The Only True Supreme Court

BS Filter

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2018
Messages
12,168
Reaction score
1,952
Points
290
8. Judges, we are taught, are saints, and have only the best interests of America at heart.

This is the sort of propaganda that produces lock-step Liberals.


They are simply well connected men, mere mortals, with no better ability to recognize rectitude than anyone else.

The give-away is how often they bow to party and bias.

If they do not pay homage to the Constitution, they should be swept from the bench.




“Today, however, the judiciary seems to have surpassed Congress and rival even the executive branch as it has, particularly in the last century, assumed powers unto itself that the Constitution's framers never intended.

Given his record and views of the Constitution, President Trump's latest Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, is in line with Hamilton's thinking,…""[A] limited Constitution ... can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void."



For some Democrats, it's all about abortion and same-sex marriage, neither of which are mentioned in the Constitution and both of which have been created as rights by a majority of justices whose fealty appears to have been to public opinion and their own biases, rather than to the nation's founding document.” Cal Thomas - The Brett Kavanaugh Nomination
Cal Thomas.....:71:
He's right on.
He is? So you agree with him on this?

Mr. Obama won the election with just 52 percent of the popular vote and a margin of 7 percent over Sen. John McCain. This should not be seen as a mandate for him and his administration.
Yes.
 

bodecea

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
137,963
Reaction score
15,909
Points
2,180
Location
#HasNoClothes
Technology and culture inevitably influence systems of government. We do not live in 1789. We live today with the needs of today. Nothing in the Constitution says we can't have same-sex marriage or abortion. Marriage is left to the states, unless their laws impede on the civil liberties guaranteed in the Constitution. The Justices decide that.
Culture and technology have absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution. The Constitution clearly states that anything not mentioned in the Constitution is left up to the states, read the 10th Amendment. Abortion and marriage are not mentioned.
However, the 14th amendment does state that the government, state included cannot treat some citizens differently under the law without compelling and legally proved reasons.
Okay, and which citizens is the 14th Amendment referring to?
All citizens.
 

BS Filter

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2018
Messages
12,168
Reaction score
1,952
Points
290
Technology and culture inevitably influence systems of government. We do not live in 1789. We live today with the needs of today. Nothing in the Constitution says we can't have same-sex marriage or abortion. Marriage is left to the states, unless their laws impede on the civil liberties guaranteed in the Constitution. The Justices decide that.
Culture and technology have absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution. The Constitution clearly states that anything not mentioned in the Constitution is left up to the states, read the 10th Amendment. Abortion and marriage are not mentioned.
However, the 14th amendment does state that the government, state included cannot treat some citizens differently under the law without compelling and legally proved reasons.
Okay, and which citizens is the 14th Amendment referring to?
All citizens.
Wrong. What was the purpose of the14th Amendment?
 

bodecea

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
137,963
Reaction score
15,909
Points
2,180
Location
#HasNoClothes
8. Judges, we are taught, are saints, and have only the best interests of America at heart.

This is the sort of propaganda that produces lock-step Liberals.


They are simply well connected men, mere mortals, with no better ability to recognize rectitude than anyone else.

The give-away is how often they bow to party and bias.

If they do not pay homage to the Constitution, they should be swept from the bench.




“Today, however, the judiciary seems to have surpassed Congress and rival even the executive branch as it has, particularly in the last century, assumed powers unto itself that the Constitution's framers never intended.

Given his record and views of the Constitution, President Trump's latest Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, is in line with Hamilton's thinking,…""[A] limited Constitution ... can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void."



For some Democrats, it's all about abortion and same-sex marriage, neither of which are mentioned in the Constitution and both of which have been created as rights by a majority of justices whose fealty appears to have been to public opinion and their own biases, rather than to the nation's founding document.” Cal Thomas - The Brett Kavanaugh Nomination
Cal Thomas.....:71:
He's right on.
He is? So you agree with him on this?

Mr. Obama won the election with just 52 percent of the popular vote and a margin of 7 percent over Sen. John McCain. This should not be seen as a mandate for him and his administration.
Yes.
So...you would also agree then that with even less of a percentage of the vote, trump and his administration has no mandate.
 

bodecea

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
137,963
Reaction score
15,909
Points
2,180
Location
#HasNoClothes
Technology and culture inevitably influence systems of government. We do not live in 1789. We live today with the needs of today. Nothing in the Constitution says we can't have same-sex marriage or abortion. Marriage is left to the states, unless their laws impede on the civil liberties guaranteed in the Constitution. The Justices decide that.
Culture and technology have absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution. The Constitution clearly states that anything not mentioned in the Constitution is left up to the states, read the 10th Amendment. Abortion and marriage are not mentioned.
However, the 14th amendment does state that the government, state included cannot treat some citizens differently under the law without compelling and legally proved reasons.
Okay, and which citizens is the 14th Amendment referring to?
All citizens.
Wrong. What was the purpose of the14th Amendment?
I am correct. All citizens.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,187
Reaction score
28,200
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
I see that the less astute need a primer on what they actually stand for....

The view of the Founders, classical liberals, and conservatives
a. individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


The aim of Liberals, communists, fascists, Socialists, Nazis and Progressives
b. the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.



" Franklin Roosevelt had pictured a place where citizens were joined in a collective enterprise ... Reagan pictured a more individualistic America where everyone would flourish once freed from the shackles of the state, and so the watchwords became self-reliance and small government."
The Liberal Crackup




Find the conservative in this pic:

All of them except for the one not saluting.


I love forcing you to post like the fool you are.

I'm sure that everyone who has read the posts recognizes same.

Don't ever change.
 

bodecea

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
137,963
Reaction score
15,909
Points
2,180
Location
#HasNoClothes
I see that the less astute need a primer on what they actually stand for....

The view of the Founders, classical liberals, and conservatives
a. individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


The aim of Liberals, communists, fascists, Socialists, Nazis and Progressives
b. the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.



" Franklin Roosevelt had pictured a place where citizens were joined in a collective enterprise ... Reagan pictured a more individualistic America where everyone would flourish once freed from the shackles of the state, and so the watchwords became self-reliance and small government."
The Liberal Crackup




Find the conservative in this pic:

All of them except for the one not saluting.


I love forcing you to post like the fool you are.

I'm sure that everyone who has read the posts recognizes same.

Don't ever change.
You can always tell when PC is losing an argument....he declares victory and personally insults the intelligence of others. A winning combination.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,187
Reaction score
28,200
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
8. Judges, we are taught, are saints, and have only the best interests of America at heart.

This is the sort of propaganda that produces lock-step Liberals.


They are simply well connected men, mere mortals, with no better ability to recognize rectitude than anyone else.

The give-away is how often they bow to party and bias.

If they do not pay homage to the Constitution, they should be swept from the bench.




“Today, however, the judiciary seems to have surpassed Congress and rival even the executive branch as it has, particularly in the last century, assumed powers unto itself that the Constitution's framers never intended.

Given his record and views of the Constitution, President Trump's latest Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, is in line with Hamilton's thinking,…""[A] limited Constitution ... can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void."



For some Democrats, it's all about abortion and same-sex marriage, neither of which are mentioned in the Constitution and both of which have been created as rights by a majority of justices whose fealty appears to have been to public opinion and their own biases, rather than to the nation's founding document.” Cal Thomas - The Brett Kavanaugh Nomination
Cal Thomas.....:71:


So....you have no way to refute the post......?


'Lock-step Liberals' really burned you, huh?


Excellent.
 

BS Filter

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2018
Messages
12,168
Reaction score
1,952
Points
290
Culture and technology have absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution. The Constitution clearly states that anything not mentioned in the Constitution is left up to the states, read the 10th Amendment. Abortion and marriage are not mentioned.
However, the 14th amendment does state that the government, state included cannot treat some citizens differently under the law without compelling and legally proved reasons.
Okay, and which citizens is the 14th Amendment referring to?
All citizens.
Wrong. What was the purpose of the14th Amendment?
I am correct. All citizens.
You didn't answer my question. What was the reason for the 14th Amendment?
 

JakeStarkey

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
166,399
Reaction score
15,787
Points
2,165
So....you have no way to refute the post......? 'Lock-step Liberals' really burned you, huh?
Excellent.
PC has been owned in this OP, so she declares victory and calls everyone else idiots. It is the PC Paradigm.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,187
Reaction score
28,200
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
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.”
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,187
Reaction score
28,200
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
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?????
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,187
Reaction score
28,200
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
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
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,187
Reaction score
28,200
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
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.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,187
Reaction score
28,200
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
“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.



 

Skylar

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
35,598
Reaction score
4,692
Points
1,130
....is one in which Justices judge every case that comes before them against the law of the land, the only edict that the American people have agreed to be guided by....
....the United States Constitution.



1. Any who use the term 'interpret' when referring to the job of a Supreme Court Justice are wrong.
Interpret
Explain the meaning of (information or actions)

‘the evidence is difficult to interpret’
interpret | Definition of interpret in English by Oxford Dictionaries
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:

New Posts

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top