Obama Nominated Someone for the Supreme Court

There's been a lot of mainstream media coverage regarding Obama's Supreme Court nomination. As usual, it's pure propaganda.

One interesting fnord is "The nominee said something controversial once." The nominee was videotaped saying "An appeals court makes laws!" and that was cited as evidence she is unqualified. Actually, the Supreme Court and Federal appeals court do make new laws! For example, in Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court said "Individual state governments do not have the power to decide if abortion is legal in that state or not. The Federal government's jurisdiction takes priority." In this manner, the Supreme Court makes new laws. As another example, in the late 19th century, the Supreme Court legalized limited liability incorporation.

State police/bureaucrats/enforcers obey the decisions of the Supreme Court without questioning them. In this manner, the Supreme Court has the power to make new laws.

Most of the time, the Supreme Court does not review decisions made by appeals courts. Appeals court decisions then have the full force of law within this district. If inconsistencies between districts become too severe, then the Supreme Court will make a clarification. Otherwise, judges and lawyers in one district will cite decisions made in another district. For example, there are rules and procedures for criminal trials regarding biased jury selection; these laws were made by appeals courts. Most of the rules and procedures for "tax resister/protester" trials were made by appeals courts. Most of the little decisions that erode individual freedom in court were made by appeals courts, and then cited elsewhere. The Supreme Court does not say "Trial by jury is eliminated!", but by restricting jury selection rules and by forbidding defense attorneys from mentioning jury nullification, trial by jury is severely restricted; most of these decisions were made by appeals courts and later approved or refined by the Supreme Court.

Citing 30 seconds of videotape as evidence someone is unqualified is an evil fnord. She probably was videotaped for 1000+ hours over her career. By highlighting the 30 worst seconds, it creates an exaggerated impression that she is unqualified. In this example, the criticism seems weak, making it almost like an endorsement. By having a weak criticism overhyped, that makes the nominee seem qualified.

For example, if you evaluated me based on 2 minutes while I had a panic attack, a State psychiatrist might conclude that I need to be forcibly drugged for the rest of my life. Evaluating me based on the worst I was ever feeling is wrong. I'm fine 99%+ of the time.

Another fnord is "Obama nominated a female and minority to the Supreme Court. Therefore, the legal system is fair." The nominee is still a pro-State troll, just like all the other judges.

The biggest fnord regarding a Supreme Court nomination is "It matters who is on the Supreme Court." You don't get selected as a Supreme Court judge (or any Federal judge) unless you've been thoroughly brainwashed as a pro-State troll. You don't spend 3+ years and $100k+ getting a law degree unless you believe "State violence makes people's lives better." Even if you had doubts, you receive more brainwashing as part of the State licensing process and when you get your first job as a lawyer.

A Federal judge will almost always make decisions that expand the power of the government. You can't really consider a Federal judge to be unbiased, when government is one of the parties in all criminal trials.

The Supreme Court provides the illusion of fairness and justice, without any actual genuine justice. A Supreme Court judge has been already thoroughly brainwashed as a pro-State troll. They will only think and act within the narrow confines of their pro-State thinking.