XPost: alt.stupidity, alt.tv.hbo, rec.arts.tv
From: atropos@mac.com
On Oct 2, 2024 at 12:36:30 PM PDT, "moviePig" wrote:
> 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" <
eberm@polaris.net>
>>>>>>>> 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".
And that somehow magically makes health care/abortion an Article I, Section 8
power of the federal government exactly how?
And in any event, I'm glad you're on board with my freedom to choose which
AR-15 style rifle I want to defend my home the next time Democrats allow their
base to rampage through the city.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
