David King

When the entire liberal wing of the Supreme Court voted in 2012 to uphold the ObamaCare mandate (along with a seriously misguided Chief Justice John Roberts), it represented a massive blow to American individual liberty. With this ruling, the federal government obtained the power to force American citizens to purchase private market products under penalty of law (I can still barely believe this nearly two years after the ruling). We The Sheeple, who didn't want ObamaCare in the first place, now had to purchase government-approved health insurance or pay a fine, just by virtue of being alive. What a sad, sad precedent this sets. The government can now conceivably force us to buy any private market product under penalty of law. "You didn't eat your broccoli requirement, comrade, and where's your government-approved Iphone ??? Pay up, scofflaw !!!". What would Roberts and the Liberals Against Liberty argue then, stare decisis ? With ObamaCare, Big Brother got a whole lot bigger. 

The ObamaCare mandate was a clear violation of the Commerce Clause (the government is supposed to regulate commerce, not force us to engage in it). ObamaCare violates the 4th Amendment (the government collects all our medical records under ObamaCare, which, in my opinion, is quite a leap beyond the NSA's collection of phone records). ObamaCare violated the 10th Amendment, which allows state sovereignty. It violates the 1st Amendment in spirit. ObamaCare is also incredibly discriminatory. It forces some people to pay for the health insurance of other people. It implements a variety of discriminatory taxes. Not to mention that ObamaCare was fraudulently sold to the American public based on a series of now well-established lies.

Every liberal Supreme Court justice looked at this unconstitutional, anti-liberty, discriminatory ObamaCare legislation and said, "Sounds good !!! Let's do it !!!". Four of five conservative Justices rightly voted against the ObamaCare mandate, while Roberts hastily manufactured a federal taxing authority argument that could wipe out virtually every liberty Americans enjoy. "Sure you can still engage in free speech, brother, but you'll have to pay the new SPEECH TAX !!!". Thanks for nothing, Roberts.

ObamaCare wasn't the only time the liberal wing of the Supreme Court got it wrong and ruled against liberty in America. Not by a long shot. In 2009, the liberal wing of the Court took to defacto book burning, and voted in favor of laws banning political television commercials and documentary movies. Liberals Against Liberty decided We The Sheeple didn't need to receive any "non-approved" political information prior to elections. In their opinion, we ignorant non-elites shouldn't have to worry our pretty little heads about  anything so trivial as politics, not before elections anyway. Heck no, not when we have the Democratic and Republican parties to tell us what to think. Who needs more information than those two party lines ?  That would be TOO MUCH freedom, I guess. That's what Liberals Against Liberty believe, anyway. The case was called Citizens United v. FEC, and the banned movie was a documentary about Hillary Clinton. Our black-robed Liberals Against Liberty (Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens, and Sotomayor) all decided we meaningless peons didn't need to see no movie expressing an opinion about Hillary Clinton here in the so-called land of the free prior to the elections. Fortunately, the Liberals Against Liberty lost their censorship battle in that case, because all the conservative Justices voted to stop the book burners. Liberals Against Liberty all across the country have pissed and moaned ever since that ruling. President Obama, the head Liberal Against Liberty, even bemoaned the new lack of censorship in a State Of The Union speech, if you can believe that.  Clearly, liberals liked censorship a whole lot better than political free speech. That's what all their wailing about the Koch Brothers is about. They don't even try to hide it.

The Citizens United case only arose because of another terrible Supreme Court ruling against liberty, the 2003 McConnell v. FEC case, in which the entire liberal wing of the Court, along with Mr. Swing Vote, Justice Kennedy, upheld unconstitutional political censorship legislation known as McCain-Feingold. Notable was Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas' statement calling the decision "the most significant abridgement of freedom of speech and association since the Civil War". A bit of an overstatement by Thomas, but an accurate appraisal nonetheless. Btw, the unconstitutional 2002 McCain-Feingold legislation passed the Senate with overwhelming Democratic support. Most Republicans voted against it, but enough of them said 'yes' to get the unconstitutional censorship legislation passed. Shame, shame. Things were much the same in the House. Democrats were overwhelmingly in favor of censorship. Republicans were overwhelmingly against censorship.  Liberals Against Liberty struck again.

Another terrible Supreme Court decision was made in 2003. That case was Grutter v. Bollinger, where the Liberal Justices Against Liberty ruled that it was peachy keen for American universities to discriminate against people based on the color of their skin, in order to balance out college admissions along racial lines...and what about those better-qualified students who were denied college admission due to this discriminatory policy ? Well, screw them and their deserving hard work !!! Liberals Against Liberty were on the march !!!

Aside from the ObamaCare constitutional assault, my most-detested modern day Liberals Against Liberty Supreme Court ruling came in 2005, in the  Kelo v. New London case. In that case, the entire liberal wing of the Court, plus the Swinger Kennedy again (what's wrong with that guy ?), ruled that the government could use eminent domain to forcibly take a private homeowner's property and give it to another private owner. That is horrid, unconstitutional, and discriminatory enough all by itself, but the reasoning of the Liberals Against Liberty was...and this is the part that makes my blood boil...because the new private owner was allegedly going to engage in economic development and PROVIDE MORE TAX REVENUE FOR THE GOVERNMENT !!! In other words, Liberals Against Liberty voted to take the poorer person's house and give it to the richer person(s), not because of any legitimate eminent domain need like a highway, mass transit hub, or a government building, but simply because it thought the government would receive more money. Liberals Against Liberty transformed eminent domain into nothing more than a device for the wealthy to get their way (provided they have the right government connections, of course). It was as corrupt a ruling as could be, and the liberal Justices ALL thought it was a stone groove, man. 

In summary, using the Supreme Court, over the last decade or so, Liberals Against Liberty have tried to stifle political speech, have created precedent which forces Americans to purchase private market products under penalty of law, have ruled to discriminate against American citizens based on skin color, have redefined eminent domain, and ruled to steal people's property in order to give it to wealthier people to increase government tax revenue.

All I can say, frankly, is...to he!! with them.