Id sure like to see Andrew Napolitano on the US Supreme Court. Realistically, I know it aint going to happen in this universe. Democrats would blow up the Senate building before they allowed him to be confirmed. Not only does Napolitano stand for the Constitution, individual liberties, and limited government, he has the balls to say democracy sucks. He does not say it in my words, but he sure says it in the enclosed article. Judge Napolitanos stated views must frighten the ruling class because he is a judge not a street corner radical full of hatred for this country. For years totalitarians cleverly planted the idea that democracy is good thing. I do not know how many times Ive heard high ranking officials talk about bringing democracy to the rest of the world? I never heard a one of them explain why democracy is a good thing, or debate the issue, they simply talked about democracy as though every American agreed with them. Nobody ever challenged them. Even today, you can see that advancing democracy is driving the Arab Spring. Husseins foreign policy does not defend America it establishes democracies, yet promoting democracy is never blamed for failed policies. Nor does anyone point out that Americas ruling class is using tax dollars and American blood to organize the ruling classes in every country for the reasons Napolitano questions. This one specifically: What if democracy is dangerous to personal freedom? Anyway, if you take the time to read Napolitanos comments compare him to Ginsberg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor them ask yourself who you would put on the Supreme Court if you could vote on it? What If Democracy Is Bunk? Judge Andrew Napolitano Feb 23, 2012 What if you are only allowed to vote because it doesn't make a difference? What if no matter how you vote, the elites get to have it their way? What if "one person, one vote" is just a fiction created by the government to induce your compliance? What if democracy is dangerous to personal freedom? What if democracy erodes the people's understanding of natural rights and the foundations of government, and instead turns elections into beauty contests? What if democracy allows the government to do anything it wants, as long as more people bother to show up at the voting booth to support it than to oppose it? What if the purpose of democracy is to convince people that they could prosper not through the creation of wealth but through theft from others? What if the only moral way to acquire wealth -- aside from inheritance -- is through voluntary economic activity? What if the government persuaded you that you could acquire wealth through political activity? What if economic activity included all the productive and peaceful things we do? What if political activity included all the parasitical and destructive things the government does? What if governments were originally established to protect people's freedom, but always turn into political and imperialist enterprises that seek to expand their power, increase their territory and heighten their control of the population? What if the idea that we need a government to take care of us is actually a fiction? What if our strength as individuals and durability as a culture are contingent not on the strength of the government but on the amount of freedom we have from the government? What if we're seeing civil unrest around the world precisely because government is out of control? What if the cocktail of big government and democracy brings dependence and destruction? What if big government destroys people's motivations and democracy convinces them that the only motivation they need is to vote and go along with whatever the government does? What if the Republican primaries we're seeing unfold aren't actually as democratic as they may appear to be? What if the results you have seen from the states that have voted thus far don't match the composition of the delegates those states send to the Tampa convention this summer because the polls aren't what counts, but what counts are the secret meetings that come after the voting? What if Joe Stalin was right when he said the most powerful person in the world is the guy who counts the votes? What if the greatest tyrant in history lives among us? What if that tyrant always gets its way, no matter what the laws are or what the Constitution says? What if that tyrant is the majority of voters? What if the tyranny of the majority in a democracy recognizes no limits on its power? What if the government misinforms voters so as to justify anything the government wants to do? What if the government bribes people with the money it prints? What if it gives entitlements to the poor, tax breaks to the middle class and bailouts to the rich just to keep all of us dependent upon it? What if a vibrant republic requires not just the democratic process of voting, but also informed and engaged voters who understand first principles of limited government and free-market economics, and the divine origin of natural rights? What if we could free ourselves from the yoke of big government through a campaign of education and information and personal courage that leads to a revolutionary return to first principles? What if the establishment doesn't want this? What if the government remains the same no matter who wins elections? What if because of Ron Paul's presidential campaign, because he isn't campaigning just for votes as his competition is, because he is educating the population and winning the hearts and minds of a once free people and inspiring them to fight for their freedom once more, freedom wins? What if we can be free again? What will it take to make that happen? Judge Andrew Napolitano Judge Andrew P. Napolitano is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. He sat on the bench from 1987 to 1995, during which time he presided over 150 jury trials and thousands of motions, sentencings and hearings. He taught constitutional law at Seton Hall Law School for 11 years, and he returned to private practice in 1995. Judge Napolitano began television work in the same year. http://townhall.com/columnists/judgeandrewnapolitano/2012/02/23/what_if_democracy_is_bunk
There is some creditable speculation that Ginsberg will retire in 2015. In addition to her recently-announced preference for every constitution except ours there is this: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/a-r...e-arab-spring-during-visits-to-egypt-tunisia/ That puts her in direct opposition to Judge Napolitanos views on democracy. Thats worth knowing because democracy advocates also favor nation-building, while an overwhelming majority of Americans object to this country engaging in nation-building. Interestingly, few realize they are also opposing democracy because democracy-building is exactly what nation-building has come to mean. If you doubt me look at the elections held in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. A big deal was made out of the voting process. Isnt it just wonderful that the poor and disenfranchised are voting for the first time? The cruelest lie in all of democracy-building grandiloquence is the one guaranteeing fair elections in Third World countries when fair elections are unattainable in this country thanks to a myriad of laws and scams designed to make elections unfair. Funding organizations like ACORN with tax dollars, shady vote counts, registering animals, cartoon characters, illegal aliens, and dead people, are a few of the more obvious election-rigging tricks. So why in the world would anybody think an election in a democratic Third World country can be fair? If election fraud is not enough to make you skeptical remember that the most brutal dictatorships in the world hold elections. In one sense they are fair elections because everybody knows who is going win. On the bright side, an election is the only time democracy advocates cannot hide their contempt for individual liberties. How so you may ask? Answer: Democracy always leads to totalitarian government never to more freedom and liberty. Will Ginsberg hang in there until 2016 if a Republican is president for the next four years? Its hard to say. My guess is that she will. Will Andrew Napolitano be nominated by a Republican president should Ginsberg retire in 2015? I do not know the answer. I do know that Senate Democrats will treat him like a Jew at a German picnic if he is nominated. Surely, it will take a CONSERVATIVE Republican supermajority in the Senate to confirm Napolitano, or any judge that is the opposite of Ginsberg. And you can add this to Democrat thinking: Once a liberal, or a minority, gets on the High Court that seat belongs to their kind forever. U.S. News Ruth Bader Ginsburg stepping down in 2015 By MICHAEL KIRKLAND WASHINGTON, Feb. 19 (UPI) -- Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will step down from the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015 to give President Obama, putatively in his second term, a chance to name a liberal as her successor. That's the conclusion of Tom Goldstein, founder and padrone of SCOSTUSBLOG.com, one of the premier Supreme Court litigators in active practice -- he's argued 24 cases before the justices -- and arguably the most prescient high court analyst. Goldstein tends to be included on lists: Congressional Quarterly named him one of the 50 most influential people in Washington; Legal Times named him one of the 90 greatest Washington lawyers of the past 30 years and one of the leading Washington appellate lawyers, and the Washingtonian named him one of the 30 best lawyers in Washington. So any prediction by Goldstein has to be taken very seriously. In the swashbuckling , devil-may-care style familiar to those who know him, Goldstein admits his prediction is speculation. "The odds are good that Justice Ginsburg will retire in the third year of a second Obama term," he writes in SCOTUSBLOG. "That is only a presumption, and I doubt that the justice herself has made concrete plans. [Obama's] re-election itself is highly uncertain, and much can change in one's thinking over the next three years. "Nonetheless, the justice has sent signals that correspond with a likely retirement at that time." Ginsburg's retirement would have nothing to do with her two bouts of cancer, both of which she bested. Instead, when asked about stepping down, Ginsburg has noted similarities of her court service with that of the first Jewish member of the high court, Justice Louis Brandeis, Brandeis retired at age 82, Goldstein points out. Ginsburg will turn 82 in March 2015. Pretty thin gruel on which to make a prediction, Goldstein concedes. But in a June 30, 2011, interview with USA Today, Ginsburg pretty much confirmed her intentions. Ginsburg "said she felt good and reiterated her vow to remain on the bench at least to match the tenure of Justice Louis Brandeis, who retired at age 82 in 1939, after almost 23 years," USA Today's Joan Biskupic reported. The justice said: "I'm going to stay as long as I can do the job. I probably will at least equal him. But you have to take it year by year." At an event last February at George Washington University, Ginsburg said the same thing, The Hill reported. "I was appointed at age 60, the same age that Louis Bidenz Brandeis was when he was appointed to the court. He stayed until he was 83 [actually 82]. So I do have a way to go," The Hill quoted her as saying. Goldstein throws cold water on speculation Justice Stephen Breyer, a fellow liberal, will retire soon, despite advice that he should to give Obama a second appointment. In "The Case for Early Retirement: Why Justices Ginsburg and Breyer should retire immediately" in the April 28, 2011, edition of The New Republic, Harvard professor Randall Kennedy said: "Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer should soon retire. That would be the responsible thing for them to do. ... Both are unlikely to be able to outlast a two-term Republican presidential administration, should one supersede the Obama administration following the 2012 election. What's more, both are, well, old: Ginsburg is now 78, the senior sitting justice. Breyer is 72." As for Breyer's stepping down, "no one knows," Goldstein said. "But I think it is less likely. Justice Breyer is five years younger than Justice Ginsburg. If he were to leave the court, it would likely need to be 2014 at the age of 75 (to avoid two retirements in 2015). I think Justice Breyer probably thinks he has seven to 10 more years of service before retiring." Breyer, an athletic bike rider, certainly shows no signs of slowing down. He and his wife just faced down a machete-wielding intruder in their Caribbean vacation home -- losing about $1,000 in the process -- so his nerves must still be pretty good. Besides, if you sit in the Supreme Court and listen, Breyer often tries to bring the voice of reason and compromise to the ideological rancor that sometimes holds sway, relishing the role. Goldstein said if Obama does get to name a successor to Ginsburg, it will be a woman jurist of color, and names a number of worthy candidates. In contrast there has been very little speculation about the other elderly justices. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who often joins with the conservatives, will be 76 in July. Peppery Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative paladin, will be 76 next month. The rest, in their 50s and 60s, are practically teenagers in Supreme Court terms. Speaking of Ginsburg's hero, Brandeis, he was the high court's historical champion of the constitutional right to privacy. Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, the former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, has said repeatedly he does not believe there is such a right -- hence adults have no right to an abortion, contraception or bedroom hanky panky. Just in case Goldstein is wrong about a second Obama term -- and he'd be the first to admit he could be -- would Ginsburg give up her seat if President Santorum had the right to fill it? http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012...burg-stepping-down-in-2015/UPI-85241329640200
My Comments follow this brief article: China: Democracy Not the Right Path for Us Friday, 09 Mar 2012 06:45 AM China's government vowed Friday that it will not deviate from its socialist path, defending anew its authoritarian system and saying Western capitalist political systems are not suitable for China. China's top legislator, Wu Bangguo, said in a report delivered to the annual National People's Congress that China needs to keep to the socialist path and understand the differences between its political system and those of Western capitalist countries. As China has grown more powerful and rich in recent years, it has strongly rejected any criticism of its policies and suggestions that the economic changes would bring about any lessening of power for the ruling Communist Party. Wu, the second most powerful person in the party, said the socialist system with Chinese characteristics "is the fundamental institutional guarantee for the development and progress of contemporary China, and we must cherish it even more and adhere to it for a long time to come." He said that China needs to understand the "essential differences" between its systems and "Western capitalist countries' systems of political power." "To manage China's affairs well, we need to stay grounded in its realities, rely on the strength of the Chinese people, and follow a development path suited to China's conditions," he said. Wu also reiterated goals laid out by Premier Wen Jiabao at the opening of the 10-day congress on Monday — that the government must rebalance the economy by increasing domestic demand, especially consumer demand, and boosting investment in science and technology while promoting energy conservation and the cutting of emissions. Even though China's economy has grown at a double-digit pace for years, the government is now grappling with a slowing economy and rising public demands for greater fairness. Officials have also been slow to tackle entrenched interests, particularly the powerful state enterprises that dominate the economy. The World Bank and outside economists said recently that such a restructuring is needed if China wants to rise from a middle-income to a rich country. Wu said that legislative work this year would also focus on social and cultural areas. On the social front, legislative committees will discuss drafts of the mental health law, the law on insurance for military personnel and the draft amendment to the Civil Procedure Law, among others. He said 2012 is an important year because of a once-every-five-year party congress in October that will oversee the change of most of the ruling party bosses. http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/China-Politics-socialism-democracy/2012/03/09/id/431951 Nobody should be surprised to learn that democracy is not for China. Totalitarian government is where democracy ends. More to the point: China bypassed socialism & democracy by going straight to totalitarian government. The only way the above article would be news is if Chinese Communists took two steps backwards to get to democracy. China is not going to make the same mistake the Soviet Union made. Russian Communists, too, went to totalitarian government soon after the revolutions ended in 1917. Decades later they tried to go back to socialism and the place fell apart. It’s no wonder the Soviet Union never worked. Even by their own standards Russian Communists did it butt-backwards. Before Chinese Communists are finished, they will try to succeed where the Soviets failed. They are counting on the political power American Communists acquired during and after the Cold War ended. American Communists had almost no political power in the early years of the Cold War. Saving communism in Vietnam was the turning point. Today, you can see the Left’s political power in America’s trade policies. The Soviet Union would still be with us had Soviets Communists received one-tenth of the help China is getting.
I've wondered about this as well; She would be 83 or so in 2016, currently not in the best of health and I suspect she has been encouraged to retire before now, just in case Obama is denied a second term. Her husband of 48 years passed nearly 2 years ago. While I'm sure, any normally conservative Republican President would have "The Judge" on their short list, I don't see anyone other than Ron Paul fitting that description. Even if Rand is picked by Romney for VP, he won't carry much weight with him and Romney will go with a moderate justice.
Quote from #2 permalink: Good Lord! They are now laying claim to the first ladys spot. Newt Gingrich Calls Robert De Niro First Lady Comments 'Inexcusable' Posted: 03/20/2012 11:37 am Updated: 03/20/2012 1:59 pm Newt Gingrich wants President Obama to apologize for a joke that Robert De Niro made at a campaign event Monday night. "What De Niro said last night was inexcusable and the president should apologize for him," Gingrich told supporters in Shreveport, Louisiana, according to CNN. "It was at an Obama fundraiser, it is exactly wrong, it divides the country." De Niro co-hosted the event with Michelle Obama at one of his New York City restaurants, and before the First Lady was introduced he made a quip about the GOP candidates' wives. "Callista Gingrich. Karen Santorum. Ann Romney. Now do you really think our country is ready for a white First Lady?" he asked the crowd. "Too soon, right?" The Obama for America crowd had a good laugh, but Gingrich did not. On Tuesday the former House Speaker fired back at De Niro, dismissing him as a shortsighted Hollywood actor who "probably doesn't notice the price of gasoline." "I do want to say one thing, both on behalf of my wife and on behalf of Karen Santorum and on behalf of Ann Romney, I think that Robert De Niro's wrong," he said. "I think the country is ready for a new first lady and he doesn't have to describe it in racial terms." Team Obama reacted to Gingrich's comments Tuesday with a short statement. "We believe the joke was inappropriate," said FLOTUS campaign spokesperson Olivia Alair. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...id10|htmlws-main-bb|dl1|sec1_lnk2&pLid=145000
Hussein is obviously too busy apologizing for America to apologize for De Niros racist comment. Question: Is Michelle so busy she had a surrogate apologize for her?: Obama campaign says white first lady joke was inappropriate By Justin Sink - 03/20/12 12:29 PM ET http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...ays-deniros-first-lady-joke-was-inappropriate
There should be 9 supreme court judges that are not affiliated with a political party to avoid religious and elitist influences upon logic.
can you share with us a direct quote from obama apologizing? come on flanders, don't run away this time. we all know how you tuck tail and run whenever challenged. Why don't you actually engage in a debate, instead of pretending this forum is your own personal blog.
