Democrats threaten Supreme Court to issue liberal rulings or face court-packing

Breitbart ^ | 8/13/19 | Ken Klukowski

[nathanbedford]

You can make the claim, but it isn't "proper" in any way, shape or form. We can't be both

You choose to argue, not deductively from the Constitution that you presumably wish to identify yourself with as I in fact have argued but instead you resort to argument by analogy, a weak form of disputation second only to argument by ad hominem. A vehicle that is a truck is not a vehicle that is a car-that enlightens us in some respect?

Perhaps worse, you are just factually wrong. You certainly can have both, in fact, in a decent political system you must have both.

Our Constitution provides for democracy by representation. People's democracies or People's republics, such as the Soviet Union under Stalin, claim to have a Constitution but have in fact ruthless rule by autocrat. They had a fascinating written Constitution but they were not a constitutional republic anymore than they were a democratic republic or a representative democracy. A Constitution without legitimacy born of democracy, is a meaningless scrap of parchment.

A democracy without a Constitution is mob rule. History is replete with examples aping the French Revolution of democracy without a Constitution and the rule of law. Equally history teaches us of so-called constitutional republics exploiting a written Constitution to cover lawless suppression of democracy.

God chose to assemble a unique collection of selfless patriots who contrived a Constitution that is a waypoint between the autocracy of a monarchy and the terror of mob rule. They succeeded in giving us both a constitutional republic and a representative democratic republic, they gave us both, thank God.

[philman_36]

... a constitutional republic and a representative democratic republic...

And now you've entered a third form of government into the mix.

Believe as you will.

[nathanbedford]

And now you've entered a third form of government into the mix.

Actually not, the second sentence of the very first paragraph of our first exchange #38 reads as follows: But it is a good thing that we are a representative democracy as well as a constitutional republic. The equating of a representative democracy and a democratic republic has been consistent in my replies from the beginning.

This fixation on wording is only important if word games are important and, it is quite clear, that word games are at the root of your objection to my using the phrase "democratic republic."

An objection which no doubt originates when you heard somewhere that a conservative must never concede that the American system is anything other than a constitutional system because one then is rendered vulnerable to leftists who want to inflict their policies upon us by justifying them as the will of the majority. This reflex is most apparent among NRA members who quite properly want to protect their Second Amendment rights.

But the Democratic content of conservatism cannot be excised from a true understanding of American constitutionalism as I have previously demonstrated in our exchange. Before the Declaration of Independence or the Scottish Enlightenment, majority rule could not avail against divine right. In communist regimes the "dictatorship of the proletariat" was always postponed by the elites who manipulated "scientific" Marxism. Both systems needed an infusion of "we the people" as I have noted before.

To pursue this example, our Constitution provides for a democratic way of abolishing guns, simply repeal the Second Amendment as provided for in the Constitution and pass confiscation laws. All perfectly constitutional and all perfectly democratic-and all perfectly ill advised.

The point still hasn't changed, you need both where you have either autocracy or mob rule camouflaged with word games.

[philman_36]

This fixation on wording is only important if word games are important and, it is quite clear, that word games are at the root of your objection to my using the phrase "democratic republic."

Yet there you are playing word games yourself and baffling others with BS instead of dazzling them with brilliance, all the while waxing eloquent with profuse verbiage of no consequence.

BTW...Isn't that called 'projection'?
You know, claiming someone is guilty of doing the very thing you're doing.

[nathanbedford]

It was you who opened this discussion, not me. You object to my use of the phrase yet you never defend your position with anything but absurd analogy and, now, ad hominem attack. You top it all off by accusing me of "projection."

[philman_36]

You object to my use of the phrase yet you never defend your position with anything but absurd analogy...

I note, with relish, that you didn't say "an inaccurate analogy".

[nathanbedford]

You got me there!

[StAnDeliver]

This qualifies for Exile.

File an amicus like that, the Trump admin gives you a choice of publically retraction and apologizing to SCOTUS, and those Senators and any law firms that signed off on that amicus are banned from filing any future amicus for a period of not less than 10 years;

OR

If they refuse to retract, Federal Marshalls escort them to an airport and they are flown out of the country with the following instruction:

"There's the plane, anywhere in the world that will have you. You have no papers; your assets are forfeit. If you set foot on American territory again you will serve your full natural life in prison. Goodbye."

[KTM rider]

they are doing it anyway, so why give in to anything they want.

we are all just riding a turd swirling left at an exponential rate of flush

It was a good run america was.

[GOPJ]

... unless the U.S. Supreme Court issues liberal rulings on the Second Amendment and other issues, Democrats will fundamentally restructure the nation’s highest court, a shocking threat to judicial independence not seen since the 1930s.

The corrupt press won't call out liberal thugs 'cause they're in on the same scam.