Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  allosaur 1 year ago
    Today me dino encountered a quite a revelation.
    Throughout my 71 years on this planet of the apes, me dino has been programmed to view the Supreme Court as an oligarchy of nine who makes rulings on what is the law of the land without those exact words being entered into any of my thoughts, of course.
    Up until now, I've equated "Supreme Court opinions" with "Supreme Court rulings."
    Thanks, AjAhinoff, for using that article to open this old dino's eyes.
    This is another example of learning neat stuff why me dino loves to hang out in The Gulch.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 1 year ago
    Great article! Thanks for sharing!

    The author nails it: Judges under the Constitution are not permitted to "legislate from the bench". If Congress wants to pass a statute legalizing Supreme Court opinions, that is the proper way to create laws - not simply to refer to a Court opinion as justification for action.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CaptainKirk 1 year ago
    Part of me wants to see Trump propose (Garland) Obamas pick for Ginsberg. AND THEN HAVE THE RIGHT do EVERYTHING That the LEFT just did. In an absolute disgusting display of unhinged politics. Of course, voting him down.
    Then have someone contrast the news coverage! LOL
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 1 year ago
    Kudos to KrisAnn Hall for getting to the most important issue.

    No one has vetted Kavanaugh on this issue except Judge Napolitano, and he concluded that Kavanaugh is not a good choice based upon lack of respect for the Bill of Rights in his decisions.
    I hope he is rejected by the con-gress and that Trump has his real, constitutional choice waiting in the wings.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 1 year ago
      I wouldnt go by things that Napolitano says. He is mostly liberal in his thinking. Shouldnt be on FOX at all
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 1 year ago
        In many cases he defends the original constitution which is classic liberal. The term "Liberal" was stolen by the Democrats and only in the US does it mean socialists.
        If Napolitano is classic "Liberal", and I think that is true, then he is a supporter of the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution in its original meaning which allows only very limited government.
        As for Fox, they are the real supporters of unlimited GOP power, not limited government. So you're right, Napolitano doesn't really belong on Fox but at least sometimes Fox pretends to care about limited government.
        Napolitano cites the decisions that Kav has made that support big gov power oevr individual rights, so it's not just what Napolitano says, it's Kavanaugh's actions that matter.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 1 year ago
          In the short to intermediate term I am thinking a Supreme Court appointee who supports our constitution is a good thing and seeing how the democrats hate Kavanaugh makes me like him. In the longer term it won’t make a lot of difference if the mob rule votes socialist. Trump only can get 2 ‘Maybe 3 conservative justices out of. 9 appointed.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mshupe 1 year ago
    Yes, but this type of long-form blog won't play on social media. Heck, fewer than 10% of Congress gives a crap about the 10th Amendment and absolutely none of the deep state.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 year ago
      Sadly, you are correct. If its not compressed into a 6 second sound-byte far too many will never pay attention long enough to get it. Even so, the info is out there for those few who choose to look.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 5 months, 1 week ago
    The essay is very enlightening but offers renders no commentary on how the citizen of this republic be able to convince our elected Congressmen & women the Constitution matters not their political agendas. I have written a number of emails to my Congressional Rep and he political speak in the one response that was actually snail mailed to me. I'm not giving up despite that rep is a Dim.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by MinorLiberator 1 year ago
    Thank you for posting, sir.

    What a pleasure to read. Not just for the content, which I agree with, but for the clarity and succinctness of the writing. Very rare, indeed.

    Some days when the world seems totally crazy (the days that end in "Y"?)...I retreat to sanity by reading a little Rand or Mises for this kind of clear writing.

    And perhaps some subtle, or not, humor: it took me awhile to notice the clearly intentional spelling of "supreme Court". Perfect.

    And, as Mr. Dino said: I learned a whole lot, and had a lot of my own preconceptions about "The Supremes" clarified and corrected.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mia767ca 1 year ago
    better yet to nominate a Justice who is an Objectivist philosopher...Kavanaugh has not demonstrated an understanding of the philosophy behind the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution...neither have any of the other Justices...such a philosophical Justice would be one way to complete the revolution of freedom, liberty, and justice for the future history of individualism...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 1 year ago
      There isnt philosophy behind the Constitution. Its based on some sort of "god", and its not intellectually consistent. You would never get an objectivist judge to agree to be on the supreme court to uphold the constitution, as it isnt something that an objectivist philosopher would agree is an objectivist based document.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 year ago
    I find this really sad. It reminds me of being in a place where graft is so common that people don't see anything wrong with it. In this case it's not graft but politics. I think people want justice to be blind, but most people have given up on that.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 1 year ago
      We were damn close to having the queen of all crooks, Hillary Clinton, offer access to the office of the president in exchange for donations to the "clinton foundation". She should be in jail, but that will never happen because she is protected by the other crooked people.

      The FBI should just be closed down instead of ICE. FBI is just too crooked to be saved. DOJ isnt far behind it at all.

      And the special "destroyer" should be fired and jailed for wasting our money on protecting Hillary and destroying Trump
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 year ago
        This is nonsense. Not long ago I remember extreme Democrats being hyper-critical of law enforcement (in relation to Cointelpro and Iran Contra). I'm confident the pendulum will swing back within 35 years, which I hope is my lifetime. I consider all of this utter nonsense. We could just as well be talking about Kenneth Star in '98 when I was working as an engineer and PT at a grocery store on the weekends to pay back loans. All of this is utter nonsense: James Carville commenting on investigating Clinton and what you're saying.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 1 year ago
          We were damn close to Hillary winning. Her arrogance lost the election electorally, but she did get the popular vote majority.

          As to whether she can be jailed, I really don’t know if she broke laws that can be proven and that aren’t past the statute of limitations. At this point I am not sure it’s worth it to pursue. She will never hold high office again

          I remember the whole Monica Lewinsky thing. The only thing I thought about it was that bill clinton actually thought she would keep a secret. Any CEO would know some lowly intern is going to brag to her friends almost immediately- which is what she did
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 year ago
            I don't get President Bill Clinton's motivations with his affairs. Other politicians do the same thing. I don't get why they do it, as you say, knowing they'll probably talk.

            It's awful that we rarely talk about policy differences and instead just talk about jailing political enemies. I don't get I this because it's nothing to me if a particular politician is jailed for some technicality. I want the system to enforce the laws, but I get nothing out of any individual being convicted. I want people left alone to pursue happiness.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 1 year ago
              I agree that conviction fixes nothing. To fix the system the constitution needs to forbid any law that takes from one and gives to another. This would require carefully changing the constitution, but if this could be done there would be no need for lobbyists, or politicians to get goodies for constituents in exchange for campaign donations
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by CircuitGuy 12 months ago
                "the constitution needs to forbid any law that takes from one and gives to another."
                I said something like that to ewv. He says the Constitution does prevent takings, but we don't follow it. He says no piece of paper on earth can reach out and make people follow it if they don't agree with its philosophy. He may be right, but I agree we should try to have a system of checks and balances that tries to make people do the right thing.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by term2 12 months ago
                  It might be a little late for this. Too many existing laws take from one person or group and give the benefits to another person or group

                  Way too many laws. Taxation is the biggest one. I don’t have kids but I have to pay property taxes which are used primarily to educate other people’s kids
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by CircuitGuy 12 months ago
                    " I don’t have kids but I have to pay property taxes which are used primarily to educate other people’s kids"
                    I can see both sides of taxes to provide education. Most people agree with taxes for police and jails, and if education can provide some of that same benefit it makes sense to fund it the same way. OTOH that's a slippery slope that can lead to gov't taking responsibility for all needs of families with children which can further slide into gov't being involved even in middle-class expenses, e.g. public school and PPACA. As you say, it leads to way too many laws, which leads to disrespect for the law. So I'm conflicted in that I want gov't to help the poor in a limited way but fear it always grows out of hand.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by term2 12 months ago
                      I think that doing things because you “feel sorry for people” is not a good thing because it encourages the recipients to craft their lives so others continue to feel sorry for them. Helping others to overcome their plights should entail something positive for the giver that the recipient gives back

                      In the case of public schools that require young people to subject themselves to 12 years if being “taught” isn’t effective because they aren’t motivated to “learn”.

                      I would say public school for me was pretty much a waste of time. I learned far more outside of enforced schools than I did in those 12 years of government indoctrination

                      In the cause of wealth transfer to other peoples children, it also results in too many children because the true cost of raising them is artificially hidden to the parents of those children. Same is true of welfare given to parents who can’t afford to bring children into the world, and leads to unsustainable population growth
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo