Indiana’s highest court has turned against our rights and the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court of Indiana has just decided that the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not apply to the citizens of Indiana.

The court has decided that Hoosiers have no right to be safe in their own homes from illegal entry, search, and seizure by police. Indiana’s highest court has just said that Hoosier stormtrooers can invade any home at any time and citizens have no right to resist because it is “against public policy.”

Blogger Bruce McQuain said this appalling incident in Indiana is an example of, “why you have to constantly protect your rights daily from attacks from within,” and boy is he right.

NorthwestIndiana.com pinpoints the problem perfectly.

Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

The Supreme Court has decided that the right to be safe in one’s own home is not as important as the state being allowed to batter down people’s doors at will. Justice Steven David averred that there are enough protections of homeowners after they are accosted illicitly by police, after they’ve been arrested and possibly physically harmed, and after the state has caused them to spend untold thousands of dollars on their own bail and defense in the courts.

“We believe … a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,” David said. “We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.”

This turns natural rights on its head and alters the basic compact between citizen and government in the USA. It takes us from an “innocent until proven guilty” premise to one where citizens have no rights at all unless the state deigns to allow them.

Now, the argument that the anti-constitutionalists make almost sounds sensible at first blush. This ruling, they say, is merely meant to prevent any chance that the actions of a homeowner in a given situation will “escalate the level of violence.” If homeowners sit meekly by and allow police to illegally enter their home, why the level of violence won’t grow. We need to protect the lives of our police, right?

Almost logical, eh?

The problem is that with a rule such as this in place, the police have no real reason to be sure that they are in the right when battering down a homeowner’s door in the first place. Freed from this onerous requirement to be 100% sure, they will find themselves battering down doors with little provocation because, hey, THEY are covered by the law from being wrong. THEY don’t need to be sure that the home they are invading is the right home, one inhabited by real criminals. Why, it can all be cleared up later, right? So the citizen can just shut up, sit down, and take this violation of his rights.

That’s right, you, the citizen, can just shut up, taste the cop’s boot heels, and maybe (if you are lucky) some judge down the line might agree with you that your rights were violated and, gosh, they need to mumble an apology to you sometime.

As McQuain said, this is proof of why we need to zealously protect our rights and fight for them every day.

It is also proof that our legal system is badly breaking down. It is proof of yet another thing, too. It is proof that these “judges” have no fear of the people. The Indiana Supreme Court judges that voted in support of this outrageous decision should all be thrown off the bench if not by outright impeachment, then at least in the next election.

But, I’d rather see impeachment, as opposed to election turnovers. Our elected politicians need to begin to systematically eliminate judges of this sort who have turned against the US Constitution. These people need to fear for their jobs. Impeachment of these un-American monsters has never been used enough and we should start doing it ASAP.

When even a red state such as Indiana starts turning against our natural rights, we know our governments have turned against we the people.

Barack Obama’s Executive Order that requires federal contractors to disclose the political contributions they have made is garnering bi-partisan opposition on the Hill this month.

The order would force contractors to reveal any political donations as a condition for being allowed to bid on a contract to work for the federal government. And the order doesn’t only require the company to disclose donations but would also force the directors or company officers to reveal their personal donations as well. Naturally, this same requirement is not forced on unions. (You can see a draft of Obama’s order HERE)

This forced disclosure, however, is not sitting well with either Democrats or Republicans.

Last week 21 Republican House members sent a letter to Obama denouncing this anti-free speech order.

In a letter sent to Obama on Friday, 21 Republicans, including House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), called the proposed executive order “a blatant attempt to intimidate, and potentially silence, certain speakers who are engaged in their constitutionally protected right to free speech.”

This week, top House Democrat Steny Hoyer joined the chorus against Obama’s executive order.

“The issue of contracting ought to be on the merits of the contractor’s application and bid and capabilities,” Hoyer told reporters at the Capitol. “There are some serious questions as to what implications there are if somehow we consider political contributions in the context of awarding contracts.”

He added, “I’m not in agreement with the administration on that issue.”

Of course, the main problem with this thing is that it wouldn’t take a big stretch of the imagination to assume that Obama would find any contractor that has donated to Republicans to be the sort of contractor that he would not want to hire for federal work. And even if that were not the case, this order might stifle companies preventing them from even applying for federal contracts because they might be afraid that their campaign donations could bring them undue notice based on politics instead of on the company’s track record and success rate at completing contracts.

Further, it simply is no business of the government what political campaigns these companies donate to. There is a little thing called political free speech in this country and we must never be required to go hat-in-hand to government and explain who we support politically before we are allowed to get work.

The DISCLOSE Act that this EO is based on has failed repeatedly in Congress and that is why Obama is lawlessly taking matters into his own hands and trying to implement the rules by presidential fiat.

Even the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is resisting this policy. And that was after the Supreme Court ruled that it was un-constitutional in the first place.

So, Obama is trying to move forward to introduce a policy that has Democrats AND Republicans against it, that has the FEC AND the U.S. Supreme Court against it, yet in the face of all this opposition, he insists on going forward. This is just one more example of how this president wants to rule by fiat and shows that he is certainly contemptuous of nearly every other branch of government.

President Obama spent 1 hour and 10 minutes on the State of the Union. I understand that is the longest State of the Union our Union has ever endured.

He failed to mention the fact that our US Marines finished their mission and left Iraq last week. A colossal and unforgivable omission.

He assured us that our Military will be completely out of Iraq by the end of August 2010, but will they? I guess we can fact check that next January.

He did not mention the November 5, 2009 Fort Hood murders. Astonishingly, he did not introduce the two brave heroes who confronted and took down Nidal Hasan, as he brought down 13 soldiers and one unborn child. At least, going back to President Reagan, the First Lady’s guests were always introduced. So they invited Officers Mark Todd and Kimberly Munley there for what…the pleasure of being in the same room with The One, and being graced with a seat next to the First Lady?

After 70 minutes, another 10 could have been spent applauding these courageous Americans, honoring them  thanking them for the lives of those spared because of their bravery; thanking Munley, just a petite, pony-tailed Sergeant, for rushing into the sights of an Islamic killer’s weapon. What was this President thinking?

He did not mention the attempts of the Christmas Day bomber. He did not mention that security alerts in Britain have elevated. He did not mention that Canada’s airports are on high alert, and American airlines will not allow passengers boarding flights from Canada to the US to have carry-on baggage. He did not talk about the topic of the day: terror trials in the middle of New York City, and specifically the trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammad. These are the state of our union.

This man’s character is flawlessly egotistical, narcissistic, and boastful.

The AP skipped Obama’s denigration of the Supreme Court decision to eliminate some campaign finance laws. He specifically complained that their ruling opens the door to foreign contributions, but Associate Justice Kennedy said the barrier to foreign campaign spending is outside the scope of the opinion. This from Politifact:

…the legal experts we spoke to after Obama’s radio address said that the president was overstating the immediate impact of the opinion. They said Obama was correct that the ruling could open the door to foreign companies spending on American campaigns, given the general direction of the majority’s opinion. But because the majority justices didn’t actually strike down the existing barriers on foreign companies — in fact, they explicitly wrote that it fell beyond the boundaries of their decision — our experts agreed that Obama erred by suggesting that the issue is settled law. Until test cases proceed and further rulings are handed down, Obama’s claim about foreign campaign spending is a reasonable interpretation, and nothing more.

The Associated Press fact checked 8 statements from the speech. Here is what they, and others had to say:

(1) Obama’s important spending freeze beginning in 2011 – One lousy percent, my friends

AP THE FACTS: The anticipated savings from this proposal would amount to less than 1 percent of the deficit — and that’s if the president can persuade Congress to go along.

Nevertheless, Charles Krauthammer says the spending freeze is a fraud:

[Paraphrased] What Obama doesn’t tell you is that last year…they ratcheded up spending for all departments astronomically, an average of about 20% – that’s huge. Normally it is 3% or 4%. Last year the budget for the EPA was increased by 35%! See the video below, and thank you to The ConservativeXpress.

Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) says the true reduction is only “little more than one-half of 1 percent. PolitiFact’s truth-o-meter says that is true.

If a “spending freeze” does come about, does it mean the government will not be adding workers to their already bursting bureaucracy? What happens to “j-o-b-s.”

(2) The Senate voted-down (56-43) a “debt commission” proposed by Obama to usurp the authority of Congress. The Commission would propose “unpopular remedies to reduce the debt.” Once the Commission comes up with a proposal, Congress is mandated to vote on it. But, the Senate voted it down, so the President said he’ll create an executive order to make it happen, but…apparently he can’t make it happen. He tried to neuter Congress. This time he failed…but we still have the Czars.

AP THE FACTS: … Any commission set up by Obama alone would lack authority to force its recommendations before Congress, and would stand almost no chance of success.

(3) The President wants to continue with health care. He just needs Republicans to support what he wants. It’s that simple.

AP THE FACTS: But Obama can’t guarantee people won’t see higher rates or fewer benefits in their existing plans. Because of elements such as new taxes on insurance companies, insurers could change what they offer or how much it costs. Moreover, Democrats have proposed a series of changes to the Medicare program for people 65 and older that would certainly pinch benefits enjoyed by some seniors. The Congressional Budget Office has predicted cuts for those enrolled in private Medicare Advantage plans.

What? The AP acknowledges what everyone else knows? Dang about time!

(4) The President said again, he will restrict lobbyists. I’ll admit that I don’t know much about how lobbyists garner favor, other than hanging out on Capitol Hill and making it worthwhile for Congress to spend some time with them. I can’t imagine why a lobbyist would ever be admitted to the White House, except for a Sunday afternoon tour with the family.

Obama said he would not hire lobbyists to work out of the White House, but of course, he did just that. He said he wants lobbyists to disclose every contact made with his administration or Congress…and he boasted of the White House Visitors log posted online. But those logs are not complete, not up-to-date, not up-to-snuff. And who knows that every contact is disclosed? Here’s how the game is played: more and more lobbyists are simply not registering as lobbyists…like Andy Stern.

AP THE FACTS: …[to make this work] Congress would have to change the law, and that’s unlikely to happen. And lobbyists already are subject to strict limits on political giving. Just like every other American, they’re limited to giving $2,400 per election to federal candidates, with an overall ceiling of $115,500 every two years.

PolitiFact points out:

We found that the administration has granted waivers to several former lobbyists, allowing them to serve. The administration also allows recusals, where former lobbyists simply recuse themselves from discussions concerning whatever interest it is for which they used to lobby. The recusals have not been made public, and we don’t know how many have been issued. (You can read more details on our ruling by scrolling down to our update of March 17, 2009.)

(5) Obama boasted of creating or saving 2 million jobs.

AP THE FACTS: The number was based on self-reporting by recipients and some of the calculations were shown to be in error….” [from the Congressional Budget Office) It is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package.”

(6) The President said he will continue to “do our work openly, and give our people the government they deserve.”

AP THE FACTS: Obama skipped past a broken promise from his campaign — to have the negotiations for health care legislation broadcast on C-SPAN…Democrats in the White House and Congress have conducted the usual private negotiations, making multi-billion dollar deals with hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and other stakeholders behind closed doors.

Nor has Obama consistently lived up to his pledge to ensure that legislation is posted online for five days before it’s acted upon.

We knew the above. It’s frightening to think what we do not know, like what does Andy Stern do in all those White House meetings? Heads-up Mr. President, we know we do not have the government we deserve.

(7) The United States and Russia are near reaching the “farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades.”

AP THE FACTS: Despite insisting early last year that they would complete the negotiations in time to avoid expiration of the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty in early December, the U.S. and Russia failed to do so.

One important sticking point: disagreement over including missile defense issues in a new accord.

If completed, the new deal may arguably be the farthest-reaching arms control treaty since the original 1991 agreement. An interim deal reached in 2002 did not include its own rules on verifying nuclear reductions.

Barack Obama supports the United Nations Millennium Goal, which includes dis-arming, not just denuclearizing, the world. He will give away the farm if we let him.

(8) Obama claims that more al-Qaeda have been killed in his first year as President – hundreds of them – and “far more than in 2008.

AP THE FACTS: It is an impossible claim to verify. Neither the Bush, nor the Obama administration has published enemy body counts, particularly those targeted by armed drones in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region. The pace of drone attacks has increased dramatically in the last 18 months, according to congressional officials briefed on the secret program.

Feel free to add your own thoughts in comments about the State of the Union and the President’s “facts.”

Krauthammer on the Spending Freeze: Fact Checking Obama (video)

Conservatives and Liberals agree that Sonia Sotomayor hid her liberality while testifying before Congress about her views, and how those views will influence her decisions if she is confirmed for the U.S. Supreme Court. Ignoring Sotomayor’s La Raza membership, an extremist organization known as the “Latino answer to the KKK,” and many other controversial opinions, papers and speeches, some Conservatives will cast a vote for her. Liberals will all vote for her, but activists are grousing that she has let down the cause, abandoned her judicial capital, and betrayed minorities by donning her Conservative hat and keeping her cool. Conservatives and Liberals agree that the “real Sonia Sotomayor” has not yet stood up.

Sonia Sotomayor

Conservatives are flummoxed that the Sonia Sotomayor witnessing under oath, is a completely different Sonia Sotomayor known by her previous court rulings, her speeches and her mammoth pile of writings.

Liberals are flummoxed that this week’s testimony is not the Sonia they know and love,

…the same Sonia that will deny a White man his right to have a reverse discrimination case heard, the Sonia that holds membership in La Raza,

La Raza was condemned in 2007 by former U.S. Rep. Charles Norwood, R-Ga., as a radical “pro-illegal immigration lobbying organization that supports racist groups calling for the secession of the western United States as a Hispanic-only homeland.”

Norwood urged La Raza to renounce its support of the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan – which sees “the Race” as part of an ethnic group that one day will reclaim Aztlan, the mythical birthplace of the Aztecs. In Chicano folklore, Aztlan includes California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Texas.

…the same Sonia that, speaking as a member of La Raza, said “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion as a judge than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” and then repeated it another 6 times, the same Sonia that supports “the Latino answer to KKK,” :

Miguel Perez, a La Raza spokesman at Cal State-Northridge, has been quoted as saying: “The ultimate ideology is the liberation of Aztlan. Communism would be closest [to it]. Once Aztlan is established, ethnic cleansing would commence: Non-Chicanos would have to be expelled — opposition groups would be quashed because you have to keep power.”

…the same Sonia who has had 60% of her rulings overturned by the Supreme Court,

…the same Sonia who in January 2009 ruled that States do not have to abide by the Second Amendment. In other words, if a State decides that residents do not have the right to keep and bear arms, then Sonia thinks that decision is Constitutional. In Maloney v. Cuomo, she signed the opinion stating a that the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having Second Amendment rights.

…the same Sonia who holds for abortions at any stage of pregnancy even if the mother’s life is not endangered, the same Sonia who ruled in favor of a Muslim inmate’s right to have a “holiday feast” (which had been denied him because the particular holiday was not a mandatory holiday in Islam) on the grounds that it was “subjectively” important to him, regardless that it was not important to Islam.

…the same Sonia who opined in a dissenting opinion that minority felons should have the right to vote, based on past discriminations,

…the same Sonia who voted for the courts of other Nations to have a say when one parent removes a child from the country without the other parent’s consent – in other words, you, the parent, might be subject to the opinion of a court in another land where your spouse absconded with your child without your permission.

Still yet, some Republican liberals plan to vote to confirm Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. The names are no surprise. We learned some time ago we cannot count on Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), Senator Olympia Snow (R-MAINE) and now Senator Mel Martinez, a Republican Hispanic senator from Florida who is retiring in 2010.

Some more about La Raza and what it means for Judge Sotomayor to hold membership in this organization:
La Raza Facts: 15 things you should know
by Michelle Malkin writing for NationalReviewOnline:

Only in America could critics of a group called “The Race” be labeled racists. Such is the triumph of left-wing identity chauvinists, whose aggressive activists and supine abettors have succeeded in redefining all opposition as “hate.”

Both Barack Obama and John McCain will speak this week in San Diego at the annual conference of the National Council of La Raza, the Latino organization whose name is Spanish for, yes, “The Race.” Can you imagine Obama and McCain paying homage to a group of white people who called themselves that? No matter. The presidential candidates and the media have legitimized “The Race” as a mainstream ethnic lobbying group and marginalized its critics as intolerant bigots. The unvarnished truth is that the group is a radical ethnic nationalist outfit that abuses your tax dollars and milks PC politics to undermine our sovereignty.

Here are 15 things you should know about “The Race”:

15. “The Race” supports driver’s licenses for illegal aliens.

14.”The Race” demands in-state tuition discounts for illegal alien students that are not available to law-abiding U.S. citizens and law-abiding legal immigrants.

13. “The Race” vehemently opposes cooperative immigration enforcement efforts between local, state, and federal authorities.

12. “The Race” opposes a secure fence on the southern border.

11. “The Race” joined the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee in a failed lawsuit attempt to prevent the feds from entering immigration information into a key national crime database — and to prevent local police officers from accessing the data.

10. “The Race” opposed the state of Oklahoma’s tough immigration-enforcement-first laws, which cut off welfare to illegal aliens, put teeth in employer sanctions, and strengthened local-federal cooperation and information sharing.

9. “The Race” joined other open-borders, anti-assimilationists and sued to prevent Proposition 227, California’s bilingual education reform ballot initiative, from becoming law.

8. “The Race” bitterly protested common-sense voter ID provisions as an “absolute disgrace.”

7. “The Race” has consistently opposed post-9/11 national security measures at every turn.

6. Former “Race” president Raul Yzaguirre, Hillary Clinton’s Hispanic outreach adviser, said this: “U.S. English is to Hispanics as the Ku Klux Klan is to blacks.” He was referring to U.S. English, the nation’s oldest, largest citizens’ action group dedicated to preserving the unifying role of the English language in the United States. “The Race” also pioneered Orwellian open-borders Newspeak and advised the Mexican government on how to lobby for illegal alien amnesty while avoiding the terms “illegal” and “amnesty.”

5. “The Race” gives mainstream cover to a poisonous subset of ideological satellites, led by Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA). The late GOP Rep. Charlie Norwood rightly characterized the organization as “a radical racist group . . . one of the most anti-American groups in the country, which has permeated U.S. campuses since the 1960s, and continues its push to carve a racist nation out of the American West.”

4. “The Race” is currently leading a smear campaign against staunch immigration-enforcement leaders and has called for TV and cable news networks to keep immigration enforcement proponents off the airwaves — in addition to pushing for Fairness Doctrine policies to shut up their foes. The New York Times reported that current “Race” president Janet Murguia believes “hate speech” should “not be tolerated, even if such censorship were a violation of First Amendment rights.”

3. “The Race” sponsors militant ethnic nationalist charter schools subsidized by your public tax dollars (at least $8 million in federal education grants). The schools include Aztlan Academy in Tucson, Ariz., the Mexicayotl Academy in Nogales, Ariz., Academia Cesar Chavez Charter School in St. Paul, Minn., and La Academia Semillas del Pueblo in Los Angeles, whose principal inveighed: “We don’t want to drink from a White water fountain, we have our own wells and our natural reservoirs and our way of collecting rain in our aqueducts. We don’t need a White water fountain . . . ultimately the White way, the American way, the neo liberal, capitalist way of life will eventually lead to our own destruction.”

2. “The Race” has perfected the art of the PC shakedown at taxpayer expense, pushing relentlessly to lower home-loan standards for Hispanic borrowers, reaping millions in federal “mortgage counseling” grants, seeking special multimillion-dollar earmarks, and partnering with banks that do business with illegal aliens.

1. “The Race” thrives on ethnic supremacy — and the elite sheeple’s unwillingness to call it what it is. As historian Victor Davis Hanson observes: “[The] organization’s very nomenclature ‘The National Council of La Raza’ is hate speech to the core. Despite all the contortions of the group, Raza (as its Latin cognate suggests) reflects the meaning of ‘race’ in Spanish, not ‘the people’ — and that’s precisely why we don’t hear of something like ‘The National Council of the People,’ which would not confer the buzz notion of ethnic, racial and tribal chauvinism.”

The fringe is the center. The center is the fringe. Viva La Raza.

Frank Ricci is the New Haven, Connecticut firefighter who just had his reverse discrimination lawsuit upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision brought to light Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor’s decision against Ricci in a District Appeals Court ruling. The People for the American Way are stepping in to discredit Ricci. Didn’t you know they would?

Frank Ricci

The City of New Haven paid $100,000 to a testing firm to come up with an exam “completely free of any racial bias.” Ricci took a test for promotion along with other firefighters. Nineteen Whites and 1 Hispanic (considered White and Hispanic) passed the test but in the end, was denied promotion because no Blacks and only one Hispanic passed the exam. There were no promotions for anyone!

The city gave the test to 118 candidates, 27 of whom were black. None of the black candidates scored high enough to qualify for the 15 immediately available positions. All 20 of the plaintiffs qualified. After a series of raucous meetings, the city civil service board decided to scrap the test results and promote no one.

The firefighters filed a reverse discrimination case that was heard by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, on which Sonia Sotomayor sat. Sotomayor and a majority of the Appeals court sided with the city of New Haven that the city had a valid concern that had the White firefighters been promoted, the city may have been sued for civil rights violations, by the Black firefighters who failed the test.

The case made it’s way to the Supremes and in June in a 5-4 vote, the Court overturned 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation for the highest court in the land begins on Capitol Hill on Monday, July 13th. Ricci is expected to testify in front of the Judiciary Committee, on behalf of Republicans.

People for the America Way, and reportedly other unnamed sources are “discreetly” urging “journalists” to look into Frank Ricci and his “litigious background.” In 1995, Ricci filed a lawsuit against the city of New Haven for discrimination related to his dyslexia. Another story is making the rounds of Ricci being fired by a fire department in Middletown, Ct because Ricci reported safety concerns. That fire department was fined for safety violations but the lawsuit went nowhere.

With his awards for bravery, some 17 years of fire department service and history of overcoming dyslexia, Ricci has become a compelling human character in the Sotomayor confirmation drama. Senate Republicans have summoned him, along with Lt. Ben Vargas of the New Haven Fire Department, as two of their 14 witnesses next week.

For information about the test and the positions that went unfilled, read this.

So what this boils down to is a hit job on Frank Ricci. The Left plans to turn Frank Ricci into the new Joe the Plumber. You probably remember Joe Wurzelbacher, known as Joe the Plumber, asking the campaigning Senator Barack Obama “you are going to raise my taxes, aren’t‘ you?” In that moment, Mr. Wurzelbacher’s life changed. With the camera rolling, he told Obama that he was a plumber and might be buying a company that would make $250,000+ a year. Obama told Joe that “spreading the wealth around” was a good thing.

Blogs on the Left and the mainstream media had a field day. Accusations against Joe flew: he wasn’t registered to vote, he was a liar and then Politico.com reported that Wurzelbacher had a lien against his property. From Michelle Malkin:

After Wurzelbacher told Katie Couric that Obama’s rhetorical tap dance was “almost as good as Sammy Davis, Jr.,” the inevitable cries of “bigotry” followed. (There are now tens of thousands of hits on the Internet for “Joe the Plumber racist.”)

This is what Frank Ricci has to look forward to. Frank Ricci, the Sotomayor target, the new Joe the Plumber.

Graphic credit: Chad Crow – Wall Street Journal

If Barack Obama wins the Oval Office, will America be so fed-up with Liberalism after four years of a Democrat President and Democrat-held Congress that we make a significant move back to Conservatism? Oh, if it were that simple.

Four years of Obama, Pelosi and Reid will entrench this country so deeply in Liberalism that it may take generations to turn the country around.

Within the first year of an Obama Presidency, three Supreme Court justices will likely retire, maybe four, and be replaced with Barack Obama’s vision of political, social and economic justice.

I’ve listened to Greta Van Susteran’s discussion of the replacement of Justices, and she believes two will retire, Obama will replace them with Liberal justices, and the current balance of Liberal judges will not change.

Greta is discounting the tenaciousness of Liberalism. I predict the older justices will retire sooner, rather than later, to enable Obama to stack the court in his first four years, infecting the remainder of our lives with social and economic justice. With a Democrat Congress and Obama as President:

1) there goes property rights to eminent domain
2) there goes the death penalty
3) there goes the Second Amendment and our guns
4) there goes the rule of law
5) there goes any semblance of judicial restraint
6) there goes any hope of stopping voter fraud
1) HERE COMES a bias for the treatment of enemy combatants
2) HERE COMES Constitutional rights to same-sex marriage
3) HERE COMES a thumb-of-the-nose to long-held State’s rights
4) HERE COMES “redistributive changes.”

Barack Obama expressed his regret that the Supreme Court hadn’t been more ‘radical’ and described as a ‘tragedy’ the court’s refusal to take up ‘the issues of redistribution of wealth.’ No wonder he wants to appoint judges that legislate from the bench,” Holtz-Eakin continued [McCain spokesman].

In July 2007, Barack Obama speaking at a Planned Parenthood event said, speaking of the persona of a Supreme Court justice of his choosing:

We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.

Speaking of the ruling of Gonzales v. Carhart, which upheld the ruling on partial birth abortion, Obama said the decision was “a concerted effort” on behalf of the Court to deny access to abortions. He was particularly harsh on the majority opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, saying:

He knows many things but my understanding is that he does not know how to be a doctor.

Last I noticed, Obama lacks a medical degree. This was dishonest and inflammatory rhetoric but nevertheless, it brought favorable reactions from the activists attending the meeting. Remember, this was a decision made on the merits of partial birth abortion, not abortion as protected by law.

Let us give serious thought to Senator Obama’s vision of a Supreme Court judge That judge will be empathetic to someone…to you? to me? because I’m young? I’m pregnant? I’m gay? I’m Black? I’m poor? I’m old?

“Our Constitution is colorblind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.”
John Marshall Harlan

Civil government cannot let any group ride roughshod over others simply because their consciences tell them to do so.”
Justice Robert H. Jackson

Let us give serious thought to Obama’s belief that our Constitution is a living, breathing document:

The layman’s constitutional view is that what he likes is constitutional and that which he doesn’t like is unconstitutional.
Justice Hugo L. Black

One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”
Justice Robert H. Jackson

It is my belief that there are ‘absolutes’ in our Bill of Rights, and that they were put there on purpose by men who knew what the words meant and meant their prohibitions to be ‘absolutes.’ “
Justice Hugo L. Black

The Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of people.
William O. Douglas

An Obama quote from his book, The Audacity of Hope, page 92-93 in my trade paperback:

What the framework of our Constitution can do is organize the way by which we argue about our future. All of its elaborate machinery – its separation of powers and checks and balances and federalist principles and Bill of Rights – are designed to force us into a conversation, a “deliberative democracy”…law in America compels us to entertain the possibility that we are not always right and to sometimes change our minds;…

Definition of “deliberative” from Dictionary.com: having to do with policy; dealing with the wisdom and expediency of a proposal.

Senator Obama wants America to have a discussion, and to deliberate, about the wisdom of The Constitution and the Bill of Right. Think about it – deliberate on it.

Others talking about an Obama Supreme Court:
Conservatives Slam Obama’s Misunderstanding of the U.S. Constitution