XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.stupidity, alt.tv.hbo   
   From: nobody@nowhere.com   
      
   On 10/2/2024 5:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:   
   > moviePig  wrote:   
   >> 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?   
   >   
   > However much they choose to.   
      
   Careful now, your truth is showing...   
      
      
   > Freedom to choose supersedes the government's   
   > freedom to meddle, remember?   
      
   Hmm.  I remember "importance", but not "government superseding"...   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)