Thursday, March 02, 2006

Levin basics and Chapter 1 Radicals in Robes

We (the public) tend to view judges as all knowing and professional. This is hardly the case as law is increasingly being taught by radical marxists . The radical Marxist faculty has zero interest in the actual Constituion. The nature of a Marxist is to subvert the law to the aims of creating mythical social justice.

Levin demonstrates that many Judges on the Supreme Court were incapacitated, insane , corrupt and bigoted. The notion that the members of the Supreme Court should be held unaccountable to the public is counterproductive.

The original purpose of the supreme court was to decide if laws were Constitutional.
The sole source of this is obviously the Constitution itself. However several Supreme Court Justices Ginsburg, Kenedy, Stevens and O'Connor have been quoting foriegn law in their precedents. Foriegn law has no bearing on the laws of the United States. The use of foriegn law in the US Supreme Court is malfeasence. Ginsburg was the council for the ACLU and was never held up to any type of scrutiny. Her positions and the ACLU's ties with Communist front groups should have been explored. However the media and the Country Club republicans gave her a free pass.

Levin demonstrates how Judicial activism and ignoring the Constitution has created
dreadful legal precedents such as upholding Slavery as property rights ( Dred Scott),
Segregation (Plessy vs Furgeson)and the internment of Japanese (Korematsu vs the Supreme Court).

The activists have been legislating from the bench and that was not the intended role of the court. We have courts that raise property taxes, grant expensive benefits to illegal aliens and allow siezure of private property to increase the tax base. The job of the court has been to rule on the Constittionality of legislation and not impose it via edict or judical fiat.

Comming up Next Chapter 2 Judicial Review the Counter Revolution of 1803.

Mr Beamish in 08 (Maybe he will put Levin on the Supreme Court and then Coulter), Ducky to call Levin and get humiliated, 167 Levin says "your opinions are irrelevant"
but I add "incoherent and loathsome ".

19 comments:

Mr. Ducky said...

First we'll ask Beak if he understands stare decisis. Probably not so here is a definition.

Etymology: New Latin, to stand by things that have been settled
: the doctrine under which courts adhere to precedent on questions of law in order to insure certainty, consistency, and stability in the administration of justice with departure from precedent permitted for compelling reasons (as to prevent the perpetuation of injustice).

Now Ginsberg is a very cautious jurist who has overturned precedent the least of any on the court. "Slappy" Thomas has turned over precedent the most frequently(when he wasn't running out to get Scalia a decaffe latte). So I ask you which jusge is the activist.

If you can find an instance when foreign law was quoted as part of an opinion I want to hear it. You will mention the issue of minors and the death penalty but as usual you are full of crap. Justice Kennedy noted that the number of countries that execute minors is near zero and used that as a guide among many other facts to consider the execution of minors barbaric.

beakerkin said...

I do want to point out your racist term for Justice Thomas Slappy. It is okay to slur blacks as long as they are Conservatives.

Justice Ruth " Clown " Ginsburg has been quoted several times about " too strict a jurisprudence of the framers intent is unworkable". If she feels that way it is because our founding fathers were not Marxist bufoons like here Comrades at the ACLU.

Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Ducky,

Are there ANY leftists that actually believe black people have minds of their own?

Justice Thomas fetches lattes for Scalia? Blacks need help from their "betters" because they can't do for themselves?

Please point out a leftist that isn't a fucking racist. I'm drawing a blank. While you're at it, point out a leftist that can argue intelligently. Or become the first.

Mr. Ducky said...

Beamish, I don't run some politically correct operation. Thomas is a fucking clown. He has been on the bench how long and never asked a single question?

The sorry part is that that freakin' house negro replaced Thurgood Marshall. A disgrace.

Now answer the question about stare decisis , you two intellectual lightweights.

beakerkin said...

Wrong Ducky Thomas and Scalia are
based in original intent. If stare
decisis is in violation with original intent the correct choice is a repeal of judicial activism.

Your racist comments about Thomas are part of a patern of Marxist thought control. When a minority thinks for himself he is in authentic.

Get this through your bird brain Communists are natural traitors.

Why don't you call his excellence Mark Levin and try it out ? Levin loves Marxist clown.

Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Ducky,

I suspect that your being a leftist precludes you from being informed (in the leftist tradition of being a completely asinine twit on ANY subject), but if you actually took the time to READ Clarence Thomas' writings from the bench, you'd find that he's one of the most articulate and knowledgeable justices on the Supreme Court, even if you racists disagree with him.

To answer your question on stare decisis, holding to that principle rigorously would have kept schools racially segregated, would have struck down the Emancipation Proclamation (Dred Scott decision), would keep any number of goofy decisions made by justices decades if not centuries ago backward and unchanging.

I suspect you're extremely selective on what court decisions should be final and which should be reviewed again.

Freedomnow said...

Well at least Ducky is open about his racism if he doesnt like someone's politics.

Just please dont claim to be anti-racist in the future.

beakerkin said...

He is selective in his outrage at best. He is so worried about the Sons of Allah and Marxist hacks but not much else.

Mr. Ducky said...

Which rulings of Thomas's do you suggest? His whole bit seems to be based on a belief that there was universal "original intent". That is in itself an opinion that can't be easily rooted in fact, if at all.

Just what idea has Thonmas presented to that has become part of accepted jurisprudence.

If Slappy feels freee to slap down precedent anytime he choses then surely he is beinging activist out of well delineated principles rather than just personal opinion. If he is often a lone dissenter then how do we determine the fitness of his dissent.

I haven't seen anything defending this clown. You get a few articles that say he isn't Scalia's bath house butt buddy but that's about it.

What opinions of Thomas's do you think are outstanding and which of his opinions factually clarify original intent?

Mr. Ducky said...

Now Beak, don't be a fool. I get tired of reminding you of these points.

Marxism (as Joseph Schumpeter very ably documents) is a critique of fundamental structural problems in capitalism. Schumpteter (as well as Joan Robinson and other outstanding economists) felt Marx was the one early thinker that had to be refuted. He was the most rigorous.
That analysis and refutation is still important for an understanding of economics based on reason.

I give no support to Islamofascists just as I don't give support to Kahanist assholes.
I do believe we have to understand that we invaded Iraq and can't expect everyone there to be happy about being occupied. In fact your support for occupying a people that represented no threat to us is consistent with your Kahanist pig philosophy.

beakerkin said...

Now where do we start with the bird brained logic. Arabs allready have a ton of real estate and never were indigenous to Israel.

The war in Iraq has nothing to do with Israel and even Howard Dean said comments along that line are anti semitic.

No Marxism is a genicdal failed philosophy that is theft by a self deluded deranged bunch of dolts. It has failed in every application and is promoted by dolts.

You are sounding more like a Red redneck with a thesaurus with each passing day. Dem good Jooooos are commies like Finklestein and dem good blacks are Marxist like Charles Rangel. David Yeagley is an Uncle Tomahawk because he is a patriot. Would you like to add more stupidity ?

Mr. Ducky said...

Beak, don't be an ass. i never linked our iraqi occupation with Israel.

Your the Kahanist clown who doesn't understand that people can go long, long periods of time with out even thinking about israel which is why you need shoa business as Fincklestein has correctly detailed.

beakerkin said...

How does one occupy territory that they are indigenous upon. Jews not Arabs are indigenous to Israel.

Nice try Ducky but Finklestein is a fraud and a commie. Jews were already a majority in many places before WW2.

Arabs have plenty of real estate and are colonial invaders on Jewish soil.

Freedomnow said...

I do believe Beak has a good point about Marxism being a failure. Even if you disregard all of the historical failures like the Soviet Union, N Korea, Cuba and China's cultural revolution - you still cant deny that the most successful Communist countries, modern-day China and Vietnam, have adopted capitalism for their economic model.

Marxism is basically a study of how to criticize the best working economic model ever developed by humanity and toss around theories that sound good on paper, but dont work. Capitalism is not perfect, but it works. After all we are human.

YOU WILL NEVER HAVE ANY GRASP OF ECONOMICS UNTIL YOU STUDY THE SUCCESS OF CAPITALISM.

kev said...

I wonder how daffy duck felt about clinton sending us to kosovo or mogadishu. Had the deadly violence not scared the boy president, causing us to tuck our tails and run, we would probably still be in somalia. What was more honorable about those operations compared to Iraq (a democrat president?)? And where was the immediate danger to our country from either of those? Ginsberg hasn't had to overturn any "precedent" because former liberal courts set them. While Thurgood Marshall did cause some absolutely necessary justice for blacks, his other decisions never required much thought. As with other leftist jurists, simply decide for the criminal and against public interest and safety. Interesting how vehemently daffy defends marxism and marxists.

Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Ducky,

You can look at ANY ruling by Clarence Thomas and find the man is articulate and knowledgeable, two very strong indicators that he's not a leftist.

MissingLink said...

Marxism is a failure because it was built on false premises and on total disregard (lack of knowledge) of history.
Following it will always bring us to exactly the same practical end:
economical disaster, genocide and tyranny.

We have the same problem (in Oz) with marxist (calling themselves activist) judges at the highes places.
Their main objective is to dismantle the very system, which they are sopposed to protect.

beakerkin said...

This is worse then I thought so the day dream of finding sanity in Oz is a dream. In NYC there is a flight dream that in Australia we can be free of those lousy Marxists.

Most fantasies are just that fantasies.

Yet there is a disturbing trend in our youth who seem to be more like my generation then the 60's crew.
The Eighties kids and the Woodstock crew are like oil and water.

In the states a TV show Family Ties had a charachter Alex Keaton whose Hippie parents drove him up a wall. On many college campuses there were meaner less cuddly Keatons who fought the Commies even outnumbered. We were tough customers. The current crew is more into fun and comedy.

Ann Coulter was the model for my generation.

Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Ann Coulter was the model for my generation.

You can't be too much older / younger than me Beak. I'm 35.466 years old.

Dr. Doom of Marvel Comics was my idol.