XPost: alt.stupidity, alt.tv.hbo, rec.arts.tv
From: nobody@nowhere.com
On 10/2/2024 3:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> 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"
>>>>>>>>> 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.
Well, how much lethal firepower should an ordinary citizen have
access to?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
