What's WRONG with the Supreme Court

Judgeship is not an Aristocracy style position. That is something that I have learned about what it should be. However, the opposite has seemed to become true, and the idea, while not expressed that way, is something believed by many people I know and respect. But to be blunt, they are wrong.

Here's the Breakdown:
The concept that the Supreme Court and Judges in general confirm or affirm the Supreme LAW OF THE LAND is a concept that is flawed. It allows no room for changing ideas and concepts of our society. The reason why we (and I mean the general concept of what is taught in our schools and believed by the mass of our society) believe this is based on the idea of the Constitution as a 'Living Document'. This is false hood based on the simple principle that it does not breath or have a mindset to adjust to the changing world. The Constitution was set as the BASIS of what we as a nation can guide our governing by. It's Principle's should be granite that help to guide us, generation after generation. Like Granite, it has been weathered away from the surface of what it was.

If you consider that the Supreme Court is the Law of the Land - then we would still have slavery and segregation within our society. The Supreme Court ruled on these as legitimate ideas and AGREED with them. Why can the Supreme Court make mistakes - because it is run by Human beings. Human beings by definition make mistakes.

The Constitution was developed to be difficult to change. It was meant to be resilient to the daily, weekly or even yearly winds of change. In fact, the Constitution was set to be able to withstand a decade long trend. With the increasing RISE OF THE SUPREME COURT in our society - we are expecting them to rule on everything. Both sides of the political spectrum are expecting the Supreme Court to be the great arbitrator. This is WRONG because they weren't meant to answer EVERY single aspect of society. They weren't meant to have EVERY answer. The Supreme Court was meant as the Arbitrator between the Congress and the President. Not as it's own legislative arm.

Yes, in my opinion there should be no Supreme Court Challenge to Obamacare - the should not have been a bunch of Supreme Court cases because they are based on the falsehood that the Supreme Court is the Supreme Law of the land - as if they trump the other two branches. That was NOT the intended purpose of the Supreme Court. It was not meant as a Supreme Law. It was meant as a check. The Legislature and Executive Branches are suppose to Check the Supreme Court. And ultimately - WE THE PEOPLE Check all Three with Amendments that we put into play through our states.

An Election Morass

Which Presidential Candidate can overcome the power of the Media Bias? Which Candidate will not only expect to be attached, but can deflect the media bias?

Over the weekend, I was watching the morning news on ABC, which I admit has been the most critical of the Obama Administration. This has primarily been because ABC News is littered with former Clinton Insiders. They are critical of the Obama Administration not because the President is wrong in his political beliefs, but they are critical of him because they do not want to see him succeed. Because if he does, then their political icons (HRC and BJC will be the ones moving to the back burner even faster then they already are.)

But sitting there, enduring the morning news a thought occurred to me. Which Candidate can handle the onslaught when the Liberal Media Establishment goes after them. There is no way that with the baggage that Paul has - will he be acceptable, nor can you expect Romney (McCain Light) to have the wear with all to make the final run. Santorum looked like he was falling asleep on Greta the other night and I wonder if he has it in him to hold the line - let along fight back. Huntsman who? Rick Perry can't seem to find the script to make the whitty comeback - and let's be honest he's handicapped because he will get labeled another Bushie (even though the truth of the matter was in Texas he is the Anti-George W. Bush). Gingrich has the ability to refute this, if he can get the traction. He has the witty nature to strike back. And honestly, I am leaning his way right now. So keep that in mind as you reflect.

Ultimately, I think the best candidate will be the one that Karl Rove doesn't like. That should be the first distinction we look for. He is an insider and looking out for the establishment candidate - so there goes his boy Romney.

ROMNEY WEAKNESS or It's the Republican's too fail.

The case of the Iowa Caucus:

At first, let me disclose that currently I am struggling with my vote. A) Paul is completely out of the running for me - his foreign policy is just too extreme. B) I like Santorum, but I don't know enough about him to make a judgement of yes or no. C) I like Gingrich because I know he will hammer the President in the Debates and because he can deliver the Conservative Message - he has his bona fides D) I just don't know if Perry has it in him to finish the job of winning against Obama. He will have to overcome the 'Another Texan like George W' syndrome. I liked W, but I'm not the only person voting in this election. And E) Romney is not a consideration for me. Not looking for a used car salesman for President, and I just don't think he can win. So now you know where I am coming from, and my "BIAS". Here's WHY:

A win is still a win. If you win by limping over the finish line while your next closets competitor is running at full blast, and you just happen to have enough distance and time ahead of your opponent to get across the line first - well YOU WON! Just as Rocky Balboa in Rocky II or better yet Apollo Creed "Now, when you beat me, you beat me by one... ONE... second. Now do you know what something like that does to a man of my intelligence?" (He wrote sarcastically.)

We know that Santorum is certainly not feeling bad about his near win - at least he shouldn't. The person here who should feel bad is the anointed one - Romney. Because Iowa didn't show his strength - it showed his weakness. Yes, I said weakness.

Remember he's suppose to be the guy whose drawing in the moderates - because he's not extreme like some of the base want their candidate to be. Remember because of his ability to work with Liberals in Massachusetts - he's suppose to be the perfect candidate to pick off votes from the President.

My first reaction to this is - If you (and I mean all those out there that are interested in voting for Romney) truly believe that Democrats and Moderates will vote for Romney because he isn't extreme, I guess then during the 2008 election what we saw was a lot of people who thought that the policies projected by then Senator Obama was Moderate. If you truly believe this - I have a big piece of property that crosses the East River that you need to buy from me as soon as you can.

Seriously. Understand that the person that is our candidate needs to be a Conservative, someone who can draw a stark contrast between the Left and the Right. This is NOT Romney. To boot - he is vulnerable to the flip flop attacks that crushed Kerry and McCain.

Worse, he doesn't have an anchor. At no point in his past did he truly push a conservative agenda, that's the anchor that he is missing. Unlike Democrats we need our representative to have a solid background, someone who has demonstrated great leadership and or strong conservative values.

Democrats fawned over the empty suit of Barack Obama in 2008. Historically - Conservatives don't look for an empty suit - they look for a REAGAN, who was anything but an empty suit.

Below is an example of Romney Weakness. Review it for yourself. Hat tip to Eric Bolling and THE FIVE for having this piece on their show today.

The Company of COMA or HOW to NOT elect your President!

What kind of backwards third world company selects it's leader by a small percentage of it's stockholders?
What company picks the one that is 'liked' by the majority and not on the basis of their merit or accomplishments?
What company picks their leader based on the amount of money they draw into their coffers that convince their shareholders that they should pick that individual?

I'm sure you recognize, since you must be an intellectual giant, because you have chosen to read this blog, that I am in fact not talking about a company, but our country. And for the really astute of you I'm sure you have already figured out that I am talking about the Iowa Caucus - and who wants to try and figure that out anyway.

What I am trying to say here is that Iowa doesn't matter - not that our system is messed up. So Iowa doesn't matter - at least as much as people are making it out to sound and certainly not as much as one state in the Union can matter. There are forty nine other states and forty nine other chances for these candidates to get delegates for the convention.

There is an argument that Iowa is a smaller version of America. I think this is missing a larger point, there is NO smaller America. I don't know of anyone in Iowa who shares my same views exactly, or has the same thought processes of me. I am the only person like that, that's what makes us unique and makes us shine.

Keep that in mind this week as you see the pundits make their cases. For myself the only way that Iowa impacts me and helps me in MY decision process is simple. If any candidate is weak kneed enough to bail after this election, then they didn't deserve my vote and time to investigate them. I suggest you have the same thinking.