Let’s play a Supreme Court game…

We are watching the Supreme Court Nomination Process for Neil Gorsuch, a judge many consider to be a ‘strict Constitutionalist’*, to fill the vacancy left by Justice Antonin Scalia.

The Socialist party of America and it’s army of the useful are now adopting the position that the seat was “Stolen” from them as the vacancy occurred roughly a year ago and within the Obama Presidency, Their reasoning is there was ample time to conduct a hearing and possibly swear in a Justice on President Obama’s watch. President Obama even went as far as nominating Merrick Garland, possibly the most ‘conservative’ nominee the Left has offered ever. All of this theater was promoted to the useful masses as ‘deserved’ even though Supreme Court appointments have not happened within a year of a Presidential Election in over 80-years.

While we listen to the Left howl at the injustice… think about this;

What if, after the inevitable confirmation of soon to be Justice Gorsuch, Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg buys the farm? (Literally or Figuratively… I mean, who doesn’t want a farm?)

Now suppose President Trump nominates… wait for it…

Merrick Garland?

It would be rich.

Trump would appropriately position the nomination as a compromise, even a nod… giving the Progressive Leftists want they wanted in the first place.  (If you close your eyes you can hear the choking sound…)

Now let’s go a step further and entertain another vacancy available to President Trump. Suppose another Justice retires, or buys a farm next to Ginsberg.

After such a Magnanimous gesture by President Trump to the horrid Democrat
Socialists with the nomination of ‘their guy’ Merrick Garland… he nominates another ‘strict Constitutionalist’ and demands their confirmation.

Ha!

The Art of the Deal.

A Trap for Fools, or rather The Aristocracy.

Since I’m drunk… suppose he gets another term and yet another vacancy… and does it again?

I think the Liberal Socialists would finally, collectively, Jump against Trump.

 

*’strict Constitutionalist’ is being used to identify those judges who believe the Constitution as written is the basis for our legal system.  I personally don’t understand how there can acceptably be any other kind… I’m clearly biased against pillars of judicial brilliance such as Russia, China, Venezuela, Fiji and the Philippines, etc. etc.

Advertisement

All of You Gay Marriage People are Wrong!

All of you!

And… it’s disgusting!

In fact, if you fall on Either Side of this issue… You’re a Fool!  You are literally being Foolish… like Clowns… in your thinking.

OK, I know most of the time writers will make at least a small attempt not to offend the three people who read their crap. So, if you’re still reading this you might be asking yourself why I have decided to insult you. Because I am.

The reason here is that all of you have fallen for a faulty premise when choosing any position on Gay Marriage and it disgusts me… you disgust me.

All of you believe that I should be forced to continue pleading upon bended knee, with money and blood test in hand, before some bureaucrat in order for them to decide whether to sanction MY MARRIAGE.

In other words, All of YOU think The Government should continue to have a Right to tell me who I Can and Cannot Marry.

I don’t care if you’re Black, White, Green, Gay, Crooked, Lofty or Two Feet Tall… the idea that any of you would want to perpetuate a system where the Government controls who you can marry makes me want to puke.  And, it should make you want to puke too.  It’s a hold over from the “Good Ole Days” when “certain families” and “certain races” should not be permitted to marry.  So… seriously?  You like this idea?  Any of you!?

And this “Gay Rights” crap… There are NO GAY RIGHTS as there are NO NON-GAY RIGHTS.  There are ONLY INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS which must be protected and defended.

It is Disgusting. You are Disgusting.

Good… now that I have both made you angry and gained some support, let me put it in the simplest terms.

The Federal Government should have exactly Nothing to say about marriage.  Nothing.

If the States want to do stupid things, those things are reserved to them for the doing… but they should also have exactly nothing to say about marriage.

A marriage is between you and your church.  Period.

If you want  a binding contract, Civil Union is available to all of us.  Contract Law provides for all of us who find it important to codify our relationships.  And many of us do.  (Don’t forget Common Law too… it takes over in many States.  States.  The States…)

Which brings me to another problem… marriage, while a genuinely valuable institution, should not be codified into the Federal Tax law.

I hear the Gasps!

“But Marriage is a Sacred Institution!”

Yes it is.  And, I can certainly make a cogent argument as to why an expanding population is historically healthy for Nation States as well as why it is imperative to support the Private Enterprise of rearing children which a “marriage” supports.  But it doesn’t change the fact that Federal Government should be Silent on this issue.

And besides, Cultural Institutions are kept that way by the population that nurtures such traditions.  That does not mean “Turns them into Law.”  We can play the ‘Non-codified” cultural institution game beginning with Christmas and Moving through the Fourth of July all the way to Thanksgiving, Birthdays and Baptisms but if you’re not tracking with me at this point you either to need to set this post down for a while and come back to it or stop reading… as it must be torture.

Again… the Federal Government’s “say” should be exactly what is contained between the following parenthesis regarding marriage: (                                  ).

Let me remind all of you… just because we have done it for “a long time” doesn’t mean it’s right.

“But, but, but… tons of law will have to be re-written!”

Yep.

Is that it?  Is that all you got?  Frankly, most laws should be removed from our books in my opinion.  A majority of them are nuisance laws, never enforced or specifically created to favor some politician’s buddy.  Wouldn’t it be a terrific world if we all focused our debates on what laws to get rid of instead of what new laws to create?  Say for every “new” law two “old” ones have to go…

Anyway, I hammered this out because it’s timely and it is basically what I’m going to be screaming at the Television for the duration of the Supreme Court hearings on Hollingsworth vs. Perry and The United States Vs. Windsor.

Let’s all try to stop being Foolish in all Things.