upholds Arizona Law Penalizing Businesses For Hiring Illegal Immigrants

Immigration Counters.com - Live Counters, News, Resources
Jan 18, 2012 ... Hiring illegal immigrants carries a maximum penalty under federal statute of five
... While our own DOJ sues to impede AZ law enforcement dealing with over ...
ARIZONA - Obama Administration files another lawsuit in Arizona to stop .... for all
employers and prosecute employers who knowingly hire ilegally.
www.immigrationcounters.com/ - 502k - Similar pages

 

We need a liberal supreme court now more than ever to protect our rights instead of caving to religious zealots and greedy businessmen.

 

It was the conservative supreme court that ruled corporation are 'citizens'.
That alone should scare the crap out of you.

 

My biggest fear, as well.

Say hello to FDR's "2nd Bill of Rights", eco-marxist mandates and full-on command economy collectivism...
say goodbye to individualism, natural rights, liberty, and economic freedom.

A government-centric, progressive leftist Supreme Court will have the producer class chained to authoritarian, "social justice and fairness" edicts within a decade.

 

Corporate Personhood was established before your grandparents were born, kid.

 

If you delete "liberal" and "conservative" from your vocabularies then I doubt you would have many other words left.

Blah blah blah.

The election is over, and you got what you deserved, for fronting Mitt the Nitwit.

 

Try "fiscally irresponsible due to 2 wars on top of tax cuts for the rich" instead of "conservative."

Leave the double-speak at home.

 

[video=youtube;E2h8ujX6T0A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2h8ujX6T0A[/video]

 

this is what republicans want, a government that makes blasphemy and not being a Christian a crime

"The Palin Principle – Bible trumps Constitution"

http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/201...nt-to-base-law-on-bible-and-ten-commandments/

"Go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant — they’re quite clear — that we would create law based on the God of the bible and the ten commandments." - Palin

 

I didn't agree with that and I also don't agree that unions should have the right to back candidates with money. Both are wrong, but I don't hear any backlash on unions. I have always worked under unions and never once asked what party part of my dues should go to.

 

Excellent point. while I was just going to defend Romney's "corporations are people" statement, your post illustrates excellently why GOP keep losing election.

 

You mean like Democrats cutting taxes 21% while fighting a war in Vietnam and then starting up the multi billion dollar war on poverty? Bush's tax cut was only 5%.

 

It was my understanding they ruled them as legal persons and by the definition of the law like the ability to sue they are legal persons.

 

This is why you lost the election and will keep losing them.

 

You don't understand much do you, son?

 

They are legal persons as much as unions are legal persons. No difference. Union members are not asked what Party their money should go to, either are stock holders.

 

You say you don't agree with it but you haven't heard or offered any back lash for it and you want more of it.....odd, don't you think?

 

This supposedly liberal court is also responsible for Citizen's United, one of the absolute worst decisions ever made in the history of court cases, and which took a decidedly anti-liberal stance.

 

That's completely fair too. Political candidate donations should only be allowed at the individual level. No corporations, no unions, none of it. People, REAL people, not the fake "people" created in Citizen's United, should be the ones funding campaigns, and strict rules need to be put in place to weed out influence on government from other sources, starting with any elected official caught taking money and/or kickbacks of any kind from a corporate/union/lobbyist entity immediately loses their office, and a special election held in their district/state to replace them. You start threatening the jobs of these elected officials in a real way and you'll start seeing more responsibility. As it stands now, there is effectively zero.

 

the same judges that allowed corporations to be titled people also allowed unions to be titled people at the same time, the difference is, democrats are not arguing that Unions should be considered people... Obviously they should not

 

Not anymore than Liberals condemning the ruling that corporations are people and not condemning unions as being people. At least I said I condemn both as wrong.

 

Do you understand how many wars are going on around the Middle East/Africa, in the name of the "Arab Spring", which in some manner the US is paying a price or our standing in the world as a deterrent to war, itself. Is leading from behind, really working?

I would also suggest "fiscally irresponsibility" is best explained in a 16.3 TRILLION dollar National Debt, which by 2016 could easily have doubled, under one administration, from 10.4T$ 2009 to 20.8T$ and added liabilities/obligations many times the cost of ALL US Wars, now at 122T$.


http://www.usdebtclock.org/

 

Most Americans would welcome the 2nd bill of rights. This is why you are losing elections. Also right extremists version of "individualism" is also pretty wacked out.

 

'Liberals' ARE condemning the ruling and always have been and it has nothing to do with unions. It's a BAD ruling on top of a bunch of other bad rulings.
Now explain why you vote for more of the same. Conservatism has not worked by any measure, why do you still support it?