ALL SEX DATING
clear and disable history
Obama intimidating supreme court
All six of them need to go, says Larry Klayman, founder of Freedom Watch.All six are guilty of abandoning the rule of law, says the longtime government watchdog.If the Justice Department had dropped a case involving two robed Klansmen patrolling a polling booth, the outcry would have been deafening, he said.
In its place they have substituted the advancement of their own political agendas.
“These six justices have violated their own long-established rules of interpretation for applying statutes to instead advance their own political objectives or burnish their public persona,” Klayman said in reaction to the decision.
His latest book is "Stealth Invasion: Muslim Conquest Through Immigration And Resettlement Jihad." In the wake of Thursday’s King v.
Burwell Supreme Court decision upholding Obamacare, at least one attorney who has argued cases before the court is calling for the justices who filed the majority opinion to be impeached.
Is it something that was dug up on him by the NSA or the CIA? ” Klayman asked during the Aaron Klein Investigative Radio show.
“These are the kinds of things [the government is doing], and that’s why it’s so scary what’s going on with the NSA and the CIA,” he said. So that may help explain it, and perhaps we can reach these issues through the NSA cases that we brought, the NSA/CIA cases.More deeply, though, the controversy suggests that two fundamentally different views of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 are coming into conflict.Is it a document aimed at redressing the concerns of all disenfranchised voters, or is it specifically crafted to thwart historic prejudices against minorities?As a practical matter, disenfranchisement claims against blacks remain the exception.The New Black Panther Party case "is the backlash of the powerful," says Allan Lichtman, a voting rights expert at American University in Washington.If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.”“Let’s concede to Roberts that the intentions of every politician is to improve on things.Republicans believe that further nationalizing health-care insurance is a bad idea and makes markets less competitive and more expensive.When Department of Justice attorneys traveled to investigate a voter intimidation allegation against a black politician in Mississippi's Noxubee County in 2006, one civil rights staff attorney commented, "Can you believe we're going to Mississippi to protect white voters?"To Christopher Coates, the former head of the Department of Justice's voting rights section, the comment was more than just an attempt at irony – it was evidence that something was going wrong in the department. Coates testified before the US Civil Rights Commission, a bipartisan oversight group, alleging that under President Obama, the dismissive attitude of that civil rights staff attorney toward white claims of disenfranchisement at the hands of blacks has essentially become Justice Department policy.I intend to get the truth on this.” ‘Abandoning the law’ Klayman, a former federal prosecutor, head of Freedom Watch and previously the founder of Judicial Watch, is not the only legal analyst that is questioning the integrity of the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare.David Harsanyi, senior editor at The Federalist, is also attacking the court’s decision-making process.