On Fri, 20 May 2005 05:10:39 GMT,
Mike Flannigan <mflannigan@jam.rr.com> ...
...was totally unable to disprove...

ANYTHING that I said in the post before..

the hateful and abjectly ignorant garbage that..

he spewed.

All he accomplished was to PROVE himself..

to be an utterly mindless bigot..

READERS: I invite you to read his response, to see that for yourselves..

Matthew Greffin <greffinm@cox.net> wrote:

The so-called "Nuclear Option" simply means that the majority rules.

This is how a democracy is supposed to work.

Then why is Bush president?

I know: One set of rules for Republicans and a different set of rules
for everybody else. All hail dictator Bush.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

On Fri, 20 May 2005 23:24:37 -0400,
Matthew Greffin <greffinm@cox.net> wrote:

Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:

READERS: This post was written and posted prior to
Nov. 2, 2004. So obviously, its references
to electing Kerry are no longer applicable. Bush won the
election, unfortunately. (Or perhaps NOT; see this site:
www.blackboxvoting.org .)

Thankfully, the current Supreme Court, with its fair-
minded majority, still is hanging on. But we can see the
handwriting on the wall with the Republicans in the
Senate desperately fighting for their so-called "Nuclear
Option" that could end the filibusters against bigoted
judges that they seek to pollute the appellate courts with.

We need to pitch in and encourage the Democrats
to continue being the last bastion in place to ensure that
our courts CONTINUE to be defenders of everyone's
personal liberties.

And we need to let the REPUBLICAN Senators know
that whether or not America remains a free country quite
literally DEPENDS upon the survival of the filibuster cap-
ability with regard to keeping repressive judges OUT of
the federal courts... and most **especially** out of the
U.S. Supreme Court.

Again -- remember that the references to Kerry in the
post below are dated, but the ISSUE most assuredly is
as dangerous as ever. Fearfully dangerous, for as long
as Bush or any republican is in the White house, INSTEAD
of an egalitarian.

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

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

...we MUST elect John Kerry on Tuesday.

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, 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 indestructible 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-prophesied 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 earlier version of the posting below before,
and maybe you haven't. But either way, NOW is the time for
you to take what 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-sex 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 they 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
bastion 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 Tuesday; if we fail to elect Kerry -- there'll
be no second chances.

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

THAT chance was blown. So now we need to work HARD
and DILIGENTLY in *other* ways to stave off a disaster that
could fulfill Orwell's "1984" vision, in America.

RIGHT NOW -- **THIS week** -- that means that we, the people,
need to do all we can to help the Democrats in the U.S. Senate
to KEEP the 200-year-old veto that now is so vital to our continua-
tion as the Land of the Free!

Contact your REPUBLICAN U.S. Senators and tell them NOT
to act against the filibuster. Let them know that ensuring that the
U.S. Supreme Court retains an egalitarian majority is the MOST
important thing that they probably will ever be able to accomplish
during their time spent in the Senate.

Have a cell phone? Then, to take action, see:

https://www.kintera.org/site/apps/ka/ct/contactcustom.asp?c=feIJKQMEF&b=688743

The ... "Nuclear Option" simply means that the majority rules.

And sometimes the majority is WRONG. As we saw in the popula-
tions of the Southern States before 1964, in which the majorities were
segregationists. People who were JUST as ignorant and hateful as are
today's RRR cultists -- who *also* are wrong. But who, unfortunately,
hold a slim majority in Congress. For now.