Supreme Court Is One Justice Away From A Runaway Liberal Court Which Will Overturn Every Amendment, Conservative Theory That Exist Today

CONSERVATIVES FACE LIBERAL 'FIREWALL' ON SUPREME COURT

Daniel Horowitz urges Congress to strip courts of jurisdiction

Published: 1 day ago

692

Share on Facebook

 

Share on Twitter

 

Email

 692

image: http://www.wnd.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-print/images/printer_famfamfam.gif

 Print

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2016/02/supreme-court-600-tw.jpg

The U.S. Supreme Court

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.”

Horowitz, author of the upcoming book “Stolen Sovereignty: How to Stop Unelected Judges from Transforming America,” said America’s form of government is endangered by the constant reliance on unelected judges to settle the most pressing questions.

“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. “In general, we are always on the losing side of judicial supremacy. And this is the thesis of my book, the Supreme Court was never supposed to be the final arbiter. Our Founders never would have envisioned our president doing something that not even King George III couldn’t do.

“Congress somehow lacked the ability or desire to stop Obama from unilaterally abolishing immigration law. But the judiciary being designated the one to put the brakes on him – that is just backwards. It is also very disconcerting for conservatives and people who support the rule of law.”

Horowitz argued the conservative victory in this particular immigration case is an exception. If anything, he cautioned, conservatives should be terrified at how close they came to defeat.

“It was good news but had Kennedy woken up on the other side of the bed, then we would be in big trouble with this,” Horowitz said of the decision. “This specific issue was something so manifestly unconstitutional. It pertained to overturning immigration laws governing the most foundational laws of sovereignty placed in the hands of Congress. The notion that four justices still found that to be constitutional is very scary. That demonstrates that every Democratic judicial nominee is wedded to outcome based jurisprudence. That is, because they support more immigration, they support the legality of the president unilaterally repealing laws passed by Congress. That should really scare conservatives.”

Who REALLY rules America? Stand up against the unelected tyrants in black. Find out how in “Stolen Sovereignty: How to Stop Unelected Judges From Transforming America.” Available now at the WND Superstore.

Horowitz pointed out the initial decision of the 5th Circuit Court to halt President Obama’s amnesty would have been unlikely in other areas of the country.

“Conservatives only won by the skin of their teeth here,” Horowitz said. “Because this law had national ramifications, [Texas Attorney General] Ken Paxton made sure to go to the best judge and they went to the most originalist circuit left, the Fifth Circuit, and even there the Democratic appointee ruled against it. That is the only way this survived. Every other circuit probably would have ruled with the four liberal Supreme Court justices and we would be in the opposite position right now.”

Even if Donald Trump is able to defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election, Horowitz believes the battle to actually enforce immigration law will have only begun.

“Assume Trump wins and manages to replace the late Antonin Scalia with an originalist justice – we’ll just be back to where we were when Scalia was on the court,” said Horowitz. “And Scalia himself said the court was more leftist than it ever was. The lower courts are horrible on this issue. They are increasingly granting illegals more and more rights through the 14th Amendment. And oftentimes the Supreme Court won’t even take up those cases so the lower court decisions stand.

“If a President Trump tried to implement all these enforcement actions, you would end up with a plethora of lawsuits. The other side gets a lot more at bats than our side does in the judiciary game. And it will be them challenging all of our laws and actions, saying they are discriminatory or against human rights. They would even turn to international law. And that’s the process I warn about in ‘Stolen Sovereignty.'”

Horowitz suggests the only way Americans can ensure immigration laws will be enforced is if Congress accepts its responsibility to make the law and strips the courts of jurisdiction over immigration issues.

“The situation we have now designates the courts as the final arbiter in the issue of sovereignty, the one issue they should never have any input in,” Horowitz charged. “And while it swung in our favor in this one instance because it was so anomalous, because it was so patently unconstitutional, even if we get a Republican president, we’re going to be playing defense. Because we’re going to want to enforce laws, pass better laws, cut off benefits, enforce deportation. But every single enforcement action is going to be encumbered in court. It’s already taking place in lower courts and just about very circuit court is siding with illegals. Now we see four justices on the Supreme Court are siding with illegals. And Kennedy and Roberts as well sometimes.

“Congress needs to strip the courts of power to strike down immigration laws. What I don’t want is people to take this victory and say we should have the courts deciding immigration because it worked in our favor here. The political ramifications here are very narrow. It doesn’t force Obama to start deportations and it doesn’t strip affirmative benefits from others who have received amnesty.”

Ultimately, argues Horowitz, what is needed is political courage on the part of the Republican Congress. And he urges Americans to pressure their elected representatives to fulfill their responsibilities when it comes to defending the Constitution and the rule of law.

“Just this week, there are lots of stories about criminal illegal aliens released into our population committing crimes and they are undetected because the courts are mandating the release of criminal aliens and granting benefits like driver’s licenses,” Horowitz said. “The Supreme Court hasn’t overturned any of the lower courts’ decisions on other very consequential immigration issues. Generally, the courts are a major liability for conservatives. And one day, they will implement a juridical amnesty. Even in this case, we see every single Democratic appointee willing to put their universal values over our Constitution. And the courts are going to continue striking down state and federal immigration laws and enforcement mechanisms that are benefit.

“The lesson to learn here is that Congress needs to be the final arbiter on issues of sovereignty and immigration. Until then, we will always be on defense.”

Who REALLY rules America? Stand up against the unelected tyrants in black. Find out how in “Stolen Sovereignty: How to Stop Unelected Judges From Transforming America.” Available now at the WND Superstore.

Conservative Review editor Daniel Horowitz introduces new book 'Stolen Sovereignty: How to Stop Unelected Judges from Transforming America'

Click here for reuse options!

Copyright 2016 WND

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/conservatives-face-liberal-firewall-on-supreme-court/#qk0wziKBV1lMWikE.99

Obama Part Three?

Most of you who read this blog know that we believe that Obama will be running for at least one more term as President. He has two "placeholders" who have been very successful keeping other Democrats from coming into the fray, those being Hillary Clinton and potentially Joe Biden, his vice president.(The Democrats will never select a Socialist.)

How could he do it?  We have talked about the lack of "standing" that all of us have when it comes to the Courts and it being the procedure used by Obama's lawyers to defeat all cases brought against the President when he was asked to prove that he was a "natural born citizen" which is one of the requirements of the Constitution.

We also believe that he might institute martial law in an effort to prevent elections from occurring.  The "Black Lives Matter" movement and his responses to Baltimore and Ferguson are examples of his attempt to ratchet up racial tensions in this country. Could he be planning race riots in the fall of 2016?  One can only guess.

What about  the importing of Syrian and other middle east Muslims? Why are they all being resettled in Red States?  Is this an effort to water down these  Republican strongholds?  Or could Obama be planning to use these individuals as "poll watchers" who would intimidate Americans from voting against him?  What would the poll workers do if a number of these foreign immigrants started to question voters about their vote and suggest that they vote for The President? Could that throw the entire election out if it went against him?  Is that the plan?

Does he care if 70% of the population would be against him running for a third term?  It did not bother him  that that was the way we felt about ObamaCrapCare or the Dream Act.  So why should he care about this. The answer is he won't!

We believe that Obama has a plan and what it  will be revealed just before the Democratic Convention where in a repeat of history, the donkeys will have no candidate and will turn to Obama as they did to FDR in 1940.  He will hesitate at first, as he did with the Dream Act, but then will be "persuaded" to do what is in the "best interests of the country" to run for a third term. The news media will celebrate it as a great victory for common sense. After all he is one of the youngest men ever to  be President!

The weak willed, spineless Republicans will jump on television and radio, complain loudly, demand that he not run but in the end will do NOTHING. Citizen patriots will file suit but will be turned down as they have no "standing" to  bring the action. Should the case reach the Supreme Court the four liberal "dwarfs" will be joined by Chief Justice Roberts to defeat any case.

And folks, OBAMA WILL WIN.  Whether it is through voter intimidation, voter fraud, outright lies or some legal maneuver, he will  be the second President to serve a third term. He and Michelle will be around for a long time.

However, the worst thing for all of us is what will happen when he is inaugurated. He will explain exactly what he meant by "fundamentally change America."  If you thought that all of his actions and missteps were part of what he meant. You would be wrong.

Early on in his first term, he told us and the world that America was a Muslim country.  Most of us scratched our head, searched our brains and could not come up with what he really meant. It made NO sense to us.  He was telegraphing his goal. America would become Muslim.

We will find out what he meant either in the first couple weeks of his Administration or at his inauguration.  It is our belief that at this point, he will take his Presidential directives to a new low point. He will declare America to be Muslim. Among other things, he will direct all non-Muslims to pay tributes to the local mosque or go to jail.  He will use the IRS to enforce the rules.

He would eliminate the tax free status of churches, temples and synagogues.  However, mosques would retain their tax benefits. Legal holidays such as Christmas will be eliminated and only Muslim holidays will be allowed. Shariah law would be instituted and the current court system would be phased out over a period of years. The Constitution would be kept but interpreted by Islamic jurists.

America will have been "fundamentally changed."

This has to be his goal otherwise his abuse of Israel and his favoring of radical Islamic threats (i.e. ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood) make no sense. His and Kerry's weak approach to Iran in the nuclear discussions can only have one rational reason? It was not to curry favor with those in the Islamic world.  He wants the US to be part of that world.

Of course, we could be completely wrong. That Obama won't run for a third term and that he will not further "fundamentally change America."  We hope that we are just one turn away from the loony bin, however, his entire Administration has focused on bringing the US to a point where this all makes sense.

So, please tell us.  Is this the end of the US as we know it or.....

Conservative Tom

With This Type Of Thinking, How Long Will It Be Before The US Is Like Greece?

The following article is a great example of what is wrong with America today. It has become the land of the "giveaway."  It is the land where illegal immigrants come here to improve their lives by getting on the government dole instead of working and striving. It is the land where LEGAL immigrants wait years for admittance because they might improve the country. It the the land where nearly half of the population receives something from the government (and we are not talking Social Security to which we have contributed).  It the land where in the past 7 years our national debt has doubled to  18 trillion dollars which is the same as our national GDP.  

The author says that "Jim" earns a good salary, then why did he not have insurance? Not my problem to solve his issues. He is an adult, be responsible. It is not my duty to protect him from anything that might hurt him. But I will bet that he has the newest cell phone (mine is from 2006), goes on fancy vacations, has the largest tv made, has a cable bill of over $200 per month, and has a fancy imported leased car.  Why did he not cut back on the "basics" and provide himself with insurance. We would also believe that he has not done a will or a trust, does not have life insurance and only has car insurance because the state (and his leasing company) makes him pay for that and even then he has only the minimum required coverage. 

Jim is an example of the "live for today" mantra of many in the US. Worrying about tomorrow is for chumps. He then expects all of us to pay for his illnesses when he gets sick or to provide him with the insurance he did not get in the first place.

Jim is a loser but unfortunately for those of us who do plan for the future, he is in the majority.  And the Democrats will always pander to those who want something for nothing. It guarantees them a vote. It is not what is best for the country, it is what is best for their re-election.

Can we change this trend. Unfortunately, probably not. There are just too many who get money, food, housing from the government who will riot if those benefits are taken away. Just look at Greece, they are in a mess, yet they would not reform their ways. We are the same just a few years behind.

Prepare your children and grandchildren for a third world country and not the great one that we grew up in.

Conservative Tom

Continued attacks on ObamaCare are wasteful and unethical

By David S. Seres, contributor

1330

 33

Getty Images

This past month was eventful for our dear friend Jim. He was beyond relieved to learn from a biopsy that he did not have prostate cancer. He had also just spent five days in the hospital due to an adverse reaction to the extraordinarily expensive medication that keeps his Crohn's disease in check. But more than the relief of a return to health was the Supreme Court verdict in King v. Burwell that allowed him to keep his health insurance. According to Jim, who has a good salary, either the medication, which allows him to have a productive career and a happy home life; the hospitalization; or the biopsy, with its attendant facility and anesthesia fees, could have put him into debt for life. And there was no way he would have even thought to have the check-up that led to the biopsy without insurance.

But despite his short-term relief, Jim remains worried because the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is still under constant challenge. Every member of the GOP 2016 presidential field has said he or she will make it a priority to repeal it. Even thoughKing v. Burwell — the suit over federal subsidies that threatened to severely cripple the ACA — has been decided in favor of the status quo, the millions of people like Jim dependent on the ACA for their healthcare, not just their health insurance, can only breathe a momentary a sigh of relief.

The ACA is the single most important social program in decades. But it is still under fire from ideologues, intent on destroying it solely on principle. There are pending lawsuits, costing taxpayers millions, issued by the very people who should be finding ways to resolve the technical flaws still present in the ACA with legislation rather than wasteful litigation. Mind you, the ACA is made up of 906 pages of the law and thousands ofpages of regulations. It takes little imagination to predict, in a body of work so complex, that flaws, and therefore excuses for grandstanding through legal action, will be found for generations to come. But like Medicare and Social Security, ACA seems to be here to stay.

Even a non-economist such as I can understand the societal impact that destroying this law will have, even while its opponents are ignoring the catastrophic results that would ensue. The independent and nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that 20 million people would lose health insurance by 2016. That's more than 6 percent of the population, or one in 16 people. Not only that, it would add hundreds of billions of dollars to the national debt, mostly by increasing the cost of covering the uninsured and a loss of control on reimbursement rates. In fairness, it also predicts a scant increase in productivity of 0.7 percent as workers would have to take on additional jobs to pay for insurance. While our unemployment rate is indeed dropping, one has to wonder where these jobs are going to come from. There is no news about millions of jobs left unfilled, particularly well-paying jobs. And anyone who has had to work more than one job simultaneously will attest to the detriment to family life, marriage stability, productivity, the quality of diet and not surprisingly, health. These effects are not considered in the report. Nor are they considered by those who seek to quash the law on the one hand and claim to support family values on the other.

The ACA is not the government simply throwing money at the problem. As suggested by the CBO report, this is the wise expenditure of money that has a return on investment, not a bridge to nowhere. ACA also requires that doctors be paid based on outcomes. We doctors have had, up to now, few incentives to focus us on how we utilize our technology, other than how much money we could make.

The other effect not considered by the report is the devastation healthcare costs are having on American families. Not only would Jim have to pay for health insurance, which he would not be able to afford in the first place, but the insurance would not have covered any of his preexisting conditions without the ACA. Prior to the ACA, one in five Americans had trouble paying their medical bills, and healthcare-related expenses were the single most common cause of bankruptcyin this country. The downstream negative economic effects of a loss of credit are immeasurable and long-lasting.

But health insurance is a matter of moral imperative, not just a matter of the economics that the opponents of the ACA seem to continue to ignore despite plentiful objective evidence. Politics aside, we as a society have determined that healthcare is a right. For better or worse, government is the only currently viable mechanism for guaranteeing rights in our American society. Civil rights do not result from free-market pressures.

Opponents to the ACA would counter that healthcare and health insurance are part of the economy and should be left to the free market to provide. Moreover, look at the long histories of systemic problems with management and financial viability in other systems that are dependent on the government, such as Medicare and Social Security.

But the free market has nearly destroyed healthcare in the U.S., making our system one of themost expensive, with some of the worst outcomes, in the world. The free market has failed miserably at guaranteeing that good healthcare is available to all. Moreover, the government is left paying the costs of emergency care, which are far higher than proactive care. The devastation to individuals and families, the drain on our economy, and the poor results even for those able to enter into the medical system, all mandate a societal and governmental approach.

Legislators should show true leadership by rallying congress and swaying public opinion to help save American lives and money by creating legislative fixes to relieve any remaining concerns about ACA. Instead, they are wasting taxpayer money with endless and irresponsible lawsuits. These serve only to throw people like Jim into healthcare limbo, while placating the political base and playing political ping-pong with Americans' health and lives.

Seres is an associate professor of medicine and clinical ethicist at Columbia University Medical Center. He is a fellow of Columbia's OpEd Project and a member of the medical advisory board forConsumer Reports.

Breaking News: ObamaCrapCare Challenge Is Knocked Down.

For the second time, Obamacrapcare has been deemed to be the law of the land.  In a 6-3 vote, the challenge to the worst legislation ever passed by Congress is turned aside. Justices Kennedy and Roberts voted with the majority.


This is a terrible decision as was the first one. No American should be required to purchase any product, regardless of the benefit to society.  However, it will open the door requiring us to purchase other things that the government believes is in our best interests.  So much for freedom of choice.

 A decline of a country happens many ways.  Some are ethics, culture,  lack of  uniting elements and government direction.  This country is experiencing all of them and the ObamaCrapCare is an example of bad government policy.

We are not surprised by the decision, we predicted it.  It only makes us more confident in our predictions that this country will descend into the tarpit of history in the not so distant future,  We hate being right but when see bad decisions coming from the highest court in the country, it makes the descent faster and less irrevocable.

Conservative Tom

P.S. You can expect that the Supreme Court decision on same sex marriage to be approved. What will be next?  Let us know what the US will look like in ten years.

ObamaCrapCare Approved After NSA/CIA/White House Blackmailed Roberts? We Think So!

DID NSA BLACKMAIL ROBERTS TO OK OBAMACARE?

Klayman: 'Tyranny is greater today than in 1776'

Published: 17 hours ago

• 
• Text smaller
• Text bigger

     3.9K

U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts may have been blackmailed to approve Obamacare after being spied on by the NSA and CIA, says Larry Klayman, the attorney who has come to be known as “the NSA slayer” for his successful legal battles against the National Security Agency.

During an appearance Sunday night on Aaron Klein’s New York City radio show on 970 The Answer, Klayman suggested the blackmail possibility when asked by a caller if the Supreme Court could be sued for its approval of the Affordable Care Act.

“Unfortunately, there’s no way to sue the Supreme Court for decisions that it makes. There should be, and there should be a way to remove these justices for making decisions like that,” explained Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch who now heads Freedom Watch.

Chief Justice John Roberts

“But let’s take this possibility: Why did Chief Justice Roberts at the eleventh hour change his decision? He was going to side with the other justices and find that Obamacare was unconstitutional. Is it something that was dug up on him by the NSA or the CIA? Was that used against him to blackmail him?

“These are the kinds of things [the government is doing], and that’s why it’s so scary what’s going on with the NSA and the CIA. It can happen in a democracy. So that may help explain it, and perhaps we can reach these issues through the NSA cases that we brought, the NSA/CIA cases. I intend to get the truth on this.”

Klein himself sounded taken aback by Klayman’s suggestion.

“This is actually a staggering response to believe the government could have spied on a Supreme Court justice … and that information is somehow utilized … against him to pass Obamacare,” Klein said. “This is huge.”

Klayman warned that “every aspect of Americans’ lives is being accessed and monitored by the government.”

“It’s not just telephone metadata that’s being monitored,” he alleged. “They’re also listening to the content, that’s coming out in recent weeks.

“I’m a lawyer. I have an attorney-client privilege, and I can no longer talk to my clients on the telephone and expect that there’s any confidentiality. It changes the whole nature of how you operate.

“We also know that the NSA and CIA – as Communist China, as Russia can do, as any sophisticated country – they can turn your cell phone on anytime and listen to you. And they do.”

Listen to Part 1 of Larry Klayman’s appearance with Aaron Klein:

Klayman said such activity is “simply not acceptable in a democracy.”

“And even if they are not accessing our records directly, the fact that the American people know about it, and it’s been documented what’s been going on, it has a chilling effect on our ability to communicate and our ability to criticize the government or take strong action against the government.

“If the government wants to destroy you, it has to access the information that it can use to do it, and that’s why this is so frightening. [It has] a greater capability than King George III had in 1776. The tyranny is greater today than it was at the time of the American Revolution.”

Regarding the status of the legal cases against government spying, Klayman said, “The bottom line is this: Our so-called government is trying to delay final adjudication of the constitutionality of the CIA and NSA’s programs, and as a ruse, President Obama is claiming he wants to make modifications to those programs. They’re not modifications at all.”

Klayman also said it’s not just the Obama administration citizens should be concerned about.

“Can you imagine Hillary Clinton having the power to use this?” he asked.

Listen to Part 2 of Larry Klayman’s appearance with Aaron Klein:

• 
• Text smaller
• Text bigger

     3.9K

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/did-nsa-blackmail-roberts-to-ok-obamacare/#03RekfaC47Mz1IWR.99