McConnell, GOP Senate brace for Roy Moore

[bolobaby]

Thanks for giving me a moment, Richard.

I guess you no longer mind us pointing out the repeated political mistakes of Trump.  Awesome!   

Is there that much time in the day? I mean, really?

Oh, and for the record, McConnell and most of the kabuki theater GOP are all bums, too. What @Right_in_Virginia can't understand is that principled people hate all of them, but that Trump is particularly odious because a) he's not actually even remotely conservative, b) he's a national embarrassment, and c) the president's job the past several decades has been to galvanize Congress to action (which is why it is called Obamacare and not Pelosicare), but Trump couldn't galvanize anyone to anything because he's such a useless buffoon.

So, RIV doesn't get it because she is a sycophant. Yep, we hate McConnell, TOO, and have for a long, long time. She, on the other hand, could never give up sycophant status to ever criticize her orange god. Pathetic.

[txradioguy]

Yes, very clearly so, I think. Trump is pushing in every way possible, under every situation presented him in the wacky world of politics, for his (mine and ours) agenda. He intends to maneuver through an entrenched and intransigent congressional leadership in order to continue winning for the folks – despite his detractors’ naysaying.

That's some impressive contortions you just went through there to avoid admitting the obvious.

Bravo!

[Jazzhead]

We could go at this all day, but the RKBA is an enumerated and listed "right of the people". The "right to abortion" is a construct of an erroneous court acting on less than honest assertions.

The point is the Court was operating within its Constitutional authority.   And so the right to abortion is a right under the Constitution.   That could change in the future - the Constitution could be amended, for example.   Strangely,  I don't hear much agitation anymore about amending the Constitution, just for applying "litmus tests" for judges.   I don't like the idea of politicizing the judiciary (abortion is hardly the only issue that comes before the Court);  if the Court has overstepped its bounds then IMO the proper remedy is a Constitutional amendment.   

[Jazzhead]

That's because you defend the court when their rulings are in line with your Liberal mindset and philosophy.

Other times you've railed about judicial overreach when they have ruled more in line with the Constitution.

We get it...you LOVE LOVE LOVE the SCOTUS when they are creating from whole cloth like the "right" to abortion and the "right" to gay "marriage".

Fictitious rights created out of the ether by Liberal activist jurists.  But you don't like them as much when they rule in favor of the actual written constitution when it comes to things like the RKBA.

We all have opinions about Court decisions.  But the point - and the reality - is that the SCOTUS has the Constitutional authority to ultimately determine the meaning and scope of the Constitution.  And the separation of church and state is therefore the law of the land.  I say be thankful for it.   

[Smokin Joe]

The point is the Court was operating within its Constitutional authority.   And so the right to abortion is a right under the Constitution.   That could change in the future - the Constitution could be amended, for example.   Strangely,  I don't hear much agitation anymore about amending the Constitution, just for applying "litmus tests" for judges.   I don't like the idea of politicizing the judiciary (abortion is hardly the only issue that comes before the Court);  if the Court has overstepped its bounds then IMO the proper remedy is a Constitutional amendment.   

I guess you just outright missed the whole discussion about an Article V convention of the States.

I believe that for the moment people are putting their faith in an administration they think will restore Constitutional adherence to these United States, as ill founded as such faith may be. Besides, apparently no one needs an amendment with activist judges all the way up to the SCOTUS, just wait for the right case and go court shopping to put it in front of the right bench,  and they will invent whatever 'right' you need. It has been that way since prayer (which you were free to not participate in) was removed from the public schools.

(Funny how Liberals will support Islam and Sharia, when they don't require one prayer a day (optional) but prayer five times a day and NOT optional.)

[roamer_1]

exposure to dogmatic haters like INVAR

What utter horse crap.

[RoosGirl]

I've decided to lay off Roy Moore, after reading Allen Mendenhall's column in this morning's Wall Street Journal (sorry I can't link to it;  WSJ articles are behind a paywall; but anyone here who calls himself a conservative should have a subscription.) 

Mendenhall was Moore's staff attorney from 2013 - 2016, and paints a picture of a compassionate Christian,  with empathy for the less fortunate and a desire to understand both sides of an issue.   On that basis,  I wish him well in his election bid.   I'll admit I'm as susceptible to prejudice as anyone else, and my exposure to dogmatic haters like INVAR has colored by view of Bible-believing Christians.   I need to resist that view, and understand that some conservative Christians understand the true message of Christ.   Maybe Roy Moore is one of them.

I think you will find that many, if not most, conservative Christians are compassionate to the struggles of our fellow man.  The Christian side of us has our own struggles.  But, the conservative side of us doesn't take kindly to others *forcing* us to deal with their struggles.

[skeeter]

What utter horse crap.

From a guy who routinely refers to others as 'bible thumpers'.

[Smokin Joe]

I've decided to lay off Roy Moore, after reading Allen Mendenhall's column in this morning's Wall Street Journal (sorry I can't link to it;  WSJ articles are behind a paywall; but anyone here who calls himself a conservative should have a subscription.) 

Mendenhall was Moore's staff attorney from 2013 - 2016, and paints a picture of a compassionate Christian,  with empathy for the less fortunate and a desire to understand both sides of an issue.   On that basis,  I wish him well in his election bid.   I'll admit I'm as susceptible to prejudice as anyone else, and my exposure to dogmatic haters like INVAR has colored by view of Bible-believing Christians.   I need to resist that view, and understand that some conservative Christians understand the true message of Christ.   Maybe Roy Moore is one of them.

Well, that's mighty nice of you. BTW, @INVAR would possibly just tell you that pointing out the soul crushing error of people's ways is no more hate than not getting the kids that case of hand grenades they wanted to play with, but I figure you should have at least the courtesy to ping him when you talk about him.

[txradioguy]

I guess you just outright missed the whole discussion about an Article V convention of the States.

He hasn't missed those discussions...he just doesn't believe in an Article V convention.

[INVAR]

From a guy who routinely refers to others as 'bible thumpers'.

This week we are 'troglodytes'.  Jazzhead's word-of-the-week for Biblical Adherent Christians.

[INVAR]

The point is the Court was operating within its Constitutional authority.   And so the right to abortion is a right under the Constitution. 

The Court has no Authority to create and/or grant 'Rights" out of thin air per the Founding Fathers who wrote and our forbears who ratified the Constitution and agreed to that construct.  The Constitution was written to preserve EXISTING and inalienable rights as endowed by The Creator.  Not "rights" endowed by men in black robes for perverts and Marxists.

This is what the Court did with Abortion, homosexual 'marriage' and 'health care'.   Next it will be whatever other perverted behaviors and tyranny it will conjure up and 'rule' as existing at the behest of people like you.  Perhaps a 'living wage', 'free housing' and 'child marriage' will become a 'right' in the very near future.

What you advocate is the destruction of inalienable rights as existing at all - and have granted the Court the power to create rights at their discretion - and to eliminate rights at their discretion also.  Liberty then becomes only what government and the Court allows, and we officially have 'permissions' instead of 'rights'.  You're too clueless to see what you have done.

[Sanguine]

This week we are 'troglodytes'.  Jazzhead's word-of-the-week for Biblical Adherent Christians.

Don't forget "bigots".

[CSM]

See the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

See Everson v. Board of Education

See Lemon v. Kurtzmann

Establishment clause:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

I don't see the word separation in that phrase.  In fact, it says that Congress can not prohibit the religious exercise/

Everson:  The foundational decision that began the process of the prohibition of individuals from freely exercising their religious liberty.  It was an incorrect decision then, and still is today.

I don't have time to research the third one, but if it is consistent with the other 2 examples, then I am still waiting for the proof of your previous "separation" claim. 

[Jazzhead]

If the shoe fits . . .

If you're going to call my neighbors "perverts",  I'm going to speak up.   Excusing intolerance as somehow justified by the Bible doesn't change the leopard's spots.  If INVAR wants to keep ranting away, I could care less, but he's showing a face of Christianity that will disgust most reasonable people.   

[CSM]

The Supreme Court interprets and construes the laws.

So, in your view the USSC can never be wrong, at least not until their decision is overturned by a later court's ruling?  If that is true, then you must admit that you would be defending the Dredd-Scott decision in the 1860's, you would defend Plessy in the 1890's, you would support the internment of the Japanese after Korematsu, and on and on.

The USSC is comprised of men, not angels.  They are fallible and are very prone to erroneous decisions.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Article 3. 

Let's take it slowly now, my friend from Rio Linda:   

 - The Constitution establishes the SCOTUS as wielding the supreme "judicial power of the United States"

 - The jurisdiction of that power extends explicitly to cases "arising under this Constitution"

-  The power to be exercised is APPELLATE power, which includes the power to interpret, construe and resolve differences among lower courts

Note that the SCOTUS's appellate power is not unlimited - Congress can carve out exceptions, and otherwise regulate its jurisdiction.   But in the absence of Congress' exercise of that authority,  the decisions of the Supreme Court represent the authoritative law of the land.

That, of course, was established two centuries ago by Marbury v. Madison - admittedly a decision of that very court.  But Congress has done nothing in 200 years to limit that authority which is why - in a Constitutional Republic that adheres to the rule of law rather than to the prejudices of the religious - the right of gays to the equal protection of the law, or the wall of separation between church and state enunciated in Everson v. Board of Education and Lemon v. Kurtzmann,  is just as much a part of the Constitution as the Second Amendment.

I see you took the liberty of inserting some words that do not appear in the Constitution and also decided to truncate some of what appears in Article III.  Both are meant to support your hypothesis.

Here is the entire portion of Article III which you extracted from:

Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2
1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;10 —between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. 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.

Now about adding, here are your words:

- The Constitution establishes the SCOTUS as wielding the supreme "judicial power of the United States"

quite a liberty placing the word in bold within the text of the Constitution, isn't it?

- The jurisdiction of that power extends explicitly to cases "arising under this Constitution"

Once again, added words.  There are clear limits placed in Article III sec 2 to their power.  Nowhere does it say the interpretation of the actual text of the Constitution is solely the domain of the SC.  In fact, it says the SC acts only within Laws and Equity arising out of the Constitution, not the words of the Constitution itself.  So created laws by Congress are within its purview but nowhere is it granted the sole ability of the interpretation of the actual Constitution.

-  The power to be exercised is APPELLATE power, which includes the power to interpret, construe and resolve differences among lower courts

  Once again, you have jumped into saying the court wields power not given it, as it appears nowhere in the Constitution.

Your liberal interpretation of the text of the Constitution falls flat.  Your agenda is obvious.

[INVAR]

Excusing intolerance as somehow justified by the Bible doesn't change the leopard's spots.  If INVAR wants to keep ranting away, I could care less, but he's showing a face of Christianity that will disgust most reasonable people.   

Exactly as Jesus Himself said would happen to His followers; hated by this world and the people in it.  Disgusted by the words of righteousness and infuriated by the Law of God that does not compromise with the morality of men.  To the point they will put us to death because they do not want to hear the truth.  They embrace eternal death and promote it.

The 'reasonable' people who are of this world, hate God.  People who ignore His Word because they made themselves god in their own eyes so they can do whatever it is they please without restraint or the pricking of conscience.

This world hated Jesus and His Words and butchered Him for it. He told us plainly - since the world hated Him and killed Him, it will hate and kill those of us whom you assert are showing the face of Christianity the world does not want to hear.    Thank you for illustrating for us of this hatred He foretold.

[roamer_1]

If the shoe fits . . .

If you're going to call my neighbors "perverts",  I'm going to speak up.   Excusing intolerance as somehow justified by the Bible doesn't change the leopard's spots.  If INVAR wants to keep ranting away, I could care less, but he's showing a face of Christianity that will disgust most reasonable people.   

Of course they are perverts. What they are doing is a perversion by the very definition, even simply in the diversion or misuse of 'what a thing is for', without the moral sense of corruption (*which is also true).

And homosexuality has been a perversion *forever*. It is only in the light of our culture's hubris and sophistry that this sickness is lauded - and we are not the first. Invariably, when a people has turned from YHWH, they turn toward Baal... And it is noted by the very same perversions becoming mainstream.

[DCPatriot]

Exactly as Jesus Himself said would happen to His followers; hated by this world and the people in it.  Disgusted by the words of righteousness and infuriated by the Law of God that does not compromise with the morality of men.  To the point they will put us to death because they do not want to hear the truth.  They embrace eternal death and promote it.

The 'reasonable' people who are of this world, hate God.  People who ignore His Word because they made themselves god in their own eyes so they can do whatever it is they please without restraint or the pricking of conscience.

This world hated Jesus and His Words and butchered Him for it. He told us plainly - since the world hated Him and killed Him, it will hate and kill those of us whom you assert are showing the face of Christianity the world does not want to hear.    Thank you for illustrating for us of this hatred He foretold.

They have a name for your malady, @INVAR     ^-^

[XenaLee]

So, in your view the USSC can never be wrong, at least not until their decision is overturned by a later court's ruling?  If that is true, then you must admit that you would be defending the Dredd-Scott decision in the 1860's, you would defend Plessy in the 1890's, you would support the internment of the Japanese after Korematsu, and on and on.

The USSC is comprised of men, not angels.  They are fallible and are very prone to erroneous decisions.

Make no mistake.   Like most liberal-thinking folks.... he is just holding the USSC up as "infallible" if and when it makes decisions that HE agrees with and approves of.  Watch him/them squeal if or when the USSC makes a ruling he/they do NOT like.  It's just their usual convenient double-standard and hypocrisy at work.

 

[INVAR]

They have a name for your malady, @INVAR     ^-^

I'm sure they do.

"Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires". 2 Peter 3:3

[RoosGirl]

They have a name for your malady, @INVAR     ^-^

God-fearing.

[Jazzhead]

So, in your view the USSC can never be wrong, at least not until their decision is overturned by a later court's ruling?  If that is true, then you must admit that you would be defending the Dredd-Scott decision in the 1860's, you would defend Plessy in the 1890's, you would support the internment of the Japanese after Korematsu, and on and on.

The USSC is comprised of men, not angels.  They are fallible and are very prone to erroneous decisions.

No, that's not what I'm saying.  Of course the SCOTUS can be "wrong".   What I am defending is the authority of the Court to interpret and construe the Constitution.  Its decisions are the law of the land until overturned, or changed by Constitutional amendment.  This is all by design and reflects the Founders' genius.  Folks here seem to want to replace the rule of law with the rule of man -  screaming that because a ruling is "wrong" in your view that it is illegitimate and can be ignored.   That's democracy - the rule of the mob - not the way of a Constitutional republic.

I'm not asking or expecting you to like the right of abortion.  But it is just as much protected under the Constitution as the right to keep and bear arms - because the Court's authority is made perfectly clear in the Constitution.     

[roamer_1]

They have a name for your malady, @INVAR     ^-^

Jasher