First Lady Obama presumes that her husband’s Supreme Court Nominees will protect political rights not enumerated in the Constitution. She made this remarkable claim at Democrat fundraisers by stressing that Sotomayo and Kagan are indeed political appointees and can be counted on to protect the right to “Love whomever we choose” and “the right privacy”. This mysterious “Privacy” right is presumably a reference to Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, but these nebulous terms are often invoked to mean anything Democrat strategists want them to mean at a later date.
In a typical Michelle Obama statement, her bathos logic maintained its chaotic and barely decipherable cross word puzzle style:
“Let’s not forget what it meant when my husband appointed those two brilliant Supreme Court justices, and for the first time in history our daughters and our sons watched three women take their seat on our nation’s highest court.
But more importantly, let us never forget the impact their decisions will have on our lives for decades to come–on our privacy and our security, on whether we can speak freely, worship openly, and, yes, love whomever we choose. That is what’s at stake here.”
Of course, the appointment of the ACLU lawyer, Ruth Bader Ginzberg was a Clinton appointment and she has since claimed the Constitution to be a flawed document and that we need to look at other countries for laws to guide our judicial process.
Now with the latest political appointments being bragged about as stooges for the Obama regime and the refusal of Kagan to recuse herself from the hearing of the Individual Mandate Clause of Obama Care, the seriousness of the appointments of Sotomayor and Kagan are being viewed with skepticism by people wanting to preserve the integrity of the Constitution.
Ms Obama’s speech was not a collection of off the cuff and extemporaneous remarks, she gave the same speech again at another fundraiser in Detroit. She obviously has sound reasons to believe her decidedly un-American speech claims.
We are now left wondering what these Progressive “Plants” are programed to achieve with their “Love who you choose” clause and what other Progressive objectives they are programmed to pursue or do they await directions from the White House. Does this include children, animals, and multiple partners or can we expect an element of reasonable restraint from political operatives within the Supreme Court.
Michelle seems confident that these justices are in her husband’s pocket.
Michelle has reassured us that her husband’s political operatives believe we should be able to speak freely and worship openly, but then again, maybe political stooges may see that only certain speech and worship are considered to be within the proscribed politically correct boundaries and everything else should be considered offensive. Since the question is bound to arise, how ideologically programmed are these Progressive Stooges in the Supreme Court.
Should women from the Left take pride in the fact that they have a victory with mandated condoms and birth control for college students; therefore, they can play humpy rumpy with even less responsible men and forget that their sisters in many parts of the world are still struggling against mutilation, slavery, forced marriage, childhood marriage, state condoned sexual abuse, and religious sponsored murder. Perhaps these issues are a little too close to a real struggle as well as incongruent and counter productive to the president’s true ideological beliefs, since most of those crimes against routinely happen in the Muslim World and are much more difficult to deal with than the concept of free condoms for college women with healthy libidos.
We should also remember that Ginzberg told the Egyptians trying to write a new Constitution for their new country to forget using the US Constitution as a template; consequently, they are now debating how many hours after a wife dies is a man allowed to have sex with the corpse of his deceased wife. Yes, the Feminist movement should be proud of its progress and its stooges.