From:	Craig Chilton -- Countdown to 1/20/09: 1,463 days to BYE-BYE Bushie! Forever!!
Subject:	Next Supreme Court Justice: Affirmation of Liberty, or Unthinkable Tyranny will Result.
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:17:33 GMT

[[[ READERS: This post was put up BEFORE 11/2/04,
when America still had its BEST chance to avert the
unthinkable disaster described below. I've made no
significant changes to it. My purpose for posting it now
is to remind everyone of what we probably have let
ourselves in for. So that we can start right now to do
some **serious** planning to prevent it. Electing Kerry
would have been BEST. Now, unfortunately, we must
work VERY hard to come up with a workable "Plan B"
to keep the U.S. Supreme Court egalitarian. ]]]

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

To Slam the Door FOREVER on the RRR Cult
and Its Tyrannical Anti-Liberty Agendas...

...it would have been BEST to have elected John Kerry.

[[[ From here on... no changes applied to the post. ]]]

The above is not in the least an exaggeration. If Bush wins,
then tyranny such as America hasn't experienced in its worst
nightmares is likely inevitable, and inexorably right around the
corner. And from Nov. 3rd on, it may well be unpreventable.

The following is my own analysis. I'm affiliated with no groups
nor PACs, and my writing, and the concerns expressed herein,
are entirely my own. And just for the record, I'm a registered
Republican... but only because I'm doing all I can from within
that party to help to wrest it free of the RRR ("Religious"
Radical Right) faction that has a firm lock on it -- in hopes of
restoring it to the respectability that it once had, decades
earlier. And in line with that, I already have cast my vote for
Kerry, and for lower-echelon candidates on the ballot (for
other offices) who want nothing to do with repressive agendas,
regardless of their party.

If the mistake of electing Bush is made, then there will be
no way that the horrific consequences detailed below can be
averted. An irrevocable & unstoppable process will have
been set in motion, and our lives would never be the same
again.

Just as many historical geologists think that the last ice age
may have been sudden -- as evidenced by frozen mammoths
having been found in the Arctic with vegetation still in their
mouths -- the end of the American system we have always
treasured and assumed to be indestructable could be upon
us almost without warning. We can be caught just as surely
-- and almost as suddenly -- as the residents of Pompeii were
cooked and buried without warning by a pyroclastic flow from
Vesuvius.

The society that results won't make the one described in
George Orwell's "1984" look *good*. But it may very well look
like a close **parallel** to the American system that would
result from that horrendous mistake. And that would be
incomprehensible.

For those for whom the Bible has meaning -- THIS could
**easily** be HOW the long-prophecied Tribulation Period
described in Revelation can **begin**.

If you read this post fairly and without prejudice, you will see
for yourself that the situation is EXACTLY as I just described.
Maybe you've seen an erlier vesion of the posting below before,
and maybe you haven't. But either way, NOW is the time for
you to take whatt it says VERY seriously!

If you care about America -- and your personal liberties, then
it is imperative the Bush NOT be elected to a second term.

This is why ---

It's October 19, 2004, and Hal Lindsey (author of "The Late,
Great Planet Earth) has just pointed out on TBN (Trinity Broad-
casting Network) that it's almost a certainty that whomever is
President between 2005 and 2009, he will get to appoint "two,
and possibly as many as four, Justices to the U.S. Supreme Court."

A favorite refrain from the RRR cult's leaders, and its lemmings
who parrot them, is that "unelected, activist judges legislate from
the bench." So let's take a look at the ramifications of those
proclamations about our Judicial Branch of government, by the
"Religious" Radical Right.

FIRST of all, consider that the only "legislating" from the bench
that ever is done is 100% legitimate. It's called "Judicial Law," and
when it's a majority decision that's an interpretation of the U.S.
Constitution by the U.S. Supreme Court, it supercedes ALL statutory
law, and can be contravened only by a later reversal by that court, or
by a Constitutional Amendment. So this obvious absence of a basic
knowledge of American civics on their part of the cult's lemmings (and
the depth to which its leaders will reach in order to spread its lying
propaganda) is duly noted. As well as the lemmings' typical -- and
unquestioning -- obvious gullibility that's proven by their consis-
tently falling for the cult's lies and propaganda, hook, line and
sinker!

It's call the Balance of Powers, and checks-and-balances. That's
in the Constitution. It's what keeps the three branches of government
(Executive, Legislative, and Judicial) from overreaching their power,
in each case. (Think "rock, scissors, paper.")

Congress has the power to enact statutory law, and to initiate
Constitutional Amendments. In the case of statutory law, those
can be nullified -- totally legally -- by the U.S. Supreme Court. But
if the Supreme Court appears to go too far, then the Constitution
can be amended to override its decision.

All Supreme Court Justices are "activists" or they wouldn't be
there. Including the socially-conservative ones. The only reason
that the RRR cult whines about that is because their activists
happen to be in the minority.

Oh. And their "activist" judges (whom they refer to as "construc-
tionists") also happen to be "unelected." No surprise, since that's
what the Constitution specifies: that Supreme Court Justices will be
presidentially appointed, subject to confirmation by Congress.

What hypocrisy, and what stupidity, on the part of the "Religious"
Radical Right.

Americans can thank God, their lucky stars, or whatever else
anyone may believe in, that the Supreme Court's majority is comprised
of social liberals who stand up for the personal liberties and rights
of the people.

If Bush wins this election, American society *very* likely will
quickly and inexorably begin to devolve into one that could make
the former Soviet Union look tame. There IS a "slippery slope," but
it *doesn't" lead toward expanded liberties, as hyperconservatives
seem to fear. It leads precisely in the *opposite* direction, once
the catalyst has been triggered.. That is not an overstatement.
Our personal liberties and rights have been defended for all of our
lives by a Supreme Court having an egalitarian majority. And that's
hanging by a very fragile thread right now, since many of its decis-
ions have supported liberty by only a 5-4 majority. As Hal Lindsey
pointed out, it is almost certain that at least two, and possibly as
many as four, of the Court's Justices will not be able to hang on for
another 4 years if Bush is elected. The Court has at this point gone
longer without any turnover than it has at anytime in the nation's
history.

Suppose that the majority had voted the OTHER way, just in
*these* decisions, over the last 50 years:

1954 -- The beginning of the end of segregation would *not*
have been initiated.

1967 -- Many states' hateful bans on interracial marriage would
have *survived*, and might still be in force today.

1973 -- Tens of millions of women who were enabled by a bene-
ficent Supreme Court to put their lives back on track by having
access to safe and legal abortion would *instead* have been forced
to gestate unwanted reproductive-process entities to term against
their will, or seek dangerous or exorbitant illegal abortions, or
travel to a free state for one. The latter would exclude millions of
lower-economic-level women, and it would impose unconscionable
second-class-citizen status upon all American women. We know
even today, 31 years later, that many states would still choose to
repress or prohibit this vital human right, if they could.

1997 -- On June 26th, the repressive, so-called "Communication
Decency Act" (CDA) which would have severely impacted freedom
of speech, and imposed censorship upon the internet, would have
*survived*.

2003 -- The government would *not* have so very sensibly been
kicked out of the bedrooms of American citizens.

And those are just some of the key cases. A repressive Court
obviously would have disregarded our rights just as consistently in
many lesser cases, as well.

If that weren't bad enough, consider this: The liberty-defending
courts (U.S. Supreme Court included, but don't forget such ones on
the state level as Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court, which
sensibly recognized that there is no valid or Constitutional reason
to deny marriage to same- couples), can directly stand up for our
rights and nullify attempts to repress them. But -- there's far more
to this than that. There's the psychological impact upon legislators
as they write their proposed laws, who currently (and sensibly) keep
a gimlet eye on the courts that could (and usually still would, in
*today's* America) strike them down in a heartbeat if they didn't
work hard to ensure that their legislation doesn't trample on any
of our liberties.

The passage of the ban on the SECOND-trimester ID&E abortion
procedure (lyingly called "partial-birth" by is dishonest proponents)
was an exception to that. The Republican majority in both houses
of Congress were under intense pressure by the neocon constituents
that they perceive as being their base, to pass the measure -- again
without the exception for the health of the woman that the Supreme
court has indicated would have made the act viable. So it's already
been invalidated by three federal judges, and when it gets to the
Supreme Court, it almost surely will be struck down, just as
Nebraska's similar law was -- for the same reason.

But most of the time, state legislatures and Congress don't
swim so obviously against the current -- because thay already
know ahead of time that an egalitarian-majority Supreme Court
stands in the wings, ready and able to scour the Constitution with
a fine-tooth comb with the clear intention of doing whatever they
legitimately can to defend our personal liberties whenever possible.

WHAT IF -- the Supreme Court **no longer** were of that mind?

THEN what would the state legislatures and Congress -- so
many of which now are controlled by neocon Republicans who
harbor open and blatant disdain for so many of our rights -- DO?

THINK about that!

And then -- all who are reading these words -- PLEASE vote for
Kerry (and please not for Nader, which would be the equivalent of
handing your vote to Bush) -- and help save America from such an
awful and unthinkable cataclysm.

Remember -- Supreme Court appointments are for *life*! And if
that Court becomes repressive, very few (if any) Americans alive
today will ever again know a Supreme Court that consistently and
fairly defends their rights. If there EVER were a time *not* to take
freedom for granted, THIS is that time. More so by far than at any
other time in any of our lifetimes. Exponentially more so.

This IS the most critically-important election in our lifetimes.

Kerry has promised to appoint egalitarians to the Supreme Court.
And Bush has pledged *not* to, almost in as many words.

If we want to remain a free country -- it's entirely up to US.
And the time already is here! It's already possible to vote, either
in real-time, or by absentee ballot, in most states, as you read this,
and millions already have. (If at all possible, try to get a PAPER
ballot, rather than voting electronically. Electronic voting machines
are vulnerable to tampering.) WE, the registered voters of America,
are the **only** ones who can prevent the horrendous scenario
above from playing out.

Remember, too, that we are the world's *only* military superpower,
and thus, we still (at the time of this writing) are the STRONGEST
bastian of liberty on the planet. If the USA loses its freedom, there
will be NO place for *any* of us to run!

We have only this ONE shot at remaining a free nation. Please
consider that with the utmost gravity. If we fail to ensure the
continuance of that on Tueday; if we fail to elect Kerry -- there'll
be no second chances.

[[[ Or maybe there WILL be. But IF so, we need to
get cracking right NOW to prepare them! The
alternative is truly unthinkable! ]]]

-- Craig Chilton

From:	Sir Marksman
Subject:	Re: Next Supreme Court Justice: Affirmation of Liberty, or Unthinkable Tyranny will Result.
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:20:15 GMT

"Craig Chilton -- Countdown to 1/20/09: 1,463 days to BYE-BYE Bushie!
Forever!!" wrote in message
news:420a49ee.164073547@netnews.mchsi.com...
>
> [[[ READERS: This post was put up BEFORE 11/2/04,
> when America still had its BEST chance to avert the
> unthinkable disaster described below. I've made no
> significant changes to it. My purpose for posting it now
> is to remind everyone of what we probably have let
> ourselves in for. So that we can start right now to do
> some **serious** planning to prevent it. Electing Kerry
> would have been BEST. Now, unfortunately, we must
> work VERY hard to come up with a workable "Plan B"
> to keep the U.S. Supreme Court egalitarian. ]]]
>
> = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
>
> To Slam the Door FOREVER on the RRR Cult
> and Its Tyrannical Anti-Liberty Agendas...
>
> ...it would have been BEST to have elected John Kerry.
>

Yeah right, that flip flopper couldn't make up his mind on anything!

The US is GLAD the voters were smart enough to re-elect President Bush!

Cheers!

From:	Craig Chilton -- Countdown to 1/20/09: 1,463 days to BYE-BYE Bushie! Forever!!
Subject:	Re: Next Supreme Court Justice: Affirmation of Liberty, or Unthinkable Tyranny will Result.
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:56:54 GMT

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:20:15 GMT,
"Sir Marksman" <95@95.com> wrote:
> Craig Chilton wrote:

>> [[[ READERS: This post was put up BEFORE 11/2/04,
>> when America still had its BEST chance to avert the
>> unthinkable disaster described below. I've made no
>> significant changes to it. My purpose for posting it now
>> is to remind everyone of what we probably have let
>> ourselves in for. So that we can start right now to do
>> some **serious** planning to prevent it. Electing Kerry
>> would have been BEST. Now, unfortunately, we must
>> work VERY hard to come up with a workable "Plan B"
>> to keep the U.S. Supreme Court egalitarian. ]]]
>>
>> = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
>>
>> To Slam the Door FOREVER on the RRR Cult
>> and Its Tyrannical Anti-Liberty Agendas...
>>
>> ...it would have been BEST to have elected John Kerry.

> Yeah right, [Kerry] couldn't make up his mind on anything!

Wrong. Point out even ONE instance where Kerry ever was bigoted
against personal liberties. He gave indications of thinking over the
variables pertaining to issues... but that is what INTELLIGENT people
do.

Bush is a DOLT. He won't recognize when he's wrong. And he's
wrong a LOT of the time.

> The US is GLAD the voters were smart enough to re-elect
> President Bush!

(1) Bush was not "RE"-elected. He and his dishonest cronies
and thugs STOLE it in 2000.

(2) Since Bush threw in the towel on the WMD (which he'd
employed to CON the country into going along with his
moronic warmongering), 3/5 of Americans now consider
our involvement in Iraq ro be a MISTAKE. And Bush's
approval rating is BELOW 50%. Too bad the election isn't
being held NOW.

(3) Even on Nov. 2nd, those so-called "red" states were,
in **reality**, PURPLE states.

But thank heaven!! In 1,463 days and counting, from now, we'll
be RID of that assh*le FOREVER!!

Then, with GOOD luck, we can proceed to UNDO most of his
damage. Except, of course, for the 100,000 innocent Iraqis and
over 1,200 (so far) U.S. troops that he has MURDERED!

-- Craig Chilton

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
I'm one of 55 million voters who were too patriotic to vote for
the LYING DESERTER: www.cafepress.com/saproducts.14534303

Bush or chimp?
See the similarities!: www.bushorchimp.com/pics.html

Gay-friendly items: www.cafepress.com/saproducts/228315

Dogs hate $hrub, too: www.dogshatebush.com

US troops killed in Iraq (thanks, George!):
www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties

The date for us all to look forward to: Inauguration Day --- 2009!
For SURE -- On **that** date we will finally be RID, forevermore,
of the Warmonger-in-Thief that's RUINED America's image in the
eyes of the world, for decades to come. THEN, unless we REALLY
are unlucky -- we can start UNDOING Bush's horrendous damage,
to the fullest extent possible.

HILLARY for President in 2008 !!!

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

(E-Mail address is valid when removing _ from it.)

From:	Christopher Benson-Manica
Subject:	Re: Next Supreme Court Justice: Affirmation of Liberty, or Unthinkable Tyranny will Result.
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:45:03 +0000 (UTC)

In talk.abortion Craig Chilton -- Countdown to 1/20/09: 1,463 days to BYE-BYE Bushie! Forever!! wrote:

> Wrong. Point out even ONE instance where Kerry ever was bigoted
> against personal liberties. He gave indications of thinking over the
> variables pertaining to issues... but that is what INTELLIGENT people
> do.

Doesn't change the fact that his politics were blatantly cynical. Why
did he vote for the war in Iraq? I posit that it had much less to do
with whatever convictions he had than with his plans to run for
President.

> (3) Even on Nov. 2nd, those so-called "red" states were,
> in **reality**, PURPLE states.

Which states are you referring to? Kerry was competitive in very few
red states.

> But thank heaven!! In 1,463 days and counting, from now, we'll
> be RID of that assh*le FOREVER!!

Irrelevant. If we elect someone as bad or worse, the fact that Bush
himself is gone will not matter in the slightest.

> Then, with GOOD luck, we can proceed to UNDO most of his

Good? I think you mean miraculously phenomenal.

--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.

From:	Ray Fischer
Subject:	Re: Next Supreme Court Justice: Affirmation of Liberty, or Unthinkable Tyranny will Result.
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 04:09:23 GMT

Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:

>> Wrong. Point out even ONE instance where Kerry ever was bigoted
>> against personal liberties. He gave indications of thinking over the
>> variables pertaining to issues... but that is what INTELLIGENT people
>> do.
>
>Doesn't change the fact that his politics were blatantly cynical. Why
>did he vote for the war in Iraq?

That's already been answered. He voted to authorize war in order to
provide leverage against Saddam. His big mistake was in assuming that
Bush wasn't stupid enough to actually carry out the threat.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

From:	Matty
Subject:	Re: Next Supreme Court Justice: Affirmation of Liberty, or Unthinkable Tyranny will Result.
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 23:36:58 +1300

On 2005-01-24 17:09:23 +1300, rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) said:

> Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
>
>>> Wrong. Point out even ONE instance where Kerry ever was bigoted
>>> against personal liberties. He gave indications of thinking over the
>>> variables pertaining to issues... but that is what INTELLIGENT people
>>> do.
>>
>> Doesn't change the fact that his politics were blatantly cynical. Why
>> did he vote for the war in Iraq?
>
> That's already been answered. He voted to authorize war in order to
> provide leverage against Saddam. His big mistake was in assuming that
> Bush wasn't stupid enough to actually carry out the threat.

The biggest mistake, IMHO was pissing too many countries off; I would
have laughed my ass off had the US invaded Iraq only to find that
Saddam had left several weeks prior to the war.

Matty

From:	awthrawthr at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: Next Supreme Court Justice: Affirmation of Liberty, or Unthinkable Tyranny will Result.
Date:	23 Jan 2005 20:32:51 -0800

I refuse to take the time to read a screed from a dope who considers
that the laughable woman White House reporter to be a reliable source
for anything beyond selecting the best toilet paper.

But I will say this: 5 new prolife senators were elected in 2004,
making it 8 new prolife senators elected since 2002.

PS. Two to four Dems in Red states will be on the bubble in 2006.
Have a nice day.

From:	Ray Fischer
Subject:	Re: Next Supreme Court Justice: Affirmation of Liberty, or Unthinkable Tyranny will Result.
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 05:19:05 GMT

wrote:
>I refuse to take the time to read a screed from a dope

But you seem to think it fine to be a dope writing screeds.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

From:	Frank Dwyer
Subject:	Re: Next Supreme Court Justice: Affirmation of Liberty, or Unthinkable
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:46:22 GMT

Craig Chilton -- Countdown to 1/20/09: 1,463 days to BYE-BYE Bushie!
Forever!! wrote:
> [[[ READERS: This post was put up BEFORE 11/2/04,
> when America still had its BEST chance to avert the
> unthinkable disaster described below. I've made no
> significant changes to it. My purpose for posting it now
> is to remind everyone of what we probably have let
> ourselves in for. So that we can start right now to do
> some **serious** planning to prevent it. Electing Kerry
> would have been BEST. Now, unfortunately, we must
> work VERY hard to come up with a workable "Plan B"
> to keep the U.S. Supreme Court egalitarian. ]]]

I will offer the same reply I had then:

It won't be as bad as you make it sound, Craig. What you've presented is
a bunch of "what if" scenarios and then you imply that if Kerry doesn't
get elected those "what ifs" will almost certainly happen. It seems as
if you're trying to scare people into voting for Kerry.
The former is an exaggeration, the latter disingenuous.

And because you complained the first time when I snipped the
long-windedness, I'll leave the original fully intact.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
>
> To Slam the Door FOREVER on the RRR Cult
> and Its Tyrannical Anti-Liberty Agendas...
>
> ...it would have been BEST to have elected John Kerry.
>
> [[[ From here on... no changes applied to the post. ]]]
>
> The above is not in the least an exaggeration. If Bush wins,
> then tyranny such as America hasn't experienced in its worst
> nightmares is likely inevitable, and inexorably right around the
> corner. And from Nov. 3rd on, it may well be unpreventable.
>
> The following is my own analysis. I'm affiliated with no groups
> nor PACs, and my writing, and the concerns expressed herein,
> are entirely my own. And just for the record, I'm a registered
> Republican... but only because I'm doing all I can from within
> that party to help to wrest it free of the RRR ("Religious"
> Radical Right) faction that has a firm lock on it -- in hopes of
> restoring it to the respectability that it once had, decades
> earlier. And in line with that, I already have cast my vote for
> Kerry, and for lower-echelon candidates on the ballot (for
> other offices) who want nothing to do with repressive agendas,
> regardless of their party.
>
> If the mistake of electing Bush is made, then there will be
> no way that the horrific consequences detailed below can be
> averted. An irrevocable & unstoppable process will have
> been set in motion, and our lives would never be the same
> again.
>
> Just as many historical geologists think that the last ice age
> may have been sudden -- as evidenced by frozen mammoths
> having been found in the Arctic with vegetation still in their
> mouths -- the end of the American system we have always
> treasured and assumed to be indestructable could be upon
> us almost without warning. We can be caught just as surely
> -- and almost as suddenly -- as the residents of Pompeii were
> cooked and buried without warning by a pyroclastic flow from
> Vesuvius.
>
> The society that results won't make the one described in
> George Orwell's "1984" look *good*. But it may very well look
> like a close **parallel** to the American system that would
> result from that horrendous mistake. And that would be
> incomprehensible.
>
> For those for whom the Bible has meaning -- THIS could
> **easily** be HOW the long-prophecied Tribulation Period
> described in Revelation can **begin**.
>
> If you read this post fairly and without prejudice, you will see
> for yourself that the situation is EXACTLY as I just described.
> Maybe you've seen an erlier vesion of the posting below before,
> and maybe you haven't. But either way, NOW is the time for
> you to take whatt it says VERY seriously!
>
> If you care about America -- and your personal liberties, then
> it is imperative the Bush NOT be elected to a second term.
>
> This is why ---
>
> It's October 19, 2004, and Hal Lindsey (author of "The Late,
> Great Planet Earth) has just pointed out on TBN (Trinity Broad-
> casting Network) that it's almost a certainty that whomever is
> President between 2005 and 2009, he will get to appoint "two,
> and possibly as many as four, Justices to the U.S. Supreme Court."
>
> A favorite refrain from the RRR cult's leaders, and its lemmings
> who parrot them, is that "unelected, activist judges legislate from
> the bench." So let's take a look at the ramifications of those
> proclamations about our Judicial Branch of government, by the
> "Religious" Radical Right.
>
> FIRST of all, consider that the only "legislating" from the bench
> that ever is done is 100% legitimate. It's called "Judicial Law," and
> when it's a majority decision that's an interpretation of the U.S.
> Constitution by the U.S. Supreme Court, it supercedes ALL statutory
> law, and can be contravened only by a later reversal by that court, or
> by a Constitutional Amendment. So this obvious absence of a basic
> knowledge of American civics on their part of the cult's lemmings (and
> the depth to which its leaders will reach in order to spread its lying
> propaganda) is duly noted. As well as the lemmings' typical -- and
> unquestioning -- obvious gullibility that's proven by their consis-
> tently falling for the cult's lies and propaganda, hook, line and
> sinker!
>
> It's call the Balance of Powers, and checks-and-balances. That's
> in the Constitution. It's what keeps the three branches of government
> (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial) from overreaching their power,
> in each case. (Think "rock, scissors, paper.")
>
> Congress has the power to enact statutory law, and to initiate
> Constitutional Amendments. In the case of statutory law, those
> can be nullified -- totally legally -- by the U.S. Supreme Court. But
> if the Supreme Court appears to go too far, then the Constitution
> can be amended to override its decision.
>
> All Supreme Court Justices are "activists" or they wouldn't be
> there. Including the socially-conservative ones. The only reason
> that the RRR cult whines about that is because their activists
> happen to be in the minority.
>
> Oh. And their "activist" judges (whom they refer to as "construc-
> tionists") also happen to be "unelected." No surprise, since that's
> what the Constitution specifies: that Supreme Court Justices will be
> presidentially appointed, subject to confirmation by Congress.
>
> What hypocrisy, and what stupidity, on the part of the "Religious"
> Radical Right.
>
> Americans can thank God, their lucky stars, or whatever else
> anyone may believe in, that the Supreme Court's majority is comprised
> of social liberals who stand up for the personal liberties and rights
> of the people.
>
> If Bush wins this election, American society *very* likely will
> quickly and inexorably begin to devolve into one that could make
> the former Soviet Union look tame. There IS a "slippery slope," but
> it *doesn't" lead toward expanded liberties, as hyperconservatives
> seem to fear. It leads precisely in the *opposite* direction, once
> the catalyst has been triggered.. That is not an overstatement.
> Our personal liberties and rights have been defended for all of our
> lives by a Supreme Court having an egalitarian majority. And that's
> hanging by a very fragile thread right now, since many of its decis-
> ions have supported liberty by only a 5-4 majority. As Hal Lindsey
> pointed out, it is almost certain that at least two, and possibly as
> many as four, of the Court's Justices will not be able to hang on for
> another 4 years if Bush is elected. The Court has at this point gone
> longer without any turnover than it has at anytime in the nation's
> history.
>
> Suppose that the majority had voted the OTHER way, just in
> *these* decisions, over the last 50 years:
>
> 1954 -- The beginning of the end of segregation would *not*
> have been initiated.
>
> 1967 -- Many states' hateful bans on interracial marriage would
> have *survived*, and might still be in force today.
>
> 1973 -- Tens of millions of women who were enabled by a bene-
> ficent Supreme Court to put their lives back on track by having
> access to safe and legal abortion would *instead* have been forced
> to gestate unwanted reproductive-process entities to term against
> their will, or seek dangerous or exorbitant illegal abortions, or
> travel to a free state for one. The latter would exclude millions of
> lower-economic-level women, and it would impose unconscionable
> second-class-citizen status upon all American women. We know
> even today, 31 years later, that many states would still choose to
> repress or prohibit this vital human right, if they could.
>
> 1997 -- On June 26th, the repressive, so-called "Communication
> Decency Act" (CDA) which would have severely impacted freedom
> of speech, and imposed censorship upon the internet, would have
> *survived*.
>
> 2003 -- The government would *not* have so very sensibly been
> kicked out of the bedrooms of American citizens.
>
> And those are just some of the key cases. A repressive Court
> obviously would have disregarded our rights just as consistently in
> many lesser cases, as well.
>
> If that weren't bad enough, consider this: The liberty-defending
> courts (U.S. Supreme Court included, but don't forget such ones on
> the state level as Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court, which
> sensibly recognized that there is no valid or Constitutional reason
> to deny marriage to same- couples), can directly stand up for our
> rights and nullify attempts to repress them. But -- there's far more
> to this than that. There's the psychological impact upon legislators
> as they write their proposed laws, who currently (and sensibly) keep
> a gimlet eye on the courts that could (and usually still would, in
> *today's* America) strike them down in a heartbeat if they didn't
> work hard to ensure that their legislation doesn't trample on any
> of our liberties.
>
> The passage of the ban on the SECOND-trimester ID&E abortion
> procedure (lyingly called "partial-birth" by is dishonest proponents)
> was an exception to that. The Republican majority in both houses
> of Congress were under intense pressure by the neocon constituents
> that they perceive as being their base, to pass the measure -- again
> without the exception for the health of the woman that the Supreme
> court has indicated would have made the act viable. So it's already
> been invalidated by three federal judges, and when it gets to the
> Supreme Court, it almost surely will be struck down, just as
> Nebraska's similar law was -- for the same reason.
>
> But most of the time, state legislatures and Congress don't
> swim so obviously against the current -- because thay already
> know ahead of time that an egalitarian-majority Supreme Court
> stands in the wings, ready and able to scour the Constitution with
> a fine-tooth comb with the clear intention of doing whatever they
> legitimately can to defend our personal liberties whenever possible.
>
> WHAT IF -- the Supreme Court **no longer** were of that mind?
>
> THEN what would the state legislatures and Congress -- so
> many of which now are controlled by neocon Republicans who
> harbor open and blatant disdain for so many of our rights -- DO?
>
> THINK about that!
>
> And then -- all who are reading these words -- PLEASE vote for
> Kerry (and please not for Nader, which would be the equivalent of
> handing your vote to Bush) -- and help save America from such an
> awful and unthinkable cataclysm.
>
> Remember -- Supreme Court appointments are for *life*! And if
> that Court becomes repressive, very few (if any) Americans alive
> today will ever again know a Supreme Court that consistently and
> fairly defends their rights. If there EVER were a time *not* to take
> freedom for granted, THIS is that time. More so by far than at any
> other time in any of our lifetimes. Exponentially more so.
>
> This IS the most critically-important election in our lifetimes.
>
> Kerry has promised to appoint egalitarians to the Supreme Court.
> And Bush has pledged *not* to, almost in as many words.
>
> If we want to remain a free country -- it's entirely up to US.
> And the time already is here! It's already possible to vote, either
> in real-time, or by absentee ballot, in most states, as you read this,
> and millions already have. (If at all possible, try to get a PAPER
> ballot, rather than voting electronically. Electronic voting machines
> are vulnerable to tampering.) WE, the registered voters of America,
> are the **only** ones who can prevent the horrendous scenario
> above from playing out.
>
> Remember, too, that we are the world's *only* military superpower,
> and thus, we still (at the time of this writing) are the STRONGEST
> bastian of liberty on the planet. If the USA loses its freedom, there
> will be NO place for *any* of us to run!
>
> We have only this ONE shot at remaining a free nation. Please
> consider that with the utmost gravity. If we fail to ensure the
> continuance of that on Tueday; if we fail to elect Kerry -- there'll
> be no second chances.
>
> [[[ Or maybe there WILL be. But IF so, we need to
> get cracking right NOW to prepare them! The
> alternative is truly unthinkable! ]]]
>
> -- Craig Chilton
>

From:	Craig Chilton -- Countdown to 1/20/09: 1,463 days to BYE-BYE Bushie! Forever!!
Subject:	Re: Next Supreme Court Justice: Affirmation of Liberty, or Unthinkable Tyranny will Result.
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:14:47 GMT

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:46:22 GMT,
Frank Dwyer wrote:
> Craig Chilton wrote:

>> [[[ READERS: This post was put up BEFORE 11/2/04,
>> when America still had its BEST chance to avert the
>> unthinkable disaster described below. I've made no
>> significant changes to it. My purpose for posting it now
>> is to remind everyone of what we probably have let
>> ourselves in for. So that we can start right now to do
>> some **serious** planning to prevent it. Electing Kerry
>> would have been BEST. Now, unfortunately, we must
>> work VERY hard to come up with a workable "Plan B"
>> to keep the U.S. Supreme Court egalitarian. ]]]

> I will offer the same reply I had then:
>
> It won't be as bad as you make it sound, Craig. What
> you've presented is a bunch of "what if" scenarios and
> then you imply that if Kerry doesn't get elected those "what
> ifs" will almost certainly happen. It seems as if you're trying
> to scare people into voting for Kerry. The former is an
> exaggeration, the latter disingenuous.

But NOW there is no chance of getting Kerry elected in 2004,
so the ax you seemed to *think* I had to grind isn't even possible.
The scenario I presented below is very realistic, and if it trans-
pires, America very likely will CEASE to be a free country. And
just ONE person is all it would take to do it.

That's about as FAR fro trivial as any situation could be.

This one is deadly serious, and scarily likely!

>> = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
>>
>> To Slam the Door FOREVER on the RRR Cult
>> and Its Tyrannical Anti-Liberty Agendas...
>>
>> ...it would have been BEST to have elected John Kerry.
>>
>> [[[ From here on... no changes applied to the post. ]]]
>>
>> The above is not in the least an exaggeration. If Bush wins,
>> then tyranny such as America hasn't experienced in its worst
>> nightmares is likely inevitable, and inexorably right around the
>> corner. And from Nov. 3rd on, it may well be unpreventable.
>>
>> The following is my own analysis. I'm affiliated with no groups
>> nor PACs, and my writing, and the concerns expressed herein,
>> are entirely my own. And just for the record, I'm a registered
>> Republican... but only because I'm doing all I can from within
>> that party to help to wrest it free of the RRR ("Religious"
>> Radical Right) faction that has a firm lock on it -- in hopes of
>> restoring it to the respectability that it once had, decades
>> earlier. And in line with that, I already have cast my vote for
>> Kerry, and for lower-echelon candidates on the ballot (for
>> other offices) who want nothing to do with repressive agendas,
>> regardless of their party.
>>
>> If the mistake of electing Bush is made, then there will be
>> no way that the horrific consequences detailed below can be
>> averted. An irrevocable & unstoppable process will have
>> been set in motion, and our lives would never be the same
>> again.
>>
>> Just as many historical geologists think that the last ice age
>> may have been sudden -- as evidenced by frozen mammoths
>> having been found in the Arctic with vegetation still in their
>> mouths -- the end of the American system we have always
>> treasured and assumed to be indestructable could be upon
>> us almost without warning. We can be caught just as surely
>> -- and almost as suddenly -- as the residents of Pompeii were
>> cooked and buried without warning by a pyroclastic flow from
>> Vesuvius.
>>
>> The society that results won't make the one described in
>> George Orwell's "1984" look *good*. But it may very well look
>> like a close **parallel** to the American system that would
>> result from that horrendous mistake. And that would be
>> incomprehensible.
>>
>> For those for whom the Bible has meaning -- THIS could
>> **easily** be HOW the long-prophecied Tribulation Period
>> described in Revelation can **begin**.
>>
>> If you read this post fairly and without prejudice, you will see
>> for yourself that the situation is EXACTLY as I just described.
>> Maybe you've seen an erlier vesion of the posting below before,
>> and maybe you haven't. But either way, NOW is the time for
>> you to take whatt it says VERY seriously!
>>
>> If you care about America -- and your personal liberties, then
>> it is imperative the Bush NOT be elected to a second term.
>>
>> This is why ---
>>
>> It's October 19, 2004, and Hal Lindsey (author of "The Late,
>> Great Planet Earth) has just pointed out on TBN (Trinity Broad-
>> casting Network) that it's almost a certainty that whomever is
>> President between 2005 and 2009, he will get to appoint "two,
>> and possibly as many as four, Justices to the U.S. Supreme Court."
>>
>> A favorite refrain from the RRR cult's leaders, and its lemmings
>> who parrot them, is that "unelected, activist judges legislate from
>> the bench." So let's take a look at the ramifications of those
>> proclamations about our Judicial Branch of government, by the
>> "Religious" Radical Right.
>>
>> FIRST of all, consider that the only "legislating" from the bench
>> that ever is done is 100% legitimate. It's called "Judicial Law," and
>> when it's a majority decision that's an interpretation of the U.S.
>> Constitution by the U.S. Supreme Court, it supercedes ALL statutory
>> law, and can be contravened only by a later reversal by that court, or
>> by a Constitutional Amendment. So this obvious absence of a basic
>> knowledge of American civics on their part of the cult's lemmings (and
>> the depth to which its leaders will reach in order to spread its lying
>> propaganda) is duly noted. As well as the lemmings' typical -- and
>> unquestioning -- obvious gullibility that's proven by their consis-
>> tently falling for the cult's lies and propaganda, hook, line and
>> sinker!
>>
>> It's call the Balance of Powers, and checks-and-balances. That's
>> in the Constitution. It's what keeps the three branches of government
>> (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial) from overreaching their power,
>> in each case. (Think "rock, scissors, paper.")
>>
>> Congress has the power to enact statutory law, and to initiate
>> Constitutional Amendments. In the case of statutory law, those
>> can be nullified -- totally legally -- by the U.S. Supreme Court. But
>> if the Supreme Court appears to go too far, then the Constitution
>> can be amended to override its decision.
>>
>> All Supreme Court Justices are "activists" or they wouldn't be
>> there. Including the socially-conservative ones. The only reason
>> that the RRR cult whines about that is because their activists
>> happen to be in the minority.
>>
>> Oh. And their "activist" judges (whom they refer to as "construc-
>> tionists") also happen to be "unelected." No surprise, since that's
>> what the Constitution specifies: that Supreme Court Justices will be
>> presidentially appointed, subject to confirmation by Congress.
>>
>> What hypocrisy, and what stupidity, on the part of the "Religious"
>> Radical Right.
>>
>> Americans can thank God, their lucky stars, or whatever else
>> anyone may believe in, that the Supreme Court's majority is comprised
>> of social liberals who stand up for the personal liberties and rights
>> of the people.
>>
>> If Bush wins this election, American society *very* likely will
>> quickly and inexorably begin to devolve into one that could make
>> the former Soviet Union look tame. There IS a "slippery slope," but
>> it *doesn't" lead toward expanded liberties, as hyperconservatives
>> seem to fear. It leads precisely in the *opposite* direction, once
>> the catalyst has been triggered.. That is not an overstatement.
>> Our personal liberties and rights have been defended for all of our
>> lives by a Supreme Court having an egalitarian majority. And that's
>> hanging by a very fragile thread right now, since many of its decis-
>> ions have supported liberty by only a 5-4 majority. As Hal Lindsey
>> pointed out, it is almost certain that at least two, and possibly as
>> many as four, of the Court's Justices will not be able to hang on for
>> another 4 years if Bush is elected. The Court has at this point gone
>> longer without any turnover than it has at anytime in the nation's
>> history.
>>
>> Suppose that the majority had voted the OTHER way, just in
>> *these* decisions, over the last 50 years:
>>
>> 1954 -- The beginning of the end of segregation would *not*
>> have been initiated.
>>
>> 1967 -- Many states' hateful bans on interracial marriage would
>> have *survived*, and might still be in force today.
>>
>> 1973 -- Tens of millions of women who were enabled by a bene-
>> ficent Supreme Court to put their lives back on track by having
>> access to safe and legal abortion would *instead* have been forced
>> to gestate unwanted reproductive-process entities to term against
>> their will, or seek dangerous or exorbitant illegal abortions, or
>> travel to a free state for one. The latter would exclude millions of
>> lower-economic-level women, and it would impose unconscionable
>> second-class-citizen status upon all American women. We know
>> even today, 31 years later, that many states would still choose to
>> repress or prohibit this vital human right, if they could.
>>
>> 1997 -- On June 26th, the repressive, so-called "Communication
>> Decency Act" (CDA) which would have severely impacted freedom
>> of speech, and imposed censorship upon the internet, would have
>> *survived*.
>>
>> 2003 -- The government would *not* have so very sensibly been
>> kicked out of the bedrooms of American citizens.
>>
>> And those are just some of the key cases. A repressive Court
>> obviously would have disregarded our rights just as consistently in
>> many lesser cases, as well.
>>
>> If that weren't bad enough, consider this: The liberty-defending
>> courts (U.S. Supreme Court included, but don't forget such ones on
>> the state level as Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court, which
>> sensibly recognized that there is no valid or Constitutional reason
>> to deny marriage to same- couples), can directly stand up for our
>> rights and nullify attempts to repress them. But -- there's far more
>> to this than that. There's the psychological impact upon legislators
>> as they write their proposed laws, who currently (and sensibly) keep
>> a gimlet eye on the courts that could (and usually still would, in
>> *today's* America) strike them down in a heartbeat if they didn't
>> work hard to ensure that their legislation doesn't trample on any
>> of our liberties.
>>
>> The passage of the ban on the SECOND-trimester ID&E abortion
>> procedure (lyingly called "partial-birth" by is dishonest proponents)
>> was an exception to that. The Republican majority in both houses
>> of Congress were under intense pressure by the neocon constituents
>> that they perceive as being their base, to pass the measure -- again
>> without the exception for the health of the woman that the Supreme
>> court has indicated would have made the act viable. So it's already
>> been invalidated by three federal judges, and when it gets to the
>> Supreme Court, it almost surely will be struck down, just as
>> Nebraska's similar law was -- for the same reason.
>>
>> But most of the time, state legislatures and Congress don't
>> swim so obviously against the current -- because thay already
>> know ahead of time that an egalitarian-majority Supreme Court
>> stands in the wings, ready and able to scour the Constitution with
>> a fine-tooth comb with the clear intention of doing whatever they
>> legitimately can to defend our personal liberties whenever possible.
>>
>> WHAT IF -- the Supreme Court **no longer** were of that mind?
>>
>> THEN what would the state legislatures and Congress -- so
>> many of which now are controlled by neocon Republicans who
>> harbor open and blatant disdain for so many of our rights -- DO?
>>
>> THINK about that!
>>
>> And then -- all who are reading these words -- PLEASE vote for
>> Kerry (and please not for Nader, which would be the equivalent of
>> handing your vote to Bush) -- and help save America from such an
>> awful and unthinkable cataclysm.
>>
>> Remember -- Supreme Court appointments are for *life*! And if
>> that Court becomes repressive, very few (if any) Americans alive
>> today will ever again know a Supreme Court that consistently and
>> fairly defends their rights. If there EVER were a time *not* to take
>> freedom for granted, THIS is that time. More so by far than at any
>> other time in any of our lifetimes. Exponentially more so.
>>
>> This IS the most critically-important election in our lifetimes.
>>
>> Kerry has promised to appoint egalitarians to the Supreme Court.
>> And Bush has pledged *not* to, almost in as many words.
>>
>> If we want to remain a free country -- it's entirely up to US.
>> And the time already is here! It's already possible to vote, either
>> in real-time, or by absentee ballot, in most states, as you read this,
>> and millions already have. (If at all possible, try to get a PAPER
>> ballot, rather than voting electronically. Electronic voting machines
>> are vulnerable to tampering.) WE, the registered voters of America,
>> are the **only** ones who can prevent the horrendous scenario
>> above from playing out.
>>
>> Remember, too, that we are the world's *only* military superpower,
>> and thus, we still (at the time of this writing) are the STRONGEST
>> bastian of liberty on the planet. If the USA loses its freedom, there
>> will be NO place for *any* of us to run!
>>
>> We have only this ONE shot at remaining a free nation. Please
>> consider that with the utmost gravity. If we fail to ensure the
>> continuance of that on Tueday; if we fail to elect Kerry -- there'll
>> be no second chances.
>>
>> [[[ Or maybe there WILL be. But IF so, we need to
>> get cracking right NOW to prepare them! The
>> alternative is truly unthinkable! ]]]
>>
>> -- Craig Chilton

-- Craig Chilton

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
I'm one of 55 million voters who were too patriotic to vote for
the LYING DESERTER: www.cafepress.com/saproducts.14534303

Bush or chimp?
See the similarities!: www.bushorchimp.com/pics.html

Gay-friendly items: www.cafepress.com/saproducts/228315

Dogs hate $hrub, too: www.dogshatebush.com

US troops killed in Iraq (thanks, George!):
www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties

The date for us all to look forward to: Inauguration Day --- 2009!
For SURE -- On **that** date we will finally be RID, forevermore,
of the Warmonger-in-Thief that's RUINED America's image in the
eyes of the world, for decades to come. THEN, unless we REALLY
are unlucky -- we can start UNDOING Bush's horrendous damage,
to the fullest extent possible.

HILLARY for President in 2008 !!!

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

(E-Mail address is valid when removing _ from it.)

From:	legend_89 at hotmail.com
Subject:	Re: Next Supreme Court Justice: Affirmation of Liberty, or Unthinkable Tyranny will Result.
Date:	23 Jan 2005 22:03:56 -0800

>
> The following is my own analysis. I'm affiliated with no groups
> nor PACs, and my writing, and the concerns expressed herein,
> are entirely my own. And just for the record, I'm a registered
> Republican... but only because I'm doing all I can from within
> that party to help to wrest it free of the RRR ("Religious"
> Radical Right)

Its not the religious 'right' you have to worry about, there are
radicals 'left' and 'right'. Hint, George Bush is a Freemason?

It was funny to mention of '1984' in your post, and you being a pro
abort! In '1984' governments changed definitions to suit their
agenda's, just like pro aborts (try to) do. I.e Human being, has
nothing to do with being born.

In '1984' the goverment controlled who mated with who, controlled
peoples fertility, and decided who was deemed worthy enough to live.
Sounds like more pro abort speak. '1984' is a 'godless' world.