The Only True Supreme Court

Discussion in 'US Constitution' started by PoliticalChic, Jul 12, 2018.

  1. PoliticalChic
    Online

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    76,825
    Thanks Received:
    22,478
    Trophy Points:
    2,260
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +48,192
    11. Here is the Left inadvertently admitting that they always use the courts to do what they can’t do by convincing the voting public.



    “The nut wing of the Democratic Party instantly denounced Kavanaugh by claiming that his elevation to the high court would threaten all sorts of "rights."

    Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., tweeted: "Our next justice should be a champion for protecting & advancing rights, not rolling them back -- but Kavanaugh has a long history of demonstrating hostility toward defending the rights of everyday Americans."

    Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., tweeted: "If Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed to the Supreme Court it will have a profoundly negative effect on workers' rights, women's rights and voting rights for decades to come. We must do everything we can to stop this nomination."



    If only these guys could get themselves elected to some sort of legislative body, they could pass laws protecting these rights!

    Wait, I'm sorry. These are elected United States senators. Of all people, why are they carrying on about "rights"? If senators can't protect these alleged "rights," it can only be because most Americans do not agree that they should be "rights."

    What liberals call "rights" are legislative proposals that they can't pass through normal democratic processes -- at least outside of the states they've already flipped with [illegal] immigration, like California.”
    July 11, 2018 - KAVANAUGH THREATENS THE LEFT’S RIGHT TO CHEAT





    Remember when every time gay marriage came up for a vote....it lost.
    Until the ayatollahs we call 'judges' dictated their biases into law.

    “Today, however, for a variety of reasons, they—particularly academics [and judges]—often see it as part of their function to maintain an adversary relationship with their society, to challenge its values and assumptions, and to lead it to the acceptance of newer and presumably better values.”
    David Brooks, “Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There.”
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. PoliticalChic
    Online

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    76,825
    Thanks Received:
    22,478
    Trophy Points:
    2,260
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +48,192
    12. The Left is wringing their collective (pun intended) hands over the possibility that the Constitution will be honored!

    They can’t allow that!!!


    “Meese, Ronald Reagan’s right-hand man from California, is the godfather of “original intent”, the crackpot, rightwing legal theory that will, if Kavanaugh is confirmed, be enshrined for decades to come. For the first time since Reagan began stacking the court with originalists like the late justice Antonin Scalia, they will, if Kavanaugh is confirmed, have a solid, unbending court majority.

    Kavanaugh’s nomination, no surprise, is a huge victory for the originalists, conservative legal thinkers who believe in a strict, textual interpretation of the constitution. They believe in adhering to the intent of framers of the constitution, white men whose outlook reflected 18th-century realities and whose thinking the originalists believe they have a unique ability to divine.” Brett Kavanaugh's nomination is a victory for 'originalists' | Jill Abramson



    Get that? “Kavanaugh’s nomination, no surprise, is a huge victory for the originalists, conservative legal thinkers who believe in a strict, textual interpretation of the constitution.”

    This is what passes for an indictment by the loony Left.



    13. And this:

    “…18th-century realities and whose thinking the originalists believe they have a unique ability to divine.” .”

    They do. And it’s quite simple. Here’s how it’s done:

    1. “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.’
      1. 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.’” Calabresi, Op.Cit.


    Can you imagine, this Leftist nutjob comparing Kavanaugh to Antonin Scalia and meaning it as an insult?????
     
  3. PoliticalChic
    Online

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    76,825
    Thanks Received:
    22,478
    Trophy Points:
    2,260
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +48,192
    14. And here is how the Left works the courts.

    “Realizing how widely reviled their ideas are, several decades ago the left figured out a procedural scam to give them whatever they wanted without ever having to pass a law. Hey! You can't review a Supreme Court decision!

    Instead of persuading a majority of their fellow citizens, they'd need to persuade only five justices to invent any rights they pleased. They didn't have to ask twice. Apparently, justices find it much funner to be all-powerful despots than boring technocrats interpreting written law.



    Soon the court was creating "rights" promoting all the left's favorite causes -- abortion, criminals, busing, pornography, stamping out religion, forcing military academies to admit girls and so on.

    There was nothing America could do about it.



    Conservatives could never dream of victories like this from the judiciary. Even nine Antonin Scalias on the Supreme Court are never going to discover a "constitutional right" to a border wall, mass deportations, a flat tax, publicly funded churches and gun ranges, the "right" to smoke or to consume 24-ounce sugary sodas.

    These are "constitutional rights" every bit as much as the alleged "constitutional rights" to abortion, pornography, gay marriage, transgender bathrooms, the exclusionary rule and on and on and on.




    The only rights conservatives ever seek under the Constitution are the ones that are written in black and white, such as the freedom of speech and the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

    Unless the Constitution forbids it -- and there are very few things proscribed by the Constitution -- democracy entails persuading a majority of your fellow Americans or state citizens to support something, and then either putting it on the ballot or electing representatives who will write it into law -- perhaps even a constitutional amendment.

    Otherwise, these "rights" whereof you speak are no more real than the Beastie Boys' assertion of THE RIGHT TO PARTEEEEEEEE!” July 11, 2018 - KAVANAUGH THREATENS THE LEFT’S RIGHT TO CHEAT




    Leftists…….fear an originalist……fear Kavanaugh
     
  4. PoliticalChic
    Online

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    76,825
    Thanks Received:
    22,478
    Trophy Points:
    2,260
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +48,192
    15. “Americans live under an ever-growing administrative state, in which distant bureaucrats centralize legislative, executive, and judicial power. States and localities are increasingly overpowered by a growing federal government that transgresses the Constitution’s original limits. The Constitution, we’re told by the progressive-minded, is a “living, breathing” document that allows for such updating in the modern age. On the other side, originalists and textualists argue that the Constitution’s meaning is stable, that its words retain the meaning they possessed when they were written.

    “A constitution that is viewed as only what the judges say it is no longer is a constitution in the true sense,” said attorney general Edwin Meese in a landmark 1985 speech to the American Bar Association. Words have meaning, Meese said, and judges can discern those meanings. Judges will always have predispositions, but this can’t mean that anything goes. The Reagan administration in which he served, Meese promised, would “endeavor to resurrect the original meaning of the constitutional provisions and statutes as the only reliable guide for judgment.”


    …originalists emphasized the “original public meaning” of a constitutional provision that those who ratified the Constitution would have understood it to have.”
    The Case for Originalism


    The Left keeps telling us that Kavanaugh is such an originalist.....

    ....let's hope so.
     
  5. PoliticalChic
    Online

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    76,825
    Thanks Received:
    22,478
    Trophy Points:
    2,260
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +48,192
    “A constitution that is viewed as only what the judges say it is no longer is a constitution in the true sense,” said attorney general Edwin Meese in a landmark 1985 speech to the American Bar Association.



    [​IMG]
     
  6. Skylar
    Offline

    Skylar Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    33,073
    Thanks Received:
    4,470
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +13,231
    So the Federalist Papers were wrong?

    Because I'm gonna go with Alexander Hamilton over Ann Coulter on what the role of the judiciary is.
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2018

Share This Page