Justice Kennedy is dangerous

Continuing to talk about the Supreme Court, I turn now to Justice Anthony Kennedy, the “swing vote” of the Court.  With the Supreme Court already having far too much power than it should, Kennedy may be the most powerful man in America (and he probably knows it) - he literally runs the Court at this point.  And given his philosophy, it makes him a very dangerous man.

Of the 4 recent important decisions the Court has made, 3 of the 4 have been horrific in their overreach of judicial review.  And Kennedy has been the deciding, tie-breaking vote in all 4.  Larrey Anderson at American Thinker and Rich Lowry at National Review sum up the situation better than I could have, so I urge you to read their articles.  A quick synopisis of the “bad” 3, from Anderson’s article:

“In Boumediene v. Bush, Kennedy, and the four liberal judges, gave enemy combatants access to federal civil courts. This “right” had never existed in American law before the decision.

“Next, in Dada v. Mukasey, these same five judges allowed an illegal immigrant the “right” to change his mind about leaving the country voluntarily. This opinion is so convoluted that most constitutional scholars are still scratching their heads.

“In Kennedy v. Louisianna, the same Justice Kennedy, and the same four liberals, overturned the death penalty of a man convicted of brutally raping an eight-year-old girl.

It looks like Dr. James Dobson was right after all, when in 2005 he said:

“Even those who are opposed to the idea of capital punishment for minors should be gravely concerned about the criteria by which the Supreme Court arrived at its decision [Roper v. Simmons]. In writing for the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy, whom I consider to be the most dangerous man in America, explained his rationale for the ruling, boldly claiming, “It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international public opinion against the juvenile death penalty.” …. Kennedy further promised that the Supreme Court of the United States would continue to look to “the laws of [selected] other countries and to international authorities” in re-interpreting the Constitution.

“Justice Kennedy should be impeached for taking such a position… It is outrageous that we, the people of the United States, not only find ourselves governed unwillingly by a judicial oligarchy, but we are manhandled and lectured by this tiny body of lawyers who increasingly base its rulings not on our Constitution, nor on legal precedent, nor even on international law—but on something they call “world opinion.” The American people have neither chosen nor agree with this opinion. Kennedy and his liberal colleagues simply pick and choose the people in countries or continents that agree with them, usually from Europe and Canada, and ignore the rest, such as South America, Asia, and Africa. This is what we call “judicial tyranny!” and for good reason …

“Please tell me you understand the danger of this outrageous situation. To put ultimate power in the hands of those who promise to make up their rules as they go along—or to base them on treaties that were never ratified by Congress—is a recipe for disaster. Democracy itself hangs in the balance.”

(emphasis mine)

To think, Kennedy was appointed by Reagan.  You just never know, do you?

Justice Scalia is brilliant

While it is certainly good news that today the Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment in a 5-4 decision, it is very disturbing that 4 of those 9 justices would have ignored it, or worse, discarded it.  How a ban on handguns in Washington D.C. stayed on the books for over 30 years is baffling in and of itself, but at least now it has been corrected.

The entire opinon of the ruling (and the dissent) can be read here, but the choice paragraph comes Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion.  In that final paragraph (p. 67 of 157) he says:

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns… But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

(emphasis mine)

Brilliant in its simplicity, this Supreme Court Justice plainly states that the Supreme Court can not ammend the Constitution.  For some reason, four of the other justices think they can.  These liberal judges keep trying to settle political issues when it is only their job to settle legal ones.  They are of the same ilk that Barrack Obama would appoint during his presidency should a there be a vacancy on the court.  (That is just one of the many reasons why he must not be elected.)

I thank God that George W. Bush was in office to add to the Court John Roberts and Sam Alito, who along with Scalia and Clarence Thomas form a strong block of originalist interpreters of the Constitution.  John McCain claims he will appoint the same.  I hope he’s telling the truth.

3,000 miles wide, 3 inches deep? Not me…

A recent AP article entitled, “Americans: My Faith Isn’t the Only Way to Heaven.” An excerpt:

America remains a nation of believers, but a new survey finds most Americans don’t feel their religion is the only way to eternal life — even if their faith tradition teaches otherwise.

The findings, revealed Monday in a survey of 35,000 adults, can either be taken as a positive sign of growing religious tolerance, or disturbing evidence that Americans dismiss or don’t know fundamental teachings of their own faiths.

Among the more startling numbers in the survey, conducted last year by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life: 57 percent of evangelical church attenders said they believe many religions can lead to eternal life, in conflict with traditional evangelical teaching.

In all, 70 percent of Americans with a religious affiliation shared that view, and 68 percent said there is more than one true way to interpret the teachings of their own religion.

“The survey shows religion in America is, indeed, 3,000 miles wide and only three inches deep,” said D. Michael Lindsay, a Rice University sociologist of religion.

“There’s a growing pluralistic impulse toward tolerance and that is having theological consequences,” he said.

I find this disturbing because it clearly displays the results of satan’s insidious new attempt at preventing the spread of the Gospel: apathy (but he calls it “tolerance”).  By using societal backlash (name-calling such as “intolerant,” “bigoted,” and “judgemental”) against any absolute thinking (you can’t get any more absolute than Jesus’ statement, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me.”), a large part of our postmoden America seems petrified to take a firm stand on their own beliefs.

I call satan’s weapon apathy because the joy of the Good News and the fear of separation from God in hell was what used to drive Christians to share their faith with unbelievers.  But today?  Hey, if I don’t even think my way is the only way, there’s really no point in sharing what I believe with anyone else.  Who wants to offend and be accused of being intolerant and forcing their beliefs on people anyway, right?

Well guess what?  I don’t care if people think I’m intolerant.  I know that my Redeemer lives, I do believe Jesus is the only way to Heaven.  I can’t make people believe what I believe, but I will share it with them, and when I do, they will hear me say, “I believe I have found the only way.” Because I am intolerant of untruth.

Conservatives are happier then liberals?!

Well, DUH!  When have you ever seen a happy liberal?

I’m exaggerating, of course, but the distinction in the percentages is real.  Look, there’s a scientific study on it and everything: Conservatives Happier Than Liberals.

The kicker is the study’s explanation: “Conservatives rationalize social and economic inequalities.”

So liberals are irrational… oooooh… that line will drive liberals MAD!  (Read: they’ll be unhappy.)

Obama’s character is now called into question

Kyle-Anne Shiver over at American Thinker says, “It’s Obama’s Character, Stupid:”

With Obama’s Philadelphia-speech, hedging and squirming around specifics, and now with his final, “unequivocal,” outright disowning of Jeremiah Wright this week, I have more evidence than I need to conclude that Barack Obama is either one of two things:

Behind Door #1:  He is a reprehensible liar, who privately still believes, and has always believed, in the philosophy espoused by his long-time pastor, spiritual mentor and “uncle” figure, Jeremiah Wright, but for opportunistic motives, now publicly disavows his own true beliefs; or

Behind Door #2:  He is a man of no integrity whatsoever, who has partaken of another man’s friendship and political help for nearly 20 years, who has now publicly dumped and disgraced this benefactor for personal gain.  Jeremiah Wright is not some flunky that Obama hired last week out of a far-left think tank or fresh from the halls of Harvard.  The two men were close, like family, by the candidate’s own pronouncements.

Whether the real Obama is behind Door #1 or Door #2, only Barack Obama now knows for certain.  But either way, he has disgraced himself in the eyes of many Americans, and if he offered his hand, some of us older-timers would decline to shake it. 

I agree; there doesn’t appear to be any other “door” for Obama.