Pages

Loading...

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Lonely Conservative: Congress Must "Rein in" Scotus

      I can't say I'm surprised, though I must say that it's amazing how fast it's started. The Right wing has fallen out of love with the Supreme Court with a vengeance.

     Karen the Lonely Conservative, at her blog had her usual guest post from Dr. Robert Owens-what he's a doctor of is tough to say. He's some sort of quack professor of history. He makes the point that "the present is the history of the future."

     Last week he was demanding that Congress impeach the President. This week you had Senator Jon Kyle of Arizona call for just that as did a another Republican congressional candidate. It sure didn't take long for history to become the future!

    Now the doctor is at it again calling on Congress, this time to "rein in" Congress. Congress has a long laundry list. It needs to repeal ObamaCare as the court let them down, it needs to hold Holder in contempt-we'll get to this but they actually did this today when no one is paying attention-it must impeach the President and now rein in the highest court in the land-how exactly should they go about doing that?

    He dusts off all the old conservative anti judiicary arguments:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Libertyand the pursuit of Happiness.” Please notice that this, the foundational sentence of the American way of life does not say “endowed by the Supreme Court.”

     http://lonelyconservative.com/2012/06/why-congress-must-rein-in-the-supreme-court/

     It doesn't it's true. However it does say something about checks and balances and three co-equal spheres. Now Mr. Owens seems to think that the Legislature ought to be a little more equal.

     "Ever since the Supreme Court took unto itself the power to void laws passed by the representatives of the people in Marbury V. Madison the black-robed Justices have acted, and Americans have accepted them as if they are the source and the summit of what is and what isn’t allowed in America. In most cases since the middle of the 20th century, the high court has sided with whatever the central government wanted to do in the way of extending its power and curtailing rights which any person who can read plainly sees protected in the document they are sworn to defend."

     "However, in Article Three of the Constitution, the one that outlines the judicial branch, after specifically enumerating which types of cases the Supreme Court shall try it says, “In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

    Hoo boy. We got to go all the way back to a debate over Marbury V Madison just because the SJC ruled in favor of ObamaCare. I mean it's almost comical it's so transparent. We would not be having this conversation if it weren't for today's ruling. We'd then be hearing that the President has run afoul of the Constitution by attacking the Court in an attempt to usurp their authority. These guys are nothing if not predictable.

     "Sophistry is defined as “Reasoning that appears sound but is misleading or fallacious. In Metaphysics, Aristotle defines sophistry as ‘wisdom in appearance only.’” When we look at that definition from now on it will be hard not to see the face of Chief Justice Roberts who today showed his true colors as the midwife of totalitarianism. While declaring unconstitutional the very arguments used to pass the law the majority declared the law constitutional based upon the very arguments its opponents used to try and defeat the bill. Up is down, right is wrong, and the government can do whatever it wants."

     No, if someone wants to learn what sophistry means just read Mr. Owen's post in toto. A completely politically motivated and specious argument just because they don't like today's ruling.

      Meanwhile, this is the most conservative SJC in living memory. Roberts is George W. bush's man. Of course that may be the problem-the former President had an attitude to things like immigration that seem positively enlightened compared to the current GOP House.

     But it's still pretty consrvative. It gave us "Corporations are people my friend" and anti labor verdicts anti women's rights-the Wallmart case. Roberts himself wrote the opposition in the case of whether juvenilles can receive mandatory life sentences-he thinks yes, the majority says no.

     If this court is still not conservative enough then let's face it-their's is a lost cause.

1 comment:

  1. I've never heard of either of those political sheep, er, Wal-Mart pundits before. They're crazy!

    I looked on the conservative chick's "blog" which just aggregates crap like Fox and Breitbart, but there were talks of civil war and placing a .38 against Democrats' heads. Do you think that they believe their own rhetoric? It's frightening to read some of this crap.

    Rock on, Mike!

    ReplyDelete