A Course Change Is Unlikely

[Flanders]

I do not get this headline:

End of conservative Supreme Court: Clarence Thomas may be next to leave​

How in hell can the Supreme Court be called conservative? With four activist liberals surgically attached to their seats, and the media myth of a swing vote, nothing will change if strict constitutionalists do replace Scalia and Thomas. The High Court will still lean to port.

Should Thomas leave, that slight majority would continue if Donald Trump becomes president.​

Of course, Clinton will make a hard left if she gets to replace Scalia and Thomas from her jail cell:

If it's Hillary Clinton, then she would get the chance to flip two Republican seats, giving the liberals a 6-3 majority.

By Paul Bedard
6/19/16 11:40 AM

End of conservative Supreme Court: Clarence Thomas may be next to leave​

She could make it 7-2 whenever the so-called “swing vote” goes with the liberals in important cases as it often does.

A true conservative has to become president combined with a Republican Senate —— in addition to one of the Frightening Four retiring before 2020, in order to make a serious course change in the High Court.

Finally, counting chickens before they hatch never works out for conservative Americans. John Roberts gave us the ACA. Remember how David Souter turned out. He was supposed to be a conservative Republican if not a strict constitutionalist. He was neither. And will Americans ever forget Earl Warren and William Brennan?

p.s. I am still waiting for a liberal appointee to bite the hand that feeds it.

 

[emilynghiem]

I do not get this headline:

End of conservative Supreme Court: Clarence Thomas may be next to leave​

How in hell can the Supreme Court be called conservative? With four activist liberals surgically attached to their seats, and the media myth of a swing vote, nothing will change if strict constitutionalists do replace Scalia and Thomas. The High Court will still lean to port.

Should Thomas leave, that slight majority would continue if Donald Trump becomes president.​

Of course, Clinton will make a hard left if she gets to replace Scalia and Thomas from her jail cell:

If it's Hillary Clinton, then she would get the chance to flip two Republican seats, giving the liberals a 6-3 majority.

By Paul Bedard
6/19/16 11:40 AM

End of conservative Supreme Court: Clarence Thomas may be next to leave​

She could make it 7-2 whenever the so-called “swing vote” goes with the liberals in important cases as it often does.

A true conservative has to become president combined with a Republican Senate —— in addition to one of the Frightening Four retiring before 2020, in order to make a serious course change in the High Court.

Finally, counting chickens before they hatch never works out for conservative Americans. John Roberts gave us the ACA. Remember how David Souter turned out. He was supposed to be a conservative Republican if not a strict constitutionalist. He was neither. And will Americans ever forget Earl Warren and William Brennan?

p.s. I am still waiting for a liberal appointee to bite the hand that feeds it.

Why don't we push for a Constitutional amendment specifically on Political Beliefs?
And clarify this IN WRITING for liberals who don't already get it under Religious Freedom or no discrimination by creed,
that bars Courts and govt from making decisions on laws biased toward one political belief and penalizing another,
but would require officials to reject such biased laws and send them into mediation to resolve issues of conflicting beliefs.
Then set up a process for COMPLAINING of biased laws through the Senate Judiciary Committee for review of "political conflicts of interest".

This can be added to either the First or Fourteenth Amendment,
or expand the Second Amendment to include the equal right to LEGAL defense,
mediation and consensus to protect the rights beliefs and interests of citizens from legal, govt or corporate abuse.

 

[Flanders]

Why don't we push for a Constitutional amendment specifically on Political Beliefs?

To emilynghiem: I know you read this:

Islam should be legally defined as a political movement which it is, while Socialism/Communism should be defined as a religion which it is. In that way both are denied First Amendment protection. In short: Socialism violates the First Amendment because it is a religion implementing the tax collector’s morality, while Islam is NOT entitled to First Amendment protection because it is a political movement.

Where Is Trump On The Constitution?​

Violating the 1st Amendment by forcing every American to support the Socialist religion with tax dollars was bad enough, but allowing Muslims to kill Americans in order to advance their political movement disguised as a religion is high treason. Both Congress and the SCOTUS have stood by for decades well-knowing what is happening. So it is highly unlikely the SCOTUS and/or Congress will do anything about it now.

Incidentally, imagine the economic chaos should every Socialist parasite be driven away from the public trough. Heaven forbid that charity hustling parasites be denied tax dollars. Democrats and media play on the fear of HIGHER UNEMPLOYMENT; so they continually demand more.

This thread touches on the ACA and education industry parasites. They are the tip of a huge iceberg that will sink this country:

Who Will Do The Firing?

NOTE: Should the ACA be repealed, the parasites in the environmental movement will move up to number two in the parasite hierarchy. Also note that tax deductible advertising dollars places media parasites near the top of the parasite pyramid.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How in hell can the Supreme Court be called conservative?

Because the majority of the justices are conservative, as are their rulings.

 

[Flanders]

If anything, United Nations refugees contributes to a Brexit victory. On the plus side a total collapse of the EU should stop a mass migration of Muslims into Europe.​

On the negative side the Chicago sewer rat will increase the number of refugees the United Nations has in the pipeline.​

Whatever the result of the UK vote this week two dams are breaking: The EU and the UN.

The Chicago sewer rat is sticking his nose in Brexit because it gives the British people the authority to decide the matter of sovereignty. It is the vote itself, not the outcome, that he fears the most. Even if the Brits vote for the EU the American people might start demanding a referendum on getting out of the United Nations. That is one vote American traitors do not want to see.

The Best Elizabeth​

The first dam is already cracked beyond repair:

SPECIAL REPORT: COMPLACENT politicians in Brussels once scoffed at the idea of Britain turning its back on the EU because they did not believe it would ever happen.

But as one put it last night: “They’ve stopped laughing now.”

XXXXX​

Swedish MEP Peter Lundgren said Denmark and Sweden were already “on the brink” of quitting, suggesting that should the UK leave, a “Nordic trading bloc” led by Britain could be born. Sweden has been sticking by its EU commitments, but barely. It’s little wonder. Sweden now has the highest level of non-EU immigration per capita.​

'Brexit EARTHQUAKE': EU fatcats' fears as Swedish MEP suggests 'UK-Nordic trading bloc'

By Marco Giannangeli
06:01, Mon, Jun 20, 2016 | UPDATED: 09:44, Mon, Jun 20, 2016

'Brexit EARTHQUAKE': EU fatcats' fears as Swedish MEP suggests 'UK-Nordic trading bloc'​

Democrats controlling the High Court in the years ahead makes immigration the most dangerous issue in our history. For the first time Socialists are on the verge of abolishing America’s borders forever. Hillary Clinton, or any Democrat, will pull out all stops to keep those borders open. Taking in millions of United Nations refugees being denied in Europe makes the Supreme Court, and control of the US Senate, critical. Democrats in control will have an easy time of it, while conservative Republicans will have a tough road ahead even if they win everything.

Basically, Americans simply cannot trust the Congress, or the High Court, to come down on the side of America in a no-holds-barred fight against the United Nations. It will all come down to rejecting the Geneva Conventions when Congress, the High Court, and the media wrap United Nations refugees in the Geneva Conventions.

See this thread for a detailed analysis of the Gen. Cons.

There is no evidence to support the claim that says the Geneva Conventions made the world a better place. There is much evidence to support the opposite view. TOTALITARIAN GOVERNMENTS have become increasingly barbaric from the outset of the Geneva Conventions in 1864.

XXXXX​

So long as the Geneva Conventions remain a political force nothing else will be tried. Scrap the Geneva Conventions and see what develops. Renouncing the Geneva Conventions is the only logical course for America if for no other reason than to strike a crippling blow at Socialists and Socialism. Bring back the Geneva Conventions if things are worse at the end of this century.

International law is UN law is Socialist law​

 

[Flanders]

Here is good news:

June 20, 2016
Justice Thomas's wife scotches rumors of her husband's retirement
By Rick Moran

Blog: Justice Thomas's wife scotches rumors of her husband's retirement​

http://www.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2016-06/196731_5_.jpg

In any event do you want Democrats dealing with a United Nations manufactured crisis coming to our towns and cities in the millions?

The number of refugees and others fleeing their homes worldwide has hit a new record, spiking to 65.3 million people by the end of 2015, the United Nations said Monday.​

Global Migrant Tide Swells to Record 65 Million
by Breitbart London
20 Jun 2016

Global Migrant Tide Swells to Record 65 Million​

 

[Flanders]

How in hell can the Supreme Court be called conservative?

Daniel Horowitz answered my question:

Daniel Horowitz, a senior editor at Conservative Review and policy analyst specializing in immigration, blasted conservative triumphalism after the Supreme Court refused to rescue President Barack Obama’s unilateral mass amnesty program. Indeed, Horowitz warned conservatives not to underestimate how closely they came to absolute disaster.

“We are facing a ‘blue firewall’ of four post-Constitution judges on the Supreme Court,” Horowitz told WND. “And some of the others aren’t much better. Justice Anthony Kennedy is unreliable. Chief Justice Roberts is unreliable. And the lower circuit courts are mostly worse than the Supreme Court.”

XXXXX​

“We are now in a scenario where our country is controlled by one person, and that’s not Barack Obama, it’s Justice Anthony Kennedy,” Horowitz said.​

Conservatives face liberal 'firewall' on Supreme Court
Posted By -NO AUTHOR- On 06/25/2016 @ 5:59 pm

Conservatives face liberal ‘firewall’ on Supreme Court​

 

[Flanders]

How in hell can the Supreme Court be called conservative?

“We are now in a scenario where our country is controlled by one person, and that’s not Barack Obama, it’s Justice Anthony Kennedy,” Horowitz said.

Put this one in the NO SHIT file:

Justice Kennedy again steps to the left
By Sarah Ferris - 06/27/16 12:14 PM EDT

Justice Kennedy again steps to the left
​