Posted on 10/09/2018 1:36:33 PM PDT by EyesOfTX
The Evening Campaign Update (Because The Campaign Never Ends)
Before we get to the Twitter hijinks, here is today’s Public Service Announcement.: David Bernstein posted the following at Instapundit today. Next time some leftist nitwit tells you we now have a “far-right Court”, whip this out and prove him wrong:
WE DON’T HAVE A “RADICAL RIGHT-WING SUPREME COURT,” despite lots of mewing on the left to the contrary. Here are some things that would be at the top of the list for a radical right-wing Court: Here are the sorts of things that would be at the top of the agenda for a radical right-wing Court: (1) ban abortion nationwide as a violation of the right to life protected by the due process clause; (2) rule that publicly-provided (but not funded) education is unconstitutional because it inherently involves viewpoint discrimination by the government, or at least require vouchers for those who object to the public school curriculum; (3) overrule an 1898 precedent and completely abolish birthright citizenship; (4) Use the First Amendment as a sword to require “fairness” in the left-dominated media. Not only is the Supreme Court not about to do any of things, I don’t think any of these things would even get one vote on the current Court. Moreover, merely bringing the scope of Congress’s constitutional back to where it was, say, in 1935, which was already much broader than the original meaning of the Commerce power, probably wouldn’t get more than one or two votes. What you are looking at right now is a conservative Court that will only affect society on the margins, not a “radical right-wing” Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at dbdailyupdate.com ...
you got that right. we true conservatives still have near zero real representation among the ruling elites in d.c. in many states too.
Get rid of homosexual marriage. That ruling alone is an insane reading of the constitution.
One of the most obscene aspects of our society is that the prospect of ending the murder of infants is deemed so reprehensible it is used as a scare tactic.
Please.The freedom . . . of the press is the right of the people to spend money on ink, paper and printing presses - or any more modern technology - to promote their own ideas and opinions.
The Constitution says nothing about “the right of the people to raise horses” - but who doubts that such a right exists?
Still, who doubts that it is illegal to monopolize the breeding of horses? (not that I have any idea how that might be done, but bear with me).
- Amendment 9
- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
In the same way, it is illegal to monopolize the press. Antonin Scalia pointed out that the first amendment doesn’t simply say, “freedom of the press,” it says "the freedom of the press.” Scalia explained that “freedom of the press” preexisted the First Amendment, but that freedom was not absolute. There were laws against libel. Consequently, “the” freedom of the press is freedom within accepted limits.
It is not necessary for conservatives to invade the First Amendment in order to limit the destructive tendencies of the press, we can start by attacking abuses. NY Times v. Sullivan encodes an abuse in that it makes it very difficult for a conservative to sue for libel. Theoretically, it also makes it difficult for “liberals” to sue for libel - as if they ever needed to.
It is easy to show that wire services in general, and the AP in particular, homogenize journalism. Adam Smith pointed out,
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (1776)And the AP “wire” is a virtual meeting of all major US journalism - which has been in continuous operation since before the Civil War. Consequently you have to be “naive as a babe to believe” that no “conspiracy against the public” has become embedded in our journalism. We see it all the time; we call it “the MSM.”Cynicism is inherent in the claim of AP journalist to be objective by people who know that journalism is negative. And cynicism is a bias against conservatism.
A conservative SCOTUS should overturn NY Times v. Sullivan as inherently anti conservative - and it should hold the Associated Press and its membership guilty of violation of the Sherman AntiTrust Act. The wire services are an artifact of a time when telegraphy bandwidth was prohibitively expensive; it is now dirt cheap. The wire services are therefore not now “too big to fail."
Neither conservatives nor Non-Catholic Christians get much representation among the ruling class.
Something like 70% of the Founding Fathers were supposed to be Protestant Christians.
Especially since there is no such thing as homosexuality.
Sexuality is inherently about reproduction: Two of the same sex cannot naturally reproduce.
It is homoeroticism: the narcissistic fetishization of another person of the same sex.
Preserving the life of the most helpless is portrayed as violent hate.
yup. people of like minds with us founded this nation. President Trump is the closest we’ve got to a founding conservative since Reagan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.