On all the great social issues of our time, "The Left" has already won.

[txradioguy]

Hard to say, actually.  I suppose it depends on who's controlling Congress and the Presidency at the time.

That said, I see zero chance of any Marxist judges sitting on the SCOTUS, ever.  As such, I don't see what we gain from speculating about that possibility.

-Laelth

Too late...there are already three.

[Laelth]

I'm sure about 10-15 years ago, you saw zero chance of a Marxist president ever.

Well, guess what...

That's funny.  Credit where it is due.

 

-Laelth

[Laelth]

Too late...there are already three.

Oh, please!

 

-Laelth

[txradioguy]

Oh, please!

 

-Laelth

Ginsberg, Sotomayor and Kagan.

[Eupher]

Ginsberg, Sotomayor and Kagan.

And I ain't too sure about Roberts...

[DefiantSix]

And I ain't too sure about Roberts...

Or Comrade Kennedy.

[Laelth]

And I ain't too sure about Roberts...

When an avowed Republican like John Roberts is considered a potential Marxist we have serious problems with the state of our national discourse.

-Laelth

[txradioguy]

When an avowed Republican like John Roberts is considered a potential Marxist we have serious problems with the state of our national discourse.

-Laelth

He's a Republican? Could have fooled me after he modified parts of Obamacare from the bench and ignored the Constitution to rule that Obamacare was legal.

Wouldn't be the first Judge nominated by a Republican that turned out to be a raging Lib once seated on the bench.

[JohnnyReb]

He's a Republican? Could have fooled me after he modified parts of Obamacare from the bench and ignored the Constitution to rule that Obamacare was legal.

Wouldn't be the first Judge nominated by a Republican that turned out to be a raging Lib once seated on the bench.

Ruth Badass Gingerbread for one.....age of consent 12.

[Dori]

Oh, please!

 

-Laelth

Oh please tell me your not that naïve.

[wasp69]

Oh please tell me your not that naïve.

Nope, its not, just that purposefully obtuse so as to be a troll.  It knows full well what it is doing.

[Eupher]

When an avowed Republican like John Roberts is considered a potential Marxist we have serious problems with the state of our national discourse.

-Laelth

I had made a personal vow not to respond directly to your idiocy, but I'll reconsider.

Your statement is proof positive that you are a confirmed moron. "Avowed Republican?" Maybe GWB thought that at the time he appointed the Chief Marxist Justice to the bench, but subsequent activities have pretty much nullified those ideas, dontcha think?

Let's take a look at just a few:

(But just so you don't make the claim I'm cherry-picking information, I'll post the "Republican" stuff too, mmmkay?)

Abortion:
Roe v. Wade is more than settled as precedent

SEN. SPECTER [as read into the record by Sen. Feinstein]: “Judge Roberts, in your confirmation hearing for the circuit court you testified: ‘Roe is the settled law of the land.’ Do you mean settled for you, settled only for your capacity as a circuit judge, or settled beyond that?”
ROBERTS: “Well, beyond that. It’s settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis. And those principles, applied in the Casey case, explain when cases should be revisited and when they should not. And it is settled as a precedent of the court, yes.“
SPECTER: ”You went on to say then, ‘It’s a little more than settled. It was reaffirmed in the face of a challenge that it should be overruled in the Casey decision, so it has added precedental value.’“
ROBERTS: ”I think the initial question for the judge confronting an issue in this area, you don’t go straight to the Roe decision. You begin with Casey, which modified the Roe framework and reaffirmed its central holding.“

Some inconsistency here:

Finds no support for abortion rights in Constitution

Judge Roberts’ public positions on abortion and Roe vs. Wade appear to be inconsistent. In 1990, as the principal deputy solicitor general in President George H.W. Bush’s administration, Roberts wrote a legal brief for the Supreme Court in a case regarding federal funding for abortion providers. “We continue to believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled,” Roberts wrote. His brief added: “The Supreme Court’s conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution.“

On Corporations:

Citizens United: corporate political ads are free speech

Over the years, the privileges granted to these state-created private tyrannies have been extended, primarily by courts. Corporations are legally persons under the law, with rights far beyond those of human beings.
In the 2010 Supreme Court 5-4 decision on Citizens United, Chief Justice Roberts selected a case that could easily have been settled on narrow grounds, and maneuvered the Court into using it for a far-reaching decision that, in effect, permits corporate managers to buy elections directly, instead of using more indirect means.
Corporate campaign contributions are a major factor in determining the outcome of elections, and the same is sure to be true of the virtually unlimited advertising for candidates now permitted by the Court. This alone is a significant factor in policy decisions, reinforced by the enormous power of corporate lobbies and other conditions imposed by the very small sector of the population that dominates the economy.

Oh, looky here!

Whistleblowers can be fired for cause

Roberts authored the decision in KOSZOLA V. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
A former employee sued the FDIC, alleging that the FDIC violated his rights by disciplining and firing him in retaliation for disclosures protected under the RTC Whistleblower Act. The district court found for FDIC on the ground that the FDIC would have taken the same employment actions regardless of any protected disclosures. The plaintiff appeals, but we affirm.
The FDIC hired Koszola in 1991. In Feb. 1993, Koszola was accused of leaking a story about waste & abuse. In Sept. 1993, Koszola testified with other FDIC employees before the Senate Banking Committee about waste & abuse within FDIC operations. In Dec. 1993, Koszola was fired based on charges that he had failed to follow instructions and proper investigative procedures.
The district court correctly reasoned that the FDIC had already adduced clear and convincing evidence that it would have terminated Koszola regardless of any protected activity.

On Crime:

*Ok to prosecute for eating french fries on city trains. (Feb 2005)
*Guidelines for parole can’t add to sentence retroactively. (Nov 2004)
*Police supervisors not liable for misdeeds of officers. (Apr 2004)
*Live witness not required for all scientific testing. (Jun 2011)
*International Court not grounds for stay of execution. (Jul 2011)

Bottom line -- there's a whole bunch of John Roberts that stinks of Marxism and adherence to a police state.

http://www.ontheissues.org/John_Roberts.htm

Now, with all that said, aren't you just a little embarrassed?

[Laelth]

I had made a personal vow not to respond directly to your idiocy, but I'll reconsider.

Your statement is proof positive that you are a confirmed moron. "Avowed Republican?" Maybe GWB thought that at the time he appointed the Chief Marxist Justice to the bench, but subsequent activities have pretty much nullified those ideas, dontcha think?

Let's take a look at just a few:

(But just so you don't make the claim I'm cherry-picking information, I'll post the "Republican" stuff too, mmmkay?)

Some inconsistency here:

On Corporations:

Oh, looky here!

On Crime:

Bottom line -- there's a whole bunch of John Roberts that stinks of Marxism and adherence to a police state.

http://www.ontheissues.org/John_Roberts.htm

Now, with all that said, aren't you just a little embarrassed?

Wow!  That's a great post, and I am happy to let it stand, as is.  I see in John Roberts a pro-business, pro-state security, proto-fascist.  You call him a Marxist.  Whatever.  I don't care what you call him, but I will agree with you, fully and without question, that Chief Justice Roberts is not good for either America or the people of the United States.  On that, we agree.

 

-Laelth

[txradioguy]

Wow!  That's a great post, and I am happy to let it stand, as is.  I see in John Roberts a pro-business, pro-state security, proto-fascist.  You call him a Marxist.  Whatever.  I don't care what you call him, but I will agree with you, fully and without question, that Chief Justice Roberts is not good for either America or the people of the United States.  On that, we agree.

 

-Laelth

Whatever you try to call him the one thing you can't call him is Republican or Conservative.

[Laelth]

Whatever you try to call him the one thing you can't call him is Republican or Conservative.

He calls himself both a Republican and a conservative.  If you disagree about the appropriateness of those labels, your issue is with him.

-Laelth

[txradioguy]

He calls himself both a Republican and a conservative.  If you disagree about the appropriateness of those labels, your issue is with him.

-Laelth

I'm dealing with you and what you're trying to label him.

[Eupher]

Wow!  That's a great post, and I am happy to let it stand, as is.  I see in John Roberts a pro-business, pro-state security, proto-fascist.  You call him a Marxist.  Whatever.  I don't care what you call him, but I will agree with you, fully and without question, that Chief Justice Roberts is not good for either America or the people of the United States.  On that, we agree.

 

-Laelth

You didn't answer my question.

Aren't you a little embarrassed?

Next question - why do you think Roberts isn't good for America or the people?

[freedumb2003b]

He calls himself both a Republican and a conservative.  If you disagree about the appropriateness of those labels, your issue is with him.

-Laelth

He is neither.  What he calls himself is irrelevant.  Both Romney and McCain called themselves "Conservatives" and obozo calls himself "centrist."

Lies and damn lies.

[franksolich]

Here ladies and gentlemen, we have the typical egocentrism of a primitive, presuming that an issue is "settled," the final word, the final solution, that the left has won, and that's the way it's going to be forever and ever, amen.

Nothing is "final" but death.

.....the end and the beginning are unknown.....we see only the intervening formations.....Bhagavadgita

.....we know little of the past, and nothing of the future, and the present is so immense that it exceeds our range of experience.....Radhakrishna Paraphrasing Sankara

Sorry about using obscure Hindus, but I don't imagine a primitive would give any credence to Judaic or--gasp!--Christian philosophers.

[Laelth]

Here ladies and gentlemen, we have the typical egocentrism of a primitive, presuming that an issue is "settled," the final word, the final solution, that the left has won, and that's the way it's going to be forever and ever, amen.

Nothing is "final" but death.

Sorry about using obscure Hindus, but I don't imagine a primitive would give any credence to Judaic or--gasp!--Christian philosophers.

Good point.  Nothing is final.  I suppose, if conservatives had their way, we'd could go back to factories filled with child laborers.  Conservatives might even want to bring back slavery.  Indeed.  Nothing is final, and even on those issues the "left" has not necessarily "won."  Your point is well made.

But feel free to quote Judeo-Christian philosophy if you like.  I'm pretty well versed in it and have tremendous respect for it.

Thanks for the response.   

-Laelth

[Carl]

Good point.  Nothing is final.  I suppose, if conservatives had their way, we'd could go back to factories filled with child laborers.  Conservatives might even want to bring back slavery.  Indeed.  Nothing is final, and even on those issues the "left" has not necessarily "won."  Your point is well made.

But feel free to quote Judeo-Christian philosophy if you like.  I'm pretty well versed in it and have tremendous respect for it.

Thanks for the response.   

-Laelth

How about we just go back to the basic principles on which the country was founded.
I know how hated that is by the left because it precludes government and power.

[Happy Fun Ball]

Republicans (such as Lincoln) were the ones that got rid of slavery, and you think we want to bring it back?

[Chris_]

Good point.  Nothing is final.  I suppose, if conservatives had their way, we'd could go back to factories filled with child laborers.  Conservatives might even want to bring back slavery.  Indeed. 

Gee, with a response like that, one would get the idea you're here to do nothing more than troll.

[txradioguy]

Good point.  Nothing is final.  I suppose, if conservatives had their way, we'd could go back to factories filled with child laborers.  Conservatives might even want to bring back slavery.   Indeed.  Nothing is final, and even on those issues the "left" has not necessarily "won."  Your point is well made.

But feel free to quote Judeo-Christian philosophy if you like.  I'm pretty well versed in it and have tremendous respect for it.

Thanks for the response.   

-Laelth

No matter how how a Libtard tries to act all nice and use flowery words...eventually their hard ugly center rears it's head.

[DefiantSix]

I suppose, if conservatives had their way, we'd could go back to factories filled with child laborers.  Conservatives might even want to bring back slavery.  Indeed.  Nothing is final, and even on those issues the "left" has not necessarily "won."  Your point is well made...

-Laelth

Bitchslapped for believing you could slide the strawmen in here without being called on it.

Let's review a little history, shall we?

Slavery? Compromisers allowed that to flourish far longer than it ever should have, but it was AGGRESSIVELY ADVOCATED FOR by the leftists of the Democrat Party.

Trail of Tears?  Sits squarely on the shoulders of the ass-clown Democrat Jackson and his successors.

Fugitive Slave Act? Democrat.

The Civil War? Not only Democrat initiated, but Democrats fired the first shots.

The Ku Klux Klan? That was the terrorist wing of the DEMOCRAT PARTY, post Civil War era.

Jim Crowe laws?  Segregation? Those were DEMOCRAT abortions, defended to the end by DEMOCRATS. 

The first 20th century Dictator? Wasn't Hitler, Mussolini, or even Lenin. It was the DEMOCRAT Woodrow Wilson.

Concentration Camps on American soil? Thank Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt for that. 

Wars of aggression? World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam; Hell, you have to get all the way  to the first Gulf War before you find a war with American involvement that wasn't kicked off by a Democrat.

And the list goes on and on and on, sir. In fact, I find myself hard pressed to find any source of misery, contention, violence or oppression in modern America that doesn't have at it's heart, the finger of a Democrat manipulating things.

And you have the unmitigated temerity to claim that the Republicans are what's wrong with America?


edited: for fat finger and clarity issues