Skousen was a LDS member, and a teacher with BYU. Founded The National Center for Constitutional Studies. All in all, sounds like he was one interesting gentleman. Passed away in 2006.

Read thru the list, and you can see we are well on the way to accomplishing the laundry list.

If you have a link to this, I’d appreciate it if you’d post it…

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

P.S.Hoopie has been a constant visitor to Mike’s America for years. He’s an idiot! All he does is cheer on the Islamists and any enemy of the United States. If Steve J. is a buddy of his, God help him!

1: They are always busy creating precedents. The precedents they create today, in the liberal/progressive cycle, will be heavily weighed in future decisions. It’s one thing in the Boumediene v Bush case as they really were making it up for lack of exact apples to apples. So they went with what they believed was “public opinion. This is a very nasty precedent to live with now.(Sidebar.. makes you wonder if this actually, in effect, gives the media control over the court as they control the nation’s opinion)

But it’s another animal when there are clear cut precedents, based on newly created progressive/socialist laws. The damage under an all socialist DNC in just a few years can be devastating.

2: Justices are a life time appointment. “Empathetic” judges are those based in emotion, and that isn’t let go for an impartial look easily. Even tho society *may* recycle back to anti-socialism, the court can easily lag behind until the “empathetic justices” either retire, or pass.

As for Steve J. Let’s go with the “company they keep” bit for a moment. The name “Ken Hoop” mean anything to you? You’ll probably find sufficient data in a Google for his white supremacist associations to satisfy even a cursory glance. I know Ken and his serious pro-Palestine views from his various cyber persona at AJ Strata’s, and he’s visited Sea2Sea before as well. So I have to guess the general “bent” of someone giving H/T’s to Ken must be similar While they (hopefully) may not share all opinions, they must have something in common to share material.

No personal criticism of Steve J for his cyber pals, mind you. I’ll accept him on his own comments. After all, I live in a country where anyone can believe what they want. But I do like to know the foundations of those with whom I interact. Makes cyber conversation easier.

Steven J is clearly not concerned with the “balance” of the court any more than he cares about preserving the fundamental principles of the Constitution. Hard lefties want to tear down what they see as an unjust America and remake it in the image of a flawed socialist Utopia.

Of course everytime the hard lefties have succeeded in creating one of their Utopias, even in miniature, it’s been a disaster. Recall the free love, drugs sex and rock and roll of the sixties and seventies which led to overdoses, teen pregnancy and AIDS if you need an example.

P.S. Matah said: “However even more dangerous is what appears to be an irreversible trend of US citizenry to the socialist left.”

I disagree. Theses trends are more cyclical. It often takes four years of a really, REALLY bad leftie President to wake people up and reverse course. It helps to have a conservative alternative which we currently lack.

Then again, you are not in charge of appointees, nor the balance of the court. You, like I (on what appears to be opposite sides of what we want for this country), are merely subject to the opinions from the life long sitting judges.

However a full tilt one way or another is never indicative of this country’s beliefs. Nor healthy for it’s future.

Scalia does not belong on the Court and neither does Thomas. They are extremists who may be good law school professors (or may not) but that’s about it.

A SCOTUS dominated by reactionaries like Scalia IS dangerous.

Holmes was in the minority dissent with that quote. Great quote tho… evidently ignored by peers. Apparently the SCOTUS is not only “blind”, but also deaf.