Let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.

~ Thomas Jefferson

John Paul Stevens, associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court for 35 years, announced his retirement earlier this week. Court watchers, political prognosticators and media mavens are speculating about whom President Obama will appoint to this godlike position.

Below are Obama’s ten probable nominees to the Supreme Court:

  • Hillary Clinton (secretary of state; Obama would love to put Hillary on ice at SCOTUS to block her from running against him in 2012 and against Michelle Obama in 2016)
  • Merrick Garland (on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, a doctrinaire liberal who believes in social justice [Marxism] and liberal activism)
  • Elena Kagan (former dean of Harvard Law School; Obama burnished her resume by appointing her solicitor general in 2009)
  • Janet Napolitano (former governor of Arizona who twice vetoed a state ban on partial-birth abortion; as secretary of DHS Napolitano has proven to be an intellectual midget with fascist tendencies who is philosophically most like Obama)
  • Deval Patrick (an unremarkable black socialist governor of [Tax]achusetts)
  • Kathleen Sullivan (protégé of Harvard “living and evolving Constitution” professor Laurence Tribe; a Marxist activist jurist to the core)
  • Leah Ward Sears (former chief justice of Georgia Supreme Court and a friend of Justice Clarence Thomas; a liberal jurist who has written nothing memorable)
  • Jennifer Granholm (Harvard Law grad; most incompetent governor in Michigan history)
  • Cass Sunstein (regulatory czar, prolific author whose oeuvre makes him a second-rate Leon Trotsky [Permanent Revolution] and a third-rate Josef Goebbels [Big Lie propagandist])
  • Diane Wood (a radical left judicial activist on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals).

President Obama, who fashions himself as a constitutional-law scholar, should only consider this singular qualification to the Supreme Court: Does the jurist have a self-evident belief and demonstrable record in constitutionalism, Natural Law and the original intent of the framers?

When reviewing the body of work of each candidate, if it can be clearly and unmistakably ascertained that the answer to this question is no, then under our Constitution that person is unfit to serve on our nation’s highest court. Period!

America’s paradox is this: seventeen months ago, America suffered a de facto revolution by electing this regime without adequate vetting. Obama has repeatedly shown his utter contempt for the U.S. Constitution, preferring activist judges who legislate from the bench and his bizarre belief that the Warren Court (1953-69) didn’t go far enough in enshrining “redistributive change” (i.e., integrating Marxist socialist ideas into the rule of law and into every sector of society, thus making the Constitution a dead letter).

In a 2001 radio interview, Obama gave America a glimpse into the perverse mind of The Regime and what type of characteristics he considers in an ideal judge:

The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn’t shifted, and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil-rights movement was, because the civil-rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way.

Has the man never heard of the separation-of-powers doctrine and judicial restraint? President Obama believes that a judge must be an agent for social change, a super-legislator, an unelected dictator. That’s diametrical to what the framers believed. Jefferson said, “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” Remember that Lady Justice is blind because judges are not to consider rich or poor, black or white, Jew or gentile, but to interpret the law according to the Constitution. Period!

I believe Obama’s actual nominee will be either Diane Wood or Elena Kagan; however, Napolitano would be Obama’s dream pick because perhaps no other person in his administration is so utterly aligned philosophically with his radical, fascist, anti-American views than she. Remember that it was Napolitano who in December 2009, the day after the Christmas Day bomber failed to set off his bomb in an airplane over Detroit, proudly said, “The system worked.”

In an April 2009 classified memo, Secretary Napolitano focused on labeling political opponents of the president, including ex-military, as terrorists and “right-wing extremists” while downplaying Islamic fascism against the United States by calling it “man-caused disasters,” even purging phrases likes “Islamic fascist” and “Muslim terrorist” from all official policy documents.

This treason is epidemic in Washington, D.C., for there is not one Democrat in Congress that really believes in Natural Law, original intent, originalism or constitutionalism according to the transcendent ideas the framers of the Constitution held sacred – liberty, freedom, morality, market capitalism, Veritas (truth).

What is the singular Supreme Court qualification President Obama should rely upon? Hearken to the words of Founding Father Thomas Jefferson who prophesied hundreds of years ago: Let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him [President Obama] down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.