XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.stupidity, alt.tv.hbo   
   From: nobody@nowhere.com   
      
   On 10/4/2024 2:08 PM, BTR1701 wrote:   
   > In article , moviePig    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 10/4/2024 5:16 AM, trotsky wrote:   
   >>> On 10/2/24 4:57 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. Freedom to choose supersedes the   
   >>>> government's freedom to meddle, remember?   
   >>>   
   >>> Not when it comes to lethal force and weapons of mass destruction.   
   >>   
   >> But the Founders, in their great wisdom, never mentioned WMDs...!   
   >   
   > They didn't mention abortion, either, so all we have to go on is the   
   > Constitution According to MoviePig, which teaches us that freedom to   
   > choose supersedes the government's freedom to meddle.   
      
   All we have to go on is common sense ...as opposed to reflexively   
   screeching about what's not explicit in the Constitution.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)