Posted on 12/14/2020 6:38:37 PM PST by Til I am the last man standing
A Supreme Court clerk reports that shouting and conflict between the justices of the nation's highest court occurred on Friday, Dec. 11, as the court was deciding to reject a Texas lawsuit challenging presidential election results in four key swing states.
(Excerpt) Read more at charismanews.com ...
I never read Zinn. I did read Richard Hofstadter:
http://cf.linnbenton.edu/artcom/social_science/clarkd/upload/The%20Founding%20Fathers-—Hofstadter.pdf
With respect to Byrnes, he’d have probably been better off remaining on SCOTUS (and likely could’ve continued until his death in 1972). I think by the 1950s, he’d have been a reliable Conservative, and by not having resigned could’ve prevented THREE judicial mediocrities (Wiley Rutledge, Sherman Minton, and the execrable William Brennan) from succeeding him.
I’m surprised nobody has said this yet....I call BS on this story because Thomas knows America isn’t a Democracy, and wouldn’t say anything so wrong.
There is no promise of Justice on this earth.
Profound statement if ever there was one.
Methinks everyone should have mercy in mind rather than justice, and a large helping of Love of God and his children to be on the safe side.
Well, I’m mean, it’s some blog. It sounds plausible but we should probably be surprised if it was true, anyone can make s**t up to get clicks. It’s probably educated supposition and might not be far off the mark.
But saying “this would be the end of democracy” wouldn’t mean the speaker thought we were “A democracy”. “Democracy” ie people voting for our leaders is something we (unfortunately) do.
Frankly, Senile Chinese Asset Biden getting to be President because a bunch of stupid masking wearing women, country clubbers, and barely literate ghetto dwellers allegedly voted for him makes as much sense to me as Lizzie II sitting on the throne of the UK cause her great great great great great grandma was was the most senior protestant decedent of the French asshole who conquered England in the damn 11th century. Neither is a good way to choose a leader.
People whine for “term limits” and “Article V” and “Repeal the 17th” and yada yada. DJ mentioned it the other day, the one reform that would actually matter, restrict the damn franchise (along with abolishing this mail voting crap, as GOPster mentioned the other day, no one sure as hell trusts the post office with any other important deliveries.)
First off, like I have posted many times: Make good with The Lord.
This is especially true if the “Pedo/Kumagain” abomination comes to pass.
The basic underpinnings of “America” have been under constant attack for decades; we’re now seeing the end results.
You can’t stay on defense forever. And the option(s) that “our” side are looking at now should have been implemented decades ago when this sh*t was kicking off. But the “sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon” crowd, either tacitly or outright approved of the actions and we have what we have today.
Action, including inaction, can have very long lasting and dire consequences.
Amen.
Stand. Fight.
There IS no other option.
I had a similar gut feeling of "he wouldn't talk that way" when some UK newpaper quoted Obama (who was out trying to bully the brits into NOT voting for Brexit after hypocritically getting elect on a campaign pledge to stop America from forcing our will on other countries). Supposedly Obama said the UK would "find themselves in the back of queue" if they voted for Brexit. Now, that terminology is way too british to imagine it coming out of Obama's mouth. It would like him quoting as saying "I bet Michelle fifty quid that Donald Trump won't stand for election at the annual Republican conference" or "Conservatives says this is about religious liberty, I say bollocks! They're all a bunch of homophobic wankers" or "Boris Johnson's a bit of a nutter, isn't he?"
Most likely, Obama DID make some threat to the British along those lines, and the British newspaper simply quoted him using a paraphase that the average Brit would understand easier.
And I think that only the "abolish the 17th amendment crowd" and "we need an article V convention" types are offended by the term "democracy" being used in reference to America. They have things backwards, we need MORE democracy in America, not less (and I have no doubt Clarence Thomas agrees with me... if the 2020 election had actually been transparent and democratic, we would not be in this mess). I think its because they associate the word "democracy" with "Democrats", even though the RAT party is about as anti-democratic as it gets. Democrats are no more for democracy than the People's Republic of China is for a Republic of the people. They just CLAIM they are.
I agree with what Impy says, plus the article could have been paraphrasing Thomas but not using his exact words.
I had a similar gut feeling of “he wouldn’t talk that way” when some UK newspaper quoted Obama (who was out trying to bully the Brits into NOT voting for Brexit after hypocritically getting elected on a campaign pledge to stop America from forcing our will on other countries). Supposedly Obama said the UK would “find themselves in the back of the queue” if they voted for Brexit. Now, that terminology is WAY too British to imagine it coming out of Obama’s mouth. It would like quoting him as supposedly saying “I bet Michelle fifty quid that Donald Trump won’t stand for election at the annual Republican conference” or “Conservatives say this is about religious liberty, I say bollocks! They’re just homophobic wankers” or “Boris Johnson’s a bit of a nutter, isn’t he?”
Most likely, Obama DID make some threat to the British along those lines, and the British newspaper simply quoted him using a paraphrase that the average Brit would understand easier.
And I think that only the “abolish the 17th amendment” crowd and the “we need an article V convention” types are actually offended by the term “democracy” being used in reference to America. They have things backwards, we need MORE democracy in America, not less (and I have no doubt Clarence Thomas agrees with me... if the 2020 election had actually been transparent and democratic, we would not be in this mess). I think its because they associate the word “democracy” with “Democrats”, even though the RAT party is about as anti-democratic as it gets. Democrats are no more for democracy than the People’s Republic of China is for a Republic of the people. In both cases, they just CLAIM they are.
I’m not interested in that fake history. I don’t listen to leftist-inspired propaganda.
That’s not how our Constitution originated and our Founding Fathers were great freedom-loving people. They gave us a wonderful document. While I would agree that it has proved inadequate in several ways to restrain government power, they didn’t plan on future generations of millions CHOOSING to misunderstand it and seeking to expand, distort, and misconstrue it FAR beyond what they envisioned.
I still celebrate it for what it was. They gave us more freedoms than any land had yet known for well over a century and it’s largely OUR OWN FAULT it has been so falsified. No matter what documents you write up, someday Leftists will try to destroy them outright or rewrite them.
Interesting theory. If Byrnes had hung around SCOTUS for decades instead of only a year or so, we might have had a rare example of a RAT appointee that "evolved" in the OPPOSITE direction and eventually became part of the conservative bloc of the court. Previously, the only examples I could give of that were Justices James McReynolds & Byron White (which means, contrary to popular belief, RATS presidents have about a 90% track record of their appointees remaining ideologically dependable, not 100%)
On the other hand, I think , Byrnes became increasingly conservative in later ELECTIVE office because the electorate of South Carolina became increasingly conservative itself, so he needed to be more and more GOP friendly to stay relevant in SC politics and be re-elected as a "conservative Democrat". If had a "safe" cushy federal job as a SCOTUS judge for the rest of his life, he may not have changed his views.
>> by not having resigned could’ve prevented THREE judicial mediocrities (Wiley Rutledge, Sherman Minton, and the execrable William Brennan) from succeeding him. <<
Interesting point there I hadn't considered. Even if he hadn't become a conservative justice, if he had stayed on the court it would have prevented far WORSE justices from being there to destroy America. Some FReeper falsely alleged that "most Catholics appointed to SCOTUS have been a disaster", while I pointed out the opposite was true... the only two "Catholic justices" I could think of that fit the definition of "disaster" were Roger "Dred Scott" Taney and marxist crusader William J. Brennan. On paper you could count Sonia Sotomayor as "Catholic", but by her own admission she doesn't practice, so she is as "Catholic" as Bernie Sanders is "Jewish"
Oh, to have video...audio...aftermath pictures....a receipt...,anything...but we got nuthin'. And nowadays, without pics etc., it didn't happen.
Now, do I believe Hillary had a meltdown? Oh yea. Do I believe she blamed everyone but herself? Definitely. Do I think it went down the way the story was told. Unfortunately, no.
So the question becomes "for what purpose is there, to tell such a tale?" In our 2020 SCOTUS tale, I believe the purpose is for the left, Antifa, etc., to feel/believe/delight in the fantasy that their violence swayed the court. That will embolden them to keep it up, because through mayhem centrists feel fear and demand that society pay these ruffians their ransom.
It also has the unintended benefit of making Deplorables feel even MORE defeated.
Do I believe Thomas and Alito will prove to be the most traditionalist/originalist jurists this term? Yes. Do I believe Roberts is the new Kennedy? Uh huh. Do I foresee the Trump picks proving to be disappointments? Yep. Do I think it went down the way the story was told. Hell no.
I'm pretty much in agreement with you there, I don't think the conversation between the SCOTUS judges happened the way this article claims, nor did they use those exact words.
You have to remember, I was very skeptical and doubtful of Trump's SCOTUS picks long BEFORE the rest of FR was. I was HELL NO on Gorsuch, "Hold your nose and vote Kavanaugh because he MIGHT be a SLIGHT improvement over Kennedy" and "Meh, Amy Coney Barrett SEEMS to be sincerely conservative on the surface, but Trump shouldn't have picked her or even put her on his short list"
Back in 2017, my views reflected only a tiny percentage of this forum. I've gone back and looked at the threads at the time Trump picked those judges, and my memory hasn't failed me. Probably 95% of FReepers thought Gorsuch was a Scalia clone, 80% thought that of Kavanaugh, and 95% thought that of Barrett.
I think three years later, the rest of FR is finally waking up to the alarms bells I was ringing, but now we are stuck with Trump's faux "originalist" justices for decades.
In any case, I see it this way thus far:
Roberts = the new Warren Burger
Gorsuch = the new Sandra Day O'Connor
Kavanaugh = the new Anthony Kennedy
Barrett = dunno, but based on her first action on SCOTUS, I've increased my odds that she will be a dud from 5% to 20%
It’s possible Byrnes only changed ideologically due to the SC electorate, but it still could’ve happened had he remained on the court. I think the explicit targeting by the courts of the South in cases would definitely have pushed him that way.
Catholic Sen. Joe McCarthy recognized that fake Catholic Brennan was no Conservative at all when he was up for confirmation and waged a one-man war against him. Once again proving McCarthy was one of the smartest, patriotic and prescient members of the U.S. Senate.
Pence is stronger than appears in mirror.
Don’t forget he’s running in 2024 and will be the president that we need at that time.
Should it be God, family, country, or God, country, family?
All those who have sent sons to fight in a war for their country know the second one. Or does it depend on the seriousness of the issue?
Trump’s strength and weakness were the same thing: He wasn’t a DC insider.
That made him the great president that he is, but it also meant Deep State could plot against him and pull tricks on him. That was their strength, and they used it.
It’s responsible for all his opportunistic and even backstabbing staff that have come and gone with speed, and given idiots the line that he doesn’t know how to pick good people.
I should add to my last comment that I believe there is plenty of evidence about the vote fraud.
Also, I have heard many a shouting match behind closed doors from people you wouldn’t think would do such a thing.
The same CIA guy probably also said, “evidence is evidence of evidence, evidently.” ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.