Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Sen. Jefferson Bearregard Sessions racist, Twisted Constitutional Ranting Reflects Convoluted Conservative Interpretation as the Original Meaning.

Good 'Ole Southern boy Sen. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions' partisan, conservative activist viewpoint of Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall turned my stomach. We can agree there are two points of view when it comes to interpreting our constitutional, but we will never agree that there is really only one meaning, a conservative one.

With our current conservative activist supreme court justices setting national policy on campaign money, corporate person hood, gun ownership and the benefits of "legal" price fixing, Republicans and tea party simpletons are now pointing to these recent decisions as proof their interpretation is the right one.

Beauregard Sessions insane belligerent statements: Ruth Bader Ginsberg is "one of the most active members of the supreme court." "As the dramatic 5 to 4 decision today, in the McDonald case shows, the personal right of every American to own a gun hangs by a single vote on the Supreme Court." "Ms. Kagan has associated herself with well known activist judges who have used their power to redefine the meaning of words of our constitution and laws in ways that not surprisingly have the result of advancing that judges preferred social policies and agendas. She clerked with Justice Marshall...a well known activist."

Thank god we haven't seen any of that from Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Roberts.

What's worse is the compliant Democratic Party allowing the redefinition of constitutional law to take place on their watch, and without a fight. Obama opened the door when he commented on the Citizens United case, saying "a major victory for Big Oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans." The Democrats ran and hid from the "controversy."

Yes, that activist Justice Marshall and his liberal war against "separate but equal." How could he defile the constitution like that? Like….

Thurgood Marshall represented and won more cases before the United States Supreme Court than any other American. Marshall's first major court case came in 1933 when he successfully sued the University of Maryland to admit a young African American Amherst University graduate named Donald Gaines Murray.

Biography.com: Among them were cases in which the court declared unconstitutional a Southern state's exclusion of African American voters from primary elections (Smith v. Allwright [1944]), state judicial enforcement of racial “restrictive covenants” in housing (Shelley v. Kraemer [1948]), and “separate but equal” facilities for African American professionals and graduate students in state universities (Sweatt v. Painter and McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents [both 1950]). Without a doubt, however, it was his victory before the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka that established his reputation as a formidable and creative legal opponent and an advocate of social change.

(As a) U.S. Court of Appeals judge for the Second Circuit … he wrote over 150 decisions including support for the rights of immigrants, limiting government intrusion in cases involving illegal search and seizure, double jeopardy, and right to privacy issues. Until his retirement from the highest court in the land, Justice Marshall established a record for supporting the voiceless American.

Kagan should be ashamed.

No comments:

Post a Comment