Support




Contact
Ace:
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
CBD:
cbd.aoshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
Powered by
Movable Type





Let's Play A Game: What Would America Look Like If The Supreme Court (and Others) Could Not Overturn Popular Will

Let us ignore for a moment that this turd fished out of the Charles River and tossed into Harvard Yard did not argue something completely different just two years ago.

Harvard Law Prof Who Wanted to Unleash a Liberal Supreme Court Now Wants to 'Abolish' the Court

There are two components of the case for getting rid of judicial review. One is that, as a matter of basic democratic principle, the people ought to be able to consider policies and then vote on them without having the courts step in and say "no." So from a democratic point of view, it's hard to justify allowing the courts to single-handedly overrule popular will whenever they choose.

The second component is that judicial review may actually impair the public's ability to engage in serious thinking about what the Constitution means, and what we want to do in light of what we think our Constitution says. In a way, the Supreme Court simply takes on this conversation for itself, and leaves the citizenry as bystanders.

He has no understanding of the basic principles of our country's political philosophy! And he is a professor. At Harvard.

[Hat Tip: Jay Guevara]

Posted by: CBD at 02:20 PM




Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1 No gay marriage for starters.

Posted by: Joe Mama at October 17, 2018 02:20 PM (/JA4t)

2 first

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, Order The Battle of Lake Erie in Paperback Today! at October 17, 2018 02:20 PM (9ZlHt)

3 damn it

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, Order The Battle of Lake Erie in Paperback Today! at October 17, 2018 02:20 PM (9ZlHt)

4
Mine! All mine!

Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars (TM) at October 17, 2018 02:20 PM (pNxlR)

5 No abortion.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at October 17, 2018 02:21 PM (hkvYa)

6 Worship of pure democracy is insanity.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, Order The Battle of Lake Erie in Paperback Today! at October 17, 2018 02:21 PM (9ZlHt)

7 No men in womens bathrooms.

Posted by: Joe Mama at October 17, 2018 02:21 PM (/JA4t)

8 Rage Quit!

Posted by: Retard Strength Trumps Smart Power at October 17, 2018 02:21 PM (RKQ/v)

9
Oops.

I meant to say,

Mimes! They're all mimes!

Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars (TM) at October 17, 2018 02:21 PM (pNxlR)

10 Rather, abortion a state issue rather than a national one.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at October 17, 2018 02:21 PM (hkvYa)

11 Not just some average professor. He's teaching the goddamn Constitution to folks who will be inhabiting the upper reaches of the legal profession, all the while being a true fascist, not the fake kind.

Posted by: ejochs at October 17, 2018 02:21 PM (3+0tg)

12 yeow

Posted by: DanMan at October 17, 2018 02:21 PM (QMG5F)

13 No racial preferences and quotas in hiring and admissions.

Posted by: Joe Mama at October 17, 2018 02:22 PM (/JA4t)

14
The travel ban would have been in place from Day One.

Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars (TM) at October 17, 2018 02:22 PM (pNxlR)

15 the question is he a real Indian or a Sears Indian?

Posted by: DanMan at October 17, 2018 02:22 PM (QMG5F)

16 11 Not just some average professor. He's teaching the goddamn Constitution to folks who will be inhabiting the upper reaches of the legal profession, all the while being a true fascist, not the fake kind.
Posted by: ejochs at October 17, 2018 02:21 PM (3+0tg)

=============

"SCOTUS wrote Article VIII of the Constitution which states: All that shit before is bunk, yo. Do whatever you want. It's the bedrock of the Living Constitution."

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, Order The Battle of Lake Erie in Paperback Today! at October 17, 2018 02:23 PM (9ZlHt)

17 Funny how the Left wants Democracy except where they don't.

Posted by: Puddin Head at October 17, 2018 02:23 PM (2LelM)

18 THEY"LL PUT YOU' ALL BACK IN CHAINS !

Posted by: Al Gore at October 17, 2018 02:23 PM (NFEMn)

19
We'd have segregated schools ... oh, wait

Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars (TM) at October 17, 2018 02:23 PM (pNxlR)

20 There goes Roe v. Wade. Idiots.

Posted by: Calm Mentor at October 17, 2018 02:24 PM (I16G8)

21 His wikipedia would be improved with some scarequotes...

Mark Victor Tushnet (born November 18, 1945)[1] is a "leading" "scholar" of "constitutional" "law" and legal "history," and currently the William Nelson Cromwell "Professor" of Law at Harvard Law School.

Posted by: Scarequotes at October 17, 2018 02:24 PM (wx6iv)

22 1 No gay marriage for starters.
Posted by: Joe Mama at October 17, 2018 02:20 PM (/JA4t)


That was my reaction, too. His position will come as welcome news to supporters of Prop. 8, which banned same-sex marriage here in CA, until Judge Lance overturned it and then returned home to his husband.

Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at October 17, 2018 02:24 PM (YqDXo)

23 This is the argument for federalism--many issues that are now being resolved at the SCOTUS level should be decided at the state level by referendum.

Posted by: joncelli, providing the traditional responses at October 17, 2018 02:24 PM (RD7QR)

24 Funny how all these asshole shits swore to defend and uphold the Constitution want to immediately violate it.

Posted by: JAS at October 17, 2018 02:24 PM (3HNOQ)

25 "He has no understanding of the basic principles of our country's political philosophy! And he is a professor. At Harvard."

For Harvard law school, this is a feature, not a bug.

Posted by: Insomniac at October 17, 2018 02:24 PM (NWiLs)

26 Hey, it's not Laurence fucking tribe

Posted by: NCKate at October 17, 2018 02:24 PM (3e0EK)

27 The Age of Trump is one of marvels. The Left denouncing judicial activism!

I understand how Cornwallis' soldiers felt at Yorktown, marching out to "The World Turned Upside Down".

Posted by: Mikey NTH - The Outrage Outlet presents Last of the Fauxhicans starring Lizzie Warren at October 17, 2018 02:24 PM (hLRSq)

28 No penumbras or emanations.

Posted by: Joe Mama at October 17, 2018 02:24 PM (/JA4t)

29
Forget that Miranda Warning bullshit.

Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars (TM) at October 17, 2018 02:24 PM (pNxlR)

30 "He has no understanding of the basic principles of our country's political philosophy! And he is a professor. At Harvard."

That's a feature, not a bug.

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at October 17, 2018 02:24 PM (CcljO)

31 Funny you brought the question up. I too have been watching the new season of Man in the High Castle

Posted by: Jollyroger at October 17, 2018 02:24 PM (llBgv)

32 One is that, as a matter of basic democratic principle, the people ought to be able to consider policies and then vote on them without having the courts step in and say 'no.' So from a democratic point of view, it's hard to justify allowing the courts to single-handedly overrule popular will whenever they choose.

---

i'd guess the Congress is equally problematic***

*** when controlled by republicans

Posted by: Buzzsaw90 at October 17, 2018 02:24 PM (9qOCq)

33 15 the question is he a real Indian or a Sears Indian?
Posted by: DanMan at October 17, 2018 02:22 PM (QMG5F)

Cigar Indian?

Posted by: Aetius451AD at October 17, 2018 02:24 PM (ycWCI)

34 One person. One vote. One time.

Posted by: Commies Everywhere at October 17, 2018 02:25 PM (3HNOQ)

35 Wouldn't elimination of the Supreme Court mean the Democrats would never again be able to impose their will?

Posted by: Northernlurker at October 17, 2018 02:25 PM (In2r5)

36
The police would be all up in your bedrooms.

Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars (TM) at October 17, 2018 02:25 PM (pNxlR)

37 I read the headline and thought this was going to be about Obamacare.

Posted by: Fritz at October 17, 2018 02:25 PM (2Mnv1)

38 23 This is the argument for federalism--many issues that are now being resolved at the SCOTUS level should be decided at the state level by referendum.
Posted by: joncelli, providing the traditional responses at October 17, 2018 02:24 PM (RD7QR)

============

Not referendum.

They have their own legislatures and executive branches that can pass laws.

They also have their own constitutions that lay out the overall rules of what the state government can and cannot do.

I'm not a fan of referendums because all of the mechanisms for enacting laws are already in place.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, Order The Battle of Lake Erie in Paperback Today! at October 17, 2018 02:25 PM (9ZlHt)

39 in which case, 99% of all this bullshit would go back to the states.

Posted by: nurse ratched at October 17, 2018 02:25 PM (d7Ww2)

40 Hell, under this guy's principle, we probably wouldn't have the DH rule.

Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at October 17, 2018 02:25 PM (YqDXo)

41
So this cancer approves of Mark Levin's suggested Constitutional amendment, whereby 2/3 of the states can overturn a SCOTUS decision within 2 years of the rule coming down?

Funny how the left now loves the Great One...

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at October 17, 2018 02:25 PM (/9p9e)

42 Funny how the Left wants Democracy except where they don't.
Posted by: Puddin Head at October 17, 2018 02:23 PM (2LelM)

-----------------

They have always viewed the Constitution like a buffet line.

Posted by: Calm Mentor at October 17, 2018 02:25 PM (I16G8)

43 Judicial Review for me, No Judicial Review for thee.

Posted by: Lancelot Link Secret Agent Chimp at October 17, 2018 02:25 PM (tqpcJ)

44 And some question my fundamental pessimism.


Behold the idiocy - there's no other term for it - of a Harvard Law professor. A gatekeeper/zampolit at one of the country's "elite" institutions.



Just the tiny excerpt ace gives, as ace points out, reflects literally no understanding, even familiarity, with American history, the constitution, or the spirit and practice of American self-governance. Zip.


This is why I use the term "alien" WRT so much of this crap now produced by "elite" institutions, and figures. It's literally unconnected to anything in the American ideal or experience.

Posted by: rhomboid at October 17, 2018 02:25 PM (QDnY+)

45 "it's hard to justify allowing the courts to single-handedly overrule popular will whenever they choose"

Yes, let's let the wolves vote on dinner plans.
The very point of the court is to examine the will of people against the higher laws and principles that the nation is built upon.

Posted by: vrf at October 17, 2018 02:25 PM (MwaUC)

46 Claire MyGasKills!

Damn I'm funny!

What does it take to be famous around here anyway?

Posted by: Almost Famous and I Can't Even Think Of a Name at October 17, 2018 02:26 PM (kNkfi)

47 28 No penumbras or emanations.

---

i wish.

Posted by: Justice Gorsuch - downwind of Ginsburg at October 17, 2018 02:26 PM (9qOCq)

48 The second component is that judicial review may actually impair the public's ability to engage in serious thinking



The public's ability to engage in serious thinking is definitely impaired.

Judicial review has nothing to do with it though.

Posted by: rickb223 at October 17, 2018 02:26 PM (hAdu/)

49 No more Obamacare.

Posted by: Joe Mama at October 17, 2018 02:26 PM (/JA4t)

50 27 The Age of Trump is one of marvels. The Left denouncing judicial activism!

I understand how Cornwallis' soldiers felt at Yorktown, marching out to "The World Turned Upside Down".
Posted by: Mikey NTH - The Outrage Outlet presents Last of the Fauxhicans starring Lizzie Warren at October 17, 2018 02:24 PM (hLRSq)

==============

May they actually mean it.

Of course, what they mean is that SCOTUS can't knock down previous SCOTUS rulings that created stuff not passed by legislatures or signed by executives.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, Order The Battle of Lake Erie in Paperback Today! at October 17, 2018 02:26 PM (9ZlHt)

51 LOL.

The stench of hypocrisy is so strong here. Up to two years ago, judicial review was a way of curbing the animal passions of the legislature, and the voters, by replacing their ill-considered views with solid judicial views, made by people who had gone to The Right Schools. It was the core of our democratic system.

In truly progressive jurisdictions, like California, our robed masters wouldn't even let voter-supported measures onto the ballot, if the measure displeased them.

After all, why go to all the time and trouble of voting on a measure, if the courts were going to strike it down anyway. It's far more efficient to strike down the measure before the proles pass it.

Posted by: The ARC of History at October 17, 2018 02:26 PM (I2/tG)

52 One is that, as a matter of basic democratic principle, the people ought to be able to consider policies and then vote on them without having the courts step in and say "no." So from a democratic point of view, it's hard to justify allowing the courts to single-handedly overrule popular will whenever they choose.

Why does this man hate Hawaiian judges so much?

Posted by: Steve and Cold Bear at October 17, 2018 02:26 PM (/qEW2)

53 Hell, under this guy's principle, we probably wouldn't have the DH rule.
Feature, not a bug...

Posted by: IP at October 17, 2018 02:26 PM (dM3St)

54 Sure.

I'll make that deal: Every Supreme Court case that has ever overturned a law or created a law is void.

Somehow, I don't think he's arguing Roe v. Wade should be void.
Or birthright citizenship.
Or gay marriage.

Posted by: Dr. RoyalOil, Vicroy Canadian Territories at October 17, 2018 02:27 PM (TN1P5)

55 Pretty sure that would have led to gay marriage being illegal in California.

Posted by: sniffybigtoe at October 17, 2018 02:27 PM (xfb67)

56 21 - you could add scare quotes around "Law School" at this point too.

Posted by: GregV61 at October 17, 2018 02:27 PM (FLpne)

57 So is he alright with CA prop as a State Constitutional Amendment that banned gay marriage ?

Posted by: Lancelot Link Secret Agent Chimp at October 17, 2018 02:27 PM (tqpcJ)

58 35 Wouldn't elimination of the Supreme Court mean the Democrats would never again be able to impose their will?
Posted by: Northernlurker at October 17, 2018 02:25 PM (In2r5)

=============

I think they'd like to move towards some sort of direct democracy, since they believe that the majority of the country wants what they want and all of these constitutional mechanisms are what's impeding them.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, Order The Battle of Lake Erie in Paperback Today! at October 17, 2018 02:27 PM (9ZlHt)

59
We'd still be counting ballots from Florida for the 2000 election and President Dennis Hastert would be getting pretty fooking sick of "keeping the seat warm".

Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars (TM) at October 17, 2018 02:27 PM (pNxlR)

60 Behold the idiocy - there's no other term for it - of a Harvard Law professor. A gatekeeper/zampolit at one of the country's "elite" institutions.



Low bar. Lieawatha taught there.

Posted by: rickb223 at October 17, 2018 02:27 PM (hAdu/)

61 Shit. Don't any of us have jobs? This blog is on fire.

btw, I am retarded retired.

Posted by: Commies Everywhere at October 17, 2018 02:28 PM (3HNOQ)

62 The second component is that judicial review may actually impair the public's ability to engage in serious thinking about what the Constitution means, and what we want to do in light of what we think our Constitution says.

---

every man a lawyer

Posted by: buzzsaw90 at October 17, 2018 02:28 PM (9qOCq)

63 Good to see that this professor thinks that the Supreme Court decisions mandating legal abortion and gay marriage were illegal, and these issues should be left up to the states.

Oh wait - that's not what he meant.

Posted by: The ARC of History at October 17, 2018 02:28 PM (I2/tG)

64 We can haz voter id?

Posted by: Steve and Cold Bear at October 17, 2018 02:28 PM (/qEW2)

65 Well, no Lend-Lease, no Marshall Plan, no Fugitive Slave Act...

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards, now with Bad Times at the El Royale review at October 17, 2018 02:28 PM (bcbK8)

66 Turn the van! TURN THE FUCKING VAN, YOU SHITKICKER!

*hic* *shart* *cackle*

Posted by: Hillary Clinton at October 17, 2018 02:28 PM (2Mnv1)

67 This is moronic. How, exactly, does one abolish judicial review without abolishing the court entire?

Posted by: Grump928(C) at October 17, 2018 02:28 PM (JPkLk)

68 45 "it's hard to justify allowing the courts to single-handedly overrule popular will whenever they choose"

Yes, let's let the wolves vote on dinner plans.
The very point of the court is to examine the will of people against the higher laws and principles that the nation is built upon.
Posted by: vrf at October 17, 2018 02:25 PM (MwaUC)

===========

If the people really want the government to do things that are unconstitutional, the people can pass a Constitutional Amendment to make it constitutional.

But that's, like, super hard and stuff. So much harder than just having SCOTUS deem it to be so.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, Order The Battle of Lake Erie in Paperback Today! at October 17, 2018 02:28 PM (9ZlHt)

69 So the states, that voted against gay marriage and had it overturned by the courts, were right? I don't think that's the result he wanted.

Posted by: notsothoreau at October 17, 2018 02:28 PM (JKNZq)

70 i'd never have to hear about stare decisis again

Posted by: buzzsaw90 at October 17, 2018 02:28 PM (9qOCq)

71 53 Hell, under this guy's principle, we probably wouldn't have the DH rule.
Feature, not a bug...
Posted by: IP at October 17, 2018 02:26 PM (dM3St)


Absolutely.

Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at October 17, 2018 02:29 PM (YqDXo)

72 Personally, I'm all in favor of at least curtailing judicial review. If there's a blind spot in the Constitution, it's the matter of exactly what powers the judiciary does and does not have, and the courts have used that omission to steal more and more power away from the legislature, the executive, the states, everybody.

But of course, this guy isn't being at all honest, he's just upset his side lost the game. So screw him.

Posted by: T at October 17, 2018 02:29 PM (vcmgB)

73 He has no understanding of the basic principles of our country's political philosophy! And he is a professor. At Harvard.
-----

Remember, this is the same school that hired Liz Warren because she was a minority....a Cherokee no less.

Posted by: WisRich at October 17, 2018 02:29 PM (G0vdT)

74 Wouldn't elimination of the Supreme Court mean the Democrats would never again be able to impose their will?
Posted by: Northernlurker at October 17, 2018 02:25 PM (In2r5)

------------------

With a Conservative SCOTUS, they now know they have lost that ability. This is why they went insane against Kav. No SCOTUS is now preferable to them over a Conservative one.

Posted by: Calm Mentor at October 17, 2018 02:29 PM (I16G8)

75 "He has no understanding of the basic principles of our country's political philosophy! And he is a professor. At Harvard."

QED

Posted by: Roy at October 17, 2018 02:29 PM (Rr52g)

76 A better proposal would be to return to Federalism, as it was understood for a 150 years.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at October 17, 2018 02:29 PM (JPkLk)

77 21 His wikipedia would be improved with some scarequotes...

Mark Victor Tushnet (born November 18, 1945)[1] is a "leading" "scholar" of "constitutional" "law" and legal "history," and currently the William Nelson Cromwell "Professor" of Law at Harvard Law School.
Posted by: Scarequotes at October 17, 2018 02:24 PM (wx6iv)

Wikipedia can be edited by users. Just sayin'...

Posted by: josephistan at October 17, 2018 02:29 PM (7HtZB)

78 I have been seeing this more lately from the "democratic socialists". The Constitution should be over ridden if 50.1% agree. No, asshole that is why we have a constitution. So that there is a constant framework that is largely impervious to the fickle fluctuations of manipulated masses. It is deliberately hard to amend the constitution. Despite that we have had a few linkers of amendments slip through.

Posted by: Cat Ass Trophy at October 17, 2018 02:29 PM (dNzKv)

79 Time for women to sexualize men says TV star Rae...

-
Oh please, Br'er Fox! Don't cast me into the briar patch!

Posted by: Anonosaurus Wrecks, Tyrannosaur Wrangler at October 17, 2018 02:30 PM (+y/Ru)

80 Mark Tushnet has exactly zero influence outside of other liberal professors who like his results-oriented screeds.

Posted by: bear with asymmetrical balls at October 17, 2018 02:30 PM (8u+2n)

81 pack it or abolish it. MAKE UP YOUR MINDS

Posted by: buzzsaw90 at October 17, 2018 02:30 PM (9qOCq)

82 The Left has already declared the Presidency, the Senate, and the Supreme Court illegitimate.

It is my dearest wish that the Left will decide after November that the House of Representatives is illegitimate as well.

Posted by: The ARC of History at October 17, 2018 02:30 PM (I2/tG)

83 Kel Tec SU-16 for under $500 on Gunpro deals.

Apropos of nuttin'...

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards, now with Bad Times at the El Royale review at October 17, 2018 02:30 PM (bcbK8)

84 This crap all started with Marbury vs. Madison.

Posted by: Tiffini from Dallas at October 17, 2018 02:31 PM (ctuyM)

85 every man a lawyer


In fairness, every man a free citizen.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at October 17, 2018 02:31 PM (JPkLk)

86 He has no understanding of the basic principles of our country's political philosophy! And he is a professor. At Harvard.

[Hat Tip: Jay Guevara]


==============================


Everything I learned about the Harvard Law School I learned while watching "The Paper Chase". Times sure have changed since 1973.

Posted by: mrp at October 17, 2018 02:31 PM (Pqytn)

87 Without the all powerful Court, many places in America would have prayer in school, no gay marriage, almost no abortion. It would be like living in a country where the people rule themselves.

Posted by: Kate Winslet's boobs at October 17, 2018 02:31 PM (ojNBr)

88
So, there's now bipartisan agreement that Marbury v. Madison and judicial review is out.

Posted by: Hadrian the Seventh at October 17, 2018 02:31 PM (BWL+E)

89 A "professor" at harvard acting no different than a three year old when they don't get their way.

Posted by: Jukin the Deplorable and Profoundly Unserious at October 17, 2018 02:31 PM (pw+jk)

90 haha. Fcuk you Marbury

Posted by: Madison at October 17, 2018 02:31 PM (9qOCq)

91
Tushnet? Tushnet!

Isn't that Horseface's new pron service to raise dough to pay off her court costs?

Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars (TM) at October 17, 2018 02:31 PM (pNxlR)

92 80 Mark Tushnet has exactly zero influence outside of other liberal professors who like his results-oriented screeds.
Posted by: bear with asymmetrical balls at October 17, 2018 02:30 PM (8u+2n)

Although his unfortunate surname has, in fact, influenced a lot of smart-asses to make lame jokes.

Posted by: joncelli, providing the traditional responses at October 17, 2018 02:31 PM (RD7QR)

93 Let us ignore for a moment that this turd fished out of the Charles River and tossed into Harvard Yard did not argue something completely different just two years ago.

Posted by: CBD at 02:20 PM

Let's not. With these douchebags it's "settled law" and "tradition," right up until they realize the Republicans will own the Supreme Court for a generation. Now they want to break the clock before the pendulum can finish swinging back.

Not a prayer. In fact, I'm looking forward to the Republicans putting Harvard SJWs at the back of a line for new judges.

Posted by: trev006 at October 17, 2018 02:31 PM (qbU78)

94 This is the argument for federalism--many issues that are now being resolved at the SCOTUS level should be decided at the state level by referendum.
Posted by: joncelli


In a perfect world, yes.
Problem is, they don't let it lie.

When the left loses, they immediately appeal to federal court.

Boom. We're right back to where we are now.

Posted by: rickb223 at October 17, 2018 02:31 PM (hAdu/)

95 I like these fantasy "what if?" games from time to time, but in the end, it's as useful--and depressing--as those daydreams where one muses what their life would be like if they were smarter, better-looking or luckier.

Posted by: ?????? at October 17, 2018 02:32 PM (NFEMn)

96 What does it take to be famous around here anyway?



Posted by: Almost Famous and I Can't Even Think Of a Name at October 17, 2018 02:26 P



Well, for starters, you'll need a sex tape to be leaked....

Posted by: RedMindBlueState at October 17, 2018 02:32 PM (p+Wdc)

97
Feds have arrested the Treasury Dept. employee who leaked the shit on Manafort and some others.

Her name: Natalie Mayflower Sours Edwards

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6287363

Look at her picture. She looks a like MILF porn star doing the slutty librarian look.

Posted by: publius, Rascally Rapscallion of a Poperin Pear at October 17, 2018 02:32 PM (f1Vqw)

98 Just another worthless, unprincipled, liberal fuckstick. This guy should be shoveling guts off the kill floor of a pork processing plant.

Posted by: Insomniac at October 17, 2018 02:32 PM (NWiLs)

99 94 This is the argument for federalism--many issues that are now being resolved at the SCOTUS level should be decided at the state level by referendum.
Posted by: joncelli


In a perfect world, yes.
Problem is, they don't let it lie.

When the left loses, they immediately appeal to federal court.

Boom. We're right back to where we are now.
Posted by: rickb223 at October 17, 2018 02:31 PM (hAdu/)

Well why wouldn't they? They've have a 75 year march to take over all the institutions. Now they're getting the banks, too.

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards, now with Bad Times at the El Royale review at October 17, 2018 02:32 PM (bcbK8)

100 A better proposal would be to return to Federalism, as it was understood for a 150 years.
Posted by: Grump928(C) at October 17, 2018 02:29 PM (JPkLk)

Throwing the baby out with the bath water isn't a problem when your ideology hates babies anyway

Posted by: Joe, living dangerously at October 17, 2018 02:32 PM (bZOES)

101 35 Wouldn't elimination of the Supreme Court mean the Democrats would never again be able to impose their will?
Posted by: Northernlurker at October 17, 2018 02:25 PM (In2r5)
--------

Nope. They'd just put SCOTUS in a closet only to be taken out when a liberal majority has been established.

Posted by: WisRich at October 17, 2018 02:33 PM (G0vdT)

102 SMR resolution of constitutional crisis.

https://youtu.be/uT89IKxi6L4

Posted by: Your Decidedly Devious Uncle Palpatine, GECSPLAN, SMR, and Ancient Slavonaut Newsletters at October 17, 2018 02:33 PM (fA1SL)

103 Harvard Law -- Let's see, we tried one of them fellers last time as preezy, and he went thru the WH like Eddie Murphy at a C&W titty bar with a badge and a gun.

"Let's see what I can fuck with next!"

And didn't Harvard Law give its students the day off to go and protest the Kavanaugh nomination?

What we need is for people to see the words Harvard Law, and vote for the other guy or gal.

*sorry, Ted, you seem likeable enough, we just can't take the risk. You're primaried in 6 years*

Posted by: GnuBreed at October 17, 2018 02:33 PM (Z4rgH)

104 Bolt decision Washington state. Pampered and protected Indians would not like this.

Posted by: Anchovy at October 17, 2018 02:33 PM (B3kya)

105 Her name: Natalie Mayflower Sours Edwards

Natalie Mayflower Sours Edwards de Soros, actually.

Posted by: The ARC of History at October 17, 2018 02:33 PM (I2/tG)

106 The Left has already declared the Presidency, the Senate, and the Supreme Court illegitimate.

It is my dearest wish that the Left will decide after November that the House of Representatives is illegitimate as well.
Posted by: The ARC of History at October 17, 2018 02:30 PM (I2/tG)

And they've called for the abolishment of the Electoral College, ICE and now the SC.

Posted by: JoeF. at October 17, 2018 02:33 PM (NFEMn)

107 Look at her picture. She looks a like MILF porn star doing the slutty librarian look.
Posted by: publius, Rascally Rapscallion of a Poperin Pear at October 17, 2018 02:32 PM (f1Vqw)

Maybe, before sitting for hair and makeup.

Posted by: Insomniac at October 17, 2018 02:34 PM (NWiLs)

108 Tushnet suggested that "liberals should be compiling lists of cases to be overruled at the first opportunity on the ground that they were wrong the day they were decided. ... What matters is that overruling key cases also means that a rather large body of doctrine will have to be built from the ground up."

Stare Decisis!
Roe v Wade is sacred!
SCOTUS is the voice of God!

What, we lost?

Tear down the system!
Fight the power!

Posted by: bonhomme at October 17, 2018 02:34 PM (9qZ3S)

109 Yeah, but these people, with their railing against the Court, the Senate, and the Electoral College are really moving toward the position that the three foxes and a hen ought to be able to decide for themselves whowhat's for supper.

Posted by: Hillz at October 17, 2018 02:34 PM (vDqXW)

110 Throwing the baby out with the bath water isn't a problem when your ideology hates babies anyway
Posted by: Joe, living dangerously at October 17, 2018 02:32 PM (bZOES)


very astute. bravo

Posted by: nurse ratched at October 17, 2018 02:34 PM (d7Ww2)

111 Whoa! We had this thing all wrong!

Ellison Divorce Docs Claim HE'S Abuse Victim...

Posted by: Anonosaurus Wrecks, Tyrannosaur Wrangler at October 17, 2018 02:34 PM (+y/Ru)

112 107 Look at her picture. She looks a like MILF porn star doing the slutty librarian look.
Posted by: publius, Rascally Rapscallion of a Poperin Pear at October 17, 2018 02:32 PM (f1Vqw)

Maybe, before sitting for hair and makeup.
Posted by: Insomniac at October 17, 2018 02:34 PM (NWiLs)

And before losing 30 pounds. Hard to tell in that burlap sack but she doesn't seem to have the body for good porn.

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards, now with Bad Times at the El Royale review at October 17, 2018 02:34 PM (bcbK8)

113 Look at her picture. She looks a like MILF porn star doing the slutty librarian look.
Posted by: publius, Rascally Rapscallion of a Poperin Pear at October 17, 2018 02:32 PM (f1Vqw)


She's a one.

Posted by: Colorado Alex In Exile at October 17, 2018 02:35 PM (wCmLp)

114 He has no understanding of the basic principles of our country's political philosophy! And he is a professor. At Harvard.


*looks at law degree*

*silently gives thanks that Harvard and Yale didn't want me*

Posted by: RedMindBlueState at October 17, 2018 02:35 PM (p+Wdc)

115 .
Just got done early voting . . .
.
as the hottest Brady girl used to say . . .
.
"Marsha, Marsha, Marsha!!!
.

Posted by: FireNWater at October 17, 2018 02:35 PM (S4rpa)

116 Without the court, Congress would likely have to get more done. When they do nothing, as Congress is inclined to do, they would more often be voted out. No more 50 year Senate careers. The mood of the country might cause drastic swings, however.

Posted by: Kate Winslet's boobs at October 17, 2018 02:35 PM (ojNBr)

117 He was my favorite professor at Harvard.

Posted by: David French at October 17, 2018 02:35 PM (OD2ni)

118 The problem with the supreme court is that, as I always understood it, the founders intended the power of each group to be inversely proportional to how often they had to submit to the will of the people by election. Also the size of the group was meant to make the power invested in it more spread out. Each group was also checked by one of the other branches.

Now, in a lot of ways, this system has been turned on it's head. Every group has taken more and more power to make legislative moves.

The Supreme court is the extreme example though because they are a small group, that is appointed for life, and their power is not checked by any of the other branches. Nine Robed Masters is a good descriptor of the current situation.

Even if they are on my side, it does not feel right. On the other hand, it is the reality of the situation and I would prefer they share my views.

Posted by: Aetius451AD at October 17, 2018 02:35 PM (ycWCI)

119 Although his unfortunate surname has, in fact, influenced a lot of smart-asses to make lame jokes.
Posted by: joncelli, providing the traditional responses at October 17, 2018 02:31 PM


This.

Posted by: Thomas Crapper at October 17, 2018 02:35 PM (ctuyM)

120 The last time the left played by the rules and put their policy choices to a vote was the Equal Rights Amendment.

And that was only cause they had done all they could to rig it in their favor 1st.

They will never submit to the will of the people again.

Posted by: Dr. RoyalOil, Vicroy Canadian Territories at October 17, 2018 02:35 PM (TN1P5)

121 If there's a blind spot in the Constitution, it's the matter of exactly what powers the judiciary does and does not have, and the courts have used that omission to steal more and more power away from the legislature, the executive, the states, everybody.


Only because the other branches have let them, and more specifically, one of the parties has let them because the court's activities have chimed with their own desires.

By construction, the judiciary is very much the weakest of the branches, having neither sword or purse. It is almost wholly beholden to Congress for it's very existence, they being the ones who control it's numbers, members, and the scope of it's authority.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at October 17, 2018 02:36 PM (JPkLk)

122 In the end, sort of a reminder of how broken the constitutional system is - primarily due to judicial lawlessness. Writing laws. Now - serving as self-appointed inter-agency policy review panels (or individuals) - explicitly making policy calls reserved to the political branches.


Sessions gave a little-noticed tirade/speech recently, denouncing this unconstitutional power grab and abuses by federal courts. Of course he vastly under-stated the problem, which is important. And his threatened response, as usual, was mostly an invitation for more abuses - lots and lots of "emergency" appeals!


Another reason for my pessimism. The Congress has made it clear it simply will not do anything to restore the constitutional system - it will not use is power to dramatically return the judiciary to its proper, very unequal and subsidiary role.


This leaves the executive. But if even Donald Trump is unwilling to fulfill his oath, in the face of ludicrous lawless abuses by the courts (travel EO, DACA EO issue), then it cannot be reasonably expected any action is forthcoming.

Posted by: rhomboid at October 17, 2018 02:36 PM (QDnY+)

123 They have always viewed the Constitution like a buffet line.
=========

Did someone say "buffet?"

Posted by: Candy Crowley at October 17, 2018 02:36 PM (vg8iE)

124 We should make all the political decisions in the United States - any other result is illegitimate.

Who cares what the other 49 states think?

Posted by: California at October 17, 2018 02:36 PM (I2/tG)

125 There is no judicial review in the constitution so I'd say this guy is on firm ground. It is absurd for the courts to be constantly ruling what is and isn't allowed by the legislature. The courts have struck down virtually every strict immigration policy since the beginning. So yeah, let's get rid of judicial review, which the courts granted to themselves. Pronto.

Posted by: bjstuggggz at October 17, 2018 02:36 PM (K9Csq)

126
One is that, as a matter of basic democratic principle, the people ought to be able to consider policies and then vote on them without having the courts step in and say "no." So from a democratic point of view, it's hard to justify allowing the courts to single-handedly overrule popular will whenever they choose.



There's a reason the Greeks were constantly at war with each other

Posted by: Flawless Male Logic at October 17, 2018 02:36 PM (TAmPV)

127 what does KS say? 'they hate you, act accordingly'

Posted by: bored383 at October 17, 2018 02:36 PM (zJ4nO)

128
Is anyone else getting popup adds on the side bar here of the $50 Indian Head gold piece with Liz Warren's head on it?

Posted by: Cuthbert the Witless at October 17, 2018 02:36 PM (ymnmz)

129 Well, let's see:Slaves can't be citizens, check. Segregation OK, check. Japanese in concentration camps, check. Women can't serve on juries, check.


Why yes, professor dumb-ass what a wonderfully logical mind you have there.


Posted by: Archer at October 17, 2018 02:37 PM (gmo/4)

130 Somebody needs to call the Waaaambulance for that guy. Lordy, a Harvard professor flips the table and storms off saying the game is unfair. *eyeroll* This is what we are up against, upper class Marxists in designer camo who throw hissy fits when they lose.

OTOH if these guys are the type supposed to bring the Blue Wave, I am not all that worried about going to the polling place in November.

Posted by: exdem13 at October 17, 2018 02:37 PM (pFljN)

131 "The very point of the court is to examine the will of people against the higher laws and principles that the nation is built upon."


Can you imagine if the greater majority race of a nation voted to make a minority race ride in the back of the bus.

Or drink from separate drinking fountains.

I mean, how would you argue agains that then?

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at October 17, 2018 02:37 PM (cqNba)

132 Day 1:

Congress votes that all members are now elected for life. To be succeeded by their eldest child.

salary 1 billion/year


popular will baby

Posted by: Congress at October 17, 2018 02:37 PM (9qOCq)

133 97
Feds have arrested the Treasury Dept. employee who leaked the shit on Manafort and some others.

Her name: Natalie Mayflower Sours Edwards

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6287363

Look at her picture. She looks a like MILF porn star doing the slutty librarian look.
Posted by: publius, Rascally Rapscallion of a Poperin Pear at October 17, 2018 02:32 PM (f1Vqw)

Heh heh she can release my data anytime she wants!

Posted by: joncelli, providing the traditional responses at October 17, 2018 02:37 PM (RD7QR)

134 128
Is anyone else getting popup adds on the side bar here of the $50 Indian Head gold piece with Liz Warren's head on it?

Posted by: Cuthbert the Witless at October 17, 2018 02:36 PM (ymnmz)

They're 1/1024th real gold.

Posted by: Insomniac at October 17, 2018 02:38 PM (NWiLs)

135 111 Whoa! We had this thing all wrong!

Ellison Divorce Docs Claim HE'S Abuse Victim...
Posted by: Anonosaurus Wrecks, Tyrannosaur Wrangler at October 17, 2018 02:34 PM (+y/Ru
-------

You see, when I was beating the snot out of my girlfriend I sprained my wrist so honestly, I'm the real victim.

- Keith.

Posted by: WisRich at October 17, 2018 02:38 PM (G0vdT)

136 134 128
Is anyone else getting popup adds on the side bar here of the $50 Indian Head gold piece with Liz Warren's head on it?

Posted by: Cuthbert the Witless at October 17, 2018 02:36 PM (ymnmz)

They're 1/1024th real gold.
Posted by: Insomniac at October 17, 2018 02:38 PM (NWiLs)

LOL

Nice

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards, now with Bad Times at the El Royale review at October 17, 2018 02:38 PM (bcbK8)

137 >> Hard to tell in that burlap sack but she doesn't seem to have the body for good porn.

She's got butt-stuff eyes in that picture.

Posted by: publius, Rascally Rapscallion of a Poperin Pear at October 17, 2018 02:38 PM (f1Vqw)

138 129 Well, let's see:Slaves can't be citizens, check. Segregation OK, check. Japanese in concentration camps, check. Women can't serve on juries, check.


Why yes, professor dumb-ass what a wonderfully logical mind you have there.


Posted by: Archer at October 17, 2018 02:37 PM (gmo/4)

You lost me at the end there.

Posted by: Insomniac at October 17, 2018 02:38 PM (NWiLs)

139 Democrats in 2008: We won. Deal with it.
Democrats in 2016: THE SYSTEM IS FLAWED!

This person didn't miss the point or misunderstand - he is doing it on purpose. We are *not* a democracy - the Constitution is the differentiator. Democracy is "the popular will may do whatever it wants." What we have is "the popular will may do whatever it wants, so long as it doesn't conflict with the basic restrictions on it put in place in the Constitution." This is not that hard. if the popular really wants to do something that *does* conflict, it can change the Constitution. There's a reason it isn't set in stone.

Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at October 17, 2018 02:39 PM (I2dne)

140 $50 Indian Head gold piece with Liz Warren's head on it?
Expertly clad in 1/1024th of an ounce of real iron pyrite?

Posted by: IP at October 17, 2018 02:39 PM (dM3St)

141 137 >> Hard to tell in that burlap sack but she doesn't seem to have the body for good porn.

She's got butt-stuff eyes in that picture.
Posted by: publius, Rascally Rapscallion of a Poperin Pear at October 17, 2018 02:38 PM (f1Vqw)

How can you see it?

Posted by: Aetius451AD at October 17, 2018 02:39 PM (ycWCI)

142 "I have been seeing this more lately from the "democratic socialists". The Constitution should be over ridden if 50.1% agree."

-----

It's not fair! It's not fair! Trump is winning according to the rules we set up! WAAAAAH! Make them change the rules! Change the rules now so I can win! WAAAAAAH! - Democrats

Posted by: Mikey NTH - The Outrage Outlet presents Last of the Fauxhicans starring Lizzie Warren at October 17, 2018 02:39 PM (hLRSq)

143 I was under the impression that he's mostly right: that the courts ought to spend their time interpreting the law and applying it, and only step into the realm of judicial review when they find two instructions in the law to be in conflict with one another.

I suspect that activist judges try to hide behind that fig leaf when they make sweeping proclamations; that it was necessary to solve two parts of the law in conflict.

But the reality ought to be that they cannot resolve the conflict, only identify it, and require a resolution from the legislature.

Posted by: TexasDan at October 17, 2018 02:39 PM (yL25O)

144 Professor dumb-ass should read Federalist #78.

Posted by: Archer at October 17, 2018 02:39 PM (gmo/4)

145
98 Just another worthless, unprincipled, liberal fuckstick. This guy should be shoveling guts off the kill floor of a pork processing plant the Schwarzkopf Lock on the Grand North American Dignity Canal Works
Posted by: Insomniac at October 17, 2018 02:32 PM (NWiLs)

Prissy little shit would probably ask whether work crews could have Bingo Nights if they exceed their work quotas.

Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars (TM) at October 17, 2018 02:39 PM (pNxlR)

146 I sometimes think the Founders couldn't imagine judges that would try to legislate. Perhaps this guy thinks the Supreme Court can be disbanded by executive order.

Posted by: notsothoreau at October 17, 2018 02:40 PM (JKNZq)

147 128

Is anyone else getting popup adds on the side bar here of the $50 Indian Head gold piece with Liz Warren's head on it?



Posted by: Cuthbert the Witless at October 17, 2018 02:36 PM (ymnmz)

Only $50? Is it because it is only 1/1024 gold?

Posted by: Our Country is Screwed at October 17, 2018 02:40 PM (jxbfJ)

148 They're freaking out because they may flip the House in November, and they may flip the Presidency and Senate in 2020, but if Trump gets two more Supreme Court picks before 2020, the Court will be conservative for a generation, absent some insane court-packing scheme.

Posted by: The ARC of History at October 17, 2018 02:40 PM (I2/tG)

149
Saved by "Barrel Be Gone!"

Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars (TM) at October 17, 2018 02:40 PM (pNxlR)

150 120 The last time the left played by the rules and put their policy choices to a vote was the Equal Rights Amendment.

And that was only cause they had done all they could to rig it in their favor 1st.

They will never submit to the will of the people again.
============
I was a little to young to understand what the ballyhooed ERA was all about. However, looking back on it now, I think you have a point. The Equal Rights Amendment was the last big drive for the Left to win by legislation. Ever since then it has been bureaucratic edict and judicial rulings, and convincing republican lawmakers and presidents to work against their party's interests.

Posted by: exdem13 at October 17, 2018 02:40 PM (pFljN)

151 Is anyone else getting popup adds on the side bar here of the $50 Indian Head gold piece with Liz Warren's head on it?
--
It's a collectible; limited edition, from the Franklin Mint?

Posted by: Old Dan, the Muffin Man at October 17, 2018 02:40 PM (oYD2h)

152 OT:

Another great Black Pilled video from yesterday. This one kind builds on the NPC analogy in a way. It's the idea that populations are basically livestock for the ruling class. Each video of his seems to be darker than the last.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojqAfETtzYM

Posted by: Max Power at October 17, 2018 02:40 PM (q177U)

153 The author is half-wrong and half right.
Obviously a pure democracy is about as far from the Founders vision of a constitutional republic as possible (the proverbial two wolves and a lamb debating the dinner menu).

But I actually think the author is essentially correct that out-of-control judicial review has blunted if not entirely usurped the original understanding that We the People (and its elected officials) would retain for ourselves the ability to think about what is, and isn't, Constitutional. The modern attitude is something like "Constitutionality is something for the professionals/Courts to figure out" --hence the clueless and very telling reaction of former Speaker Pelosi awhile back who, when asked if the Affordable Care Act was constitutional acted as though she were being questioned in Greek. She simply could not comprehend the idea that a Legislator (much less citizen) could think in terms of "constitutional" other than as a legal case to be submitted to the High Priests of Constitutionality, i.e. The courts.

So yeah a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Posted by: xnycpeasant at October 17, 2018 02:41 PM (koNhm)

154 We expect to inundate the country with liberal voters and so will have the popular will. However that will is restrained by the conservative supreme court, so how's about we get rid of the supreme court's ability to stop our NPC's.

PS We mean to win, no matter what it takes.

Posted by: Liberal intelligencia at October 17, 2018 02:41 PM (gOyTh)

155 I dunno - I seem to recall Mark Levin making a point somewhat like this in Men In Black.

Posted by: WitchDoktor, AKA VA GOP Sucks at October 17, 2018 02:42 PM (tVWQB)

156 "Liberals hate babies. " I will drop this in a conversation at some point.

Posted by: BourbonChicken at October 17, 2018 02:42 PM (lhhkI)

157 141
137 >> Hard to tell in that burlap sack but she doesn't seem to have the body for good porn.



She's got butt-stuff eyes in that picture.

Posted by: publius, Rascally Rapscallion of a Poperin Pear at October 17, 2018 02:38 PM (f1Vqw)



How can you see it?



Posted by: Aetius451AD at October 17, 2018 02:39 PM (ycWCI)
The eyes and how she stands slightly bent forward.

Posted by: Our Country is Screwed at October 17, 2018 02:42 PM (jxbfJ)

158 145. There are no locks on the Grand North American Dignity Canal. It's sea-level at the waterline.

Posted by: Your Decidedly Devious Uncle Palpatine, GECSPLAN, SMR, and Ancient Slavonaut Newsletters at October 17, 2018 02:42 PM (fA1SL)

159 Well said, Grump.


If one wants to get a feel for how bizarre and off the rails things are, take a gander at the "rulings" on the travel EO, DACA EO, even the O-care cases, all the way up to SCOTUS' ridiculous final decisions in both cases. Law? Constitutionality? In several cases, those topics literally don't even arise, and instead purely political (and idiotic) "reasoning" is substituted.


But don't expect Roberts, somebody as fit for his job as Obama was for any of his, to understand or do anything about it all. His indulgence, and participation, in the worst of these trends has resulted in the judiciary's *own* system becoming lawless. Inferior courts repudiating SCOTUS on Heller. District courts issuing national injunctions.


The legal guild is 95% incapable, literally, of even thinking about these things seriously.


Instead, everyone now is seeking comfort in personnel changes. Not a solution. Not even a head-fake at a solution.

Posted by: rhomboid at October 17, 2018 02:42 PM (QDnY+)

160 Lawlessness of blue states and cities to go exponential as America flips more and more Republican. I don't think Trump is the type to send in the National Guard.

Posted by: Max Power at October 17, 2018 02:43 PM (q177U)

161 in which case, 99% of all this bullshit would go back to the states.

Posted by: nurse ratched at October 17, 2018 02:25 PM (d7Ww2)


Very. Much. This.The federal government has no business doing many of the things it does.

Posted by: G. Gnome, GNOMCO Home Defense System and Turkey Fryer Salesman at October 17, 2018 02:43 PM (al6UK)

162 shorter version: if i can't have it, no one can.

what an asshole.

Posted by: redc1c4 at October 17, 2018 02:43 PM (VIz3b)

163 But this kind of "let's rethink" the Courts, the Electoral College, enact "mandatory voting" etc is further reason why I will bang the drum that we need a Constitutional Amendment limiting SCOTUS to 9.

Better if we didn't have out of control, super-legislature courts. But in the meanwhile, let's at least hold onto incremental change in the makeup of the courts, and a present, quasi-Constitutional majority to limit its damage. First chance they get the Dems will pack the f*** out of the court (only takes an Act of Congress). Bet on it.

Posted by: xnycpeasant at October 17, 2018 02:43 PM (koNhm)

164 >> How can you see it?

There's a reason that BATF clown next to her is smiling so much.

Posted by: publius, Rascally Rapscallion of a Poperin Pear at October 17, 2018 02:43 PM (f1Vqw)

165 Glasser v United States

Posted by: Archer at October 17, 2018 02:44 PM (gmo/4)

166 I never could get into anal.
Front hole is best hole.

#sorrynotsorry

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards, now with Bad Times at the El Royale review at October 17, 2018 02:44 PM (bcbK8)

167 That Daily Mail article has a very flattering picture of the accused russian spy Butina. I might have to change my opinion on her. Not Anna Chapman level, but not too bad either.

Posted by: Benji Carver at October 17, 2018 02:44 PM (OD2ni)

168 144 Professor dumb-ass should read Federalist #78.
========
Even when I was at university at the end of the Eighties, The Federalist was mentioned, sometimes even cited, but not assigned for class. I didn't read it until many years later, and was gobsmacked by Hamilton & Madison explaining how the Constitution was to work, how it would keep working, and the prevention of abusing it. I then became rather angry at the lack of value invested in my education, and it became part of my gradual #WalkAway process.

Posted by: exdem13 at October 17, 2018 02:44 PM (pFljN)

169 I just can't keep up with all these reversals of opinion from the Dems. It's like magnets or the magnetic poles of the earth switching from south to north at random. I can't even.

Posted by: Wolfus Aurelius at October 17, 2018 02:44 PM (Fz8ov)

170 141
137 >> Hard to tell in that burlap sack but she doesn't seem to have the body for good porn.



She's got butt-stuff eyes in that picture.

Posted by: publius, Rascally Rapscallion of a Poperin Pear at October 17, 2018 02:38 PM (f1Vqw)



How can you see it?



Posted by: Aetius451AD at October 17, 2018 02:39 PM (ycWCI)


Butt Stuff Eyes. Catchy Tune.


Posted by: Kim Karnse at October 17, 2018 02:44 PM (ymnmz)

171 Hard to tell in that burlap sack but she doesn't seem to have the body for good porn.

She's got butt-stuff eyes in that picture.
Posted by: publius, Rascally Rapscallion of a Poperin Pear at October 17, 2018 02:38 PM (f1Vqw)

How can you see it?
Posted by: Aetius451AD


It's a gift.

Posted by: rickb223 at October 17, 2018 02:44 PM (hAdu/)

172 154 We expect to inundate the country with liberal voters and so will have the popular will. However that will is restrained by the conservative supreme court, so how's about we get rid of the supreme court's ability to stop our NPC's.

PS We mean to win, no matter what it takes.
Posted by: Liberal intelligencia at October 17, 2018 02:41 PM (gOyTh)


What are the rules? I dunno, what gets us what we want? THEN we'll decide on the rules.

Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at October 17, 2018 02:44 PM (YqDXo)

173 Liberals hate white babies.

Posted by: Max Power at October 17, 2018 02:44 PM (q177U)

174 169 I just can't keep up with all these reversals of opinion from the Dems. It's like magnets or the magnetic poles of the earth switching from south to north at random. I can't even.
Posted by: Wolfus Aurelius at October 17, 2018 02:44 PM (Fz8ov)


It's the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact all over again.

Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at October 17, 2018 02:45 PM (YqDXo)

175 The last time the left played by the rules and put their policy choices to a vote was the Equal Rights Amendment.
---
They didn't even play by the rules, then. They passed an illegal ratification deadline extension midstream.

Posted by: Axeman at October 17, 2018 02:45 PM (vDqXW)

176 This will get interesting.

Let's say that Trump's appointees and SCOTUS start handing down decisions that blue jurisdictions simply ignore, based on this professor's philosophy

That means Trump can simply ignore injunctions on executive branch decisions. If he's told he can't abolish this or that EPA rule or that he can't order ICE to deport a whole block of people, he can simply ignore that.

Posted by: Steve and Cold Bear at October 17, 2018 02:45 PM (/qEW2)

177 >>He has no understanding of the basic principles of our country's political philosophy! And he is a professor. At Harvard.

I believe this is why the US has not truly won a war since the end of WWII; the Leftists of this country have utterly stood to the side whenever America faces off, militarily, against the Left's allies, be they Islamists or Communists. Instead, you get protests in favour of the Enemy, encouragement of their leadership by shadow diplomacy, and human shields.

Posted by: DMO at October 17, 2018 02:45 PM (GkjJR)

178 1 in which case, 99% of all this bullshit would go back to the states.

Posted by: nurse ratched at October 17, 2018 02:25 PM (d7Ww2)


Very. Much. This.The federal government has no business doing many of the things it does.
Posted by: G. Gnome


Then you have to eliminate the federal appeals court. Because the left doesn't stop at state court.

Posted by: rickb223 at October 17, 2018 02:45 PM (hAdu/)

179 Chinese actor Fan Bingbing hit with $130,000,000 bill for back taxes and fines by Chinese tax authorities.

Posted by: bonhomme at October 17, 2018 02:46 PM (9qZ3S)

180 Dana Loesch
@DLoesch
I did't think white privilege existed until I watched Elizabeth Warren given a pass for appropriating a culture.

-
Burn her at the stake!

Posted by: Anonosaurus Wrecks, Tyrannosaur Wrangler at October 17, 2018 02:46 PM (+y/Ru)

181 What are the rules? I dunno, what gets us what we want? THEN we'll decide on the rules.
Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at October 17, 2018 02:44 PM


Please. This is my ball game.

Posted by: Calvin at October 17, 2018 02:46 PM (ctuyM)

182 There is no judicial review in the constitution so I'd say this guy is on firm ground.


Again I have to ask, how, exactly, does one remove judicial review?

Admittedly, the Congress has the power under to constitution to limit the Judiciary's scope for review, Article III Section 2 " the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.", but to abolish judicial review is to try to abolish an idea, or actually, a promise by the court, to find against the government in all cases pertaining so a specific law.

The problem of an overreaching court is a failure of will by the other branches, not one of construction.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at October 17, 2018 02:46 PM (JPkLk)

183 154 We expect to inundate the country with liberal voters and so will have the popular will. However that will is restrained by the conservative supreme court, so how's about we get rid of the supreme court's ability to stop our NPC's.

PS We mean to win, no matter what it takes.
Posted by: Liberal intelligencia at October 17, 2018 02:41 PM (gOyTh)

Yeah, all joking aside, this is what it boils down to. The undying principle of the left is will to power, as AtC repeatedly has pointed out; all other principles are bent to gain this one.

Posted by: joncelli, providing the traditional responses at October 17, 2018 02:46 PM (RD7QR)

184 I don't care what Natalie the Mayflower Madame or possible porn star or MILF looks like, Is she going to have any charges against her for releasing financial information?

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at October 17, 2018 02:47 PM (AllCR)

185 I just can't keep up with all these reversals of opinion from the Dems. It's like magnets or the magnetic poles of the earth switching from south to north at random. I can't even.
Posted by: Wolfus Aurelius at October 17, 2018 02:44 PM (Fz8ov)
---
It's like the New York Times editorial opinion on the filibuster.

It seems to have an action-at-a-distance spooky correlation to whether the Dems are in the majority or minority.

Weird.

Posted by: Axeman at October 17, 2018 02:47 PM (vDqXW)

186 And that's how we got to where we got today. It all depends on whose ox is being gored, and that's no way to run a country. We are supposed to have the rule of law, not men. That went away under FDR and LBJ and Obama. We don't even get laws any more, just suggestions to the bureaucrats as to what Congress would like them to do. And rule by executive order or judicial fiat is totalitarianism. Democracy (despite the left's abuse of the word) does not work. We've known that since ancient Greece and Rome. Ignorance is no excuse. Bah! Get off my lawn!

Posted by: BJ54 at October 17, 2018 02:47 PM (Bed/U)

187 160 Lawlessness of blue states and cities to go exponential as America flips more and more Republican. I don't think Trump is the type to send in the National Guard.
Posted by: Max Power at October 17, 2018 02:43 PM (q177U)


Feature, not a bug. Make leftist-infested areas endure the consequences of their policies. They want to enable antifa and other violent groups? OK. Go for it. Burn down that leftist city. Be my guest.

It might, just might, be a wake-up call for however many people in those cities are not completely batshit crazy.

Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at October 17, 2018 02:47 PM (YqDXo)

188 167 That Daily Mail article has a very flattering picture of the accused russian spy Butina. I might have to change my opinion on her. Not Anna Chapman level, but not too bad either.
Posted by: Benji Carver at October 17, 2018 02:44 PM (OD2ni)

...

I predict a sudden surge in tinder profiles that suggest high level knowledge of government secrets and the willingness to share.

Posted by: TexasDan at October 17, 2018 02:48 PM (yL25O)

189 183. Power is not a means, Winston, it is an end.

Posted by: Your Decidedly Devious Uncle Palpatine, GECSPLAN, SMR, and Ancient Slavonaut Newsletters at October 17, 2018 02:48 PM (fA1SL)

190 Feds have arrested the Treasury Dept. employee who leaked the shit on Manafort and some others.

Her name: Natalie Mayflower Sours Edwards
=====
I wonder if the autists have cracked her facebook page yet?

Posted by: simplemind at October 17, 2018 02:48 PM (ChTIn)

191 That means Trump can simply ignore injunctions on executive branch decisions. If he's told he can't abolish this or that EPA rule or that he can't order ICE to deport a whole block of people, he can simply ignore that.
Posted by: Steve and Cold Bear at October 17, 2018 02:45 PM


I'd ask how many divisions, but there is no math on this Smart Military Blog.

Posted by: J. Stalin at October 17, 2018 02:48 PM (ctuyM)

192 That means Trump can simply ignore injunctions on executive branch decisions. If he's told he can't abolish this or that EPA rule or that he can't order ICE to deport a whole block of people, he can simply ignore that.
Posted by: Steve and Cold Bear at October 17, 2018 02:45 PM (/qEW2)

-------------------

I wish he had done this all along. Simply point out where he has these powers in the Constitution, and then enacted his orders.

Posted by: Calm Mentor at October 17, 2018 02:48 PM (I16G8)

193 so now that the leftists appear to have lost SCOTUS for a couple decades, they want to use the illegal alien vote to take away our guns, or vote to confiscate "white" property to give to "minorities".

Posted by: illiniwek at October 17, 2018 02:48 PM (Cus5s)

194 There's a pattern here. We saw how the goalpost never stopped moving during the recent SCOTUS hearings. That was a microcosm of the larger effort by the left to ignore rules they don't like (DACA by EO), or change the rules when they lose.

As long as they win, there's no problem. But as soon as they lose, it's time to change all the rules. They don't like it when normals insist that the left's rules must be equally applied. They hate the players (us normals) and the game, so they'll do everything they can to rig it.

Incapable of introspection, they are unable to fathom why they lose, ever. They're unable to convince enough people to vote for their ideas, and they definitely don't think their ideas are the problem. They believe we're the problem, and the rules are the problem. What to do about it?

Change the people who vote: ineligible felons, illegal aliens, and so on.

Change the rules: Abolish ICE, SCOTUS, the electoral college. Nuke the filibuster. Pack SCOTUS with new leftist SJW/NPC judges, pack the Senate, pack the House, litigate the 2016 presidential election endlessly.

Changing the rules is a myopic and short-term strategy, because at some point they start losing again because their ideas are terrible. That leads them back to changing the rules, again.

Posted by: Demonsheep at October 17, 2018 02:48 PM (fTmr5)

195 180
Dana Loesch

@DLoesch

I did't think white privilege existed until I watched Elizabeth Warren given a pass for appropriating a culture.



-

Burn her at the stake!

Posted by: Anonosaurus Wrecks, Tyrannosaur Wrangler at October 17, 2018 02:46 PM (+y/Ru)


Indian Burn!!!

Posted by: Kim Karnse at October 17, 2018 02:48 PM (ymnmz)

196 dammit

Posted by: Cuthbert the Witless at October 17, 2018 02:48 PM (ymnmz)

197
Good God, Dana Perino has Greenspan on. He looks like a corpse. Mr. Andrea Mitchell. They deserve each other.

How old is he, now? 150?

Posted by: publius, Rascally Rapscallion of a Poperin Pear at October 17, 2018 02:48 PM (f1Vqw)

198 looks like the homos wouldn't be able to work the poor widow scam with Social Security under his system.

illegal aliens would all have to be butlers too.

Posted by: x at October 17, 2018 02:48 PM (nFwvY)

199 Any bets that it will turn out that Natalie Mayflower was leaking information to her much younger boyfriend at Buzzfeed?

When you're in love, you're in love, after all.

Posted by: The ARC of History at October 17, 2018 02:49 PM (I2/tG)

200 Oh, by the way, Arby's is selling duck breast sandwiches at 16 locations nationwide. In case you're into waterfowl breast.

Posted by: joncelli, providing the traditional responses at October 17, 2018 02:49 PM (RD7QR)

201 160 Lawlessness of blue states and cities to go exponential as America flips more and more Republican. I don't think Trump is the type to send in the National Guard.
====
Donaldus Maximus is more reserved and calculating than many people understand. He is letting the Left's orc-horde alienate everyone who doesn't live in a Blue Enclave Bubble. The President knows the damage the Progtards and Antifa are doing to themselves, and knows the people who elected him will never support such things. And when Trump has the Republican-run Congress more firmly in hand (thanks to the Kavanaugh circus), he will show his strength.

Posted by: exdem13 at October 17, 2018 02:49 PM (pFljN)

202 Zombie Woodrow Wilson is pleased.

Posted by: Cat Ass Trophy at October 17, 2018 02:49 PM (dNzKv)

203 179 Chinese actor Fan Bingbing hit with $130,000,000 bill for back taxes and fines by Chinese tax authorities.
Posted by: bonhomme at October 17, 2018 02:46 PM (9qZ3S)


Once again, China shows the way. Let the IRS swoop down on Hollywood. I would die of ecstasy.

Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at October 17, 2018 02:49 PM (YqDXo)

204
158 145. There are no locks on the Grand North American Dignity Canal. It's sea-level at the waterline.
Posted by: Your Decidedly Devious Uncle Palpatine, GECSPLAN, SMR, and Ancient Slavonaut Newsletters at October 17, 2018 02:42 PM (fA1SL)


Getting assigned to the Greater Rocky Mountains Sector would suck ass.

Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars (TM) at October 17, 2018 02:50 PM (pNxlR)

205 180 Dana Loesch
@DLoesch
I did't think white privilege existed until I watched Elizabeth Warren given a pass for appropriating a culture.

-
Burn her at the stake!
Posted by: Anonosaurus Wrecks, Tyrannosaur Wrangler at October 17, 2018 02:46 PM (+y/Ru)
----

Clever but wrong Dana. It wasn't white privilege, it was Lib privilege.

Posted by: WisRich at October 17, 2018 02:50 PM (G0vdT)

206 I don't think Trump is the type to send in the National Guard.

To keep Portland from burning down?

That's the Governor of the State of Oregon's problem.

Posted by: The ARC of History at October 17, 2018 02:50 PM (I2/tG)

207 204. It's how it has to be. Harsh, but fair.

Posted by: Your Decidedly Devious Uncle Palpatine, GECSPLAN, SMR, and Ancient Slavonaut Newsletters at October 17, 2018 02:51 PM (fA1SL)

208 To be expected.
That which helps the Movement is good.
That which impedes the Movement is wicked.

I'm not saying that it won't be tricky. For decades the Left has drummed it into Americans' heads that SCOTUS represents the voice of the gods. To so much as question its decrees is blasphemy. To disobey them is the highest treason.

But if SCOTUS turns counter-revolutionary, it will have to be dismissed as a relic of slave-holding whitey, the very embodiment of wickedness.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at October 17, 2018 02:51 PM (Rxduq)

209 190
Feds have arrested the Treasury Dept. employee who leaked the shit on Manafort and some others.



Her name: Natalie Mayflower Sours Edwards

=====

I wonder if the autists have cracked her facebook page yet?

Posted by: simplemind at October 17, 2018 02:48 PM (ChTIn)


Please let this be the beginning of a real round up of the deep state resistors compete with actual punishment, fines and jail time.

Posted by: Cuthbert the Witless at October 17, 2018 02:51 PM (ymnmz)

210 Holy CRAP do they hate The Constitution..........It really confuses them as to what it's there for.

Posted by: Sponge at October 17, 2018 02:51 PM (F4u7C)

211 Once again, China shows the way. Let the IRS swoop down on Hollywood. I would die of ecstasy.
Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at October 17, 2018 02:49 PM (YqDXo)

...

True Happiness cannot be achieved until actors are once again reduced to the status of homeless vagabonds.

Posted by: TexasDan at October 17, 2018 02:51 PM (yL25O)

212 206
I don't think Trump is the type to send in the National Guard.



To keep Portland from burning down?



That's the Governor of the State of Oregon's problem.

Posted by: The ARC of History at October 17, 2018 02:50 PM (I2/tG)


Make the Governor ask, explicitly, on TV for federal help.

Posted by: Cuthbert the Witless at October 17, 2018 02:52 PM (ymnmz)

213 re you attempting to imply that Our Leftist Betters are self-serving rank opportunists with no ethical premise beyond their own lust for power? That's HATE SPEECH!!!

Posted by: Mr. Peebles at October 17, 2018 02:52 PM (A3w0Q)

214 >> Is she going to have any charges against her for releasing financial information?

SHe's been charged with two counts, and faces up to 10 years in club fed. Now, whether she'll do any time or not, I don't know.

Posted by: publius, Rascally Rapscallion of a Poperin Pear at October 17, 2018 02:52 PM (f1Vqw)

215 Changing the rules is a myopic and short-term strategy, because at some point they start losing again because their ideas are terrible. That leads them back to changing the rules, again.
Posted by: Demonsheep at October 17, 2018 02:48 PM (fTmr5)


My favorite example: MA changing the law on how a Senate vacancy will be filled, to make sure a Republican governor didn't fill one. But the issue only arose when they had a Democrat governor, and in the now-required special election a sorta Republican got elected.

You've got to laugh.

Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at October 17, 2018 02:52 PM (YqDXo)

216 Thanks for the link on the sidebar. Ann Widdecombe is terrific. And you nailed the description.

Posted by: Eeyore, fomerly George LeS at October 17, 2018 02:52 PM (59GGI)

217 Chinese actor Fan Bingbing hit with $130,000,000 bill for back taxes and fines by Chinese tax authorities.

Posted by: bonhomme at October 17, 2018 02:46 PM (9qZ3S)
---
That's after she "disappeared" for four months, and media outlets were forbidden to mention that nobody had seen Fan in months.

She had to write an apology letter in which she expressed that she would be worth nothing without the excellent policies of the Communist party.

Posted by: Axeman at October 17, 2018 02:53 PM (vDqXW)

218 From the previous thread:
Posted by: anchorbabe fashion cop at October 17, 2018 02:06 PM (8iiMU) **
I love Brunettes. In some pics I find her very fetching, others shes a bit brutish.



Posted by: dananjcon at October 17, 2018 02:21 PM (xqfqx)

A halfway decent looking woman with black hair and nice curves, and I'm sunk. That's my weakness.

Posted by: anchorbabe fashion cop at October 17, 2018 02:53 PM (8iiMU)

219 193
so now that the leftists appear to have lost SCOTUS for a couple
decades, they want to use the illegal alien vote to take away our guns,
or vote to confiscate "white" property to give to "minorities".


Posted by: illiniwek at October 17, 2018 02:48 PM (Cus5s)
Good luck. They are going to need it.

Posted by: Our Country is Screwed at October 17, 2018 02:53 PM (jxbfJ)

220
If the Big Blue Cities and the Big Blue States break the Union of States, then the Red States would have to build walls around the Big Blue Cities and the Big Blue States to stop them from exporting their misery to the Red States.

It would be like untreated cancer in your body politic.

Posted by: Old Dan, the Muffin Man at October 17, 2018 02:53 PM (oYD2h)

221 Make the Governor ask, explicitly, on TV for federal help.
Posted by: Cuthbert the Witless at October 17, 2018 02:52 PM (ymnmz)


Make him crawl. And link help to getting rid of the "sanctuary city" crap.

Otherwise, let his call go through to voice mail.

Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at October 17, 2018 02:53 PM (YqDXo)

222 206 I don't think Trump is the type to send in the National Guard.

To keep Portland from burning down?

That's the Governor of the State of Oregon's problem.
Posted by: The ARC of History at October 17, 2018 02:50 PM (I2/tG)

...

As much as we would be entertained, sending tanks against the barricades is still bad optics.

You know what's great optics, though?

Helicopter rides.

I mean, people pay like $20 for those at fairs.

Posted by: TexasDan at October 17, 2018 02:53 PM (yL25O)

223 193 so now that the leftists appear to have lost SCOTUS for a couple decades, they want to use the illegal alien vote to take away our guns, or vote to confiscate "white" property to give to "minorities".

Leave California out of this.

Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at October 17, 2018 02:54 PM (YqDXo)

224 220. No, there is another way. - Augusto Pinochet

Posted by: Your Decidedly Devious Uncle Palpatine, GECSPLAN, SMR, and Ancient Slavonaut Newsletters at October 17, 2018 02:54 PM (fA1SL)

225 Make the Governor ask, explicitly, on TV for federal help.

There is a fair chance that Oregon will elect a Republican governor, despite 80% of Portland voting against him.

Be pretty funny when the left-wing jerk Mayor of Portland starts begging for the Guard to be sent in.

Posted by: The ARC of History at October 17, 2018 02:54 PM (I2/tG)

226 You know what I want read? What Sarah Jeong is thinking about my white ass. Gooks make the funniest racists.

Posted by: Puddin Head at October 17, 2018 02:54 PM (2LelM)

227 212 206
I don't think Trump is the type to send in the National Guard.

To keep Portland from burning down?

That's the Governor of the State of Oregon's problem.

Posted by: The ARC of History at October 17, 2018 02:50 PM (I2/tG)


Make the Governor ask, explicitly, on TV for federal help.

Posted by: Cuthbert the Witless at October 17, 2018 02:52 PM (ymnmz)
--------

Even Better. Make the offer and watch the Governor turn it down. Trump can say he tried.

Posted by: WisRich at October 17, 2018 02:54 PM (G0vdT)

228 It's not clear to me how many here see that the "new Tushnet" is a big step better than the old.

Of course, he'll backtrack to find, emanating from the penumbra, the absolute right of regulatory agencies, not only of decreeing the law, but of interpreting it.

But the words quoted are, well, Bork-like.

Posted by: Eeyore, fomerly George LeS at October 17, 2018 02:55 PM (59GGI)

229 210 Holy CRAP do they hate The Constitution..........It really confuses them as to what it's there for.
Posted by: Sponge at October 17, 2018 02:51 PM (F4u7C)

============

My sister graduated from the government program at William & Mary.

Her words (paraphrased): The Constitution is so inefficient. The government moves so slowly.

She meant it as a negative.

The Left wants an activist government that can right all the wrongs of the world on a dime (like how the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany could move parts of society so swiftly when they wanted), as opposed a restrained government designed to preserve individual liberty.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, Order The Battle of Lake Erie in Paperback Today! at October 17, 2018 02:55 PM (9ZlHt)

230 Actually, this dipshit is correct in his current argument, despite it's being advanced in utter bad faith as well as in complete opposition to his previous writings.

The pre-Marbury v. Madison way of thinking is what he is arguing for, which is the Founder's original wise set-up.

Posted by: Sharkman at October 17, 2018 02:55 PM (BfOXk)

231 Holy CRAP do they hate The Constitution..........It really confuses them as to what it's there for.

Posted by: Sponge at October 17, 2018 02:51 PM (F4u7C)
---
Fuckin' fence!

Posted by: Liberal in Chesterton's World at October 17, 2018 02:55 PM (vDqXW)

232 > How old is he, now? 150?

Wikipedia says 92. So, yeah, getting up there.

Posted by: Rodrigo Borgia at October 17, 2018 02:55 PM (vOkuK)

233 You get some genius from Harvard (who will remind you of that every two minutes) and put him in competition with a zombie legal genius form years ago. I bet in debate, zombie would win, you know, the guy who never went to law school and honed his craft reading the law.

Posted by: bill in arkansas at October 17, 2018 02:55 PM (xzqr4)

234 Getting assigned to the Greater Rocky Mountains Sector would suck ass.


On the bright side, that's where the towering Argonaths of Trump will be carved from the living rock on each side of the Kanal cut.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at October 17, 2018 02:55 PM (JPkLk)

235 222. Gotta disagree.

https://youtu.be/uT89IKxi6L4

This looks pretty good.

Posted by: Your Decidedly Devious Uncle Palpatine, GECSPLAN, SMR, and Ancient Slavonaut Newsletters at October 17, 2018 02:55 PM (fA1SL)

236 So he is arguing that ANYTHING congress passes is de facto constitutional?

Posted by: Buzzsaw90 at October 17, 2018 02:55 PM (9qOCq)

237 you wanted Lenin. You'll get Henry VIII.

Posted by: Boulder terlit hobo at October 17, 2018 02:55 PM (EKfCQ)

238 Article III gives Judicial power for the courts to rule on controversies between various parties regard to the law. I guess a broad interpretation by me, a layperson , seems to cover Judicial review since that's a controversy between the United States ( Constitution) and the citizenry.

Again my only qualification is I stayed in a Holiday Inn once . Once.

Posted by: Lancelot Link Secret Agent Chimp at October 17, 2018 02:55 PM (tqpcJ)

239 221 Make the Governor ask, explicitly, on TV for federal help.
Posted by: Cuthbert the Witless at October 17, 2018 02:52 PM (ymnmz)

Make him crawl. And link help to getting rid of the "sanctuary city" crap.

Otherwise, let his call go through to voice mail.
Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at October 17, 2018 02:53 PM (YqDXo)

..

Remember when the auto execs were sent back after arriving by plane, and forced to drive to Washington to ask for bailout money?

I think we wait until the governor's mansion is actually on fire and he's flashing messages in Morse code with a flashlight through the basement window.

Posted by: TexasDan at October 17, 2018 02:56 PM (yL25O)

240 Foolish short-sighted Leftard "intelligensia" are so knee-jerk in their old age or middle age they would sink the Constitution to win. Foolish foolish people, who do not understand that when the new Caesar or new Santa Anna takes office he will accept their applause, then send them to the gulag or the gallows when they dare to complain about his bullying ways and confiscatory edicts. They never learn...

Posted by: exdem13 at October 17, 2018 02:56 PM (pFljN)

241 I don't think Trump is the type to send in the National Guard.

To keep Portland from burning down?

That's the Governor of the State of Oregon's problem.

Posted by: The ARC of History at October 17, 2018 02:50 PM (I2/tG)


For my part, I couldn't care less if Portland burns down, once both conservatives there get out.

Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at October 17, 2018 02:56 PM (YqDXo)

242 DJT will answer Portland's call for help with a Tweet containing the word "BOFA"

Posted by: xnycpeasant at October 17, 2018 02:56 PM (koNhm)

243 210 Holy CRAP do they hate The Constitution..........It really confuses them as to what it's there for.
Posted by: Sponge at October 17, 2018 02:51 PM (F4u7C)

They know what it's there for. That's why they hate it.

Posted by: Insomniac at October 17, 2018 02:56 PM (NWiLs)

244 > Just the tiny excerpt ace gives, as ace points out, reflects literally no understanding, even familiarity, with American history, the constitution, or the spirit and practice of American self-governance. Zip.

You're giving him far too much credit.

I think he understands those things perfectly well. He just wants to destroy them.

Which makes him a domestic enemy of the Constitution.

Just sayin'.



Posted by: Rodrigo Borgia at October 17, 2018 02:57 PM (vOkuK)

245 William F. Buckley, Jr. was spot on about the Ha-Vud faculty. And the Professor is a Tushy.

Posted by: mercenary13 at October 17, 2018 02:57 PM (fZ0jE)

246 236 So he is arguing that ANYTHING congress passes is de facto constitutional?
Posted by: Buzzsaw90 at October 17, 2018 02:55 PM (9qOCq)

==============

I have little problem with Judicial Review in theory.

My major problem is that the other two branches are completely subservient to it and seem to want no power to call things unconsistutional.

Jefferson called the Alien and Sedition Acts unconstitutional when he became president, refused to enforce them, and just let them expire.

I'd much rather have that kind of back and forth between branches.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, Order The Battle of Lake Erie in Paperback Today! at October 17, 2018 02:57 PM (9ZlHt)

247 I don't think Trump is the type to send in the National Guard.



To keep Portland from burning down?



That's the Governor of the State of Oregon's problem.
Posted by: The ARC of History at October 17, 2018 02:50 PM (I2/tG)

Make the Governor ask, explicitly, on TV for federal help.
Posted by: Cuthbert the Witless at October 17, 2018 02:52 PM
--
See George Romney and the Detroit Riots of '68. Johnson had Federal troops on the ground at the airport and wouldn't give the order to put down the riots until Romney had been sufficiently humiliated on national TV.

Posted by: Old Dan, the Muffin Man at October 17, 2018 02:57 PM (oYD2h)

248 The beauty of it is that even the Dems can't accuse us of "letting brown people die" when Portland goes to shit.

Posted by: xnycpeasant at October 17, 2018 02:57 PM (koNhm)

249 Nazi Germany could move parts of society so swiftly when they wanted

Like arresting all the legislators in opposing political parties a couple of days after they took power.

I'm sure the D's are carefully considering that precedent.

Posted by: The ARC of History at October 17, 2018 02:57 PM (I2/tG)

250 238 Article III gives Judicial power for the courts to rule on controversies between various parties regard to the law. I guess a broad interpretation by me, a layperson , seems to cover Judicial review since that's a controversy between the United States ( Constitution) and the citizenry.

Again my only qualification is I stayed in a Holiday Inn once . Once.

Posted by: Lancelot Link Secret Agent Chimp at October 17, 2018 02:55 PM (tqpcJ)

=============

Not even a Holiday Inn Express?

Get on out of here.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, Order The Battle of Lake Erie in Paperback Today! at October 17, 2018 02:57 PM (9ZlHt)

251 Divorce? Divorce.

Posted by: Nick in Tallahassee at October 17, 2018 02:57 PM (wGbBR)

252 As much as we would be entertained, sending tanks against the barricades is still bad optics.



You know what's great optics, though?



Helicopter rides.



I mean, people pay like $20 for those at fairs.

Posted by: TexasDan at October 17, 2018 02:53 PM (yL25O)

The final word on city reclamation vehicles:
Armored Mobile Water Cannons.
Flex munitions:

Water
Water and 60 grit sand
Water and turd balls
Raw sewage


Posted by: Cuthbert the Witless at October 17, 2018 02:58 PM (ymnmz)

253 I don't know if it's more disturbing that this guy is a Harvard professor. Or that Harvard charges 60k a year to listen to this nonsense.

Posted by: Mike at October 17, 2018 02:58 PM (swJ7s)

254 249 Nazi Germany could move parts of society so swiftly when they wanted

Like arresting all the legislators in opposing political parties a couple of days after they took power.

I'm sure the D's are carefully considering that precedent.
Posted by: The ARC of History at October 17, 2018 02:57 PM (I2/tG)

============

Hey, I don't call an activist government that can do whatever it wants to make its leaders happy to be a good thing.

Just the Left.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, Order The Battle of Lake Erie in Paperback Today! at October 17, 2018 02:58 PM (9ZlHt)

255 To keep Portland from burning down?

That's the Governor of the State of Oregon's problem.

Posted by: The ARC of History



Make the Governor ask, explicitly, on TV for federal help.
Posted by: Cuthbert the Witless


Trump: "Say it. Say it! Who's your daddy? Say it!"

Posted by: rickb223 at October 17, 2018 02:58 PM (hAdu/)

256 Portland is in a game of chicken. Antifa goes full anarchy and elected Dems pretend its free speech. Elected Dems think they will be rewarded for this. And they might be right. But sooner or later someone is gonna lose an eye. Then the momzers are gonna step in - for the chillrun.

Posted by: Puddin Head at October 17, 2018 02:58 PM (2LelM)

257 239 221 Make the Governor ask, explicitly, on TV for federal help.
Posted by: Cuthbert the Witless at October 17, 2018 02:52 PM (ymnmz)

Make him crawl. And link help to getting rid of the "sanctuary city" crap.

Otherwise, let his call go through to voice mail.
Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at October 17, 2018 02:53 PM (YqDXo)

it's amazing to me how state governors have the balls to defy the federal government in regards to borders and immigration, yet as soon as it rains or the earth shakes, they are bellowing for financial aid from that same federal govt.

Posted by: nurse ratched at October 17, 2018 02:58 PM (d7Ww2)

258 My sister graduated from the government program at William & Mary.

Her words (paraphrased): The Constitution is so inefficient. The government moves so slowly.

She meant it as a negative.

The Left wants an activist government that can right all the wrongs of the world on a dime (like how the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany could move parts of society so swiftly when they wanted), as opposed a restrained government designed to preserve individual liberty.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, Order The Battle of Lake Erie in Paperback Today! at October 17, 2018 02:55 PM (9ZlHt)


It's why Friedman admired and implicitly advocated the Chinese model.

"Boy, can you get things done fast! All you need is one Enabling Act, and you're away!"

Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at October 17, 2018 02:59 PM (YqDXo)

259 120 The last time the left played by the rules and put their policy choices to a vote was the Equal Rights Amendment...

Posted by: Dr. RoyalOil, Vicroy Canadian Territories at October 17, 2018 02:35 PM (TN1P5)
----------------------------------
I recall that, as soon as the ERA failed, the leftists sneered that, well, they'd get what they wanted through the courts ANYWAY. Through emanations and penumbras.

And that is exactly what they have done, mystically adding sex, disability, sexual orientation, etc. to the 14th amendment and giving the feds the authority to meddle in such things.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at October 17, 2018 02:59 PM (Rxduq)

260 If the liberals want to step in and overturn Marbury v. Madison and return the Court to it's proper, intended, and diminutive role as outlined in Article III, before John Butthole Marshall messed everything up, then... I guess I finally agree with the damn liberals about an issue.

Never thought I'd see this day.

Posted by: Yudhishthira's Dice at October 17, 2018 02:59 PM (5aX2M)

261 251 Divorce? Divorce.
Posted by: Nick in Tallahassee at October 17, 2018 02:57 PM (wGbBR)

Blood Canals.

Posted by: Hikaru at October 17, 2018 02:59 PM (UnA8+)

262 He's teaching the goddamn Constitution to folks who will be inhabiting the upper reaches of the legal profession, all the while being a true fascist, not the fake kind.
====
Yep. It's pretty much the battle plan for every institution of western civilization. Take over the places of instruction, subvert, then institutionalize the subversion, spread into the popular until normalized. Rip Van Winkle wakes up, and sees the world is upside down.

This is coming to a head. Will it take 100 years or 100 months for this zit to pop?

Posted by: simplemind at October 17, 2018 02:59 PM (ChTIn)

263
Raw sewage

Sewage v. Sewage.

Posted by: Hadrian the Seventh at October 17, 2018 02:59 PM (BWL+E)

264 >>242 DJT will answer Portland's call for help with a Tweet containing the word "BOFA"
Posted by: xnycpeasant at October 17, 2018 02:56 PM (koNhm)

....Or "BOOOOOOF".....

Posted by: DMO at October 17, 2018 02:59 PM (GkjJR)

265 Has there been increased violence in Portland since the blocking of some of the streets by Profa? I haven't been following the story.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at October 17, 2018 02:59 PM (AllCR)

266 255
To keep Portland from burning down?



That's the Governor of the State of Oregon's problem.



Posted by: The ARC of History







Make the Governor ask, explicitly, on TV for federal help.

Posted by: Cuthbert the Witless





Trump: "Say it. Say it! Who's your daddyPresident? Say it!"

Posted by: rickb223 at October 17, 2018 02:58 PM (hAdu/)

FIFY

Posted by: Our Country is Screwed at October 17, 2018 03:00 PM (jxbfJ)

267 Jefferson called the Alien and Sedition Acts unconstitutional when he became president, refused to enforce them, and just let them expire.

How does your opinion square with the oath of the President to faithfully execute the laws of the US?

Posted by: WitchDoktor, AKA VA GOP Sucks at October 17, 2018 03:00 PM (eytER)

268 Harvard.

$50,000 a year.

Bullshit to last a lifetime.

Posted by: Adirondack Patriot at October 17, 2018 03:00 PM (vbJig)

269 Make the Governor ask, explicitly, on TV for federal help.
Posted by: Cuthbert the Witless at October 17, 2018 02:52 PM

---

PORTLAND CALLS FOR AID!!!

Posted by: Aragorn at October 17, 2018 03:00 PM (9qOCq)

270 267 Jefferson called the Alien and Sedition Acts unconstitutional when he became president, refused to enforce them, and just let them expire.

How does your opinion square with the oath of the President to faithfully execute the laws of the US?

Posted by: WitchDoktor, AKA VA GOP Sucks at October 17, 2018 03:00 PM (eytER)

==========

If the law is unconstitutional, then it's the president's duty to not enforce them.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, Order The Battle of Lake Erie in Paperback Today! at October 17, 2018 03:00 PM (EvBgT)

271 Let's just solve the problem. All power lies in the Democrat Party. Simple and effective. It's a well-tried principle, too. Worked great in the USSR.

Posted by: Eeyore, fomerly George LeS at October 17, 2018 03:00 PM (59GGI)

272
Harvard.

$50,000 a year.

Bullshit to last a lifetime.

Posted by: Adirondack Patriot


You can brag that you and Bill Kristol went there.

Posted by: Hadrian the Seventh at October 17, 2018 03:01 PM (BWL+E)

273 So no overturning Prop 8 or 287? Law professor? Do we continually have to remind these idiots why we're a republic?
I'm cranky because of a flair up of my diverticulitis. But, these "elites" have to twist themselves into pretzels with their logic. It's like that Matt twink at Vox writing about whether it was a good thing that we fought the War of Independence.

Posted by: Concerned People's Front at October 17, 2018 03:01 PM (hSQF+)

274 First of all, abortion would be illegal in most states. It was the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade that forced 35+ states to legalize abortion.

Next: Gay marriage would still be a non-existing non-issue in most states, technically "illegal" because no mention of it nor provision to create would exist. It was the Supreme Court that imposed gay marriage on the nation.

Next: Schools in the South (and Boston) and possibly elsewhere would still either be segregated by law, or "de facto" segregated by the self-selection of neighborhood demographics. The Supreme Court imposed forced integration.

Next: Police would be able to question suspects without necessarily reminding them that they don't have to talk if they don't want to.

Next: Obamacare wouldn't exist. The Supreme Court ruled it a "tax" and suddenly it was constitutional.

And on and on and on.

Many of these rulings were very pleasing to leftists. Some of these rulings were probably necessary (like Miranda, etc.)

So: Why would the Left want to get rid of their main weapon for imposing their agenda?

Posted by: zombie at October 17, 2018 03:01 PM (c+2jX)

275 It's why Friedman admired and implicitly advocated the Chinese model.

"Boy, can you get things done fast! All you need is one Enabling Act, and you're away!"
============
He also thought his last cabbie was a bit on the brusque side.

Posted by: simplemind at October 17, 2018 03:01 PM (ChTIn)

276 Who needs a constitution when you have a pen and a phone.

Posted by: Adirondack Patriot at October 17, 2018 03:01 PM (vbJig)

277 I just can't keep up with all these reversals of opinion from the Dems. It's like magnets or the magnetic poles of the earth switching from south to north at random. I can't even.
Posted by: Wolfus Aurelius at October 17, 2018 02:44 PM (Fz8ov)


Keep in mind that there are no reversals of opinion from the Democrats.

Their philosophy is always "we must do what is necessary to advance our agenda", and their agenda never changes.

They just add on an ad hoc appeal to an objective principle as an afterthought, but they don't believe in any objective principles except their agenda. They're Pragmatists, Utilitarians.

Posted by: Steve and Cold Bear at October 17, 2018 03:02 PM (/qEW2)

278
Under the Insurrection Act, and there's also argument for inherent Article II powers, the President can send in troops to restore order without the governor requesting it.

I think the last time that happened was when Ike sent the 101st Airborne into Little Rock during the desegregation mess.

Posted by: publius, Rascally Rapscallion of a Poperin Pear at October 17, 2018 03:02 PM (f1Vqw)

279 PORTLAND FOADDY FIRE !!

Posted by: Lancelot Link Secret Agent Chimp at October 17, 2018 03:02 PM (tqpcJ)

280 If the law is unconstitutional, then it's the president's duty to not enforce them.

That's a bit of a dodge.

Let's go more real. I don't agree with a law. It's valid, but I don't agree with it.

So I say it's unconstitutional.

See any avenues for abuse here?

Posted by: WitchDoktor, AKA VA GOP Sucks at October 17, 2018 03:02 PM (eytER)

281 This is something that needs to happen :

PDT : "Say My Name."

Portland Mayor : "God-Emperor."

PDT : "You're Damn Right."

Posted by: Hikaru at October 17, 2018 03:02 PM (UnA8+)

282 Throw those constitutional limitations, states rights and electoral system in the trash heap of history, The country should be ruled by local citizen committees, selected by the politically woke of course.

Posted by: Ripley at October 17, 2018 03:02 PM (MxEKc)

283 280 If the law is unconstitutional, then it's the president's duty to not enforce them.

That's a bit of a dodge.

Let's go more real. I don't agree with a law. It's valid, but I don't agree with it.

So I say it's unconstitutional.

See any avenues for abuse here?
Posted by: WitchDoktor, AKA VA GOP Sucks at October 17, 2018 03:02 PM (eytER)

===========

Of course, in which case Congress can use its own powers to fight back.

So can the Judiciary.

I want the three branches at each other's throats.

It's better than them ganging up on me.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, Order The Battle of Lake Erie in Paperback Today! at October 17, 2018 03:03 PM (EvBgT)

284 268 Harvard.

$50,000 a year.

Bullshit to last a lifetime.
-----------------------
$200K for BA. WTF? You can get an MIT degree online for free.

Posted by: Puddin Head at October 17, 2018 03:03 PM (2LelM)

285 Just a reminder,

After the riots in the early 70s, voters were fed up. They gave Richard Nixon a huge win and a mandate to put the violence down. Regular people do not like riots and will get firmly behind the group with a plan to end it.

Also, PDT is trying to teach Congress how to do their job again. It's going to take some time. If he's successful, you will start to see them taking back the legislative powers. Bonus will be fewer bureaucrats running things.

Posted by: notsothoreau at October 17, 2018 03:03 PM (JKNZq)

286 How does your opinion square with the oath of the President to faithfully execute the laws of the US?


"Article II Section 1
8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:-"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Posted by: Grump928(C) at October 17, 2018 03:03 PM (JPkLk)

287
There is a fair chance that Oregon will elect a Republican governor, despite 80% of Portland voting against him.

Be pretty funny when the left-wing jerk Mayor of Portland starts begging for the Guard to be sent in.
Posted by: The ARC of History


Nuke it from orbit.

It's the only way to make sure.

Posted by: Bozo Conservative....living on the prison planet at October 17, 2018 03:04 PM (vcOmj)

288 Kyle McLachlan plays the goofy mayor on Portlandia.

I think their real mayor thinks that series was a training video.

Posted by: Adirondack Patriot at October 17, 2018 03:04 PM (vbJig)

289 Let's go more real. I don't agree with a law. It's valid, but I don't agree with it.

So I say it's unconstitutional.

See any avenues for abuse here?
Posted by: WitchDoktor, AKA VA GOP Sucks at October 17, 2018 03:02 PM (eytER)

---

i am the cure

Posted by: IMPEACHMENT at October 17, 2018 03:04 PM (9qOCq)

290 236 So he is arguing that ANYTHING congress passes is de facto constitutional?

Posted by: Buzzsaw90 at October 17, 2018 02:55 PM (9qOCq)


Ah, the Pelosi argument -- And ultimately and in part, Roberts agreed. When it mattered.

Posted by: GnuBreed at October 17, 2018 03:04 PM (Z4rgH)

291 So: Why would the Left want to get rid of their main weapon for imposing their agenda?
=====
Because it is no longer their main weapon.

Posted by: simplemind at October 17, 2018 03:04 PM (e/HIw)

292 so now that the leftists appear to have lost SCOTUS for a couple
decades, they want to use the illegal alien vote to take away our guns,
or vote to confiscate "white" property to give to "minorities".

Posted by: illiniwek at October 17, 2018 02:48 PM (Cus5s)

A couple of decades? I wish that was the case.

Thomas is 70. If he doesn't retire next year and then Trump loses in 2020, new Dem POTUS gets to replace RBG and Bryer and then conservatives would be praying for Thomas to hold on until at least 2024 or 2028 at which time he would be either 76 or 80.

Thomas strikes me as the kind of guy who might want to enjoy some retirement before he dies.

Posted by: WisRich at October 17, 2018 03:04 PM (G0vdT)

293 @285
"Regular people do not like riots "

Since Ted Kennedy regular people are now about 40% of the US population.

Posted by: xnycpeasant at October 17, 2018 03:04 PM (koNhm)

294 Trump, picking up phone: "Hello?"

"Hello, this is the nominal governor of Oregon. You've got to help us! Those antifa assholes are torching the whole place!"

"Gee, sounds like you've got yourself quite a problem there."

"Please help! There's nothing I can do (translation: nothing I want to do, because it would be political suicide)."

"Say, as long as I've got you here on the phone, how's that sanctuary stuff working out for ya? Look, must run, but keep me informed on how things go, OK? Good luck!"

Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at October 17, 2018 03:04 PM (YqDXo)

295 This stupid Harvard prof reminds me of a scene from War and Remembrance, there the nice but hapless Professor Jastrow, goes to see the SS Commandant of his prison camp to petition for some minor problem. He is an academic, an intellectual, surely he can succeed with an appeal to reason? The Commandant's lackey bounces his head like a basketball, and the Commandant gets in Jastrow's face and screams like an Antifa goblin. Which is all the more terrifying because (unlike the goblin) he has the power of life and death over all the Jewish prisoners. Jastrow staggers away in a daze, finally realizing that he, his daughter and grandson, and all the other Jews are in the hands of wicked men.

Posted by: exdem13 at October 17, 2018 03:04 PM (pFljN)

296 275 It's why Friedman admired and implicitly advocated the Chinese model.

"Boy, can you get things done fast! All you need is one Enabling Act, and you're away!"
============
He also thought his last cabbie was a bit on the brusque side.
Posted by: simplemind at October 17, 2018 03:01 PM (ChTIn)

...

We haven't had a good ace post on Friedman for awhile. Can anyone find that last one? It should be permanently on the sidebar.

Posted by: TexasDan at October 17, 2018 03:04 PM (yL25O)

297 The real problem with the court is when they imagine something is in the Constitution....and it isn't. Sure they say what the law is but much bad stems from the 'right to privacy'. The Founders didn't entertain that notion much...they just wanted warrants to search. Even exigent circumstances were not excepted. So to keep law and order going the USSC keep expanding what is allowed to be searched without a warrant. And why stop there with just warrants? USSC expanded the governments power to act or ban acts in every way imaginable. Because they could. It's nature abhors a vacuum writ large. The vacuum happened because Congress failed to define the lanes the court could operate in and make law/amend Constitution in ways that reflected the will of the people rather than the will of the Men/Women in Black. We get all the government we deserve I guess.

Posted by: torabora at October 17, 2018 03:04 PM (Y274z)

298 History starts only yesterday for all Leftists.

Posted by: Lancelot Link Secret Agent Chimp at October 17, 2018 03:04 PM (tqpcJ)

299 Make the Governor ask, explicitly, on TV for federal help.
Posted by: Cuthbert the Witless at October 17, 2018 02:52 PM

---

PORTLAND CALLS FOR AID!!!
Posted by: Aragorn



"I'm sorry. That number has been disconnected. If you feel you have reached this recording in error, please hang up and dial the number again"

Posted by: rickb223 at October 17, 2018 03:04 PM (hAdu/)

300 That's a bit of a dodge.

Let's go more real. I don't agree with a law. It's valid, but I don't agree with it.

So I say it's unconstitutional.

See any avenues for abuse here?
Posted by: WitchDoktor, AKA VA GOP Sucks at October 17, 2018 03:02 PM (eytER)

------

Indeed. And, if a President abuses executive power flagrantly, ignoring the role of Congress and the will of the American people, that's what the 2nd Amendment is for.

We don't need the blessing of men in powdered lace wigs or black dresses to use it, either.

Posted by: Yudhishthira's Dice at October 17, 2018 03:04 PM (5aX2M)

301 Of course, in which case Congress can use its own powers to fight back.

So can the Judiciary.

I want the three branches at each other's throats.

It's better than them ganging up on me.


And what powers would those be? It passed a law, after all. The oath is clear to faithfully execute the law. I see no room for executive discretion in the system here.

Posted by: WitchDoktor, AKA VA GOP Sucks at October 17, 2018 03:05 PM (eytER)

302 New nickname for Warren instead of Pocahontas or Fauxcahontas.

MILLIHONTAS. For being 1/1000 Native-American.

Posted by: hepcat at October 17, 2018 03:05 PM (5b+Sr)

303 289 Let's go more real. I don't agree with a law. It's valid, but I don't agree with it.

So I say it's unconstitutional.

See any avenues for abuse here?
Posted by: WitchDoktor, AKA VA GOP Sucks at October 17, 2018 03:02 PM (eytER)

---

i am the cure
Posted by: IMPEACHMENT at October 17, 2018 03:04 PM (9qOCq)

"No. I am."

-Cobra

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards, now with Bad Times at the El Royale review at October 17, 2018 03:05 PM (bcbK8)

304 I don't know if it's more disturbing that this guy is a Harvard professor. Or that Harvard charges 60k a year to listen to this nonsense.
Posted by: Mike

$60K a year is just for undergrads.

I am sure the tuition at Harvard Law is much higher.

Posted by: Bozo Conservative....living on the prison planet at October 17, 2018 03:05 PM (vcOmj)

305 I don't care enough about Portland to volunteer to go save them from themselves.

Posted by: Hawkpilot at October 17, 2018 03:05 PM (p6e8W)

306 You have to be quite the boofbrain to believe what this professor teaches!

Posted by: Concerned People's Front at October 17, 2018 03:05 PM (hSQF+)

307 291 So: Why would the Left want to get rid of their main weapon for imposing their agenda?
=====
Because it is no longer their main weapon.

Posted by: simplemind at October 17, 2018 03:04 PM (e/HIw)

---

hello boys

Posted by: The Mob at October 17, 2018 03:05 PM (9qOCq)

308 Trump won't do shit for Portland unless the Governor of the state asks him to. Anything that happens there is the fault of local and STATE government LONG before Trump gets involved.

Posted by: Sponge at October 17, 2018 03:06 PM (F4u7C)

309 So: Why would the Left want to get rid of their main weapon for imposing their agenda?
Posted by: zombie at October 17, 2018 03:01 PM (c+2jX)

-------------

They have just lost SCOTUS for a generation. They want it gone now and will worry about getting it back later.

Posted by: Calm Mentor at October 17, 2018 03:06 PM (I16G8)

310 "Regular people do not like riots "

Since Ted Kennedy regular people are now about 40% of the US population.
Posted by: xnycpeasant


Regular people are the owners of 220 million legal firearms and a trillion rounds of ammo.

Just sayin.

Posted by: rickb223 at October 17, 2018 03:06 PM (hAdu/)

311 301 And what powers would those be? It passed a law, after all. The oath is clear to faithfully execute the law. I see no room for executive discretion in the system here.

Posted by: WitchDoktor, AKA VA GOP Sucks at October 17, 2018 03:05 PM (eytER)

===========

Power of the purse.

Start pulling funds for him and his priorities, but it would require a broad political will.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, Order The Battle of Lake Erie in Paperback Today! at October 17, 2018 03:06 PM (EvBgT)

312 New nickname for Warren instead of Pocahontas or Fauxcahontas.



MILLIHONTAS. For being 1/1000 Native-American.

Posted by: hepcat at October 17, 2018 03:05 PM (5b+Sr)


Nohontas.

Posted by: Berserker-Dragonheads Division at October 17, 2018 03:06 PM (9Om/r)

313 So: Why would the Left want to get rid of their main weapon for imposing their agenda?
-----------------------
Because, to do so, they would have to win elections in House and Senate races and hold the WH. What they are telegraphing is they don't think they can achieve this anytime soon - so, ergo, the Court and Courts must be destroyed. Pretty simple.

Posted by: Puddin Head at October 17, 2018 03:06 PM (2LelM)

314 We DO have a way to override judicial review, it's called an amendment.

There really needs to be a way for the states or for the people to force an amendment on their own without having to wait for the stiffs in Congress to act. I believe Greg Abbot had some suggestions on this point.

Posted by: TheBlackBaron at October 17, 2018 03:07 PM (6DO4N)

315
MILLIHONTAS. For being 1/1000 Native-American.

OK, I LOL'd

Posted by: Hawkpilot at October 17, 2018 03:07 PM (p6e8W)

316 The Left wants an activist government that can right all the wrongs of the world on a dime (like how the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany could move parts of society so swiftly when they wanted), as opposed a restrained government designed to preserve individual liberty.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, Order The Battle of Lake Erie in Paperback Today! at October 17, 2018 02:55 PM (9ZlHt)


They do, right up to the point that someone else gets ahold of the magic lamp and summons the genie of government.

Posted by: Mikey NTH - The Outrage Outlet presents Last of the Fauxhicans starring Lizzie Warren at October 17, 2018 03:07 PM (hLRSq)

317 312 New nickname for Warren instead of Pocahontas or Fauxcahontas.



MILLIHONTAS. For being 1/1000 Native-American.

Posted by: hepcat at October 17, 2018 03:05 PM (5b+Sr)


Nohontas.
Posted by: Berserker-Dragonheads Division at October 17, 2018 03:06 PM (9Om/r)

--

PocaHonky

Posted by: The Mob at October 17, 2018 03:07 PM (9qOCq)

318 314 We DO have a way to override judicial review, it's called an amendment.

There really needs to be a way for the states or for the people to force an amendment on their own without having to wait for the stiffs in Congress to act. I believe Greg Abbot had some suggestions on this point.
Posted by: TheBlackBaron at October 17, 2018 03:07 PM (6DO4N)

===========

Article V convention doesn't require Congress.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, Order The Battle of Lake Erie in Paperback Today! at October 17, 2018 03:08 PM (EvBgT)

319 There really needs to be a way for the states or for the people to force
an amendment on their own without having to wait for the stiffs in
Congress to act. I believe Greg Abbot had some suggestions on this
point.

Allow me to introduce you to the Article V Convention...
www.conventionofstates.org

Posted by: Hawkpilot at October 17, 2018 03:08 PM (p6e8W)

320 We could govern by neighborhood, as Karl Hess once suggested. (Am having a few issues finding the article where he lays this out, but will give you a few links if you like the idea.)

https://bit.ly/2OzrLBS
https://bit.ly/2J8q0FP
https://bit.ly/2CT7K2A

Posted by: notsothoreau at October 17, 2018 03:08 PM (JKNZq)

321 MILLIHONTAS. For being 1/1000 Native-American.
OK, I LOL'd
Posted by: Hawkpilot at October 17, 2018 03:07 PM (p6e8W)


The metric system sucks.......

Posted by: Sponge at October 17, 2018 03:08 PM (F4u7C)

322 281 This is something that needs to happen :

PDT : "Say My Name."

Portland Mayor : "God-Emperor."

PDT : "You're Damn Right."

Posted by: Hikaru at October 17, 2018 03:02 PM (UnA8+)

SNORT!! You made me laugh out loud there.

Thanks! HAHAHAHAHAHA

Posted by: Charlotte the sailor at October 17, 2018 03:08 PM (lGLBx)

323 Good post CBD

Also, no understanding of simple logic or ability to consider consequences beyond what he wants to.

If you get rig of judicial review, then the constitution becomes meaningless. Nothing more than a mission statement. Something to ignore while you do the opposite.

Posted by: Gentlemen, this is democracy manifest at October 17, 2018 03:08 PM (LWu6U)

324 You know what constitutional entity handed down the final judgment on slavery?

The Grand Army of the Republic.

Posted by: Adirondack Patriot at October 17, 2018 03:09 PM (vbJig)

325 Power of the purse.

Start pulling funds for him and his priorities, but it would require a broad political will.


Ah, but this action would require Congress to cut off it's own noses as well. So that's not much of a stick. And if we're being strict constructionist about all of this, the President doesn't have much if any say about funding or priorities or anything anyway...he's there to enforce the laws made by Congress.

Posted by: WitchDoktor, AKA VA GOP Sucks at October 17, 2018 03:09 PM (eytER)

326 Microhontas (stolen from the twatters, yesterday).

Posted by: rhomboid at October 17, 2018 03:09 PM (QDnY+)

327 Jastrow staggers away in a daze, finally realizing that he, his daughter and grandson, and all the other Jews are in the hands of wicked men.
Posted by: exdem13


There is a scene in the made-for-TV movie, (War and Remembrance) where they are all ushered (naked) into the gas chamber for a "shower". They were all sobbing, and John Gielgud, who played Jastrow, is crying, because he knows they are all about to die.

It is one of the most wrenching and tragically sad things I have ever seen on TV. It made me cry.
It was the terror and horror and tragedy of this made real (dramatically). Naked women holding their children, sobbing because they were about to die.

Posted by: Bozo Conservative....living on the prison planet at October 17, 2018 03:09 PM (vcOmj)

328 325 Power of the purse.

Start pulling funds for him and his priorities, but it would require a broad political will.

Ah, but this action would require Congress to cut off it's own noses as well. So that's not much of a stick. And if we're being strict constructionist about all of this, the President doesn't have much if any say about funding or priorities or anything anyway...he's there to enforce the laws made by Congress.

Posted by: WitchDoktor, AKA VA GOP Sucks at October 17, 2018 03:09 PM (eytER)

===========

Should the president be merely an automaton of Congress's will?

Or is it an equal branch elected by the people and states of the Union?

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, Order The Battle of Lake Erie in Paperback Today! at October 17, 2018 03:10 PM (EvBgT)

329 The oath is clear to faithfully execute the law.

Actually, the President doesn't swear to faithfully execute the law per Article II Section I, though Article II Section III does require that "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". If he doesn't, that is an impeachable offense.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at October 17, 2018 03:10 PM (JPkLk)

330 Whenever I saw an Ivy League resume/CV come across my desk it went directly into the round file. The Ivy League is shit.

Posted by: Under Fire at October 17, 2018 03:10 PM (r9UYA)

331 Somehow having robed overlords wasn't in the original plan.

Posted by: Skip at October 17, 2018 03:10 PM (T4oHT)

332 #295 ...in the hands of wicked men (and women)....like 8 years of America's Reign Of Error.

Posted by: torabora at October 17, 2018 03:10 PM (Y274z)

333 Posted by: Yudhishthira's Dice at October 17, 2018 03:04 PM (5aX2M)

I think articles of impeachment would precede the 2nd Amendment avenue. Unless you're really really impatient.

Posted by: Lancelot Link Secret Agent Chimp at October 17, 2018 03:10 PM (tqpcJ)

334 A Harvard Law degree should be an automatic disqualifier for public office.

Posted by: rickl at October 17, 2018 03:11 PM (xjiRE)

335 "One is that, as a matter of basic democratic principle, the people ought
to be able to consider policies and then vote on them without having
the courts step in and say "no."

Sure, we can get voters to agree slavery is okay,
or
Genocide is a good thing as long as the majority voted for it!

We voted on it, right? Nuff said!


Posted by: DamnedYankee at October 17, 2018 03:11 PM (37IEG)

336 320 We could govern by neighborhood, as Karl Hess once suggested. (Am having a few issues finding the article where he lays this out, but will give you a few links if you like the idea.)

https://bit.ly/2OzrLBS
https://bit.ly/2J8q0FP
https://bit.ly/2CT7K2A
Posted by: notsothoreau at October 17, 2018 03:08 PM (JKNZq)

Block captains.

Posted by: joncelli, providing the traditional responses at October 17, 2018 03:11 PM (RD7QR)

337 "Regular people do not like riots "

Since Ted Kennedy regular people are now about 40% of the US population.
Posted by: xnycpeasant

OCCUPY went swimmingly right up to the point that the very liberal neighbors of the Occupy encampment wanted it and the hippy bums moved out. It seems they weren't too fond of being harassed by bums when they went to walk the dog, people tearing up the neighborhood and urinating and defecating where they pleased, drum circles going all night long, etc.

My prediction is that right after the election all of these indulgent local politicians are going to find real good reasons for Antifa to go back to their squalid dens, pronto.

Posted by: Mikey NTH - The Outrage Outlet presents Last of the Fauxhicans starring Lizzie Warren at October 17, 2018 03:11 PM (hLRSq)

338
Here's the applicable section of the Insurrection Act:

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it

(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

Posted by: publius, Rascally Rapscallion of a Poperin Pear at October 17, 2018 03:11 PM (f1Vqw)

339 So, he swears to uphold the Constitution, and "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". So clearly, an unconstitutional law is no law at all and so should not be faithfully executed.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at October 17, 2018 03:11 PM (JPkLk)

340 312 New nickname for Warren instead of Pocahontas or Fauxcahontas.



MILLIHONTAS. For being 1/1000 Native-American.

Posted by: hepcat at October 17, 2018 03:05 PM (5b+Sr)


Nohontas.
Posted by: Berserker-Dragonheads Division at October 17, 2018 03:06 PM (9Om/r)

--

PocaHonky

Posted by: The Mob at October 17, 2018 03:07 PM (9qOCq)


"The Last of the Fauxhicans."

Posted by: Mikey NTH - The Outrage Outlet presents Last of the Fauxhicans starring Lizzie Warren at October 17, 2018 03:12 PM (hLRSq)

341 336 320 We could govern by neighborhood, as Karl Hess once suggested. (Am having a few issues finding the article where he lays this out, but will give you a few links if you like the idea.)

https://bit.ly/2OzrLBS
https://bit.ly/2J8q0FP
https://bit.ly/2CT7K2A
Posted by: notsothoreau at October 17, 2018 03:08 PM (JKNZq)

Block captains.
Posted by: joncelli, providing the traditional responses at October 17, 2018 03:11 PM (RD7QR)

Ward bosses?

This does not sound like a good idea.

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards, now with Bad Times at the El Royale review at October 17, 2018 03:12 PM (bcbK8)

342 One of the most destructive statements ever made... destructive to the idea that we are a Republic with a Constitution...

Was when the phrase 'the Constitution was not a suicide pact' was uttered.

Because they have used that idea to ignore the Constitution, instead of using the correct process of AMENDING the Constitution.

Posted by: Don Q at October 17, 2018 03:12 PM (NgKpN)

343 You know, if she really believed that she was Cherokee, Warren should be really upset.

I mean, her identity has been a lie. Who she is is 180 degree from what she has been advocating. She is the white devil that destroyed her people.

I don't she batted an eyelash after she got the results. It's as if she always knew.

Color me surprised.

Posted by: Adirondack Patriot at October 17, 2018 03:12 PM (vbJig)

344 Whenever I saw an Ivy League resume/CV come across my desk it went directly into the round file. The Ivy League is shit.

Posted by: Under Fire at October 17, 2018 03:10 PM (r9UYA)

---------------

I learned to do this too, although HR sure loved them some Ivy leaguers.

Posted by: Calm Mentor at October 17, 2018 03:12 PM (I16G8)

345 You know what constitutional entity handed down the final judgment on slavery?

The Grand Army of the Republic.




Begun the clone wars have.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at October 17, 2018 03:13 PM (JPkLk)

346 Nothing more than a mission statement. Something to ignore while you do the opposite.
=======
Say, that actually sounds like an idea. What do you think of this . . . DON'T BE EVIL.

Posted by: Giggle at October 17, 2018 03:13 PM (7OJkW)

347 Nadahontus

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at October 17, 2018 03:13 PM (r+sAi)

348 Warren's not very bright is she. To see that result and still be able to say "SEE! I Told you so! Waaaahooooo!"

Posted by: DamnedYankee at October 17, 2018 03:14 PM (37IEG)

349 Here's the applicable section of the Insurrection Act:



The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or
by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary
to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful
combination, or conspiracy, if it



(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the
United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is
deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the
Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that
State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or
immunity, or to give that protection; or

(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

Posted by: publius, Rascally Rapscallion of a Poperin Pear at October 17, 2018 03:11 PM (f1Vqw)


I'm pretty sure many of the dem controlled cities are pretty much in violation of most of that.

Posted by: Berserker-Dragonheads Division at October 17, 2018 03:14 PM (9Om/r)

350 Judicial review in its entirety doesn't have to go. It just needs to be returned to its very limited, modest scope.


A lot of this is not written down, under than in rulings over the years.


Deference to the executive on foreign policy and national security, for example. Obvious, logical, kind of insane to do it any other way - but not written down. Established through action over time.


In the absence of good faith, no system involving humans is workable, however well designed. This is even more basic than Grump's essential point - that the constitutional crack-up is mostly a result of will, not construction, failing us.


This is why I despair so much at the ridiculous arrogant destruction wrought by Kennedy and Roberts. Pure bad faith, dishonesty, weak character (though Kennedy also had a touch, or more, of power-madness about him).


It parallels the problem with the electorate. No American mindset, in any historically meaningful sense = disastrous outcomes.

Posted by: rhomboid at October 17, 2018 03:14 PM (QDnY+)

351 Should the president be merely an automaton of Congress's will?

Or is it an equal branch elected by the people and states of the Union?


Ah, equal branch.

Where is that codified in the Constitution? Or is the idea of three equal branches some of those penumbras I hear about.....?

Automaton, no. However, there are spheres of responsibility and they don't intersect all that much. Congress makes laws, no other branch. Executive enforces them, no other branch. Get the idea?

And a system where the enforcement branch can pick and choose what laws to enforce actually does quite a bit of damage to a Republic system. Kind of like how Democrats seem to get off with no punishment whatsoever when they abuse the IRS and go after conservatives....

Posted by: WitchDoktor, AKA VA GOP Sucks at October 17, 2018 03:14 PM (eytER)

352 337
"Regular people do not like riots "



Since Ted Kennedy regular people are now about 40% of the US population.

Posted by: xnycpeasant



OCCUPY went swimmingly right up to the point that the very liberal
neighbors of the Occupy encampment wanted it and the hippy bums moved
out. It seems they weren't too fond of being harassed by bums when they
went to walk the dog, people tearing up the neighborhood and urinating
and defecating where they pleased, drum circles going all night long,
etc.



My prediction is that right after the election all of these
indulgent local politicians are going to find real good reasons for
Antifa to go back to their squalid dens, pronto.

Posted by: Mikey NTH - The Outrage Outlet presents Last of the
Fauxhicans starring Lizzie Warren at October 17, 2018 03:11 PM (hLRSq)

Don't forget the rape tents and the civil war between the uptown occutards and the downtown occutards. The downtown occutards never returned books to the Occutard Library set up buy the uptown occutards. So the uptown occutards tried to ban the downtown occutards from the Occutard Library, and I think it all ended when the downtown Occutards burned the library down and then pissed all over the ashes.
Imma littel sketchy on the exact details.

Posted by: Cuthbert the Witless at October 17, 2018 03:15 PM (ymnmz)

353 I think articles of impeachment would precede the 2nd Amendment avenue. Unless you're really really impatient.
Posted by: Lancelot Link Secret Agent Chimp at October 17, 2018 03:10 PM (tqpcJ)

-------

Absolutely. Of course! Perhaps I should've been more clear... When I said "role of Congress" I meant their lawmaking, budget, and impeachment powers - those are the check against dickhead Presidents. Failing thos, then we exert our rights as individuals and citizens to correct the guy.

Posted by: Yudhishthira's Dice at October 17, 2018 03:15 PM (5aX2M)

354 Imagine a post election where the GOP retains the House, the Senate, and now start going after the media. Then teachers unions.
Ahhhh

Posted by: Diogenes at October 17, 2018 03:15 PM (Q8d2j)

355 You know, if she really believed that she was Cherokee, Warren should be really upset.

I mean, her identity has been a lie. Who she is is 180 degree from what she has been advocating. She is the white devil that destroyed her people.

I don't she batted an eyelash after she got the results. It's as if she always knew.

Color me surprised.
===========
So her male ancestor married to the supposed female indian, has been indentified as one of the soldiers involved in the trail of tears. No lie. It was on legal insurrection a couple days back.

Posted by: simplemind at October 17, 2018 03:16 PM (tCeid)

356 The oath is clear to faithfully execute the law.

Actually, the President doesn't swear to faithfully execute the law per Article II Section I, though Article II Section III does require that "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". If he doesn't, that is an impeachable offense.
Posted by: Grump928(C)

You ARE correct. Just looked it up.

Posted by: rickb223 at October 17, 2018 03:16 PM (hAdu/)

357 So, he swears to uphold the Constitution, and "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". So clearly, an unconstitutional law is no law at all and so should not be faithfully executed.
Posted by: Grump928(C) at October 17, 2018 03:11 PM (JPkLk)

I don't think the President is given the constitutional power to determine what laws are constitutional or not. That's why there is Judicial Review since Article III gives the Court the power to rule on 'controversies' between parties.

Posted by: Lancelot Link Secret Agent Chimp at October 17, 2018 03:16 PM (tqpcJ)

358 341 336 320 We could govern by neighborhood, as Karl Hess once suggested. (Am having a few issues finding the article where he lays this out, but will give you a few links if you like the idea.)

https://bit.ly/2OzrLBS
https://bit.ly/2J8q0FP
https://bit.ly/2CT7K2A
Posted by: notsothoreau at October 17, 2018 03:08 PM (JKNZq)

Block captains.
Posted by: joncelli, providing the traditional responses at October 17, 2018 03:11 PM (RD7QR)

Ward bosses?

This does not sound like a good idea.
Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards, now with Bad Times at the El Royale review at October 17, 2018 03:12 PM (bcbK


Government by HOA? No thanks.

Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at October 17, 2018 03:16 PM (YqDXo)

359 Posted by: torabora at October 17, 2018 03:04 PM (Y274z)
---
You're right. The "right to privacy" as a right cannot be taken away without due process. And redefined as "substantive due process", since Taney and Dred Scott, the police could not get a document to violate that right (a warrant) without convicting you--giving you the benefit of a reasonable doubt--of ... what??!!

They need the warrant for evidence that you violated the law, but they would need to convict you of something else to get that writ that allows them to intrude on your privacy.

A "quasi-judicial procedure" could not ever stand as "due process" for the removal of a "right".

Theorists really screwed the pooch on that. Because if we could allow the police to get a document that allowed them to invade your privacy, then theoretically, a piece of paper allows them to silence you as well--if it's for the good of the public.

Posted by: Axeman at October 17, 2018 03:16 PM (vDqXW)

360 348
Warren's not very bright is she. To see that result and still be able to say "SEE! I Told you so! Waaaahooooo!"


Posted by: DamnedYankee at October 17, 2018 03:14 PM (37IEG)


Her war chant is da bomb.
oo oo oo oo oo oo oooooooooo

Posted by: Cuthbert the Witless at October 17, 2018 03:16 PM (ymnmz)

361 334 A Harvard Law degree should be an automatic disqualifier for public office.
Posted by: rickl at October 17, 2018 03:11 PM (xjiRE)

It Moved.

Posted by: Hikaru at October 17, 2018 03:17 PM (UnA8+)

362 So, he swears to uphold the Constitution, and "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". So clearly, an unconstitutional law is no law at all and so should not be faithfully executed.

And now we start getting to the meat of the matter.

Who decides?


Posted by: WitchDoktor, AKA VA GOP Sucks at October 17, 2018 03:17 PM (eytER)

363 354 Imagine a post election where the GOP retains the House, the Senate, and now start going after the media. Then teachers unions.
Ahhhh
Posted by: Diogenes at October 17, 2018 03:15 PM (Q8d2j)


Hollywood.

Academia.

Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at October 17, 2018 03:17 PM (YqDXo)

364 Just had a bad flashback: Color Me Badd's 'I Want to Sex You Up'.

OMG. I think I prefer the London Boys.

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards, now with Bad Times at the El Royale review at October 17, 2018 03:17 PM (bcbK8)

365 So her male ancestor married to the supposed female indian, has been indentified as one of the soldiers involved in the trail of tears. No lie. It was on legal insurrection a couple days back.
_____________________________________

So, they had rapey Tuesday back then under President Jackson?

Posted by: Adirondack Patriot at October 17, 2018 03:17 PM (vbJig)

366 We could govern by neighborhood, as Karl Hess once suggested. (Am having a few issues finding the article where he lays this out, but will give you a few links if you like the idea.)
---
Right and it could just be "Our Thing". ( https://translate.google.com/?source=osdd#auto/it/our%20thing )

Posted by: Axeman at October 17, 2018 03:18 PM (vDqXW)

367 I will be surprised if we last to 250 years with these bozos trying to dismantle the Constitution at every turn.

Posted by: GatorGirl at October 17, 2018 03:18 PM (0n7DV)

368 Here's the applicable section of the Insurrection Act:

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it

(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
Posted by: publius


Bet blocking an ICE office qualifies letting loose a squad of Navy Seals loose on them.

Posted by: rickb223 at October 17, 2018 03:18 PM (hAdu/)

369 "Regular people do not like riots "

Since Ted Kennedy regular people are now about 40% of the US population.
Posted by: xnycpeasant
-----------------------------------------
Um, no.
In any case, the VAST majority of people do not like riots.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at October 17, 2018 03:19 PM (Rxduq)

370 363 354 Imagine a post election where the GOP retains the House, the Senate, and now start going after the media. Then teachers unions.
Ahhhh
Posted by: Diogenes at October 17, 2018 03:15 PM (Q8d2j)

Hollywood.

Academia.
Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at October 17, 2018 03:17 PM (YqDXo)

helicopter rides

Posted by: nurse ratched at October 17, 2018 03:19 PM (d7Ww2)

371 351 Automaton, no. However, there are spheres of responsibility and they don't intersect all that much. Congress makes laws, no other branch. Executive enforces them, no other branch. Get the idea?

And a system where the enforcement branch can pick and choose what laws to enforce actually does quite a bit of damage to a Republic system. Kind of like how Democrats seem to get off with no punishment whatsoever when they abuse the IRS and go after conservatives....

Posted by: WitchDoktor, AKA VA GOP Sucks at October 17, 2018 03:14 PM (eytER)
==========

Then who is left to determine whether a law is constitutional or not?

Ideally, Congress should pass no laws that are unconstitutional, but that's obviously not the case. The judiciary is the only one that does it now, but they can't be relied on.

Yes, the executive branch deciding to not enforce some laws is dangerous, but how is it different from what we have now?

Obama chooses to not enforce immigration law, but the law remains on the books so that the next president can just turn around and start enforcing it again.

Maybe executive review would require another step (an amendment that outline a process), but I'd rather have more branches of government upending bad law that's out of step with the constitution than fewer branches.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, Order The Battle of Lake Erie in Paperback Today! at October 17, 2018 03:19 PM (EvBgT)

372 Section I, though Article II Section III does require that "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". If he doesn't, that is an impeachable offense.
Posted by: Grump928(C)

You ARE correct. Just looked it up.
Posted by: rickb223 at October 17, 2018 03:16 PM (hAdu/)
***************
Ob+mao ...the ConLaw Professor.... reads that as meaning Prezidenting is choosing which laws to ignore or which laws to interpret.

Posted by: torabora at October 17, 2018 03:19 PM (Y274z)

373 Who decides?

Posted by: WitchDoktor, AKA VA GOP Sucks at October 17, 2018 03:17 PM (eytER)
---
Exactly. The problem of government.

We know the libs answer.

They do. Anywhere and everywhere.

Posted by: Axeman at October 17, 2018 03:19 PM (vDqXW)

374 I don't think the President is given the constitutional power to determine what laws are constitutional or not. That's why there is Judicial Review since Article III gives the Court the power to rule on 'controversies' between parties.
Posted by: Lancelot Link Secret Agent Chimp at October 17, 2018 03:16 PM (tqpcJ)

----------------

The President does not, although this gets stepped on so regularly that people have become used to it. Bathhouse Barry: "I'm doing this because it's the right thing to do!".

Posted by: Calm Mentor at October 17, 2018 03:20 PM (I16G8)

375 It's very possible that a majority of Americans are more injun than Warren. So much for 'minority' and 'diversity.'

Posted by: Mr. Peebles at October 17, 2018 03:20 PM (A3w0Q)

376 217 Chinese actor Fan Bingbing hit with $130,000,000 bill for back taxes and fines by Chinese tax authorities.

Posted by: bonhomme at October 17, 2018 02:46 PM (9qZ3S)
---
That's after she "disappeared" for four months, and media outlets were forbidden to mention that nobody had seen Fan in months.

She had to write an apology letter in which she expressed that she would be worth nothing without the excellent policies of the Communist party.
===
Yeah, saw the news of that. BingBing was popular and wealthy and living large, an "idol" as the Japanese would say. that was politically incorrect in Beijing of course, so the mandarins deliberately humbled and shamed her in the dust. Anyone over here who would support that action should never be trusted with anything.

Posted by: exdem13 at October 17, 2018 03:20 PM (pFljN)

377 I don't think the President is given the constitutional power to determine what laws are constitutional or not. That's why there is Judicial Review since Article III gives the Court the power to rule on 'controversies' between parties.
Posted by: Lancelot Link Secret Agent Chimp at October 17, 2018 03:16 PM (tqpcJ)

Seems that the President could decide, then the Supremes could overrule IF a lawsuit was brought..

But only the Supremes should be able to override the President, as they are coequal to him, NOT inferior courts.

Posted by: Don Q at October 17, 2018 03:20 PM (NgKpN)

378 Grump my comment about Trump not fulfilling his oath is not frivolous, I am referring specifically to the travel EO.


His actions were *clearly* lawful, no trace of a constitutional issue in sight. A basic executive branch function, with clear power delegated by Congress. It was an action that was almost a duplicate of one that had occurred less than 2 years before (different president), without anyone suggesting a problem, since obviously there wasn't one. And it mirrored literally thousands of actions, taken over decades, that taken together are called policy for consular affairs at State.


Complying with any of the court orders - even acknowledging jurisdiction - was a mistake, and arguably violation of oath.

Posted by: rhomboid at October 17, 2018 03:20 PM (QDnY+)

379 Sigh...

Again for those that don't understand this:

The United States is not a democracy. There is a good reason for this (true democracy is a completely shitty political system) and we eliminate our Constitutional Republic and replace it with democracy at our own peril and ruin.

Oh, I get it. If we went full democracy, we'd get shit done. Terrible, poorly thought out, tyrannical, awful shit.

The fact that our representative republic can't get things done easily, and without judicial oversight, is exactly. The. Fucking. Point.

Moron.

Posted by: Goober at October 17, 2018 03:20 PM (6kbgu)

380 Yeah, saw the news of that. BingBing was popular and
wealthy and living large, an "idol" as the Japanese would say. that was
politically incorrect in Beijing of course, so the mandarins
deliberately humbled and shamed her in the dust. Anyone over here who
would support that action should never be trusted with anything.

Posted by: exdem13 at October 17, 2018 03:20 PM (pFljN)


But, muh Kashogi.

Posted by: Lefty Jackass at October 17, 2018 03:21 PM (ymnmz)

381 And a system where the enforcement branch can pick and choose what laws to enforce actually does quite a bit of damage to a Republic system.


And yet it is the very system the Founders intended, having no trust in any man. The executive branch and the legislative branch are required to swear to support the Constitution, and as they understand it.

Interestingly to me and as an aside, I don't think the Court is not so required in the Constitution, though I assume they are in the enabling legislation.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at October 17, 2018 03:22 PM (JPkLk)

382 Trail of Tears is too close to be the mythical ancestor they're talking about.
Warren was born in 1949 - if you assume it's no closer than 6 generations back to be generous that puts it roughly in 1745. Trail of Tears starts in 1830-31.
Assume a generation is about 34 years on average.

Posted by: DamnedYankee at October 17, 2018 03:22 PM (37IEG)

383 @369
Obviously %s are facetious. And to clear up any misunderstanding I'm not talking about race/ethnicity but the social norms of the Third World in which occasional riots are like the weather and rule by strongmen is the norm.

Posted by: xnycpeasant at October 17, 2018 03:22 PM (koNhm)

384 379 Oh, I get it. If we went full democracy, we'd get shit done. Terrible, poorly thought out, tyrannical, awful shit.

The fact that our representative republic can't get things done easily, and without judicial oversight, is exactly. The. Fucking. Point.

Moron.
Posted by: Goober at October 17, 2018 03:20 PM (6kbgu)

==========

They only feel that direct democracy would put them in power.

It's the only means to their end that they find most likely now.

If they thought a military coup would get them what they want, they'd be advocating for that.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, Order The Battle of Lake Erie in Paperback Today! at October 17, 2018 03:22 PM (EvBgT)

385 Complying with any of the court orders - even acknowledging jurisdiction - was a mistake, and arguably violation of oath.


I agree 100%.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at October 17, 2018 03:23 PM (JPkLk)

386 Then who is left to determine whether a law is constitutional or not?

As I said, the meat of the matter.

The way I see it, a President can veto a bill he thinks is unconstitutional. That's his remedy. But if Congress overrides it, that's THEIR remedy. If we're assuming co-equal, after all, hey Congress is good with it. and they followed the system.

But I don't much cotton to a President who vetoes a law and then refuses to enforce it out of pique. He lost the argument.

As for existing law, a President refusing to enforce it is not a remedy. There it falls to the people to bring a case forward and the judiciary is involved.

Posted by: WitchDoktor, AKA VA GOP Sucks at October 17, 2018 03:23 PM (eytER)

387 364 Just had a bad flashback: Color Me Badd's 'I Want to Sex You Up'.

OMG. I think I prefer the London Boys.
Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards, now with Bad Times at the El Royale review at October 17, 2018 03:17 PM (bcbK

Some very triggering '90s hair in the video.

Posted by: joncelli, providing the traditional responses at October 17, 2018 03:23 PM (RD7QR)

388 384. There have been calls for that since at least the inauguration.

Posted by: Your Decidedly Devious Uncle Palpatine, GECSPLAN, SMR, and Ancient Slavonaut Newsletters at October 17, 2018 03:23 PM (fA1SL)

389 BingBing was popular and
wealthy and living large, an "idol" as the Japanese would say. that was
politically incorrect in Beijing of course, so the mandarins
deliberately humbled and shamed her in the dust.
======
It prolly had more to do with her not being amenable to the whims of party leaders, if you catch my drift. They have no problem with wealth, as long as you do EXACTLY as you are told, you can keep it.

Posted by: simplemind at October 17, 2018 03:23 PM (/LVe3)

390 "(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws."

And thus Dwight Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock.


(Getting into a gunfight with Dwight Eisenhower is one of the top bad ideas of the late 20th century.)

Posted by: Mikey NTH - The Outrage Outlet presents Last of the Fauxhicans starring Lizzie Warren at October 17, 2018 03:24 PM (hLRSq)

391 Posted by: Don Q at October 17, 2018 03:20 PM (NgKpN)

Agree. And because of that , these 'Executive power controversies' should go directly to the SC and not be reviewed by some Hawaiian Judge.

Posted by: Lancelot Link Secret Agent Chimp at October 17, 2018 03:24 PM (tqpcJ)

392 Democracy- A government where 51% rules over the 49%

Posted by: Skip at October 17, 2018 03:24 PM (T4oHT)

393 Democracy - Cliff Notes definition.

8 wolves and 3 sheep voting on what to have for lunch.

Posted by: DamnedYankee at October 17, 2018 03:24 PM (37IEG)

394 Greetings:

Well, looking for a bright side, his being a Professor at Harvard at least keeps him off the streets for a couple of hours a day, no ???

Posted by: 11B40 at October 17, 2018 03:24 PM (evgyj)

395
Note the wording in the Insurrection Act is "shall". The President *shall*.

This means it's a duty of POTUS to respond if a state isn't protecting it's citizens.

That case in Portland with the authorities just sitting by while a mob takes over the streets is such a case.

If the state government refuses to act, the President *shall*.

And there's one other requirement:

Whenever the President considers it necessary to use the militia or the armed forces under this chapter, he shall, by proclamation, immediately order the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time.

So he's got to a warning and one final order to peaceably stand down before he drops the hammer.

Posted by: publius, Rascally Rapscallion of a Poperin Pear at October 17, 2018 03:24 PM (f1Vqw)

396 365 So her male ancestor married to the supposed female indian, has been indentified as one of the soldiers involved in the trail of tears. No lie. It was on legal insurrection a couple days back.
_____________________________________

So, they had rapey Tuesday back then under President Jackson?
Posted by: Adirondack Patriot at October 17, 2018 03:17 PM (vbJig)

Number 6 rain dance.

Posted by: joncelli, providing the traditional responses at October 17, 2018 03:25 PM (RD7QR)

397 Just for clarification - forget, for a moment, John Butthole Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, and stupid made-up ideas about "judicial review" of the US Constitution. Look at Articles I-III of the Constitution on their own.

The Founders neutered the Court. It is NOT equal to the other branches. This was on purpose. They had witnessed the corrosive effects of judicial outlaws and their "common" law. They stripped them of that power for a good reason.

Posted by: Yudhishthira's Dice at October 17, 2018 03:25 PM (5aX2M)

398 #368 thanks for the citation. Governor Brown, his minions like Becerra, Rep Pelosi, Sen's Harris and Fiendsteen are all domestic enemies.

They have a fundamental difference of opinion of what America is and what it should be from the greater national body politic. They usurped the republican form of government with a clever placement of pressure in schools,gay rights, SJW, a jungle primary, and the welfare offices and seeded the place with illegals...don't tell me they don't vote.

Posted by: torabora at October 17, 2018 03:25 PM (Y274z)

399
It's the only means to their end that they find most likely now.

If they thought a military coup would get them what they want, they'd be advocating for that.
=======
Let's face it. They are working their way down a list. Methodically. That's on the list.

Posted by: simplemind at October 17, 2018 03:25 PM (SIimi)

400 Ob+mao ...the ConLaw Professor.... reads that as meaning Prezidenting is choosing which laws to ignore or which laws to interpret.


In fairness to the SCoaMF, so do I. The difference is that I think the President has to be acting to support the Constitution, as he understands it. TFG meant what He thought best.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at October 17, 2018 03:25 PM (JPkLk)

401 I think Mark Levin's Convention of States project argued for 2/3 House and Senate vote to overrule a Supreme Court decision. Sounds reasonable, but would only be usable in the most limited of circumstances. When was the last time either party had 2/3 majority in both branches of Congress??

Posted by: RichardWindsor at October 17, 2018 03:25 PM (db5dt)

402 387 364 Just had a bad flashback: Color Me Badd's 'I Want to Sex You Up'.

OMG. I think I prefer the London Boys.
Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards, now with Bad Times at the El Royale review at October 17, 2018 03:17 PM (bcbK

Some very triggering '90s hair in the video.
Posted by: joncelli, providing the traditional responses at October 17, 2018 03:23 PM (RD7QR)

Very disturbing. Why was that in my playlist, Pandora?!?!

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards, now with Bad Times at the El Royale review at October 17, 2018 03:25 PM (bcbK8)

403 I do BTW believe that the regular people of this country will ultimately win out. I just periodically need to make a point that "The American People" is not an infinitely malleable thing.

Posted by: xnycpeasant at October 17, 2018 03:26 PM (koNhm)

404 399
It's the only means to their end that they find most likely now.

If they thought a military coup would get them what they want, they'd be advocating for that.
=======
Let's face it. They are working their way down a list. Methodically. That's on the list.
Posted by: simplemind at October 17, 2018 03:25 PM (SIimi)

=========

I think they worked through coup already.

Next will be secession.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, Order The Battle of Lake Erie in Paperback Today! at October 17, 2018 03:26 PM (EvBgT)

405 So he's got to a warning and one final order to peaceably stand down before he drops the hammer.
=======
PRESIDENTIAL ALERT SYSTEM.

remember that . . .

Posted by: simplemind at October 17, 2018 03:27 PM (SIimi)

406 So he's got to a warning and one final order to peaceably stand down before he drops the hammer.
Posted by: publius, Rascally Rapscallion of a Poperin Pear at October 17, 2018 03:24 PM (f1Vqw)
***********
No so fast ...

Posted by: Hawaiian Judge at October 17, 2018 03:27 PM (Y274z)

407 403. Preamble of the Constitution: '...to ourselves and our posterity.....'

There's a lot of people here who aren't Americans.

Posted by: Your Decidedly Devious Uncle Palpatine, GECSPLAN, SMR, and Ancient Slavonaut Newsletters at October 17, 2018 03:27 PM (fA1SL)

408 Assume a generation is about 34 years on average.
Posted by: DamnedYankee at October 17, 2018 03:22 PM (37IEG)

But a generation can be as short as 16 to 18 years depending on when the kids are born.

Average age for Mother at first birth TODAY is 25.1 years old... and its the highest its ever been.

Posted by: Don Q at October 17, 2018 03:27 PM (NgKpN)

409 The Muzak in my kids orthodontist office is playing Clapton's 'Cocaine.'

I expect a soccer mom meltdown any minute.

Posted by: Mr. Peebles at October 17, 2018 03:27 PM (A3w0Q)

410 PORTLAND CALLS FOR AID!!!
Posted by: Aragorn at October 17, 2018 03:00 PM (9qOCq)

And Gondor says "Suck it!"

Posted by: hobbitopoly at October 17, 2018 03:28 PM (MX7xj)

411
Next will be secession.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, Order The Battle of Lake Erie in Paperback Today! at October 17, 2018 03:26 PM (EvBgT)
Good, they can kick the next game off by trying to take over Camp Pendleton.

Posted by: DamnedYankee at October 17, 2018 03:28 PM (37IEG)

412 But I don't much cotton to a President who vetoes a law and then refuses to enforce it out of pique. He lost the argument.



But then, if he believe the law violates the Constitution, and enforces it, he violates his own oath to defend the Constitution.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at October 17, 2018 03:28 PM (JPkLk)

413 Posted by: publius, Rascally Rapscallion of a Poperin Pear at October 17, 2018 03:24 PM (f1Vqw)

I don't see the problem, they have the government they always wanted, right?

Posted by: Mikey NTH - The Outrage Outlet presents Last of the Fauxhicans starring Lizzie Warren at October 17, 2018 03:28 PM (hLRSq)

414 So he's got to a warning and one final order to peaceably stand down before he drops the hammer.
Posted by: publius, Rascally Rapscallion of a Poperin Pear at October 17, 2018 03:24 PM (f1Vqw)
***********
No so fast ...
Posted by: Hawaiian Judge


Sorry judge. You've been remanded to territorial status.

Posted by: rickb223 at October 17, 2018 03:28 PM (hAdu/)

415 Nood

Posted by: Cuthbert the Witless at October 17, 2018 03:29 PM (ymnmz)

416 "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed".

Posted by: Grump928(C) at October 17, 2018 03:10 PM (JPkLk)
---
Yeah, I have a suggestion kind of like that.

Posted by: Dick The Butcher at October 17, 2018 03:29 PM (vDqXW)

417 Assume a generation is about 34 years on average.
Posted by: DamnedYankee at October 17, 2018 03:22 PM (37IEG)

But a generation can be as short as 16 to 18 years depending on when the kids are born


Nine years in the middle east.

Posted by: rickb223 at October 17, 2018 03:30 PM (hAdu/)

418 I think they worked through coup already.

Next will be secession.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, Order The Battle of Lake Erie in Paperback Today! at October 17, 2018 03:26 PM (EvBgT)

--------------

Secession would be fine, but how would that work? The differing philosophies are urban vs. Exurban/rural. It would be difficult to carve out large cities out of states.

Posted by: Calm Mentor at October 17, 2018 03:30 PM (I16G8)

419 I have often wondered what leftists would actually put in their constitution today?

And, "RBG said South Africa's" is a lazy response. Obviously strict gun control, and heavy taxation. What else?

Posted by: Nick in Tallahassee at October 17, 2018 03:30 PM (wGbBR)

420 Shall we play a game?

Posted by: War Games Computer at October 17, 2018 03:30 PM (mQENJ)

421 388 384. There have been calls for that since at least the inauguration.
Posted by: Your Decidedly Devious Uncle Palpatine, GECSPLAN, SMR, and Ancient Slavonaut Newsletters at October 17, 2018 03:23 PM (fA1SL)

I still can't get over that ridiculous Schumer-esque smirk that Paul RYNO had during the inauguration.

It's as if he was expecting something specific to happen.

Posted by: Hikaru at October 17, 2018 03:30 PM (UnA8+)

422 The best argument against Democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

Churchill is a repository of excellent quotes. Second on to King of the Hill.

Posted by: Lancelot Link Secret Agent Chimp at October 17, 2018 03:31 PM (tqpcJ)

423 Time for some White Zombie as a palate cleanser.

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards, now with Bad Times at the El Royale review at October 17, 2018 03:31 PM (bcbK8)

424 408
Assume a generation is about 34 years on average.

Posted by: DamnedYankee at October 17, 2018 03:22 PM (37IEG)



But a generation can be as short as 16 to 18 years depending on when the kids are born.



Average age for Mother at first birth TODAY is 25.1 years old... and its the highest its ever been.

Posted by: Don Q at October 17, 2018 03:27 PM (NgKpN)
Depends then - myself - Warren is only 8 years older than I am - my Great Great grandfather was born some time around 1800.
I doubt her family history has a lot of 17 year old pregnant brides.

Posted by: DamnedYankee at October 17, 2018 03:31 PM (37IEG)

425 309 So: Why would the Left want to get rid of their main weapon for imposing their agenda?
Posted by: zombie at October 17, 2018 03:01 PM (c+2jX)

-------------

They have just lost SCOTUS for a generation. They want it gone now and will worry about getting it back later.
Posted by: Calm Mentor


Once they get rid of it, however, they won't be able to bring it back. That's the whole point. If they somehow force through some law/amendment/ruling/whatever prohibiting the Supreme Court from ruling on Constitutional issues, then it's dead forever. Or do they think they can magically flip a switch every few years -- whenever the court leans left, it suddenly acquires the ability to impose agendas -- but when it leans right, it suddenly loses that power? And then back again?

How is that gonna work?

If conservatives sweep into power in some future year, and it's time to flip the switch and paralyze the Supreme Court once again -- the far left won't be able to at that exact moment BECAUSE (duh) conservatives just swept into power. So the left will lack the votes in Congress and lack popular will.

So every time the court needs to be neutered, that's the exact moment when the left won't be able to neuter it.

Furthermore, something like what he's suggesting would literally take a Constitutional Amendment to change. But Amendments take YEARS and YEARS to get ratified in every state, etc., and furthermore, in the current climate. a majority of (smaller population) states lean right, so they'll NEVER get any Constitutional Amendment passed, neutering the Supreme Court. And even if they did, by the time it passed -- the Left would be back in power again! So the court will be neutered just in time for the neutering to frustrate the left's plans.

But even if in some fantasy scenario they could move heaven and Earth to neuter the court during lean-right phases, then the'd have to move heaven and earth again to de-neuter the court once it leans left again -- all very rapidly.

It's all completely impossible and embarrassingly absurd.

It's almost like the Left hasn't really thought this one through. As usual with all their schemes.

Posted by: zombie at October 17, 2018 03:31 PM (c+2jX)

426 418. No carve outs. It is Indian Partition time. You want a national divorce, you need to move.

Posted by: Nick in Tallahassee at October 17, 2018 03:31 PM (wGbBR)

427 426 418. No carve outs. It is Indian Partition time. You want a national divorce, you need to move.

Posted by: Nick in Tallahassee at October 17, 2018 03:31 PM (wGbBR)


We get the land; you get a twenty minute head start.

Posted by: Mikey NTH - The Outrage Outlet presents Last of the Fauxhicans starring Lizzie Warren at October 17, 2018 03:33 PM (hLRSq)

428 This professor is not just a random lib. He is extremely well regarded as a constitutional scholar and actually wrote the Constitutional Law textbook used by many law students. I find his arguments to be completely opposed to the ideals of the nation as expressed by the Founders, but he is very thoughtful and presents his case well.

Posted by: Dilsin at October 17, 2018 03:35 PM (3OMsg)

429 What these people refuse to understand is that Fascism, in its essence, is the consolidation of power.

They keep arguing to consolidate power. To whatever group they control. Last 8 years it was the president. Always to the federal and not the states. To the courts to force changes the public does not want.

This is fascism in action. They are the fascists.

They think fascism is the opposite of socialism because for part of the last war they were on opposite sides, but they were just two different forms of fascism.

Fascism is always the consolidation of power. Giving power to sjw's to control other's speech is fascism. giving power to the government to control speech is fascism.

Posted by: Gentlemen, this is democracy manifest at October 17, 2018 03:36 PM (LWu6U)

430 424 408
Assume a generation is about 34 years on average.

Posted by: DamnedYankee at October 17, 2018 03:22 PM (37IEG)



But a generation can be as short as 16 to 18 years depending on when the kids are born.



Average age for Mother at first birth TODAY is 25.1 years old... and its the highest its ever been.

Posted by: Don Q at October 17, 2018 03:27 PM (NgKpN)
Depends then - myself - Warren is only 8 years older than I am - my Great Great grandfather was born some time around 1800.
I doubt her family history has a lot of 17 year old pregnant brides.
Posted by: DamnedYankee at October 17, 2018 03:31 PM (37IEG)

My great grandparents on one side of my family were married at 14 and started having kids at 15.

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards, now with Bad Times at the El Royale review at October 17, 2018 03:36 PM (bcbK8)

431 It's almost like the Left hasn't really thought this one through. As usual with all their schemes.

Posted by: zombie at October 17, 2018 03:31 PM (c+2jX)
---
Correct on all accounts, Zombie. But they still think they could do Constitutional-ish damage against the Electoral College despite that a plurality of states have delegates in the single digits, so would all have a self-interest against ratifying.

Posted by: Dick The Butcher at October 17, 2018 03:38 PM (vDqXW)

432 430
424 408

Assume a generation is about 34 years on average.



Posted by: DamnedYankee at October 17, 2018 03:22 PM (37IEG)







But a generation can be as short as 16 to 18 years depending on when the kids are born.







Average age for Mother at first birth TODAY is 25.1 years old... and its the highest its ever been.



Posted by: Don Q at October 17, 2018 03:27 PM (NgKpN)

Depends then - myself - Warren is only 8 years older than I am - my Great Great grandfather was born some time around 1800.

I doubt her family history has a lot of 17 year old pregnant brides.

Posted by: DamnedYankee at October 17, 2018 03:31 PM (37IEG)



My great grandparents on one side of my family were married at 14 and started having kids at 15.

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards, now with Bad Times at the El Royale review at October 17, 2018 03:36 PM (bcbK
Not saying it's impossible, just unlikely that her 6 generations needed are correct for the Trail of Tears time frame.

Posted by: DamnedYankee at October 17, 2018 03:39 PM (37IEG)

433 It's all completely impossible and embarrassingly absurd.

It's almost like the Left hasn't really thought this one through. As usual with all their schemes.
Posted by: zombie at October 17, 2018 03:31 PM (c+2jX)

--------------

I did not say that their position made any kind of sense. It just seems to be where they are right now.

Posted by: Calm Mentor at October 17, 2018 03:54 PM (I16G8)

434 Makes perfect sense that a Harvard moron would "think" this. They abandoned thinking about 40 years ago.
Oh, and, "By Any Means Necessary." [TM]

Posted by: Beverly at October 17, 2018 03:55 PM (H2do8)

435 California wouldn't be overriden with illegals and electorally hopeless because Prop 187 would never have been overturned by a federal judge.

Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at October 17, 2018 03:59 PM (eOGqk)

436
I have been told to believe that you people are mean.

Posted by: NPC SJW at October 17, 2018 04:20 PM (r+sAi)

437 Assume a generation is about 34 years on average.

Posted by: DamnedYankee at October 17, 2018 03:22 PM (37IEG)
---
Talkin' about my generation?

Posted by: Bellicose Roger Daltry at October 17, 2018 04:29 PM (vDqXW)

438 Either she goes to jail for this, or I'm personally vowing I will vote "Not guilty" in each and every federal case I'm a juror on.
++++++++++++

Ace, this does not result in parity of the Universe. If the "law" only applies when the powers-that-be want it to apply, the proper jury nullification response for jurors is to vote guilty or not guilty based on his/her own opinions and, most importantly, feelings.

If I don't like the Defendant, Guilty. If the Defendant is a Progressive, Guilty. Republican? Not guilty. Prosecuted under law I don't like? Not guilty. Do I like the cut of the Defendant's Jib? Not guilty. Scandi Defendant? Definitely guilty.

Posted by: RichardWindsor at October 17, 2018 04:30 PM (db5dt)

439 Two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch.

These morons always assume they will always be a wolf.

Posted by: steve walsh at October 17, 2018 04:31 PM (C60vS)

440 So, overturn Marbury v. Madison? All for it! Sign me up.

Posted by: Titus Justus at October 17, 2018 05:01 PM (k6X1s)

441 Professor who is obviously concerned about a conservative court given short shrift to Stare Decisis and overturning prior supreme court cases from the 1960's and 1970's - calls for the for the country to overturn the most settled supreme court case of all from 1803.

Posted by: Brian at October 17, 2018 05:08 PM (8Gsah)

442 Originally, the Court would send the offending legislation back to appropriate jurisdiction to rewrite.

Nobody wanted a dictatorial junta of 9 old men in black dresses telling the country what it should do.

Posted by: formwiz at October 17, 2018 05:53 PM (3rwvI)

443 Hey Dems, the only way to win Constitutional nuclear war is not to play.

Posted by: Flag 5 at October 17, 2018 06:07 PM (eRuRH)

444 So from a democratic point of view...
Which is why this country is a republic. Otherwise we'd have president Kardashian.

Posted by: harleycowboy at October 17, 2018 07:48 PM (+9AX9)

445 How is "the popular will" determined?
If it's by the major media, then forget about it: it immediately becomes legal for leftists to rob, kill, and destroy as they like, and illegal for us to have the means to defend ourselves. The US becomes West Africa.
If it's by the vote, then we get what we have now.

Posted by: jdgalt at October 18, 2018 03:19 PM (3SFo/)

(Jump to top of page)






Processing 0.07, elapsed 0.0744 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0263 seconds, 454 records returned.
Page size 259 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.



MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!

Real Clear Politics
Gallup
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat