I read an article by Helen Thomas, who has been covering the White House since the Lincoln administration, in the SeattlePI titled The High Court takes giant steps backward. It is in reference to the recent Supreme Court’s rulings.

This was probably the most uninformed, ignorant and manifestly baseless article written by a leftwing journalist I have ever read. There was such a gulf of disconnect with reality that it is hard to conceptualize that the author actually believed the content of what they wrote and if she did, it was nothing less than spewing poison to liberal left wing moonbats. You also have to assume the publication is as ignorant as Helen Thomas to publish it since it was factually inaccurate.

I will break the article down by each affirmation of stupidity:

The new Supreme Court is more conservative than it has been in decades. It’s also meaner. To use the word conservative for the Supreme Court is inane. You have four radical liberals and four strict constructionist and one swing vote. They are mean. So now being conservative is just mean. Are they making mean rulings? I don’t understand it. A constructionist and conservative are mutually exclusive.

It is a dream come true for Republican presidencies dating back to the “strict constructionist” court aspirations of President Nixon and now made possible by the conservative George W. Bush. She can’t seem to make up her mind if the court is conservative or constructionist. The only people who have a problem with the court being constructionist are people who absolutely do not believe in the constitution or the intent of the founding fathers. This would be liberals. A constructionist justice will ascertain the original meaning of the text and apply the text as it is written, no more no less. It is not conservative or liberal, it is above either one. A liberal justice has no interest in the original meaning of the text if it does not advance an agenda.

Before closing down for the summer last month, the high court tossed out a flurry of decisions that overturned or reinterpreted long-standing liberal precedents. Again she is complaining about the overturning of liberal precedents. This is typical of liberals. They have no interest in what is constitutional or what is just– as long their agendas are advanced. She is using the word long-standing very loosely. There was only one decision that was long standing that dated from 1911 and it concerned price fixing and needed changed.

The majority justices are running counter to the current trend against right-wing ideologues and a power-grabbing unilateral presidency. For the first time since the early 1980’s, the Democrats have been in control of congress. They have only had control for the past six months. We have a two term Republican president in office. I am not seeing much of a trend here. Just a lot of hyperbole. Liberal ideologues are very good at selling their myopic views as fact.

On race, the court apparently has decided to return to the “good old days” when separate was considered equal when it came to racial segregation, a concept that the high court discarded in the 1954 landmark decision of Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka, Kan., which desegregated the nation’s schools. Here is where her ignorance of SCOTUS is pathological. Brown v. Board of Education, under the Marshal court, in its most fundamental form eliminated the use of race to determine where a child went to school because the court ruled that using race violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Brown v. Board of Education did not desegregate the schools as she stated. That was 17 years later in a case involving Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklingburg Board of Education during the Burger court. The current ruling that she is referring to involved two white grade school children that live withing one mile of two schools and were bused ten miles to school because of their race. The current ruling only affirmed Brown v. Board of Education. Her contradiction here is that she was harping about the court overturing long standing rulings. Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson from 1894. That case ruled that “separate but equal” did not violate the 14th amendment.

The Roberts court also upheld an unconditional ban on the procedure that opponents dub “partial birth abortion.” Supporters of abortion rights see this decision as a harbinger of doom for the 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling that legalized abortion. The Supreme Court ruled on the case of Gonzales v. Carhart, with a 5-4 decision concerning partial birth abortion. The decision came from an appeal from the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals who stuck down the law banning partial birth abortion as unconstitutional. Her facts are wrong. She states that that the term “partial birth abortion” is used by opponents of abortion. This is wrong, the pro abortion group uses this expression to buffer the actual clinical term for it.

The court also ruled that public school principals and teachers can discipline students who display signs or wear T-shirts that carry messages counter to the schools’ anti-drug policies. The decision overturned a 1969 ruling that students do not shed their rights “at the schoolhouse door.” The case she is referring to is Morse and the Juneau School Board et al v. Fredrick, or the “bong hit for Jesus case.” The classes at the school were just outside school grounds watching the Olympic torch relay go through their town. Fredrick unfurled a 14 ft. banner that read “bong hits for Jesus.” He was told to take it down. He refused and was suspended for 10 days for promoting drug use which violating the school district’s anti-drug policies. He sued on a 1st amendment violation. The court ruled in favor of the school board, but Roberts did make the comment had the banner been political in nature it may have been protected speech. The biggest misconception Helen Thomas committed here, or was too ignorant to know, was that a few weeks later in the case of Marineau v. Guiles the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a seventh grader who wore an anti Bush shirt. It was deemed political speech and protected.

In a blow to the principle of separation of church and state, the court rejected a challenge by the “Freedom From Religion Foundation” against a White House program that helps church charities competing with government programs obtain federal grants. You can’t have a liberal diatribe without the subject of separation of church and state coming up. What principle is she talking about. There is not “a principle” anywhere in the constitution, the amendments to the constitution or the Federalist Papers. Here are a few quotes concerning “separation of church and state” by the guys who wrote the book on it:

Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence said.
“[T]he only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be aid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind.”

John Adams in a speech to the military in 1798 warned his fellow countrymen stating,“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

John Jay, Original Chief-Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court,
“The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next. Continue therefore to read it and to regulate your life by its precepts.”

George Washington
“Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle”

Gouverneur Morris, Penman and Signer of the Constitution.
“[F]or avoiding the extremes of despotism or anarchy . . . the only ground of hope must be on the morals of the people. I believe that religion is the only solid base of morals and that morals are the only possible support of free governments. [T]herefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God.”

Fisher Ames author of the final wording for the First Amendment wrote,
[Why] should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book? Its morals are pure, its examples captivating and noble. The reverence for the Sacred Book that is thus early impressed lasts long; and probably if not impressed in infancy, never takes firm hold of the mind.”

And yet, it seems the old cliche that the Supreme Court reads the newspapers has hit home — at least when it comes to the shameful treatment and torture of detainees from Iraq and Afghanistan.In a surprise ruling, the court agreed to review whether Guantanamo Bay detainees can use federal courts to challenge their imprisonment, reversing a decision in April not to hear arguments in the case. Now she alluding that the Supreme Court is reading the newspapers about the detainees in Guantanamo and bowing to the press. You would have to be absolutely void of an iota of intelligence to believe that any jurist on the Supreme Court would choose to review a case based on what the newspapers said. She did not mention what papers influenced the court. Maybe the paper she writes for. Maybe it was one of her articles that persuaded them. Not every newspaper in the U.S. is a liberal anti-American rag.

With the Roberts court in command apparently for a long time, all I can say is: “Cry the beloved country.” Even this quote she closes her article with is as irrelevant as she is. This is from the title of a book by South African author Alan Paton. which is a social protest against the structures of a society that would later give rise to apartheid.

The left is obviously in possession of a beta version of photoshop made for facts and reality to morph their myopic view of the world. This unreleased version of photoshop can obviously do the same thing to a fact or slice of reality that photoshop for photos can do for overweight entertainers. Once you run that program and hit save, you have crossed the line from journalism to propaganda.

This article is purely propaganda.