# The Only True Supreme Court



## PoliticalChic (Jul 12, 2018)

....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

Bulletin:
*The United States Constitution is written in English!!!!!*
It is to be applied.....not interpreted.


Apply
Be applicable or relevant.

‘prices do not apply to public holiday periods’
apply | Definition of apply in English by Oxford Dictionaries


One promises to obey the written text, uses same in deciding whether questions that come before the court are
a. consistent with the language, the text, of the Constitution.
or
b. not covered by the Constitution, and allow lower courts to pass judgment.
_

2. The Founders and classical liberals....what are called conservatives today, recognize the America that was memorialized in our founding documents, an American based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


3. "[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*. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing. ... To deny this would be to affirm ... that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid..."
Alexander Hamilton


4. Lino Graglia speaks of the powers that judges and Justices have assumed:

“If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that *the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules* to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” 
Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf


5. 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*.



One can only hope that Judge Kavanaugh is the textualist he is reputed to be.


----------



## TNHarley (Jul 12, 2018)

Textualist? Didnt he support the SC in deeming obamacare a tax even though it wasnt presented as such? Basically tax legislation from the bench? 
Is the part about the House writing tax legislation in the constitution written in latin? 
He also faps to the NSA and unconstitutional spying. 
So much for this thread


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 12, 2018)

The Federalist Society and other 'dark money' judicial organizations are governed by the elite for the elite. A conservative SCOTUS is simply the legislative branch of the oligarchs, the corporatist, the bigoted, read its history if you doubt. The white working class plays along and then wonders why they have lost all power. Sad. 

Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted by Ian Millhiser

*"Few American institutions have inflicted greater suffering on ordinary people than the Supreme Court of the United States.* Since its inception, the justices of the Supreme Court have shaped a nation where children toiled in coal mines, where Americans could be forced into camps because of their race, and where a woman could be sterilized against her will by state law." 

Readings:

'Invisible Hands: The Businessmen's Crusade Against the New Deal'  Kim Phillips-Fein 
"Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right"  Jane Mayer
'White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America' by Nancy Isenberg

Evil: 

Trump's immigration action is an act of evil, to separate a child because their parent wants a better life for them is un-American, un-Christian, and simply shows the lack of heart and compassion of America today. And the right wing's apologies for this evil demonstrates a lack of reason that should surprise everyone. "The trouble with Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, and that the many were neither perverted nor sadistic, that they were, and still are, terribly and terrifyingly normal. From the viewpoint of our legal institutions and of our moral standards of judgment, this normality was much more terrifying than all the atrocities put together."   Hannah Arendt


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 12, 2018)

A very conservative SCOTUS will be the tool of the plutocracy.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Jul 12, 2018)

Trump has just proven that he is not who we'd like him to be.

While he has initiated many things beneficial to Americans, he remains, like ALL other Presidents, faithful to the Deep State.
He probably has no choice.   John F. Kennedy vowed to dissolve the Deep State.

There are teasings of a wall, but it's only to keep his base hopeful.  There will be no wall.

Kavanaugh is not a friend of right wing values.  His view on government is EXACTLY in line with the far Leftists on this forum.
His views on the 2nd seem acceptable to Constitutionalists, but I say once on the bench he will completely betray that sooner or later.
It's no wonder to me that radical leftists are fine with this choice and call it a good and fair one.
Wait and see.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 12, 2018)

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:


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 12, 2018)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Trump has just proven that he is not who we'd like him to be.
> 
> While he has initiated many things beneficial to Americans, he remains, like ALL other Presidents, faithful to the Deep State.
> He probably has no choice.   John F. Kennedy vowed to dissolve the Deep State.
> ...





"... leftists are fine with this choice ...."


Are you serious???


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 12, 2018)

6. The problem is that *the limits to the power of the Supreme Court is not specified, and this allowed the power-grab that that has resulted in today’s judicial tyranny.*

“It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.”                                                                                                                                                        https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf





It seems the Founders never envisioned the sort of disreputable individuals who have gained control of the major political party, and use the judiciary as a substitute for the legislature.




7. Coulter:
If liberals could trust the voters, they wouldn’t need the Court to invent ludicrous ‘constitutional rights’ for them in the first place.

The only limit on liberal insanity in this country is how many issues liberals can get before a court…A lot is at stake for liberals with the court.

If they lose a liberal vote, they will be forced to fight political battles through a messy little system know as ‘democracy.’


When conservative judges strike down laws, it’s because of what’s in the Constitution. When liberal judges strike down laws (or impose new laws, such as tax increases), it’s because of what’s in the New York Times.


----------



## TNHarley (Jul 12, 2018)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Trump has just proven that he is not who we'd like him to be.
> 
> While he has initiated many things beneficial to Americans, he remains, like ALL other Presidents, faithful to the Deep State.
> He probably has no choice.   John F. Kennedy vowed to dissolve the Deep State.
> ...


I dont think they are but republican hacks like political chick are!


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Jul 12, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> "... leftists are fine with this choice ...."
> Are you serious???



C'mon PC.  You can do better than this.
Look at Kavanaughs RECORD.   See post #2 this thread.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Why I am so deeply disappointed by Trump's Supreme Court pick

Look through the thread on Trumps pick.  The leftist Radicals here were like "Trump made a good choice"
Joy Behar and other crazed leftists are suffering from TDS.  Whatever he does they will be hysterical.

In what way do you think Kavanaugh was a good pick for the Constitution?  I'm surprised at you.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 12, 2018)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > "... leftists are fine with this choice ...."
> ...




Please show where the Left is fine with this pick, as you claimed.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Jul 12, 2018)

PC, We The People have already acquiesced to the point that the Constitution is now reduced to symbolism only.

Obamacare - The mandate will EASILY be reinstated after Trump (what's been done is a dog & pony show)
Patriot Act - recently renewed
Civil Forfeiture - totally Unconstitutional but who cares
Warrant less searches - totally Unconstitutional - but who cares
NSA spying on Americans who merely voice dissent routinely - yet people are fine with it
Where's the "Wall"? - There will be NO WALL.  The crumbs being thrown are a dog & pony show to keep you quiet and hopeful

The Constitution is already gone.  We are at the whim of those in power.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Jul 12, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Please show where the Left is fine with this pick, as you claimed.



For some examples at this forum, visit this thread.  Many there for you.
Trump Picks Kavanaugh
Here's Just ONE....


JakeStarkey said:


> Kavanaugh, surprisingly, is a fair pick and will fill the swing vote position of Kennedy.



The Radical Leftists you see protesting Kavanaugh are just that.  Kavanaugh is not radical enough for them.  But still not a friend of the Constitution.



> Akhil Reed Amar is a prominent professor at Yale Law School, *and a noted liberal*. He wrote a piece for the NYT yesterday in praise of Brett Kavanaugh’s qualifications for the US Supreme Court. Excerpt:
> 
> The nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be the next Supreme Court justice is President Trump’s finest hour, his classiest move. Last week the president promised to select “someone with impeccable credentials, great intellect, unbiased judgment, and deep reverence for the laws and Constitution of the United States.” In picking Judge Kavanaugh, he has done just that.
> 
> In 2016, I strongly supported Hillary Clinton for president as well as President Barack Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland. But today, with the exception of the current justices and Judge Garland, it is hard to name anyone with judicial credentials as strong as those of Judge Kavanaugh.





Can you show why you think he's even a potentially good pick?

Have you looked at his voting records and opinions on critical issues?


----------



## Sahba (Jul 12, 2018)

JakeStarkey said:


> A very conservative SCOTUS will be the tool of the plutocracy.


Why would a very (fill in the partisan blank) SCJOTUS apply the law any differently than their partisanly disparate fellow jurists? If the answer is that they would then they are NOT adhering to the strict mandates of their job description (& and yes, we do have some sitting on the SCOTUS at this time)!!!


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 12, 2018)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Please show where the Left is fine with this pick, as you claimed.
> ...





"Can you show why you think he's even a potentially good pick?"


This was the last line in the OP
"One can only hope that Judge Kavanaugh is the textualist he is reputed to be."


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 12, 2018)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> PC, We The People have already acquiesced to the point that the Constitution is now reduced to symbolism only.
> 
> Obamacare - The mandate will EASILY be reinstated after Trump (what's been done is a dog & pony show)
> Patriot Act - recently renewed
> ...





"The Constitution is already gone."


As Mark Twain is reputed to have said:
* “The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.”* 

It applies as well to America and the Constitution.

Trump has turned out to be a far better President than many....certainly more than his predecessor ....and far more conservative than most predicted


I'm certain you have seen this, in the Declaration of Independence...

There are four references to ‘Divine’ in D of I… 

1)in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ 
2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,” 
3) Supreme Judge of the world, and 
4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.

It's not over....have faith.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 12, 2018)

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


----------



## G.T. (Jul 12, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


Seems to TNHarley, it's about Obamacare's Tax and the NSA. But I can see why you wouldn't want to address them head on, Propaganda mistress.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 12, 2018)

For the far evangelical right, abortion and same-sex marriage dominate their concerns with SCOTUS picks.


----------



## BS Filter (Jul 12, 2018)

JakeStarkey said:


> For the far evangelical right, abortion and same-sex marriage dominate their concerns with SCOTUS picks.


Interpreting the Constitution as written is my main concern.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 12, 2018)

Even Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas, and Kavanaugh understand we live in a world that technology and time have transformed unalterably from that of the Founders.


----------



## BS Filter (Jul 12, 2018)

JakeStarkey said:


> Even Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas, and Kavanaugh understand we live in a world that technology and time has transformed unalterably from that of the Founders.


So?  The Constitution has nothing to do with our culture and technology.  The Constitution is a document that tells government how far it can go into our lives and it's limits, not technology or he culture.  There is nothing in the Constitution referring to same-sex marriage.  Marriage laws have always been left up to the states.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 12, 2018)

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.


----------



## BS Filter (Jul 12, 2018)

JakeStarkey said:


> 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.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 12, 2018)

Tough, BS Filter, you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

The history of SCOTUS disagrees with your opinion.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 12, 2018)

BS Filter said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Even Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas, and Kavanaugh understand we live in a world that technology and time has transformed unalterably from that of the Founders.
> ...




"... tells government how far it can go into our lives and it's limits, ..."
Article 1
*Section 8 - Powers of Congress*


Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defenceand general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Post Roads;

Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 12, 2018)

Inform SCOTUS, please.


----------



## BS Filter (Jul 12, 2018)

JakeStarkey said:


> Tough, BS Filter, you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
> 
> The history of SCOTUS disagrees with your opinion.


Quoting a socialist like Lawrence O'Donnell doesn't really help your cause.  Many Supreme Court Justices agree with me.  The fact you have ONE more justice than 4 that agree with me on same-sex marriage can be easily fixed during the Trump Presidency.  That's "tough" for you.  The ramifications of Hillary losing is gonna be felt for generations.  There is no such thing as "settled law", regardless of what Schumer and other leftists claim.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 12, 2018)

Any more than you quoting Stephen Miller or Cal Thomas.  But I did not quote O'Donnell.  Very few judges argree with you.  And if Kavanaugh is confirmed, same sex marriage is very safe with SCOTUS.  There is such a thing as stare decisis, and that gives sane America comfort.


----------



## BS Filter (Jul 12, 2018)

JakeStarkey said:


> Any more than you quoting Stephen Miller or Cal Thomas.  But I did not quote O'Donnell.  Very few judges argree with you.  And if Kavanaugh is confirmed, same sex marriage is very safe with SCOTUS.  There is such a thing as stare decisis, and that gives sane America comfort.


I haven't quoted Stephen Miller or Cal Thomas, LOL.  Lawrence O'Donnell uses that line often, "you are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts.  The FACTS are the decision on same-sex marriage was 5-4.  That is easily fixed during Trump's Presidency.  You're not helping your cause by calling those that disagree with you insane.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 12, 2018)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Trump has just proven that he is not who we'd like him to be.
> 
> While he has initiated many things beneficial to Americans, he remains, like ALL other Presidents, faithful to the Deep State.
> He probably has no choice.   John F. Kennedy vowed to dissolve the Deep State.
> ...





"It's no wonder to me that radical leftists are fine with this choice ..."

Not so.

Check out the angst from the Left.....

*9. "Brett Kavanaugh's nomination is a victory for 'originalists'*
Donald Trump’s court pick belongs to a group of conservative legal thinkers who believe in a strict, textual interpretation of the constitution. 

That’s troubling."
Brett Kavanaugh's nomination is a victory for 'originalists' | Jill Abramson


Get that?????

"That's troubling!"



I'm lovin' it!


10. Originalists begin with the belief that ours should be a government of laws, and not one of men, or of judges, and this book addresses that question of judicial philosophy.

“The originalism looks to the original public-meaning of the Constitution and its amendments at the time they were enacted. The meaning of the Constitution must remain the same, until it is properly changed. And it cannot be changed unilaterally by the courts, or even by courts acting in conjunction with other branches of government.” Professor Randy Barnett, in “Originalism,” p. 262.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 12, 2018)

BS Filter said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Any more than you quoting Stephen Miller or Cal Thomas.  But I did not quote O'Donnell.  Very few judges argree with you.  And if Kavanaugh is confirmed, same sex marriage is very safe with SCOTUS.  There is such a thing as stare decisis, and that gives sane America comfort.
> ...


All good people use good lines, and that one applies to you to the bone.  And, yes, you might as well be a Stephen Miller or Cal Thomas, just can't tell the difference.  I imagine the mentally affected don't like being reminded of their deficiencies.  Well, that's tough.  You can disagree with me all you want, which does not make you insane in itself, but the FACT is that you should have almost no hope for an overturn of same-sex marriage by SCOTUS because of Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 12, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> 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.
> ...


All of them except for the one not saluting.


----------



## BS Filter (Jul 12, 2018)

JakeStarkey said:


> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


This post shows your short-sightedness.  Trump has only been in office a year and a half.  That means probably 6 and a half more years or 2 and a half at the least.  How long do you think Ginsberg can hold out?


----------



## bodecea (Jul 12, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


Cal Thomas.....


----------



## BS Filter (Jul 12, 2018)

bodecea said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 8. Judges, we are taught, are saints, and have only the best interests of America at heart.
> ...


He's right on.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 12, 2018)

BS Filter said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


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.


----------



## BS Filter (Jul 12, 2018)

bodecea said:


> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Okay, and which citizens is the 14th Amendment referring to?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 12, 2018)

BS Filter said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > BS Filter said:
> ...


Probably longer than Trump.  Pence would appoint if he could such a justice as you want, but the Senate would try the line.  They all want to be re-elected.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 12, 2018)

BS Filter said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


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.


----------



## BS Filter (Jul 12, 2018)

bodecea said:


> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


Yes.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 12, 2018)

BS Filter said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > BS Filter said:
> ...


All citizens.


----------



## BS Filter (Jul 12, 2018)

bodecea said:


> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


Wrong.  What was the purpose of the14th Amendment?


----------



## bodecea (Jul 12, 2018)

BS Filter said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > BS Filter said:
> ...


So...you would also agree then that with even less of a percentage of the vote, trump and his administration has no mandate.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 12, 2018)

BS Filter said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > BS Filter said:
> ...


I am correct.  All citizens.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 12, 2018)

bodecea said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > I see that the less astute need a primer on what they actually stand for....
> ...





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 (Jul 12, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


You can always tell when PC is losing an argument....he declares victory and personally insults the intelligence of others.   A winning combination.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 12, 2018)

bodecea said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 8. Judges, we are taught, are saints, and have only the best interests of America at heart.
> ...





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


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


Excellent.


----------



## BS Filter (Jul 12, 2018)

bodecea said:


> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


You didn't answer my question.  What was the reason for the 14th Amendment?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 12, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> 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.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 12, 2018)

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.”


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 12, 2018)

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:


“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.’                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
*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?????*


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 12, 2018)

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


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 13, 2018)

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.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 14, 2018)

“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 (Sep 6, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> ....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.
> 
> 
> ...



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.


----------

