XPost: alt.stupidity, alt.tv.hbo, rec.arts.tv   
   From: nobody@nowhere.com   
      
   On 10/2/2024 2:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:   
   > On Oct 2, 2024 at 8:28:15 AM PDT, "moviePig"  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 10/1/2024 6:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:   
   >>>   On Oct 1, 2024 at 2:35:19 PM PDT, "moviePig"  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>   On 10/1/2024 5:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:   
   >>>>>     On Oct 1, 2024 at 1:40:36 PM PDT, "moviePig"    
   wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>     On 10/1/2024 3:28 PM, BTR1701 wrote:   
   >>>>>>>       On Oct 1, 2024 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous"    
   >>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>       Leftist author Fran Lebowitz said late last week that President   
   >>>>>>>> Joe Biden   
   >>>>>>>>       should dissolve the U.S. Supreme Court because she does not like   
   >>>>>>>> the fact   
   >>>>>>>>       that the majority of justices are constitutional originalists.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>       I must have missed that day in Constitutional Law class where   
   they   
   >>>>>>>   taught us   
   >>>>>>>       where to find the Constitution's grant of power to the president   
   that   
   >>>>>>>   allows   
   >>>>>>>       him to just wake up one day and wave his hand like a Hogwarts   
   wizard and   
   >>>>>>>     fire   
   >>>>>>>       the Supreme Court.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>       I've just now reviewed Article II and I still don't see anything   
   >>>>>>>   resembling   
   >>>>>>>       "The president shall have the power to dissolve the Supreme Court   
   >>>>>>> whenever   
   >>>>>>>     it   
   >>>>>>>       pisses him off." Maybe it's written in that invisible ink that   
   the   
   >>>>>>>   NATIONAL   
   >>>>>>>       TREASURE movies teach us the Founders were so fond of.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>       Seriously, though, I'd understand if some green-haired,   
   nose-ringed   
   >>>>>>>   teenager   
   >>>>>>>       said this, because they're just a product of our public schools,   
   >>>>>>> but this   
   >>>>>>>       Lebowitz idiot is supposed to be a serious scholar, and *this* is   
   >>>>>>> how she   
   >>>>>>>       thinks our government runs?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>     "Serious scholar"?  She's a cranky, 73-year old humorist who's as   
   pissed   
   >>>>>>     about the Supreme Court as the rest of us should be.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>     Why should I be pissed about the Court?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>     Because Thomas takes gifts? So do all the other justices, including   
   the   
   >>>>>     leftist ones. I'd be in favor of banning that, but that doesn't   
   answer   
   >>>>> why I   
   >>>>>     should be pissed about *this* Court versus previous ones.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   You should be pissed about Thomas because he's a boob.   
   >>>   
   >>>   Sotomayor is a boob, too.   
   >>>   
   >>>   Next?   
   >>>   
   >>>>   You should be pissed about the Court because it's happy to sell out   
   personal   
   >>>>   freedom.   
   >>>   
   >>>   As in?   
   >>>   
   >>>   (Under this Court, I've regained freedoms that were taken from my by   
   >>>   Democrats.)   
   >>   
   >> Congrats on your restored personal freedoms. I admit I'm more concerned   
   >> here with *others'* freedoms, e.g., your girlfriend's, my daughter's...   
   >   
   > My girlfriend supports the Court's repeal of Roe. Not for the same reason I   
   > do-- i.e., that the Constitution does not grant the federal government power   
   > over health care, so it's properly a matter of state and local jurisdiction   
   > per the 10th Amendment-- but she supports it for her own reasons.   
   >   
   > Nevertheless, I don't see why one person's freedom would be more important   
   > than someone else's.   
      
   Because "freedom to choose" is more important than "freedom to meddle".   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)