1. I can hardly believe that Mittens has stated that he will vote.

   4

   1. This has my Admiral Ackbar Senses triggering hard core.

      Is this going to be another Roberts?

      3

      1. It’s been said (possibly here), that if Trump gets another conservative Justice appointed and confirmed, Roberts will become the next Souter.

         He’ll move even further left — to “maintain balance on the Court” — while still being regarded as a “conservative” Justice by virtue of having been appointed by a Republican.

         Sorry, balance is having a swing vote. If that swing vote goes to the Left nearly all the time it matters, like Roberts does, that’s not balance. That’s a Leftist court.

         What I’d like to see is a court that strikes down more laws than it upholds; if it’s not absolutely Constitutional, it goes. The Roberts SCOTUS only strikes down a law if it’s indefensibly bad, which is rare; it finds justification even where the litigants don’t provide it (see, the ACA mandate penalty — neither the challengers nor the defendants mentioned Congress’ power to tax in any of their arguments, but that’s the justification the Roberts court found to let it stand).

         4

2. Good rant.

   5

   1. Yes, a very reasonable rant.

      3

3. I’ve probably said this before… I recommend to all of you “View of the Constitution of the United States” by St. George Tucker. Written in 1803, it discusses at length the many ways that politicians had been subverting the clear letter of the Constitution. Yes, they started when the ink on it was barely dry and never stopped. It got worse in the mid 1800s and worst still in the Teddy and Wilson era, but disregard and contempt for the plain English language of the Constitution goes all the way back.
   The number of politicians, in any of the 3 branches, who take the Constitution seriously is microscopic; it can easily be counted on the fingers of two hands, perhaps on the thumbs. And never mind the “independent agencies” that go outside the 3 branches and are unconstitutional simply by existing. The Fed, the SEC, the FCC, the FAA, on and on…
   Apart from all the reasons you mentioned for why the Constitution should be honored and obeyed as the Supreme Law of the Land, doing so would cut our taxes by at least 95%.
   https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/tucker-view-of-the-constitution-of-the-united-states-with-selected-writings

   3

4. I saw this buggery coming about 10 years ago. I got my debts paid, retired and now live literally on a mountain in a remote county up a 1/2 mile driveway. I watch this stuff on TV, popcorn in hand. My friends called me a paranoid delusional last summer. Now they ask me for advice to survive this idiocy. I am a retired biologist, and every time I see this stuff I can’t help seeing two troupes of monkeys jumping up and down and flinging shit at each other! I worry mostly about my taxes paying for this buffoons. Other than that, it’s some goooood watchin’…..

   Keep up the good work, you are political weathermen for me. If I come down off my mountain someday, I’ll buy you guys a beer!!!

   4

   1. I recently came across a Mormon guide to preparedness, which naturally starts with a long section on having food on hand for a year and how to do that. Your mountaintop home sounds very nice, but unless you have prepared in that manner you aren’t really set up to deal with what could happen.
      Yes, I know I’m not either. And so long as greenbacks continue to work and the stores remain open and pretty much stocked, I’m ok. If that stops, that’s an entirely different matter.
      I’ll have to re-read Niven & Pournelle’s “Lucifer’s Hammer” one of these days.

      3

      1. Gotcha. Big truck with mountain house boxes came a year ago, plus a lot more of other things. My parents made me put my allowance into the market when I was a kid. I hated them for it, but that funny stock called Microsoft, and another called Boeing did OK, along with a few others. My boss was a political douchebag and knew I believed in seeing people for their merit, which kind of defines me as a conservative type. A couple of years ago I cashed out of the market, bought 30 acres of timber up here and told my boss what he could do with certain parts of his anatomy. Thank God for timing. A little voice told me to do it all. I teach prepping now, for a meal here and there. It helps to build networks of like minded people.
         Lucifers Hammer is a must read, I totally agree. It’s scary how fast things are changing on the political front.

         I remember a quote, I think it was from MLK. “Everything hitler did was legal”

         I follow that with an unknown to me quote “When the boot of government is on your throat, it matters not if it’s a left or a right”

         Stay safe and be ready for a crazy ride!

         I definitely DIDN’T stock enough popcorn…

         2

      2. A good book, a must read!

5. Taxation at confiscatory levels is important. The murder of the unborn is important. My right to carry a firearm is important. They’re all important…

   3

6. Amen, brother.

   Also, a judge who understands the “commerce clause” is intended to allow the federal government to regulate trade between the states — mostly by pre-empting states from collecting taxes and tariffs on domestically-produced goods — and nothing else.

   It doesn’t allow for “gun control”. It doesn’t allow for single-payer health insurance or the ACA. It doesn’t really allow for Social Security, welfare, or any other of the myriad social programs and entitlements the fed.gov provides*. And it certainly doesn’t allow the fed.gov to tax and force or prevent sales of goods that never leave a state (Wickard v. Fillburn was a blatant abuse of judicial power).

   It’s become the catch-all authorization for anything Congress decides to take up that’s Constitutionally questionable, and the courts have largely allowed it. It’s a practice that needs to stop.

   ——
   * – To clarify, I’m not totally against some entitlements as a safety net, but they tend to be abused by both the recipients and the agencies that oversee them, and they still aren’t necessarily authorized by the commerce clause.

   2

   1. And I, too, and sick of hearing about Roe v. Wade, as if it’s the only question of importance SCOTUS has ever taken up.

      Let me be absolutely clear to all the Leftists out there: Roe v. Wade is not going to be overturned.

      The reason so many think that a conservative majority will overturn it is because nobody truly understands what it did. It said that the government cannot blanket ban the practice, and restrictions are scaled based on how far along the pregnancy is; in the first trimester, minimal restrictions tailored to protect the mother’s health are allowed, and in the third broad restrictions are allowed to protect fetal life.

      There are two key points that the Left doesn’t get. First, it was decided 7-2, which is a clear majority and creates a strong precedent that will be difficult to overturn. Second, there is no “Constitutional right to an abortion”; it was decided on personal and medical privacy grounds, which includes a women’s decision to abort or not, and the court also found that that right to privacy is not unlimited.

      So Roe v. Wade is here to stay, which is fine for the narrowly-written decision it is. But the right to privacy being extended to the decision to carry or abort a pregnancy (which is decided) is not at all the same as “free taxpayer-funded abortions all the time”. Roe v. Wade doesn’t say that any more than Heller v. D.C. says you can own and carry any guns you want, and the government has to buy them for you.

      As cool as that sounds, it’s just as much an overreach as the Left’s vision of Roe v. Wade.

      2

7. OK, Roe vs. Wade. That is the rallying cry from the left. And, the fact that they seem to think the Supreme Court can just decide to overturn that decision randomly tells me how little they know about the SCOTUS.

   Before a Supreme Court Justice can “overturn” a previous decision, there has to be a case in front of the court. No case challenging RvW, no overturning.

   But… no… the leftists are convinced, as soon as a conservative judge shows up on the court, abortion will become illegal nationwide.

   3

8. So, according to your rant, there are ONLY 8 “rights”. I guess bugging telephone calls and cell phone reception is OK, since there is no mention in the Bill of Rights about “telephone calls are private”. Electricity is not a “right” since it’s not mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Owning a car, internet use and everything that didn’t exist when the Bill of Rights was signed is not covered. Gee you sound like every anti-gunner out there., Try reading this:
   Amendment 9
   – Other Rights Kept by the People

   The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

   Amendment 10
   – Undelegated Powers Kept by the States and the People

   The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

   Be careful when you start throwing “rights” out the window because of your religious superstitions or whatever. You may not like what else gets thrown out.

   6

   1. Yeah, because a rant I typed out on my phone while sitting in my car waiting at the bank drive-thru to deposit a check wasn’t a comprehensive thesis on the entirely of the Bill of Rights blah-de-blah-de-fucking-blah…

      2

      1. I can deposit a check with my phone to my bank without having to wait in line and make rants. Best get a better bank.

         2

9. Nice straw man.

   If a SCOTUS Justice thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned, he or she would have to have at least three other Justices who agree to grant cert. That’s not likely to happen. To get that far, a case has to be appealed through the lower courts and leave an unsettled Constitutional question. That’s even less likely to happen.

   So J.Kb is correct; as a question of settled law, Roe v. Wade is as close to settled as they come. It’s not going anywhere, so we can be sick of hearing about it with every single SCOTUS nomination.

   And upholding enumerated rights as-written doesn’t necessarily mean disparaging unwritten or un-enumerated rights. That’s pretty much exactly what the 9th Amendment says.

   What I think J.Kb is saying is, since Roe v. Wade is essentially a dead issue, the Left can quit shrieking about it and let us move on to more current Constitutional questions.

   Like, for example, the massively infringed and under-litigated 2nd Amendment. Are “assault weapons” protected or can they be banned? What about hollow-point bullets? Standard-capacity magazines? Silencers, SBRs, and SBSs? Nobody knows, because SCOTUS largely hasn’t answered any of these.

   Or, for another example, “civil asset forfeiture”. Is it Constitutionally allowed for police to seize your money and possessions on suspicion of a crime? Or do they have to prove in court that: a. a crime has been committed, and b. those assets are the product of the crime, before they can seize them? How are police allowed to use the proceeds of asset forfeiture? Nobody knows, because SCOTUS hasn’t answered.

   Or, regarding the China virus, if public protesting is allowed under COVID restrictions, is the government nevertheless allowed to shut down churches and synagogues “to prevent the spread”? Those are both 1st Amendment issues that are immediately relevant but haven’t been answered on any level.

   Simply put, we have more pressing issues than Roe v. Wade. Let’s talk about them.

   3

   1. The main reason why RvW keeps getting brought up every time a SCOTUS justice is nominated is it gets people worked up. Not just women. Not just liberals.

      Threatening abortions activates more people than the music from an ice cream truck, the smell of bacon frying, and buttered popcorn at the theater combined. If you want to get a million people to gather on the National Mall, make it a “woman’s reproductive rights” rally.

      So, whether a new Justice will act on RvW or not is irrelevant. The left will claim it is in danger, and the women will respond. Almost Pavlovian if you ask me.

      2

      1. Almost Pavlovian if you ask me.

         Unpossible. Everyone knows it’s Trump who has the dog whistles. [/snark]

         😉

         1

   2. Thank you for understanding where I was going with my little rant.

      1

10. Yeah, CBMTTek, but will they all REEEEE! In their moving cars?

    1

11. RVW is a wedge issue as much as the 2A. It gets the moderate left to the polls in a panic to vote for that one creepy old man who assures them hens that the government isn’t gonna tell them what to do with their own bodies.

    Mark my words, the 2A card will be brought out next. It’s cyclic and related to an election.

    Stay the course, continue to vote for freedom – and remember to vote early and often!

    1

12. Wait I thought KT was already overturned because kavanaugh was appointed /sarc

Comments are closed.