From:  BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
Date:  05 Oct 2024 03:26:15 Hong Kong Time
Newsgroup:  news.alt119.net/alt.tv.hbo
Subject:  

Re: Leftist Fran Lebowitz: "Biden Should Dissolve The Supreme Court"

NNTP-Posting-Host:  null

In article , moviePig  
wrote:

> On 10/4/2024 2:08 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article , moviePig 
> > wrote:
> > 
> >> On 10/4/2024 5:16 AM, trotsky wrote:
> >>> On 10/2/24 4:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>> 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?
> >>>>
> >>>> However much they choose to. Freedom to choose supersedes the
> >>>> government's freedom to meddle, remember?
> >>>
> >>> Not when it comes to lethal force and weapons of mass destruction.
> >>
> >> But the Founders, in their great wisdom, never mentioned WMDs...!
> > 
> > They didn't mention abortion, either, so all we have to go on is the
> > Constitution According to MoviePig, which teaches us that freedom to
> > choose supersedes the government's freedom to meddle.
> 
> All we have to go on is common sense ...as opposed to reflexively 
> screeching about what's not explicit in the Constitution.

What about my Article I, Section 8 analysis above equates to a 'screech'?

I just want to get a baseline established so we can then compare it to 
your own posts and see how they stack up.