Jewsvote.org, whose purpose is to support Barack Obama’s election, admits openly that Obama will appoint more Supreme Court Justices who will rewrite the Constitution without going to all the trouble of getting a supermajority vote in Congress and ratification by three quarters of the state. Squealer the Pig from George Orwell’s Animal Farm comes to mind; he was the one who, while all the other animals were asleep, would get on a ladder and change the laws of Animal Farm.
The Flash presentation at Jewsvote.org says openly, “Obama would appoint Supreme Court Justices like Breyer and Ginsberg.” Steven Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsberg, along with John Paul Stevens and David Souter, are among the worst Justices to have ever sat on the court since it ruled in favor of slavery in the Dred Scott case. In the infamous Kelo vs. New London case, they voted to allow developers, with the collusion of less-than-ethical municipal authorities, to use eminent domain to seize property for private enrichment as opposed to public use. Thanks to Ginsberg and Breyer (as well as Stevens and Souter) a municipality can declare a neighborhood “blighted,” confiscate the property for pretty much whatever it considers “fair” (since the residents probably lack the resources with which to fight the city in court) and turn it over to a condominium or shopping mall developer. These are the kind of “Justices” whom Barack Obama’s own allies say openly he would appoint to the U.S. Supreme Court–jurists who support the legalization of what is ethically identical to common theft.
John McCain says he would not have appointed Breyer, Ginsberg, or Souter, and hopefully all will retire during his tenure. Obama’s open willingness to appoint more Breyers and Ginsbergs underscores his total lack of fitness for the nation’s highest office, and the confiscation of property for the enrichment of private developers is entirely consistent with his personal ethics as well as his interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.
As a side note, we encourage people to do business with Branch Banking and Trust because of its reaction to Kelo vs. New London. This is “social responsibility” at its finest.
- On January 25, 2006, BB&T announced through a press release that it would not lend money to developers to build commercial projects on land purchased from private citizens by the government through the power of eminent domain. This was a reaction to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. New London in 2005 that such transfers are permissible.