March 3, 2013

“Sotomayor, Kagan Browbeat Scalia over Voting Rights Act Argument”

They are intolerant of intolerance, you see — so much so that they are hailed by the progressive activists pretending to be mainstream journalists for essentially blocking arguments (before the Court!) that run contrary to their world view.  Which of course is not really what anyone should hail in Supreme Court Justice, unless, that is, one thinks of the court not as some neutral arbiter of Constitutional law, but rather as a political advocate for collectivism, special dispensation, identity politics, and political correctness — all of which is  wrapped-up in the dignified-sounding label, “social justice.”

It’s who they are. It’s what they do.

And “conservative” Chief Justice John Roberts, God bless him, thinks the appearance of court unity is paramount, even when compromise must certainly and ultimately come at the expense of a move ever leftward.

– Which it almost has to do, if only to counter the nefarious aims of TEA Party radicals looking to re-institute stable constitutionalism and limit the size and scope of a federal government that has burdened us with enormous debt, mountains of onerous regulation (even water vapor and human exhalation are under the EPA’s purview as “pollutants”), and allowed the currency to weaken to the point where we must borrow and print just to maintain the appearance of actual solvency.

The bitterclinging traitors.  Best if we just shuffle them off to gulags now while there’s still time.  John McCain, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor, Karl Rove, Jeb Bush, and Chris Christie will even help round them up.  To show that they, at least, respect the spirit of bipartisanship that is otherwise so evident among mainstream Republicans and Democrats, both of whom go out of their way to compromise, and so don’t deserve the kind of pushback from fringe lunatics (who themselves represent entire voting constituencies of fringe lunatics!) to which they’ve been so egregiously and unceremoniously of late subjected.

(h/t Geoff B)

 

 

Posted by Jeff G. @ 12:39pm
10 comments | Trackback

Comments (10)

  1. Once again it appears the implications of the 17th Amendment play a role in the wet-noodle Senate described by Scalia.

    On the other hand, and without the benefit of hearing the oral argument, but taking the description of Justice Sotomayor’s aggression at face value as described by the partisan Breitbart writer, it seems to me at least as though some number of her colleagues on the bench may think her arguments necessarily weak, if they must be asserted in such a fashion. Hence, she may do her own cause harm through her tactics, without intending to do so.

  2. those first two linker linkers are same same

  3. How dare you question the wisdom of the wise latina, sdferr? Fifty lashes with a flour tortilla!

  4. this blog has gotten kinda kinky

  5. can you imagine how these whores would behave with cameras present?

    everyone would get to see the perverted roberts joke court in all its glory

  6. SCOTUS as the new, improved, diverse, “Crossfire.”

  7. They are providing some justice.

  8. One way to read this is to see the left in panic mode with the brass ring just out of reach and receding away.

    The other is that they no longer fear anything and are starting to run roughshod over all those they despise.

    This guy is thinking roughshod.

  9. Or it could just be a case of a couple of dim-witted shrews acting like a couple of dim-witted shrews.

  10. Robert Reisssssch-uh is preaching the Obamarama flimflam to some seriously dim bulbs at Salon, I must say. The comments are a hoot.

Leave a Reply