Quote of the Day

Imagine what the Supreme Court will look like after four years of Governor Romney. Imagine what it will act like. Imagine what it will mean for civil rights, voting rights, and so much we have fought so hard for. Imagine a Justice Department that supports, rather than challenges, continued efforts to suppress the right to vote. Because that’s what will happen if they win. -Joe Biden on Mitt Romney

Real talk from Joe Biden.

  • joseph2004

    So Biden is saying we’ll get more so-called “liberal” justices with Obama.

    What a holiday that will be! They’d do what the current set is doing: ignoring the Constitution (if you think the Constitution is fungible, you might as well be ignoring it). That’s what Progressives want. It’s their ideal of what a supreme court should be doing – judging laws for how they comport with the Progressive agenda, not on whether they are constitutional.

    Donna Brazile admitted as much on CNN recently, like it was just so “Duh, of course it should be that way!”

    The Constitution of the US? Pffff Ink on a page.

    The Supreme Court stacked with “liberal” justices like Ginsburg and Breyer is the closest thing to what Progressives want in government: A panel of “Progressive-minded intellectuals” appointed (not elected) steering the country toward Progressive values. It’s Katrina vanden Heuval’s dream come true. No legislature needed. Executive orders from the President whenever congress is too slow or recalcitrant, and a SCOTUS that strives to keep “good” Progressive legislation alive despite Constitutional “objection.” This is the very definition of fascism, goofballs.

    It’s so funny and depressing when this site complains about the “conservative” justices. It has used the “Constitutionally illiterate” card against so many people whenever convenient, but it’s obvious that when it comes to brass tacks, Progressives have no love of the US Constitution.

    It’s in the way.

    What happened with Roberts on the ACA ruling is tough to figure out, but the conservative justices ruled on the ACA mandate in the way Congress intended for it to be judged: in the context of the commerce clause. The “Personal Responsibility” section of the statute makes clear congress’ intent. The liberal justices view on that? Again Pffff – statute schmatute.

    If you want a supreme court that will actually rule on federal statutes based on the text and apparent (even blatant) intent of congress, then a supreme court adorned with “liberal” justices is NOT the ticket. There is no question that a justice who views his/her job as interpreting the Constitution one way Monday, a different way Tuesday, and yet another way the rest of the week is nothing if not “activist.”

    To Progressives, striking down the mandate under the commerce clause would have appeared “activist,” especially if just the “conservative” justices had carried the day. Somehow, upholding the mandate based on a statute that does not exist – well, that’s just doing what’s right for America.

    A letter writer in today’s WSJ noted that the court’s ACA ruling essentially allows congress to write a statute that claims not to be a tax while allowing congress to implement the statute as a tax.

    Wonderful! Great!

    Ultimately we have the Democrats and Obama to thank for that. Progressives are pissed that the ACA did not go far enough, which given Progressive attitudes about laws, the Constitution, and so on, ought to scare the shit out of a lot more people.

    Obama needs to be replaced. And Oh, boy, so does Biden.

    Not to worry, though Democrats, Ms. “Politics of meaning” is on the way in 2016.

    Joy to the world.

  • bphoon

    This is why Joe Biden is VP.

  • http://twitter.com/Zirgar Zirgar

    The rights and freedoms for everyone other than straight, white, healthy, wealthy Christian males will be shrunk down to where they’re small enough to be drowned in a bathtub. But at least there won’t be any new taxes or tax increases!

  • i_a_c

    Joe’s on fire lately!