Elena Kagan’s dissent trashes Supreme Court as “black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices”
I am not sure I can ever understand a Liberal mini mind, she wants to make people pay for something they don't want or need or disagree with (yea, I know, it is the normal Liberal method) and she defends it as a 1st Amendment issue? I can't see that at all, freedom of speech would seem to include the ability to NOT pay for something you don't want, especially when it is a power hungry union who will take your money and give it to the very people they don't want to give it to. Now, banning all political contributions from ALL unions, might make this workable, but her premise is so far out there, it illustrates why you cannot have these people on SCOTUS, as they just rubber stamp any Liberal policy as good, and any restriction on government as bad. Good grief...
She is also incompetent for not understanding that the case turns on the First Amendment because the choice to donate, or not donate, to political campaigns is an INDIVIDUAL right. The Court was wrong to make it a group right in 1934 (even under FDR's threat to pack the Court), and I'm very glad to have lived to see it corrected.
Now we need a constitutional amendment setting a fixed number of seats on the Court, so no president can ever threaten to pack it again.
Though Roosevelt threatened to increase the number to get what he wanted through, by altering the law, and since he had huge leverage in numbers, he could have and then "packed the court". Whether that was a bluff or not, it worked. The real problem is they need something like an oath of celibacy when they are appointed "to execute the law as related to the Constitution with no regards to politics" or some such. Then they can be removed if they violate it such as this bag of guts.
A little extreme, wouldn't you say upon further consideration.The problem is that whoever is chosen will pass any test. They are knowledgeable,and smart. Plus there's no telling what they'll do once they get in. Kennedy is a perfect example. Just gotta hope they are Constitutionalists.
I have bad news for Kagan and the others: by the resigning of Kennedy, there will be one more conservative voice on the Court. Then these four can continue stewing in the mud of their liberal beliefs. They will be irrelevant.
I only hope that Ginsberg and Breyer are retired before that happens and during the term of a pro-constitution president (if there is such a thing.)
More importantly I hope that a brave state legislature challenges and defeats the prevailing opinion that the supremes have the power to overrule state laws. I'd love to see CA do so and unleash the pro-constitutional wrath of all those who have tolerated federal overreach for the past 100 years. States rights is 150 years overdue for a rebirth. Regaining the powers guaranteed by the 9th and 10th amendments is paramount to individual liberty.
When we look at it from a distance, it is none of our business. I don't care if they destroy themselves. But in the process many others perish who disagree with this hell-bent destruction. Not everyone can pack up and leave, there is a downside to that as well.
Merely pointing out that the issue is controversial.
Let NY, CT, MA, MD, CA, WA, and OR bankrupt themselves. Without financial support from the corrupt feds and corporate looters that will happen in less than a decade. Those who dislike socialism and do not live by looting will leave those socialist states as Galt and the Gulchers did. Let the rest drown in the excrement that gets deeper each time they speak their evil statist propaganda.
So in the long range it is evening out to the benefit of the left, unless a solid core of conservatism can me saved.
I agree, it will take a lot of work to restore the sanity of the American electorate after 50 years of teachers who have lied and been propaganda mouthpieces for socialism.
https://www.gardeningknowhow.com/comp...