Well, at least Trump did not pick Gatlin!

Less gay wedding cakes with Kavi.

Jesuit swamp critter.

Those Jesuits are ideologues.

Yay! Another Catholic!

Does this mean that the Catholic Pope residing in the Vatican will have heavy influence on US Supreme Court Justice decisions?

Does this mean that the Catholic Pope residing in the Vatican will have heavy influence on US Supreme Court Justice decisions?

The Catholic A-Team

SCOTUS, White House, IMF

Does this mean that the Catholic Pope residing in the Vatican will have heavy influence on US Supreme Court Justice decisions?

Well, I certainly hope so!

So now we've got Chief Justice Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito, Gorsuch (who was a Catholic, but now attends an Episcopal church) and, soon, Kavanaugh. Plus Sotomayor. That's 5 1/2 Catholics. Kagan, Breyer and Ginsburg are Jews.

It would be best if Sotomayor would listen more to the Pope.

Melania is Catholic.

That's like 2 1/2 Catholics out of three. Trump will go whichever way the wind blows.

Well, I certainly hope so!

You obviously monitor the individual members of the USSC. Where is there any serious and formative [discussion] of religious belief systems that the USSC has?

The D.C. "assault weapon" ban covers a list of specific models as well as guns that meet certain criteria. A semi-automatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine is illegal, for instance, if it has any of six prohibited features, including an adjustable stock, a pistol grip, or a flash suppressor. "The list appears to be haphazard," Kavanaugh noted. "It bans certain semi-automatic rifles but not others —with no particular explanation or rationale for why some made the list and some did not." In any case, he concluded, the law is inconsistent with the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller.”

If he ruthlessly defends the 2nd amendment, for 25 more years, I’ll be pleased

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/09/626164904/who-is-brett-kavanaugh-president- trumps-pick-for-the-supreme-court

I'm here... :)

Fake News!

I think Trump punted a bit with this pick.

He's saving Amy to replace the bridge troll next year.
Leftists are going to explode once they realize he'll have all the picks on his short list on the Court by 2024.

SCOTUS is the only reason Trump got my vote, but I'm thoroughly impressed with other aspects of his administration so far. He's got my vote in 2020.

He's got my vote in 2020.

Karl Rove approved, good to go.

Jesuit swamp critter.

He's a Jesuit? Seriously?

Being associated with the Bush Crime Family was bad enough,but THAT,if true,should be the kiss of death for the SC.

Yay! Another Catholic!

You say that just like it's something anyone sane would be proud to shout.

Jesuit swamp critter.

Those Jesuits are ideologues.

They are like PR hacks that warm up the "audiences" for the fundie Catholics that dream of once again ruling the western world and setting fire to anyone that disagrees with them.

Does this mean that the Catholic Pope residing in the Vatican will have heavy influence on US Supreme Court Justice decisions?

Well, I certainly hope so!

Since you have just proven yourself to be completely insane,nothing you post in the future has any value.

The D.C. "assault weapon" ban covers a list of specific models as well as guns that meet certain criteria. A semi-automatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine is illegal, for instance, if it has any of six prohibited features, including an adjustable stock, a pistol grip, or a flash suppressor. "The list appears to be haphazard," Kavanaugh noted. "It bans certain semi-automatic rifles but not others —with no particular explanation or rationale for why some made the list and some did not." In any case, he concluded, the law is inconsistent with the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller.”

If he ruthlessly defends the 2nd amendment, for 25 more years, I’ll be pleased

That doesn't "Read" like a 2nd Amendment defense to me. To ME,it reads like a bitch they didn't dot their "i's" and cross their "t's".

He was NOT complaining about their desire to limit American Constitutional Freedoms,he was bitching because it was a poorly-done job.

That doesn't "Read" like a 2nd Amendment defense to me. To ME,it reads like a bitch they didn't dot their "i's" and cross their "t's".

He was NOT complaining about their desire to limit American Constitutional Freedoms,he was bitching because it was a poorly-done job.

Kavanaugh DISSENT at 2-3, Heller II, 670 F.3d 1244 (DC Cir 10-7036, 2011)

In my judgment, both D.C.’s ban on semi-automatic rifles and its gun registration requirement are unconstitutional under Heller.

In Heller, the Supreme Court held that handguns – the vast majority of which today are semi-automatic – are constitutionally protected because they have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens. There is no meaningful or persuasive constitutional distinction between semi-automatic handguns and semi-automatic rifles. Semi-automatic rifles, like semi-automatic handguns, have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens for self-defense in the home, hunting, and other lawful uses. Moreover, semi-automatic handguns are used in connection with violent crimes far more than semi-automatic rifles are. It follows from Heller’s protection of semi-automatic handguns that semi-automatic rifles are also constitutionally protected and that D.C.’s ban on them is unconstitutional. (By contrast, fully automatic weapons, also known as machine guns, have traditionally been banned and may continue to be banned after Heller.)

D.C.’s registration requirement, which is significantly more stringent than any other federal or state gun law in the United States, is likewise unconstitutional. Heller and later McDonald said that regulations on the sale, possession, or use of guns are permissible if they are within the class of traditional, “longstanding” gun regulations in the United States. Registration of all lawfully possessed guns – as distinct from licensing of gun owners or mandatory record-keeping by gun sellers – has not traditionally been required in the United States and even today remains highly unusual. Under Heller’s history- and tradition-based test, D.C.’s registration requirement is therefore unconstitutional.

Since you have just proven yourself to be completely insane,nothing you post in the future has any value.

Not a fan of Catholicism, I see.

They are like PR hacks that warm up the "audiences" for the fundie Catholics that dream of once again ruling the western world and setting fire to anyone that disagrees with them.

Nah. That's not what we Catholics are about.

What we're about is family, babies and social welfare/poverty relief.

We oppose the death penalty because of the corruption and unreliability of the human judicial process.

We oppose war other than necessary defensive war.

We're social conservatives and fiscal liberals.

— 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.

www.politico.com/newslett...plenty-of-material-274850

---

He's a Jesuit? Seriously?

Is the Pope Catholic?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/07/08/catholics-on-the-court-the-historic-struggle-between-canon-and-constitutional-law/?utm_term=.08490fd4fdc3

Both of Trump's SCOTUS justices Gorsuch & Kavanaugh, attended the same Jesuit high school.
If one SCOTUS Jesuit is good, then two is better right?

Kavanaugh DISSENT at 2-3, Heller II, 670 F.3d 1244 (DC Cir 10-7036, 2011)

In my judgment, both D.C.’s ban on semi-automatic rifles and its gun registration requirement are unconstitutional under Heller.

Thank you. That one sentence changes the entire intent of the rest of what he wrote.

Since you have just proven yourself to be completely insane,nothing you post in the future has any value.

Not a fan of Catholicism, I see.

Or Islam,or any other slave cult.

Both of Trump's SCOTUS justices Gorsuch & Kavanaugh, attended the same Jesuit high school. If one SCOTUS Jesuit is good, then two is better right?

It doesn't matter if they are Jesuits,or Thomas Jefferson and George Washington brought back to life,if Trump recommended them,you would hate them and find fault.

You are one of those sad people who just ain't happy unless you are mad.

I think Trump punted a bit with this pick.

I agree.

But he's cornered the Dems by doing so. IF they reject him (as I expect), the NEXT picks will only be further RIGHT.

Well, at least Trump did not pick Gatlin!

BUMMER!!

(He and Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg would have been quite the spectacle, what with wearing each others robe etc)

(Does this mean that the Catholic Pope residing in the Vatican will have heavy influence on US Supreme Court Justice decisions?)

Well, I certainly hope so!

You can NOT be serious.

This Pope is a pro-homo, Commie anti-Christ/fascist.

And besides -- waaay too many RCCs wrecking SCOTUS.

We need PROTS who reflected the FOUNDERS very USCON! And where are THEY??

Trump will go whichever way the wind blows.

Chyeah -- cuz Trump is a "Follower", right?

Move waaaay to the back of the class room.

If he ruthlessly defends the 2nd amendment, for 25 more years, I’ll be pleased

That doesn't "Read" like a 2nd Amendment defense to me. To ME,it reads like a bitch they didn't dot their "i's" and cross their "t's".

He was NOT complaining about their desire to limit American Constitutional Freedoms,he was bitching because it was a poorly-done job.

Nicely interpreted, Pete.

I think this guy may be squishy on 2A issues. Not to mention OTHERS.

Don't like this pick.

You are one of those sad people who just ain't happy unless you are mad.

That means that you're mad because someone criticized Dear Leader Donald, and it's fine with you if he somehow packs SCOTUS full of Jesuits.

Got it, Jesuits are good when Trump nominates them, but bad if someone else does. Makes sense if you're a cult of personality person.

(In my judgment, both D.C.’s ban on semi-automatic rifles and its gun registration requirement are unconstitutional under Heller.)

Thank you. That one sentence changes the entire intent of the rest of what he wrote.

I hope Nolu is right.

I'm not sure if Kavanaugh is fully un-ambiguous on the issue. I'm not a big fan of "Abstaining" on votes.

It doesn't matter if they are Jesuits,or Thomas Jefferson and George Washington brought back to life,if Trump recommended them,you would hate them and find fault.

Yup.

Hondo has been sporting his pink p***y hats and "I'M WITH ---> HER!" button loud and proud.

IF they reject him (as I expect), the NEXT picks will only be further RIGHT.

Rejecting Kavanaugh risks the next nominee facing a Dem majority in the Senate, or a slimmer GOP majority. If that happens, Trump could nominate conservatives until he leaves office and not get anyone approved.

There are currently 51 GOP, 47 Dem, 2 Ind (caucus with Dem).

At least 3 Dem senators are runnning for reelection in states that Trump won by 20 to 40 points. The liklihood is that Kavanaugh gets narrow Senate approval.

If post-election the GOP retains 50 or more Senate seats (likely), then the next nominee for an opening could well be Barrett, Hardiman, Kethledge, or Thapar.

It is very possible Trump gets to name a successor for Ginsburg or Sotomayor, and possibly Thomas at 70+ could resign to ensure a young, conservative replacement.

I hope Nolu is right.

I did not offer an opinion. I quoted Kavanaugh verbatim from Heller II at the D.C. Circuit Court. Here is the full Opinion of the Court and dissents. The Kavanaugh dissent starts at page 46 of the pdf.

https://www.scribd.com/document/383600194/Heller-II-v-District-of-Columbia-670-F3d-1244-DC-Cir-10-7036-2011-Kavanaugh-Dissent-at-46

You can NOT be serious.

Of course I am serious.

Got it, Jesuits are good when Trump nominates them, but bad if someone else does.

I assume by "Jesuits" you mean "Catholics". Catholics are good.

Or Islam,or any other slave cult.

Catholicism isn't a slave cult. It's the largest human organization, the oldest continuous government on earth, and the source of Western civilization.

Both of Trump's SCOTUS justices Gorsuch & Kavanaugh, attended the same Jesuit high school. If one SCOTUS Jesuit is good, then two is better right?

Absolutely. And 9 would be best of all.

#WINNING

#WINNING

LOL These Trumpkins are such Vatican puppets!

Francis the hippie Pope is Jesuit too. What a coincidence. The Scofield prots have been beaten down, and they're loving it.

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.

Catholics ------- 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.

That is not Catholic be!ief.... Anyone that wants their religious beliefs enacted as our as our law of the land, ---- should be shot for treason...

hat is not Catholic be!ief.... Anyone that wants their religious beliefs enacted as our as our law of the land, ---- should be shot for treason...

Molon labe.

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.

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.

At least 3 Dem senators are runnning for reelection in states that Trump won by 20 to 40 points. The liklihood is that Kavanaugh gets narrow Senate approval.

I think there are 9 or 10 total in states Trump won.

Catholics don't

We simply

we want

We know,

we're a minority

we cannot

we compromise

we most care about

any other political grouping, like yours for instance

Who is "we", you and your reincarnated lizard? You're right about being a minority. You don't speak for the Church. That's a joy and a blessing for Catholics worldwide.

Many Catholics are aware of the Scofield denominations, aka prot nutjobs or rapture monkey zionists. Like your Catholic political group, they're a small subset of a greater traditional Protestant reformation.

Renowned Catholic theologian Fred Mertz might be able to confirm that you're a fringe k0oK Catholic?

You don't speak for the Church. That's a joy and a blessing for Catholics worldwide.

Absolutely true. You know who speaks for us worldwide? The Pope. I'm with him. You?

You're right about being a minority.

As a Catholic, I am indeed part of a minority.

But as far as the laws of the country goes, they're not perfect, but much of the structure we have is what I want to see. I'd like it to be more efficient, less ragged around the edges, less slapdash, but the fundamental structures that are in place are very much in keeping with what I want - and utterly the opposite of what you want.

So it would seem that, for whatever reason, the majority will of the country does largely (if imperfectly) provide me what I want, while it deprives you of what you want at every turn.

Eventually, the likes of you either have to compromise with people like me, to get something of what you want at least considered, or you refuse to compromise or talk, and just get plowed under, get nothing you want, but pay your taxes nevertheless.

Not much margin for you in this, but I'm fine with it all.

The Pope. I'm with him. You?

On matters of faith and morals ONLY. There's a red line, no gay wedding cakes!

On matters of faith and morals ONLY. There's a red line, no gay wedding cakes!

What makes you think I favor gay wedding cakes? I am completely indifferent to the whole gay business. Don't care.

The Pope. I'm with him.

If so, frankly you betray Jesus Christ in a number of ways.

Pope Frankie is so clearly a Trojan Horse Communist, anti-liberty, and importantly, defiant of Christ-ian thought and rationale and intent that supporting this Pope boggles the mind.

Would Jesus Christ kiss the Koran? Support a counterfeit Palestinian instead of Israel? Advocate homosexual behavior -- much less "marriage"? Support the confiscation of one's toiled-over earned wealth?

But he's cornered the Dems by doing so. IF they reject him (as I expect), the NEXT picks will only be further RIGHT.

Correct... Trump ain’t no dummy.

I liked the other choice better (he was a duplicate of Gorsuch)... but I’ll take every judge chosen by Trump over any pick Kuntlary and Commie Sanders would have picked.

We don’t need any more man hating, gun loathing, tree hugging rug munchers on the bench.

For clarity, by hoping you were "right" I hoped the letter of constitutional intent will be THE criteria for all future decisions (instead of emotional whims, a squishy Anthony Kennedy "moderate" clone, or intimidation/influence by Leftist thought.)

Just for the record, I am not a grand supporter of original intent, but rather original meaning (Scalia was a proponent of this predominant branch of originalism).

https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/justice-scalias-two-most-essential-speeches

What “originalism” is—and is not — Originalism, explains Scalia, is a “manner of interpreting the Constitution is to begin with the text, and to give that text the meaning that it bore when it was adopted by the people.” He clarifies that this is not synonymous with “strict constructionism”: “I do not think the Constitution, or any text should be interpreted either strictly or sloppily; it should be interpreted reasonably.”

Scalia also rejected the notion of “original intent.” As he explained,

You will sometimes hear [originalism] described as the theory of original intent. You will never hear me refer to original intent, because I am first of all a textualist, and secondly an originalist. If you are a textualist, you don't care about the intent, and I don't care if the Framers of the U.S. Constitution had some secret meaning in mind when they adopted its words. I take the words as they were promulgated to the people of the United States, and what is the fairly understood meaning of those words.

I do the same with statutes, by the way, which is why I don't use legislative history. The words are the law. I think that's what is meant by a government of laws, not of men. We are bound not by the intent of our legislators, but by the laws which they enacted, laws which are set forth in words, of course.

And Scalia commented on substantive due process,

www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/guest_commentary/scalia-constitutional-speech.htm

What substantive due process is is quite simple — the Constitution has a Due Process Clause, which says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Now, what does this guarantee? Does it guarantee life, liberty or property? No, indeed! All three can be taken away. You can be fined, you can be incarcerated, you can even be executed, but not without due process of law. It’s a procedural guarantee. But the Court said, and this goes way back, in the 1920s at least, in fact the first case to do it was Dred Scott. But it became more popular in the 1920s. The Court said there are some liberties that are so important, that no process will suffice to take them away. Hence, substantive due process.

Now, what liberties are they? The Court will tell you. Be patient. When the doctrine of substantive due process was initially announced, it was limited in this way, the Court said it embraces only those liberties that are fundamental to a democratic society and rooted in the traditions of the American people.

Then we come to step three. Step three: that limitation is eliminated. Within the last 20 years, we have found to be covered by due process the right to abortion, which was so little rooted in the traditions of the American people that it was criminal for 200 years; the right to homosexual sodomy, which was so little rooted in the traditions of the American people that it was criminal for 200 years. So it is literally true, and I don’t think this is an exaggeration, that the Court has essentially liberated itself from the text of the Constitution, from the text and even from the traditions of the American people. It is up to the Court to say what is covered by substantive due process.

What are the arguments usually made in favor of the Living Constitution? As the name of it suggests, it is a very attractive philosophy, and it’s hard to talk people out of it — the notion that the Constitution grows. The major argument is the Constitution is a living organism, it has to grow with the society that it governs or it will become brittle and snap.

This is the equivalent of, an anthropomorphism equivalent to what you hear from your stockbroker, when he tells you that the stock market is resting for an assault on the 11,000 level. The stock market panting at some base camp. The stock market is not a mountain climber and the Constitution is not a living organism for Pete’s sake; it’s a legal document, and like all legal documents, it says some things, and it doesn’t say other things. And if you think that the aficionados of the Living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again.

My Constitution is a very flexible Constitution. You think the death penalty is a good idea — persuade your fellow citizens and adopt it. You think it’s a bad idea — persuade them the other way and eliminate it. You want a right to abortion — create it the way most rights are created in a democratic society, persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and enact it. You want the opposite — persuade them the other way. That’s flexibility. But to read either result into the Constitution is not to produce flexibility, it is to produce what a constitution is designed to produce — rigidity. Abortion, for example, is offstage, it is off the democratic stage, it is no use debating it, it is unconstitutional. I mean prohibiting it is unconstitutional; I mean it’s no use debating it anymore — now and forever, coast to coast, I guess until we amend the Constitution, which is a difficult thing. So, for whatever reason you might like the Living Constitution, don’t like it because it provides flexibility.

As the Constitution says not a word about abortion, I believe five originalists on SCOTUS might overturn Roe finding a lack of federal jurisdiction, and return the issue to the states. Many here would not be happy with that result. They not only want the court to find that abortion is not constitutionally protected by an emanation from a penumbra, but they want the Court to find that abortion is prohibited by some constitutional provision emanating from a penumbra.

It is of no particular use to go back and find a 200 year old quote as to what some Framer may have intended. Nobody voted to ratify his intent. They voted to ratify the words themselves and the ordinary understanding of the words.

An example might be the 14th Amendment citizenship clause, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." The words are clear enough to include anchor babies. The baby (regardless of the parents) is born in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction (laws) of the U.S. Whether the framer did, or did not, consider the question of anchor babies has no effect on the meaning of the words that were adopted. If it had an unintended consequence, amend it.

If so, frankly you betray Jesus Christ in a number of ways.

Not in the slightest degree. We disagree at the most fundamental levels. You listed a litany of political issues, and you believe God to align with your political priorities. Nothing is going to persuade you otherwise, not even a lifetime of defeat. You expect that, opening your eyes after death, you will be vindicated. I expect the same thing for myself.

It would appear that there is no meeting of the minds on these things.

The interesting thing is that you see the Pope and the Church and Catholics believing and doing one set of things, but I see him and us believing and doing very different things.

So there's a disagreement both as to law and as to facts.

Doesn't seem to be any way to resolve it, so I guess we will just have to see how the game plays out.

Got it,

As usual,you "got" nothing but bats flying around in your belfry.

Catholicism isn't a slave cult. It's the largest human organization, the oldest continuous government on earth, and the source of Western civilization.

HorseHillary!

On all counts.

The only reason you can't see that it's a cult is that you are a cult member.

That is not Catholic be!ief.... Anyone that wants their religious beliefs enacted as our as our law of the land, ---- should be shot for treason...

Which is PRECISELY why the FF'ers made sure there would be no official religion in America.

History is full of examples of what happens when that happens.

As for Catholic Rule,seems to me there was a minor little war over Catholic control of the known world,called "The Reformation". Led by one of the greatest heroes of recorded history,Martin Luther.

We don’t need any more man hating, gun loathing, tree hugging rug munchers on the bench.

HA! On the bench. Off the bench. Anywhere NEAR us. They belong in top-floor sanitariums.

I've posted articles and written about this; WOMEN IN POWER ARE DANGEROUS TO FREEDOM. Whether Europe or the USA. Most of these broads have yuge chips on their shoulders. Maybe GI or Liberator blew them off because we didn't want to tolerate their insanity.

Witchy ideologues are already polluting SCOTUS and the country! I am SICK of PC picks, AA, and "evening" things out. Sick of it. Trump. Must. Pick. THE BEST PERSON. PERIOD.

So yeah -- I just don't trust the ideology of last 30 years women who chose being a lawyer as a life-vocation. Or on the Supreme Court. Why would you or I trust a woman who puts the priority of being a high-powered lawyer ahead of being creative, but prioritizing being a wife, wanting to raise a family? It's just weird. I mean that's what it come down to, doesn't it?

Yes, we know there are exceptions. BUT from a conservative woman it's just generally NOT Priority One.

THE noble cause for OUR types of women is...nurturing. And being smart, compassionate and loyal.

For Dem women it's generally all about...A CRUSADE, a way to extract some kind of revenge. GENERALLY ON MEN. (Or their war on the so-called "patriarchy.") Or because they are crusaders yeah -- for Mutha-Earth or.... cats. I've met enough of these broads. Their causes are ALWAYS pathological. And the older they get, the more bitter. (One theory is that they were rejected as ugly from THE INSIDE. And don't even want to try to be attractive on the OUTSIDE.)

I’ll take every judge chosen by Trump over any pick Kuntlary and Commie Sanders would have picked.

Ab-so-lutely. (Tell me again why some people supposedly on our side don't think the election of Trump helped SAVE THE REPUBLIC??)

Witchy ideologues are already polluting SCOTUS and the country! I am SICK of PC picks, AA, and "evening" things out. Sick of it. Trump. Must. Pick. THE BEST PERSON. PERIOD.

Spot on...

That is not Catholic be!ief.... Anyone that wants their religious beliefs enacted as our as our law of the land, ---- should be shot for treason... Which is PRECISELY why the FF'ers made sure there would be no official religion in America.

History is full of examples of what happens when that happens.

As for Catholic Rule,seems to me there was a minor little war over Catholic control of the known world,called "The Reformation". Led by one of the greatest heroes of recorded history,Martin Luther.

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

Thou shall not kill. Thou shall not steal.

I waaant those enactrd into law and tpainee hates the declaration of Independence and the constitution.

Thou shall not kill.

Not even in defense of self,family,or nation?

Thou shall not steal.

Ever tried to explain this to people with no money and hungry children?

Dont even TRY to claim that organized religion feeds the poor. They only feed the poor if PAID to feed the poor by both the government and tax-free contributions,and even then they usually demand you play the role of a dancing monkey and join them in prayer.

Just for the record, I am not a grand supporter of original intent, but rather original meaning (Scalia was a proponent of this predominant branch of originalism).

Ok, I'll accept that technical definition/criteria. To me the context of "intent" would be the same as "meaning".

A bunch is explained and clarified here. Thank you...

I appreciate Justice Scalia's efforts and honesty here in trying to teach all who are or who *should* be interested into the factors a process (as HE sees it) that's worth learning/understanding.

Scalia also rejected the notion of “original intent.” As he explained, "You will sometimes hear [originalism] described as the theory of original intent. You will never hear me refer to original intent, because I am first of all a textualist, and secondly an originalist. If you are a textualist, you don't care about the intent, and I don't care if the Framers of the U.S. Constitution had some secret meaning in mind when they adopted its words."

It's jurists like Scalia who may see "secrets"; then again he's is/was a RCC or Jesuit. THEY on the otherhand DO often deal in secrets.

(Scalia cont.) "I take the words as they were promulgated to the people of the United States, and what is the fairly understood meaning of those words.

I do the same with statutes, by the way, which is why I don't use legislative history. The words are the law. I think that's what is meant by a government of laws, not of men. We are bound not by the intent of our legislators, but by the laws which they enacted, laws which are set forth in words, of course.

Well frankly, Scalia sound a bit naive here. "Words" are NOT just "words" in the late 20th-21st century; They've been manipulated by ideological wordsmiths to magically have become ambiguous OR "dangerous" (as we have seen.)

And Scalia commented on substantive due process,

www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/guest_commentary/scalia-constitutional-speech.htm

What substantive due process is is quite simple — the Constitution has a Due Process Clause, which says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Now, what does this guarantee? Does it guarantee life, liberty or property? No, indeed! All three can be taken away. You can be fined, you can be incarcerated, you can even be executed, but not without due process of law.

Scalia: The man is the Yoda of SC Justices. Even if I don't fully agree with him. Being an "Originalist" required understanding the text...AT THE TIME. And in CONTEXT. It is absolutely crucial to know the Founders were indeed assuming certain judicial perspectives in projecting future cases.

You helped make this as easy as possible. (Yes I know -- it's Scalia.)

So there's Intent. Original Intent. Textual-ism. Definitions of phrase and meaning "bore by the people" (at the time"). Context of words AND meaning (again, for the time). Then the weight of the literal words of the Founders as well as contemporary Justices to consider.

Scalia does tend to split hairs, which I suppose we *should* expect from any bench -- but especially from SCOTUS. Scalia and the conservatives generally DO a much more thorough job of examining and analyzing text and intent. WITH as much respect of the Founders' principles as possible. AND doing so with a great degree of honesty and respect for the REAL "process".

The Left? Do any of them come close to Scalia in considering a proper measure of the factors and respecting process to any remote degree? As pure Ideologues they are judicial frauds, thieves of the Founders' Intent AND Text AND Reason.

But here Scalia himself trips and falls into a trap:

"It is of no particular use to go back and find a 200 year old quote as to what some Framer may have intended. Nobody voted to ratify his intent. They voted to ratify the words themselves and the ordinary understanding of the words."

HUH?? Scalia dismisses "INTENT" itself?? We're talking the FOUNDATION of the Constitution itself. It's like dismissing or removing Genesis from the Bible. You can do it but it severely weakens the rest of intellectual structure.

And again, for all of Scalia's brilliance and integrity he completely shanks this explanation and intent of the 14A:

"An example might be the 14th Amendment citizenship clause, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

The words are clear enough to include anchor babies. The baby (regardless of the parents) is born in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction (laws) of the U.S. Whether the framer did, or did not, consider the question of anchor babies has no effect on the meaning of the words that were adopted. If it had an unintended consequence, amend it."

And yes, THIS is exactly why "INTENT" is so crucial and TEXT (which Scalia favored) should carry LESS weight. FAR less weight. PROOF? By technicality, the text Scalia prioritizes to make Court decisions and mis-intent of the Framer's 14A anchor-baby clause (that had NOT considered our reptilian future of ACLU-type saboteurs of the USCON) is what's about to destroy the Republic.

Those Founders or Court also obviously overlooked the original illegal trespassing which created the "anchor-baby" theft-by-extension of US sovereignty. But then they never imagined by NOT dotting "i"s and NOT crossing "t"s ACLU-types would marry the Scalias with the ACLU.

The Framers of this law clearly (to many of us) did NOT intend for this theft-by-deception or "accidental" citizenry to become THE RULE. Their INTENT was that it would be a compassionate EXCEPTION. Funny how the Left are able to exploit Literalism along with a "Living, breathing Constitution". Heads The Left wins; Tails the Republic loses.

With all due respect to Scalia, his opinion on this issue is dead wrong. I presume he (like some Liberals) projected emotion into his opinion. As an Italian decedent/immigrant whose relatives babies became "Instant Citizens" as a result, his Mexican Border scenario is a gross abuse of this kind of "Anchor" situation.

WORDS/TEXT in the 18th and 19th century are often as much as 180 degree away from 21st century INTENT. Exhibit "A": "GAY"

Ever tried to explain this to people with no money and hungry children?

Breaking into my house to feed your little staving assholes... will cause those starving assholes to be fatherless.

In this socialist handout filthy snowflake society, there are plenty of options to feed your pathetic family besides stealing.

Personally, I believe in Natural Selection... let the weak, lazy, stupid and UNFORTUNATE die. We all gotta die sometime.

You're right Pete theft should be legal dumbass

Figuratively speaking, you can not legislate human morality unless there is adequate capacity in society to ensure that human suffering is minimized. The USA meets this threshold. Most nations do not.

unless there is adequate capacity in society to ensure that human suffering is minimized.

Take your fucking snowflake BLEEDING HEART BULLSHIT, somewhere else. This ain’t no socialist chit chat site.

I am independent and yes I vote.

Yes, you are and that makes YOU a Socialist.

He's retarded with many negative social skills.

Renowned Catholic theologian Fred Mertz might be able to confirm that you're a fringe k0oK Catholic?

Yes, I can confirm that.

I try to live by the golden rule and the ten commandments. I try pretty hard, although I'm human. That means I get laid on occasion and I guess that's a sin.

I hope I don't burn in hell for it.

It is absolutely crucial to know the Founders were indeed assuming certain judicial perspectives in projecting future cases.

I disagree and hold the framers intent irrelevant. The Constitution and Amendments were not acts of the legislature or legislators. They are acts of, and ratified by, the people or the political communities known as states. They are not acts of the Federal government but acts of the people acting in their sovereign capacity. The only relevant meaning was the plain meaning of the words as understood by the ratifiers. Nobody ratified what the framers may have assumed but did not put in the words presented to the ratifiers.

But here Scalia himself trips and falls into a trap:

"It is of no particular use to go back and find a 200 year old quote as to what some Framer may have intended. Nobody voted to ratify his intent. They voted to ratify the words themselves and the ordinary understanding of the words."

That is all me, not Scalia. What a Framer may have intended, but did not put in the plain words presented to the ratifiers, was not ratified by anyone, and is irrelevant.

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/98/12/06/specials/levy-intent.html

LIKE INTERPRETING THE DREAMS OF PHARAOH
Date: November 6, 1988, Sunday, Late City Final Edition Section 7; Page 11, Column 1; Book Review Desk
Byline: By ANTHONY LEWIS; Anthony Lewis is a columnist for The New York Times.
Lead: LEAD: ORIGINAL INTENT AND THE FRAMERS' CONSTITUTION By Leonard W. Levy. 525 pp. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. $19.95.

[excerpt]

The convention met in closed sessions. No stenographic record was kept, though one easily could have been. The only substantial notes were kept by Madison, and he never made any reference to them in all the hot arguments about the meaning of the Constitution during the early years of the Republic. In the first Congress, which included many delegates to the convention, no one tried to prove a point by mentioning what had been said there. And Madison did not allow his notes to be published until after his death, half a century after the convention.

Even if the delegates had wanted their intentions to be binding, discovering them is next to impossible. Madison's notes are often sketchy. Many delegates to the convention said little, and 16 of the 55 did not sign the Constitution.

Nor was there one intent on the issues that now concern us. As in any such convocation, the delegates saw different meanings in the words on which they finally agreed. Some of the disagreements soon surfaced. Hamilton thought the Constitution gave Congress power to charter a bank. Madison thought not - but later changed his mind!

Moreover, a true reading of ''original intent'' would have to include the minds of the different men who voted to approve the Constitution, the members of the ratifying conventions that met in each state. The record of those assemblies ranges from corrupt to nonexistent. It is impossible to say what their understanding was.

The legislative history of the Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments - on which so many legal disputes are focused now - is even scantier. There is virtually no record of what individual members of Congress thought or said in proposing the Amendments in 1789. Mr. Levy is particularly interesting on the rather cynical politics of the Bill of Rights.

''Just what our forefathers did envision,'' Justice Robert H. Jackson said, ''or would have envisioned had they foreseen modern conditions, must be divined from materials almost as enigmatic as the dreams Joseph was called upon to interpret for Pharaoh.''

In brief summary, those are some of the reasons why original intention cannot be a neat solution to the problem of expounding our Constitution - and living under it. But no summary can do justice to the richness of Mr. Levy's scholarship, or its zest.

- - - - - - - - - -

And again, for all of Scalia's brilliance and integrity he completely shanks this explanation and intent of the 14A:

"An example might be the 14th Amendment citizenship clause, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

The words are clear enough to include anchor babies. The baby (regardless of the parents) is born in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction (laws) of the U.S. Whether the framer did, or did not, consider the question of anchor babies has no effect on the meaning of the words that were adopted. If it had an unintended consequence, amend it."

Again, that is not Scalia. That is all me. And the words of 14A clearly and unambiguously say that all persons born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens of the U.S.

ALL babies born in the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., are natural born U.S. citizens. This is so without reference to the citizenship or status of the parents.

The exception to citizenship is children born in the U.S. who are not subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. laws. Those are the children of accredited diplomats or visiting royalty. The child of an accredited ambassador would have diplomatic immunity from U.S. law.

And yes, THIS is exactly why "INTENT" is so crucial and TEXT (which Scalia favored) should carry LESS weight. FAR less weight. PROOF? By technicality, the text Scalia prioritizes to make Court decisions and mis-intent of the Framer's 14A anchor-baby clause (that had NOT considered our reptilian future of ACLU-type saboteurs of the USCON) is what's about to destroy the Republic.

You are quite mistaken about the 14A framers' intent. The 14A debates explicitly acknowledged that the children of Chinese and European aliens fell within the clause. There was debate about Indian tribes and whether or not they were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Those Founders or Court also obviously overlooked the original illegal trespassing which created the "anchor-baby" theft-by-extension of US sovereignty. But then they never imagined by NOT dotting "i"s and NOT crossing "t"s ACLU-types would marry the Scalias with the ACLU.

The Framers of this law clearly (to many of us) did NOT intend for this theft-by-deception or "accidental" citizenry to become THE RULE. Their INTENT was that it would be a compassionate EXCEPTION. Funny how the Left are able to exploit Literalism along with a "Living, breathing Constitution". Heads The Left wins; Tails the Republic loses.

With all due respect to Scalia, his opinion on this issue is dead wrong. I presume he (like some Liberals) projected emotion into his opinion. As an Italian decedent/immigrant whose relatives babies became "Instant Citizens" as a result, his Mexican Border scenario is a gross abuse of this kind of "Anchor" situation.

Again, this is mine and not Scalia.

It is absolutely correct that if two alien parents, both of whom are in a detention center, have a baby in the United States, that baby meets the conditions of 14A and is a natural born U.S. citizen. See U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual, Volume 7, 7 FAM 1100, linked and quoted below. If that is not desired, then an amendment is needed to change it.

My anchor baby scenario is not a gross abuse of anything. It is, and has long been, a legal fact. The 14A framers were post-Civil War legislators who were actively encouraging immigration. They had Indian territory to conquer. This was done by removing the Indian population and replacing it. They needed the replacements.

https://fam.state.gov/FAM/07FAM/07FAM1110.html

U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs

7 FAM 1100
ACQUISITION AND RETENTION OF
U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY

7 FAM 1110
ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY
BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES

(CT:CON-314; 08-21-2009)

(Office of Origin: CA/OCS/PRI)

7 FAM 1111 INTRODUCTION

(CT:CON-314; 08-21-2009)

a. U.S. citizenship may be acquired either at birth or through naturalization subsequent to birth. U.S. laws governing the acquisition of citizenship at birth embody two legal principles:

(1) Jus soli (the law of the soil) - a rule of common law under which the place of a person’s birth determines citizenship. In addition to common law, this principle is embodied in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the various U.S. citizenship and nationality statutes.

(2) Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline) - a concept of Roman or civil law under which a person’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called “citizenship by descent” or “derivative citizenship”, is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As U.S. laws have changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed.

[...]

d. “Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States”: All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth.

(1) The U.S. Supreme Court examined at length the theories and legal precedents on which the U.S. citizenship laws are based in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In particular, the Court discussed the types of persons who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that a child born in the United States to Chinese parents acquired U.S. citizenship even though the parents were, at the time, racially ineligible for naturalization.

(2) The Court also concluded that: “The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.” Pursuant to this ruling:

(a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that

(b) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child’s parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.

(3) “Blue List” Cases – Children of Foreign Diplomats: 7 FAM

1100 Appendix J (under development) provides extensive guidance on the issue of children born in the United States to parents serving as foreign diplomats, consuls, or administrative and technical staff accredited to the United States, the United Nations, and specific international organizations, and whether such children are born “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”

https://law.justia.com/codes/us/2016/title-8/chapter-12/subchapter-iii/part-i/sec.-1401/

8 U.S.C. § 1401 (2016)

§1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and....

(d) a person born outside of the United States and....

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States....

(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

Far from overlooking children born of aliens, there is a chain of cases, especially pertaining to Chinese aliens not eligible for naturalization.

In re Look Tin Sing, Fed. Rep. 905, 906 (1884), Justice Field

The first section of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution declares that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the state wherein they reside." This language would seem to be sufficiently broad to cover the case of the petitioner. He is a person born in the United States. Any doubt on the subject, if there can be any, must arise out of the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." They alone are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States who are within their dominions and under the protection of their laws, and with the consequent obligation to obey them when obedience can be rendered; and only those thus subject by their birth or naturalization are within the terms of the amendment. The jurisdiction over these latter must, at the time, be both actual and exclusive. The words mentioned except from citizenship children born in the United States of persons engaged in the diplomatic service of foreign governments, such as ministers and ambassadors, whose residence, by a fiction of public law, is regarded as part of their own country. This ex-territoriality of their residence secures to their children born here all the rights and privileges which would inure to them had they been born in the country of their parents. Persons born on a public vessel of a foreign country, while within the waters of the United States, and consequently within their territorial jurisdiction, are also excepted. They are considered as born in the country to which the vessel belongs. In the sense of public law, they are not born within the jurisdiction of the United States.

Ex Parte Chin King, 35 Fed. Rep. 354, 355 (1888)

By the common law, a child born within the allegiance—the jurisdiction—of the United States, is born a subject or citizen thereof, without reference to the political status of condition of its parents. McKay v. Campbell, 2 Sawy. 118; In re Look Tin Sing, 10 Sawy. 353, 21 Fed. Rep. 905; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. Ch. 583.

In re Wong Kim Ark, 71 Fed. Rep. 382, 386 (1896)

The fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States must be controlling upon the question presented for decision in this matter, irrespective of what the common-law or international doctrine is. But the interpretation thereof is undoubtedly confused and complicated by the existence of these two doctrines, in view of the ambiguous and uncertain meaning of the qualifying phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which renders it a debatable question as to which rule the provision was intended to declare. Whatever of doubt there may be is with respect to the interpretation of that phrase. Does it mean “subject to the laws of the United States,” comprehending, in this expression, the allegiance that aliens owe in a foreign country to obey its laws; or does it signify, “to be subject to the political jurisdiction of the United States,” in the sense that is contended for on the part of the government? This question was ably and thoroughly considered in Re Look Tin Sing, supra, where it was held that it meant subject to the laws of the United States.

Lynch v. Clark, 1 Sandf. 583 (1844), as published in New York Legal Observer, Volume III, 1845, pp. 236-260 at 246.

5. It is a necessary consequence, from what I have stated, that the law which had prevailed on this subject, in all the states, became the governing principle or common law of the United States. Those states were the constituent parts of the United States, and when the union was formed, and further state regulation on the point terminated, it follows, in the absence of a declaration to the contrary, that the principle which prevailed and was the law on such point in all the states, became immediately the governing principle and rule of law thereon in the nation formed by such union. If there had been any diversity on the subject in the state laws, it might have been difficult to ascertain which of the conflicting state rules was to become, or did become, the national principle. And if such diversity had existed, it is reasonable to believe that the framers of the constitution would have borne in mind, and enacted a uniform rule, or authorized Congress to establish one. The entire silence of the constitution in regard to it, furnishes a strong confirmation, not only that the existing law of the states was entirely uniform, but that there was no intention to abrogate or change it. The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the colonies and in the states, under the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.

Won Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 674-75 (1898)

So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion. Even those authorities in this country, which have gone the farthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents. 2 Kent Com. 39, 50, 53, 258 note; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf.Ch. 583, 659; Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356, 371.

Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional

169 U. S. 675

Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.

With all due respect to Scalia, his opinion on this issue is dead wrong.

With all due respect, Scalia and I are correct and your dissent is not well taken.

Yes, I can confirm that.

Thanks Fred.

For reference, were you confirming that I am a Catholic, like you, or that I am a fringe, kook Catholic, like the poster said?

You happen to be an American defector... that hides in a 3rd world jungle amongst spics.

I hope I don't burn in hell for it.

If you wanna find out what way you’re going, immediately, then come visit me. I’ll hook you up.

I also agree with you that some of those things are you, not Scalia. I was surprised to see that Scalia had said some of the things in your message, and pleased - I had not realized that Scalia was THAT close to me. I had problems with several of his interpretations.

But now I see that that was you, not him, which makes sense.

So, we agree on HOW the Constitution should be interpreted. That's something. There are not many people out there who see things quite this way. Many claim to, but then they go sideways when they come to something they really, really want politically. The 14th Amendment and anchor babies is an obvious example. Your analysis is absolutely right, but people who just want to stop the phenomena simply bend the language to suit them, which makes them dishonest, frankly.

Your ability to cut through the fog on the matter is rare. I appreciate it.

You're right Pete theft should be legal dumbass

The only dumbasses are those who refuse to face the reality of desperation.

Take your fucking snowflake BLEEDING HEART BULLSHIT, somewhere else. This ain’t no socialist chit chat site.

ROFLMAO!

Spoken by a cog in the machine of the state whose whole fucking life revolved around being a cog in the socialist system!

Not that you will understand this.

He's retarded with many negative social skills.

Yes,but all useful skills to have if you want to be a bully boy for Big Government,Inc. He knows how to suck up to those who boss him around in the vain hope he can become one of them.

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...

The only dumbasses are those who refuse to face the reality of desperation.

Quite a few anti-constitutional desperatos on this thread..

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.

Sucks to be you.

Kavanaugh, the Jesuit coach

Where you anarchist LIBERALterians stumble, is understanding that our forefathers did expect that TAXES would be collected and utilized to fund benefits to the populace AS A WHOLE, via a tax collected system. All parts of the populace use the roadway, get arrested, use the courts system, use the public schools... so there is nothing socialist about funding it from a tax base.

Not all of the populace needs welfare, healthcare, cellphones, food stamps and housing... raising taxes to supply that shit is INCOME DISTRIBUTION... ie socialism.

Get your shit straight... because equating enforcing laws to welfare is a far stretch... one used by anarchist to justify anarchy.

More word redefinitions, I see. It's a sport here on The Island of Misfit Toys.

Post #29: — 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

---

By being Catholic he's "Jesuit"?

More word redefinitions, I see.

Jesuit Academy, J.O. School, Georgetown Prep.
Jesuit, Jesuit, and Jesuit.

Dang right he's Jesuit! What's your redefinition of Jesuit, Mark of the Beast Jesuit tattoo on his forehead?

So, we agree on HOW the Constitution should be interpreted. That's something. There are not many people out there who see things quite this way. Many claim to, but then they go sideways when they come to something they really, really want politically. The 14th Amendment and anchor babies is an obvious example.

I guess we agree. Thanks for the comments.

I would note that when stating what the law is, I try to state the prevailing interpretation with which I may disagree. As a result, I get accused of advocating all nature of things I disagree with.

Yes, you note a common sideways occurrence. Activist judges are railed against, and then a desired result is advocated which requires a differently activist judge to achieve.

Senator Jacob Howard stated upon introducing his amendment to the House version of the 14th Amendment (adding the citizenship clause), "This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

The Lynch v. Clark case is notable as it is from 1844 and clearly shows the court affirmation of citizenship for babies of aliens before the 14th Amendment existed. Granting citizenship to the children of aliens was not a new concept begun with the 14th Amendment. The Amendment placed the matter beyond the reach of the legislature to change, primarily with the then recently freed slaves in mind.

What's your redefinition of Jesuit

A clergyman who has taken his vows and joined the Society of Jesus. That's a Jesuit.

Lay people may agree with the Jesuits, but they're not ordained clergy and they're not themselves Jesuits.

"Catholic" is not synonymous with "Jesuit", or vice versa.

A Jesuit is not a Franciscan, and neither is a Domincan. All three are clergy alone. All three are Catholic. And none of them are synonymous with Catholic. If you haven't taken holy orders and vows, you're not a Jesuit by definition.

That's how I define it - which is to say, that is what the word actually MEANS.

The other point is that you think Jesuits are very bad, but I think Jesuits are very good. You use the term as a term of alarm and accusation. I use the term to recognize some of the brightest and most capable clergy in the Catholic religion.

To distill it down: You - Jesuit BAAAAD. Me - Jesuit GOOD.

I wouldn't trust this guy any farther than the old Soviet-era defectors. They can say anything they want and sometimes the wilder it is, the better their handlers (or publishers) like it.

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.)

Obviously Supreme Court opinions make law.

Obviously, a fanatic like you ---- wants Supreme Court opinions to make law.

They don't. SCOTUS opinions decide legal disputes about constitutional issues.

Federal, State, and local legislators make law; -- laws that must comply with our Constitution..

In America, Judges make law. Always have. That’s why Roe is the law of the land.

I’m 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.

You’re the solipsistic here, who mistakes his own opinions on the way things ought to be with the way things are. I’m the realist who discusses the way things ARE, whether I like it or not.

Welcome to the Twilight Zone and the tpaine Court of the Imagination™.

Just to get you acclimated to the tpaine Court of the Imagination™, here are a few unique provisions guaranteed to make you wonder why you bothered to study law.

- - - - - - - - - -

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46847&Disp=7#C7

In the long run, SCOTUS opinions don't mean much, as people,and the legislators they elect have the right to ignore them, and write new laws that circumvent their supposed edicts.

tpaine posted on 2016-06-27 18:44:47 ET

- - - - - - - - - -

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46277&Disp=49#C49

The 2nd [Amendment] has always applied to the States, -- the 'incorporation' bull has just been used by statists to avoid compliance.

tpaine posted on 2016-05-25 12:08:35 ET

- - - - - - - - - -

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46771&Disp=28#C28

The US Supreme Court has the authority to "interpret" the US Constitution, but their 'authority' is to issue opinions, -- opinions which are NOT binding on the legislative, -- or the executive branch.

tpaine posted on 2016-06-23 21:26:13 ET

- - - - - - - - - -

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40732

During a discussion with Nolu Chan, he asserted that an amendment repealing the 2nd could be ratified, and become a valid part of our Constitution. I contend such an amendment would be unconstitutional.

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40620&Disp=136#C136

Does the Court strike down this part of the Constitution as unconstitutional?

It has the power to issue an opinion that such an amendment is unconstitutional..

- - - - - - - - - -

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.

The law is what I have been saying - what I have been educated in, and am licensed to say in two jurisdictions.

Stop calling me a traitor and I'll stop coming after you personally.

Feel free to come after me in any way you dream up. ---- I say dream because your replies are becoming increasingly bizarre, -- and unlike what a licensed professional would post.

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 written Constitution is a document which anybody, like me, can read and know what it basically means just from the words in the document.

Lawyers like you, hiding behind your !icenses, disagree, naturally. Boast on...

BTW, - concerning Marbury: ---- Jefferson disagreed with Marshall's reasoning -- -

"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co- equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

Lawyers like you, hiding behind your !icenses, disagree, naturally. Boast on...

It's not a question of hiding behind a license, it's a question of education and standards.

You have a political opinion. You like your political opinion. You read a document - the Constitution - and you read it in a way that allows you to say what you say.

That's nice.

It has no bearing on reality.

I have a law degree. That's not boasting, it's a fact. I have passed the bar exam in two states. Again, not boasting - a fact. In order to pass the bar exam, I had to get a series of questions right. See, there are right and wrong answers in the law, and you don't pass the bar and get a license to practice law unless you get enough of the answers right. The same is true with law school: you don't get the degree if you can't get the exam questions right.

There's no partial credit.

Now, thing is, some of the right answers - what the law IS - do not suit me. What I do that is different from you is that I recognize where my politics differ from the law, and I try to figure out how to get the law to change.

What you do is simply change the meaning of words and declare your opinion to be the law.

It reminds me of the joke about the engineer and the economist who wash up on a desert island with a box of canned food. They each go off to devise a way to get the cans opened. The engineer comes back with a device he made that used two rocks to crush the can, causing the contents to slide out into an waiting half-coconut shell.

The economist's solution began with "Well, first we assume a can opener. That's what you're doing: you're assuming a can opener.

here are a few unique provisions

The US Supreme Court has the authority to "interpret" the US Constitution, but their 'authority' is to issue opinions, -- opinions which are NOT binding on the legislative, -- or the executive branch. ---- tpaine posted

Thank you for posting some of my opinions, as I stand by them all..

Jefferson disagreed with Marshall's reasoning in Marbury:---

You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co- equal and co-sovereign within themselves.

Lawyers like you, hiding behind your !icenses, disagree, naturally. Boast on... ---- tpaine

I have a law degree. That's not boasting, it's a fact. I have passed the bar exam in two states. Again, not boasting - a fact. In order to pass the bar exam, I had to get a series of questions right. See, there are right and wrong answers in the law, and you don't pass the bar and get a license to practice law unless you get enough of the answers right.

Law exams are made up by other lawyers, proving of course, that if you want to be licensed you must agree with other lawyers. --- Ridiculous.

You claim that: --- "What I do that is different from you is that I recognize where my politics differ from the law, and I try to figure out how to get the law to change." -------------------- Well, I do exactly the same , the only difference being, --- I make sure that the new laws i advocate, are not UNCONSTITUTIONAL...

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...

Law exams are made up by other lawyers, proving of course, that if you want to be licensed you must agree with other lawyers. --- Ridiculous.

It does not prove that. Rather, it proves that if you want to be licensed, you have to know what the law IS.

YES, what the law is, IS determined by other lawyers - mainly judges. YES, most certainly that law is often the result of real abusive power grabs by judges. YES, I find quite a bit of the law offensive. But YES, the law IS what the courts and the lawyers who run things have decided it is. The courts WILL uphold that law, and the cops with their guns WILL enforce what the courts say. So YES, if you want to take other people's money for practicing in front of American courts, you have to know what the law IS - what will be enforced, what will happen.

You can think what you want to think without a license, but you can't go take big fees from people asserting that your opinion of the law actually IS the law. It isn't. The law is what the courts - which is to say the lawyers who sit on the bench - SAY the law is.

You don't hire a lawyer to have a philosophical discussion. You hire a lawyer to know the law for you, and to tell you what will happen if you do thus and so. It's not a matter of the lawyer's opinion so much as knowledge of the state of the actual LAW - whether the law is ultimately LEGITIMATE or not is not the question.

Obviously if the Supreme Court overrules Roe and bans abortion, it is not going to do that by stating "We do this because Rome has spoken." They will, rather, read the words of the Constitution and say that nobody can be deprived of life without due process, and due process is not possible for innocent unborn babies, so THEREFORE abortion must be unconstitutional. That's how they would do this.

Sure, this would have the EFFECT of erecting the Catholic canon law as the law of the nation, but the reason given for doing so will be pure-as-the- wind-driven-snow constitutionalism.

The laws against stealing are also religious, but we don't have to strike those down on that account either.

You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed,

It may be dangerous, but it has the virtue of being true. Judges are the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions.

You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, ---- Jefferson, writing to Marshall

It may be dangerous, but it has the virtue of being true. Judges are the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. ---- Vicomte13

That is your opinion, it is far from being true.

SCOTUS opinions can be, and are overturned by amendments, legislative law, and/or executive & public inaction...

Get a grip on your judicial authoritarianism.

SCOTUS opinions can be, and are overturned by amendments, legislative law, and/or executive & public inaction...

SCOTUS opinions can be erased by constitutional amendment, yes.

When a SCOTUS opinion strikes a part of a statute, Congress can indeed pass a new statute that addresses the problem, and thereby remove the barrier created by the Supreme Court opinion, yes.

Executive inaction can nullify a SCOTUS opinion. President Lincoln ignored the Court's habeas corpus rulings during the Civil War. No President has done so since. The President that did risks impeachment.

Public inaction? The public doesn't fully obey any of the laws now, so not sure what the public has to do with this.

Thank you for posting some of my opinions, as I stand by them all..

I am sure that you do. You live in your own world.

Jefferson disagreed with Marshall's reasoning in Marbury:---

And Marbury is still good law and binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

You failed to say what you think the significance of somebody's disagreement with the Opinion of the Court in Marbury might possibly be.

You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.

"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.... The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution...." U.S. Const., Article III

SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter of the law, including the Constitution. Their opinion of what the law states is binding. If there is a desire for different law, the Constitution can be amended or repealed by the people.

In a similar vein, the Queen of England has the plenary veto power as a reserved power. She COULD veto an act of Parliament, but to do so would risk a Parliamentary stripping of her veto, so she would have to do it under a circumstance in which the bulk of the people were unambiguously with her, or where the Crown agencies actually were willing to obey her and not a corrupt and unpopular Prime Minister.

In short, a constitutional crisis could change the rules, but nothing short of that is going to.

SCOTUS opinions can be, and are overturned by amendments, legislative law, and/or executive & public inaction... ---- tpaine

SCOTUS opinions can be erased by constitutional amendment, yes.

When a SCOTUS opinion strikes a part of a statute, Congress can indeed pass a new statute that addresses the problem, and thereby remove the barrier created by the Supreme Court opinion, yes.

Executive inaction can nullify a SCOTUS opinion. President Lincoln ignored the Court's habeas corpus rulings during the Civil War. No President has done so since. The President that did risks impeachment.

Public inaction? The public doesn't fully obey any of the laws now, so ----- Vic

Nolu, ------ SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter of the law, including the Constitution. Their opinion of what the law states is binding. If there is a desire for different law, the Constitution can be amended or repealed by the people.

You two have some differences. I suggest you discuss them...

I thank Vic for his honesty in agreeing with my points...

I was saying that Supreme Court opinions are law, and they are.

You mentioned a series of ways, some legitimate, some not, by which a SCOTUS opinion can be overturned. In other words, ways in which a higher law changes a lower law. That's true.

But if it comes to a square on constitutional issue, the Supreme Court trumps. Probably the cardinal example would be a law passed by Congress and signed by the President that purported to strip the Supreme Court of the power of Constitutional review. SCOTUS would strike down that law as unconstitutional.

You mentioned a series of ways, some legitimate, some not, by which a SCOTUS opinion can be overturned. In other words, ways in which a higher law changes a lower law. That's true.

But if it comes to a square on constitutional issue, the Supreme Court trumps.

SCOTUS opinions can be, and are overturned by amendments, legislative law, and/or executive & public inaction.. -------------------- ALL are legitimate when the scotus opinion is unconstitutional. (IE, Dred Scott)

Digress as you will, the fact remains, your desire to pass religious laws is repugnant, and gives aid and comfort to our enemies.

SCOTUS opinions can be, and are overturned by amendments, legislative law, and/or executive & public inaction.. -------------------- ALL are legitimate when the scotus opinion is unconstitutional. (IE, Dred Scott)

Digress as you will, the fact remains, your desire to pass religious laws is repugnant, and gives aid and comfort to our enemies.

Very little of that is true.

Yes, SCOTUS opinions can be, and have been overturned through constitutional amendments, and through legislation. They cannot legally be, and none has ever in fact been, overturned by either executive or public inaction.

There is nothing legitimate, under our current understanding of our government, about disregarding an "unconstitutional" Supreme Court decision. We have never had a case, nor developed any theory of jurisprudence, whereby a Supreme Court decision has itself been, or could be, "declared unconstitutional". There is no body under the Constitution who has ever been viewed as being able to make such a declaration. The people can, of course, AMEND the Constitution, thereby rendering unconstitutional that which was constitutional before, but that is not disregarding the Supreme Court. It is, rather, overriding the court through the amendment of the court's governing document.

No mechanism exists in our tradition for cancellation of a SCOTUS opinion through public inaction. It's not written into the Constitution, and it's never happened.

Executive inaction happened on two occasions: Andrew Jackson ignored SCOTUS on an Indian deportation question, and Lincoln routinely ignored Supreme Court writs of habeas corpus. Both Jackson and Lincoln were very popular presidents, and Lincoln was fighting a war in which the better part of the political opposition had seceded. Neither of these behaviors produced a precedent that any subsequent President has dared to emulate.

Andrew Johnson defied a law, the Tenure of Office Act, and was impeached over it. He survived impeachment and therefore "won" the point (Stanton was not reinstated as Secretary of War). Nevertheless, though he "won" the specific point over which he was impeached (in the sense that he retained the office, and Stanton was not reinstated, so Johnson successfully resisted the law), the precedent that people remember is not that Johnson prevailed on the specific point, but that he was impeached. No President since has dared directly and openly defy the law.

So, you may say that executive or public inaction are means by which SCOTUS opinions are overturned, but that's never actually happened.

Dred Scott was overturned by the enactment of the 13th Amendment,

The notion that a Supreme Court decision could ITSELF be unconstitutional has never been part of our system. I will grant that a very bold President COULD make such an argument. Whether he would prevail or not would be a political matter. Were Trump to try it, he would not have survived. Even a very popular President like FDR took a real hit when he set about threatening to pack the Supreme Court to get his way. American people are wary of actions that would fundamentally violate their sense of civics.

In a nutshell, no.

I merely want the Supreme Court to rule that substantive due process prohibits the killing of an unborn child, because the child had no opportunity to have a fair trial before being deprived of life. That's a constitutional question, not a religious one. YOU say it's religious. I say it's a matter of national security.

I don't think Nolu and I actually disagree at all.

I was saying that Supreme Court opinions are law, and they are.

I said the same as you. I see no disagreement on the law.

SCOTUS opinions can be, and are overturned by amendments, legislative law, and/or executive & public inaction.. -------------------- ALL are legitimate when the scotus opinion is unconstitutional. (IE, Dred Scott)

The Opinion of the Court in Dred Scott was not unconstitutional, was correctly decided, and I very much doubt you have the slightest clue what the mandate of Dred Scott said, or what the actual decision of the case was.

Dred Scott is still citable as good law, and has been cited as recently as 2016 by the Solicitor General of Kansas in a brief to the Supreme Court of Kansas.

SCOTUS opinions interpreting the Constitution are overturned by Amendments to the Constitution, or by the Court revisiting the issue as in Brown and separate but equal. Public inaction does nothing. Executive inaction may mean a lack of enforcement, but it does not effect a legal overturning of the Opinion.

Digress as you [Vicomte13] will, the fact remains, your desire to pass religious laws is repugnant, and gives aid and comfort to our enemies.

He did not say he wants to pass religious laws. He said he wants laws passed that align with his religious moral beliefs. Some have a moral belief that all abortion is wrong and should be prohibited. Advocating for said belief is repugnant to pro-choice folks, not repugnant to pro-life folks, and does not give aid and comfort to our enemies, something that refers to enemies in time of war.

Catholics ------- 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.

I merely want the Supreme Court to rule that substantive due process prohibits the killing of an unborn child, because the child had no opportunity to have a fair trial before being deprived of life. That's a constitutional question, not a religious one. YOU say it's religious. I say it's a matter of national security.

You 'merely' want the Supreme Court to enact a Catholic belief as the law of the land..

What you want is specifically mentioned as being unconstitutional in the First Amendment..

Give it up..

He did not say he wants to pass religious laws. He said he wants laws passed that align with his religious moral beliefs. ---- (Yes, he wants his religious moral beliefs passed into laws.)

Some have a moral belief that all abortion is wrong and should be prohibited. Advocating for said belief is repugnant to pro-choice folks, not repugnant to pro-life folks, and does not give aid and comfort to our enemies, something that refers to enemies in time of war.

We have radical Muslim enemies working to install Shira 'law', in the USA..

Religious laws are repugnant to the First Amendment of our Constitution...

Why are you giving and and comfort to religious radicals?

Well, let me correct myself: it’s a free country - you can ascribe whatever motive you like. The liberals just attempted to block Trump’s travel ban because they said that deep down inside it was motivated by religious hatred, but the Supreme Court does not presume to sift through the hearts of men. It’s analysis is straightforward: it’s an immigration matter, the president controls that, what the President is doing has national security as its stated purpose, not racial or religious animus, and the ban is aimed at countries that have a rational relationship to terror - not every Muslim country. Therefore, the law has a rational basis, and it’s clearly within the President’s power. End of analysis.

You want to go farther, to plumb the hearts of men. You know that my motivation for wanting to ban abortion is because I know that the human being is ensouled at conception, a concept rooted in religion, not science. You know that is my motivation - that I believe that because I am Catholic and think that my church is correct on the matter.

But that is not the basis I have argued. I have pointed to the fact that the unborn baby is going to be killed, legally, without having been convicted of any crime, and without a process or a hearing. I’m squarely arguing the due process clause of the 14th amendment. I note that it applies to “persons”, and that there’s no formal definition in law as to when a person becomes a person. I am asking the court to establish that as a constitutional matter, to preclude the states from deciding differently, just as Roe precludes the states from deciding differently in the other direction.

I know I cannot win at the ballot box, and I know that the legislatures of many states won’t go along, So I need a super-powered body to override the democracy if I am going to get my way. That’s why this has to be done through the Supreme Court. There is no other way to do it.

I am a pragmatic objective-driven person, a military man with a military mind. I am interested in winning the war, and the ends justify the means, when the ends are mine. Of course I will bellyache when the other side with ends I don’t support try the same thing and win - not because I don’t understand why they have done what they have done, nor even because I am really morally outraged at their tactics. I am annoyed at their victory - I want to win.

If things are expressed in such a direct and honest people, less ruthless minds will quail and retreat. Therefore, hypocrisy is the hommage that my vice of pragmatic ends-justify-the-means victory seeking pays to the virtue of formal rights-based legalism. I will make my argument in the form required for the people who don’t want to face the truth directly, and dance the legal fan dance of concealed motives and hypocrisy, in order to get my way.

Am I really outraged at the way the abortion supporters fight their battle? Of course not. They want to win, and they have been effective at it. I despise their cause, but I tip my hat to their skill in advancing it within our system.

It seems to me that you MIGHT be doing the same thing, but the trouble is that you’re stating things about the physics of the battlefield that are not true. You’re making Pickett’s Charge, over and over again. That was never going to work.

IN our system, you don’t get to read my heart. You only get to react to my argument. Yeah, I want to win a Catholic victory. But no, I have not come onto the battlefield under an icon of Mary. I’ve argued the 14th amendment and due process. I can’t win under an icon - that’s impossible given our system. But I COULD win under the constitutional argument, if similarly minded judges are sitting up there seeking a pretext to do the right thing.

Oh, what a terrible person I am for not directly stating my intentions but hiding them behind valid legal arguments. Hypocrisy is the hommage vice renders to virtue. That’s our system. I am not about making a beau geste. I’m always about winning the battle and getting my way. So sue me.

We have radical Muslim enemies working to install Shira 'law', in the USA..

We have radical nutters claiming their imaginary law is the law of the land. The Republic has not collapsed because of it.

We have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. I have yet to have an encounter where anyone attempted to require me to obey Sharia law.

Religious laws are repugnant to the First Amendment of our Constitution...

Laws reflecting a religious moral belief are not prohibited. Laws establishing a state religion are prohibited.

The Catholic religion, and many Catholics, maintain as a religious moral belief that all abortion is wrong and sinful.

If the people adopted a Constitutional amendment that all abortion was unlawful, or an amendment confirming that a right to abortion emanates from a penumbra of the Bill of Rights, there would be no First Amendment Freedom of Religion implication.

Nobody would have established the Church of Choice, or the Church of Life, as the Church of the United States. A religious moral belief, such as choice or life is not a religion.

The official United States motto is In God We Trust (P.L. 84-140, 70 Stat. 732). And we are all free to be athiests.

https://www.scribd.com/document/383819804/70-Stat-732-PL-850-National-Motto-In-God-We-Trust

Why are you giving and and comfort to religious radicals?

Why are you espousing radical beliefs and trying to pass them off as the actual law of the United States?

The right to free speech gives you the right to preach your radical beliefs, even where they are far removed from reality.

Vicomte13 wrote at (#120) ------ Catholics ------- 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.I

I merely want the Supreme Court to rule that substantive due process prohibits the killing of an unborn child, because the child had no opportunity to have a fair trial before being deprived of life. That's a constitutional question, not a religious one. YOU say it's religious. I say it's a matter of national security.

I replied: :----- You 'merely' want the Supreme Court to enact a Catholic belief as the law of the land..

What you want is specifically mentioned as being unconstitutional in the First Amendment..

Your last reply: --- "Oh, what a terrible person I am for not directly stating my intentions but hiding them behind valid legal arguments. Hypocrisy is the hommage vice renders to virtue. That’s our system. I am not about making a beau geste. I’m always about winning the battle and getting my way. So sue me."

Instead of a lawsuit, -- how bout I take pity on you, and let you rest? --' You could also consider finding some professional help...

Why are you espousing radical beliefs and trying to pass them off as the actual law of the United States?

My comments about our Constitution are only radical in your confused mind..

You too need rest...

Instead of a lawsuit, -- how bout I take pity on you, and let you rest? --' You could also consider finding some professional help...

Instead of getting professional help, how about I smile at the progressive Hispanicization of America, recognizing the fact that Latinos are much more pro-life on average than whites, even while being more pro- social state.

In other words, as the country fills up with my co-religionists, the Democrat party in particular fills up with people who are markedly less pro-choice than they are, but who otherwise will maintain necessary social welfare.

All I have to do is sit and wait and time and demographics will give me the victory. The Republicans won't be doing it, nor the Independents. It will come from a Democratic Party that has become dominated by Latin Catholics, and they think like I do on abortion.

Give it up? Why would I do that? I'm pretty much winning on everything I care about. Some recipes take longer to cook.

Better learn Spanish.

Si, se puede.

Instead of a lawsuit, -- how bout I take pity on you, and let you rest? --' You could also consider finding some professional help...

Instead of getting professional help, how about I smile at the progressive Hispanicization of America, -----

There you go again, smiling about the 'progressive' death of our Republic..

Your every post gives aid and comfort to our enemies. --- You shame yourself..

Better learn Spanish.

Si, se puede. [Yes, we can]

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan... Tear down that wall Mr. Pope, and let the illegal aliens in! Francis hates immigrants. Trump loves them, and will sign amnesty for millions of illegal aliens. It's "a bill of love." Jeb! will be so proud of Donnell then.

Yes we can, deport all of the illegal aliens.

Yes we can, deport all of the illegal aliens.

Yes you could, but no, you won't.

You won't because your Republican capitalists will never tolerate the loss of profits from the cheap exploitable labor, and of course the Democrats will join with the Republican capitalists because the Dems are looking forward to the votes of the illegals' children (and some of the illegals themselves).

If you can get your Republicans in line with what you want, you would get it. But you can't, they won't, and it won't happen.

Pity.

My comments about our Constitution are only radical in your confused mind..

Your claims about the Constitution are not citable to any legal authority but The tpaine Court of the Imagination™. The views of a minority of one, posing as the established law of the land, is about as radical as it gets.

Si, se puede. [Yes, we can]

Where did we come from?

How about I smile at the progressive Hispanicization of America, recognizing the fact that Latinos are much more pro-life on average than whites, even while being more pro- social state.

So when MS-13 swarms into YOUR town, squat across the street in a tent as the town grow more dangerous, socialist and ILLEGALLY Hispanic...you mean YOU'RE ok with that?

And btw -- Latinos may be more pro-life than "whites" (secular, atheist and RCC whites that is), but by and large the ONLY way these ILLEGAL INVADER families and the fathers can afford larger families is because they are being subsidized by AMERICAN taxpayers. IOW, they are thieves of US sovereignty and US taxpayer resources via socialism at the local, state and national level. WITHOUT OUR CONSENT. Yet THIS theft without the consent of Americans makes you smile? Just...weird on so many levels.

All I have to do is sit and wait and time and demographics will give me the victory....as the country fills up with my co-religionists...

HUH?? Give YOU "the victory"?? Over who? WHO LOSES?? REAL AMERICANS?? Protestant Americans? That's a pretty galling principle. In your mind you've declared war...on the USA. Just like the Globalists and Democrats

Moreover, it's actually treasonous and a betrayal of all those descendants of the Americans who've established, built AND sacrificed for the principles of the Founders.

[My victory] will come from a Democratic Party that has become dominated by Latin Catholics, and they think like I do on abortion.

Talk about a Pyrrhic victory.

The day the the dominant demo of Democrats are the same outlaw Latinos who invaded the USA and re-established La Raza is THE day there is no more USA. Chyeah -- "WOO-HOO!!" Feliz Cinco de Mayo! And btw Vic -- the Democrats' "holy sacrament" of Abortion will NEVER change. Their leadership will remain the Tom Perez-Che types.

I'm pretty much winning on everything I care about.

As confused as you seem to be across the board about issues that really matter to freedom and sovereignty, that doesn't surprise me.

Better learn Spanish.

Why? Was a war fought and someone forgot to tell us? Or...Are some posters moving to El Salvador or Mexifornia?

Where did we come from?

Bizarre.

Love to see the answer to that simple question.

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan... Tear down that wall Mr. Pope, and let the illegal aliens in! Francis hates immigrants. Trump loves them, and will sign amnesty for millions of illegal aliens. It's "a bill of love." Jeb! will be so proud of Donnell then.

To paraphrase John McEnroe: "You can NOT be serious!!"

(Applies to both you and Vic.)

Yet I know you are serious. Both of you are.

But Hondo, I can't tell you how impressed I am by your consistent brilliance at conflating several inanities in a single post.

Oy. I'm starting to miss the rational arguments of Yukon.

Love to see the answer to that simple question.

Would it matter?

So when MS-13 swarms into YOUR town,

Greenwich, Connecticut?

Seems unlikely.

Moreover, it's actually treasonous and a betrayal

You guys lose the bubble every time you go here. You are a minority. You do not get to define treason. Whenever you scream that I am traitor, with my two decades of military service, including wartime service, because you disagree with me politically, my mind immediately goes to full FUCK YOU mode.

No, I'm not a traitor, and who the hell do you people think you are to say I am.

I will tell you what you are. You are a minority in a losing cause. Your ideas have not prevailed. you have not held the battlefield. Know why? Because there is a fundamental, irreconcilable illogic in the basic principles on which your beliefs are built. You try to glue together Christianity, militarism and unregulated capitalism, all into one.

That creates a set of beliefs as much in conflict and unworkable as Soviet Communism. And your ideas failed in the battlefield of ideas. They did not produce an economy prosperous enough, or a society stable enough, to be able to hold the votes in a democracy. So you receded from power and other more practical ideas took hold.

Now, people like me want to work with you, and part of that means bringing you in off the ledge of crazy and making you see WHY your ideas do not hold together and do not make rational sense. They are in conflict with each other, and they have actually failed already on the field of political battle.

But you adopt a "take no prisoners" approach AS THOUGH you are the superior army. Many of you hearken back to the old Confederacy and how grand it was, and how right its cause was. But then you stride onto that battlefield like Robert E. Lee at Gettysburg, and you don't realize that, actually, you're the inferior army, you're the weaker side. So you do something damned foolish just like he did, and charge directly at the stronger, better equipped army: Pickett's Charge. You charge straight into the guns, AS THOUGH somehow God were on your side and will carry you through to victory.

And just exactly like Lee's Confederates at Gettysburg, you get massacred. The disciplined, larger, stronger army on the other side just pours fire down on you, and God stands on the side of the bigger battalions. Your brave warriors get shot all to pieces in a charge that any sensible commander should have known was hopeless, and stupid, and both the battle and the war is lost in an afternoon.

But then, instead of learning from it, and admitting that Robert E. Lee was really a fool, you curl back into a fetal position of pride and extol his virtues and the virtues of your cause, even as everything goes to pieces around you.

Truth is, the battle didn't need to be fought in the first place.

Yes, yes, imaged language. That seems to exceed your ability to grasp, so I'll be straightforward.

When somebody calls me a traitor - I stop reading. You've lost when you do that. Whatever you have to say after that is pointless, because your reasoning has already derailed.

My long service and combat medals erase your ability to call me that, especially if you don't have any. Simple fact is, I put myself in harm's way for this country for two decades, and you did not. Therefore, you are an idiot when you call me a traitor, and what you have to say is of zero value.

You can scream at the moon, but it's a losing position. We disagree politically, and I'm a very intelligent, experienced and successful man. Successful in the military. Successful in this American economy since the military. A top one percent. The sort of success story that Americans like you claim is the be all and end all of America. But you want to presume to lecture me with your hysterical politics, like a woman on her period.

It's ridiculous. What you say is ridiculous, over the top. And it brings out my bad manners.

Now, if you want to have a calm, rational discussion of the issues, I am all for that. But the distemper that guys like you, or Stone or others thrown at me is the whining of angry old men and fringe people whose causes are lost. You don't have power BECAUSE you speak stupidly and spit at people. You can't get along with people, so you scream at them that they are traitors.

It's Pickett's Charge all over again, time after time, and you never learn a goddamned thing from it.

Do I want the country to go Spanish? No, not really. But if it's a choice between Spanish-speakers and morons who presume to call me a traitor, I'd rather replace you with them, yeah. And that's YOUR fault, buddy, not mine.

You lose the fight, and the war, every time you resort to "traitor" or "Marxist" or any of these other teenage words of an hysterical woman. You lost when you call the Catholic Church "Satanists" or the Pope "the poop" or any of the other 14 year old logic.

I stay here because it amuses me to do so. Sometimes I realize that my doing so is just an utter waste of time, that I'd be better off doing just about ANYTHING else - going and taking a walk down on the beach, etc.

I stay, I think, because actually I came right out of the deep country like you did, and I am an American success story, and I have plenty to teach you. The most important lesson is how to calm down and be reasonable and moderate in tone, and not come unglued under pressure. You're just going to keep on losing as long as you do that.

If you're calling me a traitor, you've gone postal and lost. Every time. No matter how angry you get, I am not a traitor, by definition, and if you've become so wedded to some political position that you're calling me one, it means that YOU have gone off into carnkville and need to rein yourself back in.

You guys lose the bubble every time you go here. You are a minority. You do not get to define treason. Whenever you scream that I am traitor, with my two decades of military service, including wartime service,

Hitler and Benedict Arnold were in the military too. So your service doesn't mean shit in determining if you are a traitor. You like about stupid stuff like raising mice from the dead. So you could lie about anything and everything. Or maybe you're just nuts.

will tell you what you are. You are a minority in a losing cause.

Jesus said we would be the minority Mr worldly Vic.

You try to glue together Christianity, militarism and unregulated capitalism, all into one.

That is as true as you sucking Hillary's dick.

They did not produce an economy prosperous enough, or a society stable enough, to be able to hold the votes in a democracy. So you receded from power and other more practical ideas took hold.

Mouse boy is delusional!

Now, people like me want to work with you, and part of that means bringing you in off the ledge of crazy and making you see WHY your ideas do not hold together and do not make rational sense. They are in conflict with each other, and they have actually failed already on the field of political battle.

Crazy Catholic pope worshipper thinks real Christian's would want to work with him is a sick notion. Get to the back of the bus weirdo.

You can scream at the moon, but it's a losing position. We disagree politically, and I'm a very intelligent, experienced and successful man. Successful in the military. Successful in this American economy since the military. A top one percent

2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Vic you have more than the man Jesus told to sell all he had. You claim you care about the poor. I doubt that with your pro abortion rhetoric you let slip in your pro Hillary screed.

It is easier for a rich man to...

Do I want the country to go Spanish? No, not really. But if it's a choice between Spanish-speakers and morons who presume to call me a traitor, I'd rather replace you with them, yeah. And that's YOUR fault, buddy, not mine.

More traitor talk. Fuck you deceiver.

You lose the fight, and the war, every time you resort to "traitor" or "Marxist" or any of these other teenage words of an hysterical woman. You lost when you call the Catholic Church "Satanists" or the Pope "the poop" or any of the other 14 year old logic.

The pope is a piece of shit and a liar just like you. You worship the pope not God. The pope does follow the doctrine of demons and you certainly have Marxist philisophies.

stay, I think, because actually I came right out of the deep country like you did, and I am an American success story, and I have plenty to teach you. The most important lesson is how to calm down and be reasonable and moderate in tone, and not come unglued under pressure. You're just going to keep on losing as long as you do that.

Yes we can learn much from you. Like when you said you wanted to murder all right wingers to save America. Yes Vic you have much to teach us.

If you're calling me a traitor, you've gone postal and lost. Every time. No matter how angry you get, I am not a traitor, by definition, and if you've become so wedded to some political position that you're calling me one, it means that YOU have gone off into carnkville and need to rein yourself back in.

You have not committed treason Vic. But some of your statements show you are ok betraying your people.

Do I want the country to go Spanish? No, not really. But if it's a choice between Spanish

This is the filthy ideology (from Vic) that’s slowly consuming this republic as illegal invaders grow in numbers... soon we will have no borders... or country. The invasion is being used to FORCE democracy and eliminate the REPUBLIC. Anyone like Vic that is too fucking stupid to recognize this, was never really a constitutional conservative.

Now you might see that some of the long time posters, for both here and LP, are farther left than they ever would admit. There was a good reason for the wheelchair RINO to evict them from his RINO chit chat channel.

Now you (AKA) might see that some of the long time posters, for both here and LP, are farther left than they ever would admit. There was a good reason for the wheelchair RINO ------

Not only here and LP, but going back to FR I've been disputing politics with these leftist personas, including but not limited to: --- misterwhite, gatlin, vicomte, etc.. Those are the names they call themselves now, -- but at other sites there are scores more of persona names used and discarded...

As you mention, the wheelchair rino evicted all of them eventually, ever though most of them gave him money to post.. --- Needless to say, -- I too was 86ed for disturbing JR's 'core group' of meal tickets, --- with my constant opposition to these leftist trolls.

Not to complain; --- it's been great fun playing gotcha with these clowns...

Yes we can learn much from you. Like when you said you wanted to murder all right wingers to save America. Yes Vic you have much to teach us.

You definitely do need me. I'm the only bridge you've got to the real world.

Those are the names they call themselves now, -- but at other sites there are scores more of persona names used and discarded...

I have never been anything other than Vicomte13 anywhere.

Anyone like Vic that is too fucking stupid to recognize this, was never really a constitutional conservative. Now you might see that some of the long time posters, for both here and LP, are farther left than they ever would admit.

Admit? I've never hidden anything about my politics. They're not particularly Leftist or Rightist. They're just plain right.

You have not committed treason Vic. But some of your statements show you are ok betraying your people.

I am quite loyal to "my people". I define who "my people" are.