Bluegrassrivals

TheRealThing Wrote:APRIL 22, 2011
"As I have said before, so desperate are the democrats to stay in power and so strong is thier contempt for anything non-liberal, they will merrily ride our country off the cliff rather than give in. If they can't rule, it's decry and defame and footdrag until the majority is reclaimed in congress. If civility and respect can't be restored in the "hallowed halls" the machine that is our government will grind to a halt. And, while we bicker, our enemies grow stronger and our will to remain a sovereign nation is weakened. Over 200 years of history means nothing. Now the government will tell us what we think, and the mainstream media will be the medium. Whlle they insist everything is ok, we borrow nearly 17,000 dollars every minute."

I rarely quote myself and apologize for having done so this time, but the point is worth making IMHO. The (edited) post above, was made back on April 22nd, 2011. And yet as I have noted in sundry times past, the backstory actually goes back much farther, all the way to 1979 in fact, during Reagan's run-up to the White House. As I have recently gone into some detail on this matter in post# 8 of the "SCOTUS Candidates" thread, I will just say that though it was in Reagan's day that I first noticed it, there is these days a palpable animosity towards the right from main stream media and Democrats.

Just this week Lou Dobbs and Bill O'Reilly spoke on this very situation, describing it as a war. Said war has begun to spill out into the streets, as we see more and more, that violence is the norm for rioters whom the left has affectionately renamed protesters. But then what should we expect when Congressmen speak of subversion and act like uneducated thugs at a 1930's style union rally?

Meanwhile in the offices of government agencies you can bet the paper shredders are all hot to the touch, as the Dems are doing their darnedest to hold cabinet appointees at bay. Betsy DeVos was a tough one, and that is because the public schools are where lefties indoctrinate the nation's youth. Jeff Sessions even worse, as a thing called justice is about to awaken for the first time in decades. I mean, you know Dems didn't believe for the first second that Trump would ever win, they owned the White House to hear them tell it.

But as I have said the reason Harry Reid used the nuclear option was because Dems recognized the great opportunity which lay before them. The Obama Administration appointed 2 SC judges, 55 judges to the Courts of Appeals, 268 judges to District Courts, 4 judges to United States Court of International Trade, 8 judges to the US Tax Court, 12 judges to Military Review, Veterans Claims, Armed Forces, Federal Claims, and Territorial Courts. And those are just the heavy weight judges. Activist Judges like the ones in Washington State could conceivably cause any administration, and therefore the land, all kinds of grief. The gloves are off, and some folks other than Trump had better wake up, especially where the Supreme Court is concerned.

And BTW, if more context is needed, consider that at the time of my 2011 post we borrowed a paltry 17,000 dollars each minute. According to Rand Paul as of July 2015, we were borrowing an incredible 1 million dollars a minute.

But as I have said the reason Harry Reid used the nuclear option was because Dems recognized the great opportunity which lay before them. The Obama Administration appointed 2 SC judges, 55 judges to the Courts of Appeals, 268 judges to District Courts, 4 judges to United States Court of International Trade, 8 judges to the US Tax Court, 12 judges to Military Review, Veterans Claims, Armed Forces, Federal Claims, and Territorial Courts. And those are just the heavy weight judges. Activist Judges like the ones in Washington State could conceivably cause any administration, and therefore the land, all kinds of grief. The gloves are off, and some folks other than Trump had better wake up, especially where the Supreme Court is concerned.


Following is a list of United States federal judges appointed by PresidentGeorge W. Bush during his presidency, including all Judges appointed under Article III and a partial list of Judges appointed under Article I.[1] In total Bush appointed 327 Article III federal judges, including 2 Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States (including one Chief Justice), 62 judges to the United States Courts of Appeals, 261 judges to the United States district courtsand 2 judges to the United States Court of International Trade. Additionally, he made appointments to various courts established under Article I and Article IV.

Looks to me like other presidents also pick there judges
If you think spending was bad under Obama wait till King Donald and the GOP gets there policy's through in Congress
Massive Tax cuts
Trillon dollar highway bill
More Billions on the military
Billons for the wall
I personally don't think this country will recover

^^ No judge is perfect, but most conservative judges adhere to the law. They call such judges constructionists, and they are by conscience sworn to uphold the law in their deliberations and rulings. Other judges are called activists and they believe they have the right to alter the traditional applications of the law in favor of passing social fads and nuance. Which make them the darlings of the left, who think just like they do.

Most, not all certainly, of George W's appointees are non-news making constructionists of varying notoriety, and because they go about their duties in quiet sanity, we therefore do not hear much from them. Now, you take those goofs out in Washington, one of them a W appointee, (you never know) and you have the epitome of the kinds of things activist judges often do. They know full well their ruling runs afoul of law. They've done this thing because they are more politicians than judges, and they know they are untouchable under our system. No, the Obama led transformation is far from dead thank you very much, and those who serve as judges or yet work in the various agencies, are still about their master's bidding. So though W had his appointees to be sure, Obama's appointees are far more activist. Therefore most folks are hopeful that Trump's picks will be able to restore an appreciable measure of balance to the courts.

But you say that though this nation's state of affairs under Bush only required the US to borrow 17 thousand dollars a minute, while the spending under Obama hit financial light speed at 1 million a minute, it's still Trump we have to worry about? nicker:

TheRealThing Wrote:^^ No judge is perfect, but most conservative judges adhere to the law. They call such judges constructionists, and they are by conscience sworn to uphold the law in their deliberations and rulings. Other judges are called activists and they believe they have the right to alter the traditional applications of the law in favor of passing social fads and nuance. Which make them the darlings of the left, who think just like they do.

Most, not all certainly, of George W's appointees are non-news making constructionists of varying notoriety, and because they go about their duties in quiet sanity, we therefore do not hear much from them. Now, you take those goofs out in Washington, one of them a W appointee, (you never know) and you have the epitome of the kinds of things activist judges often do. They know full well their ruling runs afoul of law. They've done this thing because they are more politicians than judges, and they know they are untouchable under our system. No, the Obama led transformation is far from dead thank you very much, and those who serve as judges or yet work in the various agencies, are still about their master's bidding. So though W had his appointees to be sure, Obama's appointees are far more activist. Therefore most folks are hopeful that Trump's picks will be able to restore an appreciable measure of balance to the courts.

But you say that though this nation's state of affairs under Bush only required the US to borrow 17 thousand dollars a minute, while the spending under Obama hit financial light speed at 1 million a minute, it's still Trump we have to worry about? nicker:

The Constitution calls for three distinct, unique, independent branches in a checks and balances system. Strict constructionism is an interpretation, not God-breathed truth. Learn the difference, TRT, and stop insulting decency with your inability to differentiate between your opinion, settled truth, and the natural tensions of honest debate.

Having just watched HIDDEN FIGURES, would the strict constructionist have found "colored only" schools and bathrooms and water fountains an issue unto the states? This is not race baiting, nor identity politics. It is a fair question, given the ethos behind strict constructionism.

The Urban Sombrero Wrote:The Constitution calls for three distinct, unique, independent branches in a checks and balances system. Strict constructionism is an interpretation, not God-breathed truth. Learn the difference, TRT, and stop insulting decency with your inability to differentiate between your opinion, settled truth, and the natural tensions of honest debate.

Having just watched HIDDEN FIGURES, would the strict constructionist have found "colored only" schools and bathrooms and water fountains an issue unto the states? This is not race baiting, nor identity politics. It is a fair question, given the ethos behind strict constructionism.

The guy standing in the shadows of historical prejudice forever wanting to take the lectern. If this was 1850 your post might have been germane, but this is 2017 and the civil rights renaissance is in the books. Learn to tell the difference between your particular brand of hashed over biases and historically settled truth.

Talk about bringing up the rear, you obviously missed it and I know identity politics is all you've got, but the idea that libs think they're the only ones with a handle on decency is self delusion. The fact that liberals can't get over themselves has become self evident and is the reason why 2018 will feature another boat load of them getting voted out.

TheRealThing Wrote:The guy standing in the shadows of historical prejudice forever wanting to take the lectern. If this was 1850 your post might have been germane, but this is 2017 and the civil rights renaissance is in the books. Learn to tell the difference between your particular brand of hashed over biases and historically settled truth.

Talk about bringing up the rear, you obviously missed it and I know identity politics is all you've got, but the idea that libs think they're the only ones with a handle on decency is self delusion. The fact that liberals can't get over themselves has become self evident and is the reason why 2018 will feature another boat load of them getting voted out.

The question, O Self-Righteous One, has to do with the ethos of strict textualism, and is perhaps more relevant today than at any other point in our history. Jurisprudence has this phrase in its documents:

"Here comes the plaintiff seeking the right to marry a same sex partner..." What say the Constitution? Why, it does not speak to the matter. Well, then, it is left to the states. Wait, isn't equal protection a broad principle? Should it not extend to these consenting adults?

Now, sir, these are debateable issues, and reasonable folks may disagree, your erroneous Bible thumping, tail wagging the dog politicalization of faith notwithstanding.

The Urban Sombrero Wrote:The question, O Self-Righteous One, has to do with the ethos of strict textualism, and is perhaps more relevant today than at any other point in our history. Jurisprudence has this phrase in its documents:

"Here comes the plaintiff seeking the right to marry a same sex partner..." What say the Constitution? Why, it does not speak to the matter. Well, then, it is left to the states. Wait, isn't equal protection a broad principle? Should it not extend to these consenting adults?

Now, sir, these are debateable issues, and reasonable folks may disagree, your erroneous Bible thumping, tail wagging the dog politicalization of faith notwithstanding.

Oh your mind is filled with questions as I have endeavored to highlight in our discussions past. This recent question upon which you argue for all things liberal, is your particular burden of which you are by choice beset, and one which is not shared by 80% of this land's populace. I prefer Biblical references, but I enjoy the secular on occasion to be sure; “The human brain is a complex organ with the wonderful power of enabling man to find reasons for continuing to believe whatever it is that he wants to believe.” ― Voltaire

Your blather aside and putting the burden of your question into proper perspective, this thread is about the demonstrable contempt of the left for our traditionally conservative values. Such contempt being defined by judicial activism, which IMHO is nothing short of treason. The escapades of organizations such as the ACLU & ACORN and all the .orgs funded by leftist ideologues and their Congressional overlords are certainly a part, as are their propagandist outreach. And as such, how all of these would ultimately detract from the validity of the tenets of Christianity and those who espouse them. As your ever-present predilection for homosexual activism tends to confirm, it would seem you're lining up on the wrong side of the issue again.

TheRealThing Wrote:Oh your mind is filled with questions as I have endeavored to highlight in our discussions past. This recent question upon which you argue for all things liberal, is your particular burden of which you are by choice beset, and one which is not shared by 80% of this land's populace. I prefer Biblical references, but I enjoy the secular on occasion to be sure; “The human brain is a complex organ with the wonderful power of enabling man to find reasons for continuing to believe whatever it is that he wants to believe.” ― Voltaire

Your blather aside and putting the burden of your question into proper perspective, this thread is about the demonstrable contempt of the left for our traditionally conservative values. Such contempt being defined by judicial activism, which IMHO is nothing short of treason. The escapades of organizations such as the ACLU & ACORN and all the .orgs funded by leftist ideologues and their Congressional overlords are certainly a part, as are their propagandist outreach. And as such, how all of these would ultimately detract from the validity of the tenets of Christianity and those who espouse them. As your ever-present predilection for homosexual activism tends to confirm, it would seem you're lining up on the wrong side of the issue again.

And, so, again: Here comes plaintiff seeking relief from "colored only" water fountains, schools. Was it judicial activism, at that time, to give Constitutional remedy? You continue to ignore the FACT that the very ethos of Scalia's strict constructionist, original intent textualism makes this a relevant issue. Instead, you return to bed with your cozy partner "identity politics," even though it does not apply. Strangely enough, you keep suggesting that a show of hands is the test for Constitutional principle. One wonders, given this penchant for appealing to the crowd, if a 1st century TRT would have been in the throng screaming, "Release to us Barabbas."

The Urban Sombrero Wrote:And, so, again: Here comes plaintiff seeking relief from
1) - "colored only" water fountains, schools. Was it judicial activism, at that time, to give Constitutional remedy?

2) - You continue to ignore the FACT that the very ethos of Scalia's strict constructionist, original intent textualism makes this a relevant issue.

3) - you return to bed with your cozy partner "identity politics," even though it does not apply.

4) - One wonders, given this penchant for appealing to the crowd, if a 1st century TRT would have been in the throng screaming, "Release to us Barabbas."

LOL, comes again the self-deluded to reassert a pseudo legal argument dreamed up by liberals, in order to assist in social transformation ala the vision and tactics of Barack Obama.

1) - Litigated, settled and gone as of the 1950's. But you go ahead and keep on hammering it home anyway.

2) - Reread the Scalia thread, I said about all I need to on the matter there, and have had enough of your circular ridiculousness on it.

3) - Classic example of the clinical condition from among behavioral disorders known as "Projection." PROJECTION THEORY; "The theory views this tendency as a defense mechanism whereby unenviable or unpleasant traits, impulses or ideas are attributed to another. In this way, the projector is able to avoid the unpleasantness in themselves." And as I have said, I refuse to 'help' you be sick. CODEPENDENCY; "a type of dysfunctional 'helping' relationship where one person supports or enables another person's shortfall."

In short, you're the guy on here arguing and rehashing the history of civil rights and gay marriage.

4) - Although you're obviously hoping otherwise, I will be there on that glad morning. Not because of anything I have done, but because of the finished work of The Lord Jesus. 1 John 5:13 (KJV)
13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

You ought to be celebrating salvation with me there Sombrero, not rooting otherwise. And you ought to be arguing for the cause of Christ, not couching thinly veiled opposition in the language of juris-imprudence.

TheRealThing Wrote:LOL, comes again the self-deluded to reassert a pseudo legal argument dreamed up by liberals, in order to assist in social transformation ala the vision and tactics of Barack Obama.

1) - Litigated, settled and gone as of the 1950's. But you go ahead and keep on hammering it home anyway.

2) - Reread the Scalia thread, I said about all I need to on the matter there, and have had enough of your circular ridiculousness on it.

3) - Classic example of the clinical condition from among behavioral disorders known as "Projection." PROJECTION THEORY; "The theory views this tendency as a defense mechanism whereby unenviable or unpleasant traits, impulses or ideas are attributed to another. In this way, the projector is able to avoid the unpleasantness in themselves." And as I have said, I refuse to 'help' you be sick. CODEPENDENCY; "a type of dysfunctional 'helping' relationship where one person supports or enables another person's shortfall."

In short, you're the guy on here arguing and rehashing the history of civil rights and gay marriage.

4) - Although you're obviously hoping otherwise, I will be there on that glad morning. Not because of anything I have done, but because of the finished work of The Lord Jesus. 1 John 5:13 (KJV)
13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

You ought to be celebrating salvation with me there Sombrero, not rooting otherwise. And you ought to be arguing for the cause of Christ, not couching thinly veiled opposition in the language of juris-imprudence.

Your grasp of the law is as distorted as history. Your salvation was not questioned. A reference to Barabbas and the crowd dealt with your penchant for appealing to the crowd (a logical fallacy) when it suits you.

You continue to fail to address the "if taken to its logical extreme" ethos of strict textualism championed by Justice Scalia. The issue is not some rehash of civil rights, but rather challenging a judicial philosophy with its ethos at the level of complex social issues involving equality before the law. One word of caution: many who did and do many deeds in his name and even said and say to him "Lord, Lord" actually are not on solid ground. I assure you, TRT, I put into practice his words, not without struggle and need for repentance, but with striving. However, I trust the crowd very little in defining, much less honoring, certain Constitutional principles. Thus, as you appeal to the mob, I point out Barabbas.

LOL, I'd rather have a grasp than just do a one-hop off the surface. I don't usually get motion sick, but I am a bit of a sympathy puker. I stand by my diagnosis and my post.

TheRealThing Wrote:LOL, I'd rather have a grasp than just do a one-hop off the surface. I don't usually get motion sick, but I am a bit of a sympathy puker. I stand by my diagnosis and my post.

I wouldn't expect you to do otherwise. Digging in is cool, just be careful where you dig.

The Urban Sombrero Wrote:I wouldn't expect you to do otherwise. Digging in is cool, just be careful where you dig.

Whereas completely disregarding the thread premise to dance on the head of the same old pin is, not so much.

TheRealThing Wrote:Whereas completely disregarding the thread premise to dance on the head of the same old pin is, not so much.

At some point, TRT, you are going to have to address the logical come out places of the strict textualist, "original intent" judicial philosophy. In this thread, about three posts in, you bash activist judges and tout judges who "follow the law." Thus, your current post is misleading at best.

The Urban Sombrero Wrote:At some point, TRT, you are going to have to address the logical come out places of the strict textualist, "original intent" judicial philosophy. In this thread, about three posts in, you bash activist judges and tout judges who "follow the law." Thus, your current post is misleading at best.

So, though steeped in the flawed logic of the social justice crowd, you nonetheless still expect that I would allow you then, to define in negative light my own cognitive prowess? :please:

Your argument is the same tactic used by Barack Obama, (not that he had a scintilla of experience, or outside of an incredible sense of self worth was in any way qualified by resume) when he dared to lecture the world on the topic of the day. He did it to the leaders of foreign lands, the Supreme Court, the US Congress, and the people of America. In fact, the junior Senator lectured the planet. Following in the footsteps of his excellency, you lecture to (though posthumously) The Founders, questioning and dismissing clear documentation of the era, Justice Scalia, and BGR.

Past self delusion, the gift of conflation is also noteworthy among your repertoire of debate skills. To wit; Constructionism, is a lawfully strict adherence to the words and phrases used, rather than to ascribe secondary meaning and therefore intent. In other words, liberals like you disagree with any form of absolute truth, preferring instead the comfort of the vast and fertile fields of your imagination. In this way you are just so essentially liberated, even to the point where you in like manner as your example Mr Obama, presume to correct even the Founders.

Textualism on the other hand, is far better applied to the study of Scripture than law, and as such describes an adherence to a text. In this way liberal pseudo scholars read all sorts of falsehoods into the founding documents, to include everything from the social conditions in Europe, to the influences they say were brought to bear by friends, to today's 300 year too late word plays on spiritual nuances concerning their faith. Now comes Sombrero from Hootin Holler, Kentucky, to inform the planet that he must define for us the shortfalls of the Founders, and their unfortunate failings and lapses in judgment.

There is quite a difference between Constructionism, the true measure of the Founders mind set and the language of our founding documents, and Textualism. These great men were true geniuses in their own right, and though you would interlope the part of the righteously indignant, it is at the hand of the revisionist liberal that the Founders suffer true insult. And thusly would you substitute your convictions upon others, as you did in substituting the term 'strict textualist' for the word I used, which was in fact constructionist.

The law cannot be applied equally for the sake of the 'common good' (not that an adherent to social justice would want it to be) if it is not applied in strict constructionist fashion, and the liberal cannot see this particular forest for the trees. Here is an example of the consequences of liberalism gone amok. We leapfrog over the crimes committed by illegals because pointing to the perceived plight of their offspring, we say we are a compassionate people. While we don't have a bit of compassion for those who must pay for their crimes.
EXCERPT---
"The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a conservative advocacy group that favors tighter immigration laws, argues that the answer is clear: illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers more than $100 billion each year." http://abcnews.go.com/Business/illegal-i...d=10699317

Earlier I cited activist judges; The lifeboats of the Titanic were designed to hold around 65 people. It is said that Stewards aboard those lifeboats, in order to save them from being capsized or sunk, were forced to shoot desperate and drowning passengers trying to climb in from the freezing black waters. Now, one can probably rightfully blame the White Star Line for the whole mess, though the Captain's lust for breaking the speed record may have been the more likely cause. The point is that though we can and will use our lifeboat to assist folks around the world, we cannot take them all in. And if we persist in the present madness, would-be immigrants will at some point reach the tipping point (if not already) and we will sink.

TheRealThing Wrote:So, though steeped in the flawed logic of the social justice crowd, you nonetheless still expect that I would allow you then, to define in negative light my own cognitive prowess? :please:

Your argument is the same tactic used by Barack Obama, (not that he had a scintilla of experience, or outside of an incredible sense of self worth was in any way qualified by resume) when he dared to lecture the world on the topic of the day. He did it to the leaders of foreign lands, the Supreme Court, the US Congress, and the people of America. In fact, the junior Senator lectured the planet. Following in the footsteps of his excellency, you lecture to (though posthumously) The Founders, questioning and dismissing clear documentation of the era, Justice Scalia, and BGR.

Past self delusion, the gift of conflation is also noteworthy among your repertoire of debate skills. To wit; Constructionism, is a lawfully strict adherence to the words and phrases used, rather than to ascribe secondary meaning and therefore intent. In other words, liberals like you disagree with any form of absolute truth, preferring instead the comfort of the vast and fertile fields of your imagination. In this way you are just so essentially liberated, even to the point where you in like manner as your example Mr Obama, presume to correct even the Founders.

Textualism on the other hand, is far better applied to the study of Scripture than law, and as such describes an adherence to a text. In this way liberal pseudo scholars read all sorts of falsehoods into the founding documents, to include everything from the social conditions in Europe, to the influences they say were brought to bear by friends, to today's 300 year too late word plays on spiritual nuances concerning their faith. Now comes Sombrero from Hootin Holler, Kentucky, to inform the planet that he must define for us the shortfalls of the Founders, and their unfortunate failings and lapses in judgment.

There is quite a difference between Constructionism, the true measure of the Founders mind set and the language of our founding documents, and Textualism. These great men were true geniuses in their own right, and though you would interlope the part of the righteously indignant, it is at the hand of the revisionist liberal that the Founders suffer true insult. And thusly would you substitute your convictions upon others, as you did in substituting the term 'strict textualist' for the word I used, which was in fact constructionist.

The law cannot be applied equally for the sake of the 'common good' (not that an adherent to social justice would want it to be) if it is not applied in strict constructionist fashion, and the liberal cannot see this particular forest for the trees. Here is an example of the consequences of liberalism gone amok. We leapfrog over the crimes committed by illegals because pointing to the perceived plight of their offspring, we say we are a compassionate people. While we don't have a bit of compassion for those who must pay for their crimes.
EXCERPT---
"The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a conservative advocacy group that favors tighter immigration laws, argues that the answer is clear: illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers more than $100 billion each year." http://abcnews.go.com/Business/illegal-i...d=10699317

Earlier I cited activist judges; The lifeboats of the Titanic were designed to hold around 65 people. It is said that Stewards aboard those lifeboats, in order to save them from being capsized or sunk, were forced to shoot desperate and drowning passengers trying to climb in from the freezing black waters. Now, one can probably rightfully blame the White Star Line for the whole mess, though the Captain's lust for breaking the speed record may have been the more likely cause. The point is that though we can and will use our lifeboat to assist folks around the world, we cannot take them all in. And if we persist in the present madness, would-be immigrants will at some point reach the tipping point (if not already) and we will sink.

You parse much better than you persuade. Again, you seek to engage some monolithic left, scatter straw to high heavens upon the actual person you are debating. While I concur that our Founders, many of them, were extremely forward thinking and perceptive, they were not omnipotent nor without blind spots. That is plain enough from history. Justice Scalia's approach comes to the South in the era of Jim Crow. That is the question, TRT. "Here comes the plaintiff seeking to attend the University of Mississippi"... would the approach of Justice Scalia have found it "activist" of judges to give Constitutional remedy? That it is settled law now does not answer the question. Is Justice Scalia's approach so restrictive that it leaves to the legislative branch Constitutional remedy that is the duty of the judicial to recognize and protect? This is not to say that the Left is not guilty of being too broad, but it is to say the issue is NOT identity politics. It is a legitimate debate about what happens when Justice Scalia's approach is taken to logical come out places.

The Urban Sombrero Wrote:You parse much better than you persuade. Again, you seek to engage some monolithic left, scatter straw to high heavens upon the actual person you are debating. While I concur that our Founders, many of them, were extremely forward thinking and perceptive, they were not omnipotent nor without blind spots. That is plain enough from history. Justice Scalia's approach comes to the South in the era of Jim Crow. That is the question, TRT. "Here comes the plaintiff seeking to attend the University of Mississippi"... would the approach of Justice Scalia have found it "activist" of judges to give Constitutional remedy? That it is settled law now does not answer the question. Is Justice Scalia's approach so restrictive that it leaves to the legislative branch Constitutional remedy that is the duty of the judicial to recognize and protect? This is not to say that the Left is not guilty of being too broad, but it is to say the issue is NOT identity politics. It is a legitimate debate about what happens when Justice Scalia's approach is taken to logical come out places.

You dodge much better than you debate. My intent is to stick with established truths, not persuade the unpersuadable. And let's get real, to pursue any debate topic of your interest is not a journey to the truth. Rather such so-called debate is merely to linger in a cloud of liberal deception, which act tends to lend credibility where none is otherwise merited. Such cloud is nonetheless, one which I and others can easily see through despite your best efforts.

TheRealThing Wrote:You dodge much better than you debate. My intent is to stick with established truths, not persuade the unpersuadable. And let's get real, to pursue any debate topic of your interest is not a journey to the truth. Rather such so-called debate is merely to linger in a cloud of liberal deception, which act tends to lend credibility where none is otherwise merited. Such cloud is nonetheless, one which I and others can easily see through despite your best efforts.

If the approach of Justice Scalia is not a suitable debate topic, and it was for him, that's on you. Personally, it seems to me that "original intent" easily becomes a way to preserve the status quo, even when that status quo involves the denial of rights that any reading of the Constitution taken in the spirit of liberty and equality under the law renders void. Again, I am not suggesting that Justice Scalia was not an amazing judge (he was), or that he was anything but brilliant (he was); I am simply pointing to what I view as limitations to his approach.

The Urban Sombrero Wrote:If the approach of Justice Scalia is not a suitable debate topic, and it was for him, that's on you. Personally, it seems to me that "original intent" easily becomes a way to preserve the status quo, even when that status quo involves the denial of rights that any reading of the Constitution taken in the spirit of liberty and equality under the law renders void. Again, I am not suggesting that Justice Scalia was not an amazing judge (he was), or that he was anything but brilliant (he was); I am simply pointing to what I view as limitations to his approach.

I debated you about Scalia in another thread where you first tried to substitute your liberal blather for fact. If I didn't bite that time what made you think I might this time? Activist judges alter the law according to light and transient cause. Constructionist judges ala Justice Scalia resist altering the law on the same grounds. I know which camp I'm in.

TheRealThing Wrote:I debated you about Scalia in another thread where you first tried to substitute your liberal blather for fact. If I didn't bite that time what made you think I might this time? Activist judges alter the law according to light and transient cause. Constructionist judges ala Justice Scalia resist altering the law on the same grounds. I know which camp I'm in.

Your answer here is every bit as either/or partisan as it was then. You drag "the voice of God" into areas of political thought, then demonize any opposing voice as a friend of hell, as if no room for debate can possibly exist.

At many points, you shout into the wind, and, like Don Quijote, seem to be fighting monsters of your own creation. The issue of logical come out places for judicial philosophy if rigorously applied was relevant yesterday, is relevant today, and will be relevant tomorrow. But not to you. And that suggests volumes.

The Urban Sombrero Wrote:Your answer here is every bit as either/or partisan as it was then. You drag "the voice of God" into areas of political thought, then demonize any opposing voice as a friend of hell, as if no room for debate can possibly exist.

At many points, you shout into the wind, and, like Don Quijote, seem to be fighting monsters of your own creation. The issue of logical come out places for judicial philosophy if rigorously applied was relevant yesterday, is relevant today, and will be relevant tomorrow. But not to you. And that suggests volumes.

In this admission you have most helpfully, demonstrated your particular level of naïveté. The fact that you cannot see the dangers that I and many others have written about is seen as a positive in your eyes, even to the point of willful ignorance as you act like your responses here are somehow germane to the premise of this thread. In the thread starter, I posted a statement based on observation as I observed current events back in 2011, the content of which history has so far born out in toto. You evidently cannot even digest history after it happens, much less see where it's headed. If I have been wrong about something I have said on here, feel free to post it.

Despite the shared fallacy shared by most, the voice of God permeates this society as well as every other society since the day of Adam's first breath, It is He Who has judged the sins of abortion on demand and homosexuality; It is man who has shook his puny fist in the face of The Creator via judicial activism to declare those sins to be both legal and natural. Debate with Him all you want, and I will defend Him all I want. Maybe a child of God can oppose His Authority, and maybe he can't.

But what I do know is this, His Word will not return unto Him void, and the day of man's rejection of His Lordship is soon to pass. If He says it, it is just as certain as the ground upon which we walk when he said, "Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so." He had to but speak this universe into existence. Frankly I love the voice of God (His Word) as I love the idea of judgment, because all the compromising, fudging of the truth and outright lying, will be and are excluded from both because of His Nature. Satan's mouth is filled with guile, he is the father of all lies. For that reason give me the clear admonitions of God.

TheRealThing Wrote:In this admission you have most helpfully, demonstrated your particular level of naïveté. The fact that you cannot see the dangers that I and many others have written about is seen as a positive in your eyes, even to the point of willful ignorance as you act like your responses here are somehow germane to the premise of this thread. In the thread starter, I posted a statement based on observation as I observed current events back in 2011, the content of which history has so far born out in toto. You evidently cannot even digest history after it happens, much less see where it's headed. If I have been wrong about something I have said on here, feel free to post it.

Despite the shared fallacy shared by most, the voice of God permeates this society as well as every other society since the day of Adam's first breath, It is He Who has judged the sins of abortion on demand and homosexuality; It is man who has shook his puny fist in the face of The Creator via judicial activism to declare those sins to be both legal and natural. Debate with Him all you want, and I will defend Him all I want. Maybe a child of God can oppose His Authority, and maybe he can't.

But what I do know is this, His Word will not return unto Him void, and the day of man's rejection of His Lordship is soon to pass. If He says it, it is just as certain as the ground upon which we walk when he said, "Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so." He had to but speak this universe into existence. Frankly I love the voice of God (His Word) as I love the idea of judgment, because all the compromising, fudging of the truth and outright lying, will be and are excluded from both because of His Nature. Satan's mouth is filled with guile, he is the father of all lies. For that reason give me the clear admonitions of God.

I speak of some monolithic monster called "the left" that you attribute to me as some card carrying member. My interest in the gay marriage issue is strictly a matter of Constitutional principle, the lone source of our debate in regards that issue.

Paul said the battle is not with flesh and blood, and while rebellion and obstinance and delusion certainly run amok in this culture, and every other one, I just don't think marrying politics and matters of faith with a cocksure, beligerent smugness is wise. But, let every person judge that for him or her self.

As to the judiciary declaring "legal" and "natural": I do not think the majority sought to make a religious argument. I think they found equal protection to extend. The United States is not the church, and the church is not the United States.

The Urban Sombrero Wrote:I speak of some monolithic monster called "the left" that you attribute to me as some card carrying member. My interest in the gay marriage issue is strictly a matter of Constitutional principle, the lone source of our debate in regards that issue.
Paul said the battle is not with flesh and blood, and while rebellion and obstinance and delusion certainly run amok in this culture, and every other one, I just don't think marrying politics and matters of faith with a cocksure, beligerent smugness is wise. But, let every person judge that for him or her self.

As to the judiciary declaring "legal" and "natural": I do not think the majority sought to make a religious argument. I think they found equal protection to extend. The United States is not the church, and the church is not the United States.

That is the same argument made by Pilate. I'd hate to think how he'd respond if you could ask how that worked out for him. You can't have it both ways, for as Christ said, a house divided against itself cannot stand.

We are God's creation, and if the Scriptures are correct, He cares deeply about the affairs of men. Therefore the cocksure smugness, though belligerent would be more aptly attributable to your response. Legal and natural are terms to be found in the founding documents, or are you bound to deny that too?

TheRealThing Wrote:That is the same argument made by Pilate. I'd hate to think how he'd respond if you could ask how that worked out for him. You can't have it both ways, for as Christ said, a house divided against itself cannot stand.

We are God's creation, and if the Scriptures are correct, He cares deeply about the affairs of men. Therefore the cocksure smugness, though belligerent would be more aptly attributable to your response. Legal and natural are terms to be found in the founding documents, or are you bound to deny that too?

So, here comes the plaintiff seeking the equal protection of marriage for he and his same sex partner. On what grounds does the CIVIL magistrate deny?

That such was not envisioned by the Founders? That the Bible says it is wrong?

Pilate had authority to release Jesus. He abstained. Your comparison fails on several levels.

The Urban Sombrero Wrote:So, here comes the plaintiff seeking the equal protection of marriage for he and his same sex partner. On what grounds does the CIVIL magistrate deny?

That such was not envisioned by the Founders? That the Bible says it is wrong?

Pilate had authority to release Jesus. He abstained. Your comparison fails on several levels.

Or maybe it's another example of your understanding failing on several levels.

Pilate had the authority, he lacked the courage.

TheRealThing Wrote:Or maybe it's another example of your understanding failing on several levels.

Pilate had the authority, he lacked the courage.

How much courage does it take to tell a despised minority, in a free society, that they are excluded from equal protection under the law? I am content to stand before God and say that though I differed from a man or woman, and abhorred their actions, I was willing to recognize their right to the general graces and mercies shown everyone else. I understand general providence, general grace aright. You've more of the spirit of the Taliban in you than you are capable of seeing.

The Urban Sombrero Wrote:How much courage does it take to tell a despised minority, in a free society, that they are excluded from equal protection under the law? I am content to stand before God and say that though I differed from a man or woman, and abhorred their actions, I was willing to recognize their right to the general graces and mercies shown everyone else. I understand general providence, general grace aright. You've more of the spirit of the Taliban in you than you are capable of seeing.

Well I'll tell you what, if you are content to stand before God and actually don't understand that you will say absolutely nothing, as He has said that He already knew your every thought before you were even born, then I'm not so sure the experience will be as pleasant as you might imagine.

TheRealThing Wrote:Well I'll tell you what, if you are content to stand before God and actually don't understand that you will say absolutely nothing, as He has said that He already knew your every thought before you were even born, then I'm not so sure the experience will be as pleasant as you might imagine.

We will be speaking as Father and son, as that is my position via my Elder Brother's sacrifice, and which is also my privilege this side of eternity. The Great White Throne holds no fear for me because perfect love cast out all fear.

The Urban Sombrero Wrote:We will be speaking as Father and son, as that is my position via my Elder Brother's sacrifice, and which is also my privilege this side of eternity. The Great White Throne holds no fear for me because perfect love cast out all fear.

I don't see anywhere in Scripture any indication that a man will be capable of uttering the first syllable when standing at judgment. The reference I like is contained in Matthew 22:12 (KJV)
12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.

The foregoing is in the Lord's parable regarding the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. The point is that this man did not wear the robe of righteousness which is only attainable by gift through the Lord Jesus Christ. When asked of God, he found he could not respond.

In Revelation 20, the Great White Throne Judgment is described. God makes it clear that He knows every thought, every nuance, every smirk, and every deed each of us will ever act out. All of this to be revealed at the time of the Judgment. In other words it will be the full revelation of each man's own actions which will speak everything which could possibly be said at the Judgment, as each life will be shown in it's entirety on His Judgment bar big screen.

But in any case no man will speak before Him. The Lord Jesus advocates for us in this time, it is He who will judge us in that. But even if we could speak, and I maintain that we cannot, what could we possibly say to the One Who already knows all?

Back to the premise of this thread.

As much as I enjoy Stewart Varney on FBN, I must say he has to some degree taken the bait offered up by an ever trolling main stream media on what is being called White House chaos. Two things have beset the Administration, the Immigration EO, and the ouster of Gen Flynn as National Security Advisor.

The rationale upon which the nation seems to have coalesced regarding the President's EO on immigration goes something like this; The order was rolled out too soon, without getting everybody on board, and could have been written more clearly. Any order could be scrutinized ad nauseum, to come up with some far fetched criticism. In the case of this order, the underlying criticism is based on an underhanded lie. The immigration EO is not an act of religious intolerance as the left would have us to believe, it is a travel ban imposed on 7 terrorist sponsoring nations, who BTW, have been very vocal in their stated intent to bring down the US. As for the unfortunate happenstance with General Flynn, this White House has fallen victim to the toothy denizens of the swamp, I admit. But they will get things together now that any lingering notions of singing Kumbaya with the establishment have been dissolved by this latest object lesson.

Let me give you my idea of White House policy which I believe, history has since shown to have been less than half-baked, was poorly conceived and written, and the rollout of which was extremely premature. ObamaCare. The monstrosity which has overtaken fully one fifth of the entire US economy, has bankrupted many a small business and seen the mass exodus of large business, has redefined the American work week to 29 hours (the threshold for the mandate to become automatic), forced 16 million hard working Americans who were heavily invested in their own health insurance programs to find new insurance, in other words they lost it. But for those who have persevered to stay in their original plans, they now find that their insurance premiums rose 100%, out of pocket costs skyrocketed from hundreds of dollars annually to 20,000, as those who prior to ObamaCare had a silver plan now find they have been relegated to a bronze plan. Or, that once 'covered' areas of care have been dramatically reduced or completely eliminated altogether. The website was a fiasco from the very first day. Upwards of a half trillion tax payer dollars have been thrown at this health ridiculousness and have come to naught, as every representation given, and every promise made to the citizenry have been shown to have been false. And where was the outrage for a law which took three quarters of a trillion dollars OUT of Medicare, to fund ObamaCare. I mean seriously, these folks were promised a fully serviced Medicare Plan, which thanks to rabid libs has become a hollowed out shell.

And could I please give kudos to the much maligned congressman from SC? Rep Joe Wilson, who though guilty of breaking house decorum, had it just right. Obama was in mid sentence in stating categorically that federal funds would in no wise be used to support the abortion industry. Joe shouted out, "you lie." Friends, on that day Barack Obama lied.

The so-called roll out of ObamaCare, which according to the bill's main author in the person of Max Baucus was a "train wreck," is in the latter stages of it's death spiral as 18 of the 23 exchanges set up to service the mandate have since withdrawn. Meanwhile, in comparison to the 16 million who lost their health insurance, only those who did not pay for health services prior to the mandate have in any way benefited from it's passage (about 7-8 million), as they were moved to the head of the line in true redistributionist fashion. The rest of the land's citizenry find their budgets and consequently their retirements destroyed and their prospects for health care, in a state of prolonged if not permanent anemia. Pun intended.

In short and after all is said and done, the dollar amount wasted associated with the inception, failed implementation, and imminent retraction though at this point unknown, will certainly start with a T. Further, the ramifications of said failure are to be laid at the feet of Dems, who dared to completely exclude the Republican Party from the entire process in wrongly assuming such would propel only the Dems to greatness.