Skip to comments.Liberals Understand The Constitution Like Justin Bieber Understands Particle Physics
Posted on 04/28/2014 4:28:13 AM PDT by Kaslin
Based upon Justice Sotomayors bizarre dissenting opinion in the recent Michigan affirmative action case, it seems she believes that government decisions made on the basis of race, something the Constitution expressly bars, are mandatory.
Someone has been emanating her penumbras because, to use the legal term of art, thats Constitutional Crazy Talk.
Years ago, the liberals came up with the Political Process Doctrine. Its the idea that if some small element of a state or local government like a city council or a university board is implementing policies liberals like, the people cant use the ballot box to change things back.
It ought to be called the Ratchet Doctrine. You are free to make things more liberal to your bleeding hearts content. You just cant ever undo them. Its right there in the Constitution. Somewhere. Maybe in the paragraph before the one that says you can have an abortion up until your fetus can drive.
Liberals like to call the Constitution a living document. Oh, how many activists in robes cite that mind-bogglingly misguided metaphor as they turn a foundational document into a kind of political Mad Lib where they scribble nonsense into blanks that dont exist?
In fact, the Constitution is dead, dead as a doorknob. It has to be. Otherwise, its not a constitution.
The Constitution is designed not to change with the times, not to yield the ancient wisdom that flows through it to the faux-wisdom of the present. It is the foundation of our system, not something to be causally disregarded every time some politician who thinks hes smarter than James Madison gets a bright idea.
It ensures a stable society where firm political principles keep political actors in check. This, in turn, creates legitimacy. We Americans take legitimacy for granted. Want to know what happens when you forsake legitimacy in favor of petty expedience? You end up like most of the rest of the world. Go ask a vet about how that works out many of us have spent years in foreign lands full of mass graves cleaning up the bloody detritus of illegitimacy.
That a Supreme Court justice has such a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitutions purpose is alarming. She repeats the phrase race matters throughout her 58-page dissent, as if hackneyed clichés worthy of some third-tier MSNBC panelist constitute legal reasoning.
No, race doesnt matter. Thats the point of our Constitution.
Sotomayor just didnt like that the Constitution allows people to vote to undo liberal failures, so she simply invented a prohibition on doing so. Under her constitution, you are allowed to vote for any policy she and her liberal pals approve of. You can just never vote against one because well, pretty much just because she says so.
To be charitable, its not a particularly coherent legal opinion. One cant be sure Sotomayor was drinking when she wrote it, but one hopes she was because at least then shed have an excuse.
Where liberals dont totally ignore what the Constitution says, they add asterisks, each one qualifying and circumscribing a fundamental right. The right to freely exercise your religion? The right to speak freely? Those are totally, absolutely, completely inalienable!*
*That is, unless we liberals decide you shouldnt exercise your religion or express yourself in the way you want.
Youll hear a lot from liberal jurists and their quarter-wit cheerleaders in the pundit and social media worlds about how we have to interpret rights reasonably.
No, no, no, no, no.
That is utterly and completely wrong. The whole point of listing a right within our Constitutions Bill of Rights is that its beyond discussion, meaning some bureaucrat cannot infringe upon it because his pea-brain has decided that it makes sense to do so. Whats a reasonable exercise of religion or reasonable speech? Constitutionally, the question makes no sense. Liberals hate that they cant reason our rights down to a tiny nub thats too small to interfere with their dreams of power and control.
Rights arent a favor the government extends to us in its wise benevolence. Our rights existed in us from the moment of our creation, and they are inalienable. The Bill of Rights is not there to list for us what rights we have been granted. Its to provide the government with a partial list of our fundamental rights and to warn it to keep its grubby mitts off them.
The only thing worse than seeing things within the Constitution which arent there is refusing to see things that manifestly are. Only liberals can look at an amendment reading the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and see blank parchment.
That windy hack John Paul Stevens is back, making the rounds proposing an awesome solution for the problem with the Second Amendment. The problem to liberals, of course, is that it ensures that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Stevens solution is to amend the Second Amendment to nullify it, and at least his current campaign seeks to change the Constitution the right way by amendment. Of course, hes only doing that because his reflexive liberal attempt to impose a reasonability test on this fundamental right, and thus transform it from a right into a privilege, failed.
The mainstream media loves the idea of a former Supreme Court justice railing against flyover state rubes presuming to exercise rights without the permission of their liberal urban betters. But having this elderly jurist on television, even while being tossed the softest of softballs, is doing him no favor. Its painfully clear that Justice Stevens is utterly ignorant of the last two decades of detailed and careful legal scholarship on the Second Amendments origins and history. Its frankly embarrassing to see him on a public platform when he clearly has no idea what hes talking about.
While we can forgive Stevens, we should not be so charitable about those still on the bench who either do not understand, or do not care about, our Constitution. Our Constitution, and the legitimacy it fosters, have created a uniquely just and stable society. Lets not throw that away just to check off a few items from the progressive bucket list.
Judges, even on the Supreme Court, can be impeached.
The hated EXEMPT Congress and the EXEMPT SCOTUS
are ONLY EXEMPT because of their violations of
the Constitution and Law.
America with all Equal under the Law is DEAD.
While this column is accurate, it misses the fact that Scotus has amended the constitution dozens of times, such that the written constitution is not the supreme law. No, the supreme law is embodied in our Frankenstein Constitution.
In short, she and her leftist allies have no pertinent point to make. What they want is simply to get more people who look and act like them into positions they are not qualified for. Like Sotomayor.
Kurt is all wrong. The UNDERSTAND the Constitution and have been using the "nuances" in it to destroy it for decades.
Okay, maybe he didn't write the headline. But. Any assertion that those devils don't understand what they are doing is naive at best.
Pretty unfair to Beiber. I don’t recall he ever made any claim to understand physics.
Liberals(socialists/communists)understand our Constitution is a big impediment to their agenda.
For success, they have to eliminate or erode at least 3 things.
-The constitution- the family- and personal property rights.
And you can see this attempted erosion on a daily basis now, in all 3 areas.-tom
Read the title again and then think about it. He is exactly right. That does not mean the rats don’t know what they are doing.
Why would you need to “understand” something you believe is blocking progress?
The payoff line:
“Liberals hate that they cant reason our rights down to a tiny nub thats too small to interfere with their dreams of power and control.”
Cha-Ching! We have a winner!
Nor did he ever use physics, when convenient, to justify imposing legal policy on other citizens.
Liberals, being evolutionary humanists, assume that the “elite” of today far surpass in morality and intellect, anyone that has existed before,
and therefore shouldn’t be restrained by the writings and laws written in the past.
Reminds me of the monkey whacking Simba on the head with a stick. Simba asks what that was for, and the baboon responds with “it doesn’t matter, it was in the past!”
South Carolina Ping
Send FReepmail to join or leave this list.
Keep up with what our Congresscritters (House and Senate) are doing. Sign up for the free MegaVote email service here.
Wow - Sonya sure looks like lumpy potatoes in that picture!
Just look at two recent events of "racism" involving Clive Bundy and the owner of the Clippers. I am not getting into whether or not these men made "racist" statements or hold "racist" views. I don't really care if they do or not.
Let's assume they do hold these views, and they express them. So what? Have the thoughtcrime statutes been passed? Is free speech illegal? And, what should the punishment be for such a crime? Loss of all rights and property, of course.
Truly, the United States has descended into a perfect hell of political correctness run amok. Say the wrong thing and lose everything.
The question is, why haven't Louis Farakhan, Jesse Jackson, Snoop? Dog?, Obama, Holder, Al Sharpton and on and on lost everything?
Leftists DO understand the Constitution...and why they utterly hate and despise that sacred document.
Why do they reject the Constitution? It does not allow them to transform America to their communist “utopia”.
She sure does
That is true. Thinking about the way the Constitution is stored and venerated at the DC National Archives building, it makes me think that one day the people of this country will protect and defend the words of the Constitution they way it is protected and defended in the bullet and bomb-proof enclosure filled with nitrogen.
Just a thought but wouldn't that be nice?
Here is a sample of constitutional amendments from nine Scotus blackrobes:
Helvering v. Davis. Congress can collect and distribute taxes to promote the general welfare. It opened the floodgates to income redistribution.
Wickard v. Filburn. Blew the commerce clause to pieces. Congress can regulated just about anything.
Whitman v. American Trucking Associations. Administrative agencies can pass regulations with the force of law.
Baker v. Carr. One man one vote democratized state legislatures in a fashion similar to the 17th Amendment.
There are probably dozens of other Scotus rulings that have effectively rewritten the constitution.
Yes I did, but the link in post#4 leads to your opinion to which you have a right of course
I’ve been meaning to praise you and your efforts for some time, now. I apologize for not doing so sooner. You’re doing great work and it is really critical work.
Hayek said this to Antony Fisher when Fisher told Hayek of his intent to run for politics and set Britain right:
Fisher: I share all your worries and concerns as expressed in The Road to Serfdom and Im going to go into politics and put it all right.
Hayek: No youre not! Societys course will be changed only by a change in ideas. First you must reach the intellectuals, the teachers and writers, with reasoned argument. It will be their influence on society which will prevail, and the politicians will follow.
That’s a major part of what FR and people like you do. Talk radio is another outlet and now so are the various conservative blogs, twitter accts, Twitchy, etc. The Left understood this earlier than we did and took over the media and the schools. We can undo that, but we need to capture and shame the intellectuals with intelligent, well-reasoned argument.
We’ve crushed them on the 2nd Amendment such that you’ll not find a majority of legal scholars against our view of an individual right. They’re using a defensive withdrawal by simply working to limit that individual right, but nobody pretends that it isn’t an individual right. That victory alone, reopens the debate on the Bill of Rights and who or what is limited by it.
Brilliant job. Keep up the good works. You are making a difference. Don’t let the whiners slow you down. It’s easy to fret at your screen and hard to do something. You’re doing something and thank you!
She is the face of liberalism. I cannot think of the last conservative woman of her generation I’ve seen that looks like that.
Does anyone know of a conservative woman with that much inflammation?
How goes your efforts against nitwittery in Illinois?
Small progress. The nuttery is strong in this one. You might not believe it, but there are days, many days, I wish I lived in Michigan.
What we are reaching in this country is a banning of prejudicial views. To me not all prejudices are bad.
For example if I go out in my driveway and there is a dog there and he looks friendly I would go and pat him.
Because of my prejudice against coyotes, if I saw a coyote in my driveway I would not try to befriend it.
Now some would say that is not a good analogy because people are different than animals.
But my life experiences and documentation show to me some groups of people and neighborhoods are more dangerous to me than others. -Tom
<>there are days, many days, I wish I lived in Michigan.<>