XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.stupidity, alt.tv.hbo
From: nobody@nowhere.com
On 10/4/2024 3:26 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article , moviePig
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> What about my Article I, Section 8 analysis above equates to a 'screech'?
>
> I just want to get a baseline established so we can then compare it to
> your own posts and see how they stack up.
First, let me check to see if we're now answering questions:
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)
|
