Five Vs Nine…

The Keystone Kongress and the Kangaroo Court
Once again our Keystone Kongress is proving that they CAN get things done. Mostly, they just don’t want to. Well, assuming the things they might get done would benefit the majority of American people. THOSE things, they can never seem to do – and when they DO take them up – whatever follows is more of a hollow joke than anything substantive.

The first time I noticed this phenomenon was when they all got together and, in ONE DAY, declared Terri Schiavo, a brain-dead patient her husband was trying to remove from the machines, “alive.” Turns out she was still dead and failed to properly respond to the Kongressional declaration. NOW, activist and ideological morons on the SCOTUS have decided to overturn Roe v Wade…you know…because of ‘Stare Decisis,’ the doctrine that precedent should be followed in determining law. I’m sure we all remember each of them perjuring themselves by swearing to honor the principle before said Kongress.

The vast majority of the American people are angry about the choice and have taken to protesting – up to and including the court members houses. So the Sennett has already passed a law offering police protection to the appointees. Apparently, there’s some concern that the idiots face a potential threat to their well-being. I wonder if the ruling clowns will pass similar legislation protecting the women whose well-being is threatened by the idiotic declarations of the court. (Spoiler alert: they won’t…)

I guess I should add there there IS a law on the books protecting SCOTUS morons from the free speech of the people. Apparently, it’s illegal to try to sway a SCOTUS “decision.” To me, that translates perfectly to powerful people protecting themselves from the consequences of their actions. I believe the founders would NOT have approved…


Oh, the IRONY…
I hear that the lying, ideological, moron windbag Samuel Alito, Jr spoke at George Mason University on the topic of ‘Statutory Textualism.’ George Mason University is one of those diploma-mill “schools” that exist for the sole purpose of converting people into dependable conservative voices in law. That is, they don’t teach “law,” they teach “conservative law.” No, it shouldn’t be different…but it is. I suspect George Mason, the man, would HATE being associated with the moral and mental deprivations of modern conservatism but he’s held in high esteem by people who don’t understand things because he initially refused to sign off on the Constitution. (More on that in a second.) They seem to ignore the fact that he ALSO wanted an immediate end to the slave trade, for example… but I digress…

‘Textualism’ is the moronic concept that when interpreting law, the actual, written words in the statute in question are the ONLY thing that should be considered. The REASON for the law is not relevant and should not be part of the consideration. It’s the tool stupid people use to justify their preferred positions, NOT arrive a sound conclusions. They decide what they want the outcome to be, then search for justification and reject any and all opposing information. That’s backwards thinking and it’s the stock and trade of religion and conservatism.

In the case of Roe, the backward thinking is expressed in their upcoming evil ruling by pretending that since the word ‘abortion’ isn’t actually written in the Constitution, it must not be Constitutional to rule on abortions at the Federal level. That wrongheaded thought causes me great concern, not only for other things that are not specifically written into the Constitution but for some of the things that ARE. Remember, the original Constitution defined black people as only 3/5 human, fercrissakes. Also, bear in mind that Roe v Wade was not specifically about abortion. It was about privacy, which IS written in the Constitutionā€¦

Do you know WHY the Bill of Rights are amendments and not specifically included in the original body of the Constitution? As it happens, the founders were concerned that if they tried to codify each and every right a person has, they’d certainly overlook something, somewhere. They KNEW they couldn’t cover everything that should be covered. Either they would overlook something, or the issue in question was something they’d never even heard of, but they knew they couldn’t think of everything. They tried to get around it by NOT codifying ANY rights in the Constitution but it turned out too many of the colonies (by now, states) wouldn’t sign on without something specific on the topic. Thus, the Bill of Rights was born. As it happened, the founders were right. They didn’t think of everything. Ah, but they DID consider that which they were unable to consider and one of those clever sods added this:

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

That’s a SHALL NOT, not a probably shouldn’t. In short, the founders, among them, ironically, George Mason, told the lying ideologue Alito his attempted defense of eliminating rights was bullshit 233 years before he even tried it. The irony is that Mason was one of the driving forces behind the Bill of Rights in the first place. He refused to ratify the Constitution until it was included. I don’t know, maybe Mason was a scheming weasel, too, and the secret plan was to limit rights exactly the way Alito plans to do now. I doubt it, though. I think Alito and his activist, ideologue buddies are twisting and torturing Constitutional intent to create their preference, not interpret law…

2 thoughts on “Five Vs Nine…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s