Very interesting article from The Stanford Daily with short recap on multiple instances where people challenged Supreme Court decisions. See author information at the end.

Excerpt below:

Resistance to the Supreme Court’s authority is nothing new.  In 1803, the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison established the Court’s power to review the constitutionality of actions by other branches of government.  But the case also highlighted the Court’s inherent weakness.  The lawsuit asked whether President Thomas Jefferson’s new Republican administration had to honor the last-minute appointment of a justice of the peace by the outgoing Federalist president.  Chief Justice John Marshall knew that if the Court ordered the Jefferson administration to install Marbury as justice of the peace (as he’d been promised by John Adams), Jefferson would simply refuse to follow the ruling.  So Marshall wrote an opinion declaring that courts have ultimate authority to interpret the Constitution, but declining – on technical legal grounds – to actually order Jefferson’s administration to grant Marbury his position.

Resistance to the interpretive authority of the Supreme Court has occurred regularly ever since.  After an adverse decision in Worcester v. Georgia (another Chief Justice Marshall classic), President Andrew Jackson is said to have responded, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”  In the 1950s, the Court outlawed school segregation in Brown v. Board of Education, then had to issue another opinion in Cooper v. Aaron calling for “the obedience of the States,” after southern states asserted the power to ignore Supreme Court decisions with which they disagreed.  Cooper asserts judicial supremacy – that is, the power of the Supreme Court to serve as the ultimate authority over the meaning of the Constitution, binding on both the federal government and state governments.

These cases of resistance demonstrate the judiciary’s weakness as an independent branch of government.  Judges must rely on other government officials – in the executive or legislative branches of the federal government, or in state or local governments – to implement and enforce their orders.  When those other divisions of government disagree with the Court’s decision, the Court may be forced to curtail its own actions (as in Marbury). Or the Court might hope that it has enough support among other divisions of government to carry out its directives (as in Brown, which was enforced by President Eisenhower’s deployment of the Army’s 101st Airborne Division to ensure the African American students’ safety, and later bolstered by congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act).

Of course, the judicial branch has substantial powers to encourage compliance. For one, lower courts may hold steadfast objectors in contempt of court. Such specific contempt orders are almost certain to be enforced, therefore helping to bring intransigent officials into compliance. That’s how Kim Davis wound up in jail. Courts also have the lesser-known ability to fashion other kinds of solutions. For instance, the judge in Kentucky could have forbidden Davis from issuing marriage licenses, effectively transferring her power to another state official or ordered the county to withhold some portion of Davis’s salary attributable to marriage-licensing.

But the fact remains that these solutions are, in the end, words on a page. When push comes to shove, somebody other than a judge must escort the holdout to jail.  Thus, at bottom, the Court’s decisions are constrained by the views of other branches and levels of government.  Unless the Court stays within the bounds of what other government officials consider plausible, legitimate views, it is powerless to carry out its holdings.  So while the Court – comprised of unelected, lifetime-tenured judges – is often vilified as undemocratic, it is ultimately accountable to the people and their representatives.

The Supreme Court (and conventional wisdom) would say that everyone does have to follow the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution.  But challenges to that view – from history, legal scholars, and modern Kim Davises and Ted Cruzes – abound.  And despite the controversy and occasional firestorm, that debate is probably a good thing. It reminds us that the Court, with “neither force nor will,” takes part in an “ongoing dialogue between and among the branches of Government.”  In the end, it’s your democratically elected representatives who shape what vision of the law is followed.

Brittany Jones is the president of the Stanford Law Review. Alex Twinem is one of the Stanford Law Review’s managing editors. Michael Qian is one of the Stanford Law Review’s executive editors. Danny Kane is one of the Stanford Law Review’s senior editors. Contact them at bjones2 ‘at’, atwinem ‘at’, mfqian ‘at’, and dkane ‘at’

Below is a comment that was left to this article, and my reply to it.

The authors fail to acknowledge a fundamental proposition of American government: what the people want is not always right. By claiming that political power ultimately rests in the hands of elected officials, the authors ignore the purpose of institutions such as the Bill of Rights, which exist to prevent the mob rule the Founding Fathers so feared. The Supreme Court and the rest of our judicial system exist partially to protect the American people from this “tyranny of the majority.” By claiming that the debate over whether we have to obey the decisions of the Court is a “good thing”, the authors ignore the nightmare the Founding Fathers foresaw when the will of the people seeks to deny others the rights guaranteed to all humanity.

  • You fail to acknowledge that sodomy is not marriage, it’s not a fundamental right, homosexuality is not normal, and the Founding Fathers, had they known that someday, part of the American public would be so degenerate in terms of sexuality, that they would claim this is what the Constitution they were instituting was stipulating, they would have explicitly written safeguards in the Constitution to never let liberals claim this is what the Constitution says in terms of rights, and to protect decent people like Kim Davis from being persecuted and thrown in jail when liberals use the State for such purposes.
    In fact, they did write the 1A, but now liberals are using their distorted claims of the 14th to destroy the rights guaranteed by the 1A and the rest of the Constitution.

At the end of this video clip, posted at, Bill Maher makes fun of the sexual abuse of children. I have seen no criticism about it anywhere.

This is what is normal for liberals.

Page title: “Bill Maher Skewers Conservative “Instant Heroes” Like Kim Davis and George Zimmerman” September 26, 2015

AlterNet Staff / AlterNet chose this quote for the lead: “Republicans have to stop being surprised when their instant heroes turn out to be embarrassments,” Maher said.


Says the man who is so lacking in character that he makes fun of sexual abuse of children – and is not embarrassed of the fact, but proud.


William Dalton says (in a comment at TAC):
September 22, 2015 at 3:04 am

“Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, “The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.” But is this true? A decade after his beer hall putsch failed in Munich, Adolf Hitler’s Nazi party won
the largest number of Germans ever to vote in a democratic election. He had succeeded in the marketplace of ideas. Did that democratic ratification make Hitler’s ideas true?”

Pat Buchanan knows history well enough to know that Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party had not won a plurality of seats in the Reichstag, nor had President Hindenburg been convinced to appoint him Chancellor of Germany, because Hitler had “succeeded in the marketplace of ideas”. A majority of Germans considered Hitler’s ideas to be ridiculous, even when they gave his party a victory. They did so because, in a country in which, under the Weimar Constitution, it had proven impossible to elect a moderate government which could maintain the peace and suppress radical militia roaming the streets, and faced with a choice of government led by either Nazis or Communists, a plurality chose, and a majority approved, the party they saw to be the lesser evil.

It is not far distant from the choice Americans currently have, between a party representing warmongers eager to institute a police state for the protection of “national security” and a party dedicated to instituting a welfare state guaranteeing each citizen, and non-citizen, all the necessities of life, governed by coalition of sexual libertines and worshipers of Baal and Ashtoreth. When either one or the other gets elected, it won’t be because they have been successful in selling their wares in America’s “marketplace of ideas”. It will be because they have succeeded in scaring the bejeezus out of Americans at the prospect of again empowering the alternative.



I would add that the choice today is different. First because, for practical purposes, the US has not one, but two major neocon parties, the only difference is that one is slightly a bit more neocon than the other. Obama and Clinton did not dismantle the military/industrial complex – nor had any intent or demand from their constituents to do so, Clinton played golf at times during the Rwandan genocide was happening – a testament to just what monsters liberals are, US arm sales that spread death and destruction to millions of civilians worldwide continues unabated – and receives robust support from liberals and Democrat voters, and there is probably no difference between Hillary and Bush regarding war and imperialism, while there may have been a very small one between Bush and Bill.

Seven years into the Obama administration and the Patriot Act police state is just as much implanted as when Bush went to clamor for its existence. In a little Twitter feud this week, a liberal shot back that the maintenance by Obama and all the Dems  of the Patriot Act and the current US police state is Bush’s fault, since Bush started it.


These people actually vote and in their crazy minds, only Republicans are neocons, no matter how much both are exactly for the same kind of things. It’s no consolation, but at least Republicans don’t engage in this level of 1984-ish twisting of reality about themselves. I always find people who lie on such barbaric levels disturbing – specially since it’s collective and involving millions of people.

In the minds of Democrats, the fact that they can point their fingers at Republicans for doing the same thing they do entitles  them  to absolve themselves of all responsibility regarding the evil they are and do. They are the American version of “Eichmann in Jerusalem”, the responsibility for every neocon act of a liberal lies with Bush/Republicans and they never acknowledge anything they do is actually their own doing.

Lastly, Dalton above fails to mention that the welfare liberal state is a state full of sexual violence and is currently implementing the destruction of fundamental civil rights, like freedom of speech and the right to an ethical society in the sphere of personal relationships, so it certainly does not provide “the basic necessities”  citizens need.

What Americans can choose from are two very corrupt political parties, one which is particularly insane for not admitting its neocon attitudes and doings (the Democrats) and the other one which is a little bit more straightforward, while being just as destructive for most practical purposes.

This is “democracy” in the 21st century. Much like Rome a couple of millennia ago.

I saw this small exchange on some thread somewhere on the vast interminable Internetniverse:

Joyce Willis:

Nice but what about Jesus?


He was kidnapped by evangelical Protestants centuries ago, and suffers from Stockholm Syndrome by now (at least according to his captors).

There’s this commenter over at TAC, Charles Cosimano, who can be witty and smart at times, and usually that’s what most of his comments try to be (although usually a bit more witty than smart). He had a  serious comment (September 25, 2015 at 12:13 pm), however, that I found interesting, an excerpt of which is copied below:

Here in the midwest the Pope … might as well still be in Italy for all anyone cares.

Reiff is of course wrong. Cultures do not die. They are transformed. Other than that, Rod has it right.

People do not make decisions that matter in their lives on the basis of religious teaching. They make the decision and then find the proof text to justify it. What is interesting now is that people are not going to Christianity for the proof text any more. In that sense, the broader culture is, de facto, post Christian.

For large portions of the culture, Christianity carries no special authority. By that I mean if you say to X, “A Christian would not do that,” X is likely to say, “Probably not, but who cares?”

Now, it is a mistake to apply that to the Pope in the US for a very simple reason. The US is overwhelmingly non Catholic. The Pope carries with him no special authority for the bulk of the population. He is easily ignored. The rot of Christianity goes far deeper than what is happening to the Catholic Church which
never really had much cultural weight here to begin with. It is reflected in the decline of the mainline Protestant denominations which did control the culture and who still matter in ways that
the Catholic Church can only look upon with envy.

The question now is what is going to replace Christianity as the determiner of Western, particularly US, which is the only place that really matters, culture.

I don’t think that’s really a question to where there’s any doubt. We already know what has replaced Christianity – it’s the deformed, perverted, and violent culture of liberalism.

Savage West + savage capitalism = savage sexuality (homosexuality/bisexuality + porn + promiscuity + sexual abuse + sexual harassment + STI epidemics + adultery epidemics + divorce + abortion as contraceptive + transgender + prostitution + etc.)

And liberals are like mullahs – ignorant, narrow-minded bigots who stifle everyone else and destroy society while thumping on their porn, because for them, being deformed and sexually violent represents freedom and progress.

And like mullahs, the thing that liberals hate most is freedom of speech – because that permits dissident voices to be heard. It means their nasty ideology is criticized. It means all the violence and harm they do in the world is not entirely covered up by their own lies and denial.

This is why liberalism is just another form of any dictatorial religion. It’s oppressive, repressive, and so very destructive.

I think we are advancing rather fast to a state where Twitter et al will censor all viewpoints that attack liberalism. Mullahs and dictators are like that. They hate to be challenged.

Then, more specifically on how liberalism is really the very expression of the savage and brutal capitalism that organizes the West and the rest of the world today, there was this comment from KD (September 25, 2015 at 9:33 am):

I was reading Turchin’s War, Peace an War where he discusses Southern and Northern Italy, and argues that Southern Italy is a capitalist wash, at best family business with large Mafia contingent.

In contrast, No. Italy has produce medium-sized corporations (family-based), but nothing like a GE or Microsoft capable of planetary organization. These larger structures only occur in particular societies (generally Protestant/Confucian).

It will be interesting if American corporations will continue to be able to function as secularization progresses. Note, it may be that MTD and therapeutic managerialism may be superior to
Protestantism: the materialism, status consciousness, conspicuous consumption, commodity fetishism divorced from any spiritual elements of Calvinism. In other words, MTD may be the new order because it is adaptive to an international system of resource exploitation and consumption, in a way that Christianity, with its focus on the family and its symbolic particularity could not be.

And another cartoon! This one mocking the total propaganda move by Frito-Lay to create a temporary sub-brand “Doritos Rainbow” to promote homosexuality and transgenderism as normal. Notice the “It really got better” tag at the end. ;-)


Liberal magazine explains what the Doritos Rainbow brand is:

Doritos recently “launched its product celebrating LGBT pride: Doritos Rainbows, created in partnership with the It Gets Better Project. The multi-colored chips, inspired by the Pride flag, were designed to raise awareness and funds for It Gets Better, which supports young people struggling with their sexual identity or bullying. 

The new chips’ branding, packing, website and all other branding materials associated with the launch were created by Goodby Silverstein & Partners, which also has worked on the brand’s Crash the Super Bowl contest. While there won’t be a national campaign for Doritos Rainbows, GS&P did create a small set of advertisements, specific to the Dallas Pride Festival, which ran in the Dallas Pride Guide. “

WND: “The the It Gets Better Project was started in 2010 by author Dan Savage and his partner Terry Miller. The nonprofit organization reaches out to bullied LGBT teens.Those who donate $10 to the organization will receive a bag of the rainbow-colored Doritos for a limited time.“There’s nothing bolder than being yourself” is scrawled across packaging for the snacks.”

As it’s plain to see, it doesn’t create awareness or calls for responsibility for the millions of acts of harm and violence, including the epidemic levels of disease spreading, perpetrated by LGBTs – along with their supporters, we might add.

Typical LGBT propaganda. The elephant in the room is how much destruction LGBTs do in society – however, the propaganda always purports to portray them as oppressed lil’ victims who do no harm.

And Dan Savage? Jeez. WND gives us a nice little reminder:

When Santorum made a reference to bestiality in a discussion of homosexuality, Savage formed the website “” to create a “Google bomb” to smear the senator, using his name as the definition of a byproduct of anal sex. And he sent a tweet expressing his wish that Palin be stricken with cancer.

“Savage, one of the cruelest, most vile political activists in America, has spared no one with whom he disagrees from his vitriolic hate speech,” said Monica Cole, director of One Million Moms. “Despite Savage’s extremism, vulgarity and unabashed encouragement of dangerous sexual practices, Disney ABC is planning to feature a man who has done nothing but bash Christians and bash the Bible.”

“Dan Savage’s brand of hate does not merit a platform on a supposedly pro-family network,” said MRC President Brent Bozell at the time. “Disney ABC’s silence is not going unnoticed by faith and family advocates.

WND previously reported Savage told the Daily Pennsylvanian in 2006 that Carl Romanelli, a U.S. Senate candidate he didn’t like, “should be dragged behind a pickup truck until there’s nothing left but the rope.” In the same interview, he said Romanelli “should go f–k himself.”

Who is Frito-Lay?


Frito-Lay, whose leadership is listed online, is a subsidiary of PepisCo Inc.

PepsiCo’s board members are Shona Brown, a senior adviser to Google; George Buckley, retired CEO of 3M; Ian Cook, president of Colgate-Palmolive; Dina Dublon, former vice president of JP Morgan Chase; Rona Fairhead of BBC Trust; Richard Fisher, formerly of the Dallas Federal Reserve; Alberto Ibarguen of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation; William Johnson of Advent International; David Page of Whitehead Institute; Robert Pohlad of Dakota Holdings; Lloyd Trotter of GenNx360; Daniel Vasella, formerly of Novartis; and Alberto Weisser, formerly of Bunge Limited.

The corporation’s brands include Pepsi, Tropicana, Gatorade, Quaker, Lipton and Aquafina, and is the maker of Cheetos, Fritos, Doritos and Ruffles.

LGBTs and their disease-spreading

This cartoon also underscores just one of the main pieces of information on the nasty reality of LGBT sexual disease-spreading. I’ll copy the recent stats summary from the CDC below for those who aren’t inclined to look them up all on their own.

Syphilis & MSM (Men Who Have Sex With Men) – CDC Fact Sheet

How common is syphilis?

In the United States, health officials reported 56,471 cases of syphilis in 2013, including 17,535 cases of primary and secondary (P&S) syphilis. In 2013, half of all P&S syphilis cases were reported from 29 counties and 2 cities. The incidence of P&S syphilis was highest in women 20 to 24 years of age and in men 20 to 29 years of age. Reported cases of congenital syphilis in newborns increased from 2012 to 2013, with 322 new cases reported in 2012 compared to 350 cases in 2013.

Between 2012 and 2013, the number of reported P&S syphilis cases increased 10.9 percent. In 2013, 75% of the reported P&S syphilis cases were among men who have sex with men (MSM).

HIV Among Gay and Bisexual Men – CDC

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)a represent approximately 2% of the United States population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV.

At the end of 2011, an estimated 500,022 (57%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were gay and bisexual men, or gay and bisexual men who also inject drugs.

New HIV Infectionsb

  • In 2010, gay and bisexual men accounted for 63% of estimated new HIV infections in the United States and 78% of infections among all newly infected men. From 2008 to 2010, new HIV infections increased 22% among young (aged 13-24) gay and bisexual men and 12% among gay and bisexual men overall.
  • Among all gay and bisexual men, white gay and bisexual men accounted for 11,200 (38%) estimated new HIV infections in 2010. The largest number of new infections among white gay and bisexual men (3,300; 29%) occurred in those aged 25 to 34.
  • Among all gay and bisexual men, black/African American gay and bisexual men accounted for 10,600 (36%) estimated new HIV infections in 2010. The largest number of new infections among black/African American gay and bisexual men (4,800; 45%) occurred in those aged 13 to 24. From 2008 to 2010 new infections increased 20% among young black/African American gay and bisexual men aged 13 to 24.
  • Among all gay and bisexual men, Hispanic/Latino gay and bisexual men accounted for 6,700 (22%) estimated new HIV infections in 2010. The largest number of new infections among Hispanic/Latino gay and bisexual men (3,300; 39%) occurred in those aged 25 to 34.

Another question is how much money, in the order of billions of dollars, is wasted on health care for treating the perverted behavior of these men (along with other people).

These were posted to Twitter – #KimDavis #ImWithKim.



titanic kim



Mommy explains she hates bigotry - Sept. 2015

Mommy explains she hates bigotry – Sept. 2015

I was actually inspired to make this cartoon based on two pieces of news. First one about “Unit stalked by suicide trying to save itself” by Dave Philipps, New York Times. It’s about the growing number of veterans with PTSD (or at least the growing detection of PTSD in veterans) and resulting suicides. Which made me think that if the government doesn’t even care much about treating veterans who develop all sorts of mental and PTSD problems, what about all the populations of the countries where the US wages its wars? They have nothing. They are completely abandoned.

The other news was that Obama, Dear Leader, is once more pandering to the gay mafia and has decided to “nominate the first openly gay service secretary to lead the Army”. Another testament to how powerless and oppressed LGBTs are. The criminal industrial/military complex in all its liberal diversity glory. The Washington Post lauds “his long tenure in the Pentagon and his breadth of experience in shepherding some of the department’s most complex and sensitive weapons programs”. Regarding the issue of his homosexuality problem, the article continues with a quote from Phil Carter, a veteran of the war in Iraq and senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, “My sense is that the Army is over this and has been over it for some time. The Army cares whether you can shoot straight, not whether you are straight.”

Indeed, the Army cares about committing mass murder effectively, so what better notion of progress for liberals than to have homosexuals considered normal doing the also considered normal murdering?

How to represent such a level of hypocrisy and moral corruption in a cartoon? The solution, as can be seen, is that the little boy asks about the survivors with PTSD – by which I meant both soldiers and civilians – and orphans of the countries we bomb.

However, the question the little boy asks is much ampler. Because the US, along with France, UK, and Israel, plus the countries it routinely labels as bad, such as Russia and China, are selling horrendous armaments to all kinds of dictators and other barbaric governments. The latter then use the arms on both civilians and military victims. So it’s not just a problem with respect to victims of our bombing, but of our arms sales to evil governments and groups. However, this would be too wordy and complex to represent. I needed to simplify. So I opted for keeping the question’s scope to cover only the people directly bombed by us, as in war. But obviously the victim population is much, much greater.

This is the first on the transgender lunacy. More to come.

Blood transfusion request


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 125 other followers