The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Justice Kagan: "The Law Does Not Require That the State Equally Treat Apples and Watermelons."
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Something Here
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

I don’t know what that means, but it sounds racist.

 
Hide 79 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Apples and lemons would be more appropriate this year, see as though lemons are yellow.

  2. Somehow, I think that if the houses of worship in question were anything other than Christian, (Kagan) and (Breyer) would have found in their favor.

    • Agree: Cato, Colin Wright
    • LOL: Mr. XYZ
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @Hapalong Cassidy

    I wouldn't assume that they'd favor synagogues, especially Orthodox ones. They might favor mosques.

  3. I’m getting the sense that Justice Kagan doesn’t like watermelons.

    • Replies: @Kronos
    @Not Raul

    It’s her diabetes. I think she’s a type I diabetic and has been one since a child. Watermelon has tons of sugar so her single mother likely smacked watermelon out of her hands numerous times while growing up. Some people hate what they can’t have...

    https://j.gifs.com/PNG4Xy.gif

    Replies: @Sternhammer

  4. I don’t know what that means, but it sounds racist.

    It means that silly religions like Christianity must falter and fade, but the right of chosen people must not be infringed upon.

    It’s not racist at all. It’s sectarian.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @James Speaks

    I doubt she and Breyer have any solicitude for black hats either, though I'd wager her contempt for evangelicals has a special intensity.

    Replies: @Bill

    , @Joe Magarac
    @James Speaks


    It means that silly religions like Christianity must falter and fade, but the right of chosen people must not be infringed upon.
     
    Such of the "chosen" who actually practice the religion are persecuted too. See what Cuomo did to them in New York, and not a peep out of the ascendant (and largely "chosen") faction of the ruling class.

    There's definitely a JQ dimension to what is going on, but it's certainly more subtle than some notion of Jews all taking orders from Jew Central to go after Christians.

    Not saying you should accept any of them as allies, but get real.
  5. I certainly hope you guys aren’t presuming to criticize Justice Kagan.

    • Replies: @El Dato
    @Polistra

    Hairy Potter and the mystery of the cold caller.

  6. Silly Supremes!

    Health precautions are a matter for the State to decide on, and while you would like people to be able to meet for prayers, the fact is that people will see this as a loophole and drive a truck through it.

    I guess the Supremes will now come out with different rulings for strawberries, guavas, and grapefruit.

    • Replies: @zimriel
    @Jonathan Mason

    This.
    Conservatives in the US don't really care about religion. They care about spreading CoVID. They believe that the more people get it (hopefully not them), the safer they are.
    Conservatism in the US is a death cult. They love the 600k dead and wish it were more.

    If I am wrong, kindly explain the conservative opposition to: lockdowns, masks, AND vaccines, all in one package.

    Replies: @Kyle, @Marty, @Polemos, @Anonymous Jew, @Forbes, @ken

    , @J.Ross
    @Jonathan Mason

    Where in the Constitution did the Founders assign the protection of the public health to the government at any level?

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

  7. America is not a melting pot. It is a fruit salad.

    • Agree: Polemos
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Buzz Mohawk


    America is not a melting pot. It is a fruit salad.

     

    Fruits are only 1-2% of the population. More like a booyah:

    https://green-bay.s3.amazonaws.com/CMS/5300/titletown_booyah_soup.jpg


    Traditionally with secret ingredients, e.g., Chechens and Bhutanese.


    The term booya(h) apparently derives from Wallonian French, and appropriately has its capital in Curly Lambeau's county-- the only major league county to go for Trump in November.


    https://northwoodsleague.com/green-bay-booyah/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2019/04/Rocky_Twitter-700x394.png

    , @Kronos
    @Buzz Mohawk

    I thought it more resembled sausage. (Blacks constitute pepper that wasn’t grounded up all the way.)

    http://cdn.playbuzz.com/cdn/d38e5438-891c-4b22-8dcc-5e5cd0556949/24fe1067-55eb-492a-8cab-494a53835ea0.jpg

    , @Polistra
    @Buzz Mohawk

    A fruit salad that's been left out for too long on a hot summer day, and now it's even more pathogen than fruit.

  8. @Jonathan Mason
    Silly Supremes!

    Health precautions are a matter for the State to decide on, and while you would like people to be able to meet for prayers, the fact is that people will see this as a loophole and drive a truck through it.

    I guess the Supremes will now come out with different rulings for strawberries, guavas, and grapefruit.

    Replies: @zimriel, @J.Ross

    This.
    Conservatives in the US don’t really care about religion. They care about spreading CoVID. They believe that the more people get it (hopefully not them), the safer they are.
    Conservatism in the US is a death cult. They love the 600k dead and wish it were more.

    If I am wrong, kindly explain the conservative opposition to: lockdowns, masks, AND vaccines, all in one package.

    • Replies: @Kyle
    @zimriel

    “They care about spreading CoVID. “

    I’d characterize it as they don’t care about spreading covid.

    , @Marty
    @zimriel

    Easy. Lockdowns because blacks are exempted. Masks because they supercharge black crime. The vaccine because blacks are allowed to work on it.

    , @Polemos
    @zimriel

    Just as a woman has the right to make private health decisions that result in the death of another person who has usurped her right to bodily integrity by taking up non-consensual residence inside her, so too does every person have the right to make decisions about their own health care without being forced to ensure the survival of another through usurpation of their own bodily integrity. You cannot force a violation of a woman's bodily integrity to make her ensure the survival of another person — so why can the State force any one to have their bodily integrity violated to ensure the survival of others?

    If the argument is that the State is free to inject something into me in order to ensure the survival of another person or a collective of people, what prevents the State from forcing a woman to carry her children to term through abolishing her right to an abortion? Likewise, if a woman has the right to bodily integrity which the State must respect, then it cannot ignore any one's right to bodily integrity.

    Otherwise, there is no guiding principle for the State to force violations of our bodies that is consistent with a woman's right to choose her own health care. Unless it's not really about saving the life of either the vulnerable or the collective. If I must gestate spike proteins through forced impregnation of my immune system, hijacking me to work as an unpaid laborer in a pharmaceutical industry now outsourcing therapeutic interventions by commandeering my innate immune system for the benefit of a vulnerable segment of my population as well as the corporate interests of Big Pharma, then women don't really have a right to their own bodies that frees them from the reproduction industrial complex — women's uteruses can be made to serve the health of the State by forced gestation and womb surrogation, just as my immune system is taken from me, compromised and corrupted and made to serve the State, itself compromised and corrupted.

    Maybe this isn't the conservative viewpoint you're looking for, but it is important to conserve the right to bodily integrity if one thinks women have the right to conserve their life's energy and time by choosing when and how to conceive, gestate, and birth another person. If her bodily integrity matters even when others die, then all body integrities matter even when others might die. If I can be forced to produce proteins because others might die, then a woman can also be forced to make proteins to prevent another's death — the child inside her.

    , @Anonymous Jew
    @zimriel

    Explain why liberals are incapable of a rational cost-benefit analysis.

    , @Forbes
    @zimriel

    Simple. It's called liberty. State has no inherent authority to arbitrarily impose said restrictions or requirements.

    , @ken
    @zimriel

    Because building natural immunity has always beeen the most effective way at reducing a virus's leathality.

  9. “The law does not require that the state equally treat apples and watermelons.”

    Justice Kagan clearly misses her two late colleagues.

    I don’t know what that means, but it sounds racist.

    It was funnier 60 years ago:

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    @Reg Cæsar


    Vaughn Meader is fucked!

    --Lenny Bruce, November 1963
     
    and, indeed, Vaughn Meader was fucked.
  10. No, we are not a terrorist group, we are just a group of like-minded worshipers meeting to pray for the destruction of the Great Satan, and the fall of Babylon, and to set off a few homemade fireworks.

    • Replies: @Ron Mexico
    @Jonathan Mason

    "to pray for the destruction of the Great Satan, and the fall of Babylon, and to set off a few homemade fireworks."

    You say this as if it is a bad thing.

  11. Doubly “racist”??

    Apple: (Native Americans) “Used by Native Americans as derogatory for other Native Americans who are ‘red’ on the outside but ‘white’ on the inside.”

    http://rsdb.org/race/native_americans

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    @CCZ

    ccz, I worked with dozens of Native Americans and never heard the term "apple," and as a White are you even allowed to say that?

    Replies: @Wilkey, @CCZ, @Reg Cæsar

  12. @Buzz Mohawk
    America is not a melting pot. It is a fruit salad.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Kronos, @Polistra

    America is not a melting pot. It is a fruit salad.

    Fruits are only 1-2% of the population. More like a booyah:

    Traditionally with secret ingredients, e.g., Chechens and Bhutanese.

    The term booya(h) apparently derives from Wallonian French, and appropriately has its capital in Curly Lambeau’s county– the only major league county to go for Trump in November.

  13. Roberts sold out his people and his country.

    History will not be kind to him.

    • Replies: @Bill
    @Robert Dolan

    Nobody will remember he lived.

    , @theMann
    @Robert Dolan

    At least Roberts is consistent. In any collision of Government power and Citizen Rights, he sides with Government, tortured logic to follow. In any collision between Corporate power and Citizen Rights, he sides with the Corporations. He is truly, and literally, a pure Fascist.

    And his place in History is assured:

    Dubya's stupendous turd that keeps on stinking.

  14. Kagan probably never had to slave in an orchard picking watermelons from the tree tops. Or something like that. And if a watermelon had fallen on Newton’s head we wouldn’t have gravity. Maybe we should let biden add more Justices if this is the best we can do.

  15. I am so sick and tired of state cases that wind up at SCOTUS; and (5-4?!) Ivy educated, lawyer-judges who can’t understand the simple English of the constitution.

    For reasons too dull to mention, every sort of CA legal case with “issues”, after it has been heard in multiple state courtrooms, winds up in the federal courts.

    It’s really something how an executive order(?), promulgated and vetted by lawyers at the outset, one that deals with a simple freedom issue, could generate so much costly, legal argumentation.

    Big government. Great news for lawyers.

    Many months ago our county sheriff announced that he wasn’t going to enforce COVID regulations. We invited him to our large, in-house, Passover gathering, but he couldn’t make it.

    • Replies: @Dr. X
    @Abolish_public_education


    I am so sick and tired of state cases that wind up at SCOTUS; and (5-4?!) Ivy educated, lawyer-judges who can’t understand the simple English of the constitution.

    For reasons too dull to mention, every sort of CA legal case with “issues”, after it has been heard in multiple state courtrooms, winds up in the federal courts.

     

    Well, it's a great question, but the answer is probably what you don't want to hear.

    The short answer is "the 14th Amendment created this problem." Prior to the Civil War, the Bill of Rights was understood to limit only the actions of Congress -- not the states. Meaning that the states could pretty much damn near do as they pleased if their state constitutions allowed it. Establish religion? Yep. Ban prayer meetings? Yep. Allow people to own slaves? Yep.

    In other words you had no recourse beyond your own state courts if you had a problem with a policy in your state.

    The 14th Amendment was ratified by Radical Republicans in 1868 to force states to abide by what had previously been the federal-only Bill of Rights, for the purpose of protecting freed blacks from state governments. And the jurisdiction for enforcing this fell on the federal courts.

    The 14th Amendment has, over the past century-and-a-half, allowed the federal courts to run wild over state policies in ways the Madison and Hamilton would never have dreamed of. That is why seemingly every state case sooner or later ends up in the federal courts.

    The "simple language" of the antebellum Constitution would have required that the case in question originated in, and stayed under, the jurisdiction of the California courts and the state constitution.

    Replies: @anon215, @schnellandine

  16. @Not Raul
    I’m getting the sense that Justice Kagan doesn’t like watermelons.

    Replies: @Kronos

    It’s her diabetes. I think she’s a type I diabetic and has been one since a child. Watermelon has tons of sugar so her single mother likely smacked watermelon out of her hands numerous times while growing up. Some people hate what they can’t have…

    • Replies: @Sternhammer
    @Kronos

    Nah, dude, Sotomayor is diabetic, not Kagan.

    Replies: @Kronos

  17. The state shouldn’t be treating anybody.

    Not their job, mon.

    • Agree: donut
  18. @Buzz Mohawk
    America is not a melting pot. It is a fruit salad.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Kronos, @Polistra

    I thought it more resembled sausage. (Blacks constitute pepper that wasn’t grounded up all the way.)

  19. @CCZ
    Doubly "racist"??

    Apple: (Native Americans) "Used by Native Americans as derogatory for other Native Americans who are 'red' on the outside but 'white' on the inside."

    http://rsdb.org/race/native_americans

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe

    ccz, I worked with dozens of Native Americans and never heard the term “apple,” and as a White are you even allowed to say that?

    • Replies: @Wilkey
    @Buffalo Joe

    It’s a real term. It dates back several decades. I believe. It’s equivalent to the term “banana” (for Asians) and Oreo (for blacks).

    Replies: @anon, @Muggles

    , @CCZ
    @Buffalo Joe

    Sources (below) date the slur / slang to circa 1970 and thereafter among Native-Americans. The Wikipedia entry for "Apple - Symbolism" says: "In North America a Native American is called an "apple" (a slur that stands for someone who is "red on the outside, white on the inside.") primarily by other Native Americans to indicate someone who has lost touch with their cultural identity." Very possibly associated with or arising from the Native-American cultural identity and activism ("Red Power") that brought forth the 1969-1970s Native-American occupations of Alcatraz Island and the Washington, DC offices of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the "American Indian Movement" "siege" of the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota ("Wounded Knee II").

    See also: Cassell's Dictionary Of Slang, Jonathon Green, 1998 (revised 2005), page 29, and the entirely offensive The Racial Slur Database (for every slur you ever wanted) at http://rsdb.org/

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Buffalo Joe


    ccz, I worked with dozens of Native Americans and never heard the term “apple...”

     

    You hear the term from politicized Indians who've drunk the white man's firewater-- i.e., university education.

    Your Indians deal with the state, not the feds. They care more about cigarette smuggling than the latest woke fad.

    Also, it's risky to call anyone in Western New York an apple, lest you be held responsible should that person be subsequently harvested.

  20. If I am wrong, kindly explain the conservative opposition to: lockdowns, masks, AND vaccines, all in one package.

    Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Dumbass.

  21. I don’t know what that means,

  22. @Buzz Mohawk
    America is not a melting pot. It is a fruit salad.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Kronos, @Polistra

    A fruit salad that’s been left out for too long on a hot summer day, and now it’s even more pathogen than fruit.

  23. Kagan’s ruling actually makes more sense, but misses the larger question of how f—-ing long can the government drag this whole thing out? They would wreck tens of millions of lives and reorder all of society just to stop a virus which, for most people, is little more than just another flu.

    • Replies: @Cortes
    @Wilkey

    Not “would wreck”.

    “are wrecking”

    And the answer is: as long as we let them. Intolerance of the lockdowns is increasing daily. Just my observation. I’ve been wrong many times of course. Allegedly.

  24. @Buffalo Joe
    @CCZ

    ccz, I worked with dozens of Native Americans and never heard the term "apple," and as a White are you even allowed to say that?

    Replies: @Wilkey, @CCZ, @Reg Cæsar

    It’s a real term. It dates back several decades. I believe. It’s equivalent to the term “banana” (for Asians) and Oreo (for blacks).

    • Replies: @anon
    @Wilkey

    It’s a real term. It dates back several decades.

    Where? Which nations?

    Replies: @photondancer

    , @Muggles
    @Wilkey


    It’s a real term. It dates back several decades. I believe. It’s equivalent to the term “banana” (for Asians) and Oreo (for blacks).
     
    So what's white on the outside and black on the inside?

    Surely some iSteve fan can come up with something. Doesn't sound very palatable though.
  25. Paging regular commenter “Twinkie”.
    Please pick up the courtesy phone.

    • LOL: SimpleSong
  26. Justice-not-judge Kagan is one of the things which would be addressed if the establishment complainers were serious about the decline in respect toward institutions. Her hatred of freedom of religion would be addressed if Jews really were worried about their safety. But then we can always look forward to what mess Dead President Biden will impose, if he gets to that before Kamala’s ascendency.

  27. @Jonathan Mason
    Silly Supremes!

    Health precautions are a matter for the State to decide on, and while you would like people to be able to meet for prayers, the fact is that people will see this as a loophole and drive a truck through it.

    I guess the Supremes will now come out with different rulings for strawberries, guavas, and grapefruit.

    Replies: @zimriel, @J.Ross

    Where in the Constitution did the Founders assign the protection of the public health to the government at any level?

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    @J.Ross


    Where in the Constitution did the Founders assign the protection of the public health to the government at any level?
     
    You seem to have forgotten that the Constitution was amended after it was discovered that the founders had missed out quite a few important elements that needed to be in a properly regulated constitution.

    I believe subsequently any powers not mentioned in the constitution as belonging to the federal government and not expressly forbidden by the constitution, were subsequently reserved to the states.

    You might want to check the Tenth Amendment.

    Replies: @Bill, @MarkinLA, @The Alarmist

  28. “Ugly lesbian angry that Christians insist on going to church. ”

    • Agree: Forbes
  29. @James Speaks

    I don’t know what that means, but it sounds racist.
     
    It means that silly religions like Christianity must falter and fade, but the right of chosen people must not be infringed upon.

    It's not racist at all. It's sectarian.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Joe Magarac

    I doubt she and Breyer have any solicitude for black hats either, though I’d wager her contempt for evangelicals has a special intensity.

    • Agree: Hibernian
    • Replies: @Bill
    @Art Deco

    So she has redeeming qualities.

  30. @Wilkey
    Kagan’s ruling actually makes more sense, but misses the larger question of how f—-ing long can the government drag this whole thing out? They would wreck tens of millions of lives and reorder all of society just to stop a virus which, for most people, is little more than just another flu.

    Replies: @Cortes

    Not “would wreck”.

    “are wrecking”

    And the answer is: as long as we let them. Intolerance of the lockdowns is increasing daily. Just my observation. I’ve been wrong many times of course. Allegedly.

  31. Justice Kagan: “The Law Does Not Require That the State Equally Treat Apples and Watermelons.”

    I don’t know what that means, but it sounds racist.

    LOL

  32. @Hapalong Cassidy
    Somehow, I think that if the houses of worship in question were anything other than Christian, (Kagan) and (Breyer) would have found in their favor.

    Replies: @Hibernian

    I wouldn’t assume that they’d favor synagogues, especially Orthodox ones. They might favor mosques.

  33. When cornered by evangelicals, all of whom are convinded the 2nd coming is next week and they will be saved, I explain, patiently, that Jesus was teaching Buddhism to his fellow Judeans in the hope they would become less abrasive. When they express doubt, I explain to them that the miracle of the Sermon on the Mount was getting 5,000 Jews to share.

    • Agree: SimpleSong
    • LOL: Angharad
    • Replies: @Muggles
    @James Speaks


    When they express doubt, I explain to them that the miracle of the Sermon on the Mount was getting 5,000 Jews to share.
     
    But when it came to Jesus actually feeding a large mob of hungry Jews, he manged to give them each their own loaf and fish.

    A real mensch, that Jesus.

    Replies: @Hibernian

  34. @Buffalo Joe
    @CCZ

    ccz, I worked with dozens of Native Americans and never heard the term "apple," and as a White are you even allowed to say that?

    Replies: @Wilkey, @CCZ, @Reg Cæsar

    Sources (below) date the slur / slang to circa 1970 and thereafter among Native-Americans. The Wikipedia entry for “Apple – Symbolism” says: “In North America a Native American is called an “apple” (a slur that stands for someone who is “red on the outside, white on the inside.”) primarily by other Native Americans to indicate someone who has lost touch with their cultural identity.” Very possibly associated with or arising from the Native-American cultural identity and activism (“Red Power”) that brought forth the 1969-1970s Native-American occupations of Alcatraz Island and the Washington, DC offices of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the “American Indian Movement” “siege” of the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota (“Wounded Knee II”).

    See also: Cassell’s Dictionary Of Slang, Jonathon Green, 1998 (revised 2005), page 29, and the entirely offensive The Racial Slur Database (for every slur you ever wanted) at http://rsdb.org/

  35. As with associating with homosexuals, one should not need to hide behind religion in order to be free of progressive tyranny.

    And all nine of those black robed frauds can go to hell.

    • Replies: @Orville H. Larson
    @Mike Tre

    "And all nine of those black robed frauds can go to hell."

    The U.S. Supreme Shysters are nine unelected, unaccountable, ethics-free megalomaniacs. They legislate from the bench at will. Why? Because they can.

  36. @Art Deco
    @James Speaks

    I doubt she and Breyer have any solicitude for black hats either, though I'd wager her contempt for evangelicals has a special intensity.

    Replies: @Bill

    So she has redeeming qualities.

  37. @J.Ross
    @Jonathan Mason

    Where in the Constitution did the Founders assign the protection of the public health to the government at any level?

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    Where in the Constitution did the Founders assign the protection of the public health to the government at any level?

    You seem to have forgotten that the Constitution was amended after it was discovered that the founders had missed out quite a few important elements that needed to be in a properly regulated constitution.

    I believe subsequently any powers not mentioned in the constitution as belonging to the federal government and not expressly forbidden by the constitution, were subsequently reserved to the states.

    You might want to check the Tenth Amendment.

    • Replies: @Bill
    @Jonathan Mason

    You are wasting your time. The constitution says and means whatever constitutionalists want it to. They are big, though secret and perhaps unknowing, fans of Earl Warren.

    , @MarkinLA
    @Jonathan Mason

    You might want to check the issue of "incorporation".

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine

    Kagan is somewhat right in claiming there is a difference between apples and watermelons, except she has it ass backwards. Business does not have Constitutional protection and religion does.

    , @The Alarmist
    @Jonathan Mason

    Tenth Amendment ... aren’t you adorable.


    http://www.peoplesworld.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/tornconstitution960.jpg


    Note that the tear is between We the People and the United States.

  38. @Wilkey
    @Buffalo Joe

    It’s a real term. It dates back several decades. I believe. It’s equivalent to the term “banana” (for Asians) and Oreo (for blacks).

    Replies: @anon, @Muggles

    It’s a real term. It dates back several decades.

    Where? Which nations?

    • Replies: @photondancer
    @anon

    I first read of this use of the word 'apple' when studying the Russian Revolution decades ago. Those for were Red, those against White. The Bolsheviks would accuse comrades they deemed not 100% committed as apples, secretly supporting the old ways even as they protested otherwise.

  39. @Robert Dolan
    Roberts sold out his people and his country.

    History will not be kind to him.

    Replies: @Bill, @theMann

    Nobody will remember he lived.

  40. @Jonathan Mason
    @J.Ross


    Where in the Constitution did the Founders assign the protection of the public health to the government at any level?
     
    You seem to have forgotten that the Constitution was amended after it was discovered that the founders had missed out quite a few important elements that needed to be in a properly regulated constitution.

    I believe subsequently any powers not mentioned in the constitution as belonging to the federal government and not expressly forbidden by the constitution, were subsequently reserved to the states.

    You might want to check the Tenth Amendment.

    Replies: @Bill, @MarkinLA, @The Alarmist

    You are wasting your time. The constitution says and means whatever constitutionalists want it to. They are big, though secret and perhaps unknowing, fans of Earl Warren.

  41. @zimriel
    @Jonathan Mason

    This.
    Conservatives in the US don't really care about religion. They care about spreading CoVID. They believe that the more people get it (hopefully not them), the safer they are.
    Conservatism in the US is a death cult. They love the 600k dead and wish it were more.

    If I am wrong, kindly explain the conservative opposition to: lockdowns, masks, AND vaccines, all in one package.

    Replies: @Kyle, @Marty, @Polemos, @Anonymous Jew, @Forbes, @ken

    “They care about spreading CoVID. “

    I’d characterize it as they don’t care about spreading covid.

  42. @Kronos
    @Not Raul

    It’s her diabetes. I think she’s a type I diabetic and has been one since a child. Watermelon has tons of sugar so her single mother likely smacked watermelon out of her hands numerous times while growing up. Some people hate what they can’t have...

    https://j.gifs.com/PNG4Xy.gif

    Replies: @Sternhammer

    Nah, dude, Sotomayor is diabetic, not Kagan.

    • Thanks: Kronos
    • Replies: @Kronos
    @Sternhammer

    Sorry, I got the names mixed up. I was thinking of our nation’s top wise Hispanic woman.

  43. @Jonathan Mason
    @J.Ross


    Where in the Constitution did the Founders assign the protection of the public health to the government at any level?
     
    You seem to have forgotten that the Constitution was amended after it was discovered that the founders had missed out quite a few important elements that needed to be in a properly regulated constitution.

    I believe subsequently any powers not mentioned in the constitution as belonging to the federal government and not expressly forbidden by the constitution, were subsequently reserved to the states.

    You might want to check the Tenth Amendment.

    Replies: @Bill, @MarkinLA, @The Alarmist

    You might want to check the issue of “incorporation”.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine

    Kagan is somewhat right in claiming there is a difference between apples and watermelons, except she has it ass backwards. Business does not have Constitutional protection and religion does.

  44. @Sternhammer
    @Kronos

    Nah, dude, Sotomayor is diabetic, not Kagan.

    Replies: @Kronos

    Sorry, I got the names mixed up. I was thinking of our nation’s top wise Hispanic woman.

  45. @zimriel
    @Jonathan Mason

    This.
    Conservatives in the US don't really care about religion. They care about spreading CoVID. They believe that the more people get it (hopefully not them), the safer they are.
    Conservatism in the US is a death cult. They love the 600k dead and wish it were more.

    If I am wrong, kindly explain the conservative opposition to: lockdowns, masks, AND vaccines, all in one package.

    Replies: @Kyle, @Marty, @Polemos, @Anonymous Jew, @Forbes, @ken

    Easy. Lockdowns because blacks are exempted. Masks because they supercharge black crime. The vaccine because blacks are allowed to work on it.

  46. @Abolish_public_education
    I am so sick and tired of state cases that wind up at SCOTUS; and (5-4?!) Ivy educated, lawyer-judges who can’t understand the simple English of the constitution.

    For reasons too dull to mention, every sort of CA legal case with “issues”, after it has been heard in multiple state courtrooms, winds up in the federal courts.

    It’s really something how an executive order(?), promulgated and vetted by lawyers at the outset, one that deals with a simple freedom issue, could generate so much costly, legal argumentation.

    Big government. Great news for lawyers.

    Many months ago our county sheriff announced that he wasn’t going to enforce COVID regulations. We invited him to our large, in-house, Passover gathering, but he couldn’t make it.

    Replies: @Dr. X

    I am so sick and tired of state cases that wind up at SCOTUS; and (5-4?!) Ivy educated, lawyer-judges who can’t understand the simple English of the constitution.

    For reasons too dull to mention, every sort of CA legal case with “issues”, after it has been heard in multiple state courtrooms, winds up in the federal courts.

    Well, it’s a great question, but the answer is probably what you don’t want to hear.

    The short answer is “the 14th Amendment created this problem.” Prior to the Civil War, the Bill of Rights was understood to limit only the actions of Congress — not the states. Meaning that the states could pretty much damn near do as they pleased if their state constitutions allowed it. Establish religion? Yep. Ban prayer meetings? Yep. Allow people to own slaves? Yep.

    In other words you had no recourse beyond your own state courts if you had a problem with a policy in your state.

    The 14th Amendment was ratified by Radical Republicans in 1868 to force states to abide by what had previously been the federal-only Bill of Rights, for the purpose of protecting freed blacks from state governments. And the jurisdiction for enforcing this fell on the federal courts.

    The 14th Amendment has, over the past century-and-a-half, allowed the federal courts to run wild over state policies in ways the Madison and Hamilton would never have dreamed of. That is why seemingly every state case sooner or later ends up in the federal courts.

    The “simple language” of the antebellum Constitution would have required that the case in question originated in, and stayed under, the jurisdiction of the California courts and the state constitution.

    • Replies: @anon215
    @Dr. X

    >>>"The 14th Amendment was ratified by Radical Republicans in 1868 to force states to abide by what had previously been the federal-only Bill of Rights, for the purpose of protecting freed blacks from state governments. And the jurisdiction for enforcing this fell on the federal courts."<<<

    Wrong. The jurisdiction for enforcing the 14th Amendment fell to Congress, under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment:

    "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

    The Supreme Court is only supposed to police the boundaries of power granted to Congress under Section 5.

    Replies: @Dr. X

    , @schnellandine
    @Dr. X


    Prior to the Civil War, the Bill of Rights was understood to limit only the actions of Congress — not the states.
     
    Meaning written law means nothing. It also means that if such outcome was the intent, those who composed the 'BoR' were flunkies and morons, and those who approved it ingenuously were gullible to an extreme.

    Aside from rare specific language inside specific amendments (e.g. 1st), there is nothing limiting it from application to the states; the supremacy clause requires its application as written (meaning, for example, the 1stA doesn't apply to states). Assertions to the contrary are fremdschämen-ish examples of mass delusion based on, "Well, the reason for the BoR was [blah blah]."

    If 'law' doesn't apply as written, it's trash. The US Constitution is a joke of atrociously-composed fuel for the crystal ball crowd. Anyone giving credence to 'incorporation' and its false premise of general inapplicability is an ass.

    The 'Fourteenth Amendment' is void for non-ratification, and the SC 'justice' who'd hold otherwise is a fraud. In other words, all of them.

    The Constitution was illegal on arrival, and has from the beginning been a blueprint for what we are witnessing. The clinging to it is shameful. It must be tossed from our minds as nothing but malfeasance. Antifederalists were correct.

    Replies: @Dr. X

  47. I believe subsequently any powers not mentioned in the constitution as belonging to the federal government and not expressly forbidden by the constitution, were subsequently reserved to the states.

    To the states or the people (and the people are supposed to trump the states) but what does one expect of foreigners.

    • Agree: Buzz Mohawk
  48. FWIW today I spoke to a relative who is a nurse. We had not talked in over a year. She told me she has been taking care of elderly COVID-19 patients.

    Here’s my point: She also told me that neither she nor anybody in her family or environment has caught it. After all this time, after all her exposure to it, she is perfectly fine, and so are her three children and her husband, and her elderly mother who lives with her. Neither they nor anybody she works with has come down with anything.

    I complemented her on her proper use of PPE, but I thought to myself that maybe she and her loved ones and colleagues and friends were never in any real danger, any greater than from, say, oh, “the flu, bro.”

    (I am not a medical professional or someone who knows anything about viruses, but I play one on the internet. YMMV.)

  49. @Robert Dolan
    Roberts sold out his people and his country.

    History will not be kind to him.

    Replies: @Bill, @theMann

    At least Roberts is consistent. In any collision of Government power and Citizen Rights, he sides with Government, tortured logic to follow. In any collision between Corporate power and Citizen Rights, he sides with the Corporations. He is truly, and literally, a pure Fascist.

    And his place in History is assured:

    Dubya’s stupendous turd that keeps on stinking.

    • Agree: Polemos
  50. Justice Kagan: “The Law Does Not Require That the State Equally Treat Apples and Watermelons.”

    I don’t know what that means

    It means she is laying the precedent groundwork now so she can cite herself in her upcoming landmark decision that “The Law Does Not Require That the State Equally Treat POCs and Whites.”

  51. So four of nine Supreme Court Justices cannot correctly interpret the plain Black Letter Law of the United States, as expressed in the First Anendment to the Constitition.

    Is it because they are too incompetent, or too bigoted?

    Never mind, rhetorical question. Either way, they are categorically unfit for the Office which they now pollute.

  52. @Reg Cæsar

    "The law does not require that the state equally treat apples and watermelons."

     

    Justice Kagan clearly misses her two late colleagues.


    https://lesherartscenter.showare.com/uplimage/SoloOpera_ScaliaGinsburg_Event.jpg

    I don’t know what that means, but it sounds racist.

     

    It was funnier 60 years ago:



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xwu8S6Ekx9w&t=21m20s

    Replies: @ScarletNumber

    Vaughn Meader is fucked!

    –Lenny Bruce, November 1963

    and, indeed, Vaughn Meader was fucked.

  53. Did Roberts dissent because the state rule was to expire on April 15, and there was no need for the Court to act?

  54. Imagine the outrage if Kavanaugh had said the same thing.

  55. No jokes about fried chicken and watermelon!

  56. @zimriel
    @Jonathan Mason

    This.
    Conservatives in the US don't really care about religion. They care about spreading CoVID. They believe that the more people get it (hopefully not them), the safer they are.
    Conservatism in the US is a death cult. They love the 600k dead and wish it were more.

    If I am wrong, kindly explain the conservative opposition to: lockdowns, masks, AND vaccines, all in one package.

    Replies: @Kyle, @Marty, @Polemos, @Anonymous Jew, @Forbes, @ken

    Just as a woman has the right to make private health decisions that result in the death of another person who has usurped her right to bodily integrity by taking up non-consensual residence inside her, so too does every person have the right to make decisions about their own health care without being forced to ensure the survival of another through usurpation of their own bodily integrity. You cannot force a violation of a woman’s bodily integrity to make her ensure the survival of another person — so why can the State force any one to have their bodily integrity violated to ensure the survival of others?

    If the argument is that the State is free to inject something into me in order to ensure the survival of another person or a collective of people, what prevents the State from forcing a woman to carry her children to term through abolishing her right to an abortion? Likewise, if a woman has the right to bodily integrity which the State must respect, then it cannot ignore any one’s right to bodily integrity.

    Otherwise, there is no guiding principle for the State to force violations of our bodies that is consistent with a woman’s right to choose her own health care. Unless it’s not really about saving the life of either the vulnerable or the collective. If I must gestate spike proteins through forced impregnation of my immune system, hijacking me to work as an unpaid laborer in a pharmaceutical industry now outsourcing therapeutic interventions by commandeering my innate immune system for the benefit of a vulnerable segment of my population as well as the corporate interests of Big Pharma, then women don’t really have a right to their own bodies that frees them from the reproduction industrial complex — women’s uteruses can be made to serve the health of the State by forced gestation and womb surrogation, just as my immune system is taken from me, compromised and corrupted and made to serve the State, itself compromised and corrupted.

    Maybe this isn’t the conservative viewpoint you’re looking for, but it is important to conserve the right to bodily integrity if one thinks women have the right to conserve their life’s energy and time by choosing when and how to conceive, gestate, and birth another person. If her bodily integrity matters even when others die, then all body integrities matter even when others might die. If I can be forced to produce proteins because others might die, then a woman can also be forced to make proteins to prevent another’s death — the child inside her.

  57. @Jonathan Mason
    No, we are not a terrorist group, we are just a group of like-minded worshipers meeting to pray for the destruction of the Great Satan, and the fall of Babylon, and to set off a few homemade fireworks.

    Replies: @Ron Mexico

    “to pray for the destruction of the Great Satan, and the fall of Babylon, and to set off a few homemade fireworks.”

    You say this as if it is a bad thing.

  58. Roberts now has cover to vote with the leftists whenever he knows the 5 other justices will vote the other way.

    what sniveling coward scum this guy is. the living embodiment of the catastrophic Bush administration.

  59. @Buffalo Joe
    @CCZ

    ccz, I worked with dozens of Native Americans and never heard the term "apple," and as a White are you even allowed to say that?

    Replies: @Wilkey, @CCZ, @Reg Cæsar

    ccz, I worked with dozens of Native Americans and never heard the term “apple…”

    You hear the term from politicized Indians who’ve drunk the white man’s firewater– i.e., university education.

    Your Indians deal with the state, not the feds. They care more about cigarette smuggling than the latest woke fad.

    Also, it’s risky to call anyone in Western New York an apple, lest you be held responsible should that person be subsequently harvested.

  60. @Polistra
    I certainly hope you guys aren't presuming to criticize Justice Kagan.


    https://i.ibb.co/DtFQyRm/Screenshot-20210410-143601-Daily-Mail-Online.jpg

    Replies: @El Dato

    Hairy Potter and the mystery of the cold caller.

  61. I am troubled that we have to rely on religion as the only way to push back against this totalitarianism.

    I should be able to have people in my home for whatever reason I want, sell flowers to whomever I choose, and give my employees whatever health benefits result from our free-market dealings.

    Yes, the establishment is invidiously hostile to (certain) religion and yes, we should fight for all of our constitutional rights however we can, but I should not have to assert a religious basis to defend these fundamental liberties.

    • Agree: Etruscan Film Star
  62. Apple->Newton->White

    Watermelon->Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper cartoon stereotype->Black

    Yep, definitely rayciss …

  63. @James Speaks

    I don’t know what that means, but it sounds racist.
     
    It means that silly religions like Christianity must falter and fade, but the right of chosen people must not be infringed upon.

    It's not racist at all. It's sectarian.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Joe Magarac

    It means that silly religions like Christianity must falter and fade, but the right of chosen people must not be infringed upon.

    Such of the “chosen” who actually practice the religion are persecuted too. See what Cuomo did to them in New York, and not a peep out of the ascendant (and largely “chosen”) faction of the ruling class.

    There’s definitely a JQ dimension to what is going on, but it’s certainly more subtle than some notion of Jews all taking orders from Jew Central to go after Christians.

    Not saying you should accept any of them as allies, but get real.

  64. @Dr. X
    @Abolish_public_education


    I am so sick and tired of state cases that wind up at SCOTUS; and (5-4?!) Ivy educated, lawyer-judges who can’t understand the simple English of the constitution.

    For reasons too dull to mention, every sort of CA legal case with “issues”, after it has been heard in multiple state courtrooms, winds up in the federal courts.

     

    Well, it's a great question, but the answer is probably what you don't want to hear.

    The short answer is "the 14th Amendment created this problem." Prior to the Civil War, the Bill of Rights was understood to limit only the actions of Congress -- not the states. Meaning that the states could pretty much damn near do as they pleased if their state constitutions allowed it. Establish religion? Yep. Ban prayer meetings? Yep. Allow people to own slaves? Yep.

    In other words you had no recourse beyond your own state courts if you had a problem with a policy in your state.

    The 14th Amendment was ratified by Radical Republicans in 1868 to force states to abide by what had previously been the federal-only Bill of Rights, for the purpose of protecting freed blacks from state governments. And the jurisdiction for enforcing this fell on the federal courts.

    The 14th Amendment has, over the past century-and-a-half, allowed the federal courts to run wild over state policies in ways the Madison and Hamilton would never have dreamed of. That is why seemingly every state case sooner or later ends up in the federal courts.

    The "simple language" of the antebellum Constitution would have required that the case in question originated in, and stayed under, the jurisdiction of the California courts and the state constitution.

    Replies: @anon215, @schnellandine

    >>>”The 14th Amendment was ratified by Radical Republicans in 1868 to force states to abide by what had previously been the federal-only Bill of Rights, for the purpose of protecting freed blacks from state governments. And the jurisdiction for enforcing this fell on the federal courts.”<<<

    Wrong. The jurisdiction for enforcing the 14th Amendment fell to Congress, under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment:

    “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

    The Supreme Court is only supposed to police the boundaries of power granted to Congress under Section 5.

    • Replies: @Dr. X
    @anon215


    Wrong. The jurisdiction for enforcing the 14th Amendment fell to Congress, under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment:

    “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
     
    Excellent point, you are quite correct in pointing that out.

    However, as a practical matter, Congress has accepted the power of judicial review claimed by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison, and has accepted that the court will have the final say on the constitutionality of its legislation. A closely related issue is that Congress often writes broad, general "civil rights" legislation and deliberately leaves it up to the courts and the bureaucracy to fill in the details of the implementation.

    One can (and from an originalist perspective, should) argue against this, but like it or not it is a fait accompli that Congress has punted to the courts on nearly everything.
  65. The right to practice one’s religion is not some “super right”, it is one of several established in the First Amendment, and elsewhere. The problem is that the government has violated all of them on a daily basis the past year, continues to do so, and is planning on violating even more of them (with the “cooperation” of private corporations). It’s good to see people take the government to court, and lose, on the question of religion. In the process, though, they are leaving all these disgusting violations of our basic civil/human rights and due process intact, implying the government has a right to stampede on them as long as they aren’t touching on religion.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @Mycale


    The right to practice one’s religion is not some “super right”, it is one of several established in the First Amendment, and elsewhere.
     
    Depends what you mean by “super right,” It is, and the others mentioned in the second half of this sentence are, superior to the ones found in emanations from penumbras, by Leftist Justices.
  66. @zimriel
    @Jonathan Mason

    This.
    Conservatives in the US don't really care about religion. They care about spreading CoVID. They believe that the more people get it (hopefully not them), the safer they are.
    Conservatism in the US is a death cult. They love the 600k dead and wish it were more.

    If I am wrong, kindly explain the conservative opposition to: lockdowns, masks, AND vaccines, all in one package.

    Replies: @Kyle, @Marty, @Polemos, @Anonymous Jew, @Forbes, @ken

    Explain why liberals are incapable of a rational cost-benefit analysis.

  67. @Dr. X
    @Abolish_public_education


    I am so sick and tired of state cases that wind up at SCOTUS; and (5-4?!) Ivy educated, lawyer-judges who can’t understand the simple English of the constitution.

    For reasons too dull to mention, every sort of CA legal case with “issues”, after it has been heard in multiple state courtrooms, winds up in the federal courts.

     

    Well, it's a great question, but the answer is probably what you don't want to hear.

    The short answer is "the 14th Amendment created this problem." Prior to the Civil War, the Bill of Rights was understood to limit only the actions of Congress -- not the states. Meaning that the states could pretty much damn near do as they pleased if their state constitutions allowed it. Establish religion? Yep. Ban prayer meetings? Yep. Allow people to own slaves? Yep.

    In other words you had no recourse beyond your own state courts if you had a problem with a policy in your state.

    The 14th Amendment was ratified by Radical Republicans in 1868 to force states to abide by what had previously been the federal-only Bill of Rights, for the purpose of protecting freed blacks from state governments. And the jurisdiction for enforcing this fell on the federal courts.

    The 14th Amendment has, over the past century-and-a-half, allowed the federal courts to run wild over state policies in ways the Madison and Hamilton would never have dreamed of. That is why seemingly every state case sooner or later ends up in the federal courts.

    The "simple language" of the antebellum Constitution would have required that the case in question originated in, and stayed under, the jurisdiction of the California courts and the state constitution.

    Replies: @anon215, @schnellandine

    Prior to the Civil War, the Bill of Rights was understood to limit only the actions of Congress — not the states.

    Meaning written law means nothing. It also means that if such outcome was the intent, those who composed the ‘BoR’ were flunkies and morons, and those who approved it ingenuously were gullible to an extreme.

    Aside from rare specific language inside specific amendments (e.g. 1st), there is nothing limiting it from application to the states; the supremacy clause requires its application as written (meaning, for example, the 1stA doesn’t apply to states). Assertions to the contrary are fremdschämen-ish examples of mass delusion based on, “Well, the reason for the BoR was [blah blah].”

    If ‘law’ doesn’t apply as written, it’s trash. The US Constitution is a joke of atrociously-composed fuel for the crystal ball crowd. Anyone giving credence to ‘incorporation’ and its false premise of general inapplicability is an ass.

    The ‘Fourteenth Amendment’ is void for non-ratification, and the SC ‘justice’ who’d hold otherwise is a fraud. In other words, all of them.

    The Constitution was illegal on arrival, and has from the beginning been a blueprint for what we are witnessing. The clinging to it is shameful. It must be tossed from our minds as nothing but malfeasance. Antifederalists were correct.

    • Replies: @Dr. X
    @schnellandine


    Meaning written law means nothing.
     
    Yes, correct. We have devolved from a constitutional republic of federated states with a national government of limited and enumerated powers into a dictatorship of common-law courts.
  68. I don’t know what that means, …

    Neither does Kagan. She and the vibrant Latina are basically black-robed bimbos. There appear to be direct and uncensored connections between their malfunctioning cerebral apparatuses and their vocal equipment, connections which causes them to thoughtlessly utter whatever harebrained notions are currently flittering through what passes for their minds.

  69. @zimriel
    @Jonathan Mason

    This.
    Conservatives in the US don't really care about religion. They care about spreading CoVID. They believe that the more people get it (hopefully not them), the safer they are.
    Conservatism in the US is a death cult. They love the 600k dead and wish it were more.

    If I am wrong, kindly explain the conservative opposition to: lockdowns, masks, AND vaccines, all in one package.

    Replies: @Kyle, @Marty, @Polemos, @Anonymous Jew, @Forbes, @ken

    Simple. It’s called liberty. State has no inherent authority to arbitrarily impose said restrictions or requirements.

  70. @zimriel
    @Jonathan Mason

    This.
    Conservatives in the US don't really care about religion. They care about spreading CoVID. They believe that the more people get it (hopefully not them), the safer they are.
    Conservatism in the US is a death cult. They love the 600k dead and wish it were more.

    If I am wrong, kindly explain the conservative opposition to: lockdowns, masks, AND vaccines, all in one package.

    Replies: @Kyle, @Marty, @Polemos, @Anonymous Jew, @Forbes, @ken

    Because building natural immunity has always beeen the most effective way at reducing a virus’s leathality.

  71. @Mike Tre
    As with associating with homosexuals, one should not need to hide behind religion in order to be free of progressive tyranny.

    And all nine of those black robed frauds can go to hell.

    Replies: @Orville H. Larson

    “And all nine of those black robed frauds can go to hell.”

    The U.S. Supreme Shysters are nine unelected, unaccountable, ethics-free megalomaniacs. They legislate from the bench at will. Why? Because they can.

  72. @Jonathan Mason
    @J.Ross


    Where in the Constitution did the Founders assign the protection of the public health to the government at any level?
     
    You seem to have forgotten that the Constitution was amended after it was discovered that the founders had missed out quite a few important elements that needed to be in a properly regulated constitution.

    I believe subsequently any powers not mentioned in the constitution as belonging to the federal government and not expressly forbidden by the constitution, were subsequently reserved to the states.

    You might want to check the Tenth Amendment.

    Replies: @Bill, @MarkinLA, @The Alarmist

    Tenth Amendment … aren’t you adorable.

    Note that the tear is between We the People and the United States.

  73. @Wilkey
    @Buffalo Joe

    It’s a real term. It dates back several decades. I believe. It’s equivalent to the term “banana” (for Asians) and Oreo (for blacks).

    Replies: @anon, @Muggles

    It’s a real term. It dates back several decades. I believe. It’s equivalent to the term “banana” (for Asians) and Oreo (for blacks).

    So what’s white on the outside and black on the inside?

    Surely some iSteve fan can come up with something. Doesn’t sound very palatable though.

  74. @James Speaks
    When cornered by evangelicals, all of whom are convinded the 2nd coming is next week and they will be saved, I explain, patiently, that Jesus was teaching Buddhism to his fellow Judeans in the hope they would become less abrasive. When they express doubt, I explain to them that the miracle of the Sermon on the Mount was getting 5,000 Jews to share.

    Replies: @Muggles

    When they express doubt, I explain to them that the miracle of the Sermon on the Mount was getting 5,000 Jews to share.

    But when it came to Jesus actually feeding a large mob of hungry Jews, he manged to give them each their own loaf and fish.

    A real mensch, that Jesus.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @Muggles


    A real mensch, that Jesus.
     
    He was. Really.
  75. @Mycale
    The right to practice one’s religion is not some “super right”, it is one of several established in the First Amendment, and elsewhere. The problem is that the government has violated all of them on a daily basis the past year, continues to do so, and is planning on violating even more of them (with the “cooperation” of private corporations). It’s good to see people take the government to court, and lose, on the question of religion. In the process, though, they are leaving all these disgusting violations of our basic civil/human rights and due process intact, implying the government has a right to stampede on them as long as they aren’t touching on religion.

    Replies: @Hibernian

    The right to practice one’s religion is not some “super right”, it is one of several established in the First Amendment, and elsewhere.

    Depends what you mean by “super right,” It is, and the others mentioned in the second half of this sentence are, superior to the ones found in emanations from penumbras, by Leftist Justices.

  76. @Muggles
    @James Speaks


    When they express doubt, I explain to them that the miracle of the Sermon on the Mount was getting 5,000 Jews to share.
     
    But when it came to Jesus actually feeding a large mob of hungry Jews, he manged to give them each their own loaf and fish.

    A real mensch, that Jesus.

    Replies: @Hibernian

    A real mensch, that Jesus.

    He was. Really.

  77. @anon215
    @Dr. X

    >>>"The 14th Amendment was ratified by Radical Republicans in 1868 to force states to abide by what had previously been the federal-only Bill of Rights, for the purpose of protecting freed blacks from state governments. And the jurisdiction for enforcing this fell on the federal courts."<<<

    Wrong. The jurisdiction for enforcing the 14th Amendment fell to Congress, under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment:

    "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

    The Supreme Court is only supposed to police the boundaries of power granted to Congress under Section 5.

    Replies: @Dr. X

    Wrong. The jurisdiction for enforcing the 14th Amendment fell to Congress, under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment:

    “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

    Excellent point, you are quite correct in pointing that out.

    However, as a practical matter, Congress has accepted the power of judicial review claimed by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison, and has accepted that the court will have the final say on the constitutionality of its legislation. A closely related issue is that Congress often writes broad, general “civil rights” legislation and deliberately leaves it up to the courts and the bureaucracy to fill in the details of the implementation.

    One can (and from an originalist perspective, should) argue against this, but like it or not it is a fait accompli that Congress has punted to the courts on nearly everything.

  78. @schnellandine
    @Dr. X


    Prior to the Civil War, the Bill of Rights was understood to limit only the actions of Congress — not the states.
     
    Meaning written law means nothing. It also means that if such outcome was the intent, those who composed the 'BoR' were flunkies and morons, and those who approved it ingenuously were gullible to an extreme.

    Aside from rare specific language inside specific amendments (e.g. 1st), there is nothing limiting it from application to the states; the supremacy clause requires its application as written (meaning, for example, the 1stA doesn't apply to states). Assertions to the contrary are fremdschämen-ish examples of mass delusion based on, "Well, the reason for the BoR was [blah blah]."

    If 'law' doesn't apply as written, it's trash. The US Constitution is a joke of atrociously-composed fuel for the crystal ball crowd. Anyone giving credence to 'incorporation' and its false premise of general inapplicability is an ass.

    The 'Fourteenth Amendment' is void for non-ratification, and the SC 'justice' who'd hold otherwise is a fraud. In other words, all of them.

    The Constitution was illegal on arrival, and has from the beginning been a blueprint for what we are witnessing. The clinging to it is shameful. It must be tossed from our minds as nothing but malfeasance. Antifederalists were correct.

    Replies: @Dr. X

    Meaning written law means nothing.

    Yes, correct. We have devolved from a constitutional republic of federated states with a national government of limited and enumerated powers into a dictatorship of common-law courts.

  79. @anon
    @Wilkey

    It’s a real term. It dates back several decades.

    Where? Which nations?

    Replies: @photondancer

    I first read of this use of the word ‘apple’ when studying the Russian Revolution decades ago. Those for were Red, those against White. The Bolsheviks would accuse comrades they deemed not 100% committed as apples, secretly supporting the old ways even as they protested otherwise.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.