I almost pity the Solicitor General. Almost.
The transcript is fascinating. The Solicitor General must be using a whole box of Tucks™ Medicated Pads after today.
March 27, 2012 by Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere
I almost pity the Solicitor General. Almost.
The transcript is fascinating. The Solicitor General must be using a whole box of Tucks™ Medicated Pads after today.
Posted in 'dialogues' with the left, accountability, Crappy laws, Disrespect of Rule of Law., entitlement culture, Faux Intellectualism, Miles Across and Inches Deep, Politics, Taxes, The Politics of Lowered Expectations™, What Really Matters, Why the Internet Is Fun and Informative, WordPress Political Blogs | 26 Comments
The punishment which the wise suffer who refuse to take part in the government, is to live under the government of worse men.
-Plato
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.
-Plato
Opinion is the medium between knowledge and ignorance.
-Plato
Your Host, Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere, a/k/a Blackiswhite, Imperial Agent Provocateur.
On Deck:
Slander, by Ann Coulter
A Ship Possessed, by Alton Gansky
The Revolutionary Paul Revere, by Joel J. Miller
The Weight of Glory, by C.S. Lewis
Winning The New Civil War, by Robert P. Dugan, Jr.
Persecution, by David Limbaugh
American Sphinx, by Joseph J. Ellis
Founders on the Founders, edited by John P. Kaminski
American Lion, by Jon Meacham
Jefferson-Writings, by Thomas Jefferson
the Bible, Various Translations
Recently Finished:
Men In Black, by Mark R. Levin
A Conservative Manifesto, by Mark R. Levin
Blacklisted By History, by M. Stanton Evans
Liberal Fascism, by Jonah Goldberg
Separate and Unequal, by Harvey Fireside
How Should We Then Live? by Francis Shaffer
The 5,000 Year Leap, by W. Cleon Skousen
The Making of America, by W. Cleon Skousen
Out of Time, by Alton Gansky
Vanished, by Alton Gansky
A Grief Observed, by C.S. Lewis
The Screwtape Letters, by C.S. Lewis
The Problem of Pain, by C.S. Lewis
Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis
The Truth War, by John MacArthur
Who Needs A Superhero, by H. Michael Brewer
Faith of Our Founding Fathers, by Tim LaHaye
Invaluable Reference
The Federalist Papers,by John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison
Websters Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, Abridged
The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States, by Benjamin Franklin Morris
Nelson's Compact Bible Commentary, by Earl Radmacher, Ron Allen & H. Wayne House
John Courson's Application Commentary-New Testament
And did you see how Elena Kagan was actually coaching the SG along??
The SG is sitting on a doughnut.
Aggie, you are seeing this all wrong.
That was her quid pro quo to Downgrade for appointing her.
I sure am glad that she maintained her impartiality. I guess those concerns about her failure to recuse herself were unfounded.
Guess we dodged a bullet on that one.
Thanks for the transcript BiW. I’ll give it a read … although I may look for the audio on the web first.
I heard two remarks on the tube today. First, that the SG was incredibly weak in his presentation. Second, that Obama might have been better off NOT appointing Kagan to the court since she used to be his SG and might have done a better job than Verrilli.
Oh in response to LC I believe Ginsburg was also “accused” of doing some coaching.
Ginsburg is the ultimate Jewish secular Lib. Frankly, Ruthie Poo so feeble, you wonder if she’s even there, being she can barely sit up. She can’t retire fast enough for the good of the country.
Perhaps we can ship Ginsberg over to Egypt permanently so Ruthie can construct a Constitution for Egypt of her own “immense” worth, being she is so critical of our own Constitution.
I don’t know enough about Ginsburg to defend or condemn her. But I do have to ask … is the Constitution beyond criticism Tex? Contrary to what you and BiW believe, even if it is Biblically inspired (gag), it ain’t the Bible. That’s why we have the amendment process … because the founders knew they had an imperfect document that might need change down the line.
You and BiW often engage in what I consider to be the most shallow example of patriotism. America is great, nothing to see here. That’s not patriotism. That’s blind idolatry on a par with your attitude toward Jesus. True patriotism is recognizing America’s flaws and doing the hard work to fix them.
1. I find your newfound support and interest in the Amendment process fascinating. Please, tell me more, Perry Mason.
2. Rutherford, I understand, probably better than you, that America has its flaws. I also understand that it still is better than any other form of government instituted by man at any time in history, even with Progressives doing their level best for more than 100 years to mess it up, so they could point to it and say “See? It doesn’t work!”
3. You’ve gotten to the point where you’ve obviously started to ask some questions. Now, you need to keep asking yourself and really educating yourself on WHY it was written the way that it was, and the influences and sources of the various components of the document, because otherwise, you’re like a three-year old trying to finger paint over a Rembrandt, because in your narrow and limited worldview, you believe that you can do it better. Until you do that, you’re like my 7 year old telling me that he only ever wants mac and cheese for dinner.
That’s my kind of kid! Mac and cheese rules!!! You can tell him I said so. 🙂
As for the “issue” with Ginsberg, you can read this, and the links in it and get a flavor for her latest round of pissing people off. Being a progressive yourself, I’ll be surprised if you have issues with the position, but putting aside the very real politcal disconnect, with regards to her remarks to Egypt, I think she is correct, but for the wrong reason. John Adams is credited with having said “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” I believe he was correct, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to grasp that islam, as it it practiced by much of the islamic world is completely incompatible with Christianity, largely because of the underlying philosophies are very different…a matter we can discuss at length if you like, but I would think that these differences manifest themselves in ways that should be obvious to you. However, given that Justice Ginsberg swore an oath to perform the duties incumbent upon her in the very document that she seems to believe is not superior to others, I’m disappointed that she doesn’t seem to have the moral courage and fortitude to disassociate herself from the additional burdens (beyond that of an ordinary citizen) that it places upon her, and resign. Frankly, its something that should bother you too.
Yikes … the commentary begins with “According to Fox News …” Despite the hit my fragile digestion just took to that opening four words, I’ll read it and get back to you. 🙂
If you actually bother to watch the full interview of Ginsburg with Al-Hayat you see that she clearly loves the Constitution and speaks with great praise about its finer features.
Her only point, which I don’t think is blasphemy, is that there are newer constitutions that better reflect modern times that might be a better place to start for a new democracy in 2012. My guess is these newer constitutions owe a hat tip to ours anyway.
The volume on this clip is low but damn … listen to the whole thing and stop cherry picking.
When did I say the Constitution beyond criticism? In their brilliance, our Founders even provided a procedure to make necessary changes. I never said the Constitution was biblically inspired either or Holy writ, though I think God did direct our Founders in the formation of the country – clearly they did too. I’ve even said the Constitution is clearly and purposely secular. You’re barking up the wrong tree.
Well, I do have a love for country and yes, I do think America greater than anybody else – so does most of the rest of the world truth be known. Look at the requests for immigration; that alone shows America is still the land of opportunity. If jingoism a sin, then I supposed I’m sinful. I’m not apologizing for it. That doesn’t make us Americans perfect – you know, like Jesus. 🙂 Lucky, for sure.
I simply honor those people who went before us and the sacrifices made – eating from vines I did not grow . I hardly think that makes me or BIC idolaters. I think it makes us grateful and proud to be Americans.
No, yours is not patriotism. It makes you nothing but a critic – frankly, a problem too many blacks have. So that begs a question, being you see everything through the prism of race. Exactly what are blacks collectively doing to make things better here in America? Kwanzaa?
Blacks account for over half the violent crime, yet blacks make up about an 1/8th of the demographic. 74% of black children are born out of wedlock and most black families in disarray. Black neighborhoods are generally war zones. Blacks collectively demand reparations, require affirmative action, excuse abhorrent behavior, and threaten when they don’t get their way. For too long, bad black behavior has been excused. Obama has saw fit that is now ending, thank gawd – so he has served one useful purpose.
I suppose that makes me racist too – to point out the obvious?
For some undetermined reason, you don’t recognize Rutherford you’ve got it better than 95% of the world by birthright. Perhaps you should pick up a shovel or man a post instead of bitching how badly you have it and stop the woe is me act?
Hmmm?
When did I bitch about how bad I have it? Damn right I’m better off than probably 75% of the world’s citizens. I appreciate that. But the cornerstone of America is striving to be a more perfect union.
Ginsburg understands that. I guess she shouldn’t have said it overseas. 😉
And to my amazement, look who played the race card this time. Where did all this “black stuff” come from?
You’re a piece of work, really.
even if it is Biblically inspired (gag),
So where did the concepts of republican government, separation of powers, and a natural born executive originate?
Go ahead. I’ll wait.
Surely not from the Bible. Please cite chapter and verse … especially concerning separation of powers. You’re not telling me the Legislative, Judicial and Executive are patterned after the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are you?
No, really. You’re the one passionately denying even the possibility. You tell the class where they could have possibly come up with those concepts, because there wasn’t a government in existance at that time that incorporated those concepts.
Better yet, has anyone ever done a comprehensive study to find out which authors had the greatest influence on the founders? And if so, what do we know about those author’s works?
I don’t passionately deny anything. As you’ve pointed out numerous times, most of the founding fathers were religious men. Clearly, their sense of human rights (given the time … i.e. ignoring slavery) partly derived from their religious upbringing.
My problem is I think you discount the degree to which the founding fathers viewed the power of the church with great skepticism and therefore worked very hard to keep that power in check.
I’ll allow a religious influence on republican government. As for separation of powers and a natural born executive …. I’ll have to do some digging on those since I see nothing patently religious in either concept.
🙄
I’ll only say this. In your America today and the prism you view the world by, non-white racists are called spokesmen.
That was actually quite clever.
You are so close and yet so far. It’s not the power of the church that was viewed with great skepticism, but the men who would manipulate the power of the church for their own gain that our Founders skeptical. Our Constitutional restriction is clearly on government, not church. I feel confident this is the part Ruth Bader Ginsburg disagrees – that modernity of complete humanism you seek and she speaks.
Your conclusion would incorrectly conclude it was the church that was feared. The doctrine of our rights endowed by our Creator was always accepted as highest authority, but something I am convinced you will never understand but still fear.
I think the bottom line on Ginsburg is that she is saying it makes more sense to use a 20th/21st century constitution that reflects the world in which we currently live, than to use an 18th century constitution that has 20+ amendments to it to reflect modern morality and priorities.
I think those with severe liberal-phobia (the Breitbart bunch) have taken Ginsburg’s words and blown them way out of proportion. Let’s not forget that she was once an ACLU attorney so she must be a witch!!!
I don’t passionately deny anything. As you’ve pointed out numerous times, most of the founding fathers were religious men. Clearly, their sense of human rights (given the time … i.e. ignoring slavery) partly derived from their religious upbringing.
Now you’re just stooping to slander. They most certainly did NOT “ignore” slavery, and when you use a very broad brush to tar all of those men and every denomination that existed at the time with just a claim, you are being both dishonest and lazy. I suggest that you get your learning on and read up on those men, and the churches they attended. Then when you learn that you were trying to start a cook fire with a thermonuclear device, you can submit your mea culpa.
My problem is I think you discount the degree to which the founding fathers viewed the power of the church with great skepticism and therefore worked very hard to keep that power in check.
Tex has this one correct, but I’d like to expand on it just a bit more. If you like I can expound a great deal with the evidence from the debates in Congress on the First Amendment (just not right at this moment…its going to be a busy day) and demonstrate unequivocally that they did not want the government to establish a state religion, because each institution has a role to play in society, and when one subsumes the other’s duties, it ends badly for the usurper…which also is very much a biblical concept. The king holds the sword, the priests are the conscience and moral authority. When those lines are crossed, as they had been in Europe, bad things happen, and it was those bad things, i.e. sectarian strife fueled by governmental power, that they specifically were discussing in the Federalist Papers. Something that you would know if you would ever tear yourself away from MSNBC’s scintilating and patently wrong historical and political analysis. I may write a more though post on all of this later this weekend if I finish some of the reading I have piled up.
I’ll allow a religious influence on republican government.
And I guess I have to ask why that is, or why you think so.
As for separation of powers and a natural born executive …. I’ll have to do some digging on those since I see nothing patently religious in either concept.
While you’re digging, try to dig up whether anyone’s ever made a review of those influences, and who they were.
I think the bottom line on Ginsburg is that she is saying it makes more sense to use a 20th/21st century constitution that reflects the world in which we currently live, than to use an 18th century constitution that has 20+ amendments to it to reflect modern morality and priorities.
Yeah…”modern morality and priorities”. *snicker*
I don’t get your point. The 27th amendment has nothing to do with morality or priorities.
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
What did you prove with that bit of trivia?
I was poking fun at YOUR statement about the amendments reflecting “modern” morality and priorities by pointing out that the last one ratified was ORIGINALLY proposed as part of that “18th century” Bill of Rights.
Maybe you need to lighten up, Francis. I didn’t correct your entire premise…not because I couldn’t, but your arm that I’ve been beating you with is getting as bruised as the the strike points on the side of your head.
[…] is a judicial sanction of a predatory betrayal of trust. And sadly, I think it is a reflection of “modern” morals and values. And you can keep them. Like this:LikeBe the first to like this […]