Posted on 06/15/2020 5:28:16 PM PDT by karpov
Trump called it a “powerful decision”. Not what I was expecting or wanting to hear.
Law schools at Ivy League and their allied prestige universities (Stanford, Duke, Vanderbilt) teach the “living Constitution”, not original intent. This allows courts to change or rewrite the Constitution, and laws passed by Congress, without going through the legislative process or the constitutional amendment process.
There are consequences when Republican presidents appoint Ivy League educated lawyers to the courts. How long has it been since a graduate of a state university law school been appointed to the highest court?
I feel that I am a handicapped black lesbian muslim.
“Since we aren’t up to the task of fixing this disaster ourselves, it looks like the Mexicans and Muslims will fix it for us after they take over the country.”
Sure looks that way.
We conservatives deserve every shellacking we’re getting. There is ansplutely no fight in us. We can barely be bothered to get off our asses and vote every 4 years, let alone take to the streets, raise hell and get into politician and bureaucrats faces. We know nothing about intimidation. That’s how the other side wins.
It’s Congress’s job to rewrite not the Court
Blah, blah, more blah.
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Patriots, we will have a golden opportunity to get rid of the activist, institutionally indoctrinated justices trampling the Constitution when we reelect PDJT by also electing a new patriot Congress that will not only promise to fully support his already excellent work for MAGA, but will also promise to impeach and remove Constitution-ignoring activist justices from the Supreme Court.
From a related thread…
First Amendment-related protections aside, regarding the otherwise mostly constitutionally indefensible (imo) Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CRA ’64) and its titles, please consider the following.
When the 19th century Supreme Court examined the 14th Amendment-related voting rights case of Minor v. Happersett, the Court did not suggest that Virgina Minor claim to be a man under the voting laws of her state in order to vote, but decided the case against her.
The Supreme Court thus established a precedent for recognizing only the biological male and female sexes under the Constitution imo, this precedent effectively becoming a part of the Constitution when the states ratified the 19th Amendment imo.
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation [emphasis added]."
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Also regarding CRA '64, consider that the 15th Amendment likewise limits any race protection laws that Congress makes to voting rights issues.
"15th Amendment:Section 1: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.Section 2: The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation [emphasis added].”
Constitutional lawmakers maybe should have included language in the 13th, 14th or 15th Amendments to deal with discrimination and segregation.
On the other hand, our generation is certainly an eyewitness to how badly all three branches of the post-17th Amendment ratification, unconstitutionally big federal government can twist the original intent of constitutional lawmakers regardless how carefully amendments are written.
F**k Gorsuch. The coward.
The tree of liberty is in need of watering.
Looks like Gorsuch further left than Kavanaugh.
Thomas is still the ONLY one I trust.
1 out of 9 = 11% which is sad, but...
it’s still higher than the percentage of Bishops that I trust...
which is REALLY sad...
Taxidermy.
Here’s the “conservatives” who sided with the liberals to say LGBTXYZ is not either man or woman, but what ever in the hell they say they are, irregardless of what’s between their legs and what common sense and DNA says.
1. John Roberts. His sister is a lesbian who was at his confirmation hearings. Interviewed she said she was so happy for her brother. She tells the interviewer that he had assured her if same-sex “marriage” ever came before the court he was certain it would pass.
2. Neil Gorsuch. During his senate conformation hearing homosexual who used to to clerk for him said he was a fine man who attended his “wedding” and also sent a personal congratulations letter to him wishing him all the happiness in his the world, “marriage”.
Both are social liberals and will prove it continually in the next 20 to 30 years.
Who ever vetted Roberts and Gorsuch needs a good thrashing.
2. Neil Gorsuch. During his senate conformation hearing homosexual who used to to clerk for him said he was a fine man who attended his “wedding” and also sent a personal congratulations letter to him wishing him all the happiness in his the world, “marriage”.
Both are social liberals and will prove it continually in the next 20 to 30 years <<
Sadly, I agree.
So where's all the loudmouth FReepers who continuously lectured us during the confirmation hearings "Gosh darn, you don't get it. His PERSONAL VIEWS and PRIVATE LIFE don't matter. They are irrelevant to the discussion. I don't want a 'conservative' judge. I want an PROVEN ORIGINALIST judge whose JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY is to hand down the decisions in line with the founders intent... blah blah blah..."
Sure haven't seen the folks who screamed ORIGINALIST ORIGINALIST ORIGINALIST at the top of their lungs around these threads, whenever their beloved "ORIGINALIST" judge turns traitor.
We've been screwed by that mindset since at least the 1960s and Nixon era (Nixon pledged he would appoint ONLY "strict constructionist" judges).
I've had it up to here with their "originalist" judges. They are to the federal courts what "fiscal conservatives" are to legislatures.
Bah!
They’re moderates. That’s all the Senate will confirm.
Still, the 4 feudalist Members are the problem.
Replacing them with liberals would be an improvement.
20Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter.
21Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes
and clever in their own sight.
I have not seen this photo before- is it real? Where and what is the statue? It looks like they are bowing to satan! (I presume that’s why you posted it).
DNA [sex] is not the same as “gender” identity.
Gorsuch thinks like a Colorado hipster.
She’s already dead.
What you see wandering around is a life model decoy.
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.