On 10/2/24 3:56 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 10/2/2024 3:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> On Oct 2, 2024 at 12:36:30 PM PDT, "moviePig"
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/2/2024 2:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> On Oct 2, 2024 at 8:28:15 AM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/1/2024 6:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> On Oct 1, 2024 at 2:35:19 PM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/1/2024 5:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Oct 1, 2024 at 1:40:36 PM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/1/2024 3:28 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 1, 2024 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous"
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Leftist author Fran Lebowitz said late last week
>>>>>>>>>>> that President Joe Biden should dissolve the U.S.
>>>>>>>>>>> Supreme Court because she does not like the fact that the
>>>>>>>>>>> majority of justices are constitutional
>>>>>>>>>>> originalists.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I must have missed that day in Constitutional Law
>>>>>>>>>> class where they taught us where to find the
>>>>>>>>>> Constitution's grant of power to the president that allows him
>>>>>>>>>> to just wake up one day and wave his hand
>>>>>>>>>> like a Hogwarts wizard and fire the Supreme Court.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've just now reviewed Article II and I still don't
>>>>>>>>>> see anything resembling "The president shall have the
>>>>>>>>>> power to dissolve the Supreme Court whenever it pisses him
>>>>>>>>>> off." Maybe it's written in that invisible
>>>>>>>>>> ink that the NATIONAL TREASURE movies teach us the
>>>>>>>>>> Founders were so fond of.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Seriously, though, I'd understand if some
>>>>>>>>>> green-haired, nose-ringed teenager said this, because
>>>>>>>>>> they're just a product of our public schools, but
>>>>>>>>>> this Lebowitz idiot is supposed to be a serious
>>>>>>>>>> scholar, and *this* is how she thinks our government
>>>>>>>>>> runs?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Serious scholar"? She's a cranky, 73-year old
>>>>>>>>> humorist who's as pissed about the Supreme Court as the
>>>>>>>>> rest of us should be.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why should I be pissed about the Court?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because Thomas takes gifts? So do all the other justices,
>>>>>>>> including the leftist ones. I'd be in favor of banning
>>>>>>>> that, but that doesn't answer why I should be pissed
>>>>>>>> about *this* Court versus previous ones.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You should be pissed about Thomas because he's a boob.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sotomayor is a boob, too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Next?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You should be pissed about the Court because it's happy to
>>>>>>> sell out personal freedom.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As in?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Under this Court, I've regained freedoms that were taken
>>>>>> from my by Democrats.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Congrats on your restored personal freedoms. I admit I'm more
>>>>> concerned here with *others'* freedoms, e.g., your
>>>>> girlfriend's, my daughter's...
>>>>
>>>> My girlfriend supports the Court's repeal of Roe. Not for the
>>>> same reason I do-- i.e., that the Constitution does not grant the
>>>> federal government power over health care, so it's properly a
>>>> matter of state and local jurisdiction per the 10th Amendment--
>>>> but she supports it for her own reasons.
>>>>
>>>> Nevertheless, I don't see why one person's freedom would be more
>>>> important than someone else's.
>>>
>>> Because "freedom to choose" is more important than "freedom to
>>> meddle".
>>
>> And that somehow magically makes health care/abortion an Article I,
>> Section 8 power of the federal government exactly how?
>>
>> And in any event, I'm glad you're on board with my freedom to choose
>> which AR-15 style rifle I want to defend my home the next time
>> Democrats allow their base to rampage through the city.
>
>
> Well, how much lethal firepower should an ordinary citizen have
> access to?
Obviously TWAT thinks RPGs fall under the 2nd Amendment umbrella too.
|
|