- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Throughout my 71 years on this planet of the apes, me dino has been programmed to view the Supreme Court as an oligarchy of nine who makes rulings on what is the law of the land without those exact words being entered into any of my thoughts, of course.
Up until now, I've equated "Supreme Court opinions" with "Supreme Court rulings."
Thanks, AjAhinoff, for using that article to open this old dino's eyes.
This is another example of learning neat stuff why me dino loves to hang out in The Gulch.
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...
Since the media felt compelled to dig up dirt on Joe The Plumber as a distraction after Obooboo told him, "I want to spread the wealth around," evidently it was thought a slogan like "MARCHING ON TO SOCIALISM" just wouldn't work out well.
Bolshevik Bernie and Wannabe Commie Ocasio-Cortez would have no problem with that, though.
Oh, it will get way uglier but I think the Tangerine Tornado will prevail.
McCain and Romney made too many of them just want to sit at home on election days.
The Tangerine Tornado knew how to push the right hot buttons.
I think he still does.
And I really hope I'm right for the sake of this country.
The author nails it: Judges under the Constitution are not permitted to "legislate from the bench". If Congress wants to pass a statute legalizing Supreme Court opinions, that is the proper way to create laws - not simply to refer to a Court opinion as justification for action.
Then have someone contrast the news coverage! LOL
No one has vetted Kavanaugh on this issue except Judge Napolitano, and he concluded that Kavanaugh is not a good choice based upon lack of respect for the Bill of Rights in his decisions.
I hope he is rejected by the con-gress and that Trump has his real, constitutional choice waiting in the wings.
If Napolitano is classic "Liberal", and I think that is true, then he is a supporter of the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution in its original meaning which allows only very limited government.
As for Fox, they are the real supporters of unlimited GOP power, not limited government. So you're right, Napolitano doesn't really belong on Fox but at least sometimes Fox pretends to care about limited government.
Napolitano cites the decisions that Kav has made that support big gov power oevr individual rights, so it's not just what Napolitano says, it's Kavanaugh's actions that matter.
What a pleasure to read. Not just for the content, which I agree with, but for the clarity and succinctness of the writing. Very rare, indeed.
Some days when the world seems totally crazy (the days that end in "Y"?)...I retreat to sanity by reading a little Rand or Mises for this kind of clear writing.
And perhaps some subtle, or not, humor: it took me awhile to notice the clearly intentional spelling of "supreme Court". Perfect.
And, as Mr. Dino said: I learned a whole lot, and had a lot of my own preconceptions about "The Supremes" clarified and corrected.
The FBI should just be closed down instead of ICE. FBI is just too crooked to be saved. DOJ isnt far behind it at all.
And the special "destroyer" should be fired and jailed for wasting our money on protecting Hillary and destroying Trump
As to whether she can be jailed, I really don’t know if she broke laws that can be proven and that aren’t past the statute of limitations. At this point I am not sure it’s worth it to pursue. She will never hold high office again
I remember the whole Monica Lewinsky thing. The only thing I thought about it was that bill clinton actually thought she would keep a secret. Any CEO would know some lowly intern is going to brag to her friends almost immediately- which is what she did
It's awful that we rarely talk about policy differences and instead just talk about jailing political enemies. I don't get I this because it's nothing to me if a particular politician is jailed for some technicality. I want the system to enforce the laws, but I get nothing out of any individual being convicted. I want people left alone to pursue happiness.
I said something like that to ewv. He says the Constitution does prevent takings, but we don't follow it. He says no piece of paper on earth can reach out and make people follow it if they don't agree with its philosophy. He may be right, but I agree we should try to have a system of checks and balances that tries to make people do the right thing.
Way too many laws. Taxation is the biggest one. I don’t have kids but I have to pay property taxes which are used primarily to educate other people’s kids
I can see both sides of taxes to provide education. Most people agree with taxes for police and jails, and if education can provide some of that same benefit it makes sense to fund it the same way. OTOH that's a slippery slope that can lead to gov't taking responsibility for all needs of families with children which can further slide into gov't being involved even in middle-class expenses, e.g. public school and PPACA. As you say, it leads to way too many laws, which leads to disrespect for the law. So I'm conflicted in that I want gov't to help the poor in a limited way but fear it always grows out of hand.
In the case of public schools that require young people to subject themselves to 12 years if being “taught” isn’t effective because they aren’t motivated to “learn”.
I would say public school for me was pretty much a waste of time. I learned far more outside of enforced schools than I did in those 12 years of government indoctrination
In the cause of wealth transfer to other peoples children, it also results in too many children because the true cost of raising them is artificially hidden to the parents of those children. Same is true of welfare given to parents who can’t afford to bring children into the world, and leads to unsustainable population growth