#29. To: sneakypete, Jesuit Trump family, Catholic yutes (#21)(Edited)
Kavanaugh has tutored at Washington Jesuit Academy, where he sits on the board of directors, and at J.O. Wilson Elementary School, according to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals website. He went to high school at Georgetown Prep which Justice Neil Gorsuch also attended and is a graduate of Yale College and Yale Law School.
Trump chose a judge reared in Washingtons finest Jesuit institutions, including Georgetown Preparatory School. Kavanaugh, who serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, is active in several Catholic organizations in the area. Trump pointed out that he coaches his daughters Catholic Youth Organization basketball team.
The Scofield prots have been beaten down, and they're loving it.
Catholics don't even know what "Scofield Prots" are. We simply have our set of interests and beliefs, and we want to see them enacted as the law of the land. Nothing more, nothing less.
We know, given that we're a minority, that we cannot get our way on everything, so we compromise as necessary in order to get, in the main, what it is that we most care about.
This isn't different from any other political grouping, like yours for instance.
Per the US Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
Wanting to see my moral beliefs become the law of the land is not levying war against the United States or adhering to their enemies.
So, your accusation of treason is un-American. You want to shoot me because you don't agree with my politics. That's not American at all. But hey, you do you.
Anyone that wants their religious beliefs enacted as our as our law of the land, ---- should be shot for treason..
Per the US Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
Wanting to see my moral beliefs become the law of the land is not levying war against the United States or adhering to their enemies.
"Treason against the United States, shall consist in -- to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
You want to see your RELlGIOUS beliefs become the law of the land, ---- this is giving our enemies aid and comfort, --- by violating the first amendment to the Constitution...
Our enemies want to see our Constitution infringed and violated. ---- As does your proposal...
You want to see your RELlGIOUS beliefs become the law of the land, ---- this is giving our enemies aid and comfort, --- by violating the first amendment to the Constitution...
Thank God you don't get to decide what words mean. Legally trained judges do, and they went to places like Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Chicago, where they learned what legal words mean on a consistent basis.
Me too. I speak the same language they do.
You speak the language of "I have angry politics, and I will make words mean whatever I say they mean in order to impose my will!"
Fortunately, you are just one crank. When it comes to the meaning of words of law, you can take it to the bank that what I say is true and accurate 100% of the time. Words mean things. Legal words mean things. They mean what courts and the legal profession and tradition and the institutions that teach these things say they mean. They do not mean what any old angry man thinks they mean.
Thank God. Because it means the law is predictable, and no subject to the whims of angryman.
Because I understand the law objectively and professionally, I can objectively and professionally tell you the places where I disagree with it, and what would have to happen for it to be changed to reflect what I want.
All you can do is go ballistic and try to redefine words to suit you - but honestly you're just an ignorant old jackass and not one other person in the world cares what you think words mean.
It is NOT TREASON under the Constitution of the United States for me to hope that my Catholic beliefs are enacted into law either by Congress, or through Supreme Court opinions. That's our legal system, that's our political system. That's how the game is played, and it is not treasonous for me to want to get my way.
You can make up whatever meanings of words you want to, but you're just a single angry old man pounding on a keyboard. You don't get to define what one single word means, you never will, and you're wrong.
What you want will never happen, because you don't get to define anything.
I don't either, but at least I am realist who knows what words DO mean, and what the system actually IS, so I don't sit around spinning fantasies of what the world would look like IF ONLY I got to define words to mean what I want them to mean.
You don't like Catholic beliefs or ideas and don't want to see them prevail. That's fine. I do. That's also fine. It's not treason. It never will be treason. And given fertility and demographic realities, over time I am very likely to win, and see what I want as the law of the land. There is no chance of that ever happening for you.
You're cranky and angry, you'll die cranky and angry. And after you die, you'll wake up and discover that the Catholics were right all along. So you are doomed to the defeat of everything you believe in in this world AND the next, for all eternity.
You don't like Catholic beliefs or ideas and don't want to see them prevail. That's fine. I do. That's also fine. It's not treason. It never will be treason.
You want to see your RELlGIOUS beliefs become the law of the land, ---- this is giving our constitutions enemies aid and comfort, --- by violating the first amendment to the Constitution...
You keep trying to make a rhetorical distinction: --- " It is NOT TREASON under the Constitution of the United States for me to hope that my Catholic beliefs are enacted into law either by Congress, or through Supreme Court opinions ----" (court opinions make law?)
Whereas our Constitution is quite clear that we --- shall make no laws respecting the 'establishments' (beliefs) of our various religions..
Sucks to be a fanatic like you.
(Btw, As a boy I was confirmed as a Catholic, agree with most Christian principles, but am now agnostic enough to admit that I'll never understand religion.)
Its not a question of what I want or dont want. Youre the solipsistic here, who mistakes his own opinions on the way things ought to be with the way things are. Im the realist who discusses the way things ARE, whether I like it or not.
In America, Judges make law. Always have. Thats why Roe is the law of the land.
Im the realist who discusses the way things ARE, whether I like it or not.
It is NOT TREASON under the Constitution of the United States for me to hope that my Catholic beliefs are enacted into law either by Congress, or through Supreme Court opinions ----" (court opinions make law?)
Our Constitution is quite clear that we --- shall make no laws respecting the 'establishments' (beliefs) of our various religions..
Your 'realistic' desire to make religious law is unconstitutional, and gives aid and comfort to enemies who desire the same...
Our Constitution is quite clear that we --- shall make no laws respecting the 'establishments' (beliefs) of our various religions..
Your 'realistic' desire to make religious law is unconstitutional, and gives aid and comfort to enemies who desire the same...
Our Constitution is a short document that puts out a general structure of government, leaves just about everything to politics, and is clear as mud as to the actual power relationship between the Judiciary and either the Legislature or the Executive.
The Constitution is chock full of Common Law terms, which it does not define: the Common Law is ASSUMED by the Constitution, and the Common Law is judge-made law.
Practice has supplied the answer to the question marks: judicial review for constitutionality has been a hallmark of the Supreme Court since Marbury v. Madison, which was decided by a Court full of Founders, addressing a President and a Cabinet likewise full of Founders.
Marbury v. Madison is as much a product of the Founding Fathers as the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, and IT establishes that, yes, the Founding Fathers fully intended for the Supreme Court to be the final arbiter of what the Constitution means - and to create the Common Law of the Constitution, which is precisely what they have been doing ever since.
Our system of government is in fact "Catholic", in the sense that it is based on traditions of institutions dealing with each other in certain ways. You would like for our system of government to be "Protestant", with the written Constitution as the "Sola Scriptura" document which anybody, like you, can read and know what it all means just from the words in that document.
That IS NOT our system of government. And at NO POINT from its ratification by the Founding Fathers through the establishment of judicial review by the Founding Fathers (in Marbury) until today has our government resembled anything remotely approaching what you insist is "The Constitution" above.
No. Your little fairy tale of what the Constitution is, and means, and says, is simply your solipsistic read of some words, by your understanding. The law is what I have been saying - what I have been educated in, and am licensed to say in two jurisdictions. It is not what you believe it to be, based on your simplistic read and understanding of some words.
It IS not, and it never will be. The Constitution is not the Bible, and American government is not based on Sola Scriptura. It DOESN"T MATTER what you read the words to say. You are one single man, and your opinion governs nothing. I'm just one single man, and I know that my opinion doesn't govern anything either, but I earn a living by knowing what those written words ACTUALLY MEAN within the structure of government that we ACTUALLY HAVE, and THAT - and not your little exercise in solipsistic "Sola Scriptura" literalist constitutionalism - is what the Constitution IS, and MEANS.
I have to get it right, because if I don't, I don't eat.
I would not be insulting you so directly if you were not calling me a traitor over and over again. But you are. I am not a traitor. But you are a stubborn, ignorant old fool who cannot read the law properly, because you don't understand the words you are reading - and so therefore you supply what YOU think they mean, and manipulate them to attain the results YOU want to see. Problem is, you didn't go to law school and get to put on a black robe such that YOUR opinions have any weight on this matter, and so they don't.
Stop calling me a traitor and I'll stop coming after you personally. Keep doing it, and I'll keep pointing out that you're the crazy uncle in the attic who thinks he's St. Jerome.