HEAD SHOT EMAIL

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

the supreme court:

HERE'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER:

Columnist Andrew McCarthy gives us what probably is the most important question regarding the upcoming presidential election.

If Mitt wins the nomination, I will enthusiastically support his candidacy.

For my friends who have hesitation on that score, I'd just ask you to keep four things in mind:

1. Justice Scalia just turned 78
2. Justice Kennedy will turn 78 later this year
3. Justice Breyer will be 76 in August
4. Justice Ginsburg turned 81 about a week ago.


In addition,

Justice Ginsburg has Pancreatic Cancer.

Justice Stephens has already said he would retire and is just waiting for Obama to be reelected.

The next president could appoint as many as 4 new Justices over next 4 years. This election is about more than ObamaCare Tax.

We wish them all well, of course, but the brute fact is that whoever we elect as president in November is almost certainly going to choose at least one new member of the Supreme Court, in addition to hundreds of other life-tenured federal judges, all of whom will be making momentous decisions about our lives for decades to come.

If you don't think it matters whether the guy making those calls is Mitt Romney or Barack Obama, I think you're smokin' something
funky.

So for anybody who is thinking of not voting because your favorite didn't get nominated, or writing in a candidate who can't win, imagine this:

SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ERIC HOLDER


After you have stopped gagging, kindly forward this to your list of concerned citizens.

[Midtowner]

I wouldn't be hugely worried about Romney's SCOTUS choices. He'd probably pick a lot of center-leftists like himself.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I wouldn't be hugely worried about Romney's SCOTUS choices. He'd probably pick a lot of center-leftists like himself.I'm sure you're going to vote for him. haha. Nice try, though, on yet another attempt at dispiriting conservatives. As we all know, Orange Juice Can R/ Obama. We need to root that Obear outa here.

[Midtowner]

Orange Juice Can? Are you for real?

WTH is that?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Orange Juice Can? Are you for real?

WTH is that?My goodness you are imaginative...and, clever.

[SicEmBaylor]

My goodness you are imaginative...and, clever.

I think he's asking a legitimate question. I don't have a clue in hell with the orange juice can is in reference to either.

[Mississippi Sooner]

My guess is, he's saying that if the Republicans ran an orange juice can, it would be a better choice than Obama.

[Sooner_Bob]

Never thought about much about the supreme court . . . that is kinda scary.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

My guess is, he's saying that if the Republicans ran an orange juice can, it would be a better choice than Obama.How hard was that? OJC would do nothing. Obear just does bad stuff, and in the name of improving the country.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Never thought about much about the supreme court . . . that is kinda scary.Reason(s) enough right there to exrticate Obear, and the only way to get that done is Romney. If you(anyone) can't see a major improvement between Obear and Romney, there's probably no hope for much good coming from your gray matter.

[SicEmBaylor]

Reason(s) enough right there to exrticate Obear, and the only way to get that done is Romney. If you(anyone) can't see a major improvement between Obear and Romney, there's probably no hope for much good coming from your gray matter.
A "major" improvement? Definitely not.
A "marginal" improvement? Maybe.

[badger]

Never thought about much about the supreme court . . . that is kinda scary.

don't be too skerrred. keep in mind that supreme court justice nominees have to be approved by... a (likely) Republican-controlled Senate.

[SicEmBaylor]

don't be too skerrred. keep in mind that supreme court justice nominees have to be approved by... a (likely) Republican-controlled Senate.
Even if by some chance the GOP gets the Senate, they won't have 60 seats which is really what confirming a "good" SC judge would take. Anything less and they'll have to compromise.

[badger]

Even if by some chance the GOP gets the Senate, they won't have 60 seats which is really what confirming a "good" SC judge would take. Anything less and they'll have to compromise.

Or they could deadlock indefinitely and our supreme court would have fewer justices. hmmmmmm....

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Even if by some chance the GOP gets the Senate, they won't have 60 seats which is really what confirming a "good" SC judge would take. Anything less and they'll have to compromise.
60 seats gets a partisan judge one way or another, and we don't need partisanship on the SCOTUS. Compromise gets good middle of the road judges.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

...middle of the road judges.Are those ones that follow the Constitution some of the time, like when thy want to, but when it ruffles them a bit, not so much? Yeah, sure, that's what we need...ugh!

[Midtowner]

Are those ones that follow the Constitution some of the time, like when thy want to, but when it ruffles them a bit, not so much? Yeah, sure, that's what we need...ugh!

You mean like Scalia who says that the Interstate Commerce Clause applies to medical marijuana grown intrastate for use intrastate because it could have a potential effect on interstate commerce while saying that [new rule] you can't require someone to participate in interstate commerce?

How is that anything other than making up new rule whole cloth? That sure as heck isn't following the Constitution. It's deciding how far the Justice believes it stretches--and that's not an exact science. To think otherwise is just ignorant.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

You mean like Scalia who says that the Interstate Commerce Clause applies to medical marijuana grown intrastate for use intrastate because it could have a potential effect on interstate commerce while saying that [new rule] you can't require someone to participate in interstate commerce?

How is that anything other than making up new rule whole cloth? That sure as heck isn't following the Constitution. It's deciding how far the Justice believes it stretches--and that's not an exact science. To think otherwise is just ignorant.I don't know the ruling, but if it's improper then it's bad. Are you implying that Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer AREN'T ACTIVIST judges, and ARE constitutionalists? If so, then you not only are drinking the koolaid, but are pis*ing it on everyone, as well. You HAVE to know that, which means you are being dishonest on purpose. That is the way of the Left.

[Midtowner]

I don't know the ruling, but if it's improper then it's bad. Are you implying that Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer AREN'T ACTIVIST judges, and ARE constitutionalists? If so, then you not only are drinking the koolaid, but are pis*ing it on everyone, as well. You HAVE to know that, which means you are being dishonest on purpose. That is the way of the Left.

They're no more constitutionalists than Thomas, who has said we could suspend the entire Constitution for "national security" reasons without explanation as to what that meant or Scalia, who as I showed, has a huge double standard in commerce clause areas when we're talking about drugs, or the litany of 5-4 opinions, most with conservatives in the majority, eroding our 4th and 5th Amendment rights. Both sets come from different views. They are all constitutionalists in their minds unless you want to believe that some of them are actually corrupt.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

They're no more constitutionalists than Thomas, who has said we could suspend the entire Constitution for "national security" reasons without explanation as to what that meant or Scalia, who as I showed, has a huge double standard in commerce clause areas when we're talking about drugs, or the litany of 5-4 opinions, most with conservatives in the majority, eroding our 4th and 5th Amendment rights. Both sets come from different views. They are all constitutionalists in their minds unless you want to believe that some of them are actually corrupt.You're not talking about the daily activities and experience of the SCOTUS anymore, due to it not being to your liking. You have moved on to national security, which we all hope doesn't happen. You don't even have a clue what he was talking about, nor do I.

You prefer to stand behind collectivist politicians and their lawyers, and back them with their unappreciative view of our laws and freedoms of the individual. Do you think your politics of personal destruction is as effective as it used to be? We'll see how well it works in November. If it does work, we're all screwed. You too, of course.

[Midtowner]

You have moved on to national security, which we all hope doesn't happen.

No, again, you're speaking from ignorance. Thomas was pretty darn clear on what he thought. Read his concurrence in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Turner v. Rogers. He believes that if the government invokes "national security," then it can deprive citizens of life, liberty, property and freedom without due process. He believes that with no limiting principle. You want to call him a "constitutionalist." You don't know what the heck you're talking about.


You don't even have a clue what he was talking about, nor do I. You prefer to stand behind collectivist politicians and their lawyers, and back them with their unappreciative view of our laws and freedom s of the individual.

LOL. You think Thomas and Scalia value the freedom of the individual? Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, etc. etc.


Do you think your politics of personal destruction is as effective as it used to be? We'll see how well it works in November. If it does work, we
re all screwed. You too, of course.

Politics of personal destruction? Thomas penned those words himself (or at least he signed off on the work of a clerk).

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Politics of personal destruction? Thomas penned those words himself (or at least he signed off on the work of a clerk).WTF does that mean? That he knows what it is? WOW, you're persuasive!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

[QUOTE=Midtowner;3507176]No, again, you're speaking from ignorance. Thomas was pretty darn clear on what he thought. Read his concurrence in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Turner v. Rogers. He believes that if the government invokes "national security," then it can deprive citizens of life, liberty, property and freedom without due process. He believes that with no limiting principle. You want to call him a "constitutionalist." You don't know what the heck you're talking about.

QUOTE]I'm not familiar with the cases. You are talking about a war situation, it seems, and you're wanting to condemn an opinion about what he thinks should happen in war? What do you think should happen in war, and what does that have to do with nominating Leftist collectivist judges at any level?

"LOL. You think Thomas and Scalia value the freedom of the individual? Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, etc. etc"-Midtowner

Did Thomas and Scalia find in favor of the unborn child's life? You're the lawyer. Tell us what happened here.

[Midtowner]

Did Thomas and Scalia find in favor of the unborn child's life? You're the lawyer. Tell us what happened here.

Yeah they did. They would allow the state to come in and govern a woman's reproductive choices.

They would also allow the government to kill you and throw you in prison if they merely said "woops it's national security!!"

--I'm totally sure that's what the founding fathers had in mind.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Here's another email i found both sad and funny. Please excuse if you've seen it before:

A guy was telling his buddy, "You won't believe what happened last night..."

"My daughter walked into the living room and said "Dad, cancel my allowance
immediately, forget the college tuition, rent my room out, throw all my clothes
out the window; take my TV, and my laptop.

Please take any of my jewelry to the Salvation Army or Cash Converters.

Then sell my car, take my front door key away and throw me out of the house.

Then disown me and never talk to me again.

And don't forget to write me out of your will and leave my share to anyone that wants it."

"Holy sh!t", replied the friend, "she actually said that?"

"Well, she didn't put it quite like that, she actually said...




Dad, meet my new boyfriend - Mohammed. We're going to work together on President Obama's reelection campaign

[LiveLaughLove]

Unfortunately, I agree with mid. Romneys choices will only be marginally better i'm afraid.
Still, that's better than what Obama would choose.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Unfortunately, I agree with mid. Romneys choices will only be marginally better i'm afraid.
Still, that's better than what Obama would choose.We KNOW Obama is living disaster for the country. The alternative is a guy who might be a wonderfully pleasant surprise, and more likely do a few things we might not like, but plenty we do like and agree with. We don't know. What we do know is that Obama does virtually everything wrong, and counter to the well being of our wonderful country.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Here's another email i found both sad and funny. Please excuse if you've seen it before:

A guy was telling his buddy, "You won't believe what happened last night..."

"My daughter walked into the living room and said "Dad, cancel my allowance
immediately, forget the college tuition, rent my room out, throw all my clothes
out the window; take my TV, and my laptop.

Please take any of my jewelry to the Salvation Army or Cash Converters.

Then sell my car, take my front door key away and throw me out of the house.

Then disown me and never talk to me again.

And don't forget to write me out of your will and leave my share to anyone that wants it."

"Holy sh!t", replied the friend, "she actually said that?"

"Well, she didn't put it quite like that, she actually said...




Dad, meet my new boyfriend - Mohammed. We're going to work together on President Obama's reelection campaign
da ****