Explaining The Celebration

[PoliticalChic]

So here's a question for ya:

Let's say that Trump kills birthright citizenship by Executive Order. Some little illegal Mexican rugrat ("nino") sues to enforce his rights as a "citizen" and the case goes to the Supreme Court. (It's originally filed in the Ninth Circuit).

Given the fact that this policy has been in effect "forever," can Roberts be trusted to do the right thing? Or will he vote with the Leftist cabal to perpetuate the error?

I'll be right back after I consult the Magic 8-Ball....

 

[PoliticalChic]

The wailing, and rending of garments by our suffering Democrat pals requires the sort of remediation that is absent from their government school 'education.'


And here it is:

1. The Constitution is known as 'the law of the land.' It is the only set of rules that the American people have agreed to be ruled by.

2. It can be altered, by the amendment process....but not otherwise. Hence, it is imperative, for America to survive, that the actual document be honored.
This, no doubt, will be a shock to Liberals, Progressives, Democrats, for whom activist jurists have served as de facto alterers of the Constitution.

3. For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’

4. As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Professor Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning identified by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in ‘Lopez,’ in which he maintained that the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.’
See “Originalism,” Steven Calabresi



5. "Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh sees himself as a textualist in his approach to the Constitution, saying his first duty is to adhere to what its words say — la Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas in 1991.

Some legal scholars, though, say he could be described as more of an originalist in the vein of now Justice Thomas, looking for the intent of the document’s authors when they wrote it.

Either way, he’s likely to make conservatives happy and enrage liberals who would rather see the new Supreme Court justice take a “living document” approach his role on the federal courts, scholars say." Brett Kavanaugh best described as ‘originalist,’ say legal scholars








See why Americans are celebrating the Kavanaugh seating?

But I see a penumbra...

It's sooooo sad.....they pretend the Constitution isn't written in English.