What are the qualifications to be U.S. Supreme Court Justice?

How is it that people are chosen to be supreme court justices.  I thought it would be best to start out by saying what are not qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice:

1. Your ability to relate to the human element
2. Your understanding of the economy
3. Your understanding of natural rights
4. Your ability to write
5. Your political affiliation
6. Your religion
7. Your opinion about abortion
8. Your opinion about the death penalty
9. Your medical record
10. Your age
11. Your weight
12. Your ability to relate with any one demographic
13. Empathy for the human element

None of these things are relevant.  None of these are qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice.  You can be a liberal, you can be a conservative, you can be a Catholic or an atheist, you can be homosexual or bisexual or transsexual or divorced or married or green or sick or thin or fat or muscular or a weakling.  It doesn't matter.  None of these things matter.  Or they shouldn't matter.  

The only qualification to be a Supreme Court Justice for the United States of America is to respect, protect and honor the Constitution of the United States of America.  That's it.  

My final plea to vote for John Sidney McCain

One final plea to vote for McCain and then I'm finished. I just wanted to say that the #1 reason -- the most important -- reason to vote for McCain is......... (drum roll please).....

....Judges.

There is little more important than judges stick to what the Constitution states their role is, and that is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, and NOT TO MAKE LAWS FROM THE BENCH.

One of the most important job of the president is to appoint judges, particularly Supreme Court Judges. It really shouldn't be this way, as no matter what judge is appointed to this post should make rulings according to the constitution. But, as we all know, many make decisions based on their own opinions and viewpoints and ignore higher authority.

Yes, one judge might like abortion. He might think it is the choice of the individual lady to make. But, according to the Constitution, anything not mentioned in the Constitution is left to the states to decide. Thus, the Supreme Court should have recused itself from ruling on Abortion in 1972.

Accordingly, it should be up to each state to decide if abortion is legal or not. In this way, if the Rowe-V-Wade decision were not made, abortion rulings would return to the pre 1972 state laws, some of which allow abortion , some of which do not allow it.

Now, you would have pro-life and pro-choice people still battling it out, but that's fine. That's the way it should be. If you do not support abortion, you can live in a state that does not support abortion.

Education is not mentioned in the Constitution, and therefore -- per the 10th amendment -- any decision regarding education should be left to the states to decide. The same is true with gay marriage.

Are you a judge who supports gay marriage. Well, so what. It's not up to you to decide that gay marriage is legal or not. Neither gay nor marriage is defined in the Constitution, and therefore it is up to the states to decide.

In essence, what I am describing is federalism. It's how the founders of this great nation thought was the fairest way of settling disputes. They did not envision a judicial system that trumped the Constitution, but that is what has happened by Activist judges (mostly liberal but a few conservative) who don't simply rule from the bench but create laws from the bench.

Yes, you hear all the time that abortion is legal in the U.S., yet no legislative law has ever been signed approving abortion in the Senate or the House.

This is why it is so important that we elect a president who will only nominate originalist judges to the Supreme Court. By definition, an originalist judge is one who rules by the Constitution, or the laws that supersede his jurisdiction -- and not by his own opinion and viewpoints.

This is so important to to maintain appropriate checks and balances between the three branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial systems. If the judicial has the right to make laws, then it has more power than the legislative -- it defeats the checks and balance system our founders thought was so important.

I don't care if you are a libertarian, conservative, liberal, peanut butter fairy, saint, Catholic, dipshit, smarty pants, brainy, high IQ person, business man, African American, Mexican, Illegal Alien, Alien, Martian, deadbeat, felon, dead person, cat, cow, dog, whiner, loquacious person, reticent person, Caucasian, Polish, or whatever.

We must continue to fight for the Constitution. We must elect a president who has vowed to only nominate originalist judges, and whos party has a history of doing so. We MUST vote for John McCain.

Here are more reasons to vote for John McCain:

Why it's important who you vote for

Bad week for America

Obama will make U.S. Constitution irrelevant

Obama is a socialist

Obama may be Hoover reincarnate

The truth about Obama's tax plan

Obama thinks you are selfish for wanting to decide for yourself what to do with your well earned money

Obama is a socialist

Obama is friends with known terrorists

Obama not a proud American

Obama has no clue about the importance of the War in Iraq

He wants to meet with terrorist thugs without preconditions

Obama wants defeat in Iraq

OBAMA PUTS REST OF WORLD AHEAD OF HIS OWN COUNTRY

Obama has no clue what victory is

The media afraid to scrutinize Obama

Polls show democrats are not proud to be American -- do you want a president who is not proud of his own country

Obama can't be trusted on National Defense

Obama's defense plan leaves us vulnerable

Obama is a National Security Neophyte

Do you want a man who has no clue about National Defence to be tested on the National Stage. McCain has military experience, Obama is naive on National Defense.

Why it's important who you vote for

I'm sure you've heard by now the U.S. Supreme Court has defended, for the first time ever, the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I'm sure you don't need me to provide you with the details as they have been plastered all over the newspapers these past few days. So we'll skip the details.

Sometimes I agree with Rush Limbaugh, and sometimes I do not. However, one thing I love about the man regardless is his philosophy. I love the way he always looks at things from the inside out and analyzes them. That's something I love to do.

That in mind, this is what he asked the other day: "What will the court tell us we can do today, and what will the court tell us we can't do?"

What I wanted to discuss today is this: Why is it that we sit around waiting for the Supreme Court to tell us what we have a right to do and what we do not have a right to do? Why is it we allow this court to decide our political issues? True, this is an idea Rush lead me to.

Today we are happy, but the next time the Supreme Court makes a ruling, they could just as easily usurp our individual rights.

Yesterday the Court defended the 2nd Amendment, it defended the individual right of the people of Washington D.C. to defend themselves in their homes, to bear arms if you will. Conservatives are leaping for joy, and liberals are wailing.

Not to get too excited, because a few days ago it was the other way around, as that same court ruled that the people of Louisiana are not smart enough to decide for themselves the proper punishment for those creeps who rape our children.

The people of louisiana wanted this law, they decided this, yet the same Supreme Court that defended individual rights yesterday ruled that the people of Louisiana are too stupid to decide that child rapers should be given the death penalty.

So, those five members of the Court overruled the will of the people.

Look at California as another recent example. You have the courts over there overruling the will of the people when it comes to gay marriage.

Those individuals voted overwhelmingly in support of traditional marriage, and this resulted in a law making marriage between a man and a woman, and a handful of men sitting behind a bench decided those people are too stupid to know any better about marriage, so they overruled the people.

Now, I couldn't care less about gun control, because it doesn't effect me one bit. I live in a small town, and we don't have bad things happen here (fingers crossed). Heck, we don't even lock our cars or houses. And I don't even care about gay marriage. If two guys or two gals want to get together, it doesn't bother me one bit.

The point is we, as a nation, get all excited, anxious, about how the court is going to rule, when it shouldn't be that way. How many people live in California? So, it's five or nine judges versus all 30 million or so people. I don't know how many people live there, but you get my point.

When it comes to gun control, you have nine justices versus 300 million people. Those 300 million people live under the Constitution, and those nine justices can take away any of those Constitutional rights with the flick of their pens.

Case in point is this: four justices voted against the 2nd amendment yesterday. Four liberal justices voted against the individual rights of 300 million people. That to me is scary.

As I was growing up, I learned that the Bill of Rights does not give us individual rights, the Bill of Rights does't give us individual rights, it protects the freedoms that we were born with. It makes sure that Washington cannot make a law taking away what is rightfully ours.

Of course there is a limit here. You cannot infringe on the rights of others. And this is why we have laws. And this is why we have courts to protect one person from others. What's the old saying: "Your right to throw your fist through the air ends where the other person's face begins."

That's why we have courts. We do not have courts to decide our political issues. Yet, considering liberal issues are not popular with the people, and since they cannot get legislatures to make liberal issues into law, they resort to petitioning liberal activist judges.

Since no legislature in the United States has ever made a law making gay marriage legal, and since the majority in most states oppose gay marriage, liberals petition the courts. And, those liberals got their way in California.

They got their way NOT because a law was written by a legislature, but because a court said so. However, the COURTS are made to rule based on the Constitution, not on their opinions. But, when it comes to liberals getting their way, who cares about the Constitution.

We learn that the Bill of Rights defends our "Inailienable" rights. That is, those are rights that are God given, and cannot be taken away. Yet, if we vote for a liberal president, and that president nominates activist judges to the benches, we could have our "inailienable" rights taken away.

This is a perfect example of why we need to pay close attention to who we vote for. We know that Obama places the Constitution as secondary to the opinions of the world. We've even had justices who have made rulings not based on the U.S. Constitution, but on what courts of other nations have decided.

Europeans are adamantly against the death penalty. Therefore, it only makes sense that the U.S. should be against it too. The "World" is pro gay marriage, so the U.S. should be pro-gay marriage too.

The U.S. Constitution does not grant the members of the Supreme Court rights to decide this, but they have granted this right to themselves. Actually, it started way back when John Adams was president.

I love this kind of deep stuff. I'll write more on this in the days to come.

Bad week for America

One of the things we like to do here at Freadom Nation is correct the media when it gets it wrong. And that's something I get the priveledge to do today.

How many times have you heard this: "This was a bad week for president Bush." It was a bad week because the supreme court ruled the detainees being held at Guatanamo Bay have a right to U.S. lawyers.

In essensce, these thugs who tried to kill our U.S. soldiers on foreign soil, men who hate the U.S. and all it stands for, have the same Constitutional rights as the men who captured them. How is this justice?

One Judge can set these people free so they can go right back to what they were doing up to the point they were sent to Guatanamo Bay: killing Americans.

Now these men have the right to go before a judge and ask to be set free. This has not happened yet, but it is possible now with this insane ruling.

Justice Kennedy and the other Justices who made this rulinig firmly believe, as does Obama, that the U.S. Courts should make decisions based on foreign law, while disregarding the Constitution.

So now, for the first time in U.S. history, prisoners of war get to be treated as "common criminals with Constitutional rights."

That is exactly why Obama applauded this ruling, and McCain said it was a bad decision. This shows the character of both candidates, and pegs only McCain as the only true patriot.

And this is exactly why the decision of who we want to be our leader is so important. Obama will nominate activist judges. McCain will nominate judges who will rule by the Constitution. If nothing else, this ruling is sure to fire up the base in support of McCain.

So, I want to take this opportunity to correct the media: This Supreme Court decision is not a set back for the Bush Administration. This did not result in a bad week for the Bush Administration. It resulted in a bad week for America. We are all less safe as a result of this ruling.

And the Justices who favored this ruling should be ashamed.

Interesting items in the news

1. I found this story "If Foreigners Could Vote in '08" about how the rest of the world would vote if they had a choice in who became the next U.S. President.

The article contends that "The world's sole superpower has such an impact on the globe that, as a Belgian newspaper recently suggested, the rest of the world may feel it should be allowed to vote, too."

My feelings on this is simple: who cares. Only Americans can vote in American elections.

2. An interesting Gallup polls shows that "If McCain vs. Obama, 28% of Clinton Backers Go for McCain."

Historically, about 10 percent of people who vote in elections between 1992 and 2004 voted for the candidate of the other party. Likewise, it is common for people to be upset that their candidate did not get their party's nomination and "threaten" to vote for the candidate of the other party. But when it's all said and done, they usually stick to party lines.

According to Gallup, 28% of Clinton supporters would vote for McCain if she is not the nominee, 19% of Obama supporters would vote for McCain if Hillary is the nominee, and only 10% of republicans said they would vote for whomever is the democratic nominee. I was surprised it was only 10%.

Earlier this year republicans were fearful because conservative talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingahm were preaching that they would rather vote for Hillary than have a "liberal" John McCain in the White House. Rush went as far to say that if McCain were elected, it would be the end of the republican party as we know it.

Now, it seems the democrats might have an even greater problem on their hand. As the report states, " The data suggest that the continuing and sometimes fractious Democratic nomination fight could have a negative impact for the Democratic Party in next November's election."

Thus, if 10% of Republicans vote for Obama, and 28% of Democrats vote for McCain, that an 18% surplus for Republicans.

Well, we know that many of that 28% will end up voting for Obama, if he is the candidate, but still, 28% is a big number to overcome, and may not even be a possibility, especially considering McCain is already trying to bridge the gap he has with conservatives, and both Clinton and Obama will more that likely be in a dead heap until the democratic convention.

3. McCain gave a speech the other day in which he stated he will not bail our irresponsible businesses and irresponsible people who who made purchases that were way over their heads. I agree with McCain, and think it's about time we had a high ranking political figure encourage personal responsibility, rather than another government program to bail them out.

4. He has done many good things, but George W. Bush has blundered a lot too. One of his blunders was when he agreed with the World Court and ordered a new hearing to a Mexican on death row. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that the Constitution is more powerful than the President, and the World Court may have a say, but does not supersede the U.S. Constitution. More important, this is a win for state sovereignty, which is protected under the Constitution.

I'm certain that no American was against this ruling. Right? Right?

You can read an opinion on this ruling here, and a good overall article here.

Let me know what you think.