13

Elena Kagan’s dissent trashes Supreme Court as “black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices”

Posted by $ nickursis 5 years, 10 months ago to Government
90 comments | Share | Flag

I am not sure I can ever understand a Liberal mini mind, she wants to make people pay for something they don't want or need or disagree with (yea, I know, it is the normal Liberal method) and she defends it as a 1st Amendment issue? I can't see that at all, freedom of speech would seem to include the ability to NOT pay for something you don't want, especially when it is a power hungry union who will take your money and give it to the very people they don't want to give it to. Now, banning all political contributions from ALL unions, might make this workable, but her premise is so far out there, it illustrates why you cannot have these people on SCOTUS, as they just rubber stamp any Liberal policy as good, and any restriction on government as bad. Good grief...

All Comments

  • Posted by $ nickursis 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, that is true, that is why we need judges like Gorsuch who look at the Constitution to give them primary guidance and then look at any following decisions with a jaundice eye.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I find such a rule meaningless. The court's opinions are full of convoluted so-called reasoning to justify whatever they want to do as "following the Constitution", and more than half the time its self-serving nature is blatant, since no one is in a position to call them on it. It's like the idea of objective journalism -- there's no such animal.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Unfortunately Marxists professors are preaching that there must be violence since Marx preached that there MUST be revolution. It’s just Marx science, which his followers firmly believe in. Which, is about as valid as spongecake science.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I hope you are wrong about the violence. But history is on your side.Still, lets hope that an air of rationality will prevail.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Social dictators! We haven’t had a free market system since I’ve been alive.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ nickursis 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Exactly so. It is clear, yet the manipulated millions will all scream she the the SCOTUS SJW who is fighting the evil right. She is a poster girl for the Cabal and it's mission to destroy the Constitution as free people cannot be ruled by the few.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ nickursis 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Really? The last 60 years, with the exception of Reagan and Trump, have been nothing but a group of people behind the scenes, imposing their will and plan to make a single world government, on us.Now, whether we really have free markets may be the question.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ nickursis 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I would say both apply equally making it a bigger grievance. Just like SS and other "taxes" the forced removal of your earnings is a crime and is theft. Unless you decide to give it up, it is always theft. The fact your money is stolen and then given to a political party you donot support is an added bonus insult. SCOTUS is completely correct, but the old SCOTUS didin't care as long as the Cabal got what it demanded from them. Corruption, pure and simple.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ nickursis 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Which is what Q said a couple daya ago as well as the prediction they will become more widespread and violent. Portland then happens...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ nickursis 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    True, right now the party in power can sabotage the constitution at a whim, this should be a topic on the Convention of States agenda.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That doesn't express the severity of the problem. The first amendment argument does.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The millennial who voted for her. Should go to Venezuela for s year and see how it worked out for them
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by KevinSchwinkendorf 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If being under "bad behavior" describes being illogical, then that could be grounds. A Supreme Court justice only serves for life, while under "good behavior" - and good behavior would be as determined by Congress, as Congress has the Power to impeach and remove from office.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by IndianaGary 5 years, 10 months ago
    From Kagan's dissent: "And at every stop are black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices. The First Amendment was meant for better things. It was meant not to undermine but to protect democratic governance—including over the role of public-sector unions." The First Amendment was meant to curb government encroachment of citizen's rights, not to "protect democratic governance". It's clear she has no idea what a constitutional republic is and has no business on the High Court.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Completely disagree. In the union shop I once worked in, nobody was forced to join the union. We were simply forced to pay dues whether we joined or not, and to work under the contract they negotiated "on our behalf" whether we joined or not. That's all about freedom of speech and contract, and has nothing to do with association.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You're missing the point. The Constitution is the only place the number can be fixed so that Congress can't change it at whim. As it is now, they can. Both FDR's and Obama's threats to pack the court would have involved doing just that.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That is why if you're going to eliminate something, eliminate parties. Except for the kind that includes beer kegs.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo