Racism: NAACP President Wants Obama to Pick Black Female for Next Supreme Court Justice

Typical race-hustler

Skin color over character. Martin Luther King, Jr. would shake,and lower, his head in shame.

From Politico:

NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous says he wants to see President Barack Obama name an African-American woman to the Supreme Court, speaking as the president has faced criticism, including from within his own party, for a lack of diverse appointees.

“He still has several more appointments, and we expect that we’ll see at least the same diversity that we saw the first time around. What we’re hoping to see is a black woman on the U.S. Supreme Court,” Jealous told POLITICO at the BET Inaugural Gala in D.C. on Monday night.

A president should select the most qualified individual and skin color should not be used. That’s your typical racism from the NAACP. This is the president who picked 2 unqualified women (Kagan & Sotomayer) to sit on the Supreme Court already based on race and gender alone.

He mentioned California Attorney General Kamala Harris — a Democrat who is also the state’s first African-American and Indian American attorney general — as a possible SCOTUS appointee.

Because she’s black and a Democrat. If you remember, the NAACP didn’t support Janice Rogers Brown, a black Republican, who Bush nominated. “Racist Democrats” held up her nomination for 2 years.

“Kamala Harris would be a brilliant pick. I personally would like to see somebody young who could stay on there for decades,” he said.

He continued: “If you look at what they did with [Justices] Antonin Scalia and with Clarence Thomas, we’re going to have these guys for decades. It’s time for us to [have that]. So yeah, she would be top. But there are several women who could do this job and do it well.”

Continue reading>>>

Read Full Post »

Obama Bypassing Congress to Force Companies to Reveal Political Donations through SEC

Obama really hates the Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United and is hell-bent on learning what companies donate to conservatives so he and his goons can intimidate and punish (as Valerie Jarrett stated) his opposition.  Obama, and Democrats, have been attacking the 1st Amendment for decades.

From Daily Caller:

The Obama administration is attempting to bypass Congress and force publicly-traded companies to reveal their political donations through regulation.

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Corporate Finance has begun the steps necessary to create a regulation that would in many ways mirror the DISCLOSE Act — a bill Senate Democrats have failed to pass through Congress.

Created in reaction to the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court ruling that said corporations and unions could not have limits placed on their political expenditures, the Senate bill would require political organizations to publicly name their donors and the amounts they give.

The SEC regulation would do the reverse — force companies to disclose the political groups they support — and have a similar effect.

“The Division [of Corporate Finance] is considering whether to recommend that the Commission issue a proposed rule to require that public companies provide disclosure to shareholders regarding the use of corporate resources for political activities,” reads the proposal, as reported to the president’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Continue reading>>>

Read Full Post »

Supreme Court to Rule if Police Can Take Your Blood Without Consent

According to the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution the answer is NO.

From NBC News:

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday in a landmark Fourth Amendment case that could clear up almost 50 years of uncertainty over the constitutionality of blood tests that are taken without a suspect’s consent.

The case involves a traffic stop in Missouri, but its ramifications could range far wider, potentially rewriting drunk-driving laws in all 50 states.

“It comes down, basically, to are you going to see blood draws every single time someone gets pulled over for a DUI,” said Michael A. Correll, a litigator with the international law firm Alston & Bird, who examined the legality of blood draws in the West Virginia Law Review last year.

[...]The case began in October 2010, when Tyler McNeely of Cape Girardeau, Mo., about 100 miles south of St. Louis, was pulled over for speeding. According to court documents, McNeely was unsteady and failed field sobriety tests, so state Highway Patrol Cpl. Mark Winder asked him to take a breath test.

When McNeely refused, Winder took him to a hospital, where McNeely refused to take a blood test. Winder told the lab technician to take a sample anyway. The record shows that at no time did Winder seek a warrant compelling the test, which indicated that McNeely’s blood-alcohol level was almost double the legal limit.

Continue reading>>>

Read Full Post »

Justice Ginsburg: We Need An All-Female Supreme Court

This is the same liberal dipshit who believes in eugenics and believes the rule of law should be interpreted based on personal experiences and gender.  She’s also the liberal dipshit who told other countries not to adopt the US Constitution.

(CNSNews.com) – Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says there will be enough women on the Supreme Court when all nine justices are female.

“So now the perception is, yes, women are here to stay. And when I’m sometimes asked when will there be enough [women on the Supreme Court]? And I say when there are nine, people are shocked. But there’d been nine men, and nobody’s ever raised a question about that,” she said.

Ginsburg made the remark at the 10th Circuit Bench & Bar Conference that was held at the University of Colorado in Boulder in October.

Continue reading>>>

 

Read Full Post »

Supreme Court Revives University’s Challenge to ObamaCare Over Its Violaton of Religious Freedom

I’m still waiting on someone to challenge the Constitutionality of Obamacare because the bill originated in the Senate. The Constitution says all bills that require funding have to originate in the House.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has revived a Christian college’s challenge to President Barack Obama’s healthcare overhaul, with the acquiescence of the Obama administration.

The court on Monday ordered the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., to consider the claim byLiberty University in Lynchburg, Va., that Obama’s health care law violates the school’s religious freedoms.

A federal district judge rejected Liberty’s claims, and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the lawsuit was premature and never dealt with the substance of the school’s arguments. The Supreme Court upheld the health care law in June.

The justices used lawsuits filed by 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business to uphold the health care law by a 5-4 vote, then rejected all other pending appeals, including Liberty’s.

The school made a new filing with the court over the summer to argue that its claims should be fully evaluated in light of the high court decision. The administration said it did not oppose Liberty’s request.

Liberty is challenging both the requirement that most individuals obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, and a separate provision requiring many employers to offer health insurance to their workers.

Continue reading>>>

Read Full Post »

Obama Wants Constitutional Amendment to Overturn Supreme Court’s Citizens United Ruling

Someone is worried about free speech, and other’s money that isn’t going to him.

Obama, in typical hypocritical fashion, has attacked the Supreme Court and Citizens United. Yet, Obama has no problem accepting money from Super PACS, labor unions or those untraceable pre-paid credit cards. In 2012, Obama is being beat at raising campaign dollars by Mitt Romney, so he’s scared shit-less and wants a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruiling.

In 2008, hypocrite Obama had no issues rejecting public financing and went on to raise three times the amount of money John McCain did. Now big money is bad because Obama isn’t getting it.

From DC:

President Barack Obama used the online springboard provided by Reddit to dive into the media crush at the GOP convention, with a skillfully executed call for a constitutional amendment to curb the free-speech of wealthier people and corporations.

“I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United. … Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change,” Obama said during 4:30 p.m. EST online event.

The publicity-grabbing gambit complements his campaign-theme portrayal of himself as the defender of middle-class Americans, and Gov. Mitt Romney as the champion of wealthy, job-exporting plutocrats.

The proposal also helps shift the media’s focus away from the stalled economy, record unemployment, debts and deficits.

“Money has always been a factor in politics, but we are seeing something new in the no-holds barred flow of seven and eight figure checks, most undisclosed, into super-PACs,” Obama told his Reddit audience.

Those super PACs “fundamentally threaten to overwhelm the political process over the long run and drown out the voices of ordinary citizens,” he declared.

Obama’s new focus on spending curbs comes as he is being out-raised by Romney.

Continue reading>>>

 

Read Full Post »

Obama Praised Supreme Court Affirmative Action Ruling in 2003, Applauded Racial ‘Set Aside Plans’

Obama is your typical Democrat obsessed with race all the time.

From DC:

Obama favored race-based data collection, however, when he believed it would tip the scales in the direction of his minority constituents.

“The state must compile traffic stop data and find out if law officers are singling out minority motorists,” he said during a 2000 press conference announcing his “End Racial Profiling Act” at the Illinois Statehouse. The American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund backed the legislative measure.

In another 1999 episode, Obama pushed for an African-American appointee to the Illinois Commerce Commission. “Obama,” the Defender wrote, “said racial diversity on the utility commission would better protect consumers across Chicago and Illinois.”

The Daily Caller has seen archival copies of the Defender interviews described in this report.

Obama decried the lack of “minority decision-making power” on the regulatory board, which governs phone companies, utilities and railroads throughout the state.

Continue reading>>>

Read Full Post »

Obama Administration Wants Supreme Court to Allow Colleges to Discriminate Against Non-Minorities Via Affirmative Action

Obama enjoys using the word fair until it comes to college admissions. Instead of fairly picking students based on merit, the Obama administration is pressuring the Supreme Court to allow colleges to discriminate against non-minorities in the so-called  liberal name of “diversity.” What else should we expect from the first Affirmative Action president?

From WaPo:

The Obama administration urged the Supreme Court on Monday to continue to allow universities to take race into account when assembling their student bodies, saying the government has a “vital interest” in drawing its leaders from a diverse pool of college graduates.

The administration supported the University of Texas, whose policy of considering race as one factor in deciding who will be admitted to the flagship university in Austin is being challenged.

The case will be one of the most important of the court’s coming term — underscored by more than 50 friend-of-the-court briefs filed by outside groups and individuals.

The Supreme Court said nine years ago that universities had a legitimate interest in building diverse classes and provided guidelines for administrators: An applicant’s status could not be automatically boosted because of his or her race, but race could be one factor in a holistic review of the person’s qualifications.

Opponents of affirmative action have urged the court — now with justices more averse to race-conscious solutions — to reconsider the 2009 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, or at least to find that UT’s process falls outside those strict standards.

The policy is being challenged by a white student, Abigail Fisher, who said she was rejected by the university while less-qualified minorities were admitted, violating her constitutional rights. She graduated from Louisiana State University in the spring.

Continue reading>>>

 

Read Full Post »

Daschle: Obama ‘Must Be Reelected’ for Obamacare ‘to Survive’

Another one of Obama’s tax cheats clearly doesn’t understand the tax code or the US Constitution.

From The Weekly Standard:

Apparently thinking that, in our republic, the president unilaterally passes laws and the Supreme Court unilaterally decides whether or not we’ll keep them, President Obama has been telling the American people that “the law I passed [Obamacare] is here to stay.”  But former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle — Obama’s first choice as secretary of Health and Human Services — says that for Obamacare “to survive,” Obama “must be reelected.”

Daschle writes: “The final hurdle may be the biggest — the political aspect….Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has pledged to repeal the law on his first day as president. If elected, while he cannot do this single-handedly, he can virtually stop its implementation with executive orders.”

Daschle continues: “In addition, should the Republicans win control of the House and Senate, it is likely that a legislative repeal effort would be successful. Given that the law was passed using reconciliation rules in the Senate, only 51 votes would be needed for repeal.”

Continue reading>>>

Read Full Post »

Christie: ‘I Was Glad the Supreme Court Ruled Extortion is Still Illegal … Even When Done by the President’

This is why conservatives love Christie. He’s politically incorrect and says what other politicians want to say but are too scared to say it.

(CNSNews.com) - New Jersey’s Republican Gov. Chris Christie said Monday that he was “glad that the Supreme Court ruled that extortion is still illegal in America” and added,  “even when done by the president of the United States.”

The former U.S. attorney was referring to the recent Supreme Court decision that the Medicaid provision in the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, was unconstitutional.

At a talk at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., on Monday, Christie was asked,  “As you know, a couple of weeks ago we had the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare, and everyone’s talking about the mandate: Is it a mandate? Is it a tax? I’d welcome your comments on that. But the other component of the ruling was on Medicaid, on the Medicaid expansion, and this has a direct impact on the states, in that you can now opt out of the Medicaid expansion without losing your current Medicaid funding. Is this something that you’ve decided in thinking about for your upcoming fiscal year budget or is this a ‘wait and see’ for New Jersey?”

Gov. Christie said, “Well, a few things. Directly, it’s a wait-and-see on us — just found out about it, so it won’t affect our Fiscal (Year)  ’13 budget. We have to look at Fiscal ’14 and ’15 as when it will really have an impact.”

With regard to the Medicaid decision, Christie said, “First of all, I was glad that the Supreme Court ruled that extortion is still illegal in America. That’s a relief because Obamacare on Medicaid to the states was extortion. Essentially [it] said you expand your program to where we tell you and, if you don’t, we’re taking all the rest of your money away. Well, that’s extortion. It was in a whole bunch of nice words in a bill, but it was extortion.”

“So I’m really glad that a majority of the Supreme Court still supports the proposition — as a former prosecutor — that extortion is still illegal in a country, even when done by the president of the United States,” said Christie.

Continue reading>>>

Read Full Post »