My Guilty Pleasure….

[PoliticalChic]

…watching the Left’s death throes, burbling out the lies with their last breath.




1.Which brings me to Jill Abramson, former editor of what used to be a newspaper, and has receded to being the house organ of Liberalism, Inc., the NYTimes.

It has certainly been grand entertainment watching the result of what is called ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome,’ but the latest offshoot, ‘Kavanaugh Conniptions’ may be as enjoyable.




2. Birdbrain Abramson penned the Liberal drooling, foaming-mouthed, spinning-eyed animation to Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. Real Americans will be hard-pressed to keep the laughter under control. Here, from Jill Abramson, and the Guardian…
.Brett Kavanaugh's nomination is a victory for 'originalists' | Jill Abramson




3. “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”

OK….following the dictates of what is called the ‘law of the land,’ the United States Constitution, is ‘troubling’ to a Liberal.




4. “Ed Meese [t]he 86-year-old former attorney general was one of the first dignitaries Donald Trump trotted out at his carefully orchestrated, prime-time roll-out of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the US supreme court. Meese, Ronald Reagan’s right-hand man from California, is the godfather of “original intent”, the crackpot, rightwing legal theory …”

Meese was the attorney general to the most successful President in a century.

Attorney-general Edwin Meese, III’s speech to the ABA, July 9, 1985, called for Jurisprudence of Original Intention, focusing on several themes. The first is the primacy of the rule of law. Thomas Paine said, “America has no monarch: Here the law is king.” Originalists believe that the written Constitution is our most fundamental law and that it binds us all. Justices who abandon the original meaning of the text of the Constitution invariably end up substituting their own political philosophies for those of the framers. Americans have to decide whether they wish a government of laws or one of judges.


There is no liberal or conservative meaning of the text of the Constitution, only a right meaning or a wrong meaning. Those who convert the Constitution into a license for judges to make policy instead of being a limit on the power of judges, pervert a document that is supposed to limit power into one that sanctions it.
See Calabresi, “Originalism.”




Actually using the Constitution is what Liberal Abramson calls “the crackpot, rightwing legal theory.”



See why intelligent folks laugh at Liberals????

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. “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.”
Jill Abramson


I get such a kick out of Liberals claiming that actually following the dictates of the Constitution is an indictment.

It is the only document Americans have agreed to be governed by.




“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.





6. Then air-head Abramson suggest ‘divining’ the meaning of the words is not possible.

“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.

 

[HenryBHough]

Liberals do not choose to agree or disagree with anything.

They aren't allowed to.

All choices are made for them by their ruling elite.

It comforts them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Liberals do not choose to agree or disagree with anything.

They aren't allowed to.

All choices are made for them by their ruling elite.

It comforts them.

Absolutely true, Hank!

It's the reason that conservatives eat their lunch in debate, and the reason they use violence in place of reasoned argument.


"Let me give you a little tip: if you want liberalism to continue in this country, you have to realize that liberal students are being let down by their professors! They have liberal school teachers, and read the liberal press! Because of this weak preparation, they are unable to argue, to think beyond the first knee-jerk impulse. They can’t put together a logical thought. Now, compare that to a college Republican…"
Coulter

 

[bendog]

…watching the Left’s death throes, burbling out the lies with their last breath.




1.Which brings me to Jill Abramson, former editor of what used to be a newspaper, and has receded to being the house organ of Liberalism, Inc., the NYTimes.

It has certainly been grand entertainment watching the result of what is called ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome,’ but the latest offshoot, ‘Kavanaugh Conniptions’ may be as enjoyable.




2. Birdbrain Abramson penned the Liberal drooling, foaming-mouthed, spinning-eyed animation to Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. Real Americans will be hard-pressed to keep the laughter under control. Here, from Jill Abramson, and the Guardian…
.Brett Kavanaugh's nomination is a victory for 'originalists' | Jill Abramson




3. “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”

OK….following the dictates of what is called the ‘law of the land,’ the United States Constitution, is ‘troubling’ to a Liberal.




4. “Ed Meese [t]he 86-year-old former attorney general was one of the first dignitaries Donald Trump trotted out at his carefully orchestrated, prime-time roll-out of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the US supreme court. Meese, Ronald Reagan’s right-hand man from California, is the godfather of “original intent”, the crackpot, rightwing legal theory …”

Meese was the attorney general to the most successful President in a century.

Attorney-general Edwin Meese, III’s speech to the ABA, July 9, 1985, called for Jurisprudence of Original Intention, focusing on several themes. The first is the primacy of the rule of law. Thomas Paine said, “America has no monarch: Here the law is king.” Originalists believe that the written Constitution is our most fundamental law and that it binds us all. Justices who abandon the original meaning of the text of the Constitution invariably end up substituting their own political philosophies for those of the framers. Americans have to decide whether they wish a government of laws or one of judges.


There is no liberal or conservative meaning of the text of the Constitution, only a right meaning or a wrong meaning. Those who convert the Constitution into a license for judges to make policy instead of being a limit on the power of judges, pervert a document that is supposed to limit power into one that sanctions it.
See Calabresi, “Originalism.”




Actually using the Constitution is what Liberal Abramson calls “the crackpot, rightwing legal theory.”



See why intelligent folks laugh at Liberals????

Thank God. The thread title scared me at first.

 

[PoliticalChic]

…watching the Left’s death throes, burbling out the lies with their last breath.




1.Which brings me to Jill Abramson, former editor of what used to be a newspaper, and has receded to being the house organ of Liberalism, Inc., the NYTimes.

It has certainly been grand entertainment watching the result of what is called ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome,’ but the latest offshoot, ‘Kavanaugh Conniptions’ may be as enjoyable.




2. Birdbrain Abramson penned the Liberal drooling, foaming-mouthed, spinning-eyed animation to Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. Real Americans will be hard-pressed to keep the laughter under control. Here, from Jill Abramson, and the Guardian…
.Brett Kavanaugh's nomination is a victory for 'originalists' | Jill Abramson




3. “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”

OK….following the dictates of what is called the ‘law of the land,’ the United States Constitution, is ‘troubling’ to a Liberal.




4. “Ed Meese [t]he 86-year-old former attorney general was one of the first dignitaries Donald Trump trotted out at his carefully orchestrated, prime-time roll-out of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the US supreme court. Meese, Ronald Reagan’s right-hand man from California, is the godfather of “original intent”, the crackpot, rightwing legal theory …”

Meese was the attorney general to the most successful President in a century.

Attorney-general Edwin Meese, III’s speech to the ABA, July 9, 1985, called for Jurisprudence of Original Intention, focusing on several themes. The first is the primacy of the rule of law. Thomas Paine said, “America has no monarch: Here the law is king.” Originalists believe that the written Constitution is our most fundamental law and that it binds us all. Justices who abandon the original meaning of the text of the Constitution invariably end up substituting their own political philosophies for those of the framers. Americans have to decide whether they wish a government of laws or one of judges.


There is no liberal or conservative meaning of the text of the Constitution, only a right meaning or a wrong meaning. Those who convert the Constitution into a license for judges to make policy instead of being a limit on the power of judges, pervert a document that is supposed to limit power into one that sanctions it.
See Calabresi, “Originalism.”




Actually using the Constitution is what Liberal Abramson calls “the crackpot, rightwing legal theory.”



See why intelligent folks laugh at Liberals????

Thank God. The thread title scared me at first.

You remember by previous vocation....
Murders & Executions...Oh, I mean Mergers & Acquisitions

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. You have to check out who lamebrained Liberals claim as their ‘scholars.’


Abramson:

“Various mainstream legal scholars, including Harvard’s Cass Sunstein, have shredded the originalist approach, …”



Cass Sunstein advocates for Animal Rights ii over human rights. His statements [1] regarding an animal’s “right” to sue its owner in court are well known so we’ll cover some things you may not know about this man. I will hasten to do so before The Dog Press is sued [2] by Sunstein, who many perceive as the second most powerful man in the country because he will “regulate” everything and “inform” no one but the President. You will read this as a good thing if you are a left wing liberal, a warning if you are a right wing conservative or, as a purebred dog owner, with a cold shiver.


Cass Sunstein, in a 2002 legal paper, said there should be “extensive regulation of the use of animals.” In 2004, he co-authored a book entitled Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions in which he asks “Should animals have legal rights?” Promoted as having an “all-star cast of contributors to explore the legal and political issues that underlie the campaign for animal rights and the opposition to it”, the book is supported by far-left legal scholars and avowed animal rightists.


Sunstein hammers home his point that treatment of livestock and other animals is “a form of unconscionable barbarity not the same as, but in many ways, morally akin to slavery and mass extermination of human beings.”

Sunstein addresses “ethical questions about ownership, protection against unjustified suffering, and the ability of animals to make their own choices free from human control.” In his prolific writings, Cass Sunstein shows little regard for the Constitution when it comes to regulating animal ownership and use.


His animal rights agenda is not a passing fad. In 2007 he gave a keynote speech at Harvard University entitled “Facing Animals” in which he delivered the following quotes: “We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isn’t a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. It’s time now.” Cass Sunstein argued for entirely “eliminating current practices such as … meat eating", and then further decried “greyhound racing, cosmetic testing, and meat eating.”


Positions unchanged, the Harvard Law Professor and long-time friend of President Obama (dating back to their days at Un. Of Chicago) is now in an unelected position over which voters, congress and senate have no control. [3] Very few opposed Cass Sunstein’s appointment other than a Texas Senator who put a temporary hold on Sunstein due to his troubling record, “specifically the fact that he wants to establish legal 'rights' for livestock, wildlife and pets, which would enable animals to file lawsuits in American courts."
CASS SUNSTEIN EXPOSED, REGULATORY CZAR & ANIMAL RIGHTS EXTREMIST



"Sunstein is a radical animal rights thinker, who believes that animals such as dolphins and whales should have legal representation. Sunstein counts Princeton philosopher Peter Singer among his closest friends. Singer believes that children under the age of seven do not have sufficient rationality to count as human beings, and for that reason parents could commit infanticide. Glenn Beck Exposes Three Scary ObamaCare "Czars"


This is the ‘scholar’ that the nut Abramson uses to attack actually using the Constitution to judge laws.

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. If you honor the Constitution, and consider it the law of the land.....

....then it would be a case of cognitive dissonance to vote for any Democrat/Liberal.

They are suffering from Kavanaugh conniptions, which forces them to disavow the Constitution.


HamasNBC host Katy Tur:
"Based on where Americans stand on the issues, and Americans have really moved in a much more progressive direction over the years, do you think it's appropriate to continue to take such a strict, originalist view of the Constitution, given it's 2018 and not 1776?"


'Strict interpretation' and 'originalist' mean actually being guided by the words ratified by our Founders.



The brilliant Ben Shapiro incinerates Tur, and every Liberals opponent of Kavanaugh:

"Oh, the levels of stupid,” Shapiro reacted.
“1776, the Constitution was not yet written, Number One.

Number Two: If you believe that America has evolved beyond the Constitution, it has an amendment process. Also, we have legislatures that you can elect.

And finally, the idea that any of this justifies the Supreme Court moving away from the text of a law simply so that they can interpret the Constitution as poetry is more evidence that the left wants the Supreme Court to simply be a super legislature as opposed to, you know, an actual judiciary that is using judgment instead of will, as per Alexander Hamilton in Federalist ’78.”
'Oh, The Levels Of Stupid': Ben Shapiro Torches MSNBC Host Over Remarks About Conservative Legal Views

 

[hjmick]

If I had a dollar for every time someone from either of the two parties of destruction proclaimed the pending death of the other, I'd be out trotting the globe rather than reading this tripe (sorry PC). Neither party is going anywhere any time soon...

We the voters have created the monsters we see today, and you know what they say... you get the government you deserve.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If I had a dollar for every time someone from either of the two parties of destruction proclaimed the pending death of the other, I'd be out trotting the globe rather than reading this tripe (sorry PC). Neither party is going anywhere any time soon...

We the voters have created the monsters we see today, and you know what they say... you get the government you deserve.

True, 'death throes' might be somewhat hyperbolic....but here is the reason for it:


The essential question being posed is about the Constitution.

Do you have an opinion on textualism, or, the Democrat view, that the judges can rule as fits their personal beliefs.



Rehnquist wrote this:
[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal

judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,

quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s

problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority

of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied

to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a

judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a

quite different light.

Judges then are no longer the keepers of

the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately

situated people with a roving commission to second-guess

Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative

officers concerning what is best for the country. Surely

there is no justification for a third legislative branch in the federal

government, and there is even less justification for a federal

legislative branch’s reviewing on a policy basis the laws

enacted by the legislatures of the fifty states."
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf


I'd be interested in your view on same.

 

[Sunni Man]

…watching the Left’s death throes, burbling out the lies with their last breath.

Such a wonderful sight.....