The next federal judge may very well become the deciding vote on issues that affect your freedoms, your opportunities and your fundamental rights. Even one judge can shift the entire balance of power, as we've seen in landmark cases like Bush v Gore. What does the appointment of a federal judge mean for you and, more importantly, for the future of America?
What you get when you have c is a unqualified person doing the job that another well qualified person should be doing. A really clear example of Affirmative Action is Barack Hussein Obama. He is a do nothing politician, a street thug from Chicago his list of accomplishments is all but non existent. He is good at getting himself elected and that's about it. He served 143 days as a U.S. Jr. Senator, a position bought and paid for by the DNC, again he was just a place holder, do nothing, he never called his committee into session. His books spell it out, he hates American and especially white Americans , he is nothing but a hateful man who is educated far beyond his intellect and abilities. Obozo should apologize to the American people for being a flat out liar, a fraud and a liar. This man has one of the most corrupt administrations in recent history. He is a Mulatto, and as much a white man as he is a black, again he lies and hides the truth. I damn him to himself. CCIE-LAB | 642-874 | 650-299 | 642-145 | 642-504 | 642-736 | 650-295 | 650-575 | 642-978 | 650-293 |
Their lack of common sense, compassion empathy, reasoning, and wisdom
has for decades given way to injustice, as shown in the U.S. today.
For example: if a human did a horrible crime on another living being,I
would have to look at their background, and most likely incarcerate
them in an institution where they could not harm any living being again
but could work, learn, etc. but just live inside, and maybe one day
they could be rehabilitated away from the horrors they went thru as a
child. Precious, loving kind animals have been treated so unfairly it
just breaks my heart to know how humans can be so cruel, when they
truly are our very best friends (all animals).God love all animals and
good humble people.
The constitution should be adhered to as strictly as possible according to a strict reading of what is written, not interpreted according to the whims and beliefs of the judges. If something needs to be changed it should be done so only through amendments. If we are going to use broad interpretation we might just as well throw the whole thing out because what good is it?
Clearly a "biased" Supreme Court sounds really bad, but it's also clear that we can construct sentences in which we want a court that's "biased" in a particular direction. (Is it wrong to be biased in favor of goodness, or biased against badness?) Nobody wants a court that's "anti-family," or a court that's "anti-individuals." Both Focus on the Family and Lambda Legal are arguing that the courts make a big difference as far as the rights of families and individuals are concerned. Both argue that your vote matters in determining what the courts will do. Focus on the Family worries about bias against the "pro-family" agenda, meaning the family they define to be the only acceptable one. Surely they are biased against anyone who defines family differently. Lambda Legal, on the other hand, worries about anti-LGBT bias. Of course they can be said to be biased against people who think non-mainstream sexuality is sinful and evil. The question is clearly not about whether bias does exist on the Supreme Court, or even whether it should. It's about which biases (or perhaps "perspectives") are good for judges to have, and which are inappropriate.