Conservative Judicial Activist Daley takes amateurish potshots at Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley.

Judge James Daley is right out of central right wing casting. He's a candidate for the state supreme court and a constitutional originalist, which makes him a conservative judicial activist. 

But as we all know, there's only one kind of activism that won't be tolerated; the liberal kind. Daley can't stop talking about the horrors of "liberal activism," while sternly declaring "the laws the law." Like all conservative activists, "the legislative branch should be free to do what it wants"...except when it comes to ObamaCare, Voting rights, EPA regulations, gay marriage...you know what I mean. It's their law or no law. We've seen that with the right wing attempts at nullification.

Judge Daley's conservative activism is so blatantly obvious in his very first campaign radio ad for Supreme Court Justice, that you're jaw will drop and laugh like I did. How dare someone oppose Scott Walker:

Check out Daley's appeared on WPT's Here and Now with Frederica Freyberg. His nonsensical attacks on Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, yup, she's a liberal judicial activist, are based on her dissenting decisions on voter ID and Act 10. Bradley had the gall to oppose Walker, and we also know the constitution is conservative, right?



Here's how the press release flipped the "personal political agenda" around, making it seem like Daley has no agenda at all. It's surreal beyond words:

The Daley for Wisconsin State Supreme Court campaign ... radio ad titled, “Undermining Reforms” which exposes the personal political agenda incumbent Ann Walsh Bradley has long-inserted into court actions.

“The case against Justice Ann Walsh Bradley is clear; whether it be trying to derail Act 10, obstruct Voter ID or other common-sense reforms, Bradley seemingly never passes on an opportunity to insert her personal political agenda into court decisions that impact Wisconsin,” said challenger Judge James Daley. “Wisconsin deserves a Supreme Court Justice who sets politics aside, and makes upholding the rule of law their priority.”

Van Hollen says he's not political, but defends Act 10 the Walker way, "will of the people."

Is Van Hollen even trying to look like the state's top legal mind?

Not only did J.B. Van Hollen fail to defend Scott Walker's refusal to carry out a very constitutional Affordable Care Act, but he looked stumped trying to explain why Act 10 is anything but unconstitutional. Shooting from the hip, Van Hollen skips over our founding document so he can repeat Walker's inane argument, "it's will of the people." Speaking of the people's will:

Van Hollen: "Their will shouldn't be trumped, uh by, uh, by an individual judge or anyone else unless they've clearly violated our constitution." 

"Clearly?" You know, like most cases before the Supreme Court, they' get all the easy one? From Upfront with Mike Gousha:

Judicial Activism 101...The Conservative Politicization of the Judicial Branch has Already Happened.

The defenders of the American tradition have declared war on...the American tradition. What America are they taking us back too? As Van Jones said so perfectly in the last clip below:

Media allows activism to continue

Van Jones: "We're going to have, at some point, come to a decision about whether or not that is America's great heritage (labor unions, civil rights, women's rights, environment) and those that attack it, or oppose America. Or somehow for a hundred years we made a mistake, the American century was a mistake, the American middle class was a mistake, the American way was a mistake. And we're going to go back to some mythical wild, wild west of social Darwinism, which in fact did not ever exist, and did not make us the great nation that we are." 

Ever wonder why the Republican attacked and so vehemently opposed Van Jones? Now you know why...he's really good. That comment is at the end of the bottom video clip.

But first, judicial activism on the far right and Pres. Obama's statements on the subject. Jaun Williams put it perfectly here:



Here's a clip of George W. Bush ragging on those unelected judicial activists:



And finally, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals went beyond the case before them to lash out at Obama for his comments. Judge Smith went out of his way to embarrass the president and what he referred to as "Obamacare," a sure sign Smith is no impartial party to the case before him. Pure conservative judicial activism. The Van Jones' comment above is in this clip, along with a nice statement from Richard Wolffe:



The scary part of all this is that conservative voters don't have a problem with their own brand of activism.

Conservative Activist Supreme Court Justices detached from the reality of health care...

This is just one of the many heart wrenching story that will fall to the wayside, be forgotten, and soon fade with the possible passing of Violet, a 4 year old girl.  Violet health care needs have been compared to cell phones, buying a car, broccoli and health club memberships. And that's from our professional supreme court justices, not Michelle Bachmann, dumb Ron Johnson or Paul Ryan:

Public admits U.S. Supreme Court politicized, want to try Affordable Care Act.

The one big target of the Bush administration was the judicial system, where they successfully politicized the courts. That has basically poisoned the public’s trust of that branch of government. 

 Bloomberg News: Three-quarters of Americans say the U.S. Supreme Court will be influenced by politics when it rules on the constitutionality of a health-care law signed by President Barack Obama two years ago.

The sentiment crosses party lines and is especially held by independents, 80 percent of whom say the court will not base its ruling solely on legal merits, according to a Bloomberg National Poll. More Republicans than Democrats, by 74 percent to 67 percent, say politics will play a role in the court’s health- care decision.

The poll also sought opinions of the health-care law. 37 percent of respondents said it should be repealed, the same percentage as the first time Bloomberg asked the question in July 2010. 11 percent said it should be left alone. Just under half, 46 percent, said the law “may need small modifications, but we should see how it works.”

That's 57 percent who support "Obamacares." Republicans have easily set the agenda for the 2012 presidential election so far, with this near perfect talking point list of issues:

Health care ranked fourth on a list of issues that respondents named as the most important facing the country, behind unemployment, the federal deficit and gas prices.

Let’s face it, Republicans have destroyed the Judicial Branch with activist judges.

All the while Republicans screamed bloody murder over liberal activist judges, they were installing their own conservative activist judges. Yes, it’s opposite day everyday in Republican world. And they're getting away with it. Republicans on the campaign trail have even gone as far as telling voters that they'll replace every judge with a conservative one. And it never gets any press. Yet, the public may be taking notice:

The Kaiser Foundation: With the Supreme Court just two months away from hearing a historic legal challenge to the 2010 health law, nearly 60 percent of the public expects the justices to depend more on personal ideology than a legal analysis of the individual mandate, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation's January health tracking poll.

Just 28 percent of those surveyed believe the justices will base their decision on the mandate without regard to politics and ideology, according to the survey.

Take a look at the abusive authoritarian bullying of our own more liberal justices here in Wisconsin by the conservative majority. There’s no conservative objection to the sad state of our top court's acrimony, because aggressive intimidation is considered leadership now by Republican voters.   

Recall Districts need to change, via a conservative activist Waukesha Judge.

Let’s be clear, the Republican smear campaign against all things Democratic/liberal, will never rest until they wrestle total control of our government away from its current two party system.

One party rule via voter ID, redistricting, fluid rule changes to game current law, stacking the courts with activist conservative judges/Justices, overwhelming talk radio/newspaper editorial domination, an organized network of think tanks, fear mongering to a receptive voter base combined with a simplistic but austere solution to everything is working beyond their own expectations.

The following story details just how crooked and transparently activist the Republicans have made the judicial branch of our government. Remember when they hated the courts? 

TheRepublic: Republicans have filed a second lawsuit to require any recall elections for state legislators to be conducted in newly drawn districts, a move that would favor their party. Attorney Eric McLeod, who is representing the Republicans, said he filed the second action in Waukesha County to ensure proper procedures were followed.

Waukesha is stacked with highly partisan conservative judges. Dane County, Republicans claim, is filled with activist liberal judges. Better to blatantly judge shop, which is okay with conservative voters, who see themselves as a struggling minority victimized by socialist liberals. After stacking the courts with conservative activist judges:

A new law also passed by Republicans this year allowed for lawsuits challenging state laws to be heard outside of Dane County, where they typically are heard. McLeod said he filed the complaint in Waukesha County because it was more convenient. 

State conservatives know that’s a lie. But they want to win, and they’re willing to poison the judicial branch of government to take control.

The irony of course is that Att. McLeod wrote the law for the GOP that he now suing to change:

The law establishing the new political districts says the new boundaries will not take effect for purposes of elections until the fall of 2012. The lawsuit filed by the Republicans seeks to have the new lines take effect immediately. McLeod's law firm, Michael Best & Friedrich, was paid to help lawmakers draw the new maps. Now he is representing Republicans who want to change when the maps take effect.

Pocket Constitution Republicans seek to destroy and subvert Judicial Branch of government.

I’ve made the argument before that it seems amazing that that the judicial branch of our government, the Supreme Court, could outright negate laws passed by the other co-equal legislative branch.

But I’m also not sure change is needed. If anything, a debate on the issue of the Supreme Court’s power would be a healthy one. But that debate could also open the door for politicization and a constitutional crisis. Take the following article as a harbinger of things to come, and the chaos and destabilization of our country for purely political purposes. Sadly, conservative voters don’t see the same red flags as others.

NY Times: Gov. Rick Perry of Texas favors term limits for Supreme Court justices. Representatives Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Ron Paul of Texas say they would forbid the court from deciding cases concerning same-sex marriage. Newt Gingrich and former Senator Rick Santorum want to abolish the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, calling it a “rogue” court that is “consistently radical.”

Bert Brandenburg, executive director of Justice at Stake, a research and advocacy group that seeks to protect judicial independence said, “They sound populist, but the proposal is to make courts answer to politicians and interest groups.”

Mitt Romney dismissed the idea “I’m not looking to create a constitutional crisis.” But his rivals have shown no such reluctance in attacking a federal court system in which their side has achieved significant victories.

The Supreme Court delivered the presidency to George W. Bush, interpreted the Second Amendment to guarantee an individual right to bear arms and allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money in elections. And many Republicans are looking to the Supreme Court for vindication in the political battle with President Obama over his health care overhaul.

The Republican candidates have focused their anger at court rulings on social issues like abortion, same-sex marriage and the role of religion in public life. Those issues hold the potential to fire up the party’s base and to provide crucial support in the primaries.

In February, Mr. Santorum told a Tea Party group in South Carolina that he would “sign a bill tomorrow to eliminate the Ninth Circuit,” adding: “That court is rogue. It’s a pox on the western part of our country.”

Another Activist Supreme Court Decision on Free Speech: You have more of it if you have...Money!!!

So in summary; conservative Justice Thomas is taking gifts from clients before his court, and not reporting it; conservative Wisconsin State Supreme Court Justice David Prosser is threatening two women Justices; both courts have majority conservative activist justices, and now:

CNN: The Supreme Court has tossed out an Arizona law that provides extra taxpayer-funded support for office seekers who have been outspent by privately funded opponents or by independent political groups. A conservative 5-4 majority of justices said the law violated free speech, concluding the state was impermissibly trying to "level the playing field" through a public finance system.Arizona lawmakers had argued there was a compelling state interest in equalizing resources among competing candidates and interest groups.

Think about it; matching campaign funds doesn't prevent the other side from spending as much "free speech" as they want. This does not limit free speech. But in one of the more down the rabbit hole statements yet, Justice Roberts wrote:

The Constitution, the chief justice wrote, does not allow the state to "increase the speech of some at the expense of others."

This decision blatantly tells us all one thing: Some people have more free speech rights than the others.

WISN’s conservative talker Jay Weber Claims Dissenting Justices Agreed with Majority, Sumi Wrong.

What part of “dissenting opinion” don’t they understand?

Saying that dissent is not enough, conservative spin meister Jay Weber actually convinces his audience the entire Supreme Court bench agreed Judge Sumi ruled incorrectly. So much for the scathing rebuke by Justice Shirley Abrahamson.

In the same breath, Weber quotes Justice Abrahamson’s unambiguous wording that completely disproves his bizarre take on the court’s ruling.  And that’s only in the first minute of the audio clip below. In her dissent:

…the order seems to open the court unnecessarily to the charge that the majority has "reached a predetermined conclusion not based on the facts and the law, which undermines the majority's ultimate decision." (The majority justices) "make their own findings of fact, mischaracterize the parties' arguments, misinterpret statutes, minimize (if not eliminate) Wisconsin constitutional guarantees, and misstate case law, appearing to silently overrule case law dating back to at least 1891."

 

Sure sounds like she disagrees with the activist conservative Justices ruling.

In another surreal highlight, Weber went on to complain that the cost of “idiot” protesters and court challenges amounted to more than $30 million:

Weber: “No one at the Journal Sentinel or in the news media has the least bit of curiosity at what those several weeks that the fleeing 14 in Illinois actually cost us. They have no curiosity on what Judge Sumi’s ruling actually cost us, at least $30 million. They have no curiosity on what the Capitol costs truly are. And yet we get two days of stories of how these recall elections are going to cost an extra $400,000. It’s all the Republicans fault.”

On that last point he’s right; it was the Republicans fault. They didn’t care very much about the massive protests around the Capitol and state, and took an uncompromising position on their extremist agenda.

For real insight into the conservative thought process, check out this Weber listener call:

Mike in Oconomowoc: “The left uses every single tactic they can possibly think of to subvert the Constitution and the rule of law…the fact is, we shouldn’t even be having these elections. Why aren’t they talking about cost of having them at all, there’s no reason for these elections. Why is it the left use any tactic they want, but the right can’t fight back?”

Dan on the North Side (who assumes Sumi will rule on CC and Voter ID too?): “… as a conservative, it’s frustrating because even if she gets censured and she gets removed, we all know the kind of judge that is going to replace her because it’s in Dane County. It’s a little frustrating.”


Weber: “It absolutely is.”

So much for the voting public’s right to choose judges.  Authoritarian much?

This clip of presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty’s proud admission shows how upfront and hypocritical conservatives are about their own activist judges. Can you imagine a Democrat making this claim:

WSJ: In her dissent, Abrahamson … singled out Prosser, whose concurrence, she wrote, "is long on rhetoric and long on story-telling that appears to have a partisan slant." Abrahamson said she agreed with Justice Patrick Crooks' separate dissent, that the case should come to the Supreme Court as part of an "orderly appellate review of the circuit court's order with a full opinion."

"Only with a reasoned, accurate analysis can a court assure the litigants and the public that a decision is made on the basis of facts and law, free from a judge's personal ideology and free from external pressure by the executive or legislative branches, by partisan political parties, by public opinion or by special interest groups."

Crooks wrote that the majority reached "a hasty decision" that doesn't address important questions about the Legislature's constitutional requirements … "Those who would rush to judgment on these matters are essentially taking the position that getting this opinion out is more important than doing it right and getting it right," he wrote. "It is rather astonishing that the court would choose to decide such an unusual and complex case without benefit of a complete record."

Non-partisan judicial election? A lie. Take the following unintended admission of politicizing the judicial branch by Conservatives.

We've got an activist conservative judge problem...big time.

If this last Supreme Court election didn’t make if perfectly clear how partisan the judicial branch is now, hell Justice David Prosser was a former Republican speaker of the assembly, then the following story should tell you everything. Both candidates were touting their “conservative” credentials, as if law had an assumed, right wing bias.  

jsonline: For the second time in as many years, a judge appointed by Democratic former Gov. Jim Doyle was defeated by a candidate who ran on a message of being the more conservative choice backed by prominent Republicans. Judge Kathryn Stilling countered that as a judge, she had shown she was a conservative by applying the law as it was written. 

See, “conservative” and “law and order” are inseparable in the Republican world view. Bizarre when you consider how disrespectful and suspicious conservatives are toward judges, the police and their fellow lawmakers. If they disagree with a judge’s decision, like they did when Judge Sumi held up the union busting bill, that judge shouldn’t have inserted herself into the political process. That action proved she is an liberal activists despite her conservative credentials. Never mind the constitution or state laws.

A year ago, another Doyle appointee to the bench, Richard Congdon, was defeated in his first election by former state Rep. Mark Gundrum, a Republican from New Berlin.

Gundrum was another extremist activist legislator, elected to the bench, by conservative voters more than willing to politicize the judicial branch so they could rub their agenda in the faces of their political foes. 

Are these really the words of a State Supreme Court Justice?

In another revealing Supreme Court electoral debate, Justice David Prosser literally attacked his opponent verbally, by accusing Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg of being something he heard was true. I’m not kidding:

jsonline: Prosser said Kloppenburg held "extreme political and social views" but did not specify what they were. "She's trying to camouflage her views and not level with the people of Wisconsin," Prosser said. "She is an unbending ideologue. And I wouldn't say that if I hadn't heard that multiple times."

I can’t help wondering if what Prosser hears often also influences his judicial decisions, facts be damned? Oh, there’s more. In a country with only one righteous political philosophy, conservativism, you can’t hide from your traitorous liberal leanings:

Prosser linked Kloppenburg to Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, whom he called an activist and liberal. Kloppenburg interned for Abrahamson about 25 years ago but said she is independent. 

"It's ludicrous to say someone will be the clone of someone they interned for many years ago," she said.

Prosser of course is okay with bashing his colleague and Chief Justice.

The Journal Sentinel phrased Kloppenburg’s response as taking “shots” at Prosser, equating her comments to the petty partisan sniping of her opponent:

Kloppenburg also took shots at Prosser, citing personal divisions on the court and an outburst a year ago when Prosser called Abrahamson a "bitch" and threatened to "destroy" her. 

She said Prosser had castigated his fellow justices in his opinions and said such writings could taint the image of the court and lead people to wonder if decisions were based on "personal vendettas."

True, or just taking shots?

Justice Prosser's "Who's the turd.." new Wisconsin protest catch phrase.

Ahhhhh, It's unstoppable...

Cap Times: Supreme Court Justice David Prosser has a point. Somebody was called a turd, and he just wants to know if it was him. 

"Who's the turd here?" he asked at a Supreme Court candidate forum at the Concourse Hotel Tuesday. 

The list of possible candidates: him or Gov. Scott Walker. 

Prosser thought it was inappropriate that a commenter on Kloppenburg's Facebook page wrote, "Stop the turd, vote Kloppenburg." 

On Tuesday, he was still asking the question. 

At a couple of the Capitol rallies I saw people toting posters that unambiguously answered the question. They read: "Scott Walker is a turd," and if that wasn't clear enough, the posters also included a somewhat inartistic rendering of said turd topped with a photo of the governor's head. 

The posters were representing the view of the Madison Sewer Workers Local 236, and I guess someone took it viral from there. 

Health Care Mandate Exposes Conservative Activist Judges.

Chris Matthews and Rep. Laura Richardson make sense out the mandate, and point out judicial activism taking place by conservative judges. Sure it's happened on the left too, but let's face it, impartial judges are now a relic of the past.

Money Influencing Government!!! Outspending Noncorporate individuals by Wide Margin. Now that's Free Speech.

Citizens United Ruling by Conservative Activist Supreme Court Starts to Dismantle Country
It didn’t take long, did it, to see what the end of our representative democracy would look like under the influence of the money changers. With all the money spent on media advertising by corporate America, think media outlets will report anything that would negatively impact these big spenders?

Go corporate personhood.

Oil billionaires David and Charles Koch have jumped on board an effort to suspend California's global warming law by making a million-dollar contribution this week. They join two Texas-based companies, Valero Energy Corp. and Tesoro Corp.

California's global warming law, known as AB32, seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions statewide to 1990 levels over the next decade.

Proposition 23 is opposed by environmental groups, Democratic lawmakers and Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who called the contribution "extremely disappointing."

A Koch spokeswoman, said the company believes the law will cause "significant job losses and higher energy costs." So far, the Proposition 23 campaign has raised $8.2 million, of which 97 percent has come from oil interests.

Texas Gov's Former Chief of Staff Gets Green Party on Ballot. NOTHING wrong there.

So what's the meaning and point of this story:

Wisconsin State Jouranl: The Texas Supreme Court has ruled that the Green Party can put its candidates on the November statewide ballot WHILE it considers whether the party took improper donations to fund its petition drive. Green Party officials have said if their candidates are blocked from the ballot, it would be a "death penalty" for the party.

I know, it looks like a third party, in this case the Green Party, would like a chance at being a part of the elections in November. But wait:

Perry's former chief of staff and close confidant Mike Toomey, who is now a lobbyist, was identified in court testimony as a Republican operative behind efforts to help a Green Party petition drive. A Perry campaign spokesman has denied Perry or the campaign are involved.

Well then, we have no reason to believe otherwise….it's just a coincedence. I'm sure the Supreme Court will make the right decision…

The Supreme Court, which has the case now, is made up of nine Republicans.

Oh boy. The question now is, did the district judge make the wrong decision?

But Dietz State District Judge John Dietz, who ruled in favor of the Democrats, agreed with Democrats that the signature gathering was overtly political.

Judge Dietz is an admitted partisan hack, right?

Arizona Campaign Law Unfair to Big Business and Millionaire Candidates. Thank You Justice John Roberts, for stepping in.

A bare naked power grab by the high court. Matching campaign funding may infringe on the right of big business to spend without limit, knowing their political opponent might be able to get public funding to level the playing field.

How unfair is that to "free speech means money" advocates, like the activist on the Roberts Supreme Court... of lawmaking. Rachel Maddow noticed, as usual:

Scalia Angry, Frustrated over Inability to Make Broader Conservative Ruling over Beach Front Land Taking.

I don't know why I thought this story was incredibly interesting, or something to watch closely as it came up before the Supreme Court, but I'm glad it had the kind of outcome that was fair to everyone.

NY Times: I was outraged at beach property owners attempting to take ownership of beachfront sand added with Florida state taxpayer dollars. It's like they deserved the gift and extra land. Not a single Supreme Court justice agreed with the harebrained notion that some Florida property owners were entitled to the extra land created when the state widened the beach in front of their houses.

The case was brought after the state began adding sand to miles of eroded beaches in Florida’s panhandle. Homeowners said they should have exclusive access to the newly created beach, but the Florida Supreme Court said in 2008 that the owners had rights only to the old land. The owners said that would bring unwanted visitors, damaging their property values, and demanded compensation as a result of the court’s decision.

But as is the case now with this conservative activist Supreme Court, they were trying hard to expand the case before them:

But in an opinion issued Thursday, four justices came very close to creating an equally harebrained precedent: that a court decision about the application of a state’s property laws can amount to a “taking” of private property, as if a city or state had confiscated it.

It was clear from Justice Scalia’s opinion that he wanted to do that ... The harsh sarcasm he directed toward justices in disagreement may have reflected anger at his inability to win a fifth and deciding vote for his belief.

A typical authoritarian reaction to not getting their way.

Justice Scalia has never been a proponent of judicial minimalism, but even for him, the reach he attempted in this case was a little breathtaking. Fortunately, for the lack of one more vote, common sense dodged a bullet.

Leave it to the liberal level head justices to stay calm long enough to do the right thing:

Justice Stephen Breyer presented a calm rebuttal … he and Justice Anthony Kennedy reminded Justice Scalia, it was perfectly possible to decide the beach case without creating a huge new judicial doctrine.

Justice Thomas: Off with their heads!!! Capital Punishment for 7 Year Olds NOT a Bad Thing.

The conservative activist supreme court justices are at it again. To them, a life sentence for breaking ones parole, is not a violation of your 8th amendment rights. Hell, in the 18th century that happened all the time. Thomas, the freeloading justice, found the details to troublesome to deal with and would only cloud the issue up with empathy.

NY Times: The Supreme Court ruled that juveniles who commit crimes in which no one is killed may not be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole … the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment forbids such sentences as a categorical matter.

How would a strict constitutional constructionist react?

Justice Thomas predicted that Monday’s ruling would give rise to years of litigation about just what sort of parole or other processes states must provide to provide the required “meaningful opportunity to obtain release.”

That’s…outrageous? For constructionists like Thomas, the constitution does not evolve or broaden over the advancement of civilization. For example:

As usual in cases involving the Eighth Amendment, the justices debated whether the Constitution should consider, in a one common formulation, “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.”

Only the atrophied mind of Thomas, along with all ideological constructionist theorists, would take the following approach:

Justice Thomas said the court should look to the practices at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted. Given that capital punishment could be imposed on people as young as 7 in the 18th century, he said, Mr. Graham’s punishment would almost certainly have been deemed acceptable back then.

Justice John Paul Stevens, in a concurrence joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor, said Justice Thomas’s “static approach to the law” did not allow for societal progress and would entail unacceptable human consequences.

“Justice Thomas would apparently not rule out a death sentence for a $50 theft by a 7-year-old,” Justice Stevens wrote. “Knowledge accumulates,” he wrote. “We learn, sometimes, from our mistakes.”

Thomas was joined by Scalia, Alito and Roberts, the predictable coalition of conservative activists.

Thank God Judicial Crisis Network Holding Obama in Check over Supreme Court Nomination.

It's amazing how conservative judicial activism goes so unnoticed by Republicans. If any other court had decided so many major issues geared toward a specific ideology, you wouldn't hear the end of it. But as we all know, the founding fathers are channeled spiritually through conservatives, who's philosophy supersedes all others.

So what's so wrong with replacing Justice Stevens with a conservative? Carrie Severino, of the Judicial Crisis Network, doesn't want an Obama rubber stamp on the court, spreading their liberal activism all over the place.