Supreme Court tenure

With this past week's Supreme Court decision regarding Obamacare, we once again realize that the makeup of that Court is very important.  And because presidents appoint these justices, presidential elections are very important.  Part of the reason why these appointments are so important is that we never know when a new justice will need to be appointed.  Because they have life tenure, they stay on the Court until they decide because of health, death, or other reasons to leave.

I have an idea that might help make the ramifications of Court appointments a little less dramatic.  What if, mid-way through every presidential term, say in December or January, the most senior member of the Supreme Court (either oldest or longest on the bench) retired?

That way every president would be guaranteed to appoint at least one justice per term, leaving his (or her) mark on the Court.  This plan would also reduce the likelihood of any one president being able to "stack" the Court with his/her appointments.

A justice could still serve a long time - perhaps over thirty years, so this is not a guarantee that one or more of them would not leave before their time because of illness or even death.  But this solution might help reduce the partisan bickering over Court appointments and the increasing importance of the Court in presidential elections.

I know it would take a Constitutional amendment.  But I'm allowed ideas, aren't I?

What do you think?

Why not to vote for Obama #2

This post needs more research and support, but I'll start with one instance of the example I have in mind.  That is, Obama is more committed to his re-election and his political career than he is to the Constitution that he swore an oath to uphold.

Specifically, a little over a year ago he stated that he couldn't change the law about immigration, and that Congress would have to do it.  He didn't have the authority.  And he was correct.  But in the last week or so he has changed the rules so that young people here illegally could stay subject to certain conditions.

My complaint is not so much with the content of his order (See a previous post about immigration), but with the fact that he thinks that he has the authority to do it.  Congress may be grid-locked, but that doesn't mean he can act as a king or dictator.

Obama has said other things in the past that lead me to believe that he thinks that a dictatorship would be preferable to our system (See references below).  But he swore an oath to uphold OUR system.  I think that this is a very serious breach of his office.

If you also take into consideration the recent rules against Catholic institutions and their views on funding contraception, then I sense a serious trend away from the checks and balances of our Constitution and the rights spelled out in it and toward Obama wanting to be a dictator.

This claim gains further support if you consider that Obama backed the ousted president of the Honduras.  That president was forced out of the country precisely because he wanted to rewrite their constitution so he could serve another term.  Their congress and supreme court supported his removal and it was done legally. But Obama supported the ousted president, not those who supported the Honduran legal government.

Obama refused to stand up to the Iranian dictators and support the people of Iran.  But he bombed Libya without Congressional legislation supporting the military action.

Lastly, did you know that Obama has appointed over three dozen Czars?  These are people who are not vetted and approved by the Senate but who hold positions of power and authority within the government.  Most of the presidents over the last few decades have had them, so Obama is not the first.  But he is the most  - with over 36.  And the quality of these people.  Here are a few examples.

The science czar, John Holdren, authored a book advocating forced abortions and mass sterilization by the government.

The safe school czar, Kevin Jennings, is a pro-homosexual activist who wants "normalization of homosexuality, transgenderism, cross-dressing, etc., in America’s public schools."   No matter what your position on those issues, shouldn't they be decided by Congress and legislation, not by unelected and unaccountable people?


Van Jones was considered for the "Green Jobs Czar" but resigned after his Marxism, extremism and activism became known.  


So, in conclusion Obama is not the leader that America needs.  He might do better in some part of the world where they tend to like dictatorships more.

Check out this link for more reasons NOT to vote for Obama.

Reference

http://michellemalkin.com/2012/06/16/president-constitutional-authority/
http://stevenbirnspeaks.com/2011/03/11/obama-desires-dictatorial-powers-like-chinas-president/

Honduras:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574427403985118892.html
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/07/in-russia-president-obama-explains-his-support-for-ousted-president-of-honduras/

czars:
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2012/02/short-review-of-obamas-agenda.html
http://www.americanreform.org/index.php/blog/comments/why_gingrich_targets_obamas_czars
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29391/
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/04/15/wow-obama-issues-signing-statement-rejecting-budget-cuts-to-white-house-czars/
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2011/05/homosexual-agenda.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/09/06/van_jones_resigns.html

Why NOT to vote for Obama. #1

Here's what Obama said as reported today.

The intimate dinner banked about $2 million, with 50 people paying $40,000 each. …
Speaking in a dimly lighted, art-filled room, Obama told supporters they would play a critical role in an election that would determine a vision for the nation’s future.
“You’re the tie-breaker,” he said. “You’re the ultimate arbiter of which direction this country goes.”
Among the celebrities on hand to hear Obama’s remarks were Oscar winner Meryl Streep, fashion designer Michael Kors and Vogue editor Anna Wintour…
The president and Mrs. Obama also headlined a second glitzy fundraiser in Manhattan Thursday night that included a performance from singer Mariah Carey and remarks by singer Alicia Keys. The 250-person dinner yielded the Obama campaign at least $2.5 million. (http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/15/obama-to-celebrities-youre-the-ultimate-arbiter-of-this-countrys-direction/)

Is this the kind of people (the ultra 1%) that we want deciding what is good and right in America? Do these people reflect the values of America? They spend their time pretending to be who they are not. They are only influential because they are celebrities. Most of them know little about real life or real issues. The issues that they care about are not the ones that most Americans care about. Let them stick to movie making and stay out of politics.

Let's not let Obama reject what the majority of Americans want in favor of what the ultra 1% want.  Don't forget who Obama's real friends are.