Yesterday in the affirmative action cases the Trump SCOTUS did its best to set up some constitutional guidelines in a complicated factual matter that goes to the heart of the political dysfunction of modern America.
I give Trump a lot of stick for his failed promises, but one of his greatest achievements was getting those judges on Scotus. I was about to write, getting those "conservative" judges on Scotus, but that would be inaccurate. They are neither conservative nor progressive; they are judges who understand their job and the Constitution. Just one quibble: "Regaining a cultural and political unity—once lost at the hands of a cynical revolutionary coterie—is a tough slog...The task, unfortunately, remains largely in the hands of the political class, who have been corrupted by Big Money and by the Deep State." I partly agree with that, but the main group of people with the responsibility for defeating the evils of Wokeness isn't the pols<, it¨ US! Yes, millions of ordinary people around the world who have the courage to speak up and out. We defeated the Vaxx nazis; we can defeat this lot too.
All this praise for Roberts. The guy sucks and his judicial philosophy is full of holes. Couple good opinions...great. A few days ago he turned elections over to the feds (not that they really matter).
Get from this court what you can. Once Thomas is gone the court only has Alito and Gorsuch.
Scotus is only a temporary sea wall defence anyway. The Lefties either back it with horrible bimbos like Kagan, Sotomayor and the new one, or they will work around any decisions they don't like. This evil can only be defeated from the ground up.
I believe that the following applies to the three female dissenters:
“Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”
Dogs and or swine defines the three "justices" perfectly.
I may have been an "affirmative action" admit more than 40 years ago to a top college, but what I observed was that it was not the classwork or curriculum that was the problem for me, it was the "culture shock" of coming from a very low income family, then suddenly being surrounded by rich kids discussing "where in Switzerland they were going to go skiing at winter break." I never did very well, but I graduated (with huge school loans I paid back!) and got a job. However looking back, I would have done so much better going to a local college where I grew up. I feel the "cultural differences" are just too great to overcome. The rich kids segregated among themselves and I ended up hanging around the poor kids. So class (income level) does seem to be more important than race as a factor.
Impactful statement from Tuley's tv interview re the student loan ruling, and I'm paraphrasing
The main concern - it is often more important to consider how we do something instead of what we do. How we do something is a safeguard against tyranny.
I wrote about Roberts' ideas on managing the SCOTUS in the context of the 2020 fake election. Roberts pursues consensus on the Court to build political support for the jurisprudential and constitutional recovery he hopes to put in place. He may at times be overly cautious. But his overall goal is to restore federalism to American life--revival of the states as important players in the nation's life--and to tame the imperial administrative state. This is a big remake of America as it has become, and that's why he wants a solid consensus. 6-3 rulings which include the Trump justices' younger blood helps build support for this project.
None of that was meant to say that his specific interpretations of the Constitution are always correct. I certainly disagree with some, sometimes vehemently.
And if they don’t join the battle, we will lose the government, and the government will lose us. We are perilously close to losing all respect for the law.
"Back in college, I was one of the few black students on my campus and I was proud to be part of getting into such a respected school. I knew I worked hard for it but still, I sometimes wondered if people thought I got there because of affirmative action. It was the shadow that students like me couldn't shake." Michelle should run for president Obama
The appeal to "experts" is a classic sign of progressivism, going back in America to the late 19th century. Democracy is messy and needs to be replaced by the rule of experts--an idea as old as Plato's Republic. The Founding Fathers rejected the appeal to self defined experts in favor of a mixed constitution involving representation for all elements of society. The Great Reset is simply a Platonic urge to exclude non-experts from representation.
In what world would any of these left wing credentialed stiffs be considered experts? A college degree is assurance that these people are anything but experts given the groupthink aspect of modern education. When government funds special programs and the aspiring paid 'expert' makes his living compiling their talking points you are not getting expertise you are getting social engineering..
I give Trump a lot of stick for his failed promises, but one of his greatest achievements was getting those judges on Scotus. I was about to write, getting those "conservative" judges on Scotus, but that would be inaccurate. They are neither conservative nor progressive; they are judges who understand their job and the Constitution. Just one quibble: "Regaining a cultural and political unity—once lost at the hands of a cynical revolutionary coterie—is a tough slog...The task, unfortunately, remains largely in the hands of the political class, who have been corrupted by Big Money and by the Deep State." I partly agree with that, but the main group of people with the responsibility for defeating the evils of Wokeness isn't the pols<, it¨ US! Yes, millions of ordinary people around the world who have the courage to speak up and out. We defeated the Vaxx nazis; we can defeat this lot too.
All this praise for Roberts. The guy sucks and his judicial philosophy is full of holes. Couple good opinions...great. A few days ago he turned elections over to the feds (not that they really matter).
Get from this court what you can. Once Thomas is gone the court only has Alito and Gorsuch.
"Once Thomas is gone the court only has Alito and Gorsuch." Right:
Gorsuch Leads Way on Landmark L.G.B.T. Rights Decision - The New York Times
Jun 15, 2020But on Monday, Justice Gorsuch, 52, led the way on one of the most sweeping L.G.B.T. rights rulings in
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/us/politics/gorsuch-supreme-court-gay-transgender-rights.html
Scotus is only a temporary sea wall defence anyway. The Lefties either back it with horrible bimbos like Kagan, Sotomayor and the new one, or they will work around any decisions they don't like. This evil can only be defeated from the ground up.
So, even worse then...
I believe that the following applies to the three female dissenters:
“Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”
Dogs and or swine defines the three "justices" perfectly.
I may have been an "affirmative action" admit more than 40 years ago to a top college, but what I observed was that it was not the classwork or curriculum that was the problem for me, it was the "culture shock" of coming from a very low income family, then suddenly being surrounded by rich kids discussing "where in Switzerland they were going to go skiing at winter break." I never did very well, but I graduated (with huge school loans I paid back!) and got a job. However looking back, I would have done so much better going to a local college where I grew up. I feel the "cultural differences" are just too great to overcome. The rich kids segregated among themselves and I ended up hanging around the poor kids. So class (income level) does seem to be more important than race as a factor.
Impactful statement from Tuley's tv interview re the student loan ruling, and I'm paraphrasing
The main concern - it is often more important to consider how we do something instead of what we do. How we do something is a safeguard against tyranny.
That's excellent. Notice that Turley, for all his circumspection, implicitly sees the Court reacting against tyranny in both these cases.
I wrote about Roberts' ideas on managing the SCOTUS in the context of the 2020 fake election. Roberts pursues consensus on the Court to build political support for the jurisprudential and constitutional recovery he hopes to put in place. He may at times be overly cautious. But his overall goal is to restore federalism to American life--revival of the states as important players in the nation's life--and to tame the imperial administrative state. This is a big remake of America as it has become, and that's why he wants a solid consensus. 6-3 rulings which include the Trump justices' younger blood helps build support for this project.
None of that was meant to say that his specific interpretations of the Constitution are always correct. I certainly disagree with some, sometimes vehemently.
And if they don’t join the battle, we will lose the government, and the government will lose us. We are perilously close to losing all respect for the law.
Yep. Check out the rioting in France to see where this could go unless this evil is defeated.
Amen.
Speaking of "experts" making points:
"Back in college, I was one of the few black students on my campus and I was proud to be part of getting into such a respected school. I knew I worked hard for it but still, I sometimes wondered if people thought I got there because of affirmative action. It was the shadow that students like me couldn't shake." Michelle should run for president Obama
The appeal to "experts" is a classic sign of progressivism, going back in America to the late 19th century. Democracy is messy and needs to be replaced by the rule of experts--an idea as old as Plato's Republic. The Founding Fathers rejected the appeal to self defined experts in favor of a mixed constitution involving representation for all elements of society. The Great Reset is simply a Platonic urge to exclude non-experts from representation.
True. Remember "the science is settled" and "97% of scientists all agree"?
In what world would any of these left wing credentialed stiffs be considered experts? A college degree is assurance that these people are anything but experts given the groupthink aspect of modern education. When government funds special programs and the aspiring paid 'expert' makes his living compiling their talking points you are not getting expertise you are getting social engineering..
Thanks to President Trump!