By - June 29, 2012

UPDATE: Is This A Radical Supreme Court?

SCOTUS is due to issue a ruling on Obamacare any day now.  With looming rulings, the liberals aren’t content to sit a wait for a Constitutional ruling.  The left is trying everything from intimidation, which Obama is an expert, to currying favor with the swing vote-Kennedy.

Intimidation is the preferred method and Michael Tomasky of The Daily Beast and Newsweek tries to squeeze SCOTUS a little more.  Tomasky’s article “Robed Radicals on the Supreme Court” is a clear shot across the bow of SCOTUS.  Either you decide in the manner Tomasky thinks is right or you are the most radical Supreme Court…Ever!

By what proof does Mr. Tomasky make this claim?  He will use the same argument all liberals will use…There have been more 5-4 decisions on this court than any other in history.  Just assume this is true, let’s look at Tomasky’s article.

Here are a few of the issues Tomasky uses to prove this Robert’s Court is RADICAL!

Race: Parents v. Seattle & Meredith v. Jefferson, which began as two cases and were eventually combined into one, also known as the Seattle/Louisville desegregation case. The Court ruled that local school districts basically couldn’t do anything to ensure racial diversity in their schools.

How many years did the school systems try to get rid of segregation?  Now the left cries when diversity (segregation) isn’t supported!  Do the schools allow religious diversity?  No, anything Christian is punished, but Islam is fine.

Abortion: Gonzales v. Carhart upholding the federal partial-birth abortion ban.

How radical! The SCOTUS rules (5-4) against partially birthing a baby then sticking a pair of scissors in their cranium as they exit the birth canal, and the Robert’s Court is radical?

Campaign finance: Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission, which prohibited restrictions on many independent expenditures; also McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life, which weakened key provisions of the McCain-Feingold law.

This has been argued  over and over.  Corporations are people, just as George Soros is with all his 527’s.

Equal Rights: Ledbetter v. Goodyear, which made it harder for (female) employees to sue employers on equal-pay grounds.

Many studies have been done with show the pay difference is primarily due to maternity leave and women taking leave of absence secondary to the birth of a child.  Overall, women are paid equally unless you are a women working for a democrat.  Pelosi and Obama pay their female employees less then male employees.

Punitive Damages: Philip Morris v. Williams overturning an Oregon court’s smoking-based award to one ex-smoker.

I am one of many who believe smokers know from the very beginning what they are getting into when they suck on one of those cancer sticks.  Take responsibility for your actions.

The basis for declaring the Robert’s Court as extremist is the number of 5-4 rulings in his court.  When you look at these cases, I find it hard to believe there are as many 5-4 decisions as well, but I think the 4 members voting in opposition are crazy!  The problem isn’t the 5 justices who vote in the majority, but the radical justices who have been in the minority.  Justices Stevens, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Kagan are socialist liberal justices, just look at their own words.  Ginsburg has stated the US Constitution should not be used as the basis for other countries constitutions, ours is too out-of-date.  Stevens has said he believes in using foreign law in decisions within the Supreme Court and Sotomayor has stated…I like doughnuts (OK, she’s not the sharpest tool in the shed).

If this Court is extremist, it’s because of the leftest justices not the originalist.  My view will never be used in the main stream press.

UPDATE:  Is Michael Tomasky going to jump on the Obamacare decision.  It was a 5-4 decision!  On this basis Michael Tomasky should be railing against this decision as an example of a radical court.  It is radical, but not because of the 5-4 decision.  It is well known now that Chief Justice Roberts had to use an unconstitutional move, to declare a unconstitutional law-constitutional.  Judicial activism is radical, but when a Supreme Court Justice creates a tax (a power only given to the Congress under the Constitution) then that Court and Chief Justice are beyond radical, it more likely lawless.

Funny how the socialist elite media go crazy in love with a justice who is willing to rule on a lawless basis.

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook


  1. gaiss says:


    WONDERFUL Post.thanks for share..more wait .. ?…

Leave a Reply