Who Judges The Judges?

[PoliticalChic]

The Court is a scam and a fraud.

Strong Presidents ignore it.

Quoting Lenin again? Or is it Mugabe?

Which one are you calling Lenin?

If I was to call anyone Lenin it would be you since they're your sentiments. I'm sure Trump, Lenin, and Mugabe would be comfortable with those same sentiments. I would have said Hitler but he ignored the Reichstag not the courts, something I'm sure Trump would never do. Oops, too late thanks to AG Barr.

Calling you a liar would be gilding the lily.

Any reader recognizes you as such.


The Left/Liberals/Democrats.....you.....are clearly the Bolsheviks.


Just one example.

"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky



Rule #2 in effect.
Rule #2
To know what the Left is guilty of, just watch what they blame the other side of doing.

Rule #1
When the Right has painted itself into a corner, change the subject. Abortion is always a good topic even if unrelated.

The sanctity of human life is a right wing position.


Death is yours.

 

[alang1216]

Rule #1
When the Right has painted itself into a corner, change the subject. Abortion is always a good topic even if unrelated.

The sanctity of human life is a right wing position.

Death is yours.

I'm sorry but you are found guilty of violating Rule #1. Not very surprising considering your disdain for the Constitution and the rule of law.

 

[OldLady]

None of those quotes is in the Constitution. There are three branches of government to rein each other in. When the Executive ignores the checks of another branch (as he is also trying to do with funding for the Wall) he is taking too much power on himself. I don't care what you call me or how many times you say it or how long your response is, that is the bottom line.

When the Executive ignores the checks of another branch, he is taking too much power onto himself. Good reason to impeach him. We don't do dictators here.

It would be like the Congress passing another law making segregation legal.

Gads, you're an imbecile......clean off those specs.


Those quotes are proof that strong Presidents recognize something you don't....



.....there is no mandate to follow Supreme Court Justice's blabbing.


Just as no one follows yours.

Hey, they may have talked big but when I did a search on it, none of them actually did it.
Which president defied a decision of the Supreme Court?
President Andrew Jackson is often quoted as defiantly saying to colleagues, “[Chief Justice John] Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it!” Except, as best as historians can tell, Jackson made no such remark. And regardless of whether or not he said anything similar, no such defiance actually took place.Apr 24, 2018
did Jefferson ever defy a Supreme Court decision? - Google Search

I really appreciate you actually doing research!
Point for that!




What you should focus on was my statement that the Constitution requires no bending of the knee and the neck to the Court's pronouncements.


4.The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.


5.“If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf




And Rehnquist's statement that no decision is judicious unless it is specifically related to the Constitution,

THE NOTION OF A LIVING CONSTITUTION*

WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf



"The ultimate source of authority in this Nation,

Marshall said, is not Congress, not the states, not for that matter the Supreme

Court of the United States. The people are the ultimate

source of authority; they have parceled out the authority that

originally resided entirely with them by adopting the original

Constitution and by later amending it. They have granted some

authority to the federal government and have reserved authority

not granted it to the states or to the people individually.

[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal

judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,

quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s

problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority

of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied

to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a

judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a

quite different light.

Judges then are no longer the keepers of

the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately

situated people with a roving commission to second-guess

Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative

officers concerning what is best for the country."

I'll focus on what Trump is actually planning to do here. He loves being "historic" and this will certainly be that. Nancy Pelosi is shaking herself out of her stupor and smelling the blood at this point. He should not do this if he wants to keep his seat.

Are you predicting impeachment....over ignoring the Supreme Court???



Wish fulfillment takes place when one is asleep, dreaming.


Are you asleep or is this your usual level of consciousness?x



Don't forget to avoid operating heavy machinery.

LOL YOU LOST THIS ONE!!!! NAH NAH NAH NAH NAAAAHHHHH

 

[PoliticalChic]

Gads, you're an imbecile......clean off those specs.


Those quotes are proof that strong Presidents recognize something you don't....



.....there is no mandate to follow Supreme Court Justice's blabbing.


Just as no one follows yours.

Hey, they may have talked big but when I did a search on it, none of them actually did it.
Which president defied a decision of the Supreme Court?
President Andrew Jackson is often quoted as defiantly saying to colleagues, “[Chief Justice John] Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it!” Except, as best as historians can tell, Jackson made no such remark. And regardless of whether or not he said anything similar, no such defiance actually took place.Apr 24, 2018
did Jefferson ever defy a Supreme Court decision? - Google Search

I really appreciate you actually doing research!
Point for that!




What you should focus on was my statement that the Constitution requires no bending of the knee and the neck to the Court's pronouncements.


4.The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.


5.“If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf




And Rehnquist's statement that no decision is judicious unless it is specifically related to the Constitution,

THE NOTION OF A LIVING CONSTITUTION*

WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf



"The ultimate source of authority in this Nation,

Marshall said, is not Congress, not the states, not for that matter the Supreme

Court of the United States. The people are the ultimate

source of authority; they have parceled out the authority that

originally resided entirely with them by adopting the original

Constitution and by later amending it. They have granted some

authority to the federal government and have reserved authority

not granted it to the states or to the people individually.

[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal

judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,

quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s

problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority

of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied

to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a

judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a

quite different light.

Judges then are no longer the keepers of

the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately

situated people with a roving commission to second-guess

Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative

officers concerning what is best for the country."

I'll focus on what Trump is actually planning to do here. He loves being "historic" and this will certainly be that. Nancy Pelosi is shaking herself out of her stupor and smelling the blood at this point. He should not do this if he wants to keep his seat.

Are you predicting impeachment....over ignoring the Supreme Court???



Wish fulfillment takes place when one is asleep, dreaming.


Are you asleep or is this your usual level of consciousness?x



Don't forget to avoid operating heavy machinery.

LOL YOU LOST THIS ONE!!!! NAH NAH NAH NAH NAAAAHHHHH

"LOL YOU LOST THIS ONE!!!! NAH NAH NAH NAH NAAAAHHHHH"

Did I????


Let's check.


In this forum, Law and Justice, I posted this....

1.The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.

So saith the Constitution.





Unless you can quote where the law of the land, the Constitution, states that the court must be obeyed.....


....get ready......




....I WIN AGAIN!!!!!

 

[Camp]

Anytime an OP needs to consistently resort to insulting responses and name calling a claim of winning is invalid and just silly.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Anytime an OP needs to consistently resort to insulting responses and name calling a claim of winning is invalid and just silly.

You have an incorrect understanding of what goes on here.....


Welcome to the karma cafe....there are no menus but you will get what you deserve.

 

[OldLady]

Hey, they may have talked big but when I did a search on it, none of them actually did it.
Which president defied a decision of the Supreme Court?
President Andrew Jackson is often quoted as defiantly saying to colleagues, “[Chief Justice John] Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it!” Except, as best as historians can tell, Jackson made no such remark. And regardless of whether or not he said anything similar, no such defiance actually took place.Apr 24, 2018
did Jefferson ever defy a Supreme Court decision? - Google Search

I really appreciate you actually doing research!
Point for that!




What you should focus on was my statement that the Constitution requires no bending of the knee and the neck to the Court's pronouncements.


4.The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.


5.“If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf




And Rehnquist's statement that no decision is judicious unless it is specifically related to the Constitution,

THE NOTION OF A LIVING CONSTITUTION*

WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf



"The ultimate source of authority in this Nation,

Marshall said, is not Congress, not the states, not for that matter the Supreme

Court of the United States. The people are the ultimate

source of authority; they have parceled out the authority that

originally resided entirely with them by adopting the original

Constitution and by later amending it. They have granted some

authority to the federal government and have reserved authority

not granted it to the states or to the people individually.

[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal

judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,

quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s

problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority

of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied

to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a

judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a

quite different light.

Judges then are no longer the keepers of

the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately

situated people with a roving commission to second-guess

Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative

officers concerning what is best for the country."

I'll focus on what Trump is actually planning to do here. He loves being "historic" and this will certainly be that. Nancy Pelosi is shaking herself out of her stupor and smelling the blood at this point. He should not do this if he wants to keep his seat.

Are you predicting impeachment....over ignoring the Supreme Court???



Wish fulfillment takes place when one is asleep, dreaming.


Are you asleep or is this your usual level of consciousness?x



Don't forget to avoid operating heavy machinery.

LOL YOU LOST THIS ONE!!!! NAH NAH NAH NAH NAAAAHHHHH

"LOL YOU LOST THIS ONE!!!! NAH NAH NAH NAH NAAAAHHHHH"

Did I????


Let's check.


In this forum, Law and Justice, I posted this....

1.The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.

So saith the Constitution.





Unless you can quote where the law of the land, the Constitution, states that the court must be obeyed.....


....get ready......




....I WIN AGAIN!!!!!

Tell that to the President, sister.

 

[OldLady]

Anytime an OP needs to consistently resort to insulting responses and name calling a claim of winning is invalid and just silly.

Or, they could be mature, like me. lol

 

[PoliticalChic]

Anytime an OP needs to consistently resort to insulting responses and name calling a claim of winning is invalid and just silly.

Or, they could be mature, like me. lol

Why?

You don't like the custard pie I mashed in your ugly kisser???



In this forum, Law and Justice, I posted this....

1.The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.

So saith the Constitution.





Unless you can quote where the law of the land, the Constitution, states that the court must be obeyed.....


....get ready......




....I WIN AGAIN!!!!!

 

[OldLady]

Anytime an OP needs to consistently resort to insulting responses and name calling a claim of winning is invalid and just silly.

Or, they could be mature, like me. lol

Why?

You don't like the custard pie I mashed in your ugly kisser???



In this forum, Law and Justice, I posted this....

1.The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.

So saith the Constitution.





Unless you can quote where the law of the land, the Constitution, states that the court must be obeyed.....


....get ready......




....I WIN AGAIN!!!!!

I'm guessing you can't find a piece where it specifies that Congress's laws must be obeyed, either. It's understood.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Anytime an OP needs to consistently resort to insulting responses and name calling a claim of winning is invalid and just silly.

Or, they could be mature, like me. lol

Why?

You don't like the custard pie I mashed in your ugly kisser???



In this forum, Law and Justice, I posted this....

1.The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.

So saith the Constitution.





Unless you can quote where the law of the land, the Constitution, states that the court must be obeyed.....


....get ready......




....I WIN AGAIN!!!!!

I'm guessing you can't find a piece where it specifies that Congress's laws must be obeyed, either. It's understood.

So you're admitting my assertion is correct?


Excellent.


Now....back under the rock.

 

[OldLady]

Anytime an OP needs to consistently resort to insulting responses and name calling a claim of winning is invalid and just silly.

Or, they could be mature, like me. lol

Why?

You don't like the custard pie I mashed in your ugly kisser???



In this forum, Law and Justice, I posted this....

1.The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.

So saith the Constitution.





Unless you can quote where the law of the land, the Constitution, states that the court must be obeyed.....


....get ready......




....I WIN AGAIN!!!!!

I'm guessing you can't find a piece where it specifies that Congress's laws must be obeyed, either. It's understood.

So you're admitting my assertion is correct?


Excellent.


Now....back under the rock.

You really oughta quit with this one. Your fella lost and your absolutely ridiculous justifications for his original stance is pathetic. Just admit it. It won't kill ya.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Anytime an OP needs to consistently resort to insulting responses and name calling a claim of winning is invalid and just silly.

Or, they could be mature, like me. lol

Why?

You don't like the custard pie I mashed in your ugly kisser???



In this forum, Law and Justice, I posted this....

1.The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.

So saith the Constitution.





Unless you can quote where the law of the land, the Constitution, states that the court must be obeyed.....


....get ready......




....I WIN AGAIN!!!!!

I'm guessing you can't find a piece where it specifies that Congress's laws must be obeyed, either. It's understood.

So you're admitting my assertion is correct?


Excellent.


Now....back under the rock.

You really oughta quit with this one. Your fella lost and your absolutely ridiculous justifications for his original stance is pathetic. Just admit it. It won't kill ya.

The point of the OP was this:

1.The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.

So saith the Constitution.



Clearly you cannot find any way to deny same, yet, like a Liberal, you continue your "is not, issssssss noootttttttt!!" posting.



Now.....you should keep looking for the part of the Constitution that demands judicial decrees be followed .

Keep looking.....or else I win.

 

[Camp]

Or, they could be mature, like me. lol

Why?

You don't like the custard pie I mashed in your ugly kisser???



In this forum, Law and Justice, I posted this....

1.The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.

So saith the Constitution.





Unless you can quote where the law of the land, the Constitution, states that the court must be obeyed.....


....get ready......




....I WIN AGAIN!!!!!

I'm guessing you can't find a piece where it specifies that Congress's laws must be obeyed, either. It's understood.

So you're admitting my assertion is correct?


Excellent.


Now....back under the rock.

You really oughta quit with this one. Your fella lost and your absolutely ridiculous justifications for his original stance is pathetic. Just admit it. It won't kill ya.

The point of the OP was this:

1.The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.

So saith the Constitution.



Clearly you cannot find any way to deny same, yet, like a Liberal, you continue your "is not, issssssss noootttttttt!!" posting.



Now.....you should keep looking for the part of the Constitution that demands judicial decrees be followed .

Keep looking.....or else I win.

Here is what happens when someone ignores a Supreme Court ruling. Lawsuits are filed against the smart ass who ignored the ruling. During the lawsuit, the smartass may face contempt of court charges, hence, jail time. Eventually, when the lawsuit is over, the smart ass who ignored the ruling is placed in economic ruin and faces a lifetime of paying off the lawsuit judgment.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why?

You don't like the custard pie I mashed in your ugly kisser???



In this forum, Law and Justice, I posted this....

1.The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.

So saith the Constitution.





Unless you can quote where the law of the land, the Constitution, states that the court must be obeyed.....


....get ready......




....I WIN AGAIN!!!!!

I'm guessing you can't find a piece where it specifies that Congress's laws must be obeyed, either. It's understood.

So you're admitting my assertion is correct?


Excellent.


Now....back under the rock.

You really oughta quit with this one. Your fella lost and your absolutely ridiculous justifications for his original stance is pathetic. Just admit it. It won't kill ya.

The point of the OP was this:

1.The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.

So saith the Constitution.



Clearly you cannot find any way to deny same, yet, like a Liberal, you continue your "is not, issssssss noootttttttt!!" posting.



Now.....you should keep looking for the part of the Constitution that demands judicial decrees be followed .

Keep looking.....or else I win.

Here is what happens when someone ignores a Supreme Court ruling. Lawsuits are filed against the smart ass who ignored the ruling. During the lawsuit, the smartass may face contempt of court charges, hence, jail time. Eventually, when the lawsuit is over, the smart ass who ignored the ruling is placed in economic ruin and faces a lifetime of paying off the lawsuit judgment.

Let's see it happen.

 

[longknife]

One has to remember that the drafters of the constitution all had legal backgrounds. They established checks and balances based upon their view at that time.

Judges of that time were often elder statemen. Men with decades of experience in a variety of fields. It should be noted that they did not even specify that judges needed to be lawyers. The idea was to select individuals "of good standing" to ensure that the basics of the constitution were followed by the Executive and Legislative branches. It should also be noted that, in many instances, SCOTUS simpy returns cases to the lower appelate courses to let them determine the constiutionality of the case.

Now, to the matter of who judges the judges.

Why lawyers, of course. They are everywhere and spend their time seeking ways to make money at their profession. Most lawyers engaging in civil suits "shop" judges to find those they feel will be favorable to their cases.

The biggest complaint "the Establishment" has against President Trump is that he is selecting and nominating individuals with viewpoints that judges are not activists who establish their own rules but must follow the original intent of the constitution.

We have the judges we hace because of the politicians/lawyers WE elect.

So, in the end, WE judge the judges.

 

[PoliticalChic]

For some of us, the 2016 vote was one in favor of the Constitution, vs. the corruption and illegality of the Democrats/Liberals/Progressives.

And, if Donald Trump was the instrument to do so....so be it.

We vote for policies, not persons.


Today's news:

"Liberal nightmare: Takeover of federal judiciary by “larval Scalias is devastatingly close to completion”
As pointed out here repeatedly since Trump’s inauguration, Democrats have been so focused on impeaching, attacking and maligning Trump, that they have not really appreciated what is happening:

Trump has the opportunity to reshape the federal judiciary at every level.

This is a theme I’ve writing about since before Trump was inaugurated, Dems’ Nuclear Option will allow Trump to fill over 100 court vacancies quickly (December 26, 2016), and Liberal nightmare: Trump could appoint half federal judiciary (January 18, 2017).

I’ve also focused on how the furious news cycles have distracted just about everyone from Trump’s judicial progress, While you were focused on COMEY, Trump nominated another group of CONSERVATIVE Judges and Republicans continue reshaping federal judiciary, though you probably are focused on Democrat anti-Semitism.

Do you know where things stand now? Of course not, you’ve been focused on Democrat histrionics about Mueller and Barr and just about everything else."

Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell’s long march towards remaking the federal judiciary is moving along.
Liberal nightmare: Takeover of federal judiciary by "larval Scalias is devastatingly close to completion"

 

[PoliticalChic]

""Liberal nightmare: Takeover of federal judiciary by “larval Scalias is devastatingly close to completion”

Just this week, the Third Circuit “flipped” to majority Republican-appointees, the Second Circuit is on the brink of flipping, and several other evenly split Circuits are likely to go Republican.


Ed Whelan summarizes:

As anticipated last fall when Judge Thomas Vanaskie announced his decision to take senior status, the Senate’s confirmation earlier this week of Peter Phipps to Vanaskie’s vacancy means that the Third Circuit will have a majority of its judges in active service—eight of fourteen—who were appointed by Republican presidents.

At the outset of the Trump administration, the Third Circuit had seven Democratic appointees, five Republican appointees, and two vacancies. Upon Phipps’s taking his seat, it will become the first federal court of appeals that President Trump will have flipped from a majority of Democratic appointees to a majority of Republican appointees.

The Second Circuit will flip to a majority of Republican appointees if and when the White House fills the two existing vacancies. The Eleventh Circuit has moved from a large Democratic-appointee majority (8-3, with one vacancy) to a 6-6 tie. (The Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits had majorities of Republican appointees at the outset of the Trump administration and have expanded the margins.)"
Liberal nightmare: Takeover of federal judiciary by "larval Scalias is devastatingly close to completion"

 

[PoliticalChic]

"By the numbers overall (including Phipps), Trump has nominated and had confirmed:

Supreme Court: 2

Courts of Appeals: 43

District/Specialty Courts: 85




Trump is running out of Court of Appeals vacancies to fill, in part a result of his focus on filling those critical slots:

Current and known future vacancies: 141

Courts of Appeals: 6

District/Specialty Courts*: 135

Pending nominees for current and known future vacancies: 58

Courts of Appeals: 2

District/Specialty Courts*: 56"
Liberal nightmare: Takeover of federal judiciary by "larval Scalias is devastatingly close to completion"

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Charles Pierce at Esquire understands what is happening, and he is fuming. Pierce writes about how The Conservative Effort to Salt the Judiciary With Larval Scalias Is Close to Complete:

While everyone was looking elsewhere, and wondering about their immigration status in the lands of their ancestors, the administration* and Mitch McConnell had their white-guys judicial assembly line humming….

The conservative effort to salt the federal judiciary with larval Scalias is devastatingly close to completion. Make no mistake, This would have happened if any of the Republican candidates had been elected in 2016. It may be the only thing keeping a lot of Republicans on the Trump Train. You are going to be hearing from both these guys long after the president* is spinning on a spit in hell. Depend on that.

“Larval Scalias”? Let’s hope so, but as we’ve seen so many times, Republican-appointee does not equal conservative, and conservative at the start does not mean conservative forever.

But you’ve got to start somewhere, and “larval Scalias” is not a bad place to start."
Liberal nightmare: Takeover of federal judiciary by "larval Scalias is devastatingly close to completion"