Daily Beast Columnist Calls for the Removal of SCOTUS Justices if Obamacare Struck Down
---- Ready to combat Facebook's censorship? Click here to join the Grassfire Social network now! ----
In a downright chilling look into the mind of a radical progressive, we get a glimpse of how supporters of Obama’s unpopular healthcare law view a loss on the fight at the SCOTUS. They view it as a call for impeachment of Justices who act in accordance with the founding commands of our governing documents. You read that right, a progressive columnist is calling for the impeachment of any Justice who votes to strike down Obamacare, if indeed they are successful in doing so.
The author includes this zinger of a line.
In the end, however, it is the duty of the people to protect the Constitution from the court. Social progress cannot be held hostage by five unelected men.
Actually, radical social progressivism can and should be held hostage by five individuals who are appointed by an elected Commander in Chief. In fact it should be held hostage by 9 individuals who are appointed by an elected Commander in Chief.
The column rips the founding/early years of our nation and only credits the radical leftist years of late as being a decent product of America. Ben Shapiro shreds this up quite nicely.
This is a massive rewriting of American history, except on the issues of sex and race (which had nothing to do with Supreme Court rulings, for the most part). The fact is that during this period, America turned from an economic backwater into the most powerful economic force on the planet. The U.S. infant mortality rate at the beginning of the 20thcentury was 10 percent … but the infant mortality rate in Great Britain was about 40 percent higher than that. As for corporations exerting influence, can we really argue that anything changed during the last century? And can we argue that the corporations that dominated American life at the beginning of the 20th century were really horrible for the country overall?
Of course not. So he skews the history. Then he moves on to skewing the law. He says that until the 1930s, essentially, the Court resisted changes to these social ills. Wrong. The Court stood up for the Constitution, which protects ideals like liberty of contract at the state level (Lochner, e.g.).
But now, of course, the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution must be ruled radically out of bounds by none other than David Dow, based on nothing.
Yet another of the many reasons we simply cannot allow radical progressives to run our government.