Uncategorized

Targeting Judges

THE LATEST FRONT IN THE LEFT’S “WAR ON CAPITALISM” By Bill Wilson || Selective outrage has long been the professional left’s stock-in-trade, but the over-the-top invective hurled at U.S. Court of Appeals judge Brett Kavanaugh this week has exposed something darker and more sinister than just your garden variety political hypocrisy….

THE LATEST FRONT IN THE LEFT’S “WAR ON CAPITALISM”

Bill Wilson

By Bill Wilson || Selective outrage has long been the professional left’s stock-in-trade, but the over-the-top invective hurled at U.S. Court of Appeals judge Brett Kavanaugh this week has exposed something darker and more sinister than just your garden variety political hypocrisy.  This smear is the latest flanking maneuver in an often-overlooked (but rapidly unfolding) front of Barack Obama’s “War on Capitalism” – the attempted castration of judicial review.

Angry that overreaching regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were struck down by Kavanaugh’s court, liberal columnist Steven Pearlstein penned what at first glance appears to be a boilerplate “kill the messenger” piece for The Washington Post, where the longtime leftist masqueraded for many years as an objective “journalist.”

But Pearlstein’s assault wasn’t just a hit piece on a potential conservative Supreme Court nominee – it was an effort to intimidate Kavanaugh (and other federal judges) into surrendering to the Nanny Statists currently running this country into the ground. Make no mistake: This is no conventional judicial character assassination – it is a carefully crafted instrument of political propaganda aimed at advancing the unchecked regulatory authority of an oversized, overreaching and overbearing federal bureaucracy.

“Kavanaugh is nothing more than a partisan shock trooper in a black robe waging an ideological battle against government regulation,” Pearlstein inveighs, accusing the judge of turning the courts “into just another dysfunctional branch of a dysfunctional government.”

Dysfunction? Consider this: Kavanaugh was nominated for his seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals by former president George W. Bush on July 25, 2003 – yet was blocked by Democrats on exclusively partisan grounds for more than three years. And now liberals want to play the “dysfunction” card against him?

Evidently so.  In fact according to Pearlstein, Kavanaugh’s refusal to rubber stamp Obama’s EPA overreach makes him a “judicial radical” in need of being reined in by “more intellectually honest conservatives” on the bench.

Pearlstein – who once referred to opponents of Obamacare as “political terrorists” – does his best to characterize Kavanaugh’s ruling as judicial activism run amok, but the facts of the EPA case simply do not support his conclusion.  In attempting to subject states to new environmental penalties that far exceeded their culpability, the EPA plainly violated important language of the clean air statute – and Kavanaugh’s court ruled accordingly.  In fact the EPA overreach was so galling that it was struck down on its face – as opposed to being classified as an “arbitrary or capricious” exercise of agency authority.  In other words the government’s efforts to regulate which way the wind blows (and to fabricate untold costs associated with it blowing) constituted an unlawful usurpation of authority – not enforcement of the law.

Pearlstein also neglects to mention that the one judge who dissented in this case – Judith Rogers – has a history of “radical” activism far worse than anything he’s attempting to pin on Kavanaugh.  In 2005, for example, Rogers wrote the court’s majority opinion in AFL-CIO v. Chao – a ruling that completely ignored statutory language on labor union disclosure requirements in favor of an invented standard that was infinitely friendlier to corrupt labor bosses.

This ruling occurred while Kavanaugh’s nomination was being stonewalled, incidentally.

So – was there a similar “judicial jihad” outcry from Pearlstein when regulations aimed at exposing union corruption were struck down?  Of course not: Because that component of the “regulatory state” did not conform to his leftist ideology.

In this case ideology is everything.

Obama’s “War on Capitalism” includes a “War on Coal,” and the EPA is simply doing its part to make this energy source so expensive that other government-subsidized options become economically feasible.  Obama’s administration couldn’t get a carbon tax pushed through Congress, so it is attempting to accomplish these objectives through regulation.

Will the left’s judicial smearing achieve its objective – advancing the ongoing crusade against what remains of the American free market?

It already has.  Look no further than the recent “switch” committed by U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts, whose fateful decision to appease this mentality turned what would have been a 5-4 ruling overturning “Obamacare” into a 5-4 ruling upholding the constitutionality of this abomination.

No wonder leftists like Pearlstein are doing everything they can to bully other judges into submission.

***

Bill Wilson is president of Americans for Limited Government. Follow him on Twitter @BillWilsonALG and read more of his columns over at Net Right Daily.  This column – reprinted with permission – originally appeared on Forbes.com.

Related posts

Uncategorized

Duke Energy’s Pipeline Problems Rattle Investors

FITSNews
Uncategorized

The Middle East: “Let Them Eat Bombs”

FITSNews
Uncategorized

Ron Paul: On Benghazi

Letters

32 comments

Soft Sigh from Hell October 19, 2012 at 5:41 pm

I still saw faded old “Impeach Earl Warren” billboards decades after he had retired. The racist rightwingers must have used good wood and good paint.

The song is different now I see.

Reply
dwb619 October 19, 2012 at 9:43 pm

That lead based paint last forever. Used on barns and fence post up thru the early sixties, even longer if you had some left in the shed. It was a powder that you mixed with water, less water, thicker body.

Reply
zxvzxcv October 19, 2012 at 5:42 pm

Color me shocked that the President of ” Americans for Limited Government” is against government regulation of the environment, but is very much in favor of government regulation of unions.

Reply
BigT October 19, 2012 at 6:05 pm

Any American should be Against Unions Stealing and Taking the rights of other people…

Reply
Donald October 19, 2012 at 7:00 pm

How do unions steal or take the right of people?

Reply
dwb619 October 19, 2012 at 9:01 pm

LIVE BETTER! WORK UNION! UNION YES!
YOU BETCHA!
YOU BETCHA!

Reply
BigT October 19, 2012 at 6:04 pm

Great column, Mr. Wilson. And you are 100 percent correct about the importance of judges. Democrats appoint Radicals and Zealots…not fit jurists..

The Mission is not just to elect Romney, but to MAKE SURE he appoints Constituional-based judges…

Bush was lacking too much. Remember he tried to give us Harriet Meyers…and look what Roberts screwed up and did (as you note)…

I think Romney is 10 times more confident than Bush…and I think he’ll go Strict Consitutionalist w/ all judges…

Bush was elected by Conservatives…but he tried to please moderates and the left too much, and hurt the country. And they STILL hate him…

We won’t make the same mistake w/ Romney…and neither will he…

Reply
ceilidh10 October 20, 2012 at 8:34 am

assuming he wins the electoral college, asshole, and that is not likely.

Reply
ohnonotagain October 19, 2012 at 6:33 pm

Lost me in the first sentence.
No one whines about judges more than the right. Absolute freaking crybabies on the subject.

Reply
BigT October 20, 2012 at 6:16 am

How many judges will get picked in the next 4 years…and who will be picking them??

And what if the House and Senate are STACKED to the RIGHT???

I cannot wait to WHINE….(:

And for that I thank Obama…Only he (by getting everything he wanted) could have secured this for us….

Reply
SCBlues October 20, 2012 at 8:38 am

ohno –

Thanks for the best post of the day!

Reply
Eli - TNOSEE October 24, 2012 at 12:29 am

hahahahahaha
owned

Reply
BigT October 19, 2012 at 7:17 pm

It’s justified incredulity…not whining…

Darth Bader Ginsberg was in Egypt TRASHING the Constitution the FLAMING Idiot has Sworn to uphold…

If you can support that you need your @$$ kicked out of your stupidity…and un-Americanism…

Reply
dwb619 October 19, 2012 at 9:03 pm

How ’bout come on down to McKittricks Bridge over the Reedy, and we’ll see who’s ass gets kicked.
YOU BETCHA!
YOU BETCHA!

Reply
OhNoNotAgain October 20, 2012 at 2:29 am

Whine whine whine. Disguised as tough talk like now. But whining.

Reply
BigT October 20, 2012 at 6:19 am

Who will be picking the judges for the NEXT 4 years???

And who will have a majority in the House and Senate???

I Cannot waiit to hear the Whining…:)

PS: I thank Obama for that. Only he could have delivered this level of Gains for the Right.

Reply
9" October 19, 2012 at 8:24 pm

That’s some sick shit,Wilson,but Big T likes it.Knock yourself out.

Reply
ceilidh10 October 20, 2012 at 8:33 am

Another example of right-wing foaming at the mouth. Put a lid on it! Bill Wilson carries water for the extreme right, and his comments are as partisan as anything made by the left.

The answer is somewhere in the middle as it always is.

Reply
tomstickler October 20, 2012 at 10:26 am

Corporate control of Congress and regulatory agencies is nearly complete, and Wilson is thrilled that the Judiciary will be within reach if Romney is elected.

All you need to know when you vote.

Reply
BigT October 20, 2012 at 11:18 am

You’re EXACTLY right…licker…I’m SCARED To DEATH of an America w/ another Obama Appointee…

We not only need to get Romney elected…we MUST get OUR Judges in place…

You’ll never get this country back w/o replacing some of the Most EXTREME Leftists in the country, who run some these courts…

I think we have learened our lesson about trying to “play-pretty” w/ the some of the most corrupt people (liberals) on Earth….

We will have to stay vigilant w/ Romney…but Mormons are MORE disciplined about Conservative ideals than a lot of the pop culture religions…

So I think Romney knows how to…and will, do the right thing….

Reply
dwb619 October 20, 2012 at 11:47 am

How many wives can a conservative Mormon have?
YOU BETCHA!
YOU BETCHA!

Reply
Thomas October 20, 2012 at 12:23 pm

One really has to wonder who these people are talking to, or reinforcing, when they talk of conservative Judges being activists. Was Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor a “judicial activist” or an individual? Yes or no?

Associate Justice O’Connor was appointed by President Ronald Reagan. She approached each case narrowly and decided in agreement with fellow Justices. However, when the court became increasingly “conservative”, in her latter years, she surprised many by deciding close 5-4 decisions by “siding” with Liberal causes. Were her decisions based on matters of case law or was she trying to “even” the score on a false perception that one “side” was winning more than the “otherside”, a collective approach?

Sandra attended public schools. Her approach to her daily duties exemplified an education mostly lost on today’s generations. She was a critical thinker and worked hard for esteem among her generation. There was no left/right ideology in her public school days, only advancement through hard work, self esteem from accomplishments. Graduating sixth in her class from an El Paso highschool, she was accepted at Stanford earning a B.A. in Economics. After matriculating, she pursued a law degree serving with William Rhenquist on the Stanford Law Review.

In Arizona, she rose from Asst AG to State Senator, to being the first female Senate Majority Leader. From here, she was elected to the Maricopa County Superior Court, leading to the Court of Appeals then nominated to the US Supreme Court. Exemplary!

She decided each case on it’s merits voting with fellow judges who were pigeonholed as “conservative” by a new ideology, an ideology that is against the very values she attained from her teachers, colleagues, fellow citizens, her nation.

Becoming a “swing vote” in a divided court based on a “conservative/liberal” division, did she side with liberals on key decisions advancing an ideology for winners and losers, not the merits of the case? Here are some examples of case law where she was the deciding vote, merits of the case as she saw it or activism based on letting the other side win a few?

Stenberg v Carhart (2000)
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002)
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
Veith v. Jubelirer (2004)
McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005)

The point here is that she had an up bringing that was based on American Common Sense taught in public schools, in my opinion. An American value system based on merit not divisions. Her decisions on these five examples shows an individualism which was not for sale. She was neitehr “conservative” or “liberal”. She was her own woman. I encourage you to look up her opinions on these cases. Was she swayed by another ideal, a collectivism? Was she a “judicial activist” for siding with “liberals” or “conservatives”? Read her opinions and decide for yourself. Where does all this lead to?

In my observations today, much rhetoric coming from Democrat politicians at a national level echo an ideology that is foreign to me. An ideology that evidently has the ear of “47%”. Could this be a “47%” that has heard this rhetoric before? In the classroom, in text books? Yes. It becomes easier to make winners and losers when schools teach an ideology that destroys an America value that is the envy of the world, individualism.

What if we stopped progressing away from the public school days of Sandra Day O’Connor, from the promise and mission of America? What if we continued the progression tyranny, away from the so-called alternative government, a Marxist-Communism blend that so many on the left advance in the classrooms, media, politics, and public speeches. What if we as a people stopped the progression towards a collectivist ideology the picks winners and losers, an ideology that shuns individualism?

What if every American High School Principal said this:

“To the students and faculty of our high school:

I am your new principal, and honored to be so. There is no greater calling than to teach young people.

I would like to apprise you of some important changes coming to our school. I am making these changes because I am convinced that most of the ideas that have dominated public education in America have worked against you, against your teachers and against our country.

First, this school will no longer honor race or ethnicity. I could not care less if your racial makeup is black, brown, red, yellow or white. I could not care less if your origins are African, Latin American, Asian or European, or if your ancestors arrived here on the Mayflower or on slave ships. The only identity I care about, the only one this school will recognize, is your individual identity — your character, your scholarship, your humanity. And the only national identity this school will care about is American.

This is an American public school, and American public schools were created to make better Americans. If you wish to affirm an ethnic, racial or religious identity through school, you will have to go elsewhere. We will end all ethnicity, race and non-American nationality-based celebrations. They undermine the motto of America , one of its three central values — e pluribus Unum, “from many, one.” And this school will be guided by America ‘s values. This includes all after-school clubs. I will not authorize clubs that divide students based on any identities. This includes race, language, religion, sexual orientation or whatever else may become in vogue in a society divided by political correctness.

Your clubs will be based on interests and passions, not blood, ethnic, racial or other physically defined ties. Those clubs just cultivate narcissism — an unhealthy preoccupation with the self — while the purpose of education is to get you to think beyond yourself. So we will have clubs that transport you to the wonders and glories of art, music, astronomy, languages you do not already speak, carpentry and more. If the only extracurricular activities you can imagine being interested in are those based on ethnic, racial or sexual identity, that means that little outside of yourself really interests you.

Second, I am uninterested in whether English is your native language. My only interest in terms of language is that you leave this school speaking and writing English as fluently as possible. The English language has united America ‘s citizens for over 200 years, and it will unite us at this school. It is one of the indispensable reasons this country of immigrants has always come to be one country. And if you leave this school without excellent English language skills, I would be remiss in my duty to ensure that you will be prepared to successfully compete in the American job market. We will learn other languages here — it is deplorable that most Americans only speak English –but if you want classes taught in your native language rather than in English, this is not your school.

Third, because I regard learning as a sacred endeavor, everything in this school will reflect learning’s elevated status. This means, among other things, that you and your teachers will dress accordingly. Many people in our society dress more formally for Hollywood events than for church or school. These people have their priorities backward. Therefore, there will be a formal dress code at this school.

Fourth, no obscene language will be tolerated anywhere on this school’s property — whether in class, in the hallways or at athletic events. If you can’t speak without using the f-word, you can’t speak. By obscene language I mean the words banned by the Federal Communications Commission, plus epithets such as “Nigger,” even when used by one black student to address another black, or “bitch,” even when addressed by a girl to a girlfriend. It is my intent that by the time you leave this school, you will be among the few your age to instinctively distinguish between the elevated and the degraded, the holy and the obscene.

Fifth, we will end all self-esteem programs. In this school, self-esteem will be attained in only one way — the way people attained it until decided otherwise a generation ago — by earning it. One immediate consequence is that there will be one valedictorian, not eight.

Sixth, and last, I am reorienting the school toward academics and away from politics and propaganda. No more time will be devoted to scaring you about smoking and caffeine, or terrifying you about sexual harassment or global warming. No more semesters will be devoted to condom wearing and teaching you to regard sexual relations as only or primarily a health issue… There will be no more attempts to convince you that you are a victim because you are not white, or not male, or not heterosexual or not Christian. We will have failed if any one of you graduates this school and does not consider him or herself inordinately fortunate — to be alive and to be an American.

Now, please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of our country. As many of you do not know the words, your teachers will hand them out to you.

Pass this along if you agree. . . . If not delete..and later regret it !”

…and what if every American lived up to this:

“Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

—Emma Lazarus, 1883

What if we lived under one flag, a nation of individuals, equal, free, governed by the rule of laws, and under no duress to feel ashamed of their values and beliefs. What if.

“I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.”

http://www.wvsd.uscourts.gov/outreach/Pledge.htm

Reply
Common Sense October 20, 2012 at 12:35 pm

only complete and total assholes view this nation as “us vs. them” ala big T. He is the perfect example of everything wrong with this country, regardless of party.

Reply
BigT October 20, 2012 at 3:12 pm

Let’s all hold hands and sing Cum Ba Ya….

You know that means These liberal Pieces of $#@!* know an @$$ Whippin’ is comin’….

Can’t wait to hear Pleas from the media and their Dumb@$$ politicians for Bi-Partisianship and Minory rights…

Forget it Dirtbags…bend over and get ready to get REAMED…We learned where playing pretty will get us w/ Bush…(Remeber the New Tone)….

Romney knows what Tore us down…and he know EXTERMINATING you (figuratively of course) is the ONLY way to bring us back…

I would say it’s nothing personal, but it is…Get ready for a little A$$-KICK….PAYBACK….

Reply
Skidmarks October 22, 2012 at 11:43 am

Cum Ba Ya instead of Kumbayah. Ass, ass, ass. Bend over. Reamed.

You don’t have to be Freud to recognize Big T’s orietation.

Learned a lot in jail, did you?

Reply
Isotope Soap October 20, 2012 at 4:16 pm

Biggie. Have you ever flipped a record over?

Reply
shifty henry October 20, 2012 at 8:57 pm

BigT: Have you ever had an UNEXPRESSED THOUGHT?

Reply
dwb619 October 21, 2012 at 10:01 pm

How about reasonable?

Reply
Booyah October 21, 2012 at 2:45 pm

The Founders didn’t write this shit:

“I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.”

Thats’ Frances Bellamy’s Socialist Loyalty Oath. Read it closely. More than once.

Free men should Pledge Allegiance to the CONSTITUTION. “The Flag” has no specific meaning, and the Republic doesn’t either therefore Pledge is swearing allegiance to the FEDERAL government. “The Flag” doesn’t enumerate your rights against government oppression. The Constitution DOES. READ that motherfucker!

How about the ignorant masses who blindly worship the Pledge actually read what the FOUNDERS wrote instead of Socialist Federalist vague bullshit?

Have some Scary Stuff. These documents are still subversive in much of the world:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html

Reply
mph October 24, 2012 at 12:00 pm

You guys stop feeding the Big T sock puppet.

Look at the overuse use of the ellipse and the change in tone and style. It’s a sock puppet meant to increase hits.

Reply
Staffer October 24, 2012 at 12:03 pm

If a judge takes a liberal stance, he is a judicial activist. If a judge takes a conservative stance, the journalist that calls him out on it is a bully. What about the whiny bitches that whiny about both of them? What are they other than double standard, whiny, bitches like Bill?

Reply
SCBlues October 25, 2012 at 12:35 pm

Yawn . . . Bill Wilson is a bore – and very predictable – nothing but a partisan hack – guess that is why FITS is so enamored with him.

FITS – maybe you can get him to sign on to your Bagger-TEA group??

FITS – Should we assume your ManCrush with Howard Rich is over and that you’ve got a new bromance or a new thang going on with Bill Wilson?

Reply

Leave a Comment