 |
“That’s [the Senate's] job. There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the President stops being President in his [fourth] year.”--Justice Ginsburg's final public wish concerning the subject |
"Here’s the truth that no one wants to speak, which that was that RBG was an undistinguished jurist whose decisions simply justified whatever pre-existing liberal outcome she wanted. She wasn’t a genius or an innovator. She was a obedient puppet for the liberal agenda."--Kurt Schlichter
"Democrats will take to every media outlet to claim it will be politically dangerous for GOP senators to move a nominee. The exact opposite is true. In 2018, 4 D senators lost their seats for opposing Kavanaugh: Heitkamp; Donnelly; McCaskill; Nelson."--Kimberly Strassel
So we can remember what actual jurisprudence even looks like, here's Justice Scalia:
* ”Our manner of interpreting the Constitution is to begin with the text, and to give that text the meaning that it bore when it was adopted by the people … This is such a minority position in modern academia and in modern legal circles that on occasion I’m asked when I’ve given a talk like this a question from the back of the room–‘Justice Scalia, when did you first become an originalist?’–as though it is some kind of weird affliction that seizes some people– ‘When did you first start eating human flesh?'”
* “Never compromise your principles, unless of course your principles are Adolf Hitler’s, in which case you would be well advised to compromise them as much as you can.”
* Justice Scalia with Justice Thomas: “Insofar as a claimed legal right to release into this country is concerned, an alien under final order of removal stands on an equal footing with an inadmissible alien at the threshold of entry: He has no such right. We are offered no justification why an alien under a valid and final order of removal– which has totally extinguished whatever right to presence in this country he possessed –has any greater due process right to be released into the country than an alien at the border seeking entry."
* ”In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country. and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”
* “From watching too many episodes of ‘The Sopranos,’ your staff seems to have acquired the belief that any Sicilian gesture is obscene.”
* “If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State.”
* “Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved. …We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.”
* “I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy. It is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create ‘liberties’ that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.
This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ ‘reasoned judgment.’ A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy. But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law. Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its ‘reasoned judgment,’ thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect. [T]o allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.
What really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch.” …….
Justice Scalia would often tell the story of the activist judge who wakes up in the morning and tell his wife: “Honey, it’s amazing; the Constitution agrees with me!” That is, everything the Left wants is already magically in the Constitution! That’s not law, but anti-law. And few judges can resist it. Even Neil Gorsuch just succumbed to the temptation, legislating transgenderism into the 1964 Civil Rights Act, even though the political branches were perfectly able to do so if they wished.
There are two Constitutionalists on the Court, Justice Thomas and Justice Alito. Kavanaugh is a maybe. Gorsuch is a weak sister. Roberts has already assumed the Ginsburg seat. The others are petty tyrants, and it is a kind of tyranny.
Not every tyrant has dark, swarthy facial hair like Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Castro and Ginsburg.
All this hysteria is an admission that Democrats cannot get their unpopular agenda passed by normal democratic means, so they use corrupt judges to force their will on you. Even better, it doesn't have their fingerprints on it! Otherwise, this nomination would not assume the status of a silver stake in broad daylight to a Party of Vampires.
"If you do this, everything is on the table," they snarl.
The threats aren't really threats at all. They plan to eliminate the filibuster, pack the Court, dissolve the Electoral College, create new Democrat states and senators and control every election in America from the Swamp EVEN IF PRESIDENT TRUMP NOMINATES HILLARY CLINTON TO THE COURT.
So they're not really threats at all. They're simply telling us what they will do if they are ever given power again. They will never relinquish it again.
They are already bailing out arsonists, rioters and murderers to attack citizens. Defunding and kneecapping police departments. They're using COVID to seize dictatorial powers and hurt the economy. They're teaming with Big Tech to end Free Speech--except for themselves. Hell, they're burning down their own cities. Who does that? Nero? They impeached Donald Trump because Joe Biden took bribes. They have already committed nuclear treason with Iran. And used a CIA/FBI/DOJ Police State to wiretap, frame and then attempt the overthrow of President Trump. And each new vile accusation only tells us what they themselves are doing.
"Everything is on the table"?
Yeah--we've noticed. It has been for some time. Lunatics.
 |
| "We were put in this position of power and importance to make decisions for the people who so proudly elected us, the most important of which has long been considered to be the selection of United States Supreme Court Justices. We have this obligation, without delay!" via CTH: “It will be a woman. A very talented, very brilliant woman. I think it should be a woman. I actually like women much more than I like men. That’s called the consequences of losing an election. Article II of the Constitution says the president shall nominate justices of the Supreme Court. I don’t think it can be any more clear, can it? It says the president, we’re supposed to fill the seat. That’s what we’re going to do. This isn’t a rally. From now on it’s called a protest, a Protest against Stupidity.”  If the nominee is Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a former Scalia clerk, the hearings will showcase the Democrats' disgusting anti-Catholic bigotry, which they freely displayed at previous hearings.  Good. Americans need to see the Party of the Klan--and Klantifa--in all their revolting night-riding glory. UPDATE: Attorney Robert Barnes claims that Barrett is a Big Government Statist who voted for COVID Lockdowns and is basically John Roberts in a skirt. That's a pretty bold claim, since John Roberts is already John Roberts in a skirt. In any event, we certainly cannot afford any more mediocrities on the Court. Barnes recommends Barbara Lagoa (or perhaps Allison Jones Rushing).  We'll see what happens. Amy Coney Barrett At Hillsdale  Dirge-y Deeds Done Dirt Cheap-UPDATE: Her other desperate Final Wish(tm):  "Whatever happens, do NOT allow Joe to be alone with my coffin!" |
No comments:
Post a Comment