Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, June 13, 2018

[snip]But however much money they spend, judicial progressives face an existential difficulty: the Left has no philosophy of jurisprudence to compete with originalism. Yes, progressives embrace a familiar set of specific legal positions tied to their agenda. They believe that Citizens United -- the case that gave corporations the same right to speak at election time as the media -- is an abomination. They believe that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not prevent the federal government from regulating anything that it wants to regulate. They believe that progressive programs, be they Obamacare or antidiscrimination law, should never yield to claims of religious liberty, and that discrimination is generally fine, so long as it favors minorities -- and majorities, too, as long as those are women.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

This is an interesting take.

#1 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-13 10:05 AM | Reply

My prediction: Laura reads only the headline and craps all over the thread.

#2 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-13 10:07 AM | Reply

The 1st Amendment doesn't pertain to corporations ergo the Citizens United ruling was BS from the start. 2 the media is protected by the 1st Amendment IE FREE PRESS.

ObamaCare or antidiscrimination laws must not yield to religious liberty because we're all supposed to be subject to the same laws. BTW They are free to worship how they want. That right ends when they do business with the public. BTW ObamaCare is a conservative program NOT a progressive program. The author is full of caca on that.

#3 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-06-13 10:16 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Laura,

The thrust of the article isn't really about whether or not those things are constitutional - it's thrust is that the left doesn't currently have a coherent judicial philosophy - that their jurisprudence is self-contradicting.

#4 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-13 10:19 AM | Reply

The thrust of the article isn't really about whether or not those things are constitutional - it's thrust is that the left doesn't currently have a coherent judicial philosophy - that their jurisprudence is self-contradicting.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-06-13 10:19 AM | REPLY

The thrust of the article is from a right winger talking out of his tushy hole. That's what this is.

#5 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-06-13 10:21 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"doesn't currently have a coherent judicial philosophy"

John O. McGinnis

yup, same guy who penned this:

Farewell to Lawlessness
Hopefully, Obama's view of the Constitution will follow him out of the Oval Office.

cause you know, every day of OBAMA was a "Constitutional Crisis"

#6 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-06-13 10:27 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Neil Gorsuch has begun where Antonin Scalia left off -- as a committed originalist and eloquent textualist."

That article is a big pile of crap. When one sentence can express so much absolute b.s. you can only imagine how much is crammed into the entire article. Scalia was never an "originalist" unless you stupidly believe the founders believed in corporate personhood and they most decidedly did not!. Then Gorsuch's appointment was basically contrary to the founders intentions on SC appointments and everyone knows it. Don't use the term "originalist" and then use examples of Justices who don't in any way reflect the actual values and beliefs of the founding fathers. I would love to read Jeff's reply but if he wants to be taken seriously then he needs to address corporate personhood, the founders and how it is "originalist" and how not giving a SC nominee a Senate hearing for over a year was, in any way, intended to be an option by those same founders. I honestly did think that we would be past hearing the "originalist" lie when Scalia died but apparently some want to continue lying. It is absolutely b*** s***!

#7 | Posted by danni at 2018-06-13 10:28 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"My prediction: Laura reads only the headline and craps all over the thread."

In other words, she does justice to this s****y thread.
Toilet paper please. I'm going to need a whole roll.

#8 | Posted by danni at 2018-06-13 10:31 AM | Reply

I'd be willing to bet my entire net worth that Danni didn't read the linked piece beyond the first couple of paragraphs.

#9 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-13 10:35 AM | Reply

Then Gorsuch's appointment was basically contrary to the founders intentions on SC appointments and everyone knows it. - #7 | Posted by Danni at 2018-06-13 10:28 AM
Ronald Reagan -- ‘It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.'

#10 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-06-13 10:53 AM | Reply

how not giving a SC nominee a Senate hearing for over a year was, in any way, intended to be an option by those same founders. - #7 | Posted by Danni at 2018-06-13 10:28
Constitution: "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings..."
Who wrote that pesky Constitution, anyhow?

#11 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-06-13 10:56 AM | Reply

"Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings..."

Who knew "advise and consent" was merely a serving suggestion?

#12 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-06-13 10:59 AM | Reply

Who knew "advise and consent" was merely a serving suggestion? - #12 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-06-13 10:59 AM

People who quote whole ideas knew:
"by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate"

#13 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-06-13 11:05 AM | Reply

Orrin Hatch publicly said Obama would NEVER nominate someone everyone could get behind, like Merrick Garland.

Then he refused to meet with Merrick Garland.

"by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate"

And if the Senate never gives consent, they eliminate eight of the nine Supreme Court justices. Ted Cruz vowed President HRC would NEVER get consent, for anyone.

#14 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-06-13 11:09 AM | Reply

Everyone is not required to get behind any President's nomination.
If the Senate chose that path, the people who they represent would have the ultimate decision on their Senator's stance.

#15 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-06-13 11:16 AM | Reply

Hatch has also been a long-time advocate for Merrick Garland, who President Obama will nominate to the Supreme Court on Wednesday. In 2010, when he was considered for the slot that ultimately went to Elena Kagan, Hatch said that he had known Garland for years. He added that, if nominated, he would be a "consensus nominee" and that there was "no question" he would be confirmed. And just last week, he praised Garland and indicated he was a qualified candidate, saying, "The president told me several times he's going to name a moderate [to fill the court vacancy], but I don't believe him. [Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man.
newrepublic.com

Also, I was incorrect: Hatch DID meet with Garland. And BEFORE he'd met with Garland, this was published:

"Like many of my Senate colleagues, I recently met with Chief Judge Merrick Garland, President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court. ... Our meeting, however, does not change my conviction that the Senate should consider a Supreme Court nominee after this presidential election cycle," Hatch wrote in an op-ed published on the website of the Deseret News
www.washingtonpost.com

That's right: BEFORE they'd met, Hatch had written his "conclusions". Huck Fatch.

#16 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-06-13 11:29 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Your claim is that Hatch, who had known Garland for years - in fact they were friends (who hadn't met, evidently), didn't meet with him (the guy he had known for years)...he didn't meet that guy until after your 2nd quote was published?

#17 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-06-13 11:39 AM | Reply

"he didn't meet that guy until after your 2nd quote was published?"

If you believe Hatch's quote was referencing anything other than the anticipated, announced meeting regarding the SCOTUS nomination, you're just as dumb as today's Republican party hopes you are.

#18 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-06-13 11:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Article is so biased I could puke from the saccharine rightie fairytales.

#19 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-06-13 11:49 AM | Reply

If you believe Hatch's quote was referencing anything other than the anticipated, announced meeting regarding the SCOTUS nomination, you're just as dumb as today's Republican party hopes you are. - #18 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-06-13 11:46 AM

He's known the guy for years. He didn't need to be a part of a group meeting with him to know what his response was going to be. Hell, he may have only attended the meeting to support his friend who he knew wasn't getting the nomination. You are not acting rationally in this. I have known my neighbor for years. He's a lot of fun. I would NEVER trust him in a position of power, and I don't need a separate meeting with him to determine that.

#20 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-06-13 11:57 AM | Reply

Article is so biased I could puke from the saccharine rightie fairytales.

#19 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER

It's absolutely biased. It's also correct IMO.

#21 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-13 12:04 PM | Reply

It's absolutely biased. It's also correct IMO.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-06-13 12:04 PM | REPLY

TEEHEEHEE GIGGLES Of course you would.

#22 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-06-13 12:07 PM | Reply

Wow, conservatives are Reactionary~! Who could have predicted that?

#23 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-06-13 12:17 PM | Reply

Ronald Reagan -- ‘It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.'

#10 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

I know when I'm looking for a sound philosophical reasoning I turn to dementia addled former actors.

#24 | Posted by jpw at 2018-06-13 03:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort