Then Or Now: How To Read The Constitution

[PoliticalChic]

If Progressives/Liberals/Democrats need be excluded from political power, due to lacking the understandings specified above, what is required in order to be a Justice of the Supreme Court? Two things:

a. An understanding of right and wrong

b. The ability to apply the clearly written text of the United States Constitution. Bear in mind, it is written in English, not some jargon or foreign tongue that requires ‘interpretation.’:




And perhaps this perspective: not all issues, disagreements, fall under the purview of the Supreme Court.
That's right: not all issues, subjects, cases need to come before a Supreme Court.

The nation was created based on federalism, the comparable authority of the states with that of the federal government, which means not every rule, law and statute must apply in every jurisdiction as set forth by the central government in Washington: allowing differences from one place to the next were a requisite for ratification.


Sooo....what if your jurisdiction, state, locale, has laws which you feel impinge on your desires/rights?

“Foot voting is expressing one's preferences through one's actions, by voluntarily participating in or withdrawing from an activity, group, or process; especially, physical migration to leave a situation one does not like, or to move to a situation one regards as more beneficial. People who engage in foot voting are said to "vote with their feet".

Legal scholar Ilya Somin has described foot voting as "a tool for enhancing political freedom: the ability of the people to choose the political regime under which they wish to live."
Foot voting - Wikipedia



America was not created simply to have one king replaced by another king, called the Supreme Court.
Yet, that is the view of Progressives.

 

[Rye Catcher]

If Progressives/Liberals/Democrats need be excluded from political power, due to lacking the understandings specified above, what is required in order to be a Justice of the Supreme Court? Two things:

a. An understanding of right and wrong

b. The ability to apply the clearly written text of the United States Constitution. Bear in mind, it is written in English, not some jargon or foreign tongue that requires ‘interpretation.’:




And perhaps this perspective: not all issues, disagreements, fall under the purview of the Supreme Court.
That's right: not all issues, subjects, cases need to come before a Supreme Court.

The nation was created based on federalism, the comparable authority of the states with that of the federal government, which means not every rule, law and statute must apply in every jurisdiction as set forth by the central government in Washington: allowing differences from one place to the next were a requisite for ratification.


Sooo....what if your jurisdiction, state, locale, has laws which you feel impinge on your desires/rights?

“Foot voting is expressing one's preferences through one's actions, by voluntarily participating in or withdrawing from an activity, group, or process; especially, physical migration to leave a situation one does not like, or to move to a situation one regards as more beneficial. People who engage in foot voting are said to "vote with their feet".

Legal scholar Ilya Somin has described foot voting as "a tool for enhancing political freedom: the ability of the people to choose the political regime under which they wish to live."
Foot voting - Wikipedia



America was not created simply to have one king replaced by another king, called the Supreme Court.
Yet, that is the view of Progressives.

Speaking about Donald Trump, I didn't know he was progressive. Seems he's stuck in a second iteration of the Gilded Age.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If Progressives/Liberals/Democrats need be excluded from political power, due to lacking the understandings specified above, what is required in order to be a Justice of the Supreme Court? Two things:

a. An understanding of right and wrong

b. The ability to apply the clearly written text of the United States Constitution. Bear in mind, it is written in English, not some jargon or foreign tongue that requires ‘interpretation.’:




And perhaps this perspective: not all issues, disagreements, fall under the purview of the Supreme Court.
That's right: not all issues, subjects, cases need to come before a Supreme Court.

The nation was created based on federalism, the comparable authority of the states with that of the federal government, which means not every rule, law and statute must apply in every jurisdiction as set forth by the central government in Washington: allowing differences from one place to the next were a requisite for ratification.


Sooo....what if your jurisdiction, state, locale, has laws which you feel impinge on your desires/rights?

“Foot voting is expressing one's preferences through one's actions, by voluntarily participating in or withdrawing from an activity, group, or process; especially, physical migration to leave a situation one does not like, or to move to a situation one regards as more beneficial. People who engage in foot voting are said to "vote with their feet".

Legal scholar Ilya Somin has described foot voting as "a tool for enhancing political freedom: the ability of the people to choose the political regime under which they wish to live."
Foot voting - Wikipedia



America was not created simply to have one king replaced by another king, called the Supreme Court.
Yet, that is the view of Progressives.

Speaking about Donald Trump, I didn't know he was progressive. Seems he's stuck in a second iteration of the Gilded Age.

One can only wonder why you bothered to link to my post, when all you wanted to do was post an "I hate Trump" post.


Perhaps you'd like to try defending the party you intend on voting for:

The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, support for rioters, arsonists, murderers, and anarchists, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.


Warning: if this is your very first time trying to think, you may be subject to an aneurysm.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Continuing the thought from post #21, there is no basis for every precinct in the nation having the very same laws, statutes or regulations.

At ratification, states were thought to have an element of sovereignty, not to be given up to a central authority....that's what federalism is.
"Federalism, mode of political organization that unites separate states or other polities within an overarching political system in a way that allows each to maintain its own integrity. "
Britannica.com


The Supreme Court should decline any case not covered by the enumerated authorities of article , section 8 of the Constitution.
And abortion isn't in there.


Abortion policy is a perfect example of the overstepping by the Supreme Court.


The pagans.....er, Democrats, demand the nationwide right to kill at their whim, and this is a reason they fear Barrett.



"Democrats are terrified that Trump’s replacement for Ginsburg would overturn Roe v. Wade (1973), the case in which the Supreme Court reinterpreted the Constitution, effectively amending the Constitution to include a right to abortion. Roe is bad law and should be overturned, but it is extremely important that the Court do so in a wise way. States should be able to make their own laws restricting abortion.

Barrett, a Roman Catholic, has expressed the Catholic doctrine that life begins at conception. However, she made it extremely clear that judges should rule based on the law, not their own personal religious or philosophical convictions."

5 Things to Know About Amy Coney Barrett

pjmedia.com

 

[Rye Catcher]

If Progressives/Liberals/Democrats need be excluded from political power, due to lacking the understandings specified above, what is required in order to be a Justice of the Supreme Court? Two things:

a. An understanding of right and wrong

b. The ability to apply the clearly written text of the United States Constitution. Bear in mind, it is written in English, not some jargon or foreign tongue that requires ‘interpretation.’:




And perhaps this perspective: not all issues, disagreements, fall under the purview of the Supreme Court.
That's right: not all issues, subjects, cases need to come before a Supreme Court.

The nation was created based on federalism, the comparable authority of the states with that of the federal government, which means not every rule, law and statute must apply in every jurisdiction as set forth by the central government in Washington: allowing differences from one place to the next were a requisite for ratification.


Sooo....what if your jurisdiction, state, locale, has laws which you feel impinge on your desires/rights?

“Foot voting is expressing one's preferences through one's actions, by voluntarily participating in or withdrawing from an activity, group, or process; especially, physical migration to leave a situation one does not like, or to move to a situation one regards as more beneficial. People who engage in foot voting are said to "vote with their feet".

Legal scholar Ilya Somin has described foot voting as "a tool for enhancing political freedom: the ability of the people to choose the political regime under which they wish to live."
Foot voting - Wikipedia



America was not created simply to have one king replaced by another king, called the Supreme Court.
Yet, that is the view of Progressives.

Speaking about Donald Trump, I didn't know he was progressive. Seems he's stuck in a second iteration of the Gilded Age.

One can only wonder why you bothered to link to my post, when all you wanted to do was post an "I hate Trump" post.


Perhaps you'd like to try defending the party you intend on voting for:

The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, support for rioters, arsonists, murderers, and anarchists, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.


Warning: if this is your very first time trying to think, you may be subject to an aneurysm.

Actually I've have begun to hate Donald Trump, something which evolved day by day since he began his self serving lies about the pandemic.

200,000 dead, hundreds of thousand more infected and all the President can do is blame everyone but himself.

He makes a callous conservative like you seem almost human.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If Progressives/Liberals/Democrats need be excluded from political power, due to lacking the understandings specified above, what is required in order to be a Justice of the Supreme Court? Two things:

a. An understanding of right and wrong

b. The ability to apply the clearly written text of the United States Constitution. Bear in mind, it is written in English, not some jargon or foreign tongue that requires ‘interpretation.’:




And perhaps this perspective: not all issues, disagreements, fall under the purview of the Supreme Court.
That's right: not all issues, subjects, cases need to come before a Supreme Court.

The nation was created based on federalism, the comparable authority of the states with that of the federal government, which means not every rule, law and statute must apply in every jurisdiction as set forth by the central government in Washington: allowing differences from one place to the next were a requisite for ratification.


Sooo....what if your jurisdiction, state, locale, has laws which you feel impinge on your desires/rights?

“Foot voting is expressing one's preferences through one's actions, by voluntarily participating in or withdrawing from an activity, group, or process; especially, physical migration to leave a situation one does not like, or to move to a situation one regards as more beneficial. People who engage in foot voting are said to "vote with their feet".

Legal scholar Ilya Somin has described foot voting as "a tool for enhancing political freedom: the ability of the people to choose the political regime under which they wish to live."
Foot voting - Wikipedia



America was not created simply to have one king replaced by another king, called the Supreme Court.
Yet, that is the view of Progressives.

Speaking about Donald Trump, I didn't know he was progressive. Seems he's stuck in a second iteration of the Gilded Age.

One can only wonder why you bothered to link to my post, when all you wanted to do was post an "I hate Trump" post.


Perhaps you'd like to try defending the party you intend on voting for:

The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, support for rioters, arsonists, murderers, and anarchists, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.


Warning: if this is your very first time trying to think, you may be subject to an aneurysm.

Actually I've have begun to hate Donald Trump, something which evolved day by day since he began his self serving lies about the pandemic.

200,000 dead, hundreds of thousand more infected and all the President can do is blame everyone but himself.

He makes a callous conservative like you seem almost human.

And another proof that Democrat voters cannot defend the agenda they will vote for.


You've served the purpose you were born to serve.

 

[Gdjjr]

it seems we have cases of MISinterpretation represented-

In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision ruling that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. But it also ruled that this right is not absolute, and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and protecting prenatal life.[4][5] The Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the three trimesters of pregnancy: during the first trimester, governments could not prohibit abortions at all; during the second trimester, governments could require reasonable health regulations; during the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when they were necessary to save the life or health of the mother.[5] The Court classified the right to choose to have an abortion as "fundamental", which required courts to evaluate challenged abortion laws under the "strict scrutiny" standard, the highest level of judicial review in the United States.[6]

How was it wrong? And no, I'm not pro-abortion. I'm anti nosey by the gov't. In that regard they were correct- it's not the fed gov't's business- but, alas, lawyers typical, twist, spin and castigate ruled the day- the 14th amendment is the culprit in many wrongs, but, at the same time, it's a good thang stopping over zealous Empty Suits at the state level from infringing on a person, and, history proves, given an inch a mile is always taken- always.

IF you get right down to it- the SC got their ruling correct is so far as their ruling goes- after the fact is when the UNintended consequences come into play- just as they always do when the gov't sides with one over another.



Who Made The Supreme Court King?

For the last 100 years, most Americans have assumed the federal court system, and ultimately the Supreme Court, stands as the final arbiter in any constitutional controversy. But who made the federal courts king?



The Constitution certainly didn’t. Take a moment and go look for the clause in the Constitution that delegates to the Supreme Court the power to serve as the sole and final authority on what is or isn’t constitutional. You won’t find it, because it does not exist. The Constitution tasks the Court with “judging cases.”

So, who placed the Supreme Court at the pinnacle of Constitutional interpretation?

Why, the Supreme Court itself did!

In 1958, the SCOTUS declared “constitutional law,” as determined by the federal court system, the supreme law of the land, on equal footing with the Constitution itself. The Supreme Court set itself on its own throne in its ruling in Cooper v. Aaron, a case relating to school desegregation.



So, nobody understanding the nature of the judicial system should question that the court possesses the power to declare an act unconstitutional, and the judiciary rightly has the final say in a dispute between the various branches of the federal government. Its rulings stand supreme only in those cases the Constitution gives it the power to judge. The Court checks legislative and executive power. But the question remains: does the Court possess sole authority to declare an act unconstitutional when a dispute arises between the federal government, and the states or the people?

Or more simply put: does a single branch of the federal government serve as the sole judge of the extent of the federal government’s own power? Should the created get to dictate to the creator the condition of its own existence?

To answer, “Yes,” opens the door to tyranny, because such a system leaves no option for the states or the people to exercise in their defense should all three branches conspire to impose an unconstitutional measure. In essence, those who advocate supreme judicial authority tell the states and the people to “sit down and shut up” if a federal court puts its stamp of approval on an unconstitutional act. The notion invalidates the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, instead vesting that power in the pronouncement of five out of nine judges. It changes the American system from a constitutional republic to an oligarchy.

This is absurd in light of the framers’ deep distrust of concentrated power.

So, who has the final say? According to James Madison, the people of the states – because they are sovereign in the Constitutional system.

Here’s how Madison put in in his Report of 1800.

 

[PoliticalChic]

it seems we have cases of MISinterpretation represented-

In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision ruling that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. But it also ruled that this right is not absolute, and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and protecting prenatal life.[4][5] The Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the three trimesters of pregnancy: during the first trimester, governments could not prohibit abortions at all; during the second trimester, governments could require reasonable health regulations; during the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when they were necessary to save the life or health of the mother.[5] The Court classified the right to choose to have an abortion as "fundamental", which required courts to evaluate challenged abortion laws under the "strict scrutiny" standard, the highest level of judicial review in the United States.[6]

How was it wrong? And no, I'm not pro-abortion. I'm anti nosey by the gov't. In that regard they were correct- it's not the fed gov't's business- but, alas, lawyers typical, twist, spin and castigate ruled the day- the 14th amendment is the culprit in many wrongs, but, at the same time, it's a good thang stopping over zealous Empty Suits at the state level from infringing on a person, and, history proves, given an inch a mile is always taken- always.

IF you get right down to it- the SC got their ruling correct is so far as their ruling goes- after the fact is when the UNintended consequences come into play- just as they always do when the gov't sides with one over another.



Who Made The Supreme Court King?

For the last 100 years, most Americans have assumed the federal court system, and ultimately the Supreme Court, stands as the final arbiter in any constitutional controversy. But who made the federal courts king?



The Constitution certainly didn’t. Take a moment and go look for the clause in the Constitution that delegates to the Supreme Court the power to serve as the sole and final authority on what is or isn’t constitutional. You won’t find it, because it does not exist. The Constitution tasks the Court with “judging cases.”

So, who placed the Supreme Court at the pinnacle of Constitutional interpretation?

Why, the Supreme Court itself did!

In 1958, the SCOTUS declared “constitutional law,” as determined by the federal court system, the supreme law of the land, on equal footing with the Constitution itself. The Supreme Court set itself on its own throne in its ruling in Cooper v. Aaron, a case relating to school desegregation.



So, nobody understanding the nature of the judicial system should question that the court possesses the power to declare an act unconstitutional, and the judiciary rightly has the final say in a dispute between the various branches of the federal government. Its rulings stand supreme only in those cases the Constitution gives it the power to judge. The Court checks legislative and executive power. But the question remains: does the Court possess sole authority to declare an act unconstitutional when a dispute arises between the federal government, and the states or the people?

Or more simply put: does a single branch of the federal government serve as the sole judge of the extent of the federal government’s own power? Should the created get to dictate to the creator the condition of its own existence?

To answer, “Yes,” opens the door to tyranny, because such a system leaves no option for the states or the people to exercise in their defense should all three branches conspire to impose an unconstitutional measure. In essence, those who advocate supreme judicial authority tell the states and the people to “sit down and shut up” if a federal court puts its stamp of approval on an unconstitutional act. The notion invalidates the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, instead vesting that power in the pronouncement of five out of nine judges. It changes the American system from a constitutional republic to an oligarchy.

This is absurd in light of the framers’ deep distrust of concentrated power.

So, who has the final say? According to James Madison, the people of the states – because they are sovereign in the Constitutional system.

Here’s how Madison put in in his Report of 1800.

"So, who has the final say? According to James Madison, the people of the states – because they are sovereign in the Constitutional system."

AMEN



The case was not simply poorly decided, but never should have been addressed.

Abortion is not under the purview of the Washington DC government, it is covered by the tenth amendment.

 

[Gdjjr]

The case was not simply poorly decided, but never should have been addressed.

True- like I said, cases of MISunderstanding- intentional I'm sure making it MISinformation, i.e. a lie.

That's what happens with PPPE- (piss poor public education)-

 

[PoliticalChic]

The case was not simply poorly decided, but never should have been addressed.

True- like I said, cases of MISunderstanding- intentional I'm sure making it MISinformation, i.e. a lie.

That's what happens with PPPE- (piss poor public education)-

I'm not a supporter of what government schooling has become.


We're a home school family.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

1. I am not wedded to the the idea that, no matter how great America is, and how much this nation has accomplished, it is destined to continue on forever.
In fact, when I look at what the major political party stands for, and it stands for the sort of society that existed before the greatest accomplishments of Western Civilization, I'm pretty much convinced that our existence is on the precipice.

The judiciary is a synopsis of what has happened and is happening.


2.The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by. But the Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement would always be sought; no where was this more evident than in the judiciary. Ironic that we find greed and thievery on where as prevalent as in the judiciary.
From the start, Justices of the Supreme Court have stolen power never authorized to them.


3. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.


4. The guidance of the Constitution is spelled out clearly, and in the English language. Yet, we see this sort of excuse for theft from that Court.
This is the corruption that has seeped into our judiciary:
"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is."
Charles Evans Hughes.



5.We, in the form of President Trump, have a opportunity to refute that view, with an originalist pick for this Court.

"Barrett may have clerked for Scalia, but is she an originalist? Last year, she spoke about her judicial philosophy at the Washington, D.C., branch of my alma mater, Hillsdale College. She rebuked the notion of a “living Constitution,” arguing that the judge’s role is not to twist the text of the Constitution to fit his or her policy prescriptions but rather to interpret the law faithfully.

“If the judge is willing not to apply the law but to decide cases in a line, in accordance with personal preference rather than the law, then she’s not actually functioning as a judge at all. She’s functioning as a policymaker,” Barrett explained.

“And I would have had no interest in the job if the job was about policymaking and about making policy decisions,” the judge said. “My interest is in contributing to our tradition of judges upholding the rule of law.”

5 Things to Know About Amy Coney Barrett

pjmedia.com

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the courts – ultimately the Supreme Court.

One reads the Constitution by reading its case law, as originally intended by the Framers:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Article Vi, US Cont.

 

[TheParser]

Oh, yes, the United States of America is a-changing.

There is one fatal flaw in this change that will lead eventually (by the end of this century) to a thoroughly dysfunctional nation.

Sometime in the next century, this land between the Pacific & Atlantic Oceans will be occupied by several independent nations. (Hopefully, one of them will be a fully independent nation for Native Americans.)

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. I am not wedded to the the idea that, no matter how great America is, and how much this nation has accomplished, it is destined to continue on forever.
In fact, when I look at what the major political party stands for, and it stands for the sort of society that existed before the greatest accomplishments of Western Civilization, I'm pretty much convinced that our existence is on the precipice.

The judiciary is a synopsis of what has happened and is happening.


2.The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by. But the Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement would always be sought; no where was this more evident than in the judiciary. Ironic that we find greed and thievery on where as prevalent as in the judiciary.
From the start, Justices of the Supreme Court have stolen power never authorized to them.


3. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.


4. The guidance of the Constitution is spelled out clearly, and in the English language. Yet, we see this sort of excuse for theft from that Court.
This is the corruption that has seeped into our judiciary:
"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is."
Charles Evans Hughes.



5.We, in the form of President Trump, have a opportunity to refute that view, with an originalist pick for this Court.

"Barrett may have clerked for Scalia, but is she an originalist? Last year, she spoke about her judicial philosophy at the Washington, D.C., branch of my alma mater, Hillsdale College. She rebuked the notion of a “living Constitution,” arguing that the judge’s role is not to twist the text of the Constitution to fit his or her policy prescriptions but rather to interpret the law faithfully.

“If the judge is willing not to apply the law but to decide cases in a line, in accordance with personal preference rather than the law, then she’s not actually functioning as a judge at all. She’s functioning as a policymaker,” Barrett explained.

“And I would have had no interest in the job if the job was about policymaking and about making policy decisions,” the judge said. “My interest is in contributing to our tradition of judges upholding the rule of law.”

5 Things to Know About Amy Coney Barrett

pjmedia.com

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the courts – ultimately the Supreme Court.

One reads the Constitution by reading its case law, as originally intended by the Framers:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Article Vi, US Cont.

Case law is simply a way to ignore the Constitution.


Here's your lesson in law for today:

1. Progressives have altered the role of the Supreme Court in a dramatic way: no longer should its role be to apply law as written. Instead, it was the application of German social science to American law.

... law must leave "conceptions" and open itself up to social realities of the modern world.”…[endng]the backwardness of law in meeting social ends,…”
http://www.drbilllong.com/Jurisprudence/Pound.html


2. [Roscoe Pound] was perhaps the chief U.S. advocate of sociological jurisprudence, which holds that statutes and court decisions are affected by social conditions; his ideas apparently influenced the New Deal programs of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt.Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions



3. Instead of following the Constitution, 'social justice' is to be pursued from the bench by following the dictates of unelected judges.....caselaw.

"Christopher Columbus Langdell ....Before Langdell's tenure, the study of law was a technical pursuit. Students were told what the law is. However, at Harvard Langdell applied the principles of pragmatism to the study of law. Now, as a result of this innovation, lawyers are taught the law through a dialectical process of inference called the case method. The case method has been the primary method of pedagogy at American law schools ever since. The case method has since been adopted and improved upon by schools in other disciplines, such as business, public policy, and education. Students such as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. would ensure that Langdell's innovation would not go unnoticed. Christopher Columbus Langdell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


There is no excuse for this corruption of jurisprudence except for a hatred of America, which explains so much of what you believe and write.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh, yes, the United States of America is a-changing.

There is one fatal flaw in this change that will lead eventually (by the end of this century) to a thoroughly dysfunctional nation.

Sometime in the next century, this land between the Pacific & Atlantic Oceans will be occupied by several independent nations. (Hopefully, one of them will be a fully independent nation for Native Americans.)

We are basking in the afterglow of a once great nation, taken over and destroyed by the acolytes of Leftism, Militant Secularism.


And so ends this noble experiment.

 

[Gdjjr]

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the courts – ultimately the Supreme Court.

Who Made The Supreme Court King?

 

[Rye Catcher]

If Progressives/Liberals/Democrats need be excluded from political power, due to lacking the understandings specified above, what is required in order to be a Justice of the Supreme Court? Two things:

a. An understanding of right and wrong

b. The ability to apply the clearly written text of the United States Constitution. Bear in mind, it is written in English, not some jargon or foreign tongue that requires ‘interpretation.’:




And perhaps this perspective: not all issues, disagreements, fall under the purview of the Supreme Court.
That's right: not all issues, subjects, cases need to come before a Supreme Court.

The nation was created based on federalism, the comparable authority of the states with that of the federal government, which means not every rule, law and statute must apply in every jurisdiction as set forth by the central government in Washington: allowing differences from one place to the next were a requisite for ratification.


Sooo....what if your jurisdiction, state, locale, has laws which you feel impinge on your desires/rights?

“Foot voting is expressing one's preferences through one's actions, by voluntarily participating in or withdrawing from an activity, group, or process; especially, physical migration to leave a situation one does not like, or to move to a situation one regards as more beneficial. People who engage in foot voting are said to "vote with their feet".

Legal scholar Ilya Somin has described foot voting as "a tool for enhancing political freedom: the ability of the people to choose the political regime under which they wish to live."
Foot voting - Wikipedia



America was not created simply to have one king replaced by another king, called the Supreme Court.
Yet, that is the view of Progressives.

Speaking about Donald Trump, I didn't know he was progressive. Seems he's stuck in a second iteration of the Gilded Age.

One can only wonder why you bothered to link to my post, when all you wanted to do was post an "I hate Trump" post.


Perhaps you'd like to try defending the party you intend on voting for:

The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, support for rioters, arsonists, murderers, and anarchists, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.


Warning: if this is your very first time trying to think, you may be subject to an aneurysm.

Actually I've have begun to hate Donald Trump, something which evolved day by day since he began his self serving lies about the pandemic.

200,000 dead, hundreds of thousand more infected and all the President can do is blame everyone but himself.

He makes a callous conservative like you seem almost human.

And another proof that Democrat voters cannot defend the agenda they will vote for.


You've served the purpose you were born to serve.

Honesty and the Beatitudes need no defense.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If Progressives/Liberals/Democrats need be excluded from political power, due to lacking the understandings specified above, what is required in order to be a Justice of the Supreme Court? Two things:

a. An understanding of right and wrong

b. The ability to apply the clearly written text of the United States Constitution. Bear in mind, it is written in English, not some jargon or foreign tongue that requires ‘interpretation.’:




And perhaps this perspective: not all issues, disagreements, fall under the purview of the Supreme Court.
That's right: not all issues, subjects, cases need to come before a Supreme Court.

The nation was created based on federalism, the comparable authority of the states with that of the federal government, which means not every rule, law and statute must apply in every jurisdiction as set forth by the central government in Washington: allowing differences from one place to the next were a requisite for ratification.


Sooo....what if your jurisdiction, state, locale, has laws which you feel impinge on your desires/rights?

“Foot voting is expressing one's preferences through one's actions, by voluntarily participating in or withdrawing from an activity, group, or process; especially, physical migration to leave a situation one does not like, or to move to a situation one regards as more beneficial. People who engage in foot voting are said to "vote with their feet".

Legal scholar Ilya Somin has described foot voting as "a tool for enhancing political freedom: the ability of the people to choose the political regime under which they wish to live."
Foot voting - Wikipedia



America was not created simply to have one king replaced by another king, called the Supreme Court.
Yet, that is the view of Progressives.

Speaking about Donald Trump, I didn't know he was progressive. Seems he's stuck in a second iteration of the Gilded Age.

One can only wonder why you bothered to link to my post, when all you wanted to do was post an "I hate Trump" post.


Perhaps you'd like to try defending the party you intend on voting for:

The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, support for rioters, arsonists, murderers, and anarchists, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.


Warning: if this is your very first time trying to think, you may be subject to an aneurysm.

Actually I've have begun to hate Donald Trump, something which evolved day by day since he began his self serving lies about the pandemic.

200,000 dead, hundreds of thousand more infected and all the President can do is blame everyone but himself.

He makes a callous conservative like you seem almost human.

And another proof that Democrat voters cannot defend the agenda they will vote for.


You've served the purpose you were born to serve.

Honesty and the Beatitudes need no defense.

Once you posted the note on that little slip of paper, did you eat the Fortune Cookie?

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. I am not wedded to the the idea that, no matter how great America is, and how much this nation has accomplished, it is destined to continue on forever.
In fact, when I look at what the major political party stands for, and it stands for the sort of society that existed before the greatest accomplishments of Western Civilization, I'm pretty much convinced that our existence is on the precipice.

The judiciary is a synopsis of what has happened and is happening.


2.The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by. But the Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement would always be sought; no where was this more evident than in the judiciary. Ironic that we find greed and thievery on where as prevalent as in the judiciary.
From the start, Justices of the Supreme Court have stolen power never authorized to them.


3. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.


4. The guidance of the Constitution is spelled out clearly, and in the English language. Yet, we see this sort of excuse for theft from that Court.
This is the corruption that has seeped into our judiciary:
"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is."
Charles Evans Hughes.



5.We, in the form of President Trump, have a opportunity to refute that view, with an originalist pick for this Court.

"Barrett may have clerked for Scalia, but is she an originalist? Last year, she spoke about her judicial philosophy at the Washington, D.C., branch of my alma mater, Hillsdale College. She rebuked the notion of a “living Constitution,” arguing that the judge’s role is not to twist the text of the Constitution to fit his or her policy prescriptions but rather to interpret the law faithfully.

“If the judge is willing not to apply the law but to decide cases in a line, in accordance with personal preference rather than the law, then she’s not actually functioning as a judge at all. She’s functioning as a policymaker,” Barrett explained.

“And I would have had no interest in the job if the job was about policymaking and about making policy decisions,” the judge said. “My interest is in contributing to our tradition of judges upholding the rule of law.”

5 Things to Know About Amy Coney Barrett

pjmedia.com

"Mark Levin LIGHTS UP Supreme Court for rejecting TX case: ‘What the HELL good use are they?’


Mark Levin was on the air when the Supreme Court rejected the Texas lawsuit on Friday afternoon, and reacted to it live on the air. It was a heckuva reaction, followed by some explanation of exactly what went down.

Here’s the first segment after the news broke. He closes this by saying “I don’t ever want to talk to a Supreme Court Justice again, I want nothing to do with any of them. Period. Period. Nothing.”

LISTEN – Mark Levin LIGHTS UP Supreme Court for rejecting TX case: ‘What the HELL good use are they?’ – The Right Scoop

therightscoop.com

 

[Gdjjr]

The Sun Over Texas


The Court’s “reasoning” disgusts Mike, who writes:

This is as if I walked into an astronomy classroom prepared to argue that the removal of the sun from its position in space and being placed one light year farther away from earth would significantly and negatively impact human survival and the SCIENCE COURT told me that I would not be allowed to make that argument because I didn’t first demonstrate that the current location of the sun relative to the earth was a significant and positive factor in the survival of the human race.
AHEM.
There is no need to demonstrate, first, to a human with a working brain and at least marginal understanding of the extant universe, that the current location of the sun is a significant and positive factor in the survival of the human race.
Neither did I demonstrate that the sun goes around the earth and appears to “rise” in the east and “set” in the west. Some things just are. … You know, like we all know what UP is and can reasonably explain it to a thinking person. Yes, it’s more complex than this, but, as far as working knowledge goes, well, some of us are just educated beyond our capacity to understand and explain, such as to the extent that most of us are not as stupid as an apparent silent majority of the U.S. SUPREME COURT.
STUPID IS AS STUPID RULES.
I know not what course others may choose, or be forced to endure, but the courts seem no longer an option.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Sun Over Texas


The Court’s “reasoning” disgusts Mike, who writes:

This is as if I walked into an astronomy classroom prepared to argue that the removal of the sun from its position in space and being placed one light year farther away from earth would significantly and negatively impact human survival and the SCIENCE COURT told me that I would not be allowed to make that argument because I didn’t first demonstrate that the current location of the sun relative to the earth was a significant and positive factor in the survival of the human race.
AHEM.
There is no need to demonstrate, first, to a human with a working brain and at least marginal understanding of the extant universe, that the current location of the sun is a significant and positive factor in the survival of the human race.
Neither did I demonstrate that the sun goes around the earth and appears to “rise” in the east and “set” in the west. Some things just are. … You know, like we all know what UP is and can reasonably explain it to a thinking person. Yes, it’s more complex than this, but, as far as working knowledge goes, well, some of us are just educated beyond our capacity to understand and explain, such as to the extent that most of us are not as stupid as an apparent silent majority of the U.S. SUPREME COURT.
STUPID IS AS STUPID RULES.
I know not what course others may choose, or be forced to endure, but the courts seem no longer an option.

The Supreme Court, as I have written many times is no more than a cover for the political establishment.

There is no justification in the Constitution for the powers that they have assumed.

And, once again, they have let America down.