Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Jonah Goldberg - 'Living Constitution' Faces a Mercy Killing
The second track is longer. Starting over a century ago, progressives began emphasizing ends over means. If the Supreme Court could deliver wins unattainable at the ballot box and unsupported by the Constitution, so be it. Thus was born the "living Constitution" -- the doctrine which holds that the magical parchment should mean whatever progressives need it to mean at any moment.
******************
This guy nailed it.
And the selection of an originalist will help get things to where they need to be.
Sorry but I disagree I have several problems with your pick. But everyone has good pedigree that is on the list.Jonah Goldberg - 'Living Constitution' Faces a Mercy Killing
The second track is longer. Starting over a century ago, progressives began emphasizing ends over means. If the Supreme Court could deliver wins unattainable at the ballot box and unsupported by the Constitution, so be it. Thus was born the "living Constitution" -- the doctrine which holds that the magical parchment should mean whatever progressives need it to mean at any moment.
******************
This guy nailed it.
And the selection of an originalist will help get things to where they need to be.
Shouldn't the American Constitution be STRICTLY adhered to as it was WRITTEN ie. as America's Founding Fathers INTENDED it to be adhered to?
As a side point I have read the list of The Donald's 25 possible choices to replace that Anthony Kennedy, IMHO I like Federal Judge Amy Coney Barrett, I commented about her the other night, I will in this thread give my reasons why I think she would be the best choice.
I think the best choice is a man or a woman aged about 46 years in age, who is a Practising Christian and is like that Antonin Scalia, Federal Judge Amy Coney Barrett fills all criteria, born in 1972 aged 46 years in age, she is a Practising Roman Catholic her and her husband have SEVEN kidlets, she worked for a year for Antonin Scalia and on May 8 2017 The Donald nominated her to serve as a United States Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for The Seventh Circuit and her nomination was approved by The Senate 55-43.
The situation is it would be difficult for Democrats and also a few RINO Republicans to not confirm someone like Amy Coney Barrett for The Supreme Court when they already voted to approve her for that other court, also they would not be able to do their usual Smear Campaign which they are going to want to do because how would they justify doing that when they already approved her for the other Court already?
Also the Far Left HATE Amy Coney Barrett I was reading about when The Donald nominated her for that other Court and they were almost having Grand Mal Seizures.
Amy Coney Barrett - Wikipedia
What would you say is wrong in your opinion with Amy Coney Barrett?
Like the originalist Scalia who ignored the original militia context.And the selection of an originalist will help get things to where they need to be.
Sorry but I disagree I have several problems with your pick. But everyone has good pedigree that is on the list.Jonah Goldberg - 'Living Constitution' Faces a Mercy Killing
The second track is longer. Starting over a century ago, progressives began emphasizing ends over means. If the Supreme Court could deliver wins unattainable at the ballot box and unsupported by the Constitution, so be it. Thus was born the "living Constitution" -- the doctrine which holds that the magical parchment should mean whatever progressives need it to mean at any moment.
******************
This guy nailed it.
And the selection of an originalist will help get things to where they need to be.
Shouldn't the American Constitution be STRICTLY adhered to as it was WRITTEN ie. as America's Founding Fathers INTENDED it to be adhered to?
As a side point I have read the list of The Donald's 25 possible choices to replace that Anthony Kennedy, IMHO I like Federal Judge Amy Coney Barrett, I commented about her the other night, I will in this thread give my reasons why I think she would be the best choice.
I think the best choice is a man or a woman aged about 46 years in age, who is a Practising Christian and is like that Antonin Scalia, Federal Judge Amy Coney Barrett fills all criteria, born in 1972 aged 46 years in age, she is a Practising Roman Catholic her and her husband have SEVEN kidlets, she worked for a year for Antonin Scalia and on May 8 2017 The Donald nominated her to serve as a United States Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for The Seventh Circuit and her nomination was approved by The Senate 55-43.
The situation is it would be difficult for Democrats and also a few RINO Republicans to not confirm someone like Amy Coney Barrett for The Supreme Court when they already voted to approve her for that other court, also they would not be able to do their usual Smear Campaign which they are going to want to do because how would they justify doing that when they already approved her for the other Court already?
Also the Far Left HATE Amy Coney Barrett I was reading about when The Donald nominated her for that other Court and they were almost having Grand Mal Seizures.
Amy Coney Barrett - Wikipedia
What would you say is wrong in your opinion with Amy Coney Barrett?
Sorry but I disagree I have several problems with your pick. But everyone has good pedigree that is on the list.Jonah Goldberg - 'Living Constitution' Faces a Mercy Killing
The second track is longer. Starting over a century ago, progressives began emphasizing ends over means. If the Supreme Court could deliver wins unattainable at the ballot box and unsupported by the Constitution, so be it. Thus was born the "living Constitution" -- the doctrine which holds that the magical parchment should mean whatever progressives need it to mean at any moment.
******************
This guy nailed it.
And the selection of an originalist will help get things to where they need to be.
Shouldn't the American Constitution be STRICTLY adhered to as it was WRITTEN ie. as America's Founding Fathers INTENDED it to be adhered to?
As a side point I have read the list of The Donald's 25 possible choices to replace that Anthony Kennedy, IMHO I like Federal Judge Amy Coney Barrett, I commented about her the other night, I will in this thread give my reasons why I think she would be the best choice.
I think the best choice is a man or a woman aged about 46 years in age, who is a Practising Christian and is like that Antonin Scalia, Federal Judge Amy Coney Barrett fills all criteria, born in 1972 aged 46 years in age, she is a Practising Roman Catholic her and her husband have SEVEN kidlets, she worked for a year for Antonin Scalia and on May 8 2017 The Donald nominated her to serve as a United States Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for The Seventh Circuit and her nomination was approved by The Senate 55-43.
The situation is it would be difficult for Democrats and also a few RINO Republicans to not confirm someone like Amy Coney Barrett for The Supreme Court when they already voted to approve her for that other court, also they would not be able to do their usual Smear Campaign which they are going to want to do because how would they justify doing that when they already approved her for the other Court already?
Also the Far Left HATE Amy Coney Barrett I was reading about when The Donald nominated her for that other Court and they were almost having Grand Mal Seizures.
Amy Coney Barrett - Wikipedia
What would you say is wrong in your opinion with Amy Coney Barrett?
I would also like to know. An honest discussion among like minded people can be revealing. I don't know a ton about any of the potential nominees. I do like Lucy's reasoning, to a point. I believe we can ram through anyone we feel like, but we need to be careful who we pick. There may be better candidates.
FDR Kept Getting His Programs Overturned At The High Court LevelJonah Goldberg - 'Living Constitution' Faces a Mercy Killing
The second track is longer. Starting over a century ago, progressives began emphasizing ends over means. If the Supreme Court could deliver wins unattainable at the ballot box and unsupported by the Constitution, so be it. Thus was born the "living Constitution" -- the doctrine which holds that the magical parchment should mean whatever progressives need it to mean at any moment.
******************
This guy nailed it.
And the selection of an originalist will help get things to where they need to be.
Loving got it right. (sarcasm) it would possibly help if you looked to what actual legal scholars think, and for the writer to understand what was referred to as the "living constitution." Not that I was in favor of that anymore than I am in preventing marriages between different race people. Or gay people for that matter.Jonah Goldberg - 'Living Constitution' Faces a Mercy Killing
The second track is longer. Starting over a century ago, progressives began emphasizing ends over means. If the Supreme Court could deliver wins unattainable at the ballot box and unsupported by the Constitution, so be it. Thus was born the "living Constitution" -- the doctrine which holds that the magical parchment should mean whatever progressives need it to mean at any moment.
******************
This guy nailed it.
And the selection of an originalist will help get things to where they need to be.
And just when he failed at that the Supreme Court ok'd his reform legislation..FDR Kept Getting His Programs Overturned At The High Court LevelJonah Goldberg - 'Living Constitution' Faces a Mercy Killing
The second track is longer. Starting over a century ago, progressives began emphasizing ends over means. If the Supreme Court could deliver wins unattainable at the ballot box and unsupported by the Constitution, so be it. Thus was born the "living Constitution" -- the doctrine which holds that the magical parchment should mean whatever progressives need it to mean at any moment.
******************
This guy nailed it.
And the selection of an originalist will help get things to where they need to be.
So He Had To Change It From Five Justices To Nine
So He Could Stack The Deck
Like the originalist Scalia who ignored the original militia context.And the selection of an originalist will help get things to where they need to be.
Loving got it right. (sarcasm) it would possibly help if you looked to what actual legal scholars think, and for the writer to understand what was referred to as the "living constitution." Not that I was in favor of that anymore than I am in preventing marriages between different race people. Or gay people for that matter.Jonah Goldberg - 'Living Constitution' Faces a Mercy Killing
The second track is longer. Starting over a century ago, progressives began emphasizing ends over means. If the Supreme Court could deliver wins unattainable at the ballot box and unsupported by the Constitution, so be it. Thus was born the "living Constitution" -- the doctrine which holds that the magical parchment should mean whatever progressives need it to mean at any moment.
******************
This guy nailed it.
And the selection of an originalist will help get things to where they need to be.
Let’s see. 85-y-o Ruth would have to make it to about 92 to survive through Trump’s second term. Dollars to donuts that ain’t gonna happen.Trump needs one more appointment after this one. 6-3 would spell the end for Anti-American Globalists for awhile. 7-2 would amount to a Coup d'etat, but i'll take 6-3.
Neither Loving, nor Windsor or even Obergefell had anything to do with what judicial scholars refer to as " a living constitution."Loving got it right. (sarcasm) it would possibly help if you looked to what actual legal scholars think, and for the writer to understand what was referred to as the "living constitution." Not that I was in favor of that anymore than I am in preventing marriages between different race people. Or gay people for that matter.Jonah Goldberg - 'Living Constitution' Faces a Mercy Killing
The second track is longer. Starting over a century ago, progressives began emphasizing ends over means. If the Supreme Court could deliver wins unattainable at the ballot box and unsupported by the Constitution, so be it. Thus was born the "living Constitution" -- the doctrine which holds that the magical parchment should mean whatever progressives need it to mean at any moment.
******************
This guy nailed it.
And the selection of an originalist will help get things to where they need to be.
And this grand "understanding" of the phrase "living Constitution" that only you can see would be what? I note with interest that you dismiss Goldberg as incorrect, without ever bothering to explain HOW he is incorrect. It's almost like you want to reject his article just because you don't like it, or something.
Neither Loving, nor Windsor or even Obergefell had anything to do with what judicial scholars refer to as " a living constitution."Loving got it right. (sarcasm) it would possibly help if you looked to what actual legal scholars think, and for the writer to understand what was referred to as the "living constitution." Not that I was in favor of that anymore than I am in preventing marriages between different race people. Or gay people for that matter.Jonah Goldberg - 'Living Constitution' Faces a Mercy Killing
The second track is longer. Starting over a century ago, progressives began emphasizing ends over means. If the Supreme Court could deliver wins unattainable at the ballot box and unsupported by the Constitution, so be it. Thus was born the "living Constitution" -- the doctrine which holds that the magical parchment should mean whatever progressives need it to mean at any moment.
******************
This guy nailed it.
And the selection of an originalist will help get things to where they need to be.
And this grand "understanding" of the phrase "living Constitution" that only you can see would be what? I note with interest that you dismiss Goldberg as incorrect, without ever bothering to explain HOW he is incorrect. It's almost like you want to reject his article just because you don't like it, or something.
You aren't required to be a dumbass to be a Trumpchump, but it appears to help.
No, I'm just not explaining jack shit to you. There's actually a wiki article, but I question whether you could follow it beyond your ideological vapidity.Neither Loving, nor Windsor or even Obergefell had anything to do with what judicial scholars refer to as " a living constitution."Loving got it right. (sarcasm) it would possibly help if you looked to what actual legal scholars think, and for the writer to understand what was referred to as the "living constitution." Not that I was in favor of that anymore than I am in preventing marriages between different race people. Or gay people for that matter.Jonah Goldberg - 'Living Constitution' Faces a Mercy Killing
The second track is longer. Starting over a century ago, progressives began emphasizing ends over means. If the Supreme Court could deliver wins unattainable at the ballot box and unsupported by the Constitution, so be it. Thus was born the "living Constitution" -- the doctrine which holds that the magical parchment should mean whatever progressives need it to mean at any moment.
******************
This guy nailed it.
And the selection of an originalist will help get things to where they need to be.
And this grand "understanding" of the phrase "living Constitution" that only you can see would be what? I note with interest that you dismiss Goldberg as incorrect, without ever bothering to explain HOW he is incorrect. It's almost like you want to reject his article just because you don't like it, or something.
You aren't required to be a dumbass to be a Trumpchump, but it appears to help.
In other words, you can't actually explain the "real" meaning of the phrase. All you can do is throw out "THIS is wrong, and THIS is wrong, and THIS is wrong" without any explanation of HOW.
Naught but what I expected. Thank you for confirming my low opinion of you.
No, I'm just not explaining jack shit to you. There's actually a wiki article, but I question whether you could follow it beyond your ideological vapidity.Neither Loving, nor Windsor or even Obergefell had anything to do with what judicial scholars refer to as " a living constitution."Loving got it right. (sarcasm) it would possibly help if you looked to what actual legal scholars think, and for the writer to understand what was referred to as the "living constitution." Not that I was in favor of that anymore than I am in preventing marriages between different race people. Or gay people for that matter.Jonah Goldberg - 'Living Constitution' Faces a Mercy Killing
The second track is longer. Starting over a century ago, progressives began emphasizing ends over means. If the Supreme Court could deliver wins unattainable at the ballot box and unsupported by the Constitution, so be it. Thus was born the "living Constitution" -- the doctrine which holds that the magical parchment should mean whatever progressives need it to mean at any moment.
******************
This guy nailed it.
And the selection of an originalist will help get things to where they need to be.
And this grand "understanding" of the phrase "living Constitution" that only you can see would be what? I note with interest that you dismiss Goldberg as incorrect, without ever bothering to explain HOW he is incorrect. It's almost like you want to reject his article just because you don't like it, or something.
You aren't required to be a dumbass to be a Trumpchump, but it appears to help.
In other words, you can't actually explain the "real" meaning of the phrase. All you can do is throw out "THIS is wrong, and THIS is wrong, and THIS is wrong" without any explanation of HOW.
Naught but what I expected. Thank you for confirming my low opinion of you.
Is English a dead language?
