Saturday, June 12, 2010

Magic Words

"The term 'social justice' is now commonly used by leftist activists, clergy, educators, judges, and politicians to describe the goal they seek to achieve with many of their polcies. No precise definition of 'social justice' is ever offered by the left. Instead, the term is always used in a vague way--as if everyone already knows, or should know, what the seemingly well-intentioned phrase 'social justice' means. ... In short, social justice is communism. ... 'Justice,' in the Marxist context, means economic equality. This is Marxist utopian ideal that all members of society should receive the same amount of compensation, regardless or occupation, skill, or work ethic", Jayme Sellards at American Thinker, 16 May 2010, link:

"You might think that being a Supreme Court justice would be the top of the line job for someone in the legal profession. But, many Supreme Court decisions suggest that too many justices are not satisfied with their role, and seek more sweeping powers as supreme policy-makers, grand second-guessers or philosopher-kings. ... The role of an appellate court is not to simply second-guess the decision of the trial judge and jury, much less usurp the responsibility of legislatures to make social policy. But the pretense of applying the Constitution gives appellate judges the power to do both. ... If justices can pick and choose which legal principles and practices they will follow, from the many widely varying principles and practices in countries around the world, then they can find a basis for doing just about anything they feel like doing. ... Once appellate judges are free to base their rulings on what people do in India, Egypt or Germany, Americans are no longer a self-governing people", Thomas Sowell at Frontpage Magazine, 24 May 2010, link:

"Ever wonder why most of your credit-card mail comes from South Dakota? The answer is a 1978 Supreme Court decision called Marquette National Bank on Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp. ... The Court ruled that it referred to the location of the bank. ... What happened next was predicatble enough: Citibank offered to move to South Dakota, bringing much-needed jobs and tax revenue, if the state would let it write new credit-card regulation. ... If the Supreme Court had interpreted one word differently, credit-card regulation in this country would be entirely different. ... Bruce Ackerman, a legal scholar at Yale ... [said] 'For sure ... the status of undocumented aliens is going to me mcuh more salient in Americna law. We're going to have 10 [million] or 15 million people or more who'll find themselves in a position increasingly like black people in 1954. That will be a terribly serious issue, and the court will have to decide how to respond.' ... 'What happens when promised benefits are cut back dramatically?' he asked. 'Will the court protect the weak, or not?'," my emphasis, Ezra Klein at Newsweek, 24 May 2010, link: This reminds me of my meeting Al Sharpton in 1966 or 1967, my 5 March 2009 post:

Many times I've said the Supremes do whatever they want and justifiy it later. I await Justice Ginsburg's using Saudi Arabian law as precedent. Will she say it is neither cruel nor unusual to cut off a thief's hand?

Aren't you impressed by Ackerman's reasoning? Negroes in 1954 were American Citizens. The 14th Amendment was created to ensure they were citizens. How dare you claim the same rights for illegal aliens? See, we are all legal scholars now. Why will the Supremes have to decide anything with respect to illegal aliens? What happens when taxes are increased? Will the court protect the solvent, or not? Aren't you impressed with legal reasoning? Wait, there is an answer! Have the Supremes decide no person need pay anything to support illegal aliens. Based on what? Extending the reach of the Third Amendment. Why should American citizens "quarter" members of the Aztlan Army?

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Hahahaha IA...

You got this one nailed... 3rd amendment indeed...