From:  trotsky <gmsingh@email.com>
Date:  05 Oct 2024 16:17:52 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

On 10/4/24 1:08 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.


Great point.  The govt. has ever reason to meddle when it comes to 
meddle re: weaponry a citizen can have and no reason to meddle because 
of bodily autonomy.  Pretty simple, so I can see why you're having trouble.