If this winds up in the High Court of Justice...

If this winds up in Israel's High Court of Justice, we could have a major problem.

The Association of Civil Rights in Israel (our version of the ACLU) has called on Defense Minister Ehud Barak to allow the 'Palestinians' to 'demonstrate' in September. In particular, they want the army and the police to apply civilian rather than military law in dealing with the 'demonstrations' that are likely

Court orders Jews expelled from Migron

For the first time ever, an Israeli court has ordered a Jewish town 'dismantled' and its inhabitants expelled. On Tuesday, the court ordered the destruction of the town of Migron - right off highway 60 - by March 2012. The ruling, given unanimously by Supreme Court Justice Dorit Beinisch, Justice Miriam Naor and Justice Salim Joubran, noted that the West Bank outpost was built without government

An historic lowpoint for Israel's Supreme Court

In an historic lowpoint for Israel's outrageous Supreme Court, terrorist Mustapha Dirani has been allowed to sue the State of Israel for NIS 6 million (exchange rate is about NIS 3.45 to the dollar today). In case you don't recognize him, the picture is Ron Arad, and you'll see in a minute why his picture is here (Hat Tip: Michael P). The decision was reached by judges Ayala Procaccia and Salim

Obama attacks the Supreme Court; Mark Steyn; Hugh Hewitt; Justice Kennedy; Robert Mugabe

After last week's "State of the Union" speech (during which President B. Hussein Obama attacked the Supreme Court), Hugh Hewitt and Mark Steyn discussed Obama's attack in the context of today's politics and future decisions of the Court:

BHO: With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations to spend without limit in our elections.

HH: Now Mark Steyn, that is not accurate. The Austin decision is 20 years old, it had never been directly challenged. This was explained in the Chief Justice’s concurrence. But putting that aside, he attacked the Court which is non-partisan, and is supposed to represent the rule of law. It’s really unprecedented.

MS: Yes, and it’s very interesting. I would be interested to know what Nancy Pelosi thinks of that, because Nancy Pelosi’s comment, best known comment on Supreme Court decisions is that oh well, they’re sort of like God. In other words, once the Court has ruled, that’s it. It’s chiseled in tablets of stone, brought down from the mountain, and delivered in this case by Justice Kennedy. I mean, what I find so odd about this is that Justice Kennedy is the new Sandra Day O’Connor on that Court. He’s the swinger. He’s the swing vote. And I think, I don’t think it’s strictly in naked political interest, it’s sensible for Obama to actually publically sneer at Justice Kennedy when he’s sitting a few feet away from him. It just seems to me a very odd thing to do, and yet another example of how isolated and detached from the facts on the ground this Oval Office is.

Steyn's point is that Obama made a political mistake by attacking a swing voter on the Supreme Court, which attack will adversely affect future Court decisions.

What Steyn does not mention is that Obama (and the left) does not care so much about a few decisions of the Court. He cares about destroying the institution and its ability to check and balance the other branches of government. By attacking the Court publicly in this fashion, he has helped diminish the Court in the eyes of the 40% of the poll respondents that will follow Obama no matter how badly he performs in office.

Obama has promised to transform America. He means it. He has taken many steps designed to bankrupt this country. He has taken over industries. These are transformative steps. Destroying what is left of the rule of law is another such step. Diminishing the Supreme Court is necessary to the destruction of the rule of law.

Obama and the leftist utopians envision a world where the President can give any order without worrying about a pesky court getting in the way. The left can not get to that promised land without constant attacks on the Court. Obama's 40% must be mobilized against the very institutions that stand in the way of the progressive, populist dictatorship. (Whether Obama is the ultimate beneficiary of this dictatorship is irrelevant to the "progressive" masses. There will be a dictator someday - the name of the puppet that dances on the end of the strings is irrelevant.)

Did Robert Mugabe worry about the attitude of the swing voters on the Zimbabwean Supreme Court as he was seizing farms and turning the currency into confetti? Obama and his allies have a broader agenda than bean counting votes on the Supreme Court.

Quote of the day - Ann Coulter [Miguel Estrada, Sonia Sotomayor]

After aggressively blocking Estrada's nomination to a federal appeals court during Bush's first term solely on the grounds that he is Hispanic and was likely headed for the Supreme Court -- according to Senate Democrat staff memos -- now Democrats have the audacity to rave that Sotomayor will be the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice!

Ann Coulter - May 27, 2009