Hall of Shame
Justices that deserve our scorn for the raping of liberty and freedom. Unfortunately there are so many, that all of them cannot be listed. These are disgusting people who know nothing about the value of freedom, and the damage they do.


Image & Name
Why Am I Here?

Because I just ruled to totally screw the PEOPLE with my insane ruling regarding Obamacare.


Current  In the case Richard L. Barnes v. State of Indiana, No. 82S05-1007-CR-343, the court issued the following: “we hold that Indiana [sic] the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law.”

Ignoring the misplaced word ‘Indiana,’ this statement is quite troubling in its implications. They are saying that nobody has the right to resist even an illegal police entry into ones own home... and there are no qualifying limitations on the statement whatsoever. This means that a police officer could break into you house and rape you, your wife, your kids, your dog and you have no legally recognized right to resist. Even something less extreme, say he likes your house and so he decides to move in with you… the Judiciary is telling you that you have no legal right to resist it.

Rosemary M. Collyer

Judge Rosemary M. Collyer was appointed to the United States District Court in January 2003. This black robed terrorists just ruled that you can be denied your social security benefits if you choose to not participate in Medicare! Judge Rosemary Collyer has ruled that Americans have a legal obligation to accept sub-par government health benefits.

As recently as the fall of 2009, [District Court] Judge [Rosemary] Collyer provided support for the plaintiffs. She rejected the Obama Administration’s argument that the plaintiffs were lucky to get Medicare and therefore had suffered no “injury” and lacked standing. She noted the Clinton POMS are simply part of a government handbook and never went through a formal rule-making. She also refused the Administration’s request to dismiss the suit, noting that “neither the statute nor the regulation specifies that Plaintiffs must withdraw from Social Security and repay retirement benefits in order to withdraw from Medicare.”
She has done a complete 180, and has now ruled to dismiss the case! What happened? Did someone have a little talk with the judge?

This is convoluted enough, but Judge Collyer’s truly novel finding comes with her implicit argument that to be “entitled” to a government benefit is to be obligated to accept it.

Gladys Kessler

Judge Kessler was appointed to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in July 1994.

      This black robed terrorists has elevated federal government terrorism to an entirely new level. A realm of terrorism that was an inevitable conclusion to the ever expanding power stolen from the People by the black robed terrorists, using the commerce clause. The realm of the individuals thought process. So now the terrorists lay claim, using the (commie) commerce clause as their enabling clause, the right to regulate your thinking! Wow! It does not get any more absurd than this. This is, terrorism in it's most elevated state. The federal government now claims it can require you to eat broccoli at every meal, or better yet, it can now require you to contribute money only to political candidates that support this perverted point of view! How's that for enabling slavery!.

      "It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not 'acting,' especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice. Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something."  Glayds Kessler - 2011

Roger B. Taney
5th Chief Justice of the supreme court
In office
March 15, 1836 – October 12, 1864
     I wrote the majority decision in the famous Dred Scott vs. Sanford case. You remember the one where the supreme court ruled that slavery was constitutional. The ruling that we black robed terrorists have not rescinded to this date! Why can't we admit it when we are wrong and correct our mistakes? Are we that vain? Cut me a little slack though, I did set my slaves free before I was required to by law. Also don't forget that James M. Wayne, John Catron, Peter V. Daniel, Samuel Nelson, Robert C. Grier, and John A. Cambell, all agreed with me on this one and deserve to be listed here as well, but then there would not be enough room to list all of the black robed terrorists, so we will have to just acknowledge their participation in one of the most in humane terrorist enabling rulings ever!

John Marshall
4th Chief Justice of the supreme court
In office
January 13, 1801 – July  6, 1835
     In 34 years as chief justice, Marshall never struck down an act of Congress as beyond the scope of federal power.
     Does anyone really think that congress was that good in crafting laws that met Constitutional muster? He was a rubber stamp to federal government expansion over individual liberty!

Antonin Scailia

September 26, 1986 – current
     “ Unlike the power to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, the power to enact laws enabling effective regulation of interstate commerce can only be exercised in conjunction with congressional regulation of an interstate market, and it extends only to those measures necessary to make the interstate regulation effective. As Lopez itself states, and the Court affirms today, Congress may regulate non economic intrastate activities only where the failure to do so “could … undercut” its regulation of interstate commerce. ... This is not a power that threatens to obliterate the line between “what is truly national and what is truly local.”

     This is this terrorists absolutely ridiculous reasoning to facilitate the continued failure of the War on some Drugs and some drug users in the Gonzales v. Reich case. "That could/might"? Are you kidding me! This was his pathetic attempt to rationalize government expansion in to areas of regulation that are totally un Constitutional, allowing the commerce clause to cover non interstate activity that had no commerce involved! Where in the commerce clause are the words "could/might'? They are not there. Next he will want to put people in jail who "could/might" commit a crime! This reasoning allows the federal government to regulate just about anything as elaborated by Justice Thomas in his dissent in the case.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

August 10, 1993 – current
     "I frankly don’t understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law"

     I guess they have run out of ways to twist the Constitution to their liking, so they must now inject foreign law to get the desired results? Wow how clueless can some one be? Frightening isn't it?

John Paul Stevens

December 19, 1975 – June 29, 2010      I wrote the majority opinion in the Kelo v New London case where we black robed terrorists decided we could take the words "public use" out of the Constitution, and insert "public good", even though there is nothing in the Constitution that gives us this authority. Maybe a glance at a dictionary could have enlightened us. I was aided in this terrorism by my friends justices Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer. Again there just isn't enough room to show pictures all of my comrades that perpetrated this terrorism.

Home | Overview | What is Terrorism | Obscene Rulings | Links
U.S. Constitution | Peaceful Solutions | Comments | Contact Us

Hall of Fame | Hall of Shame