Supreme Court Justice Scalia Has Ominous Warning

[Virginia Foulk]

Supreme Court Justice Has Ominous Warning

October 30, 2015   Breaking News, Freedom News   
 
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia unleashed some of his harshest criticism yet for the court this week in a speech at Santa Clara University. Scalia has long been the most outspoken conservative on the court, but it is clear from his tone that he has never been more concerned about the direction of the Judicial Branch.

“The whole time I have been on my court, it has been a liberal court,” Scalia said.

Scalia thinks the fundamental problem lies in the idea of the Constitution as a living do$#%ent, subject to the whims of whichever justices happen to be minding the court. He disagreed with this position, telling the law students gathered there that the Constitution is a “legal do$#%ent.”

“It means what it says and it doesn’t mean what it doesn’t say,” Scalia said in what is surely a contender for Quote of the Year. He questioned whether the American people would have ever supported the Constitution if they had been told that “the meaning of this do$#%ent shall be whatever a majority of the Supreme Court says it is.”

In his long rant against the current state of the court, he predicted that it would bring about no less than the “destruction of our democratic system.”

“I cannot imagine the system can continue with more and more of the basic rules made by the Supreme Court,” he said.

Just think about what we’re hearing. This is one of the most powerful men in the country telling us that the institution to which he belongs is broken. And we would be foolish not to listen. You can go back to the original Roe vs Wade decision, but you don’t even have to. Just look at the decisions that came down this year on gay marriage and Obamacare. In these instances, the court completely abdicated its responsibility to uphold the Constitution. Instead, it became an absolute free-for-all where justices simply voted according to their political ideology.
   
Is this really the best direction for our country? Are our laws tied to anything more substantial than the whims of public opinion? Actually, no, it’s even worse than that. Our laws actually come down to the whims of these nine justices. And though liberals are quite happy with some of the court’s latest decisions, they should be as disturbed about this direction as anyone else.

But they aren’t. Why? Because liberals want to change this country in ways that we can’t even begin to imagine right now. And the only way they can do that is to propagate this idea that the Constitution is whatever we make of it. Under this fictional umbrella, we can put words in the Founding Father’s mouths. We can interpret what they may have meant, ignoring what they actually said. We can impose our modern-day values on the do$#%ent, ignoring the fact that the Founders gave us a perfectly good method for changing it.

But no, liberals don’t want to make their changes through any process that would involve taking the temperature of the American public. They just want to do it. Whether it’s through executive order or a Supreme Court decision. They don’t want to change it in a way that gives the public a say. They know better than the public, they know better than the men who created this country, and they know better than you.

Scalia’s warnings will probably fall on deaf ears, and that’s a scary thought. Because this is going to get much worse before it gets…well, there’s no reason to think it will ever get better. Not until we decide to make it so.
- See more at: http://www.fixthisnation.com/conservative-breaking-news/supreme-cou...

[charles royer]

November 02, 2015, 02:00 pm
Leaked DHS memo shows Obama might circumvent DAPA injunction
Last June, four months after Texas federal judge Andrew Hanen’s order to freeze President’s DAPA and Expanded DACA programs—disclosure: the Immigration Reform Law Institute has filed briefs in these cases—DHS’s immigration policy makers apparently held a “Regulations Retreat” to discuss “different options” for “open market Employment Authorization Document (EAD) regulatory changes.” EAD is the statutory term for work permits. From a memo recording these discussions, we now know that the Obama DHS has, rather than pausing to allow the courts to assess the constitutionality of its enforcement nullification initiatives, been gearing up to roll out one or more of four plans drawn up at the meeting, each one designed to provide EADs to millions of nonimmigrants, including those lawfully present and visa overstayers, crippling the actual employment-based visa system on the federal statute-book.
As mentioned, the first plan the memo discusses basically entails giving EADs to anyone physically present in the country who until now has been prohibited from getting one. A major positive to this option, the memo reads, is that it would “address the needs of some of the intended deferred action population.” Although DHS doesn’t say it expressly, included here would be those 4.3 million people covered by the president’s DAPA and Expanded DACA programs whose benefits were supposed to have been halted in the Hanen decision. On top of working around the Hanen injunction, this DHS plan would also dole out unrestricted EADs to those on temporary non-immigrant visas, such as H-1B-holders (their work authorizations being tied to their employers) and another 5 to 6 million illegal aliens thus far not covered by any of the President’s deferred action amnesty programs. By claiming absolute authority to grant work authorization to any alien, regardless of status, DHS is in effect claiming it can unilaterally de-couple the 1986 IRCA work authorization statutes from the main body of U.S. visa law. While DHS must still observe the statutory requirements for issuing visas, the emerging doctrine concedes, the administration now claims unprecedented discretionary power to permit anyone inside our borders to work.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/the-administration/258689-le...

[Virginia Foulk]

This is the greatest problem with our country now. The agencies make up the rules and regulations, and We The People do not have any voting options. These agency directors are appointed, not elected.  What a crock of ___

I am believing in Trump now. Start with the DOE, EPA, DHS, IRS. Hang them all..

[BLADES]

yeah me ...not so much!!!

Donald Trump's eminent domain love nearly cost a widow her house

David Boaz

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/19/donald-trumps-...

Specter of Eminent Domain Haunts Atlantic City Property Owners

http://castlecoalition.org/specter-of-eminent-domain-haunts-atlanti...

it's clear he dont believe in property rights

[Virginia Foulk]

Really? The states and the Feds also do not believe. We just had a 82 year die in prison for fighting back against EM. He lived one year, lost everything. No family to support him - a loner.

I believe there is some movement to walk back this eminent domain crap, haven't seen much about it lately, though.  As for the Nominee for President? Rather Cruz, than Trump, but Trump absolutely before Hillary.

So. I'd rather see Ted Cruz, but if Trump wins the nomination, it is he who will get my vote.  

[BLADES]

OH well I'm sorry I didn't know since the feds and states do it to then its OK for a private citizen to do it to....I kinda like my neighbors house ...I think I'll bribe someone and take it...

no just kidding ...it's their property not mine

[Virginia Foulk]

Hey, you are right and when private citizens try it, the government usually get involved. Then, guess what, the Gov. takes over the property.    As for Trump/Cruz, Clinton? If Cruz doesn't get it, should we go with Hillary? Just wondering.  And what about the Vice-Prez. I'm curious about that too.

[BLADES]

the idea that you would even consider hilary is VERY disturbing if not a clear case of stinkin thinkin 

as for VP I say Allen West with clear duties to oversee national security and not be some side bencher that just goes to fund raisers ...

[Virginia Foulk]

Was just being funny - I would never, ever consider That Hillary Dillary B.  Thought I'd get a response, but not that one.,  

[charles royer]

Specter of Eminent Domain Haunts Atlantic City Property Owners
Rumblings of eminent domain abuse roll through Atlantic City, where the city and its partner in crime–the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (CRDA) — are once again up to no good. The CRDA is moving forward with plans to use eminent domain to seize at least 62 homes in the South Inlet, holding three informational meetings in July for affected citizens.[1]

News reports indicate the CRDA wants to transfer that property to a private developer who will “redevelop” the area by building luxury condominiums, restaurants, specialty stores and boutiques to compliment the city’s newest casino, Revel.[2] The project is part of a larger redevelopment scheme outlined in the City Tourism District’s Master Plan, which means even more private property could be threatened in the future.

Charlie Birnbaum is one of the property owners in the targeted area. His three-story home, which has been in the family for 43 years, sits in a prime location just a block from the ocean. From its rooftop, he can see “his lighthouse” (otherwise known as the Absecon Lighthouse). Over the years, the home itself has become its own light on a hill in the midst of life’s tumultuous storms.
http://castlecoalition.org/specter-of-eminent-domain-haunts-atlanti...

[Virginia Foulk]

They are trying to pull that in Madison, also. That dang Paul Soglin is back again as Mayor. And he is worse then he was before.  I really dislike that eminent domain thievery. Years ago, just prior to our entry into World War II, several farms outside of Madison, were confiscated (eminent domain) and turned into Badger Ordinance for manufacturing of ammo and arms production for the war efforts.  The last 8-9 years, that land has been taken over by the Federal Gov. (It's been out of service for almost 50 years.)  They have deeded over half of it to the Indians for raising Buffalo. This land is good farm land, though now I'm sure there are toxic materials hidden in the area.  Why couldn't they have returned the land back to farmland and try to compensate the original families. I know, they are probably gone now, but still. And, just what really makes me angry, there are signs all over the back side, saying the land is Federal Government property -KEEP OFF!. Hey, aren't we the Government?