The Insane Rationalizations, Bigotry And Out Right Hypocrisy Of The Left

[rmgill]

People and governments will get away with what we allow them to get away with. It's our job to not let them get away with it. That usually entails beating the figurative drum.

 

The point is, Jeff, that once a judge legislates from the bench, it is almost forever etched in stone from that point forward. You and I and everybody can bellyache about it all we want for as long as we want, but it beyond change once it is done. Congress can't change it back and the President can't change it back.

 

Not quite. We have several problems actually.

 

The Law and/or Constitution says that X is a limit and it may not be passed.

Congress/Government officials decide that X is NOT actually a limit and exceed that limit by far. This can stand until someone challenges it in court and wins and the courts tell government that the Limit of X is actually a limit. I call this the "you're only speeding if you get caught" concept. Basically, until a court tells a government official , Tweet, offsides, 30 yard penalty, they're not offsides and are just fine. DC's gun laws are a good example of this, 50 years of law doesn't boot strap it into being constitutional.

 

the other problem is

The Law and/or Constitution says that X is a limit and it may not be passed.

A judge decides that because X is the limit that there also needs to be a limit of Y and Z or worse that P and Q are the new limits. The judge is in fact not ruling on law, but making up new law OR interpreting X to really be equal to Z or even Zero. ie the Limit of X is no limit at all.

This is a problem because the Judiciary is in fact changing the law by re-interpreting the meaning of the law incrementally. Kelo v New London is a great example of this.

 

In both cases the law may be re-written to take into account OR change what the judge said. In the case of Kelo v New London, a number of states passed laws specifically NOT allowing the public = private version of the takings clause. State law can be more strict than federal law both in regular law OR in Constitutional law (see also Montana).

In the case of A constitutional law issue, one can also change the constitution, Article V is the remedy there for federal issues.

[DKTanker]

Insane rationalization. Der Divider really didn't mean what he said when he said that it would be unprecedented for SCOTUS to overrule a law passed by congress. Today, Der Divider's suck piece said we just didn't understand The Obamessiah's shorthand. Der Dumbfuck didn't speak about things he evidently doesn't know about or chooses to ignore, we're screwed up because we aren't smart enough to understand him.

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/05/carney_obama_not_understood_because_he_spoke_in_shorthand_since_he_is_a_law_professor.html

 

White House press secretary Jay Carney tells the press corps that President Obama's attack on the Supreme Court was misunderstood because he was speaking in "shorthand" since he is a former professor of law.

 

Henry: The president is a former constitutional law professor. One of his professors is Laurence Tribe. He now says, in his words, the president “obviously misspoke earlier this week”, quote “he didn’t say what he meant and having said that in order to avoid misleading anyone, he had to clarify it.” I thought yesterday you were saying repeatedly that he did not misspeak. What do you make of the president’s former law professor saying he did?

 

Carney: The premise of your question suggests that the president of the United States in the comments he made Monday, did not believe in the constitutionality of legislation, which is a preposterous premise and I know you don’t believe that.

 

Henry: Except this is from Laurence Tribe, who knows a lot more than you and I about constitutional law.

 

Carney: What I acknowledged yesterday is that speaking on Monday the president was not clearly understood by some people because he is a law professor, he spoke in shorthand.

[Mr King]

I love it how when liberals are caught putting their foot in their mouths its always "You just dont understand what I meant" implying the problem is on the critics end not theirs.

[Jeff]

People and governments will get away with what we allow them to get away with. It's our job to not let them get away with it. That usually entails beating the figurative drum.

 

The point is, Jeff, that once a judge legislates from the bench, it is almost forever etched in stone from that point forward. You and I and everybody can bellyache about it all we want for as long as we want, but it beyond change once it is done. Congress can't change it back and the President can't change it back.

 

Not quite. We have several problems actually.

 

The Law and/or Constitution says that X is a limit and it may not be passed.

Congress/Government officials decide that X is NOT actually a limit and exceed that limit by far. This can stand until someone challenges it in court and wins and the courts tell government that the Limit of X is actually a limit. I call this the "you're only speeding if you get caught" concept. Basically, until a court tells a government official , Tweet, offsides, 30 yard penalty, they're not offsides and are just fine. DC's gun laws are a good example of this, 50 years of law doesn't boot strap it into being constitutional.

 

the other problem is

The Law and/or Constitution says that X is a limit and it may not be passed.

A judge decides that because X is the limit that there also needs to be a limit of Y and Z or worse that P and Q are the new limits. The judge is in fact not ruling on law, but making up new law OR interpreting X to really be equal to Z or even Zero. ie the Limit of X is no limit at all.

This is a problem because the Judiciary is in fact changing the law by re-interpreting the meaning of the law incrementally. Kelo v New London is a great example of this.

 

In both cases the law may be re-written to take into account OR change what the judge said. In the case of Kelo v New London, a number of states passed laws specifically NOT allowing the public = private version of the takings clause. State law can be more strict than federal law both in regular law OR in Constitutional law (see also Montana).

In the case of A constitutional law issue, one can also change the constitution, Article V is the remedy there for federal issues.

Yup

[X-Files]

Sounds like a "Yes, but" to me.

WASHINGTON -- Continuing the politically charged back-and-forth between the executive and judicial branches over President Barack Obama's health care reform law, Attorney General Eric Holder on Thursday submitted a letter to a federal appeals court affirming that the "power of the courts to review the constitutionality of legislation is beyond dispute," but reiterated the president's statement that courts should show strong deference to Congress' commerce-based regulations.

"While duly recognizing the courts' authority to engage in judicial review, the Executive Branch has often urged courts to respect the legislative judgments of Congress," Holder wrote. Pointing to the conservative appellate judges who upheld the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate, Holder concluded that principles of judicial restraint "are fully applicable when Congress legislates in the commercial sphere. The courts accord particular deference when evaluating the appropriateness of the means Congress has chosen to exercise its enumerated powers, including the Commerce Clause, to accomplish constitutional ends."

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/05/eric-holder-supreme-court-president-obama-health-care-case_n_1405606.html?icid=maing-grid7|aim|dl1|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D149663

[Rocky Davis]

Yup

 

What you both miss is this:

 

1. Most influential judges have lifetime terms, hence can nearly never be removed for any reason.

2. "Legislating from the Bench" instantly becomes Case Law, and challenging that ruling most oftentimes takes taking it to the Supreme Court. Once Case Law is in place, it IS the law.

 

Think again. There is what our Forefathers wanted and then there is almost unchangable reality (which is now).

Edited April 6, 2012 by Rocky Davis

[DKTanker]

Think again. There is what our Forefathers wanted and then there is almost unchangable reality (which is now).

The answer then is to buy stock in Johnson and Johnson, such will be the perpetual increasing need for K-Y jelly? If we're just supposed to lay there and enjoy getting fucked in the ass, would it be appropriate to ask for a kiss?

[Mike Steele]

Think again. There is what our Forefathers wanted and then there is almost unchangable reality (which is now).

The answer then is to buy stock in Johnson and Johnson, such will be the perpetual increasing need for K-Y jelly? If we're just supposed to lay there and enjoy getting fucked in the ass, would it be appropriate to ask for a kiss?

When I hear shit like this I have to just shake my head.

[Skywalkre]

Think again. There is what our Forefathers wanted and then there is almost unchangable reality (which is now).

The answer then is to buy stock in Johnson and Johnson, such will be the perpetual increasing need for K-Y jelly? If we're just supposed to lay there and enjoy getting fucked in the ass, would it be appropriate to ask for a kiss?

The answer is that no matter how much you may not care for the R candidate for President, you get behind him because the life-long appointees to the bench he makes will be better than anything the D candidate will put forward.

[Simon Tan]

Nope. Goldmun was appointed by Ike.

[Mike Steele]

People and governments will get away with what we allow them to get away with. It's our job to not let them get away with it. That usually entails beating the figurative drum.

 

Really?

[Rocky Davis]

The answer then is to buy stock in Johnson and Johnson, such will be the perpetual increasing need for K-Y jelly? If we're just supposed to lay there and enjoy getting fucked in the ass, would it be appropriate to ask for a kiss?

 

Pretty much, that is the truth these days.

 

Judges appointed for life (or nearly life) terms have set themselves up as Gods and, once there, the decisions they make - even if not based on the letter of the law, but if made on how they personally feel . . . or feel THAT DAY, are case law until overturned later on (and, once case law is set, it is difficult to overcome).

 

Yes . . . we are, and have been for many years, truly fucked by judges, whose place in our society places them equal to God.

[rmgill]

People and governments will get away with what we allow them to get away with. It's our job to not let them get away with it. That usually entails beating the figurative drum.

 

Really?

 

Well, that drum includes giving to groups like the SAF who've done more for gun rights in the past 10 years than the NRA did in 50 years...The NRA was holding the line, barely....giving ground in some places even. The SAF has gone on the counter attack and the NRA has in some cases resisted this.

[Rick]

People and governments will get away with what we allow them to get away with. It's our job to not let them get away with it. That usually entails beating the figurative drum.

Really?

Well, that drum includes giving to groups like the SAF who've done more for gun rights in the past 10 years than the NRA did in 50 years...The NRA was holding the line, barely....giving ground in some places even. The SAF has gone on the counter attack and the NRA has in some cases resisted this.

 

What do the initials SAF mean?

[Rocky Davis]

_{Second Amendment Foundation}

[Rick]

_{Second Amendment Foundation}

 

Thanks. Name doesn't sound familiar though.

[rmgill]

_{Second Amendment Foundation}

 

Thanks. Name doesn't sound familiar though.

 

Alan Gura works with the SAF, Second Amendment Foundation.

 

Notable suits to date are.

Heller vs DC (Handgun ban in DC) - Won at SCOTUS level

McDonad v Chicago (Handgun Ban in Chicago - 14th amendment incorporation) - Won at SCOTUS level

Ezell v Chicago (Chicago's Range ban) - Winning so far (the 3 Judge appeals court panel beat the Chicago lawyer about the head and ears during oral arguments)

Bateman v Perdue (Emergency powers confiscation of firearms in NC) - Winning so far

Woolard v Sheridan (MD's show proper cause for handgun applications) - Winning so far

Kwoong v Bloomberg (NY's excessive handgun fees - $340+) - Lost first round but this is headed towards a split decision With Wollard, so not a loss yet.

 

 

There are 14 others in flight.

Edited April 6, 2012 by rmgill

[Tim the Tank Nut]

Sometimes I wonder about the NRA. It is almost as if they've been co-opted by the machine.

[rmgill]

Sometimes I wonder about the NRA. It is almost as if they've been co-opted by the machine.

 

They held the line nicely for years, but they've taken the safe path for so long that in the real important fights they just try to hold the line and don't go on the counter attack when they need to.

 

Gura seems to have a very well thought out plan of attack that he is taking and so far it's worked out amazingly well. We may very well see MOST of the state and federal firearms laws dismissed in our lifetimes due to him.

[Jeff]

Yup

 

What you both miss is this:

 

1. Most influential judges have lifetime terms, hence can nearly never be removed for any reason.

2. "Legislating from the Bench" instantly becomes Case Law, and challenging that ruling most oftentimes takes taking it to the Supreme Court. Once Case Law is in place, it IS the law.

 

Think again. There is what our Forefathers wanted and then there is almost unchangable reality (which is now).

It's the long war. The Left understands this better than we do.

[Jeff]

People and governments will get away with what we allow them to get away with. It's our job to not let them get away with it. That usually entails beating the figurative drum.

 

Really?

Well, I am the drum beating laughing boy, afterall.

[DKTanker]

What an outrage, a FN reporter asked the president, that since he claims to be black, when in NY City, does he tip black taxi drivers more than others? Wait, that wasn't the question. The question was really asked by a TIME magazine editor of Nikki Haley, Governor [R] South Carolina.

 

 

Haley, who was born into a Sikh family, now identifies herself as a Christian.

 

"In New York City, which you're visiting for a couple of days, a lot of our taxi drivers are Sikhs. If you get one, are you going to give them a slightly bigger tip?" Belinda Luscombe, a TIME editor, asked Haley.

 

Granted, a stupid joke. However, had the question been asked by, Bill O'Reilly, and was asked of Sheila Jackson Lee if she would be tipping black drivers more, the outrage would be such that O'Reilly would definitely be giving an apologetic response, possibly after he had served a suspension.

Edited April 6, 2012 by DKTanker

[Stargrunt6]

What an outrage, a FN reporter asked the president, that since he claims to be black, when in NY City, does he tip black taxi drivers more than others? Wait, that wasn't the question. The question was really asked by a TIME magazine editor of Nikki Haley, Governor [R] South Carolina.

 

 

Haley, who was born into a Sikh family, now identifies herself as a Christian.

 

"In New York City, which you're visiting for a couple of days, a lot of our taxi drivers are Sikhs. If you get one, are you going to give them a slightly bigger tip?" Belinda Luscombe, a TIME editor, asked Haley.

 

Granted, a stupid joke. However, had the question been asked by, Bill O'Reilly, and was asked of Sheila Jackson Lee if she would be tipping black drivers more, the outrage would be such that O'Reilly would definitely be giving an apologetic response, possibly after he had served a suspension.

 

Let's not forget the Special Olympics joke O did on Letterman.

[Rocky Davis]

It's the long war. The Left understands this better than we do.

 

It is an unwinnable war.

 

Legislators, Presidents and Gods all bow to the power of judges that cannot be removed (anytime soon, at least) and that make judicial decisions based upon what they feel instead of the letter and intent of the law as written. You normally (as a citizen) have no control over these people, Yet any decision they make becomes Case Law forever afterwards, used by other attorneys to be a bastion of their own, future court case. After a while, the decision by that judge is as good (or better) than anything that ever passed through the legislative process and got signed into law by the President.

[Jeff]

It's the long war. The Left understands this better than we do.

 

It is an unwinnable war.

 

Legislators, Presidents and Gods all bow to the power of judges that cannot be removed (anytime soon, at least) and that make judicial decisions based upon what they feel instead of the letter and intent of the law as written. You normally (as a citizen) have no control over these people, Yet any decision they make becomes Case Law forever afterwards, used by other attorneys to be a bastion of their own, future court case. After a while, the decision by that judge is as good (or better) than anything that ever passed through the legislative process and got signed into law by the President.

It's not unwinnable, it takes a long view. It also highlights the importance of having the WH and/or the Senate and making the most of it when you do. We've seen some pushback on the judicial front of late but it's ony a Justice away from going the other way.