13

Elena Kagan’s dissent trashes Supreme Court as “black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices”

Posted by $ nickursis 6 years, 10 months ago to Government
90 comments | Share | Flag

I am not sure I can ever understand a Liberal mini mind, she wants to make people pay for something they don't want or need or disagree with (yea, I know, it is the normal Liberal method) and she defends it as a 1st Amendment issue? I can't see that at all, freedom of speech would seem to include the ability to NOT pay for something you don't want, especially when it is a power hungry union who will take your money and give it to the very people they don't want to give it to. Now, banning all political contributions from ALL unions, might make this workable, but her premise is so far out there, it illustrates why you cannot have these people on SCOTUS, as they just rubber stamp any Liberal policy as good, and any restriction on government as bad. Good grief...


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 4.
  • Posted by $ 6 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hmmm.. well the Feds right now are in full bore "withdraw" mode in liquidity, which will crimp a lot of money tossing, Interest rates will rise (they want to raise them 2 more times this year) and China is crashing the Yuan to force Trump to deal or see the dollar implode as it value goes up and up. So, the money angle is probably in for a big change and there won't be a lot to fund the crazy stuff....maybe...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by exceller 6 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There is another point here that I was made aware of only recently. Many people relocate from CA to TX. Friends I have there complained that they bring their lefty liberalism with them. Even though these people were conservatives by CA standards, the fringes that is CA rubbed off of them and by Texans they are not welcome.

    So in the long range it is evening out to the benefit of the left, unless a solid core of conservatism can me saved.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 6 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Primarily because the feds have funded the spread and encouraged the spread. That is because the feds have illegally taken the powers that belong to the states. States rights can and will take that power back from the feds, but the people have to withdraw their consent to their own slavery.
    Let NY, CT, MA, MD, CA, WA, and OR bankrupt themselves. Without financial support from the corrupt feds and corporate looters that will happen in less than a decade. Those who dislike socialism and do not live by looting will leave those socialist states as Galt and the Gulchers did. Let the rest drown in the excrement that gets deeper each time they speak their evil statist propaganda.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 6 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It is, but the other part is their virus spreads like poison, New York infected CT and NJ, Ka infected WA and OR, so it does have an impact when the zombies gather in one place and then spread their poison.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 6 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Im nort sure Ginsburg will outlast Trump, although if a liberal gets in, we may see a rise in "accidents". That seems to be how they get their way. I fully believe Scalia was murdered to open a slot to get their guy in before Obama left, to prevent a change in the Court, and they didn't bank on the Republicrats actually getting a spine and saying "no".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 6 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    And thus the panic that has set in in the Liberal camp, the tears, the primal rage. They cannot manipulate society through the Court like they have for 60 years or so, and it terrifies them to think the Constitution might make a return....
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 6 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No argument on the skew, but the 1st one I found was Yahoo, and I know you hate them, so I went looking for some confirmation from someone else. Funny, the conservative sies I looked at didin't seem to care what she said, but I find it telling that she wanted to spin the story, like everything else the Liberals side does, and is just a concrete stone on why the "politics" of a SCOTUS member should be "0", and their jurisprudence and Constitutional knowledge "100". Gorsuch is as close as they come, and if that is the kind of person Trump gets, then let them all resign.I would rather have a court full of Gorsuch's then this windbag politician in black robes.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by exceller 6 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The question is how far the moron/stupid can go in State governance? Many in CA think Jerry Brown is a good governor. NJ just elected another "more taxes are beautiful" lefty.

    When we look at it from a distance, it is none of our business. I don't care if they destroy themselves. But in the process many others perish who disagree with this hell-bent destruction. Not everyone can pack up and leave, there is a downside to that as well.

    Merely pointing out that the issue is controversial.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 6 years, 10 months ago
    Vox is merely one of those news sources on my blocked list.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 6 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think I disagree with it- haven't read it, only news about it. But I'm not a CA resident so it's their issue, not mine. Eventually they will destroy themselves if they don't come to their senses. States rights allows competing ideas in the states and if the feds don't waste time and money bailing out the evil and/or stupid, then the results of competition define the best course for others. Its not a perfect solution, but its better than a federal one-size-fits-all dictatorship. The morons must be allowed to cut themselves out of the gene pool for mankind to make progress. Wasting effort saving morons (or evil looters) from themselves encourages them to continue doing so, e.g., the banksters have been bailed out repeatedly for decades and they just rinse and repeat, stealing from everyone else again and again.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 6 years, 10 months ago
    Of course, Vox elaborates on all Kagan's fallacious arguments against the decision in great detail while only providing a link to the valid argument of the majority to overturn a bad law that forced people to pay for something they did not want (not "allowed" them to do so as the Vox article falsely contends.) The "contributions" are not contributions at all because they are not voluntary, any more than income taxes are voluntary. Calling them voluntary contributions does not make them so.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 6 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Irrelevant until the next liberal president replaces only one constitutional judge with a liberal one who feels her bias is more important than the law she pledged to defend and uphold.
    I only hope that Ginsberg and Breyer are retired before that happens and during the term of a pro-constitution president (if there is such a thing.)
    More importantly I hope that a brave state legislature challenges and defeats the prevailing opinion that the supremes have the power to overrule state laws. I'd love to see CA do so and unleash the pro-constitutional wrath of all those who have tolerated federal overreach for the past 100 years. States rights is 150 years overdue for a rebirth. Regaining the powers guaranteed by the 9th and 10th amendments is paramount to individual liberty.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by exceller 6 years, 10 months ago
    The four on the Supreme Court - Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer - never think of the Constitution or the content of what they are judging. What matters is they must vote in favor of the left.

    I have bad news for Kagan and the others: by the resigning of Kennedy, there will be one more conservative voice on the Court. Then these four can continue stewing in the mud of their liberal beliefs. They will be irrelevant.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo