PDA

View Full Version : Liberals Understand The Constitution Like Justin Bieber Understands Particle Physics



Mr. Mensch
04-28-2014, 07:53 AM
Based upon Justice Sotomayor’s bizarre dissenting opinion in the recent Michigan affirmative action case, it seems she believes that government decisions made on the basis of race, something the Constitution expressly bars, are mandatory.
Someone has been emanating her penumbras because, to use the legal term of art, that’s Constitutional Crazy Talk.
Years ago, the liberals came up with the Political Process Doctrine. It’s the idea that if some small element of a state or local government – like a city council or a university board – is implementing policies liberals like, the people can’t use the ballot box to change things back.
It ought to be called the “Ratchet Doctrine.” You are free to make things more liberal to your bleeding heart’s content. You just can’t ever undo them. It’s right there in the Constitution. Somewhere. Maybe in the paragraph before the one that says you can have an abortion up until your fetus can drive.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=10

Liberals are the answer to a question no one asked. They pretend to care about others when they are only in it for themselves.

patrickt
04-28-2014, 08:40 AM
Nonsense. Justin Bieber knows far more about particle physics than this administration does about the Constitution they hate.

Cigar
04-28-2014, 08:42 AM
Nonsense. Justin Bieber knows far more about particle physics than this administration does about the Constitution they hate.

Yea ... but Guess who's President and Guess who's whining about it :laugh:

patrickt
04-28-2014, 11:01 AM
Gee, I've never seen that before. And, I wasn't whining. I know you're so proud you're just bustin' your buttons. How sad.

And, it still stands. Justin Bieber knows more about particle physics than President Obama knows about the Constitution he hates.

1751_Texan
04-28-2014, 11:17 AM
Based upon Justice Sotomayor’s bizarre dissenting opinion in the recent Michigan affirmative action case, it seems she believes that government decisions made on the basis of race, something the Constitution expressly bars, are mandatory.
Someone has been emanating her penumbras because, to use the legal term of art, that’s Constitutional Crazy Talk.
Years ago, the liberals came up with the Political Process Doctrine. It’s the idea that if some small element of a state or local government – like a city council or a university board – is implementing policies liberals like, the people can’t use the ballot box to change things back.
It ought to be called the “Ratchet Doctrine.” You are free to make things more liberal to your bleeding heart’s content. You just can’t ever undo them. It’s right there in the Constitution. Somewhere. Maybe in the paragraph before the one that says you can have an abortion up until your fetus can drive.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=10

Liberals are the answer to a question no one asked. They pretend to care about others when they are only in it for themselves.

So by your reasoning, all the conservative, moderate, and independent justices did not understand the constitution when their opinions were the desenting?

Chris
04-28-2014, 11:27 AM
So by your reasoning, all the conservative, moderate, and independent justices did not understand the constitution when their opinions were the desenting?


Not what he said. He gave reason why her dissent makes little sense. The Constitution prohibits discrimination by race, right? Well, her dissent demanded discrimination by race. It wasn't just the fact of dissenting.

1751_Texan
04-28-2014, 11:37 AM
Not what he said. He gave reason why her dissent makes little sense. The Constitution prohibits discrimination by race, right? Well, her dissent demanded discrimination by race. It wasn't just the fact of dissenting.

Her reasoning would be faulty if the court dismissed all use of AA. The court did not do that. AA is still in effect.

All the court ruled is that Michgan or the people of any state could ban or allow AA policies on public universities' admissions, hiring, and advancement... if they so wished.

Her argument was that the court was allowing other provisons of AA to stand and her contention was that the court should have kept this ban as it had stood as well.

The court as a whole has allowed AA to stand.

Chris
04-28-2014, 11:52 AM
Her reasoning would be faulty if the court dismissed all use of AA. The court did not do that. AA is still in effect.

All the court ruled is that Michgan or the people of any state could ban or allow AA policies on public universities' admissions, hiring, and advancement... if they so wished.

Her argument was that the court was allowing other provisons of AA to stand and her contention was that the court should have kept this ban as it had stood as well.

The court as a whole has allowed AA to stand.



So to you discrimination by race is OK? The Constitution permits discrimination by race? Again, that is the point of the OP.