Lou Dobbs Guilty Of Blasphemy

Discussion in 'Legal Philosophy' started by Flanders, Feb 10, 2017.

  1. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    7,628
    Thanks Received:
    743
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +2,036
    Lou Dobbs might shake up the faithful for all of two minutes. If nothing else, Dobbs is angry for the wrong reason:

    “I believe Gorsuch if he has any honor should withdraw his name.”​

    VIDEO ▼

    Dobbs: Judge Gorsuch should withdraw his name

    Dobbs’ thoughts were right on the money when he nailed the legal profession. He was wrong about honor. Aside from Hollywood movies and TV shows, since when have lawyers been seen as honorable by anybody except lawyers? Preventing another lawyer from being confirmed is rather ridiculous when you look at all of the used condoms sitting on federal benches from top to bottom. Dobbs himself pointed out the number of Democrats legislating from the bench —— a whopping 70 percent.

    The fact is that Gorsuch is not that important, nor is the High Court’s sacred balance. The record shows that liberalism’s ideology marched ahead since the FDR years regardless of which political party decided cases. Finding enough “honorable” lawyers to stop Socialism’s march is an impossible dream. Where in hell can you find 7 percent let alone 70 percent?

    As for Gorsuch:


    I do not want to put a damper on the dreams and aspirations conservatives are placing in Neil Gorsuch, but I am reminded of the euphoria Chief Justice John Roberts spread like butter on a hot bagel. Roberts turned out badly. He, and he alone, could have stopped the ACA. Instead, Roberts tortured the Constitution into a tax for socialized medicine. And let us not forget Earl Warren, William Brennan, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter, conservatives all. My point. The Supreme Court is a crap shoot at best.

    I freely admit that Gorsuch sounds good:​


    so what is to fear from Neil Gorsuch? Answer: He is just another lawyer, and a Harvard lawyer on top of it.​

    In Search Of A Constitutional Definition For Islam

    Finally, all lawyers work for the government because all lawyers do their work for the courts even if they never see the inside of a courtroom.

    Lawyers double-dip by complicating the law in order to generate income for their profession. Cynics claim that lawyers built the public feed tub to sate themselves. Others claim that lawyering is the oldest profession and that is why they are so adept at acquiring a nation’s wealth. Lawyers have definitely been feeding at the public trough longer than any other profession.

    p.s. An old chestnut says prostitution is the oldest profession. If that is true then lawyering has to be the first profession to live off the earnings of hustling girls. I suspect that if we went back to the first cave of ill repute we would find lawyers paid to defend working girls who put their heels behind their ears for a few colored pebbles.


    [​IMG]
    https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.0lTkZdCUkaCsN3_DvWh2xQEYEs&pid=Api&w=168&h=181
     
  2. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    7,628
    Thanks Received:
    743
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +2,036
    UPDATE
    “Gorsuch is saying that Roe is the law of the land and Obergefell, which is one of the most radical opinions ever, is ‘absolutely settled law,'” Horowitz told WND. “There’s nothing there to give us assurances that he’s anywhere on par with Scalia, and that’s the seat we’re filling.”

    Horowitz said Gorsuch’s deferential attitude toward Supreme Court precedent, even on cases that themselves upended precedent, illustrates the problem he wrote about in his book “Stolen Sovereignty: How to Stop Unelected Judges From Transforming America.”

    “The reason why we will never fix the courts by having Republicans merely pick better judges is the same reason we haven’t fixed it through that same process until now,” Horowitz explained. “It’s that we continue to buy into the premise of judicial supremacy, of this one-directional precedent.”​

    Gorsuch comments on 'settled law' unsettling to conservatives
    Posted By Paul Bremmer On 03/25/2017 @ 6:01 pm

    Gorsuch comments on ‘settled law’ unsettling to conservatives
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

lou dobbs gorsuch