Archive for the 'Supreme Court' Category

28 March, 2011

Posted by Socrates in "civil rights", "gender", "sex equality", Cultural Marxism, egalitarianism, employment, equality, equalocracy, feminism, General Decline, jobs, law, lawsuits, Socrates, Supreme Court, women, women in the workforce at 1:51 pm | Permanent Link

What you’re supposed to believe: despite being equal to men, women still can’t get fair treatment in the good-ol’-boy workforce. The way it really is: if anything, the workforce is too female-friendly already. Women should stop complaining and thank their lucky stars that 1) they live in a country where most men don’t object to […]

6 August, 2010

Posted by Socrates in conservatives, feminism, General Decline, jewed culture, jewed law, law, Obama, Socrates, Supreme Court at 6:05 pm | Permanent Link

But worry not. All you have to do is keep voting for conservatives, and America will return to being a White republic real soon…right? No? Oh, you’re such a pessimist… [Article].

28 June, 2010

Posted by Socrates in guns & goy controllers, guns and gun issues, Socrates, Supreme Court at 3:36 am | Permanent Link

Uh-oh. You know what that could lead to? More freedom. Heavens! [Article].

23 May, 2010

Posted by Socrates in communism, communism in America, jewed culture, leftism, leftists, Marxism, Socrates, Supreme Court at 4:25 pm | Permanent Link

Would there be a political Left in America without Jews? Yes, but just barely. The Left was built by The Tribe. Look at the communist party, for example. Nearly every top communist official was a Jew, e.g., Benjamin Gitlow, Jay Lovestone, Israel Amter, Bertram Wolfe, Alexander Bittelman, William Weinstone, Herbert Aptheker, Nicholas Hourwich, V. J. […]

10 May, 2010

Posted by Socrates in dispossession & destruction, Diversity, diversity is hate, General Decline, genocide of White culture, jewed culture, jewed law, Jewish genetics, Max Horkheimer, Socrates, Supreme Court at 2:05 pm | Permanent Link

(above: Horkheimer) The ghost of Max Horkheimer says: “Oy, oy, oy veh! What a glorious and historic moment! We Jews hit the jackpot with this nomination. Let’s take a look: 1) We’re getting another Jew onto the Supreme Court; 2) We’re getting another female onto the Court; 3) But best of all – are you […]

19 November, 2009

Posted by Socrates in guns & goy controllers, guns and gun issues, Socrates, Supreme Court at 1:28 pm | Permanent Link

1. U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Next Important Gun Case in Early 2010 It will hear McDonald v. Chicago in February. The ruling, despite Sotomayor becoming a court justice, should be 5-4 against the Chicago gun ban, just like in the Heller case: [Website]. ——————————- 2. Gun Sales Up More people are buying guns. Good. […]

17 October, 2009

Posted by Socrates in ACLU, General Decline, genocide by jew, genocide of White culture, jewed culture, jewed law, miscegenation, race, race-mixing, race-mixing laws, Socrates, Supreme Court at 1:21 am | Permanent Link

How not surprising that the ACLU got involved. This matter is directly related to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1967 Loving v. Virginia ruling: [Article]. More: [Here].

7 August, 2009

Posted by Socrates in Affirmative Action, Affirmative Action vs. merit, egalitarianism, equality, Socrates, Supreme Court at 10:09 pm | Permanent Link

…despite the fact that she admitted that she was a “product of affirmative action.” (Remember the old days when people were hired/appointed based on their abilities?): [Article].

29 June, 2009

Posted by Socrates in Affirmative Action, dispossession & destruction, Diversity, diversity is hate, race, racial preferences, Socrates, Supreme Court at 11:20 pm | Permanent Link

Of course, both of the Jewish judges – Ginsburg and Breyer – dissented: [Article]. More on the Ricci decision: [Here].

12 June, 2009

Posted by Socrates in Affirmative Action, egalitarianism, equality, Socrates, Supreme Court at 2:36 am | Permanent Link

If you’re a “product of affirmative action,” doesn’t that mean, by default, that you’re not tops in your field and therefore not qualified to be on the U.S. Supreme Court? Given the importance of that court, why would anyone consider a “product of affirmative action” for it? [Article].