Category Archives: supreme court

Please Allow Me to Introduce Myself…

Sympathy for the D_____?

     In an effort to pinpoint the reasons why Uncle Clarence Thomas is so contrary, the following facts were discovered:

1. He was born in 1948 in the deep south in Pinpoint, Georgia.

2. He was abandoned by his father when he was 2 years old.

3. At 7 years old, his mother remarried, the family house burned down, and Clarence and his brother were sent to live with their grandfather.

4. He was educated at an all Black Roman Catholic primary school run by White nuns, then a boarding school seminary where he was the only Black graduate in his class.

5. His freshman year in college was spent at Immaculate Conception Abbey.  He then transferred to Holy Cross College where, in 1971, he received his Bachelors Degree.  His subsequent achievements culminated in his contentious appointment to the Supreme Court.

     As you can see, the guy never had a chance.  One can only imagine the emotional and psychological stresses he must have gone through as a child, that have manifested themselves in his blackened heart and self hatred of today.

– L. Morales

Newt Gingrich wants Clarence Thomas Arrested

                                                    Lynch Arrest Him!

      Newt Gingrich’s poll numbers have plummeted in Iowa.  Due to the constant barrage of negative ads from racist Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and his Super Pac: Restore Our Future, the professor finds himself in third place behind Paul and Romney (1st and 2nd respectively).  In an angry statement Gingrich exacerbated, “They ought to be ashamed of themselves!  Take this junk off the air! Don’t hide behind some baloney about not having control over them!”  Newt also mentioned that the Super Pac Restore Our Future is run by 5 of Mitt Romney’s friends.

Now, let’s get this straight.  Newt Gingrich doesn’t like Super Pacs being used against him.  Therefore he doesn’t agree with the Supreme Court decision Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission; making corporations people, where money equals speech.  Just recently he said, “Activist judges should be thrown out.  They should be called before Congress to explain their decisions.”  And like a good Republican, he took it one step further.  He stated that any judge who was uncooperative should be arrested by the Federal Marshals  and forced to appear.  In this country, what are the odds Uncle Thomas would be the first to go?  One down, four to go Newt?  … Newt?

– L. Morales

Sir Isaac Newt on…

    Activist Judges

     Professor Newt Gingrich thinks “Judges who have ruled in favor of gay marriages or against prayer in schools are ‘activists’ who should be thrown out.  They should be called before Congress to explain their decisions” (a process Newt himself is familiar with).  He spoke of the precedent set by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 when he abolished 3 Federal courts.

     That may be true, but in Newt’s world, in an effort to keep their jobs, wouldn’t  judges end up making decisions based on what they believe a particular Congress and/or  President’s ideologies are, instead of based on the judges’ own interpretation of the law?    Funny, the Newtster never mentions the activist majority on the Supreme Court; reversing 100 years of precedent and decreeing corporations people.

– L. Morales

We’re Number 1!

    Los Angeles does it Again!

No, I’m not talking basketball.  No, not hockey, soccer, football, baseball or any other sport.  I’m talking about something important.  Something that will affect your future as well as that of your children and grandchildren.

An organization called Move to Amend (.org) started a petition to amend the U.S. Constitution.  The goal is to establish the obvious: corporations are not people (Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission; the Supreme Court decision that allows anonymous, unlimited  purchase [money=speech] of the U.S. political process, and therefore, the United States government).  L.A. City Councilman Eric Garcetti heard of the Occupy Wall Street-inspired petition, liked the idea, and drafted a resolution.    It states: only living persons, not corporations are endowed with constitutional rights and that money is not the same as free speech.

The Los Angles City Council voted on the resolution yesterday at 10:00 am.  As you may have guessed by now, it passed unanimously!  Los Angeles became the first major city in the United States to call for an end to all corporate constitutional person-hood.  Councilman Garcetti said: ” We’re very proud to come together and send a message, but more than that, this becomes the official position of the City of Los Angeles.  We will officially lobby for this. I also chair a group which oversees all the Democratic mayors and council members in the country and we’re going to share this with all our 3,000 members and we hope to see this start here in the west and sweep the nation until one day we do have a constitutional amendment which will return the power to the people.”

Bravo L.A.!  Once again the trend setter. Who would have thought we would ever need a resolution like this, to castrate the judicial activism of the shady majority on the Supreme Court?

– L. Morales

Conflict of Interest

               Uncle Thomas Strikes Again

As revealed by Al Sharpton last night, Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Anthony Scalia once again showed their dedication to bipartisanship by attending a fundraiser  held by the Federalist Society. The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a conservative legal group whose focus is to redefine law by reinterpreting the Constitution.

Why is this relevant?  Because the Supreme Court had just announced that it would hear a case concerning the constitutionality of Obamacare.  Guess who was sitting between the two judges? … Paul Clement.  Clement is the lead attorney arguing the case against Obamacare that the Supreme Court will be hearing!

Also, Uncle Thomas’ wife Virginia is a vocal lobbyist for conservative and tea party groups.  Earlier, the Supreme Court decided  (Citizens United vs. FEC ) that corporations are people, therefore allowing them to contribute unlimited funds to political campaigns in anonymity .  Virginia was a prominent voice in the lobby for this outcome.

To me, this looks like a clear conflict of interest. Should the judges not have to recuse themselves from the case for merely the appearance of a conflict of interest? Do conflict of interest rules apply to everyone but the Supreme Court?  After watching the story, I had only one question:  What had I done to Al Sharpton, and why is he yelling at me?

– L. Morales
%d bloggers like this: