THE HUDDLE - "Bawls in their court"

The Democrats are, as the President would say, “all wee-wee’d up” over the reaction of Justice Samuel Alito to the President’s outright falsehood about the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission. Clearly they realize now that what the President said and the political reaction on their side of the aisle is not playing well in Peoria. Thus the Chicago Mob has gone to the mattresses.

Reading the Left Stream Media, and it’s followers like the linked opine, one would think that the Court had changed the whole body of law covering election donations when in reality they only addressed the issues that were covered under McCain-Feingold. That is a law that has, since it was passed, been viewed by legal scholars as weak on Constitutional grounds and many predicted that it would not stand the test of time once it was reviewed by the Court. Those people were right.

To compound the error of their spin, however, THE HUDDLE jumps on the conservative faction of the Supreme Court by saying that both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito lied in their confirmation hearings when they professed their loyalty to stare decisis which we all know is a doctrine indicating that previously holdings of the Court would be honored unless there is a good, articulable reason to overturn them. This allegation of their lying is, of course, spurious and meant to draw attention away from the President’s unbelievable gaffe in criticizing the Court in his purely political speech.

What is happening, of course, is that the Democrats, led by Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, are crying foul in loud shrill voices meant solely to block out any reason on the matter. There is, of course, a danger in this, their fealty to a false representation of stare decisis. They really should think about what they are saying for under the definition of stare decisis that they are pandering, Dred Scott would have stood the test of time and still be the law of the land today. No one would want that...except maybe some Democrats whose history includes the KKK.  And what say the Democrats as to the activist judges appointed by President Obama?  They have, in their scant judicial rulings absolutely ignored stare decisis time and again preferring to rule based not on settled law but on "social justice."  Where is the stare decisis in that?

In truth, stare decisis is important in that it allows settled law to remain settled.  But no law passed by Congress is truly settled until it has passed Constitutional muster. In that McCain-Feingold failed despite the best intentions of its' authors. The Supreme Court did its' duty under the Constitution, which we all know is the law of the land that really matters. Wouldn't it be nice if the Democrats obeyed that law instead of trying to constantly redefine it so that they could further liberal-progressive-socialism?

Follow the link for more.